What are your thoughts on cellular AKA terrain disease theory?

jesse1746 wrote:What are your thoughts on cellular AKA terrain disease theory?

I looked it up on Wikipedia. It seems to be a theory from over 100 years ago, since regarded by scientists as having been disproved.

For me, when it comes to understanding how a person's immune system or resistance to disease works, there is still an an awful lot for science to find out. The so-called 'placebo effect' has had very little research. There seems to have been little scientific or commercial interest in doing that. I think it's fair to say science is only at the beginning of taking an interest in all that.

I think there are complex factors that influence wellbeing and the mind-body connection is probably a very significant factor. I mean that from a scientifically-valid viewpoint.

Bizarrely, even when medical professionals give patients a sugar pill and *tell* them it's a placebo, there is a statistically significant increase in the number that get better. The colour of the pill seems to be important. And there was an experiment in which hospital patients watched their knee arthroscopic debridements happen on a TV screen by the operating table. Months later they had the usual improvement and relief and refused to believe that nothing had been done to them and that what they had seen was just a recording of someone else's operation. And I watched a TV documentary in which an MRI scan of someone's brain while they were acupuncture-needled for pain relief showed the areas of the brain related to pain relief were very clearly active. The sceptical doctor presenting that series on various alternative medical therapies was surprised and impressed.

None of the above examples fits with orthodox theory on biology or medicine.

tl:dr Basically, alternative medical practitioners (including chiropracters) are right to think modern science/medicine is missing something fundamental about how the immune system or wellbeing works.

But I would hesitate to say that this means a century of scientific discovery about germs is totally wrong and the disproved, outdated theory of Antoine Beauchamp must be right.

Lewk wrote:

jesse1746 wrote:What are your thoughts on cellular AKA terrain disease theory?

I looked it up on Wikipedia. It seems to be a theory from over 100 years ago, since regarded by scientists as having been disproved.

For me, when it comes to understanding how a person's immune system or resistance to disease works, there is still an an awful lot for science to find out. The so-called 'placebo effect' has had very little research. There seems to have been little scientific or commercial interest in doing that. I think it's fair to say science is only at the beginning of taking an interest in all that.

I think there are complex factors that influence wellbeing and the mind-body connection is probably a very significant factor. I mean that from a scientifically-valid viewpoint.

Bizarrely, even when medical professionals give patients a sugar pill and *tell* them it's a placebo, there is a statistically significant increase in the number that get better. The colour of the pill seems to be important. And there was an experiment in which hospital patients watched their knee arthroscopic debridements happen on a TV screen by the operating table. Months later they had the usual improvement and relief and refused to believe that nothing had been done to them and that what they had seen was just a recording of someone else's operation. And I watched a TV documentary in which an MRI scan of someone's brain while they were acupuncture-needled for pain relief showed the areas of the brain related to pain relief were very clearly active. The sceptical doctor presenting that series on various alternative medical therapies was surprised and impressed.

None of the above examples fits with orthodox theory on biology or medicine.

tl:dr Basically, alternative medical practitioners (including chiropracters) are right to think modern science/medicine is missing something fundamental about how the immune system or wellbeing works.

But I would hesitate to say that this means a century of scientific discovery about germs is totally wrong and the disproved, outdated theory of Antoine Beauchamp must be right.

So, would you disagree with the idea of the environment deciding illness and wellness then?

In other words that there is no "bad germs" per say more that it is the bad conditions lead to those "bad germs."

Granted that is WAY over simplifying it but yeah.

jesse1746 wrote: So, would you disagree with the idea of the environment deciding illness and wellness then?

In other words that there is no "bad germs" per say more that it is the bad conditions lead to those "bad germs."

Granted that is WAY over simplifying it but yeah.

That's an interesting angle on it.

I don't really have the answer. I can only come up with some more thoughts, for what they're worth.

Maybe it's a bit like the 'is the glass of water half full or half empty' question. Perhaps that is a value judgment or a personal perspective?

I think to some extent there are facts or scientific certainties, then there are ways of looking at the science - which is where each person's preferred viewpoint or belief system comes in. Some scientists adopt a belief system in which they view scientific research and theory as being devoid of any spiritual relevance - or 'woo woo', as some of them call it - because as individuals they prefer this way of looking at the world.

