jesse1746 wrote: I personally fail to see a difference between terrain theory and environmental theory except it is meant to say that the condition of the human body and the condition of environment are not to be linked when it comes to the concept of disease when going by those two theories.

Or I guess what I'm saying is I don't believe it is environment theory vs terrain theory but environment + terrain theory.

There are 2 points of differences:
1. Bechamp's terrain theory assumes that the body is the terrain, not the external environment. The body is unhealthy, that's why germs come. This is compared with germ theory because of the argument of which one causes the disease: the germ that comes to the body, or the body that is unhealthy. Neither is about the external environment as the cause of disease. On the other hand, environmental disease is separate from those two, and can be applied to both.

2. Bechamp's theory is rejected by medical science, while environmental disease is accepted and studies comprehensively.

Conflating Bechamp's theory and environmental disease can cause misunderstanding, as how Lewk's reply shown. This is similar to the mixing and matching of the definitions, concepts, and theories of "energy" from different fields of study:
topic77323.html

jesse1746 wrote:By the way does Germ Theory allow for positive microorganisms such as probiotic bacteria or no?

Yes, it does.

darkwing dook wrote:

jesse1746 wrote: I personally fail to see a difference between terrain theory and environmental theory except it is meant to say that the condition of the human body and the condition of environment are not to be linked when it comes to the concept of disease when going by those two theories.

Or I guess what I'm saying is I don't believe it is environment theory vs terrain theory but environment + terrain theory.

There are 2 points of differences:
1. Bechamp's terrain theory assumes that the body is the terrain, not the external environment. The body is unhealthy, that's why germs come. This is compared with germ theory because of the argument of which one causes the disease: the germ that comes to the body, or the body that is unhealthy. Neither is about the external environment as the cause of disease. On the other hand, environmental disease is separate from those two, and can be applied to both.

2. Bechamp's theory is rejected by medical science, while environmental disease is accepted and studies comprehensively.

Conflating Bechamp's theory and environmental disease can cause misunderstanding, as how Lewk's reply shown. This is similar to the mixing and matching of the definitions, concepts, and theories of "energy" from different fields of study:
topic77323.html

jesse1746 wrote:By the way does Germ Theory allow for positive microorganisms such as probiotic bacteria or no?

Yes, it does.

So the body is specfically mentioned in Bechamp's theory when he speaking of the Terrain or not specifically mentioned?

Not "implied" but specifically said as such.

The reason I ask is because I have talked about this subject before with others and I'm very interested in discussing every aspect of this "Germ theory vs Terrain theory" and from the way it has been described to me by others Terrain theory means ALL terrain not just the body: E.G your house, the plants by it, your car etc so if that idealism is inccorect I would like to hear the correct information then please so that I might have a better understanding of it please and thank you.

jesse1746 wrote: So the body is specfically mentioned in Bechamp's theory when he speaking of the Terrain or not specifically mentioned?

Not "implied" but specifically said as such.

Try reading his books and papers. Original ones are in French, and I'm not fluent enough in that language.

jesse1746 wrote:The reason I ask is because I have talked about this subject before with others and I'm very interested in discussing every aspect of this "Germ theory vs Terrain theory" and from the way it has been described to me by others Terrain theory means ALL terrain not just the body: E.G your house, the plants by it, your car etc so if that idealism is inccorect I would like to hear the correct information then please so that I might have a better understanding of it please and thank you.

If it focuses on germ vs terrain debate, then it is not about external environment. I believe the people you talked to are conflating the concepts.

Germ theory also accepts that external environment has many cause of diseases, i.e. germs. One example is pasteurization, intended to eliminate or deactivate germs from external environment (e.g. water, milk) before it is safe to be introduced to the body.

To myself really Germ theory and Terrain theory amount to if you believe the micro organism changes its surrounding environment for the better or worse vs the environment changing the micro organism for better or worse.

I still think (fwiw) that the angle we look at it things from is distinct and different from the actual research and hard science. The way we look at the Universe is our choice, but the way the Universe actually works is observable.

Surely, if the fact of germs causing disease has not been observed, then I can see the logic behind debating that - but if it *has* been observed, I can't see the point in denying it.

Does that make sense?

I felt the need to say that but looking at it now I have said it, I'm not sure it takes this discussion forward much.

Lewk wrote:I still think (fwiw) that the angle we look at it things from is distinct and different from the actual research and hard science. The way we look at the Universe is our choice, but the way the Universe actually works is observable.

Surely, if the fact of germs causing disease has not been observed, then I can see the logic behind debating that - but if it *has* been observed, I can't see the point in denying it.

Does that make sense?

I felt the need to say that but looking at it now I have said it, I'm not sure it takes this discussion forward much.

I don't think it does directly but it does bring up a good side point philosophical debate over the nature of science vs spiritual beliefs.

The issue being for anything to be considered a scientific fact at the bare minimum it must be observable by one or more physical senses: taste, touch, hearing, smell, and sight.

On the other hand any spiritual experiences one may experience by its very definition cannot be of the physical world in any way or else it would not be spiritual.

Not going to get into a debate over the two but it is interesting to think that from these two have birthed near endless debates over the subject of reality on countless subjects.

Perhaps a good subject for another day.

For now though, on the subject of germ theory and Terrain theory is it simply misbelief that labels Germ theory as strictly allopathic medicine and Terrain theory as strictly alternative medicine or is this true?