Talk:Terrain theory
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Germ theory denialism Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Germ theory denialism |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Theory
[edit]The fact that an unknown but significant percentage of people exposed to and infected with Covid-19 are asymptomatic suggests that the terrain theory has some validity but is not a total explanation of outcomes of infections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.41.67.69 (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I would say the cumulative data backs up terrain theory more then germ theory MLW— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.52.39 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems like a false dichotomy. Germ theory states that germs (among other things) cause many diseases in persons who are susceptible. Terrain theory states that germs (among other things) cause disease in persons who are susceptible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.55.11 (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- The terrain hypothesis today can be considered protoscientific. It was interesting at the time and derived treatments based on pH. Some of its tenets are still considered more or less true and others are considered flawed simplifications. Today, in light of a better understanding of biology, chemistry and medicine, including progress made in the germ theory of disease, basing new treatments on outdated views becomes pseudoscientific. Unlike for small localized infections that could possibly be treated with an antiseptic based on bacteriostatism or pH, or to desinfect surfaces, one couldn't drasticly change the whole body's acidity level to treat sepsis (i.e. acidosis, alkalosis) where antibiotics are safer and more effective (thanks to a molecular-level understanding of bacteria biology and the progress discovering and developing molecules to target them). Yet it unfortunately seems that proponents of terrain still exist today in altmed.[1] Rejecting better knowledge and treatments in favor of it can be considered a form of denialism with potentially harmful consequences, hence the current redirect.[2] And not only for bacterial infections and antibiotics, but in relation to virus, antivirals and vaccines, etc.[3] —PaleoNeonate – 20:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Restore as history or add to germ theory denialism?
[edit]Terrain theory is obviously wrong, but it is worthwhile to have a few more lines on it than the brief lines in Germ theory denialism. I think it is an interesting theory to look at the history of science and how germ theory won out through experiments. Obviously, some edits like claiming terrain theory is "reemerging" or there is serious support for terrain theory are wrong. In its time, it was a serious theory, which was later disproven. It's like we have a rather long section on the Ptolemaic model of the planets which although wrong is interesting for the historical reasons.
However, would it be better to add this here or expand the info in Germ theory denialism? >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Adding that Miasma theory gets its own page, which might affect a decision above. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)