Terrain Theory

Two hilariously different search answers.

Let’s say you wanted an introductory primer on a subject—any subject—the mating habits of the of the Blue-footed Booby, for example.

It’s a real bird. Check out those boobies…

Where would you go?

YouTube? Wikipedia? Would you ask Grok? Surely, you are not still “Googling” things, are you?

I’ve heard a lot of about Terrain Theory (vs. Germ Theory) over the past couple of years, and come across a lot of great sources (I listed some good starting points in the Further Reading/Viewing section below) but I was curious about the public-facing side of the theory. What does the uninitiated member of the public see when making a simple query about this “terrain theory” that their crazy uncle keeps ranting on about at Thanksgiving dinner? What do the public see on display when they step through the authorized storefront?

Well, the Wikipedia answer is pretty telling. It doesn’t even allow for such a storefront to exist. It immediately redirects your search to “Germ-theory denialism”.

Of course, we’re all familiar with this little rhetorical trick, aren’t we? Like “covid denier” or “AIDs denialism” or “climate change denier” it’s meant to assert the reality of the thing you want asserted without out the inconvenience of having to present any evidence for it.

The only evidence you need, apparently, is that questioning such things has been likened (by someone who has an interest in you not questioning them) to possessing a mental illness.

Well, if questioning knowledge claims is a mental illness, I guess I’m ready for my padded cell. Also populating my cell would be:

• Henry David Thoreau, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, Marcus Aurelius, Socrates, Jesus… and all the thinkers and historical figures who taught me to question things, basically;

• all the teachers and professors who taught me to analyze knowledge claims rather than just blindly eat them for breakfast;

• anyone in law enforcement who does not immediately release a crime suspect because they utter the claim “I didn’t do it”, but instead investigates the matter further (Dirty skeptics!);

• anyone who does not believe in the Easter bunny (“Easter bunny deniers”);

• anyone working to prove or disprove anything, in any field;

• anyone who voices disagreement on any subject matter.

A very populated cell, indeed, containing everyone on the planet who uses their cognitive faculties at all, for any reason. “Deniers” one and all.

Anywho, let’s see what Wikipedia has to say about these dirty “germ-theory deniers”:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

(Redirected from Terrain theory)

Germ theory denialism is the pseudoscientific belief that germs do not cause infectious disease, and that the germ theory of disease is wrong.[1] It usually involves arguing that Louis Pasteur's model of infectious disease was wrong, and that Antoine Béchamp's was right. In fact, its origins are rooted in Béchamp's empirically disproven (in the context of disease) theory of pleomorphism.[2] Another obsolete variation is known as terrain theory and postulates that germs morphologically change in response to environmental factors, subsequently causing disease, rather than germs being the sole cause of it.[3]

History

Germ theory denialism is as old as germ theory itself, beginning with the rivalry of Pasteur and Béchamp. Pasteur's work in preventing beverage contamination led him to discover that it was due to microorganisms and led him to become the first scientist to prove the validity of the theory and to popularize it in Europe.[2] Before him, scientists such as Girolamo Fracastoro (who had the idea that fomites could harbor the seeds of contagion), Agostino Bassi (who discovered that the muscardine disease of silkworms was caused by a fungus that was named Beauveria bassiana), Friedrich Henle (who developed the concepts of contagium vivum and contagium animatum), and others had proposed ideas similar to germ theory.[4][5]

Béchamp strongly contested Pasteur's view, proposing a competing idea known as the pleomorphic theory of disease. This theory says that all life is based on forms that a certain class of organisms take during stages of their life cycles and that germs are attracted to the environment of diseased tissue rather than being the cause of it.[6] Proponents of this idea insist that microbes that live in an organism go through the same stages of their development. According to Günther Enderlein, the stages are as follows:[7]

colloid – microbe (primitive phase)

bacteria (middle phase)

fungus (end phase)

Terrain theory

The terrain theory is a variation of Béchamp's ideas that is also an obsolete medical theory that held that diseases were caused by the composition of the body. The "terrain", will attract germs to come as scavengers of the weakened or poorly defended tissue. Béchamp believed that the pH of the body is important, and that an acidic pH will attract germs and an alkaline pH will repel them. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation with a series of experiments in the 1870s.[4] However, understanding the cause of a sickness does not always immediately lead to effective treatment of sickness, and the great decline in mortality during the 19th century stemmed mostly from improvements in hygiene and cleanliness. In fact, one of the first movements to deny the germ theory, the Sanitary Movement, was nevertheless central in developing America's public health infrastructure. Providing clean water and sanitation reduced the environment for pathogens to develop, and mortality rates fell dramatically.[8][9][10]

Status

Germ theory denialism is counter to over a century of experiments and practical observations, and the prevailing opinion of almost all doctors and scientists.[1][2][11]

A common thread among many alternative medicine proponents is opposition to vaccines, and some use their disbelief in germ theory to justify their claims.[12] Germ theory deniers make many claims about the biological underpinnings of the theory and the historical record[13][14] that are at odds with what most modern scientists and historians accept.[1][2][4][15] Another claim from the anti-vaccine community involves the theory that all diseases are caused by toxins due to inadequate diet and health practices.[16]

Okay, where to start…

First off, don’t you just love the neutral, unbiased tone of this Wikipedia entry? Sneering, contemptuous, condescending, as in you aren’t one of those numbskull chuckleheads that’s considering an alternative to germ theory, are you? It is peppered with terms such as “pseudoscientific”, “disproven”, “obsolete”, “counter to the prevailing opinion of almost all doctors and scientists”, and again “at odds with what most modern scientists and historians accept”.