Other scientists aren't so dogmatic and materialist. They are open to other things going on in the Universe - like psi - as long as the research has reached a statistically valid threshold.

So on your question "would you disagree with the idea of the environment deciding illness and wellness then?" - that seems like a judgment call. The science ought to speak for itself. I'd prefer to think of the whole thing from a holistic point of view: ie that it's hard to say which factor in a situation is a sole cause.

And as I think I said before, I generally try to avoid doubting well researched science.

The best I can come up with as an answer is the Ouroboros / Infinity / Mobius strip symbol. You know, the snake eating its tail symbol. It's hard to tell where it begins and ends. All factors may play a part in disease but it may not be possible to isolate one as being entirely responsible.

Or maybe it's like the old Indian parable of the 5 blind men taken to meet an elephant. One feels its ear and says the elephant feels thin and wide. Another feels its tail and says "No, you're wrong, it's long and thin." The next one feels its trunk and says "You're both wrong". And so on. None of them are wrong. All of them are right.

A Shaman will view and treat an illness from a different point of view to an acupuncturist and to an energy healer and to a modern allopathic doctor or to a naturopath. That to me doesn't invalidate any of their perspectives.

What is terrain disease theory?

darkwing dook wrote:What is terrain disease theory?

see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism

"Germ theory denialism is the pseudoscientific belief that germs do not cause infectious disease, and that the germ theory of disease is wrong.[1] It usually involves arguing that Louis Pasteur's model of infectious disease was wrong, and that Antoine Béchamp's was right. In fact, its origins are rooted in Béchamp's empirically disproved (in the context of disease) theory of pleomorphism. [2] Another obsolete variation is known as terrain theory and postulates that diseased tissue attracts germs rather than being caused by it.[3] "

darkwing dook wrote:What is terrain disease theory?

Terrain theory is the idea that disease is dependent on the condition of the environment.

Micro organisms can change depending on the environmental conditions and the "bad ones" come about to already weakened environment but are not themselves the cause of the illness to that environment.

Good micro organisms likewise arise within good environmental conditions.


Think of it as micro organisms are like people not really good or bad themselves if you put someone into a good environment there is a greater chance they will become a good person but if you put that same person into a bad environment they have a bigger chance if becoming a bad person.


Microorganism "x" if the opposite of its environment such as a good microorganism in a bad environment or a bad microorganism in a good environment said organism will either mutate into the other type to survive or it will die off unless of course the environment itself changes to suit that organism type first of course.


And yes one environment can influence another. The stronger one usually changing the weaker one.


In other words if you are still extremely negative person by nature a"rotten to the core" type of soul but you came upon an area where there are 400,000,000 white art type of souls/spirits you are going to be so overwhelmed and your "rotten soul" will likely adapt to become more of white art type.

Sadly, the opposite can be true wherein if you are an extremely positive white art type of soul but encounter 400,000,000 black art type souls/spirits then you will also more than likely adapt to be more negative in nature.

I say more than likely because the one absolute of existence is that there are no absolutes so it is entirely possible in the above examples that one could find a way to overwhelm the opposing 400,000,000 and influence their environments to change in nature.


Sorry, if this was a bit long and I do hope I didn't butcher the time explanation here.

If I did I apologize.

jesse1746 wrote: Terrain theory is the idea that disease is dependent on the condition of the environment.

For that definition, it's not the terrain theory as proposed by Bechamp here:

Lewk wrote: see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism

But it's what is called environmental disease or environmental illness, as seen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_disease
https://myhealth.alberta.ca/Health/Page ... wid=zp3199

For Bechamp's theory as opposed to germ theory, there's this table of comparison:
https://juniperpublishers.com/jojnhc/pd ... 555631.pdf

darkwing dook wrote:

jesse1746 wrote: Terrain theory is the idea that disease is dependent on the condition of the environment.

For that definition, it's not the terrain theory as proposed by Bechamp here:

Lewk wrote: see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism

But it's what is called environmental disease or environmental illness, as seen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_disease
https://myhealth.alberta.ca/Health/Page ... wid=zp3199

For Bechamp's theory as opposed to germ theory, there's this table of comparison:
https://juniperpublishers.com/jojnhc/pd ... 555631.pdf

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.

That's just my own perspective on the matter as I see the condition of the body and the condition of the environment as linked to each other.

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