Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Germ Theory Denialism


If you mention the phrase "scientific theory" during a debate with someone who is fairly ignorant regarding matters of science, they will almost always focus upon the term "theory" as if this suggests the concept is just someones opinion. It doesn't matter if you are speaking about the theory of relativity, gravitational theory, the theory of evolution, climate change theory, atomic theory, or yes even the germ theory of disease - as soon as the term theory is heard, people come out of the woodwork to claim these theories are not fact because if a concept was able to be proven it would no longer be considered to be merely a theory.

Because of this, it is probably a good idea to explain what a scientific theory actually is. Per the United States National Academy of Sciences, scientific theory can be described as follows:
In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
In this respect it seems clear why many scientific theories can never be considered scientific fact because the areas of study are constantly evolving and research is ongoing. We may never fully understand gravitational theory, but we do know how an object will react if we toss it into the air.

Similarly, the American Association for the Advancement of Science has stated the following surrounding scientific theory:
Scientists strive to make sense of observations of phenomena by constructing explanations for them that use, or are consistent with, currently accepted scientific principles. Such explanations—theories—may be either sweeping or restricted, but they must be logically sound and incorporate a significant body of scientifically valid observations. The credibility of scientific theories often comes from their ability to show relationships among phenomena that previously seemed unrelated.
In fact, scientific theory "are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form" of scientific knowledge that humans possess. Scientists aren't treating these theories as hypotheses nor are they considering them to be nothing more than educated guesses. Scientific theories require specific criteria to be met including the requirement that the theory be well supported by independent strands of evidence rather that by one lone source and that the theory be makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy.

Thus with this in mind, one can only shake their head in disbelief when someone proclaims that they don't accept a mutually accepted scientific theory. Believe it or not there are those among us who deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun (heliocentrism), just as there are those among us who deny that an apple will fall from a tree and strike the ground beneath it (gravity). In most cases these people are simply ignored because most people have accepted these theories as scientific fact.

However in some cases, due in no small part to simply ignorance of the subject matter and/or ignorance to the entire concept of microbiology, you find people who deny that microbes cause disease (germ theory), and they often choose to travel back in time to the 1800s as they attempt to rewrite history to proclaim that Louis Pasteur's germ theory was a sham and that Antoine Béchamp's theory was the correct one.

Obviously much has been written about germ theory, but the simple version is Pasteur believed the microbe caused the disease while Béchamp believed the disease caused the microbe. Béchamp simply did not accept the belief that bacteria could create disease in a host and instead he felt the disease would in turn produce the bacteria which could then be detected.

In the 1800s there was room for debate, because they lacked many of the tools and techniques afforded the modern day scientist, and even though Béchamp's theories rendered him to the shadows of obscurity, with modern methods science has shown Pasteur's theory to be the correct one. The book is closed, the jury has ruled, the facts are in, and surely nobody would bother to challenge accepted scientific theory right?

Wrong.

In fact, there are those on the lunatic fringe who do exactly that. Many anti-vaccinationists have latched on to the idea that Béchamp's germ theory is the correct one whereas Pasteur was wrong all along. If there was any doubt, Lowell Hubbs is one of these people... because where would a great medical or scientific conspiracy be without our good friend Mr. Hubbs.

I'm not posting this to debate germ theory, because frankly it is accepted science, and there is no use in trying to engage in a debate over accepted science. Rather, I post this because it shows an anti-vaxxer has no shame. I use this as but one example of how anti-vaxxers will go out of their way to ignore even the most basic scientific facts in order to push their own viewpoints.

Don't bother asking these people how diseases are spread from person to person because if you don’t believe in the accepted germ theory, and if the bacteria are caused by the disease itself, how exactly would it be transmitted to another host? Perhaps even more curious is how a simple cut on one's finger could become infected if it were not for the transmission of bacteria?

If these germ theory denialists are to be believed, then antibiotics shouldn't actually help treat or cure any disease, because they would simply attack the microbe itself and never touch the underlying condition which was producing the microbe. So how exactly can they describe antibiotics or antibacterial agents?

How does a germ theory denialist explain how entire groups of people become sick by eating tainted tomatoes or spinach. The whole thing makes me wonder if these people head to Central America on vacation and dare to drink the water. Hey... if microbes are a symptom rather than a root cause, what is there to be afraid of?