“Pseudoscientific” is funny, because this generally means knowledge claims which are given a scientific veneer but have no evidence to support them… which is actually a perfect description of what germ theorists do, according to their critics.

The “disproven” claim is funny since the cited source of this grand scientific proclamation is an opinion piece so alike in its condescending, sneering tone to the Wikipedia entry that it makes it sound like they might share the selfsame author. (Also, in which the author reluctantly admits that Béchamp may not have been entirely wrong about everything).

Note too, the straw man fallacy: the proposed alternative to germ theory is Béchamp’s theory of pleomorphism, accompanied by a detailed breakdown of why pleomorphism is a load of bunkum. Well, no… the alternative to germ theory is ANY theory of disease which does not reduce disease to hostile microorganisms.

“Germ theory denialism is as old as germ theory itself”. This is too funny. Meaning, someone living at the same time that Pasteur made his claims disagreed with those claims.😂 One could say this about every single knowledge claim ever uttered that was not immediately accepted as incontrovertibly true by everyone within earshot. Let me now assert the existence of a creature called Flumpetywump. I won’t bore you with details of this beast, or evidence of its existence. Just be it known, from this point in history forward, anyone who does not agree to the existence of a Flumpteywump is proof that “Flumpetywump denialism” is as old as Flumpetwywump theory itself!

“Opposition to vaccines” Gasp! Shudder!! Again, like “denier”, this is meant to be such a heinous accusation of blasphemy that any further questioning of germ theory be terminated on the spot. If you question germ theory you will end up in the heretical camp of “anti-vaxxers”. You don’t want that, do you?? Well, Wikipedia, let’s think about this for a second: vaccines are predicated only on conferring supposed protection against an attacking, disease-causing agent called “germ”. So yes, I suppose it would be a “common thread” to question a germ-protecting industrial product, as well. It’s like saying that a “common thread” among non-Catholics is the denial of the Eucharist.

“Almost all doctors and scientists”, “most modern scientists and historians”. Okay, so “most”, but not all. So, you’re admitting, Wikipedia, that there are scientists, doctors, and historians who do not accept germ theory? Well, how interesting. I wonder what they have to say? This “consensus” crap is almost beneath comment. I already went to town on Neil DeGrasse Tyson for this nonsense, but basically, it is so blatantly an argumentum ad populum fallacy (claiming that a proposition must be true because many believe it), that I’m surprised anyone above a fourth grader takes it seriously. If “unpopularity” were a reason to reject scientific claims then shouldn’t it apply to Pasteur’s work as well, since the “consensus” at the time he published was not the germ theory of disease?

In fact, if consensus is the benchmark by which we test knowledge claims then we better start winding human knowledge backward in time to the very first time someone voiced their disagreement about anything. Clearly, no knowledge acquired since that halcyon era could possibly be valid, since it violated the perfect primordial “consensus” of the time.

Oh, and for a final tickle, look at the context links provided at the end of the “Terrain theory redirected to Germ-theory denialism” Wikipedia page:

See also:

Vaccine hesitancy

HIV/AIDS denialism

COVID-19 misinformation

Category:Germ theory denialists

Hygiene hypothesis

Pleomorphism (microbiology)

Paints a picture, doesn’t it? It reads like a list of mortal sins. Repent, sinner!

Moving on. Let’s take a look at the answer provided to me on “Terrain Theory” by Brave AI.

Right away we can note that Brave AI acknowledges that such a theory actually exists (rather than just being a species of mental illness called “denialism”.)

Terrain Theory

Terrain Theory, also known as “milieu interne” or “environmental theory,” proposes that the internal environment or “terrain” of an individual plays a crucial role in determining their susceptibility to disease. This theory contrasts with the widely accepted Germ Theory, which focuses solely on the role of microorganisms as the primary cause of illness.

Key Principles:

1. The body’s internal environment: Terrain Theory emphasizes the importance of the body’s internal environment, including factors such as nutrition, digestion, gut health, stress levels, and overall physiology, in determining its ability to resist or succumb to disease.

2. Microbial balance: The theory suggests that the balance of microorganisms within the body, including both beneficial and pathogenic species, is critical in maintaining health. An imbalance, or “dysbiosis,” can lead to disease.

3. Environmental factors: Terrain Theory acknowledges that environmental factors, such as diet, lifestyle, and exposure to toxins, can influence the body’s internal environment and contribute to disease.

