Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

The Germ Theory of Disease

November 17, 2008 by  

The Germ Theory of Disease

The germ theory of disease is a foolish hoax created by Louis Pasteur. It is a notion of nonsense that has confused millions of people and made billions for the pharmaceuticals with vaccines and tens of thousands of drugs or over-the-counter preparations.

If one person in society should die of a “contagious disease,” the whole world population would expire.

Well, what about the flu epidemic shortly after World War I that killed 80 million people worldwide? According to the germ theory of disease, this flu should have killed everyone on earth. Of course, it didn’t and some people died in the same household where others did not. Why did this so-called “infectious disease” not infect the entire world population?

The answer is that disease is born of us and in us. If our immune system is strong and healthy, we could sleep with people dying with “contagious disease” and never even get sick. What a relief this is to know, but how difficult it is to get people to believe!

The germ theory of disease is nothing in the world but a commercial enterprise.

Disease comes from within. When the body is overly fatigued with excess stress, toxins and malnutrition, there is a breakdown of immunity.

A person’s nutritional status and hydration level is the prime determinant of health. Disease comes from within!

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Germ Theory of Disease”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Ken

    Your an idiot.

  • Florida Girl

    Ken, regardless of whether you believe that which you read, name calling is completely uncalled for.  Man up and post an itelligent rebutal.  I’m sick of cowards hiding behind blog posts.  I guarantee you would not likely stand in front of Bob Livingston and make the same comment to his face… you’d find a diplomatic way to disagree.  Why is it impossible to do the same while sitting behind a computer screen?

    • James

      I think “idiot’ is a name called only for its brevity and accuracy with regards to this statement from Mr Livingston that it is in response to…. To use so few words to state clearly – ahh – if I only exercised that talent…
      So when Mr Livingston is going to be cut open for some urgent surgery, let the doctor dip his hands into a “Germ” infested stew (pretty much anything could qualify…) and instead of scrubbing with soap and water – with Mr. Livingston you would not have to – germs don’t cause disease! Even scrub with soap and water and afterwards, just allow the surgeon to touch the tongue of a flu suffering person before sticking his fingers inside Mr Livingston, and HEY – what would Mr Livingston have to fear, germs don’t cause anything! Well if you were to allow a surgeon to do just those things to you and someone called you an “idiot” – very few intelligent (or even barely informed) humans would argue with their choice of descriptive terminology – and the surgeon would probably be jailed for homicide later. The arrogant and snidely childish characterization of Pasteur et al, as conspiring to deceive and manipulate is shrill and embarrassing – don’t you think? If you could ask the ghosts of Gettysburg or Antietam to comment on the unwashed hands of their surgeons and the pronounced disparity of number wounded to number who survived those wounds – back just before washing hands became common (washing solely to “kill germs” my fellow geniuses…) I wonder the word choices those apparitions would select from their personal dictionaries of those long suffering days, at the hands of those pious preachers who reacted to the claims about germs as unseen by the naked eye and intended by our harsh creator to punish the sinful so washing your hands was cheating God from his due obeisance – or so said some clergy in response to the few courageous surgeons who did beg for hand-washing at the front, circa 1860s. How surprising to hear the echoes of those moronic puritan blowhards so arrogantly claiming to know Gods will from their unlearned fixation on a few lines of misunderstood and manipulated ancient text in a modern screed accusing Pasteur of some grave designs on fooling the masses into hygienic alertness. How surprising indeed to enjoy the study of history only to find it’s lamest villains arising so eagerly to repeat the past’s most blushing insanities and inanities. No wonder Walt Whitman’s poetry, after his time spent in those blood soaked field hospitals, took on such a hint of rage at the loudmouths of the day. But at least he could express himself with an aesthetic that lifted the heart, whereas I can only complain in a webpage comment section – forgive me my presumptive stumbling, Mr Livingston does sound like a fun to guy to have a beer and argue with I should add….. we’re all idiots in our own way now and again – aren’t we?? Tis’ courage to reveal this truth publicly (…sometimes, and sometimes something far baser than courage…) – this cry against germs – I am most unsure which……

      • Michel

        Thermodynamics is derived from the Greek words Thermos meaning Heat and Dynamic, meaning Change. In the beginning, Thermodynamics was only applied to the relation between temperature, heat and work. One of its main tasks was to understand the processes that converted heat from steam into work and using this knowledge to make more efficient and more powerful steam engines.

        Nowadays, thermodynamics includes many more forms of energy, such as chemical, kinetic, electromagnetic, nuclear and radiant energy and its principles are widely used: from physics and chemistry to biology and economy.

        The history of thermodynamics starts with the industrial revolution. For the first time in history, mankind was able to power an engine with steam. Although it was clear that the amount of heat provided to the steam and the amount of work that was done were related, no one had a theory that described this relation in universal terms.

        Nicholas Léonard Sadi Carnot is often considered one of the founders of the laws of Thermodynamics. In 1824 he published a book called Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire and on Machines fitted to develop that Power. In this book he conducted a thought experiment that is now known as the Carnot cycle. From this experiment Carnot concluded that this reversible cycle was the most energy efficient way to create work from heat.

        Although it is now seen as the starting point of Thermodynamics, Carnot’s work was for a long time ignored by scientists and engineers. It took 12 years before Benoit Pierre Emile Clapeyron put Carnot’s thought experiment into mathematical equations. Now the theory could be tested in experiments.

        In 1850, Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius added the concept of entropy and irreversible processes to the theory. He used measurement data from James Prescott Joule to prove his theory. The new temperature scale defined by Lord Kelvin completed the classical thermodynamics.

        There are two main laws of Thermodynamics: the First and the Second law.

        The first law of Thermodynamics states that all energy in the universe is constant and that energy can only be transferred from one type of energy to another. Energy cannot appear out of nowhere or be lost during the process. With the discovery of radioactivity, the first law seemed to be broken. It was Einstein who showed with his famous E = mc2 equation that matter is also a type of energy, thereby explaining the results found for radioactive materials.

