Germ Theory Is Incomplete | Part 2
After a full year of ruminating on this topic, the time has come for Part 2 of this conversation.
For those who are new here and haven’t read Part 1 of this series, I would highly recommend you read it before proceeding.
In the first part, we discussed the origins and basic tenets of germ theory, insofar as it aims to prove that certain micro-organisms are the proximate cause of disease. We also discuss how and why this framework falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.
We also discussed Terrain theory, which has been historically presented as the competing model to germ theory. Evidently, a combination of research funding and sociocultural trends have favored a “germ” and “infectious” framework. This is likely why Germ Theory prevailed in the academy as the de facto model to inform Infectious Disease (the medical discipline).
As you may expect, the truth tends to lie somewhere in the middle.
In my opinion, Germ Theory is a special case of Terrain Theory. In other words, these are not mutually exclusive models. Rather, one (germ) is a subset of the other (terrain).
There are two important contentions that arise when I make this statement.
First, what does that even mean?
Second: “But, antibiotics!”
I think what people want to know is, once we understand the role of microorganisms in this new framework, how do we address states of “infection?”
Which are great questions. Let’s dig in.
Germ Theory Is The Special Case
The fundamental framework of germ theory is that disease in humans is caused by the presence/growth of a micro-organism. That is to say, a specific disease’s proximate cause is the presence of a specific microorganism.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Remnant | MD to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.