generalsemanticist wrote:

Elena wrote:

HughMcB wrote:

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:Bacteria or for the matter of fact any germ is not the cause of disease. It's the environment which plays the decisive role

Please tell me you are not responsible for people's health.

Indeed.

Please tell me your doctor is not responsible for your health. We are all responsible for our own health. Dr. Malik makes a valid point. Disease is a result of a number of factors, not merely the presence of a pathogen. We are exposed to them continuously so why are we not sick all the time?

Bacteria or for the matter of fact any germ is not the cause of disease. It's the environment which plays the decisive role

In the early 1930s, the synthesis of Darwinian natural selection, mutation, and Mendelian genetics gave rise to the paradigm of 'modern Darwinism', also known as 'neo-Darwinism'. This has contributed greatly to our understanding. But increasing knowledge of other mechanisms, including endosymbiosis, genetic and genomic duplication, polyploidy, hybridization, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes, and the modern synthesis of embryonic development and evolution, has widened our horizons to a diversity of possibilities for change. All of these can be gathered under the umbrella concept of 'genomic creativity', which, in partnership with natural selection, affords a more comprehensive modern explanation of evolution.  © 2006 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2006, 88, 6552013672.

Bacteria or for the matter of fact any germ is not the cause of disease.

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:Bacteria or for the matter of fact any germ is not the cause of disease. It's the environment which plays the decisive role

generalsemanticist wrote:I understood Dr. Malik to mean that pathogens are involved in disease but the environment in which it operates plays a more important role. I'm not sure I agree with that totally - I might suggest that its 50-50. I don't see any need to insult her - its so childish.

generalsemanticist wrote:I understood Dr. Malik to mean that pathogens are involved in disease but the environment in which it operates plays a more important role. I'm not sure I agree with that totally - I might suggest that its 50-50. I don't see any need to insult her - its so childish.

Bacteria or for the matter of fact any germ is not the cause of disease. It's the environment which plays the decisive role

Louis Pasteur on his death bed recanted the germ theory of disease and said, "If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat---unhealthy tissue---rather than being the cause of unhealthy tissue."

Shrunk wrote:BTW, Dr. Malik seems to have misattributed her quote. Every other source attributes it to Rudolf Virchow.

Darkchilde wrote:

Shrunk wrote:BTW, Dr. Malik seems to have misattributed her quote. Every other source attributes it to Rudolf Virchow.

I asked for the source of that quote, and she has not answered me yet.

Louis Pasteur, on his deathbed, finally recanted his germ theory by admitting that "The Microbe is nothing. The terrain is everything."

The terrain is not the immune system, but the normal alkaline and oxygenated environment of the human body. The immune system only kicks in when the terrain becomes acidic or lacks oxygen allowing pathogenic microbes to breed.

This was echoed by Rudolph Virchow (Father of Pathology), who said :

"If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat, diseased tissue, rather than being the cause of the diseased tissue; e.g., mosquitoes seek the stagnant water, but do not cause the pool to become stagnant."

Shrunk wrote: This was echoed by Rudolph Virchow (Father of Pathology), who said :

"If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that [b]germs seek their natural habitat, diseased tissue, rather than being the cause of the diseased tissue; e.g., mosquitoes seek the stagnant water, but do not cause the pool to become stagnant." [/b]

Elena wrote:

Shrunk wrote: This was echoed by Rudolph Virchow (Father of Pathology), who said :

"If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that [b]germs seek their natural habitat, diseased tissue, rather than being the cause of the diseased tissue; e.g., mosquitoes seek the stagnant water, but do not cause the pool to become stagnant." [/b]

With mosquitoes not being germs-- and not looking for a host, but for a place to lay eggs...

Shrunk wrote:

Elena wrote:

Shrunk wrote: This was echoed by Rudolph Virchow (Father of Pathology), who said :

"If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that [b]germs seek their natural habitat, diseased tissue, rather than being the cause of the diseased tissue; e.g., mosquitoes seek the stagnant water, but do not cause the pool to become stagnant." [/b]

With mosquitoes not being germs-- and not looking for a host, but for a place to lay eggs...

I assume Virchow meant that as an analogy.

In any event, in context Dr. Malik's quote, misattributed though it is, makes it even clearer what her position is: Germs don't cause disease any more than mosquitoes cause stagnant water. I wonder if she washes her hands before she eats?

Bacteria or for the matter of fact any germ is not the cause of disease. It's the environment which plays the decisive role

generalsemanticist wrote:She said

Bacteria or for the matter of fact any germ is not the cause of disease. It's the environment which plays the decisive role

Italics mine. To me this means both pathogens and environment are involved but she places more emphasis on the environment. But I'm just a semanticist, what do I know.

generalsemanticist wrote:She said

Bacteria or for the matter of fact any germ is not the cause of disease. It's the environment which plays the decisive role

Italics mine. To me this means both pathogens and environment are involved but she places more emphasis on the environment. But I'm just a semanticist, what do I know.

Moridin wrote: Pathogens are part of your environment, but you can get sick from just pathogens, but not just from non-pathogen environmental factors. This is the key point here.

If pathogens are not a decisive factor, then it is hard to explain why the smallpox vaccine worked, for instance.

Quack site wrote:The terrain is not the immune system, but the normal alkaline and oxygenated environment of the human body. The immune system only kicks in when the terrain becomes acidic or lacks oxygen allowing pathogenic microbes to breed.

GenesForLife wrote:That assertion is shot down by the very mechanisms of immune system function.