The concept that germs cause disease is a 200 year lie which was begun by dubious research using old wives tales as its basis.
Edward Jenner used the story of a milk maid who had cow pox and was therefore, immune to small pox as his reasoning to believe that the cow pox had given her body a warning of future similar infections.
This basic premise is flawed in both logic and experimental evidence.
Logically, how could a disease which is not related to another disease, offer any protection to the immune system? Note - Cow pox and small pox are not related diseases and have absolutely nothing in common.
Where is the double blind testing of such a hypothesis? Note - No double blind testing was carried out.
Cow pox is caused by the act of domestication of the cows. The cows are put into an unnatural environment and fed unnatural foods and are also separated from their calves which would normally release the milk on a more frequent basis. The calves would also keep the teats clean by their saliva. Thus, cow pox is caused by rancid milk which hasn’t been naturally sanitised by the suckling calves and probably exacerbated by an insufficient and unnatural diet of grain foods. Iodine was not used in the early days as a cleaning fluid to sanitise dairy equipment. It was done by hand and thus, the cows infection was spread to the humans who were milking the cows. Note - cow pox only occurs on the hands and doesn’t spread to the rest of the body.
Small pox is most likely caused by poor sanitation, bad diet and a lack of vitamins. This may include drinking stale milk products and grain foods which lack vitamins. Note- dairy, sugar and grain foods are unnatural for humans and can cause immune system breakdown if eaten in excess without proper vitamin supplementation. Note - People didn’t understand the role that diet, sanitation and vitamins has on human health 200 years ago.
The concept of vaccination goes back thousands of years into human history. Early humans used to think that mixing the blood of animals with humans would result in the spirit and strength of the animal would be transferred to the human blood. Thus, vaccination is really just a subconscious herd instinct which humans have adopted from their tribal past.
European tribes before the agricultural revolution.
You will have to be more specific about those wriggling things that you saw in the microscope as a child. If you are an expert in the field of microbiology, then you should have no trouble in identifying those “wriggly things”.
But I will carry on. Yes, I’ve had a certain amount of exposure to microbiology, and know a few, and in philosophy, we have a theory of optics stretching back centuries.
The coorelation of finding microorganisms under the microscope, and finding particular strands in the blood and tissue of infected people, diagnosed with anatomically and genetically distinct disease… fits very, very well with what we’ve develeloped in tracking the macro behavior of epidemics.
We see epidemics on the large scale. People are exposed to X, and you can chart it on a map. Its in Location A day one, Location B and C day two, D E F G H I by day three.
In Epidemiology, you look for disease vectors… In the Ebola outbreak, it was traced to treebats living in a tree outside a village where the first deaths were tracked back down to.
In Microbiology, you track down inside the creatures like substances found in the infected, but not found in uninfected individuals.
You can also test the life cycle and effects on animals in laboratory conditions if they are infectable (not all creatures react to disease in the same way, but when the react in EXACTLY the same way as Humans do, its obviously of interest).
If you see the wiggly stuff under the microscope taken from samples infected people, animals tested get the disease, and doctors and research scientist are exposed to the disease due to a lack in quarantine or malfunction of PPE (personal protective equipment), we can be fairly certain those samples of microscopic wigglies ARE the disease.
I started reading your link, and indeed, intend to finish it, but need to point out, stating medicine between 1870s to 1950s as being less than stellar in its track record doesn’t disprove the reliability of medicine in the 21st century. They were still experimenting, theory was very weak and crude back then, and they were struggling with the basics. Its like saying there are no satellites in orbit, giving evidence of Napoleonic era erradic rocketry launches as the evidence.
Since I am taking the time to read your book, its only fair you do the reverse:
Given your unacceptance of microbiology, its only fitting any discourse we have analyses modern on the science underlining epidemics.
May I suggest that organ disease and infection is not always the same thing? Organic disease can result from the breakdown of organ components, caused by malfunctioning organ parts…in turn caused by genetic or environmental influences. This doesn’t always happen because there are microbes present around or in the tissue. Sometimes with disease there is only a correlation to the presence of microbes, not something caused by said microbes. Just sayin’.
The fact remains that you cannot get a particular disease without the presence of the appropriate microbe, but the presence alone of that microbe does not mean you have the disease.
Otherwise this thread is totally without merit or empirical basis.
Your idiocy continues to astound me Lev, actually his argument is the combination of empirical observation and received theory. He can argue there are no microbes on a Empirical basis alone with considerable justification (can’t see the stuff, or knowingly touch it or taste them, hear them).
Once you are aware of this, there are ways to proceed forward to intelligently convince someone, and unfortunately fir you, intelligence is a virtue you lack.
Don’t get angry, and whine in your rebellious north England accent, the damage is already done, go read Hume and reconsider your faith based rational for saying what you just say.
I’ve personally swabbed a wound and then isolated a bacteria on a blood agar dish, then used that isolate to inoculated mice and cause them to produce wounds containing the same characteristics and the same strand of bacteria.
I haven’t done any virology, but the methods are similar although slightly less direct. Instead of testing for the organism itself, you check for antibodies which are a direct consequence of the presence of the organism.
