Vultures, Crows and Flies

by Dan Schultz, DC

The vaccine theory is an idea that one can circumvent contracting a "disease" by stimulating the immune system in an indirect way.  When one is evaluating the importance or validity of medical interventions like vaccines, it may be wise to first evaluate the merit of its fundamental principles.   

History tells us that vaccine theory developed soon after Pasteur popularized germs and the germ theory of disease, of course.  If germ theory is inappropriate to explain illness or health, then the foundation of vaccine interventions may be a poor one indeed.  It could be predicted, then, that such a house of cards might soon fall, and from my study of this subject, I believe that this is the case. We will see the end of the vaccine era in my lifetime.

The classic argument against the simple idea of germs causing disease is one that Bechamp and Bernard, Pasteur’s contemporaries and philosophical rivals vigorously promoted. Unlike Pasteur, they claimed that changes in the soil, or internal environment, were responsible for illness, not the seed (germs).  It can be effectively argued that if the internal environment is strong, clean and functionally up to the task, no germ can take hold – and there is ample evidence to support this. In short, truly healthy people don’t get sick.  Even today, scientific minds proclaim that “if the germ theory of disease were true, there would be no one left to tell about it.”

But before examining the science -- or lack of science – in respect to this topic there is great value in understanding why Pasteur succeeded in winning over his contemporaries and how vaccination became accepted so quickly then and so readily today.

First and foremost, it's simple.  The germ theory of disease is easy to understand.  It necessitates a specific germ is responsible for each specific disease.   Is it too simple?

Promulgating health -- executing a balanced, harmonious lifestyle -- can be confusingly complex.  It’s an inward journey and all journeys take time and effort.  There can be numerous factors to consider like designing and following healthful dietary regimens, managing mental and emotional stresses, avoidance of toxicity, and maintaining structural integrity.  It’s much easier to believe that microscopic germ cause disease.  This seems to make perfect sense because technology has allowed us to see the germs, and they’re almost always present with disease.  It’s simplistic thinking that requires little thought.  Flies, crows and buzzards are present at every road kill, but they’re not the cause of death. It’s easy to accept that illness is caused as a single entity outside oneself -- and it’s convenient, too.

If one has been so unfortunate as to find himself or herself on a path of overindulgence, dysfunction, or illness it's difficult to make changes.  Change is hard.  The simple explanation of why one might be sick absolves responsibility.  Human beings tend to dislike admissions of fault.  Being unwittingly misled or unwisely unaware is embarrassing.  Blaming it on an invisible, single-celled, brainless, faceless organism of which there are countless numbers to spread the blame is easy.

Yet simplistic thinking often misses. This doesn't mean that one may be dim or unintelligent at all.  Descartes was a brilliant man of knowledge and science, yet he concluded that body heat must be produced from man's central cardiovascular center, the heart.  He was completely incorrect, but the idea held favor for quite sometime.  Simplistic thinking may be wrong most of the time.

Comments

[Dr. Andrea Brisson]

This article is right on! Knowing the fallicy that germs cause disease, your explanation reinforces such information and explains it a new and improved way that I will share with my patients. Thank you for such a great webiste!

[Nick]

Hi,
I've been looking at this area for a few weeks now and my poor befuddled brain is totally confused. Could someone help explain this to me. "germs don't cause disease". Hmm. So when the child "catches" chicken pox from another child, it was not caused by germs or the chicken pox virus. I can see that the virus might not take hold if the child were sufficiently "robust", but surely the agent of disease must have been the virus.
When the Spanish invaded South America, the indigenous population suffered heavy deaths, it is thought, by the small pox and chicken pox virus. So if it was not the germs that killed them what did? I saw a picture of a native girl who had been preserved by some fluke from this period. Her teeth and skin were perfect, indicating a healthy diet & lifestyle. So if it was not the virus that killed them what did?

Are you saying that the description of the immune system in A&P books is totally fabricated? We do not have cells that detect and destroy invading organisms? Do we have natural killer cells that destroy non-U proteins. Do we not need immune system suppressants to avoid the body rejecting transplanted organs?

I have read that it is the pH of the blood that kills the micro organisms - is that so? The next step of saying that an alkalising diet would restore pH to protective levels difficult to fathom. The body regulates ECF pH via the lungs and kidneys (provided it sufficient minerals at its disposal.

Surely the immune system must exist and protect us from invading organisms. However, I believe that evolution conferred defensive mechanisms on the individual cells that make up our bodies. These cells depend on the correct balance of nutrients in the ECF that feeds them. Evolution made it so because the nutrients were always present. Cellular health also depends on having their waste removed. Invasion of the cells by external agents (virus, bacteria, toxins, parasites) is the ultimate cause of disease - but sometimes it is the cells of the bloodstream that are invaded (eg macrophages in malaria) and cells of the immune system (HIV).

So I still believe that "germs" exist and cause disease by seriously impairing cellular function or destroying them entirely. Germs are not the only agents of disease. So why is it that people claim that the immune system does not kill them?

I am still prepared to believe that vaccination does not work - simply because of lack of evidence that is does, and other evidence that it does not. However, this does not imply there is no immune system as described in A&P books. So if germs do not cause disease, how does measles transfer to another child? If there were no immune system, how does increasing resistance by exposure to "germs" increase resistance?

Also on one hand it is argued that vacination is ineffective, but the "disease" can be caused by vaccination. Surely the vaccine containing the virus is then the causitive agent - but then this could not have caused any disease, because "germs do not cause disease".

The arguments do not seem logical.

I must be missing something. I'd be grateful if someone would enlighten me.