Philosophy of Disease

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Philosophy of Disease
21
Wed, 03-04-2009 - 1:09pm

Lurking elsewhere has me curious... what is your philosophy of disease?

I realize that might be a rather broad question. Do you subscribe to the germ theory? Do you believe all pathogens have the capability to create disease in its host? Do you believe that certain vaccines, even those that have had virulence removed, have the capacity to create disease in its host? How do you define disease?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Thu, 03-05-2009 - 8:26am
Then, not only am I a germ theory denialist, I also happen to be one of those nutcases that think germs are a good thing. :-)
Photobucket Photobucket

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2007
Thu, 03-05-2009 - 9:41am
ITA! We don't use antibacterial anything and my kids touch the grocery carts!! They've also been known to get a little dirty and get a little of that dirt in their mouths. Oh and I'm sure once or twice they've put food in their mouth after it dropped on the floor. Heathens! ;-)
Photobucket Thanks to Andie for my siggy!



Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Thu, 03-05-2009 - 9:51am

Ha!

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2007
Thu, 03-05-2009 - 10:02am

LMAO with the image of kids crawling around on the floor looking for food without cat hair! "Is this a cookie?" "I think so, try it."

LOL about your mom. When we eat out with my grandma we're always forced to use her antibacterial gel. It's better than getting into it with her about the icky germs!

The only time I get onto my kids about germs is in public bathrooms and when ds lays down on the floor in public places. I just have images of the dog poop on all the shoes that have walked on that floor!

Photobucket Thanks to Andie for my siggy!



Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Thu, 03-05-2009 - 12:37pm

History is an interesting thing... can't go manipulating statistics or methodology. Many historians have done the homework for us, thankfully. For example, Pasteur's initial discovery of attenuation was supposedly in February of 1880. Within this revelation, there were no details revealing how he did it, only that a change in culturing was done with vague reference to Jenner. As it is written, he was hounded fairly regularly to provide further detail (presumably to undergo some sort of peer review, this includes Academy of Medicine) yet he refused to give further details. The secrecy ignited quite the scandal, depending on whom you ask.

According to historians, Pasteur, after returning from vacation in 1896 found that cultures in his lab had died while he was away. For seemingly no reason, he injected these dead cultures into chickens with no effect. He then injected them with fresh virulent cultures, and there were no debilitating effects... alas, vaccination with attenuation... pure genius, out of his posterior... right? No. His descendants donated his lab manuals in 1979 and they reveal the above to be a complete myth. His manuals confirm that Emile Roux discovered attenuation and was testing the technique prior this "chance" discovery.

Of course anyone that accounts history, shows any favor to science or history that doesn't support the germ theory (there's quite a bit) or Pasteur are quacks.

*** Edited to clarify and ask:

If disease is defined by symptomology, do you have to culture a particular organism to "prove" disease? If you have symptoms of a particular disease, but the culture comes back with something else... what disease do you have? If you culture a particular pathogen, but the symptoms don't fit... what disease do you have?




Edited 3/5/2009 3:38 pm ET by criticalthinker
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Thu, 03-05-2009 - 12:54pm

]

I think that's just it... they don't think are doing any harm. A robust child may do fine, then there's that whole definition of robust thingy. Who gets to define it?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Fri, 03-06-2009 - 2:12pm

Personally, I think that the invention may have been good intentions (I do) - however, it's impossibly to jump into the future to see the ramifications. I don't think either that ramifications were even a consideration, because who would of thought??? And it's interesting to note that a hundred years later, we still don't know... (or, if we do, would we admit it? Would we admit that the savior of all was our demise?) I don't think we would - I believe we are that arrogant.


As in for your other message James, I can't answer it. I don't have the science know-how. I have a hard time trying to understand the T-Cells, let alone,

Rands

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Thu, 03-12-2009 - 12:36am

I don't have a "philosophy" of disease but I'm gonna get me one, lol!

Seriously, this is a complicated topic, one I know so little about that I have nothing to say, believe it or not :)

I'm a recovering Germaphobe, still recovering. I had a totally incorrect view of this particular *science* just recently and I realize that most people I know have that same incorrect view. I just sit around wondering how we all got so stupid --- did we just not learn anything in high school science or what???

I'll be the first one to admit, I learned very little about Science during my public school education. Of course, that's an issue for a different debate board.

What limited understanding I have is skewed based on experiences and of a lack of education in the subject-matter. (I have a good understanding of food allergies, or *false* food allergies to be exact.) But when I find time to look into this more I'll have many questions. I will bring this back to life if it dies...but I hope more people will chime in until then.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Thu, 03-12-2009 - 2:27am

I've warped my kids in regards to germs...but I'm trying to find a happy medium (and undo the damage). I've washed my hands in an obsessive way since childhood, and I've worked on it for years. It's a choice like anything else but clean hands are a comfort I've been brainwashed to think is good for me. Yes, clean hands when I eat is good for me, but compulsive hand-washing is not healthy at all.

I have gone from using antibacterial *everything* to only using one antibacterial soap in the bathroom where my daughter has just learned to wipe after #2. After a few more months, I'll give that one up too and replace it with regular hand-soap. Before, I had a sanitizer in a spray bottle in bathrooms, and the kitchen. I had clorox and water in one which I used like mad prior to every meal I cooked, and after every time I handled raw meat. I had a ritual that I had to go through before I considered washing vegetables or making salad - never mind the food NEVER even touched the surfaces I cleaned . Today, I just have to have a clean sink, without dishes, before I'll wash veggies, they still are not touching the sink :) But I don't even keep either spray bottle now. I still buy bleach, but not even monthly now. I don't buy sanitizer for my countertops any more, I don't buy hand sanitizers or wipes and I don't buy that vegetable-wash crap that I bought back when we used to live in the city. I wouldn't even cook with water from the tap back then. I have come a long way baby!!!

But I still have a ways to go. I have anxiety when I read about germs and bacteria, I kid you not!

But I'm gonna do it! I'll just consider it part of my OCD therapy, it's necessary!!! ;)

I find it amazing that some people can get so brainwashed into thinking that germs are to be eliminated. Now that I know better, I find it fascinating that the scientists think they can eliminate any germ, bacteria, disease...it's NOT in their control!

Dee made a good point about American's and "control". I've heard that from other non-American's and it's fairly true, depending on how you look at it. Scientists are worse with everything needing an absolute. How reality must haunt them daily!

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Thu, 03-12-2009 - 11:19am

Does sound a bit excessive crunchy. People do the best they can with the information they have, and when the information gets better, then they do better.

The official microbial war started a very long time ago. There is rumor that Pasteur recanted his germ theory on his "deathbead"... that's not the way I've read it. I've read that he told a colleague in France, who then told Tissot, the inventor of the gas mask. I've always believed it to be true, but admittedly cannot furnish proof of such.

Most people don't disagree that some pathogens cause disease in some people. There are those compromised that probably are most likely to suffer complications from those diseases. Because of this, *everyone* must be immunized, regardless of the deleterious effects it may create in the recipient.

Then there's the whole, having the cake and eating it too... in which vaccinated people proclaim that because of their choice to incur the risk of vaccinating, those that don't, or can't, can be protected by herd immunity. Then they'll turn around and tell you that the risks are minute and reactions are rare... Which is it? Are there risks associated with vaccinating or not? If so, why do you get to decide who takes that risk? Why are your rights more important than mine? Why is your child more important than mine? kwim?

If we are implementing vaccine policies to protect the less robust in the human species this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In the end, the parents are left with the consequences of their decision to vaccinate or not, because of this, the choice belongs to the parent.