That whole discussion at times seems to me as another distraction. I truly believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Right now Terrain is for the most part, well sounding speculation with little clinical proof. That is not the fault of people promoting this idea - it takes money to do proper research. Therefore, I am not finding fault. But, until I can see more substantial practical bench proven and reproducible science, it remains for me some very intriguing observation that warrant serious study because some of what is presented as fact in Germ Theory is crap. For example, there are some not well known studies that indicate that the premise of disease transmission is flawed. It still needs further investigation. But, that does not mean the baby is thrown out with the bathwater.
If I know anything after years of working in clinical research, it is hardly ever an either or proposition, one way or that way. Our world is more nuanced than simple black and white issues - especially the human body. The only black and white proposition in life is that you are either dead or you are alive - and even those definitions are being screwed with. Everything else is a shade of grey. Picking sides between this or that is not getting to the truth and it is not science; which is more a process of synthesis of empirical data and deriving at conclusions that are not preconceived and biased. Unfortunately, this type of science is rare and more than once got me in trouble. The problem with taking positions is that over time it becomes more an exercise in being right rather than a search for answers to scientific questions. The answers to real scientific inquiry can and do change over time and real science is not deterred by challenges to long held ideas. Power, money, agendas, and egos however, are unwilling and unable to change - no matter which side of a debate is chosen.
Just as a side note that is germane to our previous discussion, Cowen and company also have some questionable affiliations that I am still investigating along the lines of a new age theosophy bent. This spider web of connections is massive - as is the deception of spun lies that infiltrate almost every aspect of our lives. It is hard to find any clarity in any of it - that too is deliberate.
Terrain theory is not nearly as profitable as Germ theory. As a result, it's practiced as an act of faith helping others. It remains relatively corruption free. Prior to the 1900s, when William Rockefeller was still selling snake oil (absolutely true), homeopathic/natural medicine, which subscribes to Terrain theory, was the predominant medical practice by doctors. The American Medical Association was the established in 1869 (if memory is right) in America. It was a subsidiary of its British parent, the British Medical Association. The BMA was responsible for getting the parliament to pass the "Anti-Quack Act", which made homeopathic medicine illegal. The AMA was set to do the same. Their mission was to discredit Terrain theory and to monopolize drugs. William Rockefeller had considerable involvement in this agenda. While he sold a fake cancer cure that some say was nothing more than a laxative and crude oil, he pushed for monopolizing medicine.
The very foundation of Germ Theory was under deceit and plagiarism. It has only grown since then to be a worldwide mafia operation. I prefer Terrain theory because I find honesty there with every one who espouses it. In response to your last part, I am a Christian. Yet, I seldom ever go to church. I don't believe in churches or any of the 501c(3) denominations. I do believe however in studying the Word and practicing my faith. I believe the Amish model of faith is a good model to follow. I believe bible studies where people interact and express their interpretation of verses is far better than a passive congregation that's subject to group think. My point is this. Many people may think because I don't attend church, I am not a good Christian. I am sure some people avoid me as a result. Because there seems to be a prevalence of New Age individuals in homeopathic/ natural medicine doesn't mean their wrong or to be avoided. IMHO, Terrain theory is far more sound than germ theory is.
Hey, sometimes no "Church" is the way to go. I like the idea of the Amish model of faith. It is basic and dispenses with the all the self help psychobabble that has infected most of Modern Christianity. I don't blame you. Most places leave an impression with me of a powerless and shallow faith that is unable to stand when the heat is turned up. Professing Christ and His resurrection is the most important thing because without that, we have no faith or hope.
As far as the debate between Germ and Terrain, I do fall more to the Terrain side. You are most definitely correct that most of the history with modern medical models completely based upon Germ Theory are extremely flawed and have been corrupted for profit. On that, you will get no argument from me. I just would like to see the Terrain view moved into some real honest research with some results that can prove its assertions - one way or the other. Until then, I am sort of stuck working with the elements of Germ that do hold some weight in application. Unfortunately, when dealing with sick patients, sometimes these loftier debates at the time have no practical use. But, I do approach my treatments cognizant that Terrain is crucial if there are to be any long lasting movement towards health.
Like I already stated, I think the real answer is lying somewhere in-between these two theories - in that gray area. The conclusions of research are never that cut and dry no matter how much they try to present it as such. It always leads to more questions typically than answers if it is approached in an honest unbiased manner.
Bacteria and parasites, now those are critters that can make some people really sick. Hell, you can see them with the naked eye or under a microscope. I have even grown a few of them in the lab. But, viruses? Now that is a topic that never set well with me - even in college. Everything that has sprang out of the idea of no-see-ums that are out there making us sick always appeared very weak to me and I never have bought into it. That is one of the main reasons I was never a vaxxine pusher. I can't even begin to tell you how the entire sham built up around the rationale for treating something that seems completely contrived is just plain wrong. All of it flies right in the face of common sense biology. In fact, the entire medical model temple needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt with new ideas and new minds.
But as I also stated, this is not a debate between either approach as the end all to be all. I just do not think it is that polarized based upon my own experience as a clinician and a researcher for several decades. I have no qualms about chucking prior paradigms in exchange for newer ways of thinking that can demonstrate validity.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond. Have a great rest of your day and an awesome weekend.