I suggest you read at least some high school level biology before you start going into conspiracy books. Can’t hurt.
If you want a poi t by point refutation of your op, I suppose I can type some shit over the weekend.
He didn’t say that there is no such thing as germs/organisms. He said that they are not what is causing disease. And although, I 99% disagree, this question is much like the question of whether electrons really exist. Even if you have somewhat seen a germ of some kind and have been told that it is what is causing diseases (false flags everywhere today), I am pretty certain that you have never experimentally seen an electron. And the only reason that anyone on this site, with the exception of me and maybe one other, has to believe that such electrons exist is FAITH.
FAITH in what you have been told is ANTI-Science. It is RELIGION. And what is worse is that none of you really get to hear anything from the real priests of that religion. You only get to hear from what amounts to “local pastors”, “pop science fascination media” and evangelists (Miku, Sagan, and the like). They lie, big time.
So any argument against the OP that merely states that he is dumb, a crackpot, or whatever can only be coming from the blinded religious, not from actual Science.
And again, even as much as I challenge the more hardcore sciences (specifically physics theories), I will maintain my faith in the germ-disease causal association. To me it is hard to believe that anyone is questioning that one during these times (although eventually all such knowledge is supposed to be erased from public education).
And I also agree that every disease is not due to germs, although certainly very most are (I BELIEVE!!! HALLELUJAH!! [-o< ).
Bloody hell, Lev, this arsehole just called you a barmy. Whilst I don’t think you’re taking the piss out of it, this blimey bugger needs to budge up, I think. He’s a codswallop. Diddle the cheeky bastard, Lev.
No he isn’t, our education system isn’t that bad yet, only place he can be from is the Swat Valley in Pakistan, or the North of England.
And James… Its been known for a few centuries of the association in the right hemisphere between Faith and Reasoning… they are mutually dependent upon one another while at the same time being their antithesis. Half of Swedenborg’s religion is based on this… you hardly invented the idea.
Another classic (never talked about, sadly) at the root of Human Skeptical Empiricism:
Conversations like this brings common knowledge under the lense of paradox (Zeno’s paradoxes in particular) and are worth a lot to philosophers, they seem simple, but you have to make assertions to explain the claim, with reinforcing data that is relevant. It might seem incredibly simple and commonly agreed upon, but a decent skeptic can do a lot of potential damage to just such a idea, forcing us to re-examine our conclusions about aspects, if not the whole, system.
So we shouldn’t be impulsive and proud when we see arguments like this, we should feel excited and duty bound when they involve the common good… such as our theory of disease and medicine. We can’t rely in the smart people or experts elsewhere to find every weakness, they rely considerably on us to do this for them.
Every missed opportunity can be thought of in terms of lives lost because we didn’t test the paradigm we’ve inherited for weakness, or logical extension and growth.
That’s our moral duty as thinkers.
So let’s reset and collectively try this again. I myself have been stumped by UN categorical separations of medical diagnostic logic, its been stumping me for a few months. Its always important to examine such things if you value society, and human life in general. Anyone of us can have that Ah-Ha or Eureka Moment when something everyone else mussed occurs to them. Medicine is very much a collective matter, and philosophers have carried it for thousands of years. Its very much our place, even today, to question our underlining presumptions. We can’t waste a potential life on pride of knowing. Our duty is inquiry, examine, probe, deconstruct, and put it all back together again, preferably better than before.
The spread of disease in concentric circles from the point of origin can be traced back to early England when they used to have a central water supply system. This could be a well or tap which the local population all used on a daily basis. These wells or taps would occasionally get polluted with a dead cat, rat or a dead fish that would get caught in the primitive pipe systems. Thus, people would start dying from the poisoned water in a concentric circle pattern which was expanding outwards from the source point. Therefore, it may be a bacteria that is creating the problem, but it is not from the air, nor from a person to person infection that is the cause. This is mostly a city based problem which wouldn’t occur in the country side where fresh water and food is available. Note - It is only over crowded cities and undeveloped countries where these problems occur. Any country that has a good sewage system, fresh food, clean water supply and refrigeration wont have any epidemics. Thus, vaccination is a waste of time and money. It is far better to spend money on refrigeration, sanitation, transportation of fresh food. Sending doctors to Africa is a waste of time and money. They need to send electricity and refrigeration if they are serious about stopping an epidemic. Over use of pesticides causes these problems. This cause has been documented and recorded. Halogen poisoning has all the same symptoms as the so called ‘Ebola virus’.
There may be a microbe present when you are sick, but is the microbe the cause or a result of the disease? Refer to Antoine Bechamp for alternate theories.
Thanks for the advice, but I already am familiar with biological methodologies in determining disease characteristics. I am aware that when identifying a disease, doctors never actually see the disease. They just use a list of symptoms which they match with the patients symptoms. Checking for anti-bodies is just a pathetic way to determine the cause of a disease. It ignores the possibility of chemical poisoning as being the cause which benefits the pharmacy companies as they are excluded from blame and litigation.
