The SHN #46: Has the Germ Theory of Disease Been Proven?

Welcome back to The Synergetic Health Newsletter! 

In this edition, we’ll explore Dr. Tom Cowan’s New Biology and why germs don’t cause illness.

Then comes misplaced priorities, mobility, EMF, optimism, and more!

Joe Burt

🦠 Is Germ Theory Correct?

*I have since researced this subject in depth and no longer believe in the conclusions made in this post. But I’m going to leave it here. I wasn’t careful what sources I used to find this information and it’s a lesson learned.

For over a century, the germ theory of disease has been the dominant paradigm in modern medicine. This theory states that many diseases are caused by the presence and actions of specific microorganisms within the body, and that these diseases can be transmitted from person to person through exposure to infected individuals or their bodily fluids. The germ theory has shaped our understanding of infectious illness and guided public health measures like quarantines and vaccination.

One look at the history of medical research reveals that the evidence for the germ theory is not as conclusive as commonly believed. In fact, there have been numerous experiments and studies (100+), spanning over a century, that have failed to prove the concept of contagion - the transmission of disease through direct contact with infected individuals or material.

In the mid-1800s, Dr. Charles Creighton, a prominent British epidemiologist, concluded after an extensive review that there was "no proof of the existence of any contagious principles" for diseases like smallpox and measles. Creighton based this assessment on the repeated failure of intentional experiments that aimed to transmit diseases to healthy individuals through inoculation with infected matter.

The trend of inconclusive contagion experiments continued into the early 1900s. In several studies, researchers tried to infect healthy subjects with fluids from polio, measles, chickenpox, and influenza patients, often using direct inoculation into the nose, throat, and eyes. Surprisingly, the majority of those exposed did not develop the diseases.

For example, in 1918, Sellards attempted to infect eight healthy men by injecting them with blood from measles patients - all eight men remained well. That same year, Hess & Unger conducted three experiments in which nasal and tonsillar secretions from chickenpox patients were applied to the nostrils, throats, and eyes of healthy children - none developed chickenpox.

In 1919, Dr. Rosenau tried to prove the contagious nature of influenza at a U.S. Navy base. He had healthy sailors drink mucus secretions from acutely ill influenza patients, swabbed the secretions in their nose and throat, and even injected blood from the sick. Yet not a single man fell ill.

The failure to demonstrate contagion was especially notable in polio. A 1914 medical journal stated "There is no proof that spontaneous transmission of acute poliomyelitis, without an inoculation wound, can take place. There is no proof that contact contagion takes place. Spontaneous development of the disease among laboratory animals is unknown."

In experiments, even monkeys kept in close quarters and intimate association with paralyzed monkeys did not develop polio. Flexner and Lewis found intentional injection of infected spinal cord fluid often failed to induce paralysis in monkeys as well.

The lack of consistent transmission in these historical experiments raises major questions about the validity of the germ theory as the primary explanation for the spread of infectious diseases. If the mere presence of pathogenic microbes was sufficient to cause illness, why did so many subjects remain healthy despite direct inoculation?

Additionally, an extensive list documents over 150 experiments carried out carefully and scientifically from 1914-1918 that showed absolutely no signs of disease following exposure to germs like diphtheria, pneumonia, typhoid, meningitis and tuberculosis. The germs used included pure cultures. These eye-opening results led researchers to suppose that germs were simply byproducts of disease and possibly harmless.

Admittedly, the crude methods of many historical experiments limit their direct applicability to modern science. There are documented instances of researchers successfully demonstrating transmission under specific conditions. The evidence is mixed and often inconclusive.

However, these historical examples highlight the need for a more holistic view of infectious disease that looks beyond the mere presence of germs. A simplistic one-germ-one-disease model fails to account for the complex interplay of host, environment, and microbes in health and illness.

Alternative frameworks, such as the terrain theory, propose that the internal environment of the body is the primary determinant of disease. When the body's natural balance and vitality is disrupted, opportunistic microbes can overgrow and cause illness. But in a state of good health and homeostasis, the same microbes may coexist harmlessly or even beneficially.

Factors like nutrition, stress, toxicity, lifestyle, and socioeconomic conditions all influence individual and collective susceptibility to disease. A healthy body with a robust terrain may not succumb to infection even with high levels of pathogenic exposure. Conversely, a compromised system can fall ill under much lower microbial loads.

