Is it bacteria? Maybe it’s a virus? Could it be genetics? Or is it something else?
The question of what makes us sick is a debate that continues more than a century after the clash between Louis Pasteur, Antoine Béchamp, and Claude Bernard. Louis Pasteur won the argument by the way, and his germ theory continues to significantly influence how we, as a society, view health and understand our illnesses. But is his theory correct?
Orthodox Medicine and Germ Theory
Today, medicine’s understanding of illness is firmly anchored to Louis Pasteur’s Germ Theory of Disease. Published in 1861, Pasteur’s theory was embraced by academic and societal powers at the time and ultimately came to form the foundations of orthodox medicine, medical education, biomedical research, and the pharmaceutical industry we see today1,2.
Germ theory states that microbes—germs—invade the body and cause disease by infecting its tissues and organs. The theory maintains that the invading microbes must be destroyed to restore health2,3.
Germ theory revolutionized medicine and biomedical research by reducing disease to simple interactions between the germ and the host. It was, and still is, accepted practice to assume that if a microbe could be detected in diseased tissue, then that specific microorganism must cause the disease. This reasoning paved the way for the development of vaccines, the discovery of antibiotics, and the manufacture of a plethora of pharmaceutical drugs designed to target disease and manage symptoms.1,3
The problem is: it’s not working.
An Epidemic of Chronic Illness
Less than a century ago, infectious diseases were the predominant cause of illness and death.4 Today, chronic and degenerative conditions have taken over, and a glance at current health trends paints a very sobering picture:
- 44 percent of adults over the age of 20 have at least one chronic health condition.5
- According to the most recent data available (2019), 45 percent of Canadians will face a cancer diagnosis in their lifetime.6
- 1 in 12 aged 20 and over live with diagnosed heart disease.7
- 1 in 5 experiences mental illness in any given year; by 40 years of age, 50 percent of Canadians have or have had a mental illness.8
- Cases of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, are expected to triple by 20509, and the estimated lifetime risk of dementia at age 45 is 20 percent in women and 10 percent in men.10
- Diagnoses of diabetes are expected to rise by 12 percent over the next 10 years.11
- 1 in 4 infections is resistant to at least one first-line antimicrobial drug.12
Clearly, something is missing in our understanding of human health and illness.
Pasteur designated the key issue in disease to be the germ, or what, in a broader context, could be referred to as the stressor*. As the principles of germ theory took root and formed the foundations of orthodox medicine, the role of the host in the development of illness became less important than the illness itself, shifting the focus of medicine away from treating the patient with the disease to treating the disease the patient was diagnosed with. This continues to be the template upon which medicine and biomedical research are based: isolate and treat the single identifiable cause—that is, treat the stressor.13 Only today, where chronic and degenerative diseases predominate, the target is less the pathogenic microbe, and more the gene or other biological substance.
Whilst devotion to dogma is not new in medicine, we have to ask if medicine’s commitment to the principles of germ theory has blinded it to a more comprehensive understanding of what keeps us healthy and what makes us sick. Could it be that mainstream medicine’s approach to dealing with illness and its insight into what really makes us sick is incomplete or flawed?
*A stressor is something that causes stress to a person, such as exposure to a chemical or biological agent, adverse environmental conditions, external stimuli, or an unexpected or shocking event.
Terrain Theory
Though germ theory brought Pasteur the accolades of science and a prominent place in history, some, including his contemporaries Claude Bernard and Antoine Béchamp, disputed the validity of his work. In contrast to Pasteur, who theorized that illness arose from infection by microbes from outside the body, Bernard and Béchamp believed that disease, including most infectious diseases, originated from within.
Claude Bernard, a giant of 19th-century science, is widely credited as one of the founders of experimental medicine. He proposed that it was the internal environment of the body that conferred resilience or vulnerability to illness and disease.
Bernard’s view formed out of his observations that living systems can and must maintain balance within their internal environments whilst adjusting to constantly changing conditions in their external surroundings. If adaptations cannot be made efficiently and the internal balance, what we now call homeostasis, is disturbed, the body becomes susceptible to illness.14
Antoine Béchamp was an eminent professor and meticulous researcher. He perceived both health and disease to be processes of life and believed that the environmental conditions within the body—the terrain—dictated which process was favoured.
For Béchamp, the terrain was the key determinant of health and vulnerability to illness. In his research, he observed that when in a state of balance, the condition of the terrain signalled microbes to work in synergy with health and life. In conditions of disease, however, he observed normally benign microorganisms transmuting into various, often more pathogenic forms. According to Béchamp’s observations, germs did not cause a disease condition—germs appeared within diseased tissue as a response to the disease condition.15
Nearly a century later, the renowned microbiologist, Rene Dubos, reaffirmed Bernard and Béchamp’s understanding of disease causation by stating: “Everyone harbors disease germs, yet not everyone is sick. This suggests that germs are less important in disease than other factors affecting the condition of the host”.16,17
Why do we get sick? The Whole Truth
So, is it the attacker—the germ or stressor—or the state of that which is being attacked—the terrain—that makes us sick?
