Recently, germ theory denier HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr decided to swim in a sewage-filled DC creek with his grandchildren. This creek is closed for swimming because it contains runoff, which is filled with pathogens from streets, buildings, sewage, and excrement in that part of DC.

This is because Kennedy rejects one of the basic tenets of biology and modern medicine — the germ theory. Of course, a large portion of the anti-vaccine world is one form or another of a germ theory denier, so it is not hard to understand why Kennedy himself is a proud member of the germ theory denier world.

This article is going to be a discussion of what exactly germ theory is, and what a denier says about the scientific theory

What is a scientific theory?

Before we discuss germ theory, we need to discuss what constitutes a scientific theory. At its core, scientific theories describe the mechanisms (causality) of observed phenomena. The core component of a scientific theory is that it can provide explanations and predictions of similar phenomena that can be tested through the scientific method.

In this context, a theory is not a random guess, which is how many lay people think of the word. This has led to years of “evolution is just a theory” dismissals from creationists, which grows tiresome. If only they took a few science courses, they’d stop with this lame argument. Of course, I’ve read the same thing from the germ theory denier world.

However, scientific theories are not “written” by one person — theories are developed from huge bodies of scientific research produced over long periods of time. Theories rest upon the writings of numerous contributors over time and are supported by vast amounts of evidence.

One person, even a Nobel Prize-winning biologist, cannot “invent” a theory. Usually, a theory evolves (sorry, couldn’t resist) from initial observations into hypotheses through scientific consensus to an accepted theory. Each step requires more and more evidence – a scientific theory, like evolution, is based on a literal mountain of evidence.

This process of scientific knowledge occurs over a continuum, and it may be impossible to point out the exact date the theory appears. The evolution (sorry again) of the evidence supporting scientific theories is based on the scientific method. As more and more data is gathered from the scientific method, the scientific theory slowly gains support in the scientific community.

Furthermore, scientific theories are used to make predictions about the natural world. This predictive ability is not a pseudoscience like a psychic telling you who to marry, it is the ability to use the scientific method to question a prediction about a future result (say, man evolving a fifth limb), and answer it. If the theory of evolution predicts that fifth limb, but the prediction fails through a scientific study, then the theory gets revised.

Evolution itself is an observed fact – there are millions of published papers and books that describe these observations. We can observe evolution in everything from the fossil record to how viruses cause a pandemic (SARS-CoV-2 is a perfect example of evolution). Let’s make this clear — evolution is a fact.

On the other hand, the “theory of evolution” explains the mechanism (thus, the ability to predict) of evolution. Currently, the two best explanations of the mechanisms of evolution are natural selection and genetic drift.

The fact of evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence. The theory of evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence.

But as I always say, “scientific ideas are always provisional.” If someone were to publish evidence, and by evidence, I mean high-quality evidence published in respected biomedical journals, then we might reconsider the fact and theory of evolution.

For example, there is a joke that evolution might be overturned if we found a rabbit fossil in a rock layer far earlier than when mammals evolved. But would that refute evolution? Not really, maybe it was an error in determining the age of the rocks, or our rock aging science needs revision. Or maybe, mammals evolved earlier than we thought. Or an alien visitor, intelligent rabbits, visited our planet 1 billion years ago. But finding a rabbit in some rock strata way below the point where rabbits evolved probably would not affect the theory of evolution.

So, when we say “theory” in biology, it is not a guess. It is not an idea that pops into someone’s head. It is the pinnacle of scientific principles.

What is the germ theory?

Now that we’re clear that scientific theories are not just random guesses, let’s discuss what is the germ theory of disease. It states that living microorganisms, such as bacteria, protists, or fungi, and non-living organisms like viruses and prions, all known as pathogens, invade humans and can lead to disease.

Diseases that are caused by these pathogens are called infectious diseases. And just to be clear, not all diseases are caused by infectious diseases. For example, cancer is mostly not caused by microorganisms, although the human papillomavirus (HPV) and hepatitis B, viral pathogens, are linked to many cancers.

The germ theory of disease was first observed in the late 1600s when physicians began to suspect that invisible (to the naked eye) organisms caused some diseases. With the advent of the microscope, scientists began to understand the basics of germ theory.