I challenge any germ theory denier, including but not limited to Lowell Hubbs, to listen to the following video and not come away with it questioning their silly ideas.


Ahhh... who am I kidding? We all know anyone who denies the most basic scientific premise is not likely to use logic as part of their thought process.

11 comments:

  1. Don't forget to publish ALL of it!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry Mr. Hubbs, besides the fact your rather verbose comments were flagged as spam, I don't debate matters of accepted science... at least not with the likes of you.

    You aren't able to address the issues with how antibiotics work or how tainted food can make people sick because Béchamp's theories fall apart when you try to explain these issues.

    You are free to discuss pleomorphism on your own website, but monomorphic theory is universally accepted in the scientific community, and that isn't going to change merely because some scientifically illiterate vaccine conspiracy theorist who has not one single day of post-secondary education or time in an actual lab environment read something on the Internet and suddenly claims to be an expert on the subject of microbiology.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Did he try another gish gallop of incomprehensible babble?

    In other words, the usual?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, and when I didn't publish it, he decided to start trying to comment anonymously (without using his Google ID) complaining about it. Sadly, he is back to the sockpuppet game but isn't smart enough to understand his verb usage is as detailed as a fingerprint.

    Not that I mind really - it just helps to solidify his reputation as a liar when he refers to himself in the third person and pretends to be someone else. For a guy always so concerned with identity, you might think he wouldn't need to pretend to be so many different people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You were not sent anything from me since the said reply post you refused to publish, because it was to much truth. And how many times have you falsely accused that before when the information disagreed with and opposed your stupidity. But then of course as well, if you never publish anything, you can keep on with your sick lying about what was there.

    Here is something more added that you should publish and let the readers themselves decide who is right.

    The Biological Transformation of a Red Blood Cell To Bacteria
    All matter is resistant. Why? Because matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, matter can only change its form and/or function. The antibiotics, which are acidic waste products of fermentation, used to so-call kill bacteria can only change the bacteria NOT kill the bacteria. The unfortunate thing is many Doctors do not understand this simple principal - germs DO NOT cause disease. Germs are only the expression of the degeneration or change of matter. It is important to understand that disease is a consequence of acidic lifestyle and dietary choice. You DO NOT get sick YOU DO sick! So who cares about 'Superbugs' They are nothing more than the biological transformation of human, animal or plant matter! Such 'Super Alkalarians' never have to worry about so-called 'Superbugs' because they NEVER get sick. Alkalarians understand that the alkaline terrain is everything and the germ is NOTHING. Just like Bechamp put around forth 100 years ago and modern medicine refuses to accept. They refuse to accept it because the result would bring forth true physiological understanding of the human body and as well would result in a major upset of the current chemicals used only, pharmaceutical apple cart. Meaning their credibility would end up in the trash heap and as well their billion dollar profits would end up taking major losses. Its all about money and to much to lose.

    The Biological Transformation of a Rod Bacteria
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQnWvaQCr-w

    Now you can view for the first time the biological transformation of a rod bacteria into a living blood cell as video taped under a microscope by Dr. Robert Young.

    PLEOMORPHIC CHANGE OF BACTERIA IN LIVE BLOOD: ULTRA DARKFIELD MICROSCOPY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz1u1tJlHfs

    Pleomorphism
    http://youtu.be/_gAiHSikIR4

    Live blood cell analysis. Dr. Robert Young
    http://youtu.be/S3oleKrSCwc

    pH Miracle Living
    http://www.phmiracleliving.com/

    https://www.facebook.com/phmiraclelife

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. Hubbs, I've posted your comment for a few reasons. Number one, it shows how disconnected from reality you are and that you still refuse to acknowledge accepted science. Honestly if you don't believe germs cause disease then nothing I can say will change your mind because you are incapable of understanding basic concepts of science or even history for that matter. You draft your own version of reality, and clearly you are willing to accept at face value anything someone posts on the Internet provided it is anti-vaccine or anti-mainstream medicine. Sadly you aren't a deep enough thinker to question the information you are reading, and it likely has never occurred to you to explain how something like the common cold is spread from person to person.

