To read a brief history description of the "germ theory," go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory

Basically, this "germ theory" notion was not subject to refutation experiments, for instance, the way Einstein's relativity claims were. Instead, certain "short cuts" were developed, such as what became known as "Koch's Postulates:"

The microbe must be present in every case of the disease. The microbe must be isolated from the diseased "host" and grown in a pure culture The disease must be reproduced when a pure culture is introduced to a non diseased susceptible "host." The microbe must be recoverable from an experimentally infected host.

Source: http://myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=robert_koch

Now, to someone not that familiar with the scientific method, this all sounds fine, and it may have practical value, particularly in a specific cultural or socio-economic context. However, there is one obvious problem, that is, not everyone who is "infected" with a "germ" becomes ill or suffers any negative effects.

In fact, in the early days of the "germ theory," a scientist named Max von Pettenkofer drank a vial of cholera (and neutralized his stomach acid beforehand which should have allowed the "germ" to do great harm) and experienced no "disease." Since then (the mid nineteenth century), the method of tracking "infectious diseases," called epidemiology, has become more and more influential. You have probably heard of many media reports of links, associations, or correlations - these are epidemiological studies. They do not meet the standard of the scientific method, nor do they contain mechanism for hypothesis refutation, which is the most practical was of testing most hypotheses. They basically provide "food for thought," but in many cases are highly misleading, due to poor design or flawed initial assumptions. Many scientists will even say something like, "well, it's pretty clear that germ A causes disease B because the association is so strong." For example:

"[Robert Root-Bernstein] then argues that there is just as good a correlation of AIDS with herpes simplex virus (HSV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), and hepatitus B as there is with HIV... The correlation is almost as good." Page 288 of the book, "Virus Hunting," by Robert Gallo (1991).

If you have read the other essays here, you now know that there are at least several other factors that play major roles, and do explain why some people become ill and others don't. This is what the scientific method is supposed to do, that is, determine causes. Yet with the "germ theory," this is never even investigated. If a person becomes ill and the "germ" is isolated, that is considered enough, though in "HIV" the germ has never been isolated, only markers that it has been assumed are consistent with a "retroviral infection" (and not even any one particular retroviral infection). One can say that in some cases, the presence of a "germ" in a body undergoing certain kinds of stress will generate a dangerous inflammatory response, which then results in what has been classified in medical literature as a specific "disease." But because this inflammatory response does not have to be dangerous, it is illogical to blame the "germ" for the "disease," and of course it violates the scientific method, since this method demands that disease causation always occurs after infection, and that any factor that might be important should be controlled for during experimentation.

Why this has escaped the minds of so many scientists most likely involves several factors, and is beyond the scope of this essay. However, as Robert Gallo has said (in his "Virus Hunting" book, page 31): "...straightforward, practical research" is "too solution-oriented to pass as intellectual pursuit with some purists" and " did not enjoy a position of great respect in the academic community." This is quite an admission, indeed! As a historian who has placed great emphasis on the scientific method, both as a teacher and researcher, I noticed the contradictions in various claims being made about health and disease. It took several years of research to fully grasp the situation, as well as how to explain it in a clear and succinct way to others, but if there is something that you would like clarified, by all means click on the general message board and post a question.

Now, let's say a scientist understood my point and was determined (and had funding) to follow the scientific method. Further, let's say he/she had found a bacterium that was always deadly, even in tiny amounts. And also, let's say that people from all the nations of the world had been killed by it, so that diet did not appear to be a factor (nor any other one that was specific to some people only). Obviously, given today's technology, the actual deadly mechanism could be determined, but let's put that aside for now - this is all hypothetical in any case. At this point, other scientists could check to see if this person's data was accurate, and if so, it would be on the same level of a scientific theory, that is, sole causation had been established, and no evidence had been found to contradict it.

At this point, as with Einstein's relativity, it would be important for other scientists to continue to do research and think about how one could do an experiment that would refute this person's claim about the deadliness of the bacterium. A scientist who understood the role of fatty acids in the inflammatory response, for example, might say that this claim would have to be tested (for example, in an established animal model) with animals that where not overloaded with omega 3 and/or 6 polyunsaturated fatty acids. If it was found that only 2% of animals that were not overloaded died, then the claim that this bacterium is deadly would be incorrect. It still may be classified as very dangerous, of course, but the cause of its "super deadly" quality was found to be mostly the result of the the fatty acids in the body, not the bacterium alone. If fatty acids were not a factor, however, nothing would be "proven," which is a term that should not be used in science (though is fine for logic or mathematics). A major problem today, however, especially in the biomedical and nutritional fields, is that the public mostly hears what a small number of people (who seem to me to be largely ignorant of the scientific method, and instead rely mostly on epidemiological studies) want them to hear. Thus, an element of "power politics" has led to a situation where it is often difficult to do refutation experiments, and even when they are done, they are sometimes totally ignored (such as the 1948 experiments that directed refuted the "essential fatty acids" claim). This situation has led me to establish this page, and to do my own research in an attempt to determine the scientific reality of certain phenomena.