RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $1050Goal: $3000

Talk:Germ theory denialism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon denialism.svg

This Denialism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png
Editorial notes

As is, the article doesn't warrant copper, as it does not have any subsections. However, if a subsection can be added, then I can bump this article up all the way to a bronze as it meets all the other criteria. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i had to do some of the background articles first. There's more, and perhaps User:TimS can help fix them up, but at least this way, this new article won't be full of red.--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 16:24, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Most who question 'germ theory'[edit]

Most who question 'germ theory' do not deny the role germs play in illness, as the author above suggests. The argument is whether exposure to germs is the primary cause of disease or it is the compromised immune system that is the main factor. Everyone is exposed to germs regularly, but not everyone gets sick. Should medicine focus on attacking germs and disease when they strike, or boosting the immune system naturally through regular preventive care? Which model provides greater profits to the medical and big-phrama industry? Often it is the process of attacking germs that causes more disease. Why inject toxic mercury into our blood with a vaccine when for most the risk from the 'cure' is greater than the risk of the disease? At the end of his life, Pasteur admitted that it was not the germs that mattered, but the medium in which they lived. — Unsigned, by: Jim1698 / talk / contribs

Just two minor nitpicks here. Firstly; no vaccine actually injects mercury into anyone. Even vaccines that encounter mercury as part of a preservative produce undetectable levels of mercury in a patient. And I know what "undetectable levels" are. Other than that, does it matter what Pasteur "admitted" at all? Science and medicine have moved on in the last 100 years, you know. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 18:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Jim1698 is JAQing off upon an unrelated topic; germ theory denialism is by definition those who deny the truth of germ theory, this being that microorganisms cause a number of illnesses in various ways, the most notable symptom of which is the immune system reaction against them. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Pasteur a shill for the wine industry?[edit]

Link on this? It's probably the most Poe-tastic shill gambit I can think of, except maybe "Geologist? Ha, you're just a shill for the pet rock industry!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we include Andrew Schlafly in the list of "germ theory deniers"?[edit]

After all, Andrew Schlafly did make inaccurate claims about handwashing, but did not outright say that germs do not cause disease.--Jry2001 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide your citations here so we can decide? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I added the citations. Bongolian (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)