        The second law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy in the universe always increases and describes it as the driving force behind spontaneous processes. Entropy is the unit for disorder. Spontaneous reactions move from a state of order to a state of disorder.

        The laws of Thermodynamics are more generalized than almost any other theory as in principle it does not put any requirements on the building blocks of matter. This does not apply to Statistical Thermodynamics. Statistical Thermodynamics combines the laws of Thermodynamics with properties of matter (often gases) and the resulting probability factors to determine its Thermodynamics properties and behaviour. Ludwig Boltzmann was the first to describe the relation between atoms, probability and the laws of Thermodynamics.

        Classical Thermodynamics only describes the equilibrium states of systems: it tells what the temperature when gas A and B are mixed or the amount of work done by an expanding gas. It does not tell how long it takes before gas A and B are mixed or how quickly the work is done. For many systems, knowing the equilibrium state is not enough: e.g. we know water will run from the mountains to the ocean. But only when we know at what rate it flows down (and how much water falls on the mountain), can we tell how much water there will be in the river. Rather than its equilibrium state (= water in the ocean), we want to know the rate at which the system moves towards this state.

        To calculate such rates, a special kind of thermodynamics, called non-equilibrium thermodynamics, was developed. Lars Onsager and Ilya Prigogine are considered the two main contributors to this type of Thermodynamics. This has found applications in a broad range of disciplines, from variations in populations in biology studies to recurring variations in supply and demand in economical systems. For their work they received the Nobel Prize in 1969 (Onsager) and 1977 (Prigogine).

      • Alleigh Giddings of Missouri

        Shut up, smaty pants!

    • Alleigh Giddings of Missouri

      Hiding behind blogs! Your the one who didn’t even give her real name!

  • Elizabeth

    What most people don’t realize is their bodies are factories for germs.  We have bacteria covering every inch of our bodies all the time inside and out.  By buying into the Clorox type advertising and the Dr. Oz type prosletizing, many people have fallen for the idea that antibacterial cleaners are going to keep you healthy.  It’s your imune system that keeps you healthy.

  • Harry

    It is difficult to believe that all people who died of small pox and the bubonic plague died from a poor immune response alone. Surely small pox vaccinations have saved millions of people.

    • http://none Byrd


      I think that you should check out the facts. There is no conclusive evidence that vaccines have helped out at all, in fact they may have actually infected more people. Also, the timeframe of Smallpox vaccinations just so happens to coincide with new standards of cleanliness, sanitation, A/C & refrigeration (less spoiled food), water treatment, and etc. Before vaccines can truly claim any part of the decreased number of infections, one must use the ‘Process of Elimination’ to eliminate many other factors that might have caused the decline of infection.

      Thanks and Peace be with you,
      Michael Byrd

      • Luke


        Vaccines cannot infect people with disease, only toxins that don’t belong in the human body like murcury and aluminumm. By saying that you are accepting the foolish premise of the “germ theory of disease.” Furthermore, refrigeration and sterilization etc… were the beneficiarie$ of the faulty “germ theory.” (Cheese was a way to preserve milk… there is no reason to refrigerat it, it gets better and more nutritious when it goes bad) Sanitation has nothing to do with disease to the extent that a soiled environment doesn’t produce toxins. It’s the sanitation and nutrition inside your body that is important. Bacteria or “germs” are no match for healthy blood, tissue, organs etc….

  • Bill

    This makes sense. I am a retired health professional. I have also been using alternative preventive medicines  on myself. i have never contracted any of my patients illnesses. I have not been to a physician except for broken bones in over 50 years.

  • Chuck B

    If people keep believing that anti-bacterial products are helping them stay healthy, they need only to look at the”upper middle class”.  All the families i know in that class are ill most of the time.  When a soccer or hockey mom goes through the house three times a day spraying door knobs and cleaning surfaces with anti-bacterial cleaners, they are removing germs that the immune system needs to build anti-bodies.  Thus when the younger children leave the “bubble” even for a short time, they usually return with the beginnings of some sickness.  While working construction, I frequent many “germ spots”.  Hospitals, creamatoriums, nursing homes, etc.  I’ve never had a flu shot and never had the flu.  I’ve never taken ” preventitive steps or vaccines” and the worst thing I’ve gotten has been the chicken pox when I was 8.  Without germs humans wouldn’t survive.

  • Rick

    That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!  If germs don’t cause disease then why is it possible to ‘weaponize’ infectious diseases like smallpox, anthrax, etc.  The notion that the entire world population would die from the flu is not logical either.  There are many factors that effect the way the virus/bacteria would get redistrubuted and thus a person living with an infected person would not necessarily get infected.

  • Dave


    The correct spelling of your post would be, “You’re and idiot.”

    So please tell us why one who can’t correctly use a contraction to voice his complaint ought to be listened to – - at all?

    • xcesszeal

      I applaud you attempt at correction however, in your correction is incorrect: “you’re an idiot” is proper, not “you’re and idiot”.

  • Pam

    My daughter hasn’t been to a doctor since she was 2 years old.  She’s bright, healthy, curious and quite outgoing.  She says, “We don’t go to the doctor because doctors are for sick people.”

  • Lindsay

    If the first poster were a scientist, he would understand that Germ Theory of Disease would now be the Germ Law of Disease, if the theory had ever actually proven to be correct.

    Just do a Google search on aspirin+1918+flu and you may learn something like this:

  • http://LibertyAlert Dr. G

    Certainly, using herbal suppliments and getting excercise while avioding pathogens will dramatically extend one’s life cycle as well as give that lifetime a high quality standing.  Even an “idiot” knows this, Ken.  Avoiding the over-medication reloving door (e.g., taking an anti cholesterol drug which forces a blood pressure drug which leads to a type-two diabetic drug that makes you impotent and requiring Viagra, etceteras) will greatly help as well.  HOWEVER, never-ever-never-ever blow off chemo treatments or proton therapy whilst in the throes of cancer.  There are definative benefits to both traditional medicines as well as preventative healthy lifestyles.  Common sense is the order of the day when it comes to healthcare.

  • TeresaE

    Right on!