More research is needed to elucidate the precise mechanisms of infection and the many factors that determine individual outcomes. A review and reanalysis of the historical experiments that failed to prove contagion seems warranted.

Rather than defaulting to a germ-centric view, we must investigate the multifactorial nature of disease with an open mind. Empirical observations should drive theory, not the other way around. Ignoring or hand-waving away the substantial body of contrary evidence will only stifle progress.

Ultimately, the available evidence suggests that the germ theory, while useful in certain contexts, is woefully incomplete as a universal model of disease. Its wholesale acceptance as dogma is not justified.

By challenging entrenched beliefs and following the data, even when it defies orthodoxy, we can expand the frontiers of medical knowledge. Integrating the best of both germ and terrain theory, while rigorously testing their premises, may open up new avenues for understanding and treating disease. Our goal should be to develop a comprehensive, empirically-grounded model that accounts for the full complexity of the disease process.

Only by thinking outside the box and having the courage to question established dogma can we hope to advance medical science. The stakes are too high to cling to flawed models.

*I have since researced this subject in depth and no longer believe in the conclusions made in this post. But I’m going to leave it here. I wasn’t careful what sources I used to find this information and it’s a lesson learned.

🧬 The New Biology

I’ve long been a fan of Dr. Tom Cowan, a well-known alternative medicine doctor, author, and speaker. He has written six books, has given countless lectures and workshops throughout the country on a range of subjects in health and medicine, and is the founder of the New Biology Clinic.

What is the “New Biology”?

“Mainstream science, especially modern biology, is often based on incorrect models and anti-scientific methods and thinking...and humans, plants and animals have never been "sicker." The world of plants, animals, people, and the entire earth is crying out for a New Biology, a new understanding of life.

Mainstream doctors give vaccines and antiviral medications, and endorse quarantines, social distancing, and mask-wearing, based on core misconceptions about viruses and contagion. “Viral” theory is not the only house of cards; concepts such as the “immune system,” membrane-bound receptors and nano-pumps and motors also rest on faulty science. Tragically, “alternative,” “holistic” or “functional” medicine, while a positive step forward, often cannot lead to the restoration of health. What is needed is not more medicines, herbs, infusions, or other interventions based on flawed concepts, but a new biology, or rather, a reawakening of the old biology.”

Dr. Cowan believes that the current medical system is based on disproven hypotheses and incorrect assumptions. The system relies on the belief in viruses causing diseases, immune system stimulation, and other unproven theories. This approach leads to misdiagnoses and ineffective treatments.

To reiterate, Cowan is insistent that the germ theory of disease has never been proven and is totally made up. There remains no proof that you “catch” a virus from someone else.

In this interview, Cowan goes into detail about the absurdity of the medical community who claim that germ theory is settled science.

In his New Biology approach, the focus is on understanding the body’s natural healing processes and addressing the underlying cause rather than just the symptoms. In addition, the approach is highly customized and personal while emphasizing the interconnectedness of physical, emotional, and spiritual health in promoting overall well-being.

Cowan’s clinic is firmly rooted in science-backed approaches which do include methods like grounding, reducing EMF exposure, drinking clean water and eating clean food, engaging in electric health therapies like biofield tuning, sunlight exposure, movement and exercise, meditation, and more.

Best of all, he’s a good dude . It’s not easy being in his position of questioning the prevailing narratives, and he does so with a smile and a humility which is cool to see.

Check out his blog
Check out his podcast
Check out his interview “Challenging your beliefs about what makes you sick & how the body heals”
Check out the New Biology curriculum

*I have since researced this subject in depth and no longer believe in the conclusions made in this post. But I’m going to leave it here. I wasn’t careful what sources I used to find this information and it’s a lesson learned.

🤔 So, Now What?

If germs actually don’t cause disease, as the historical evidence suggests, what practical implications does this have for the average person? How might this knowledge inform our daily choices and priorities?

• Prioritize overall health: If the internal environment of the body is a key determinant of disease susceptibility, then supporting all aspects of health should be the top priority. This means focusing on nutrient-dense whole foods, regular physical activity, quality sleep, stress management, emotional well-being, and minimizing toxic exposures.

• Overhaul the over-sanitization obsession: The approach of attempting to destroy all microbes from our environment is misguided. Excessive use of antibiotics, harsh cleaners, and sterile environments can disrupt the balance of our bodies and surroundings.

