Karen Sem

Observing germs at the site of illness does not mean they are the cause of illness. Imagine you’re a child living in the driest region on earth, which is very prone to forest fires. Every time you see a raging fire, you notice guys in red suits at the site of the fire. You might falsely conclude that, because each time a fire is present, the men in red suits are present, therefore the men in red suits are the cause of the fire. The reality is, the men in red suits appear at the site to put the fire out. In order to scientifically demonstrate that bacteria/fungi/so-called “parasites” are the cause of illness, there must be double blind randomized placebo controlled trials with the bacteria/fungi/so-called “parasites” as the independent variable, delivered by itself to a healthy host (free of confounding variables), clearly demonstrating that those receiving the bacteria/fungi develop disease symptoms at rates far greater than a placebo group that receives an inert substance. Further, in order to demonstrate that healthy people become sick when exposed to sick people or their bodily fluids, there must be double blind randomized placebo controlled trials with exposure as the independent variable, in which healthy hosts (free of confounding variables) are allocated either to that exposure or to an identical sham exposure involving healthy people or inert material, with recipients blinded to what they are being exposed to and outcome assessors blinded to group assignment, clearly demonstrating that those receiving the exposure develop disease symptoms at rates far greater than the sham exposure group. Neither of these has ever been done. What's offered instead are challenge studies that fail at any one or more of the necessary pieces I named. In some studies, every participant receives the bacteria/fungi and the randomized variable is a vaccine or drug, so there's no inert arm to compare against. In others, volunteers are fasted and given bicarbonate to neutralize stomach acid before receiving hundreds of millions of bacteria/fungi. Animal work relies on intracerebral, intratracheal delivery, and injections, adjuvants, weakened hosts, and doses of foreign material that no living being would come across in day to day life. “Proof” of “infection” is oftentimes counted as serological tests or positive cultures rather than actual symptoms of illness. And transmission studies that have come close to meeting the standards I laid out at the beginning have failed drastically. For example, the Spanish Flu Transmission trails where none of the participants developed Spanish Flu symptoms at all, despite a variety of exposure methods (both natural and unnatural), and despite the exposed volunteers being the same age range where nearly 50% of Spanish Flu deaths occurred. The “Germ Theory” is not a theory at all, but an entirely unproven—and in many ways failed—hypothesis. Fear of germs is fear of the cleanup crew that is essential for life. A war on germs is a war on life itself.

Dr. McCullough, respectfully, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You’re spreading entirely unsubstantiated fear. There is zero empirical evidence (meaning evidence that follows the scientific method) to validate the claim that healthy people become sick when exposed to sick people or their bodily fluids, which is a distinct category from the phenomenon of two or more people getting sick in the same space with similar symptoms.