We dont see *viruses* doing that. And we dont see bacteria doing that either.
We DO see bacteria invading the body and then see a response. Terrain theory posits that the bacteria dying releases matter that causes cellular response if the body is disregulated. Its essentially a different way to look at the underlying cause of the same phenomena.
We have never seen a live virus. You cant see living things in an electron microscope.
Not of the same thing. Any "sequence of action" captured my electron microscope would be different samples cooled together.
Look, im not saying it isn't right. Im saying that there are flaws in the theory that need to be understood and addressed, and we as critical thinking white men need to be made aware that these questions exist and have validity. This shouldn't be an either or argument but a collaborative discussion.
23 days ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
Yes there would be multiple stages of action seen within a single sample due to the size of microbiology.
I believe that elements of terrain theory are demonstrated within germ theory, as in immune compromise and opportunistic infection, all infection can be see as opportunistic, but I don't see there being the generation of pathogens from benign microbes due to the presence of diseased tissue. The microbial nature doesn't change, just the body's ability to regulate it. So in times of dysfunction, infectious pathogens become overpopulated and cause symptoms. You can see that with candida where it exists naturally on our skin but becomes a yeast infection when overgrown.
Ah you mean in one single shot. Yes I've seen those and also can be explained by them being exosomes. Proteins that cause a response on the cell, or a natural response we cant yet understand because we can see it in real time. And that wouldn't undercut the value of symptomatic treatments, either. Germ theory has created life saving treatments. Terrain theory seeks to prevent their need. Both have merit, but only one is profitable.
Terrain theory says that bacteria are a stage of development of microorganisms that exist within us already in a benign state and just transform upon arrival at diseased tissue into a pathogen. So if you see the bacteria arriving and causing disease you are a proponent of germ theory.
We DO see bacteria invading the body and then see a response. Terrain theory posits that the bacteria dying releases matter that causes cellular response if the body is disregulated. Its essentially a different way to look at the underlying cause of the same phenomena.
We have never seen a live virus. You cant see living things in an electron microscope.
Look, im not saying it isn't right. Im saying that there are flaws in the theory that need to be understood and addressed, and we as critical thinking white men need to be made aware that these questions exist and have validity. This shouldn't be an either or argument but a collaborative discussion.
I believe that elements of terrain theory are demonstrated within germ theory, as in immune compromise and opportunistic infection, all infection can be see as opportunistic, but I don't see there being the generation of pathogens from benign microbes due to the presence of diseased tissue. The microbial nature doesn't change, just the body's ability to regulate it. So in times of dysfunction, infectious pathogens become overpopulated and cause symptoms. You can see that with candida where it exists naturally on our skin but becomes a yeast infection when overgrown.