• Reframe our relationship with germs: Instead of viewing all microbes as enemies, we may need a more nuanced relationship. Recognizing that many microbes are neutral or even beneficial can help shift our perspective and alleviate unnecessary fear and germaphobia.

*I have since researced this subject in depth and no longer believe in the conclusions made in this post. But I’m going to leave it here. I wasn’t careful what sources I used to find this information and it’s a lesson learned.

🍕 Don’t Steal My Pizza

Despite widespread belief and expert consensus, there is no empirical evidence that fluids from a sick person cause illness in a healthy individual.

People often cite personal anecdotes as proof, saying, "I got sick right after someone else, so I must have caught it from them." This reasoning is an "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy, assuming an unproven premise: If X (exposure to a sick person), then Y (illness); Y occurred, therefore X caused it.

Imagine you're a detective investigating a burglary. You notice that the burglar left behind a half-eaten pizza at the crime scene. Later that day, you spot your neighbor eating pizza and immediately conclude that they must be the burglar. You've fallen into the same logical trap: If X (the burglar) then Y (pizza left at the scene), Y (neighbor eating pizza), therefore X (neighbor is the burglar).

Just like in this example, the presence of pizza doesn't necessarily mean your neighbor committed the crime. There could be numerous other explanations: maybe they just really like pizza, or perhaps there was a pizza party on your street that day. Jumping to conclusions based on a single shared factor, while ignoring other possibilities, is like assuming that being exposed to a sick person's fluids automatically leads to illness.

In both cases, the faulty logic is assuming causation based on correlation and failing to consider alternative explanations.

While it's tempting to attribute illness to exposure to a sick person's fluids, this assumption is based on faulty logic and lacks evidence. Just as we shouldn't accuse someone of burglary solely because they enjoy pizza, we must not jump to conclusions about disease transmission without considering alternative explanations.

If you want to chat more about this, I’d love to!

Two books on the subject:
“An End to Upside Down Medicine: Contagion, Viruses, and Vaccines—and Why Consciousness Is Needed for a New Paradigm of Health” by Mark Gober
“Can You Catch a Cold?” by Daniel Roytas

𝕏 Thread of the Week

💡 Artificial Light at Night is Significantly Correlated to All Forms of Cancer: "This study found that artificial light at night leads to cancer causation in humans, even after adjusting for population size, particulate matter representing air pollution, electricity consumption at national levels, and the land area covered by forests. This may be due to the disruption of circadian system by exposing to much light at night and this is can be generalized to the whole population and not only to certain occupational groups such as nurses. Another possible explanation is that the connection of artificial light at night with melatonin hormone which produced in nighttime darkness that promote sleep. Therefore, exposure to night light may suppress the release of melatonin which typically peaks in the middle of the night."

I know I beat this drum nearly every week but the important things are worth repeating. You will be doing yourself a favor if you mitigate the artificial light at night you are exposed to. Buying a halfway decent pair of blue light blocking glasses that even can look cool and wearing them for two hours before bed will get you like 80% of the benefits.

☢ 6 Signs You May Be Electrosensitive: In the corner of the Internet where I hang out, many of the smartest people consistently warn of the dangers of high amounts of exposure to electromagnetic frequencies (EMF’s). The explosion of high-millimeter waves in the forms of 5G, WiFi, and all the rest have us living in a perpetual toxic soup. If you want to check out a free guide that offers a comprehensive look at dealing with this issue, check this out.

🌞 Optimism is Associated with Exceptional Longevity: A 2019 study found that found that “higher levels of optimism were associated with longer lifespans in women across racial and ethnic groups.” Another study found that exceptional longevity (11-15% longer life span) was found in both men and women. See the world as glass half full to live a longer life.

🔗 One Hitters

📖 Read “Accelerated SELF-Development” and the accompanying "Resources”

🔦 Bad Product Alert: Iris vs F.lux Blue Light Protection for Computers (Tweet)

🍄 Ultra-low dose 5-MeO done in combo with parts work “opens up an attuned awareness without completely dismantling the structure of the self.” (Tweet)

🧘🏻‍♀️ Favorite takeaways from spiritual teacher Adyashanti (Tweet Thread)

📅 My Scheduling Page: Go here to book a 15-minute free call to chat about how you can use the development methods.

✔️ That will do it for this time! Hopefully you got some value out of it. If you have any questions/comments/things you’d like to learn more about please don’t hesitate to reach out.

🔗 If you know anyone who loves learning about these types of topics, send them this link!

📰 To read all past newsletters, go here.