Talk:Germ theory denialism

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Maher: "not a germ theory denier"

Maher stated in this Real Time clip, "I am not a germ theory denier. I understand that germs and viruses cause diseases." This conflicts with what's written in the article now. Perhaps a quote got passed from blog to blog and Maher's skepticism of vaccination or emphasis on non-microbial factors on health got exaggerated out of context? In any case, I'll leave the sentence as is, but I'll add a sentence based on Maher's own statement per WP:SELFSOURCE and see what shakes out. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least I could relate to that kind of real-time rake. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And regardless, I believe that starting the article Medical Sovereignty could clear things up. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I seek to give biz-fi authors and biz-fi presses some needed clarity, especially when it comes to unexpected modules per Lua programming. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular theory advocacy, anyone?

I feel that this article as an emotional charge added to it. Besides, I feel that this suppressive attitude about Louis Pasteur himself has to be one of the worst cases of academic censorship since this somewhat informal ban on medical research surrounding the destruction of the male clitoris and its side effects. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus as a germ theory of disease transmission denier, yet not mentioned in the article.

The canonical Gospel of Matthew (in section 15:1–20) records the following incident: Elder scribes accused the 12 disciplines of breaking jewish ritual commandments by not washing their hands before eating.

In turn Jesus defended the practice of his disciplines, saying: "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person ... But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone."

Considering the serious unsanitary nature and associated disease transmission potential of eating with unwashed hands, it is dfficult to accept Jesus as God himself (omni-scient), yet giving such scientifically undefendable advice.

The article should include a mention of the incident and face it squarely, rather than hiding under silence of fear from religious fanaticism. Find and include what various 20th / 21st century theologians have to say about the topic. Considering some 1,7 billion humans are christians and so many of them live in heavily disease-ridden places, like Africa and Southern Asia, the issue has large encyclopaedic significance. 20:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

<personal attack removed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)> This is about the laws of ceremonial purity, not medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.137.227 (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stub expansion effort in progress

This article is very short stub. I'm in the process of researching and collecting materials for it. Help is awesome, input is awesome. Cheers Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nearing completion of my offsite work and research on this article. If anyone has anything that could serve as useful citation for an about section or a criticism section that would be great. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stub expanded. Hopefully it meets muster. Left Bill Maher completely out because he is irrelevant to the article. Not a HUGE amount out there on this specific topic not covered very thoroughly elsewhere and a lot of what is out there is on pages just festering with woo and rightly on the blacklist. Hopefully this update spurs some attention and further improvement to the page. Cheers Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved Mike.Sgerbic (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Quite Acurate

The part of "Germ Theory" that people are against is Pasteur's own postulate that "The body is sterile" and 100% vulnerable to attack by any external pathogens, and if any pathogens are in the body, the disease will assuredly ensue.

He was wrong.

Lots of people have the "bad" bacterial and viruses in their bodies and don't actually get the disease or illness. There are more bacterial numbered in the body than the number of cells in the body ever since a few days after birth. Getting the disease is a more complex picture than merely having the germ in the body. (We have an immune system that should be taken into account as well) That's what it's saying.

“Knowledge or discovery of the primary cause [of disease] remains the backbone on which a diagnosis can be made, a disease understood, or a treatment developed. But the concept of one cause leading to one disease—developed largely from the discovery of specific infectious agents as the cause of specific diseases—is no longer sufficient.” Stanley L. Robbins, M.D., Professor of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease (Philadelphia: w.b. Saunders Company, 1989)

So someone "denies" "old" germ theory, based on Pasteur's own postulate that "The body is sterile", and that was wrong, so they now change germ theory to incorporate the science, then they start making fun of the "Germ theory deniers". The germ theory deniers is what made germ theory what it is today.

They should have at least called it Germ Theory 2.0 or something. Or change this to or "Early Germ theory denialism".

Do you see the confusion?

Darrellx (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New stuff goes to the bottom.
Do you have any reliable sources that agree with you and trump the ones used in the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science-Based Medicine

"In fact, its origins are rooted in Béchamp's empirically disproven (in the context of disease) theory of pleomorphism." https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/germ-theory-denialism-a-major-strain-in-alt-med-thought/

I'm not sure that's a reliable source, it's just a blog, something more relevant should be included for this part in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.172.53.243 (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science-Based Medicine is regarded as a reliable source because it is not just one person and they are all renowned experts who check each other's contributions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see more references, it seems this whole terminology "germ theory denialism" only come from science based medicine, which doesn't make any kind of autorithy. This page should be renamed as terrain theory, this is misleading and bring confusion. 37.168.86.250 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have no consensus for that. Read WP:BRD, WP:1AM, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS and as many other pages starting with WP as you can. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with this page is that it's been renamed, germ theory denialism is a thing, terrain theory is another.
It'd be more relevant to have either two pages or a terrain theory page with a germ theory denialist category centered on various anti vaccine advocates and similar modern groups.
I also suggest to mention that article : Wired
It explains well why some people still mention the terrain theory, we now know that some germs are beneficial and some are dangerous, Bechamp and Pasteur had both relevancy and I feel the way this article is redacted in the form of a dichotomy rather than a clear explanation on the current misinterpretation, and how the terrain theory is used to promote potentially dangerous medical practices, rather exposing its limit, could lead to more confusion.
Today, some people are using the terrain theory to state than the covid19 virus isn't contagious for example.
SBM
Deniers focus on the recent discoveries of the biome and human virome to discredit germ theory and tell that bechamp was right, and that Pasteur thought that the human body was sterile.
From the wired article :
"Béchamp was comprehensively wrong, but not absolutely so. His idea that microorganisms are necessary to good health, and that beneficial microbiota are pathogenic under the wrong conditions or in the wrong place, is now the standard view of researchers who study the microbiology of animals and plants."
That's why I'm saying that this article is misleading and bring more confusion instead of providing more datas on what bring "germ theory denialists" to the confusion seen today.
Many books and articles are coming up recently and a more solid page could be beneficial.
37.165.145.164 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of reformatting your contribution because you obviously wanted to make paragraphs but the Wiki software does not make them if you do it this way.
The problem is that there are several subjects here:
  • The historical idea, terrain theory. This one is an obsolete scientific theory.
  • Modern opposition to germ theory. This one is pseudoscience.
Some germ theory denialists refer to terrain theory, but not all. Using an obsolete theory today is different from the obsolete idea itself.
The current article is about the pseudoscience, and it only mentions the obsolete theoriy in passing. Yes, maybe we should also have an article about the obsolete theory, but we seem not to have enough material and enough sources for that. The SBM article mentions it only in context of its resurrection by pseudoscientists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a category specifically dedicated to the terrain theory could be included on this page. 37.165.232.196 (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that suggestion. A category, in Wikipedia, is something like this: Category:Obsolete scientific theories. They should only be made of there are enough potential entries, and a Category:Terrain theory would only have one entry. You probably mean something else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph if you prefer. About, criticism, terrain theory, references. 37.168.158.47 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Germ Theory Denialism