Germ theory vs. Terrain theory.
That whole discussion at times seems to me as another distraction. I truly believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Right now Terrain is for the most part, well sounding speculation with little clinical proof. That is not the fault of people promoting this idea - it takes money to do proper research. Therefore, I am not finding fault. But, until I can see more substantial practical bench proven and reproducible science, it remains for me some very intriguing observation that warrant serious study because some of what is presented as fact in Germ Theory is crap. For example, there are some not well known studies that indicate that the premise of disease transmission is flawed. It still needs further investigation. But, that does not mean the baby is thrown out with the bathwater.
If I know anything after years of working in clinical research, it is hardly ever an either or proposition, one way or that way. Our world is more nuanced than simple black and white issues - especially the human body. The only black and white proposition in life is that you are either dead or you are alive - and even those definitions are being screwed with. Everything else is a shade of grey. Picking sides between this or that is not getting to the truth and it is not science; which is more a process of synthesis of empirical data and deriving at conclusions that are not preconceived and biased. Unfortunately, this type of science is rare and more than once got me in trouble. The problem with taking positions is that over time it becomes more an exercise in being right rather than a search for answers to scientific questions. The answers to real scientific inquiry can and do change over time and real science is not deterred by challenges to long held ideas. Power, money, agendas, and egos however, are unwilling and unable to change - no matter which side of a debate is chosen.
Just as a side note that is germane to our previous discussion, Cowen and company also have some questionable affiliations that I am still investigating along the lines of a new age theosophy bent. This spider web of connections is massive - as is the deception of spun lies that infiltrate almost every aspect of our lives. It is hard to find any clarity in any of it - that too is deliberate.
Terrain theory is not nearly as profitable as Germ theory. As a result, it's practiced as an act of faith helping others. It remains relatively corruption free. Prior to the 1900s, when William Rockefeller was still selling snake oil (absolutely true), homeopathic/natural medicine, which subscribes to Terrain theory, was the predominant medical practice by doctors. The American Medical Association was the established in 1869 (if memory is right) in America. It was a subsidiary of its British parent, the British Medical Association. The BMA was responsible for getting the parliament to pass the "Anti-Quack Act", which made homeopathic medicine illegal. The AMA was set to do the same. Their mission was to discredit Terrain theory and to monopolize drugs. William Rockefeller had considerable involvement in this agenda. While he sold a fake cancer cure that some say was nothing more than a laxative and crude oil, he pushed for monopolizing medicine.
The very foundation of Germ Theory was under deceit and plagiarism. It has only grown since then to be a worldwide mafia operation. I prefer Terrain theory because I find honesty there with every one who espouses it. In response to your last part, I am a Christian. Yet, I seldom ever go to church. I don't believe in churches or any of the 501c(3) denominations. I do believe however in studying the Word and practicing my faith. I believe the Amish model of faith is a good model to follow. I believe bible studies where people interact and express their interpretation of verses is far better than a passive congregation that's subject to group think. My point is this. Many people may think because I don't attend church, I am not a good Christian. I am sure some people avoid me as a result. Because there seems to be a prevalence of New Age individuals in homeopathic/ natural medicine doesn't mean their wrong or to be avoided. IMHO, Terrain theory is far more sound than germ theory is.
Hey, sometimes no "Church" is the way to go. I like the idea of the Amish model of faith. It is basic and dispenses with the all the self help psychobabble that has infected most of Modern Christianity. I don't blame you. Most places leave an impression with me of a powerless and shallow faith that is unable to stand when the heat is turned up. Professing Christ and His resurrection is the most important thing because without that, we have no faith or hope.
As far as the debate between Germ and Terrain, I do fall more to the Terrain side. You are most definitely correct that most of the history with modern medical models completely based upon Germ Theory are extremely flawed and have been corrupted for profit. On that, you will get no argument from me. I just would like to see the Terrain view moved into some real honest research with some results that can prove its assertions - one way or the other. Until then, I am sort of stuck working with the elements of Germ that do hold some weight in application. Unfortunately, when dealing with sick patients, sometimes these loftier debates at the time have no practical use. But, I do approach my treatments cognizant that Terrain is crucial if there are to be any long lasting movement towards health.
Like I already stated, I think the real answer is lying somewhere in-between these two theories - in that gray area. The conclusions of research are never that cut and dry no matter how much they try to present it as such. It always leads to more questions typically than answers if it is approached in an honest unbiased manner.
Bacteria and parasites, now those are critters that can make some people really sick. Hell, you can see them with the naked eye or under a microscope. I have even grown a few of them in the lab. But, viruses? Now that is a topic that never set well with me - even in college. Everything that has sprang out of the idea of no-see-ums that are out there making us sick always appeared very weak to me and I never have bought into it. That is one of the main reasons I was never a vaxxine pusher. I can't even begin to tell you how the entire sham built up around the rationale for treating something that seems completely contrived is just plain wrong. All of it flies right in the face of common sense biology. In fact, the entire medical model temple needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt with new ideas and new minds.
But as I also stated, this is not a debate between either approach as the end all to be all. I just do not think it is that polarized based upon my own experience as a clinician and a researcher for several decades. I have no qualms about chucking prior paradigms in exchange for newer ways of thinking that can demonstrate validity.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond. Have a great rest of your day and an awesome weekend.