    Truth in a health article.

    If vaccines, drugs and radiated foods were truly “saving” us, America would not be the sickest place on earth, with the most out of control health care costs.

    But we are.

    And supplements are only part of the equation.  Live food, is a big piece missing from our lives.  Nearly everything an American eats is processed, altered and full of chemicals or high fructose corn syrup. 

    Our diets make us sick and vulnerable, then we run to our doctors who push drugs on us that make us sicker and more vulnerable.

    Many vaccinations are poison and actually increase the odds of getting other illnesses–illnesses more dangerous than the illness the vaccine is supposed to protect you from.

    Yet, we our children, and ourselves, up to be sickened.

    Not me, not anymore

    Thanks for the nice article Bob.

  • Doug

    We are reaping what we have sown, and the way in which we sowed it. We have decided to follow mans ways, and not GODS ways. The farmers used to rely on GOD to grow their crops, now they have rejected GOD and HIS ways and are doing it mans way and using chemicals, chemicals which are killing you slowly. This is destroying your immine system. There is no nutritional value in the food that we are now eating, so coupled with chemicals, you virtually are losing your ability to fight off even a cold, because you have an orchestrated attack on your immune system. Unless you are eating organic grown foods, and taking other natural, non irradiated, non homogenized supplements you fighting a losing battle. The bottom line is this, eat organic fruits and vegetables, and grains and get a personal relationship with the GOD or you are living on borrowed time, frought with disease and much suffering. 

  • Bev

    I totally agree with the ones who do not sterilize their homes. Mine is not sterile by any matter of means and we are less sick than a lot of our neighbors who run around spraying Lysol and Chlorox all day. We have discovered that having a flu shot gives us the flu, but by eating more onions and garlic we are much healthier for it.

    A good example of the properties of onions and horseradish is my dad. He was an artesian well driller for many years. All he took for sandwiches was either raw onion or horseradish sandwiches. All the years he worked outside in snow, sleet, freezing rain, rain and all the other garbage that Mother Nature could throw at him here in New England, he never once took a day off from work sick. He never had a sniffle!!! We still use this and for the most part, we are healthier for it.

    Lets stop all this germ warfare and go back to the old adage that a kid that plays in the dirt and comes home dirty is a healthy kid!!!!! Mine are!!

  • Bill

    Re: Germ THEORY.  Note that you can never PROVE a theory, and that is the only reason why there is no Germ Law.  And it is the same reason why there is a theory of gravity rather than a law of gravity; or why evolution is a theory.  Theories can only be supported by facts, and disproven; but never proven.

    • http://none Byrd


      I think you need to review the ‘Scientific Process’. If you can’t prove your Theory, then it isn’t a very good Theory is it?
      Oh, what about the ‘Laws of Thermodynamics’, ‘Laws/Axioms of Logic’, and so on. Theories do get proved Law, assuming they are correct. Many that you mentioned are highly controversial and easily debatable, that’s why they are still Theories.

      Thanks and God Bless,
      Michael Byrd

  • John

    I come to most subjects from a biblical worldview.  I have high respect for the Bible.  The overwhelming method of self-protection in ancient Israel was a careful diet and thorough washing.  They were not to allow human waste to be “in the camp” or tolerate molds or be around corpses, etc.

    God designed the human body to function in amazing ways.  We have a fabulous immune system.  It begins with our skin which is violently bypassed when we allow imunizations to go into the muscle or blood, and sadly many times in multiple different pathogens.

    I have 5 children who have not been vaccinated only ocassionally get a sniffle or ear ache.  We typically take them off of all dairy and sugary items and visit our chiropractor.  My 3 youngest have NEVER had an antibiotic.  Their school teachers have been surprised that even if they feel way the recover in record time without visiting an MD or taking drugs.

    Vaccines are questionable to say the least and thrive on an unproven THEORY.

  • Mark

    Hi Bob,

    I am currently attending college, studying to be an electrical engineer. As such, I am required to learn a wide variety of subjects; please allow me to comment…
    You are half wrong (or half right, depending on your perspective). Viruses and bacteria do indeed live inside our bodies all the time, but it is possible to receive a critical dose of germs from the outside world…for example, if you are sitting on a bus next to a coughing person, you will inhale millions of germs, thus greatly increasing your chances of “catching” the cough (the germs will undergo mitosis and exponentially increase in number once inside you) …the truth always lies in the middle. Outside germs and inside immune system strength both play their roles.

  • John


    The likely reason “germs” (ie, bacteria, viruses) affect some and not others is that we have varying strength and/or resilience in our immune systems.

    If our systems are working at high efficiency we have greater resistance and better recovery.  Avoiding toxins and maintaining good nutrition and hydration as well as optimal fitness goes a long way to self preservation.

  • Lindsay

    Bill on November 18th, 2008 at 8:20 pm:
    Re: Germ THEORY.  Note that you can never PROVE a theory, and that is the only reason why there is no Germ Law.  And it is the same reason why there is a theory of gravity rather than a law of gravity; or why evolution is a theory.  Theories can only be supported by facts, and disproven; but never proven.”

    It is OK with me that Bill, not recognizing gravity as a law, floats towards the ceiling.

  • doktavian

    hi dave,

    i’m glad someone gave ken a taste of the medicine he hopefully understands,
    but on your correction you wrote:

    ( Ken: The correct spelling of your post would be, “You’re and idiot.” )
    i know you meant to write “You”re AN idiot.”
    And ken, your lucid and detailed explanation of why you believed you had the right to call the author an idiot was, well, nonexistent!
    If the author had answered your mean comment in a way that would have made the most clear sense to you, i think it might have sounded something like this,
    “I know you are, but what am I?”
    How’s that middle school working out for you there ken?
    The author has made very good points about the immune system.  There are even documented observations of Siamese twins with unshared circulatory/GIGU systems who have not shared the same flu.  It looks like it is all about the individual immune system.  Regarding vaccinations, I have a prediction that 3000 years from now they will regard the vaccination of our young with the same amazement we have when we think about the god Baal 3000? years ago who demanded that your first born child be sacrificed in a fiery alter for the good of agriculture/fertility. Everyone did it.  No one questioned the priests.  I think we need to continue to question the priests!  Thanks Mr. Livingston!