By the 1700s, scientists had found the microorganisms that caused diseases by using early microscopes. They didn’t know what they were observing, but there was a link. And by the early 1800s, they could identify specific microorganisms that caused diseases. Edward Jenner, using observations of those who contracted cowpox and were immune to smallpox, developed the first vaccine – this is probably the first application of the germ theory of disease to clinical medicine.

Louis Pasteur is considered to be one of the first proponents of the germ theory of disease. His experiments showed that diseases could be prevented by killing or stopping germs – this directly supported the germ theory, along with its application in medicine. Of course, he is best known to the general public for his invention of the technique of treating milk and wine to stop bacterial contamination, a process now called pasteurization. And we know Kennedy loves raw milk that has not been pasteurized — one more example of his being a germ theory denier.

In modern medicine, we have a logical methodology to determine whether a disease is caused by a microorganism – Koch’s postulates. Our criteria are designed to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease:

1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

Once again, the germ theory is not just a random “idea” pushed by some scientist 150 years ago – it is based on a wealth of evidence over that time. There are over 2000 articles that use Koch’s postulates to show causality between microorganisms and diseases.

Still, some quacks think that the germ theory is nonsense. They reject it not with evidence but with their opinion.

Germ theory is as close to a proven fact as there is in the science of biology (right up there with evolution). The evidence supporting the fact that microscopic germs cause some diseases is overwhelming, despite the denials of one Robert F Kennedy Jr.

Underneath every anti-vaxxer is a germ theory denier

Getting into the brains of anti-vaxxers to see why they do anything can cause undue harm to my neurons. However, I think there are three reasons:

1. Without germ theory, vaccines have no purpose. Vaccines prevent diseases caused by germs, so if germs don’t exist, vaccines don’t do anything.
2. Without germ theory, they can blame something else for causing diseases, like bad diets or toxins.
3. Without germ theory, the grifters can sell miracle supplements to treat what they believe is the real cause of the disease because germs don’t exist.

Oh, I’m sure there are other reasons for rejecting the germ theory, but those are what hit my cynical brain. Now, what you’ll notice is that these people pick and choose when they accept or deny the germ theory.

Kennedy pushes something called “terrain theory,” not a scientific theory. He claims that preventing disease requires fortifying the immune system through nutrition and by reducing exposures to environmental toxins and stresses. In other words, no germs causing disease.

For example, COVID-19 has brought germ theory denial to the forefront. Instead of accepting that a novel pathogen, SARS-CoV-2, could cause disease and death of millions of immunologically naive people, some want to believe it’s something else.

So, instead of accepting the science, the anti-vaccine world used misinformation, conspiracy theories, and utter nonsense to convince people that it’s a fake disease and that vaccines are useless.

Germ theory denial used to be on the fringe of the pseudoscience crowd, but COVID-19 brought it to the forefront. People are rejecting germ theory like creationists reject the theory of evolution.

So, what do these people think causes COVID-19? They make wild claims that we haven’t been:

• maximizing our nutritional status
• minimizing our toxicity status, i.e., detoxification
• maintaining a proper pH or acid/alkaline balance
• maintaining a proper energetic/electrical balance
• cleansing our bowels

David Gorski, MD, recently wrote a massive article on the history of germ theory denial and how it’s led to some weird stuff about COVID-19. Here’s one of my favorites:

This was Kaufman’s first claim, namely that SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, is not a virus at all, but in fact exosomes that are removing the “toxins” that are the “real” cause of COVID-19. What are exosomes? In brief, they are small extracellular vesicles (like bubbles) that bud off from cells and can bump into and fuse with other cells.

In any event, Kaufman claims that what is seen on electron microscopy is not a coronavirus, much less SARS-CoV-2, but rather exosomes. It does beggar the imagination that so many virologists and electron microscopy would make such a fundamental mistake, but Kaufman does seem to be arguing that. Specifically, as Frank Visser points out, his argument really is as simple as observing that the coronavirus resembles an exosome plus adding the claim that what PCR is detecting is RNA in exosomes, not the coronavirus, as his slide above states.

No, it does not.

