The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

germ theory is a fraud (4)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,106 times Debate No: 84106
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (3)




The concept that disease is caused by that germs is false. Antoine Bechamp discovered centuries ago, that - 'germs are the result of disease and were not the cause of it.' Just because germs are present when somebody is sick, doesn't necessarily mean that germs were the cause of the problem. The modern diet contains many foods which are unnatural for humans and can cause disease. These foods originated with the start of the agricultural revolution and have been with us ever since. These dangerous and allergic foods may include grains, refined sugars and dairy products. Leaky gut syndrome has been identified as the means that gut bacteria can enter the blood stream and cause disease. The common cold is a common symptom of food allergy. Many pesticides and fungicides can cause serious nervous system failure which may result in so called diseases like MS, Polio, Ebola, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, shingles and stroke. Note - Halogens replace iodine in the endocrine system which causes a dysfunction of the body's hormone system.(immune system)


I'll spend this round mostly presenting my own arguments, and rebut the remainder of Pro's later.

Let's be clear what Pro actually has to prove. He has to prove that germ theory is a fraud, so let's he clear about what this requires of him:

The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms.

To say something is fraudulent is to say that involves deceit or trickery.

So, Pro's burden requires him to prove that the evidence behind microorganisms being the causal agents of any disease is all deceit and trickery, that there's absolutely no reliable support for the view that any bacterium, fungus, virus, or molecular parasite causes disease. What's more, it requires that he show that any research produced that supports this conclusion is inherently deceiful, which means that the researchers involved clearly had intent to deceive others with their findings.

Note that his opening round satisfies neither of these burdens, and he's actually conceded the debate, stating "that gut bacteria can enter the blood stream and cause disease." Saying that bacterial agents are causal for any disease proves germ theory true, so the debate's already over. But I'll present arguments anyway.

1) Pathogens and Disease

If a given disease is specifically associated with a given pathogen to a tremendous degree, then we should assume that that association is not random.

Let's look at some examples, and it's simple enough to prove this with just bacteria. We could get into bacteria with whooping cough (caused by Bordatella pertussis),[1] Lyme disease (caused by Borrelia sp.),[2], Psittacosis (caused by Chlamydia psittaci),[3], tetanus and botulism (caused by specific Clostridial species),[4, 5], Legionnaire's Disease (caused by Legionella pneumophila)[6]... Seriously, this list goes on for days, and still excludes every single virus, fungus and molecular parasite.[7]

But I'm not here to teach a class on microbiological diseases. And I'm not the one with the burden of proof. Pro will have to show that every single one of these diseases is caused by something else " something non-microbiological " and then explain why these organisms are so often found with these diseases. I'll be interested to see what he comes up with.

2) Establishing Causality

How do we do it? It's actually a rather involved process, and those who engage in it don't take it lightly. Any assumptions as to what the causal agent is requires clear and verifiable proof. Initially, Koch's postulates were used, but they are far from perfect. As such, new postulates have been presented by scientists of the 21st century:

1. Nucleic acid sequence from a putative pathogen should be present in most cases of an infectious disease, and found preferentially in those anatomic sites known to be diseased, and not in others.
2. Fewer, or no, copy numbers of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should occur in hosts or tissues without disease.
3. As disease resolves, the copy number of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should decrease or become undetectable. Relapse should produce the opposite.
4. When sequence detection predates disease, or sequence copy number correlates with severity of disease or pathology, the sequence-disease association is more likely to be a causal relationship.
5. The nature of the microorganism inferred from the available sequence should be consistent with the known biological characteristics of that group of organisms.
6. Tissue-sequence correlates should be sought at the cellular level, using in situ hybridization of microbial sequence to areas of tissue pathology and to visible microorganisms or to areas where microorganisms are presumed to be located.
7. These sequence-based forms of evidence for microbial causation should be reproducible.[8]

A great deal of diseases do satisfy these postulates, as explained in these 2 papers.[9, 10] Among those are polioviruses and Hepatitis C. Pro will have to disprove this as a method for establishing causation.

I'd like to point back to step 5 in the new postulates. Pro will have to disprove virulence factors (which are a part of the nature of these microorganisms) that have clear links to illness. If a given virulence factor is produced specifically by a given organism, then the organism is directly linked in causality. For this, it's simple enough to look back at Clostridial species, which produce two of the most powerful toxins known to humanity.[11] I'll be interested to see how Pro can prove that these aren't causative of their respective diseases.

Debate Round No. 1


My opponent sounds very confident and cocky, even at this very early stage in the proceedings. He believes that he has already won this debate before it has even started. But, alas, he has erred at the very first stumbling block. He has totally misinterpreted what Germ Theory is. lol
Germ theory states that micro-organisms are the CAUSE of disease, AND that these micro-organisms come from EXTERIOR sources.

Reference -

This reference shows that germs are the RESULT of disease and are not the CAUSE. Thus, although germs may be present at the time of the disease that doesn't mean that they are the cause of the body's dysfunction.

I will use the example of a house fire. If there are firemen present at a house fire, does that mean that the firemen caused the fire? Answer - No! The firemen are there to put the fire out. The same goes for germs. If there is a vitamin deficiency or body poisoning occurring, then the body will send some bacteria or virus to fix it.