    Either way, I'm not going to debate factual matters of science with you, because there is no benefit trying to debate fact.

    Secondly, I post your comment to show once again that you are a liar. You claim you didn't send any comments anonymously, however several of those "anonymous" comments are complaining I didn't post the comments from "Hubbs" on several blog pages here - each comment posted on a very specific blog page that you recently attempted to post comments to... therefore unless you are "anonymous" you would have no idea that I didn't publish those very specific comments from "Hubbs".

    Then to make matters worse, you even complain when I refuse to publish the "anonymous" comments. Are you really that ignorant Mr. Hubbs?

    I don't expect honesty from you Mr. Hubbs, because you have shown in the past you are incapable of telling the truth. Just as you recently claimed I had to change this blog due to the "Feds" which is something you obviously invented in your own mind as you can clearly see both the old and new blog URLs are functioning. I didn't receive an apology from you when you lied about that, because liars never admit when they are caught lying... they just lie about it even more.

    However if you are going to post comments as someone else in the future, you might want to refrain from using the EXACT SAME PHRASES that you have included in your comments many times in the past. Not only the same words Mr. Hubbs, but the EXACT SAME SENTENCES and even the same verb usage. Then it is probably best to not complain using your "Lowell Hubbs" username when I don't post those anonymous comments.

    And for the love of all things holy, please learn the difference between the word "to", and the word "too". I've known fifth graders with a higher level of grammatical understanding.

    Anyway, this is why you and your anti-vaccine compatriots cannot be taken seriously Mr. Hubbs. Because you play these little games and try to pretend as if you are more than one person. You engage in sockpuppet commenting as you defend yourself, and when caught red handed (as you have been so many times in the past) you actually go out of your way to lie about being a liar. I've mentioned in the past that I personally have documented over 50 usernames used by you here and elsewhere, and yet you run around complaining about people with no identity.

    Thee doth protest too much, methinks.

    (That is a clever way of saying you've been busted, and you're a hypocrite... not that I expect you to understand the flavor of Shakespeare)

    Sorry Mr. Hubbs, but I'm not going to engage a liar on this blog. I simply haven't the time for it, so once again you are banned from commenting until which time you are able to submit an apology for lying about posting comments as "anonymous". Since liars aren't likely to admit they are liars, I'm guessing this is the last we will be hearing from you.

    Wish I could say you will be missed, but perhaps this will give you time to reflect upon your behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Transformation of a red blood cell to a bacteria?

    Really?

    So... where does the phospholipid bilayer come from? You said yourself matter is neither created nor destroyed - where does the sterols, cholesterols, etc come from in the red blood cell?

    Hell, where does the bacterial nucleus come from, since it doesn't exist in a blood cell?

    I didn't think it was possible to write so much stupid in such a little space, but once again you've surpassed all expectations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous, you will have to excuse Mr. Hubbs... he doesn't have even the most basic understanding of cell structures or microbiology and everything he writes is simply a misunderstanding of something he read (and copied) from alt-med websites. He has mastered the art of the "cut and paste" but without the knowledge to interpret what he is reading it tends to get a tad messy.

    It's sad actually... I almost have to feel pity for him. Almost.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've seen him dump a gish gallop on a number of sites, usually they're HaLf DONE in CAPS as if that makes everything the TROOF (tm).

    He is definitely not a stable individual - but again, that's why I won't put my name or a linkback to my blog - because I know he's a stalker.

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-08-19/schoolchildren-vaccinations/57146910/1?loc=interstitialskip

    More lunacy from Lowell.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sadly that is his game. Paste loads of misinformation and blatant falsehoods based upon a willful ignorance of reality, and when pressed for evidence he relies upon anti-vaxxer websites and quotes from quacks. Lowell knows he can't support his views with science so he just makes wild claims using information that has been debunked countless times before.

    Mr. Hubbs doesn't care about facts... He just wants to push his agenda. In a forum where logical fallacies aren't allowed... he has no chance and is laughed out of the room. Just ask him how well he has done on websites that actually understand science and are full of people with IQs over 100.

    ReplyDelete

All comments are moderated and comments from obvious sockpuppet accounts as well as spam accounts that do not add anything of value to the discussion will not be published.