The answer likely falls somewhere in the middle with the lean trending more strongly toward the terrain.
Whilst germ theory has served as the core philosophy of orthodox medicine for more than a century, and we, as a society, have trusted the science and those who espouse it, accepting this concept as a complete truth has led us down a path that has become overwhelmed with illnesses that are far more complex than the simplified model of disease offered by Pasteur’s theory. Though benefits can, and have been, attained from interventions based on its principles, targeting the germ or attacking the stressor comes with a cost, and that cost is borne on the terrain.
Bernard and Béchamp’s theory that health and resilience are a function of homeostatic balance is reflected in the growing influence of ancient medical traditions, such as Chinese medicine, as well as in disciplines such as integrative and bioregulatory systems medicine.18,19 All of these approaches, whose philosophical foundations lie in supporting health by strengthening the terrain, acknowledge that care must go beyond the management of symptoms or the destruction of the stressor. Rebuilding and rebalancing the terrain is essential.
References
1. Battaglia, S. Terrain or Germ Theory. Accessed Mar 26, 2024, <https://salvatorebattaglia.com.au/blog/171-terrain-or-germ-theory>
2. Kalokerinos, A. and Dettman, G. (1977) Second Thoughts on Disease: A Controversy and Bechamp Revisited. Accessed Mar 29, 2024, <http://whale.to/w/kal.html>
3. Contagion: Historical Views of Diseases and Epidemics: Germ Theory. Accessed Mar 28, 2024, <https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/contagion/feature/germ-theory (Harvard Library)>
4. Statistics Canada (2018) Changes in Causes of Death 1950-2012, Accessed Mar 30, 2024, <https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2016003-eng.htm>
5. Public Health Agency of Canada (2019, Dec 9) Prevalence of Chronic Diseases Among Canadian Adults. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/chronic-diseases/prevalence-canadian-adults-infographic-2019.html
6. Canadian Cancer Society (2023) Canadian Cancer Statistics 2023. Retrieved from the Canadian Cancer Society website: cancer.ca/Canadian-Cancer-Statistics-2023-EN
7. Public Health Agency of Canada (2022, July 28) Heart Disease in Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/heart-disease-canada.html
8. Canadian Mental Health Association, n.d. Mental Illness and Addiction: Facts and Statistics. Accessed March 31/2024 < https://www.camh.ca/en/driving-change/the-crisis-is-real/mental-health-statistics>
9. Alzheimer’s Society of Canada (2022) Navigating the Path Forward for Dementia in Canada. Retrieved from Alzheimer Society Canada website: https://alzheimer.ca/sites/default/files/documents/Landmark-Study-Report-1-Path_Alzheimer-Society-Canada_0.pdf
10. Alzheimer’s Association (2024) 2024 Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures. Retrieved from the Alzheimer’s Association website: https://www.alz.org/media/Documents/alzheimers-facts-and-figures.pdf
11. Diabetes Canada (2023) Estimated Prevalence and Cost of Diabetes, accessed March 31, 2024 < https://www.diabetes.ca/advocacy—policies/advocacy-reports/national-and-provincial-backgrounders/diabetes-in-canada>
12. Alexandra, S. et. Al. (2023) Canadian Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (CARSS) Report 2022, accessed March 31, 2024, <https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/drugs-health-products/canadian-antimicrobial-resistance-surveillance-system-report-2022.html>
13. Hammer, Leon (2010) A Discussion of Terrain, Stress, Root and Vulnerability within Chinese Medicine. Chinese Medicine Times 5(1): 1-9.
14. Habert R. (2022) Claude Bernard, the Founder of Modern Medicine. Cells. May 20;11(10):1702. doi: 10.3390/cells11101702. PMID: 35626738; PMCID: PMC9139283.
15. Cavaillon JM, Legout S. (2022) Louis Pasteur: Between Myth and Reality. Biomolecules. Apr 18;12(4):596. doi: 10.3390/biom12040596. PMID: 35454184; PMCID: PMC9027159.
16. Dubos, RJ (1955) Second Thoughts on the Germ Theory. Sci Am. 193:31-35.
17. Cassanova, J-L, (2023) From Second Thoughts on Germ Theory to a Full-Blown Host Theory. Proc. Nat. Acad. of Sci., 120(26): https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301186120
18. Fioranelli M, Sepehri A, Roccia MG, Linda C, Rossi C, Dawodo A, Vojvodic P, Lotti J, Barygina V, Vojvodic A, Wollina U, Tirant M, Van TN, Lotti T. Clinical Applications of System Regulation Medicine. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 Sep 14;7(18):3053-3060. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.775. PMID: 31850122; PMCID: PMC6910802.
19. Cody GW. The Origins of Integrative Medicine-The First True Integrators: The Roots. Integr Med (Encinitas). 2018 Feb;17(1):18-21. PMID: 30962773; PMCID: PMC6380988.