4. Individual variability: The theory recognizes that individuals have unique internal environments, shaped by their genetic predispositions, lifestyle, and environmental exposures, which affect their susceptibility to disease.

Implications:

1. Prevention and treatment: Terrain Theory suggests that prevention and treatment strategies should focus on maintaining a healthy internal environment, rather than solely targeting pathogens. This may involve dietary changes, stress management, and gut health support.

2. Holistic approach: The theory encourages a holistic approach to healthcare, considering the interplay between multiple factors, including nutrition, lifestyle, and environmental exposures, to understand and address disease.

3. Critique of Germ Theory: Terrain Theory challenges the exclusive focus on germ-killing as the primary means of disease prevention and treatment, recognizing that an unhealthy internal environment can still lead to disease even in the absence of pathogens.

Historical Context:

Terrain Theory has its roots in the 19th century, particularly in the work of French scientist Antoine Béchamp, who proposed that microorganisms adapt to their environment and can thrive in a diseased body. This idea was later developed by Claude Bernard, who emphasized the importance of the internal environment in determining health.

Modern Relevance:

In recent years, Terrain Theory has gained renewed attention due to advances in microbiome research and the recognition of the critical role of the gut microbiome in overall health. The theory’s emphasis on environmental factors, individual variability, and holistic approaches to healthcare resonates with contemporary concerns about the limitations of Germ Theory and the need for more comprehensive understanding of disease mechanisms.

In Conclusion:

Terrain Theory offers a valuable perspective on disease, highlighting the importance of the internal environment and microbial balance in determining health. By considering the interplay between environmental factors, individual variability, and microbial dynamics, Terrain Theory provides a framework for developing more effective prevention and treatment strategies that address the complex interdependencies within the human body.

Well, golly gumdrops. That’s quite the switch in tone.

Hilariously different, actually.

This makes Terrain Theory sound fact-oriented, valuable, plausible, relevant.

It makes you wonder how we could possibly have a coherent theory of human health and disease which:

• denies the importance of nutrition, digestion, stress levels, and overall physiology;

• denies the importance of the gut health and microbiome;

• denies the importance of environment, lifestyle, and exposure to toxins;

• denies the existence of individual variability and treats all patients the same regardless of circumstance;

• denies a holistic approach to treatment, instead focusing exclusively on bug-killing.

Having read both the Wikipedia and the Brave AI response, one is forced to ask:

Who are the “deniers” in this scenario, really? Who is guilty of “pseudoscience”? Of being “obsolete” or “irrelevant”? Of appealing to logical fallacies to make their argument?

And, one also might be inclined to ask, in the time humanity has turned away from “terrain” as being relevant to disease, and toward “health” exclusively as winning a war against the microbial world:

• What has happened to human health? Is is better, or worse?

• What has happened to “medicine”? Does medicine actually help those who are treated with it? What are their health outcomes? Does it heal? Or does it poison, injure, or even kill?

• What has happened to healthcare practitioners? Have they become better, more knowledgeable healers? Or have they become better footsoldiers for industry?

• Has healthcare become more efficient and affordable and available to more people, or has it become prohibitively expensive for most people and fantastically profitable for huge corporations?

• Has the research and understanding of human health and disease grown or advanced? Or has it become more mystifying and seem as if we are losing the war to disease entirely?

Of course, we conspiracy theorists pattern recognitionists can’t help but spot the old familiar tale here:

1. Put forth as synonymous with revealed, unquestionable orthodoxy a theory with such a terrible track record of success (and so badly in contradiction to the evidence, contrary to good sense, contrary to the interests of humanity—yet curiously very much in the interests of an oligarchical ruling class) that it’s a wonder anyone takes it seriously; and…

2. Denounce, ridicule, shame and equate with plain idiocy, heresy, child killing and probable devil worship any theory which opposes it, or even the mere act of questioning it.

---

Of course Wikipedia is hilariously biased, but perhaps you don’t trust Brave or any other AI as an alternative. Given that the AI models out there are more focused on learning the language patterns of the user, this is probably wise.

If we really want to know the mating habits of the Blue-footed Booby maybe the best solution, as ever, is to hire a boat for the Galapagos and go observe them for ourselves.

---

Further Reading/Viewing:

💥 Your Terrain Is Trash, Darling

Bursting The Germ Theory Bubble

How Illness Actually Spreads

Settling the Virus Debate

The Final Pandemic

Mind control and viruses—another bottom line

The arguments for “NO VIRUS” - PART 12. Dr. Mike Yeadon : Believe it or not, the entire field of virology is fraudulent. And: The point of view of Prof. Denis Rancourt.

I Have a Few Questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson Regarding Scientific Consensus

Ten Rules for a Conspiracy Observer

---

YOU make Think for Yourself possible with your subscriptions. If you believe in the work being done here and want to show your support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:

Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:

Or donate some crypto:

Bitcoin Address:

3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA

Follow JET on the Socials:

• Twitter

• Notes

Thanks for reading!