Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease

Matthew Cline

I've read that homeopaths reject the germ theory of disease. However, so far
as I can tell, most homeopaths accept that there is an immune system (white
blood cells and such) that fight off bacteria and viruses; but it seems to me
that such an immune system implies the germ theory of disease. So, among the
homeopaths that reject the germ theory of disease, how is "the germ theory of
disease" defined such that it is invalid, yet there exists an immune system
which fights bacteria and viruses?

Thanks in advance.

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

Eric Bohlman

Matthew Cline <matt_newz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:HlXtb.24020$9X2.1215@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com:

> I've read that homeopaths reject the germ theory of disease. However,
> so far as I can tell, most homeopaths accept that there is an immune
> system (white blood cells and such) that fight off bacteria and
> viruses; but it seems to me that such an immune system implies the
> germ theory of disease. So, among the homeopaths that reject the germ
> theory of disease, how is "the germ theory of disease" defined such
> that it is invalid, yet there exists an immune system which fights
> bacteria and viruses?

Simple: they don't mean the same thing by "immune system" that everyone
else does. In mystical medicine, "immune system" is simply a synonym for
"vital force." You'll see talk about the "immune system" removing "toxins"
from the body, or causing wounds to heal. Medical mystics use the term in
order to "sound scientific."

Jan

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Eric Bohlman ebohlman@earthlink.net
>Date: 11/16/2003 8:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns9435E97949700ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4>
>
>Matthew Cline <matt_newz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>news:HlXtb.24020$9X2.1215@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> I've read that homeopaths reject the germ theory of disease. However,
>> so far as I can tell, most homeopaths accept that there is an immune
>> system (white blood cells and such) that fight off bacteria and
>> viruses; but it seems to me that such an immune system implies the
>> germ theory of disease. So, among the homeopaths that reject the germ
>> theory of disease, how is "the germ theory of disease" defined such
>> that it is invalid, yet there exists an immune system which fights
>> bacteria and viruses?
>
>Simple: they don't mean the same thing by "immune system" that everyone
>else does. In mystical medicine,

Please do post the proof of mystical medicine.

>"immune system" is simply a synonym for
>"vital force." You'll see talk about the "immune system" removing "toxins"
>from the body, or causing wounds to heal. Medical mystics use the term in
>order to "sound scientific."

You can *see* talk??

Sounds mystical to me. *;*

Jan

D. C. Sessions

In <HlXtb.24020$9X2.1215@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>, Matthew Cline wrote:

> I've read that homeopaths reject the germ theory of disease. However, so far
> as I can tell, most homeopaths accept that there is an immune system (white
> blood cells and such) that fight off bacteria and viruses; but it seems to me
> that such an immune system implies the germ theory of disease. So, among the
> homeopaths that reject the germ theory of disease, how is "the germ theory of
> disease" defined such that it is invalid, yet there exists an immune system
> which fights bacteria and viruses?

You're misunderstanding is in the "(white blood cells and such)"
part. The term, "immune system" means something different to
alternative-health practitioners than it does in scientific
medicine. To the alts, the term "immune system" is a recent
replacement for the older term "vital force."

If you read the homeopathic literature with that in mind, the
contradiction goes away.

--
| "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a |
| completely unintentional side effect. " -- Linus Torvalds |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: "D. C. Sessions" dcs@lumbercartel.com
>Date: 11/17/03 1:02 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <1s4m81-jkf.ln1@news.lumbercartel.com>

>You're misunderstanding is in the "(white blood cells and such)"
>part. The term, "immune system" means something different to
>alternative-health practitioners than it does in scientific
>medicine. To the alts, the term "immune system" is a recent
>replacement for the older term "vital force."
>
>If you read the homeopathic literature with that in mind, the
>contradiction goes away.
>
Sorry, you in the quackwatch group still cannot or do not understand.

Refer to the published work of A. Bechamp, BS, PhD, MD., once head of a medical
school in France. He proved Pasteur was a dunce, a charlatan, a con artist.
You are still deceived by Pasteur’s effort.

Bacteria are of two types. Those internal and beneficial and those external
and deadly.

The deadly, external type area the cause of gangrene and other fatal diseases
related to bacteria. The friendly, internal type, are those which surface and
then dissipate with your recovery ( since they are at least partially
responsible for your recovery ).

Bechamp’s microzymal theory still stands as the supreme medical work of the
19th and 20th century.

Dr. C.

Matthew Cline

From http://www.homeopathic.org/news0299.htm, the "California Monthly"
interviewing Dana Ullman:

> CM: Let me ask a more general question: Wasn't the contest between
> homeopathy and conventional medicine decided by the germ theory of
> disease?

> DU: Sure. The germ theory really did give conventional medicine its
> domination. And if the germ theory is right, it should continue that
> domination.

> CM: It's not right?

> DU: No. Germs do not cause disease. Germs are co-factors in
> disease. Now, I believe as much as anyone else that bacterias and
> viruses can lead to disease, that they are part of disease. But it's
> simplistic and inaccurate to say that they directly cause disease.

> CM: Please explain.