Let’s go back to Koch’s postulates and apply them to COVID-19:

1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms. Done.
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture. Done. This is why we got vaccines so fast — a laboratory in Australia isolated the virus, and scientists could sequence the genes of the virus.
3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism. Done. Of course, we didn’t deliberately infect humans — animal models were used, and we observed the disease when the virus was introduced to the animal.
4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent. Done.

Dr. Gorski concludes his article concerning COVID-19 with this:

Germ theory denial is not a new phenomenon. It’s been around as long as germ theory has and has long been a major strain in alternative medicine beliefs about disease. Pre-pandemic, the attractiveness is that “terrain” theory allowed its believers to labor under the delusion that, if only they ate the right foods, lived the right lifestyle, did the right things, and were, from a health standpoint, virtuous, they would be virtually immune to infectious disease.

Of course, as I said before, these days most germ theory denial is not absolute. Far more often, germ theory denial is “soft” in that it takes the form of a (usually weak) concession that microbes can under certain circumstances (basically only if the host is already sick) cause disease, but with the caveat that the disease is so much less likely to take hold or so much less likely to be deadly if you only live a virtuous life in terms of diet, exercise, and lifestyle; i.e., if you are Superman in terms of health. Unsurprisingly, it is the latter claim that nearly always overshadows the concession.

See, they pick and choose when it benefits them. Or they modify the germ theory to fit their needs. They continue to claim, after millions of deaths, that COVID-19 is relatively harmless, nothing more than a cold. So, a cold virus is a real thing, but the COVID-19 virus doesn’t exist.

Yes, it’s frustrating.

Summary

I don’t mean to be repetitive, but it does bear repeating — the germ theory of disease is essentially a scientific fact. If a denier wants to dispute the germ theory, they need to bring evidence supporting some other cause for the disease. I would hold my breath waiting, but I do not think that’s healthy for me.

It’s disastrous that the person in charge of the nation’s health, Robert F Kennedy Jr, denies one of the basic tenets of medicine. In doing so, he is unconvinced of the need for vaccines for public health. I’m not sure what’s in his brain (other than worms), but he probably believes that getting rid of seed oils and drinking raw milk is all that is required to stop diseases.

Sam Harris once wrote:

Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, “Well, that’s not how I choose to think about water.”? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn’t share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?

All I can do is provide the scientific evidence that supports the fact of germ theory. But if one side refuses to accept basic scientific principles, whether it’s the composition of water or how germs cause diseases, it’s really hard to have a conversation.

Robert F Kennedy Jr may not develop any serious illness from his playtime in a polluted stream, and he will claim that diseases don’t come from germs in the water. And that will lead to the hardening of his immutable anti-vaccine beliefs.

Kennedy holds onto his beliefs like a religious conviction. I could list out every single peer-reviewed article that supports germ theory, and he will wave it away because it does not support his beliefs.

This exhausts me.

Note

It’s important to understand that one should not conflate the pathogen with the disease. HIV, the pathogen, causes AIDS, the disease. Varicella zoster, the pathogen, causes chicken pox and shingles, the diseases. Whenever I write articles about diseases, like cervical cancer, I discuss how the pathogen, HPV, is linked to cervical cancer. This is the fundamental part of the germ theory.

Citations

• Segre JA. What does it take to satisfy Koch’s postulates two centuries later? Microbial genomics and Propionibacteria acnes. J Invest Dermatol. 2013 Sep;133(9):2141-2. doi: 10.1038/jid.2013.260. Epub 2013 Jul 11. PMID: 23842116; PMCID: PMC3775492.
• Wiese G. Chiropractic’s tension with the germ theory of disease. Chiropr Hist. 1996 Jun;16(1):72-87. PMID: 11619007.
• Williams DW. The Germ-Theory. Br Med J. 1871 Apr 8;1(536):368. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.536.368. PMID: 20746184; PMCID: PMC2260565.

Help the Skeptical Raptor keep writing about RFK Jr’s crackpot ideas

There are four ways you can help contribute to keeping this website running at full speed:

1. GoFundMe.
2. Contributing via Patreon.
3. Buying on Amazon.
4. Sharing this article on Social Media.