  • SB Smith

    Growing up, our house was clean but my mom was not anal about it.
    As an adult over 40, my house now would Not win the clean house award.
    My excuse has always been that I’m keeping our immune systems on their toes. :-D

  • Dale

    Perhaps the answer lies amid the extremes. Bubonic plague and some other insidious diseases, if exposed enough to tear down the immune system, will kill you. Worry, fear, wrong stress (stress can be constructive or destructive – it has to be under your control, rather than controlling you), depression, inactivity, smoking, drinking (excessively),  excess toxins (toxin poisoning), lesser diseases, poor eating habits, excess weight, stored toxins in fatty areas (a proper amount of fat is good – lubricant for cells and stored energy), medication conflicts (some things just do not mix well with body chemistry and each other), etc——these are things that destroy immune systems and open the body to health issues.

    The balance is that the body is designed to last a long, long time!!!! Our own chemicals, lifestyle, eating habits, inactivity, etc. is the problem.

    How foods are processed can cause problems. One example is the homoginization process. Breaking down fat particles (eg – milk) into micro-particles may suspend the particles and prevent recombining of the oil into larger particles so that they won’t float or seperate from other liquids, but they also are so small that they can enter the blood stream.

    Another example is sugar. There is nothing wrong with natural sugar. It has a lot of nutrients and is good for you, orientals love pure sugar occasionally. We have white and brown sugar. White sugar is bleached and the nutrients are stripped away. Even mice and rats don’t like it. What about brown sugar? Sometimes it is white sugar with molasses added to it. Molasses is nutritive, so it is better for you, but not as good as if natural sugar were used.

    Also, water is great for you —- as long as it is handled right it is good for you. Chlorine plus water produces some HCL (hydrocloric acid). Chlorine kills off bacteria and makes water better for consumption. Flourine may be good for your teeth but it was used in large quantities by Adolph Hitler in WWII to subdue the people – make them more susceptable to social re-conditioning. Both of these are in city water. Some cities have excess of either or both of these chemicals and can be hard to drink and not good for the skin or digestive system. It is funny to ‘buy’ water at almost the cost of a cold drink so that you can get some water that tastes good.

    Doctors do their best to help the patients, not just make money. No doctor should remain in business if they are not sensitive to the needs of those they serve. However, the AMA (American Medical Institute) sets the standard for education of the doctors (and staff) and promotes the medical ‘myths’. Fortunately, they can’t seem to screw up the breakthroughs in surgical practices that do wonders. AMA is a Government Agency – enough said!! But I will anyhow! With the kickbacks and under the table deals with some pharmaceutical companies (some of the pharma is fantastic and real breakthroughs) the politicians will sell out the country to promote what does not work, or works but tears down the immune system also. After all, what good has come out of Congress the last few years, and now??? Far too many Dems and some of the Repubs are the biggest crooks – promoting lies! Don’t put politics above the ones you are ‘supposed’ to server DC!! (just a quick peeloff – but does pinpoint where most food regulatory problems come from!

    The most destructive things are hate and fear, either will tear down your immune system very quickly whereas the other things take time – even many years. In a sense, we are our own worse enemies!

  • Dan

    Do Antibiotics actually work to combat illness?

  • John

    I have seen parents allow their children to be put on a roller coaster of antibiotics and they seem to always be sick and going back to the Dr.

    There have been two ocassions in my adult experience where such helped me.  One was a severe ear infection that got out of hand.  The other was an infection in a two bone after surgery.  In both situation the antibiotic helped almost immediately to get the infection under control.

  • Lindsay
  • Tigre

    We always followed the maxim in our house:

    “Dirty enough to be happy but clean enough to be healthy.”

    I agree that we are overdoing this clean thing. Good old soap and water kills germs. One of the problems we have is we are using antibiotics everywhere. We give cattle  antibiotic shots because a BYPRODUCT is they gain more weight. Bacteria which are exposed to antibiotics which don’t kill them develop an immunity to that antibiotic.

    Viruses are difficult to prevent because they mutate so often.

    Bacteria are more established in their form and the body can be aided with medicines. This article ignores all the persons that were dying from cholera, diptheria, yellow fever, smallpox and other diseases which one never hears of anymore because of eradication programs. The reason everyone didn’t die in the flu epicemic could be: they weren’t exposed, had developed an immunity from a similar virus, or just had healthy immune systems. Not everyone is the same. This is why cloning is such a bad idea. If everyone were a clone, then it would be possible for one disease to wipe them all out. Diversity is the strength of the species.

  • Shawn

    I think this goes to the heart of the “middle class epidemics” that are so prevalent today. When I was a kid, we rode our bikes, skate boards, big wheels, etc. without any protective gear what-so-ever! Now days, the poor kids look like a crash test dummies just to walk out of the house!  As stated earlier, it is all about marketing and the mighty dollar. Take for example, global warming. What a crock! If you can get people to believe it, they will and with fervent passion! I mean, some arrogant narcissists even win Nobel prizes for their “apparent” efforts and philanthropy. Most of today’s “epidemics”, including the “clean and disinfect everything” craze are man-made.  Repetition and propaganda have pelted the minds of our materialistic and shallow culture to the point that if it is on the news, it must be true! After all, the news helped promote the election of a domestic terrorist all the way to the highest office in the nation!

  • SgtHydra

    That was ridiculously uninformed.

    The Germ Theory of Disease does not just say “All diseases spread with a 100% chance of infection and a 100% chance of death.”

    Some people simply do not get the disease. And by the same measure, not everyone died from it. Even Ebola has had survivors.

    Each person differs in immune system strength, which varies in strength itself throughout the day. Certian things cause the immune system to become less active, others more active. Sleep being one that causes the former. The immune system isn’t some little wall that prevents disease. It is a complex system of antibodies, specialized white blood cells, T-cells, and a wide number of other things.

