The more I learn about science denialism, the more I see a common thread running through
all of them, like a common playbook. Regardless of the evidence to the contrary, they seem
to be able to hold whatever contrarian position they like and justify it with a series of
logical fallacies.
But there are some scientific theories that you just think, "Well, there's just no way
that could be denied. Who'd have a reason to doubt THAT theory?". I would always have
included the theory of gravitation, atomic theory, cell theory, and, of course, the Germ
Theory of Disease. But, thanks to the Internet, I've now found an active community of Germ
Theory Denialists.
That's right, they either fully or partially deny the germ theory of disease. In fact,
many of you may know one or more of these people.
At this point I hope you're asking how anyone could possibly deny that germs cause disease?
Wouldn't any thinking person see that colds are contagious, that diarrhea is something
you can get from contaminated food, that skin infections form around unsterilized cuts?
What possible alternative explanation could they have to explain these phenomenon.
To answer that, I have to take you back to two scientists, Louis Pasteur and Antoine
Bechamp (Bae-sham) at or around 1870. The problem concerns certain diseases of silkworms,
an important agricultural asset for the French silk industry. The harvests were failing,
and it was a matter of national commerce that an explanation could be found.
Louis Pasteur, as many of you might remember, performed many of the tests that formed the
basis for the germ theory of disease we use today. His argument, based on his experiments
with sealed flasks and breweries, was that an infectious agent was likely responsible.
His course of action would be to quarantine and contain the spread.
"Bae-sham" was an insect biologist, and had a competing theory, His theory, which I will
call the pleomorphic theory of disease, was that diseases are caused by environment. He
said that bacteria actually form from the diseased cells, and their appearance tells
us the underlying disorder. There's more to it, including an abiotic origin of microbes,
but the key point is that he takes Pasteur's theory in reverse. The microbe does not cause
the disease, the disease causes the microbe. His suggestion might have been not to quarantine
the sick animals, but to feed them better, or move all of them to a brighter area with
cleaner air.
This was not a stupid idea in 1870. It strikes us as silly because we have the benefit of
so much additional information. Antoine "Bae-sham" WAS wrong, of course, as has been demonstrated
by thousands of experiments since then. His theory has been falsified and buried. Pasteur's
has been predictive and explanatory in a way that we find useful, and Antoine "Bae-sham"'s
theory is not supported by the genomic data being produced on bacterial DNA, nor by serotype
testing, phylogenetics, or electron microscopy of pure cultures.
Now there was a useful insight to be gained from his theory about the complexity of interaction
between a disease agent and the host. It's true that environment, nutrition and immune
status plays a big role in the development of most diseases. I don't know any modern
biologists who dispute that. To qualify as a germ theory denialist, you need to deny
that infectious agents are responsible for any disease we currently attribute to transmissable
pathogens.
What kind of Internet troll believes this far out crazy idea? This is the part that
may surprise you. How about Bill Maher? The host of Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher,
and the writer, producer and star of Religulous. Now he has made a statement that he is NOT
a germ theory denialist, but the fact that he had to deny it says a lot. He's strongly
anti-vaccine, anti-medicine, but in an interview, he brought up a signature move of germ theory
denialism.
He pulled out the deathbed recanting of Pasteur. The only place this text ever existed was
the germ theory denialism website that created it out of whole cloth. It has no basis in
fact, and represents a marker for someone who has spent time learning from anti-germ
theory websites.
This is a classic denialism move, attacking the discoverer's credibility, worthy of a
creationist or AIDS denialist, and forever tarnishes Maher in my eyes. It goes beyond
a disagreement with him, he's taken sides against science, medicine and critical thinking.
What he's advocating is dangerous to the innocent and naive. It's a misuse of his celebrity
to promote pseudoscience.
Who else can we put on our list? How about a large number of chiropractors? Many, but
certainly not all, who practice as straights are taught that all disease, from tooth decay
to Ebola, are the result of improper alignment of the spine and Atlas.
You should also ask any naturopath or osteopathic physician where they stand on the germ theory
of disease. Depending on the country, they may have been taught that germs don't exist.
We'll also find that a lot of AIDS denialists are in fact germ theory denialists, either
wholly or only in part. Some will use the pleomorphic theory, others won't, or will
use something equally as invalid.
In fact anywhere you find quackery about nutrition or detoxification treating viral or bacterial
conditions, look for the references to either Antoine "Bae-sham" or the deathbed recanting
of Pasteur. You will have spotted the rare germ theory denialist in his natural habitat.
This particular strain of pseudoscience has mutated, though. It's realized that it can't
survive with open denialism and antiquated beliefs. Instead, the approach now is to simply
shift the focus from their failure to make a scientific case for their beliefs, to the
perceived flaws in Pasteur's theory. Not modern microbiology, mind you, but actually the experiments
and theory of Louis Pasteur. They advocate a softer form of germ theory denialism, still
based on "Bae-sham"'s teachings that sickness causes pathogens, not pathogens causing sickness.
You'll see the thinking in these posts from a denialist on the Huffington Post, "A healthy
strong body well nourished and properly exercised will easily be able to fight off just about
any germ that invades its body without the need for magic elixirs."
I hope the allusion to creationism repackaged as ID, and the parallels of demonizing Pasteur
and Darwin are not lost on you.
This new germ theory denialism tend to refer to themselves as "natural hygenists" in that
they assert that health and hygeine are sufficient to prevent disease. This is an offshoot of
naturopathic medicine, strongly associated with raw food movement and the raw milk movement
especially. They contend that most of the modern diseases we deal with are a result
of meat consumption and processing of our diet, including Pasteurizing our milk.
They thrive on the Internet, and in a small subculture of very vocal activists. I'll deal
with raw food-ism and raw milk in a separate video. I just wanted to demonstrate how these
very old ideas adapt to stay alive as quackery on the Internet and among alt med fringe groups.
How much of a threat do these people pose? Not much, so far. Like any small fringe group,
they lack much political power. But we must always be watchful of pseudoscience advocacy,
and address the fundamental fallacies of their claims. The last thing we need in the modern
age is another form of contentious fundamentalism, especially one that devalues such an important
principle of modern medicine.
Good health to you, and may all your germs be benevolent.
Thanks for watching.