• g2devi@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    It’s not even controversial to say that both simple minded Germ theory and terrain theory are false. For an example of the former, see meningitis and for the later the eradication of small pox and virtual eradication of polio. It’s fair to say both play a part. Case in point, in the before times, when it was flu season, a flu would start off in one end of the office, successively spread to surrounding cubicles over the next week (germ theory), jump over me (terrain theory), and continue on to the people after me until it made its rounds around the office (germ theory). I would rarely ever get colds even when surrounded with people with colds (terrain theory), but if my throat got extremely dry and my feet were cold or I was under a lot of stress, I would get sick if I didn’t “fix” it in time (terrain theory). My father was the same way. When I eventually did get sick, I got sicker than anyone else in the office…it was impossible to hide. But I went to work, no-one else would get sick. Why? I told people I was sick and told them to back off, and I wore a scarf, and tried not to touch anything everyone else did (germ theory). Both theories are very compatible and generally agreed upon as long as you don’t go off the deep end on either side.

    • tusker@monero.townOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Germ theory is completely false, played no part in eradication of anything. All diseases were on a declining trend long before any vax was introduced. Hygiene, sanitation, and nutrition are to credit.

      Just because you covered your mouth when you were sick does not mean germ theory has any merit.

        • fullmetalScience@monero.town
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          That data would likely not make much difference, apart from being even less reliable.

          “Case” is a blurry term to begin with and case-rates, as seen from 2020 onward, are rather arbitrary numbers.

          Back when AIDS was prominent in media, definitions would be changed on-the-go: While initially only a positive test result would be a “case”, later, a collection of symptoms would suffice. Sometimes this can be seen on the charts as rather sudden deviations.

          Above all, knowing a case-rate wouldn’t answer the core question:

          Was there ever a virus to begin with?

          The facts gathered so far - some of which outlined in the video - steer the answer towards a strong “No.”