    You are infected with viruses, bacteria, and fungi each and every day, but most times the immune system fights them off. It is only when something is able to take hold in the body do you “get sick.” Why do you blink? Because it keeps various things from taking root in the warm and moist parts of your eyes. Why do you sneeze? Same reason, different body part. Fever. Messes up the invader’s ability to reproduce (in single celled stuff, increases in temperature signifigantly slow down their reproduction). Etc. Etc. Etc. Every symptom of a disease is either the damage done by the invader or the body’s response to it.

    If you are still dead set in your theory, explain this to me: If a rabid dog bites a person, why does that person contract rabies? Hormonal imbalence? Dehydration? Nutritional status?

    And AIDS. They only occur in those who have:
    A. Slept with someone who also has the AIDS.
    B. Shared needles with the infected.
    C. Been given blood, or organs, that were infected.
    And why do vaccines work? Polio vaccinations come to mind. Polio doesn’t happen too often anymore, does it? It’s like the cause of it was… exterminated or something… Or maybe people just drink more milk nowadays… I don’t know… /sarcasm

    I was looking forward to reading your newsletter/blog here, but now I’m definately never coming back.

    You are right on Obama, though. Keep up the good fight there.

    PS. The “Antibacterial Soap” stories everyone gives out, here’s the deal:

    Long time ago they worked. Now they’re so overused, the bacteria have devloped a resistance to the chemicals used in it. Also, it is antiBACTERIAL. Not antivirus. AntiBIOTICS are the same thing. Viruses are not considered living (they’re more like organic machines than actual life.) and do not share the same processes as living things. Viruses are not affected by poisens that break down cell walls or disrupt metabolism because they have niether. They are only affected by things which break down any organic matter, such as bleach (which doesn’t sound very dangerous, but try swimming in an ocean of bleach. Not much fun.). What you can do with viruses is give the body something to practice on. Vaccines provide the body with “dead” viruses (non-replicating ones). The white blood cells will nip at them for a bit and eventually the body will produce anti-viral cells which are specialized to combat that particular virus. And by that particular, I literally mean just that incarnation of that virus. Viruses evolve (regardless of your beliefs in the creation of this world, viruses do evolve.) quickly due to their RNA genetic structure, which is far less stable than a DNA structure. Copies upon copies upon copies. Mistakes are made very rapidly, and nearly all result in the virus’s demise (most of our DNA, in fact, is made up of trapped virus genetic material that never made it out of the cell. Most is harmless, as they basically contain instructions for how to make the virus, but the assembly part is damaged/missing. Could be the cause of certian kinds of cancer… maybe…). Other kinds of mistakes are benificial, not in that they gain some new way to infect or multiply, but the change confuses the immune system into thinking it is a new sort of virus. That’s why flu vaccines need to be given each year.

    Sorry for that massive info dump.

    I respect your opinion, Bob, though I may not agree with it. It takes guts to be a conservative in these unforgiving times, and I wish we could have met on better terms.

    I revise my earlier statement: I’ll keep watching this site. I’ll keep both eyes out for your next article.



  • Bill

    Lindsay — your original comment was that a theory needs to be proven to become a law; and that is where you have you head in the clouds. If you really read all of the references that you provided to me, you would have seen in your sixth reference (re: Laws of Science), that Newton’s Law of Gravity does not work in the real world, and it is actually a limited solution of Einstein’s THEORY OF GRAVITATION. All of the facts (like an apple falling to the ground, or germs causing illness) do not prove theories as laws, only provide supporting evidence for the theory. 

  • Brad

    Unbelievable.  Utter drivel.  Remarkably uninformed. Stupid.

    How many more ways can I say it?  As a Laboratory Scientist I am astounded that anybody this ignorant can breath on their own. 

    Publishing an article like this is dangerous.  Microbes and viruses (two entirely different entities) are real and dangerous.  36,000 people die from the flu alone every year.

    If you don’t get your flu shot or take your antibiotics or get your vaccinations as a result of this article you deserve what you get.  It’s called culling the herd. 

    Mr. Livingston – please stay away from hospitals, expose yourself to all the pathogens you can and soon you will spare the rest of us from this drivel.

    As for myself I will disconnect myself from this blog as rapidly as I can.  Being conservative does not mean having to be stupid.

  • Lindsay

    I believe, Bill, my original comment strongly resembled something like the following:

    “If the first poster were a scientist, he would understand that Germ Theory of Disease would now be the Germ Law of Disease, if the theory had ever actually proven to be correct.  Just do a Google search on aspirin+1918+flu and you may learn something…”

    Germ theory has clear exceptions.

    I know that your stated “needs to be proven” expressed attitude comes from you; however,  loud Al Gore shares your lack of earned science degrees as well.

    Glad you enjoyed the remedial references.

  • Bill

    Lindsay — I could have guessed that you are of the Limbaugh-cut.  When you get in trouble you start the name-calling.  I have science and engineering degrees.  You were poorly trained if you have a science degree.

  • Lindsay

    Bill, I am sincerely glad that you are vastly better educated than the first poster, whose cudgel you picked up as “Ken” vanished -  after “the name-calling” of Doctor Bob.

    Now that we agree that Newton did have an observation regarding gravity, perhaps you could consider that this simple Google search may show an exception to the topic, the germ theory of disease?
    BTW, did you get a chance to study any History of Science in your University days?