> DU: Right now, in your throat, you have streptococcus. And I have
> streptococcus. And we may have a pneumococcus in our bronchials. We
> may have cancer cells in our body. But that doesn't mean we have a
> sore throat, pneumonia, or cancer. Infectious disease depends upon
> infection and it depends upon host resistance. As Pasteur -- a
> discoverer of the germ theory of disease -- said at the end of his
> life, host resistance, the body's own immuno-defense system, plays a
> much larger role than the microbe itself in disease.

So, it seems that Dana Ullman's interpretation of the germ theory is "If you
are exposed to a germ, you *will* become infected by it", and since that
isn't true, the germ theory is incorrect; I've seen similar arguments on a
few other homeopathy websites. This is a straw-man argument; I doubt that
even Pasteur believed that exposure to a certain type of germ 100% guraunteed
infection by that germ.

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

Rich

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:16:01 GMT, Matthew Cline
<matt_newz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>From http://www.homeopathic.org/news0299.htm, the "California Monthly"
>interviewing Dana Ullman:
>
>> CM: Let me ask a more general question: Wasn't the contest between
>> homeopathy and conventional medicine decided by the germ theory of
>> disease?
>
>> DU: Sure. The germ theory really did give conventional medicine its
>> domination. And if the germ theory is right, it should continue that
>> domination.
>
>> CM: It's not right?
>
>> DU: No. Germs do not cause disease. Germs are co-factors in
>> disease. Now, I believe as much as anyone else that bacterias and
>> viruses can lead to disease, that they are part of disease. But it's
>> simplistic and inaccurate to say that they directly cause disease.
>
>> CM: Please explain.
>
>> DU: Right now, in your throat, you have streptococcus. And I have
>> streptococcus. And we may have a pneumococcus in our bronchials. We
>> may have cancer cells in our body. But that doesn't mean we have a
>> sore throat, pneumonia, or cancer. Infectious disease depends upon
>> infection and it depends upon host resistance. As Pasteur -- a
>> discoverer of the germ theory of disease -- said at the end of his
>> life, host resistance, the body's own immuno-defense system, plays a
>> much larger role than the microbe itself in disease.
>
>So, it seems that Dana Ullman's interpretation of the germ theory is "If you
>are exposed to a germ, you *will* become infected by it", and since that
>isn't true, the germ theory is incorrect; I've seen similar arguments on a
>few other homeopathy websites. This is a straw-man argument; I doubt that
>even Pasteur believed that exposure to a certain type of germ 100% guraunteed
>infection by that germ.

It is simply a matter that to get an infection it is necessary to be
exposed to the infectious (germ) agent but such exposure is not
necessarily *sufficient* to develop the infection. There may be many
factors that determine susceptibility. For some infectious agents most
anyone who is adequately exposed will develop an infection. For other
infectious agents, it may require that the host be immunocompromised.

For example AIDS patients who have compromised immune systems develop
infections that would likely not cause problems for those who have
intact immune systems. But this does not mean that germs don't cause
diseases. It just means that other factors may be important for the
infectious agents to cause symptoms.

Aloha,

Rich

------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

Matthew Cline

DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
us these blasphemous ravings:

> Sorry, you in the quackwatch group still cannot or do not understand.

> Refer to the published work of A. Bechamp, BS, PhD, MD., once head
> of a medical school in France. He proved Pasteur was a dunce, a
> charlatan, a con artist. You are still deceived by Pasteur's
> effort.

Similar accusations have been made against Albert Einstein. However, the
truth or falsehood of such accusations have no bearing on the validity or
invalidity of the theories of relativity. Every single test regarding the
theories of relativity have validated them; the theories are valid, even if
Einstein was a dunce and a plagiarist.

Similarly, it doesn't matter if Pasteur was a charlatan or not, since the germ
theory of disease has been tested and validated in many ways since Pasteur
since proposed the theory. If all knowledge and memories of Pasteur were
wiped from the face of the Earth, such that orthodox medical doctors would
wake up and say "Wait a minute, who in the world originated the germ
theory?", they wouldn't abandon the germ theory because they didn't know who
it's founder was; who the founder was, or whether he was an angel or a devil,
are irrelevant to the germ theory.

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

Rich Shewmaker

"Matthew Cline" <matt_newz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:lpeub.3763$kK2.3313@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
..
>
> > DU: Right now, in your throat, you have streptococcus. And I have
> > streptococcus.

This is not true. Most throat cultures, even of sore throats, do not grow
out streptococcus.

--Rich

Orac

In article <1s4m81-jkf.ln1@news.lumbercartel.com>,
"D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

> In <HlXtb.24020$9X2.1215@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>, Matthew Cline wrote:
>
> > I've read that homeopaths reject the germ theory of disease. However, so
> > far
> > as I can tell, most homeopaths accept that there is an immune system (white
> > blood cells and such) that fight off bacteria and viruses; but it seems to
> > me
> > that such an immune system implies the germ theory of disease. So, among
> > the
> > homeopaths that reject the germ theory of disease, how is "the germ theory
> > of
> > disease" defined such that it is invalid, yet there exists an immune system
> > which fights bacteria and viruses?
>
> You're misunderstanding is in the "(white blood cells and such)"
> part. The term, "immune system" means something different to
> alternative-health practitioners than it does in scientific
> medicine. To the alts, the term "immune system" is a recent
> replacement for the older term "vital force."
>
> If you read the homeopathic literature with that in mind, the
> contradiction goes away.