This article assumes that Germ Theory is correct, without reference to any peer reviewed scientific papers, or counterarguments. It should be rewritten to address the different theories of medicine in a less biased way. JoshuaMoser (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's peer reviewed papers you're after, Germ theory of disease seems to be well supplied with such sources. You will get better traction here by proposing specific changes; unsupported complaints about bias and vague exhortations to rewrite the article are unlikely to go anywhere. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the hoodoo of "right" and "wrong"

My wife suggested that the first two sentences of the article be re-written to lay out facts only, as the article author seems to most "believe in" the "rigors" of the "scientific method". I concur with her. I want to see Wikipedia be a source of facts easily observable by all people with our own eyes, as opposed to our needing to depend on the vast array of "trade-secret" protected technology, and information walls of "scientific" journals. I noticed the labels of "right" and "wrong" used in the first two sentences has no basis whatsoever in factual observation, but rather become weapons in the rhetoric wars, which my wife and I absolutely reject along will all forms of violence, hard and soft. Let's open our minds in both the expression and absorption of information, so that the flat earth may become spherical again. Rtdrury (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that’s what the sources say. See WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV. That’s the way we work and you should know that by now. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source adjustment?

Would it perhaps be better to replace the source #10 (quackwatch- chiropractors) with the studies referenced in the blog? It seems like, even just by the website title alone, could be accused of bias, as they have quite the stake in the topic. -- Crobial (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly biased name?

Redirecting "terrain theory" to nothing more than the denial of the obviously correct germ theory seems biased. The article also has a clear bias. Will someone pro-terrain theory write something from their perspective in a defense section? 2604:CA00:100:8691:0:0:C61:D58D (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done See WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics on Terrain theory and miasma theory

I expanded the details on terrain and miasma theory a bit from the miasma page & old versions of the terrain theory page here on Wikipedia (terrain theory now just redirects here). I think adding this helps people understand them. They are historical theories that have ling been disproven but are useful to understand when doing history on the period.

I also changed the redirect of terrain theory from the article in general to the section on it specifically. Please keep this as a section. I've seen people promoting it but explaining what terrain theory actually means disproves it to a person with a moderate or better scientific background. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the mention of miasma, it's beyond the scope of the article. The article is about germ theory denialism after all. I agree with keeping a section on terrain theory. The article could use some rewriting and expanding though. Kerubis (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Must be renamed for intellectual, social and philosophical honesty

This article was renamed from terrain theory disease to germ theory denialism as a result of a short lived social-historical "bubble" of understanding rooted in politics. It is crucial for our readers and world that this article name be restored to terrain theory of disease. Terrain theory of disease is a legitimate, philosophical position which if respected contains insights and benefits to society not contained in germ theory. Wikipedia is losing the fight for intellectualism due to radical political influence. This website will continue to lose credibility until it is seen as a propaganda tool if this trend continues. Rather than see competing ideas as a threatening political war where one must be demeaned for the other, it is crucial we allow competing ideas and return to intellectual, social and philosophical honesty. Abnerthepigster (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LUNATICS. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, you can call me a lunatic. You are not my target audience. I urge anybody reading this to take an honest intellectual or philosophical approach to this discussion. Please avoid politicians finger pointing words like "lunatic" because of their sensitive intellectual proclivities. The same particle can be given to thousands of different people. Some get sick, and some do not. It is the interaction between the particle and the system that it infects that causes the illness. There is a hundred years of perspective of this, remember not to trust the temporary social bubbles you inhabit. We must take a larger and more complete view of our world. Abnerthepigster (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We won't change basic website policies just because you ask nicely. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care about your site or your policies, I care about intellectual honesty. Abnerthepigster (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians don't agree with your definition of intellectual honesty. Take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu "Wikipedians" thank you for admitting your groupthink. 69.132.154.126 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to imply that groupthink is always sophistry. See argument from fallacy. Having WP:RULES and a well-established realm of consensually accepted scientific facts and theories isn't sophistry.
It's perfectly fine to reject "knowledge" which the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society also reject. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia gained credibility among germ theory denialists, that would be a big minus. We should keep the 21st century knowledge and not replace it by ideas that were antiquated in the 19th century. But that is what the policies tell us to do anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Germ_theory_denialism"