  • Jorgaone

    With all the recent hype about going “green” I’m surprised that no one has yet mentioned that THIS movement is what MAY save us.
    Going back to our ancestor’s “roots” by NOT trying to be “sterile” (which translates into DEAD) gives our own immune systems enough freedom to create an immunity.
    I agree that PROPER nutrition, soap and water, organic, food, holistic medicine are nearly all we need to combat almost any disease.
    Unfortunately–the genetically altered foods we wind up HAVING to consume, the prevalence of all the toxic chemicals in the air, water, and premises we are forced to use–all contribute to the inability of the average person to combat ALL they are exposed to.
    Broken bones, and wildly overabundant “germs” should be considered good cases where an MD and possibly antibiotics might be good…BUT no other circumstances.
    I was raised by an Herbal-minded dad–and helped him to gather wild herbs for “drug” companies in the 50′s (back when drugs were MADE–not chemically produced)  HE knew so very many things that so-called “natural” practitioners are just now starting to advocate–it’s almost unbelieveable!
    My Granddaughter has never been vaccinated–was a preemie at 2.5 lbs.–and sent home at 3.5 lbs. Got breast milk, then RAW goat’s milk–and is unbelievably healthy! Her “well-Baby” checkups keep her Doctor astounded! (and he is even listening to methods to some extent–some hope there!)  Keep up the good work!
    P.S.  All this ALSO applies to your PET ANIMALS–who are fed chemically saturated JUNK and death, lots of sugar, and terrifically over-vaccinated.  The average life span of a dog has DECREASED almost 20% over the last 30 years–by my record-keeping and AKC’s records…

  • doktavian

    A couple of thoughts/questions/comments and please kindly inform me if i have heard or read things that are not correct. 

    SgtHydra – I was only an E4, but i can read words ; ) and I read that Polio was already in a steady decline when the vaccination was introduced to the public.  (The Bubonic Plague we know eventually died out too, without vaccinations or antibiotics.) The introduction of the Polio vaccination actually caused cases of Polio to increase from its steady decline.  Jonas Salk, main inventor of the Polio vaccination testified in front of Congress that if he knew what kind of damage the vaccination would have caused he never would have supported it.  So that’s wierd huh! At ease soldier!

    And Brad, 36,000 cases of the flu seems a bit high of a number.  Where did you get it?  One year the he CDC listed 36,000 as the amount of deaths annually from influenza and pneumonia, but influenza alone is only 200 or so deaths.  That’s why so few of us actually know someone who has died from the flu.  Every year the influenza virus undergoes a transgenic shift and mutates into a new form.  Vaccinations are based on last years model.  Does it make common sense to take a preventative vaccination that is probably ineffective for the new strain and could possibly infect you with last years strain by taking it?  Please see the following page where i got this information from.
    Thanks Dr. Harte! Go Red Sox!

    Anyway, who has more fun then us???
    That’s right, no one does!! ; )


  • Lindsay

    Could I have a theory about Bill?

    Could I prove that theory?


  • Vernon Goodman

    You are incorrectly characterizing the “germ theory of disease,” as do most of your ilk. Germs cause disease, when they are able to overcome the body’s resistance–that is the true “germ theory of disease.” The body has a limit as to how many germs it can fight off. Of course, a stronger immune system can fight off more germs. But, if enough germs attack the body, some will get through. That’s why when you’re in the same household or classroom as someone who is sick, you are more likely to get sick yourself than if you just pass by them on the street.

    I agree that increasing the efficacy of your immune system by eating right, taking vitamins, and exercising will might it less likely you’ll get sick. But if you barrage yourself with enough microbes, you will eventually succumb.

  • Bill

    Again, you really have a poor understanding of theory, hypothesis, facts and proof. Just because I understand these things better than you, all of a sudden I am in the same category as Al Gore???

    Forget about all of the links that you show me from the internet, since you don’t seem to read or understand them anyway. For example, here are a few quotes from your links:

    “… in science there is no ‘knowledge’, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. … This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.” Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

    “It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven.” Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

    The point is, Lindsey . . . you cannot ‘prove a theory’. And your first original comment was that if you provide enough proof, then a theory will eventually become a Law. If you understood the scientific method, you would understand that involves – - observe nature; develop a hypothesis about your observations; test the hypothesis against natural observations and experiments. If the hypothesis rigorously holds, then the hypothesis can become a theory. However, all of the facts or observations together never “prove” the theory! They only work to make the “theory” true, if they all fit within the theory’s model. And, at some point, with further observation or meaurement, the theory may be (will be) “disproven”. (How do you like that! it can never be proven, but it can be disproven!) If you don’t understand this, Lindsay, then you will have a difficult time understanding how Laws are developed.

    Using another one of your ‘sources”, here is another quote:
    In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone could see, Newton’s theory was “the Truth”.

    During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to test Newton’s theory, these observations uncovered some slight discrepancies. Albert Einstein proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein’s theory is “the Truth”.”

    So . . . If your reference to Al Gore has something to about global warming, here is the issue (this is not in defense of global warming, but only for you to understand the failure of your understanding). Some scientists have developed hypotheses that carbon-based greenhouse gases will eventually increase the average temperature of earth; and Al Gore is of the same hypothesis. Now these scientists have made measurements and observations that seem to support these hypotheses, one of which involves melting of glaciers in Greenland (a fact). At the same time, there are other scientists that have made measurements and observations that don’t support global warming, one of these being stable temperature readings in the lower troposphere (a fact). At the end of the day, there is not enough evidence, facts and observations to say that global warming is a “true” theory; but at the same time, you need to understand that doesn’t mean that since it hasn’t been proven therefore it is false. If global temperatures continue to go up, that is not ‘proof’ of global warming, but only continued evidence in support of global warming; likewise, if average temperatures go down in the next twenty years, then this is not ‘proof’ of the alternate hypothesis (but may be sufficient to ‘disprove’ global warming as a theory), but again, only evidence in support of the alternative. But in any case, Lindsay, I really understand why I fall toward earth (a fact), but you since you don’t, you will always revert to name-calling.

  • Lindsay

    My sincere apology that I have confused you, Bill, with those several remedial, middle-school links to the scientific method. As well, I note that Michael Byrd has offered wise direction to your post #15, above.

    May I recommend at least a course of History of Science, if not as a course of study? Have you not now indicated that you have missed this developed education in your University days?

    I did study with an economist who proposed taxing carbon decades ago. I am sure that economist would also be vastly amused that someday Bill would write a paragraph containing the words, “At the end of the day, there is not enough evidence, facts and observations to say that global warming is a ‘true’ theory”.

    Now, can we focus your wandering attention back towards Bob Livingston’s article’s topic of the underpinnings of modern medicine – the germ theory of disease?