Quite correct. If you ask a homeopath to describe the immune system, it
is rare to find one who can give a description of what cells are
involved in the immune system, how it works, how it recognizes foreign
cells and proteins, and how it eliminates them. Their claims that their
therapies "strengthen the immune system" rarely tell you HOW.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac

In article <CFeub.10744$rZ3.5170@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
Matthew Cline <matt_newz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
> us these blasphemous ravings:
>
> > Sorry, you in the quackwatch group still cannot or do not understand.
>
> > Refer to the published work of A. Bechamp, BS, PhD, MD., once head
> > of a medical school in France. He proved Pasteur was a dunce, a
> > charlatan, a con artist. You are still deceived by Pasteur's
> > effort.
>
> Similar accusations have been made against Albert Einstein. However, the
> truth or falsehood of such accusations have no bearing on the validity or
> invalidity of the theories of relativity. Every single test regarding the
> theories of relativity have validated them; the theories are valid, even if
> Einstein was a dunce and a plagiarist.
>
> Similarly, it doesn't matter if Pasteur was a charlatan or not, since the
> germ
> theory of disease has been tested and validated in many ways since Pasteur
> since proposed the theory. If all knowledge and memories of Pasteur were
> wiped from the face of the Earth, such that orthodox medical doctors would
> wake up and say "Wait a minute, who in the world originated the germ
> theory?", they wouldn't abandon the germ theory because they didn't know who
> it's founder was; who the founder was, or whether he was an angel or a devil,
> are irrelevant to the germ theory.

Well said! The reason the "germ theory" has stood up is that there are
mountains of scientific evidence that support it and that there has not
been a similar set of evidence to refute it.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac

In article <lpeub.3763$kK2.3313@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Matthew Cline <matt_newz@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> From http://www.homeopathic.org/news0299.htm, the "California Monthly"
> interviewing Dana Ullman:
>
> > CM: Let me ask a more general question: Wasn't the contest between
> > homeopathy and conventional medicine decided by the germ theory of
> > disease?
>
> > DU: Sure. The germ theory really did give conventional medicine its
> > domination. And if the germ theory is right, it should continue that
> > domination.
>
> > CM: It's not right?
>
> > DU: No. Germs do not cause disease. Germs are co-factors in
> > disease. Now, I believe as much as anyone else that bacterias and
> > viruses can lead to disease, that they are part of disease. But it's
> > simplistic and inaccurate to say that they directly cause disease.
>
> > CM: Please explain.
>
> > DU: Right now, in your throat, you have streptococcus. And I have
> > streptococcus. And we may have a pneumococcus in our bronchials. We
> > may have cancer cells in our body. But that doesn't mean we have a
> > sore throat, pneumonia, or cancer. Infectious disease depends upon
> > infection and it depends upon host resistance. As Pasteur -- a
> > discoverer of the germ theory of disease -- said at the end of his
> > life, host resistance, the body's own immuno-defense system, plays a
> > much larger role than the microbe itself in disease.
>
> So, it seems that Dana Ullman's interpretation of the germ theory is "If you
> are exposed to a germ, you *will* become infected by it", and since that
> isn't true, the germ theory is incorrect; I've seen similar arguments on a
> few other homeopathy websites. This is a straw-man argument; I doubt that
> even Pasteur believed that exposure to a certain type of germ 100% guraunteed
> infection by that germ.

Indeed. Such an argument would deny that we can be infected by the
bacteria that colonize every accessible surface and orifice of our
bodies, but we know that is not true. For example, the reason wounds
become infected is usually not that exogenous bacteria invaded the wound
but rather that our own skin flora has taken advantage of the
opportunity provided by the wound. However, in the absence of the wound,
we live quite happily with our bacterial flora on our skin, and it does
not cause disease. (In fact, it usually doesn't even cause infection in
the case of most clean wounds.)

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

D. C. Sessions

In <lpeub.3763$kK2.3313@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, Matthew Cline wrote:

> So, it seems that Dana Ullman's interpretation of the germ theory is "If you
> are exposed to a germ, you *will* become infected by it", and since that
> isn't true, the germ theory is incorrect; I've seen similar arguments on a
> few other homeopathy websites. This is a straw-man argument; I doubt that
> even Pasteur believed that exposure to a certain type of germ 100% guraunteed
> infection by that germ.

Patently not, since he was surrounded by counterexamples.
Smallpox, his work with rabies, etc.

--
| "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a |
| completely unintentional side effect. " -- Linus Torvalds |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+

Ilsa9

>
>"Matthew Cline" <matt_newz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:lpeub.3763$kK2.3313@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>.
>>
>> > DU: Right now, in your throat, you have streptococcus. And I have
>> > streptococcus.
>
>This is not true. Most throat cultures, even of sore throats, do not grow
>out streptococcus.
>
>--Rich
>

Neither was the part about Pasteur's death-bed confession.