2024-10-29 ::: Germ theory critical excess? My present discomfort with absolute denial of "germ theory"
By Denis Rancourt, PhD
FIRST PUBLISHED HERE:
Germ theory critical excess?
I am sympathetic to the view that human-contagious-disease-causing viruses have not been demonstrated to exist. So far,
these demonstrations have not convinced me, despite my earnest study.
I tend to agree with the Drs Bailey who have laid out their views on this and many aspects of the Corona declared pandemic in their brilliant new (and amply referenced) small book “
The Final Pandemic”. And I tend to agree with the most influential critical textbooks on the question, which I have
listed here.
I am a career scientist with deep relevant expertise:
CV and description of expertise.
I ran a large university research group and had an electron microscope and many spectrometers and other instruments in my well-funded laboratory. I specialized, among many areas, in environmental nanoparticles, including their interactions with bacteria.
Anyway, after reading many state-of-the-art science articles about disease-causing virus “isolation” and characterization, I remain firmly unconvinced.
The main counter argument to my skepticism appears to be that PCR genome characterization is robust and specific.
I plan to deep dive into PCR technology, eventually, but right now
I am far from convinced of that counter argument also.
I remain highly suspicious of a wet chemical method (PCR) that relies on controlled thermal degradation to amplify a molecular fragment a kazillion times, which could not otherwise be detected. And I remain skeptical that thus obtained genome sequences are particularly relevant to biology. That’s me.
I mean, I think the PCR jockeys and the molecular-theory immunologists take up way too much space. And of course they are rewarded for their brilliant efforts.
But these are not my main topic today. Today, I want to say that I think some of the criticism of “germ theory” goes too far.
I have heard Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman in particular insist that bacteria cannot cause harm or disease but are only present as the body’s helpers to breakdown and remove dead or defective tissue. In their view, as I understand it, the causes of ill-health are never germs and bacteria are only waiting to play a beneficial role.
Of course I agree that the primary cause of ill-health is not germs:
Fundamental nature of health
However,
I also believe that our bodies host complex gut and respiratory tract microbiomes, and that these microbiomes of bacteria and fungi can seriously depart from being healthy and working for the good of the host organism (you).
One can argue that any such imbalance is always caused by something other than the germs involved, and that the body has been put out of balance by external factors.
I don’t believe it can be that simple. I have studied too many examples of non-linear transitions to think that the body is robust in a friendly environment. Nobody, for example, has figured out how not to die.
I have little doubt that antibiotics (including ivermectin) can save the lives of many who would probably die otherwise. My collaborators and I studied this in the USA during the Covid period, when antibiotics were systemically denied:
here.
T
his shows the potential for run-away germ attacks that can be interrupted or reset by chemical intervention.
Leading anthropologists tell us that the dominant cause of death throughout virtually all of human history has been infections, typically following injuries from fights, not to mention rather aggressive parasites that don’t increase longevity. There may be an evolutionary reason that humans so dread invisible bodily threats.
There, I said it. I think some of our critical thinking friends maybe go too far?
This is a small break from our main research, which is ongoing!
crowdbunker.com