    Can I help you find one clear exception to the germ theory of disease?

    If I could help you find one clear exception to the germ theory of disease, can we then let you wander merrily on to a happy Christmas – debating only to yourself, if these blurred distinctions are now the true theories or the false theories of your scientific relativism?

    But how would I do that? By pointing out that a high-school graduate would have not spelled my name two different ways in your last post?

    How about focus, repetition, focus, repetition, focus, repetition?

    Now that you have clearly given your view on your choice of scientific relativism, can you see a clear exception the germ theory of disease?

    No? You can not find one anywhere?


    Good luck on your college applications.

  • Bill


    Unfortunately, both you and Mr. Byrd, despite all of your internet references, are still wrong. Theories are not proven . . . and theories don’t become Laws with more proof. I suggest you talk to a real scientist rather than the witchcraft you are espousing. Theories are supported with facts, and either become stronger theories or are replaced by stronger more supportable theories. If you really did take a history of science course, and actually passed the course without cheating, at a reputable university, taught by a reputable teacher, then you would understand this. If you still think you are right, I suggest you go back to your teacher with your innane thoughts and have he or she work them out with you.

    Mr. Ryan, you seem that maybe you are not lost like Linkey is. So here is the way it is: the Laws of Thermodynamics are laws because they form fundamental foundation for physical phenomena. The first law of thermodymanics deals with energy and energy transfer (one form of energy being heat). Now, if you really understand science you would know that there are three primary ways of heating: conductive, radiative and convective. Both conductive and radiative heating have laws associated with them by the laws of conduction (Fourier’s Law) and radiation (Stefan-Boltzman Law). And both of these laws exist, NOT because there are a lot of facts supporting them, but because the formulas that make up these laws are fundamental to the science. In fact, Fouriers law (heat transport), has similarities to Ohm’s law (charge transport) and Fick’s Law (mass transport); and are considered laws because they describe transport mechanisms in the physical world. So, if there are three ways to heat a body, why aren’t there three heating laws? Why isn’t there a Law of Convective Heating? And since there isn’t a Law of Convective Heating, you would think that maybe some scientist out would be trying to ‘prove’ it so that they could name the law, just like Newton and Fourier. But I can tell you that no one is trying to prove the convective law — and the reason is that everyone except Lindhead understands this.

    Lunkhead likes to use internet sources for her science, and if she really read what she spread, then she would look up “laws of science” in wikipedia and she would see in the first paragraph what the difference is between a law and a theory. Good luck to you.

    • Lindsay

      May I suggest that our adolescent Ken-Bill’s lack of focus will not near sophomoric this year?

  • Austin Pientka

    Looking after your hearing has to be one of the most significant things you can do. Take it from me, somebody who sufferred hearing damager early on. As a result, I actually like taking care hearing and whilst I do agree with the above-named poster and I really hope I do not get shot down for stating this, but I guess it is important to take all things in moderation.

  • A.Microbiologist

    Well first of all germ theory wasn’t introduced by Pasteur it was introduced by Robert Koch (Pasteur expanded upon Koch’s work).

    Secondly Koch didn’t just pull germ theory out of the air and expect everyone to go along with it, he set out a number of criteria called Koch’s postulates… these postulates have been tested and peer reviewed over more than a century and are still used today,abeit with a few modifications based on new knowledge (molecular Koch’s postulates).

    If you take an infectious agent and work through each of Koch’s postulates you can prove that an infectious disease is derived from an infectious agent and not by spontaneous generation.

    It’s quite sad that people still listen to quack science.

  • 1955 The Keeper

    Almost every entrant on this blog, with few exceptions, is arguing over semantics. What is a theory and how does one prove it all the way through to make it a law? (Put it before this democratic congress and it will be made a law without them even knowing what they voted on.) But I digress. What credentials must I or anyone else produce when it comes to the areas of stating and using common sense. After all, none of what we are talking about here is atom splitting or sending probes to the moon Io. It is about basic biology all of us should have been exposed to in 3rd through 12th grade.

    I will not belabor God’s input into the world we live in because I realize that such a belief is an individual call. I for one do believe in Intelligent Design Creation. I don’t know why the Laws of Thermal Dynamics were thrown into this mix. I realize that the atheist community love to use these “laws” as a disproof of IDC. However, if one of the laws of TD is that matter is neither created nor destroyed but that it is simply changed from one state to another, then so be it, go no further, I accept that as a fact. But, if matter is indeed neither created nor destroyed then where did everything that is in the observable universe come from to begin with? Solve that one for me and I will renounce all belief in a Divine Creator. This last statement may sound like a challenge, but it is not. There is nothing anyone can say to me which will change one particle of my, “blind faith” in God.

    All of you who have refrained from sophomoric name calling and out and out ridicule of the various entrants to this discussion are to be commended. To those of you who have succumbed, shame be upon all of you. The preservation of our individual human dignity should prevail above all else. If not, then let us go back to a time when two knights would meet on a field of honor with sword and mace and physically slug it out until the “Truth,” conquers over the evil lies of deceit and dishonor. No takers? Then stop bashing each other in this forum as if it were gladiatorial combat and the victor is elevated to the Grand Protector of the proletariat.

    I had to state all of the above in order to get on with the discussion which is this argument about germ theory. I believe that man is not immune or outside the evolutionary process that affects all living things. Everything in us is in a constant state of change. What? How can I espouse a belief in IDC and feel that we, like every other creature in nature is subject to the actions held within the theory of evolution? To me, that is the intelligent part of our design. Not only are we living mechanisms capable of repairing ourselves, but we were designed to be adaptable to the myriad of changes we have faced during our time on this planet. If those changes came at a rate beyond our ability to adapt, we either moved on to greener pastures, as it were, or we stubbornly stood our ground and perished. One aspect of our experience on this planet as a species is that no matter where we have gone to find those greener pastures there has always been tradeoffs that we have had to accept. One such tradeoff is that to varying degrees, there are germs everywhere that we go. In fact, the staphylococci in every person’s sinus tract is enough to knock that person to their knees if the circumstances are just right. But, these potentially harmful germs we haul around with us everyday have the side benefit of holding down the populations of other more damaging bacterial attacks. Enough with this rudimentary lesson in microbiology. I have already bored several of you I know. I can hear the collective yawns over my stream link.

    I also hold that mankind as we identify and understand it to be, is much older than most Creationists believe. Much, much older in fact as archaeological evidence now supports. As such, our species has had the opportunity to come in contact with literally tens of thousands of pathogens and they were either wiped out by them or our ancestors developed natural immunities to them and passed them on to the vast majority of us through our genetic code. With the exception of newly man-made or mutated strains of pathogens, most, but not all of us carry around within us the ability to fight off just about every pathogen our species has come up against in the past. If our immune systems are not compromised by the various stresses and strains which weigh upon it constantly, our own bodies already have the “vaccines” from millennia after millennia of previous exposures to bacteria to combat these invaders. The big question is can our bodies stave off the onslaught while our immune system kicks into gear producing the natural antibodies needed to fight back? If yes, medical intervention is unnecessary. If no, then our bodies need additional help in holding our ground, so to speak, while reinforcements get to the battle zone. This additional help should come in the form of diagnosis specific antibiotics.

    Basic hygiene is important to stem the transmission of contact pathogens from objects or from person to person. It is laughable though when you see commercials which play upon the fears of the germaphobic community with a touchless anti-bacterial soap dispenser for home use. Who cares if there is bacteria on the pump of the soap dispenser? Isn’t that the whole reason you are washing your hands to begin with so you remove excess bacteria from the surface of your skin? What is next in home bacterial warfare, wall mounted touchless warm air hand driers? Because guess what, that communal towel hanging on the hook beside the mirror has more germs embedded in it than most front door welcome mats. However, washing hands is important. Simply by hospitals demanding that health practitioners wash their hands when entering a patient’s room and just before leaving the room, the incidence of transmitting MRSA or Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus which is found in copious amounts on the surface of everyone’s skin has been dramatically reduced. MRSA is the pathogen causing almost every form of post-surgical infection in the hospital environment, otherwise known as staph infections. Understand, hand washing was never intended to kill bacteria, so anti-bacterial soaps are on the market to appease the unwarranted fears of germaphobes and are unnecessary. The entire issue of using soap and warm water and the duration of that contact is meant to use these agents to emulsify and remove our natural skin oils which trap and hold grime, germs, and viruses in place. Dedicated hand washing lessens the load of bacteria on our hands to a level that even lightly compromised immune systems can handle.

    The transmission of diseases from one person to another is without a doubt a well grounded fact. There are factors which aid and abed disease and act as transmitters sometimes such as mosquitoes, fleas, cockroaches and other visible and invisible vermin. But other than outside vectors of disease, we humans can contaminate an entire elevator cab and all within it with a single unchecked sneeze. Whether everyone in that elevator succumbs to the bacterial bombardment thrown at them is solely dependent upon their personal resistance to it. And, let us not forget an early 20th century New York private family cook named Mary Mallon otherwise known to the world as Typhoid Mary.

    In summation, for anyone to assert that there is not a real threat of bacterial or viral infection being transmitted from person-to-person is uninformed at best. But, to buy into the germaphobic mania and to attempt to isolate ourselves and our children from every conceivable pathogen that exists is ludicrous and would inevitably be a disservice to all who are affected by this policy of “sterile is better.” One earlier entrant referred to the process as, “the thinning of the herd.” Unless we desist in trying to completely insulate ourselves from the natural biology of our planet, future biological events, plagues, or even man-made situations are without a doubt going to dramatically thin the herd of mankind. I, personally, have decided to not take State sponsored immunizations for every single threat of infection that comes down the pike. If I had minor children, they too would be prohibited from being exposed to every vaccination that the WHO and our treasured CDC recommends that we take. This decision is personal and based on a total lack of trust in these organization’s ability to make informed and objective decisions about either the state of world health or my health as well.

  • Carrie

    “There is no conclusive evidence that vaccines have helped out at all, in fact they may have actually infected more people. ”

    No “virus” exists or has been isolated so it can’t be replicated in the form of a vaccine and none of them every had. Read Stefan Lanka

  • Seraphina

    Do you folks realize how hilarious and entertaining your posts are (yes, they are also very educational/information/etc.)? If my wingback desk-chair on rollers (not an expensive leather one, just a cheap comfortable copy) didn’t have elavated arm-rests, I would have fallen off the chair by now. :) Lady Lindsay and Professor Bill absolutely made my day. :) I especially liked Professor Bill’s various comical renditions on Lindsay’s name. You know, it would be more helpful (and more impressive) to just state one’s opinion and ideas with the necessary logical supporting details, ideas and facts without attacking one another. HOWEVER, it DOES make for some great entertainment. I couldn’t stop laughing. My husband just called while I was reading all of this great stuff, and I told him he’s going to have to read it for himself when he gets home from work soon. It’s THAT good. :) My best wishes to each participant in this “battle.”

  • Seraphina

    Oh, rats. It looks like I’m a few months to a year off on the timing of posting. Oh, well. It’s still great entertainment, and our family is indebted to you all for some shared laughter this evening. :)

  • hank

    The immune system does not exist either. bacteria is what cleans out toxins in blood and diseased tissues. THe immune system theory is part of the “germ theory” They are both non existent.

  • Laura

    The cellular theory of disease has nothing to do with an “immune system” A Toxilogical model of disease precludes the existence of an “immune system”

  • jonathan

    Wait, viruses either exist or they don’t. You can’t write an article about the phony germ theory of disease (and I myself do believe it is a hoax) and then go on to say that oils in our skin hold viruses at bay. Either viruses exist or they don’t.

    • churchmice

      jonathan – I’m not seeing what you posted in the article – are you talking about the comment that “1955 The Keeper says:
      August 6, 2010 at 9:58 pm” wrote using the same words you posted? – sorry your comment confused me -

  • cam

    Let me guess diseases are caused by homosexuals and us electing obama?


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.