To start, I'd like to note that Pro hasn't responded to my burdens analysis. He's challenging my definition of the germ theory of disease (poorly), but not the associated burdens. So, Pro has to show that there is no reliable support for the theory at all, and he has to show that any support that has come out is not just wrong, but was published with the intention to deceive others.

So far, he's done neither. He's also completely dropped my opening argument.

I'll start with Pro's R1.

Pro starts by citing Antoine Bechamp, who also claimed that "something like a bacterium can change into a yeast that can turn into a fungus that can turn into a mold", which was clearly ridiculous, even at the time he said it.[12] The quote Pro provides is only slightly less absurd, as it requires some understanding of how these organisms come to be in these locations. This requires him to explain a) how these organisms come to be in the body, b) how the body interfaces with these organisms and tells them where to go, c) how the organisms are beneficial in any way, and d) why their virulence factors don't outweigh any potential benefit. He hasn't done so yet.

Pro says that "unnatural foods" might be the cause of many diseases, but he doesn't support this, merely stating it as an assertion. Similarly, all of Pro's assertions that the common cold is solely a symptom of food allergy and that the diseases he mentions are caused by pesticides and fungicides are entirely unsupported. But even if all of this is true, voters should still vote Con because that doesn't disprove the actual germ theory.

Onto R2.

Pro doesn't seem to understand how sourcing works. He sources quite a bit in this round, including one rather long video that no voter is likely to watch, which isn't connected to any of his arguments. For those that are connected, he depends entirely on voters to expand his arguments by reading his links. Voters shouldn't do this because there is such a thing as a character limit and Pro chose not to use it to the fullest, instead treating his sources as his argument.

But let's look at those assertions.

To start, Pro claims that I've misinterpreted what germ theory is. He hasn't said how my definition was wrong, and frankly, his definitions are just baffling.

"Germ theory states that micro-organisms are the CAUSE of disease,"

The word "the" is very important. Pro's view seems to be that germ theory requires that all disease results from germs, but he doesn't explain why we should buy this view of germ theory. Every source I can find makes clear that germ theory states that microorganisms are A cause of disease:

"Germ theory states that specific microscopic organisms are the cause of SPECIFIC diseases."[13]

"Germ theory, in medicine, the theory that CERTAIN diseases are caused by the invasion of the body by microorganisms, organisms too small to be seen except through a microscope."[14]

Note the words I've capitalized. None of them say "all."

"AND that these micro-organisms come from EXTERIOR sources."

Again, this doesn't appear anywhere in those definitions. The word "exterior" doesn't exist. Invading does, but an organism that's already in one tissue in the body can invade other tissues, as is the case with Pro's own exame of gut microbes. There's no reason invasive microorganisms need to come from exterior sources, though that is often the case " in fact, all the organisms I cited in R1 do.

This places the burden squarely on Pro " he has not prove that NO diseases are caused by microorganisms. Admittedly, Pro's source disagrees, but Pro's source comes from the College of Practical Homeopathy, which has a vested interest in disproving germ theory to advance their views and recruit more students. They've clearly redefined it to suit their own interests and draw people like Pro to their side. Their definition also stands alone without support.

The rest of this round is just vague assertions without any reason behind it.

Pro doesn't explain how germs are the result of disease, nor how they're a defense mechanism, relying solely on his source to explain. That source doesn't support this with any data. Nor does Pro's source explain why specific microorganisms always appear in the same context and with virulence factors capable of causing disease, both points I made in R1 that he's dropped.

The house fire example is just absurd. Firemen are clearly weilding huge hoses that fire water to put out flames. That's not akin to having organisms specifically producing virulence factors that contribute to a given disease. Pro hasn't explained how an organism like Borrelia is at all beneficial, or how the body creates them and sends them to the site. To employ a better version of Pro's analogy, it would be akin to finding a serial arsonist with gobs of incendiary materials on the site and assuming that he had nothing to do with the fire.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent is using bullying tactics by demanding that I should submit to all HIS BURDENS. This is a blatant abuse of authority and power - ( the burden of proof should be shared equally).

Now, what has my opponent done to prove that germ theory is a valid theory? Answer - Nothing!
What experiments has he demonstrated that proves that germ theory works? Answer - None!
What logical sequence has he used to show that germ theory is logical? Answer - None!

1. Quote -a) how these organisms come to be in the body, b) how the body interfaces with these organisms and tells them where to go, c) how the organisms are beneficial in any way, and d) why their virulence factors don't outweigh any potential benefit. He hasn't done so yet.

Reply - In regards to Antoine Bechamp's theories - The terrain determines the pleomorphic nature of cells, if the terrain changes, then, the cells change accordingly. Note - Cells are made of viruses and bacterium, thus, it is illogical to think of them as separate entities. If the cell is stressed with toxins or vitamin deficiency, the cell will morph into a more primitive form in order to survive. Thus, bacterium and viruses are just more primitive forms of cells. This reveals the illogical nature of the current germ theory which sees germs as the enemy.

2. Quote - Pro says that "unnatural foods" might be the cause of many diseases etc

Reply - It has been identified by scientific investigation that Leaky Gut Syndrome is the cause of the vast majority of human disease. Ever since the beginning of the agricultural revolution, mankind has relied on cereal crops to feed the vast hordes of people that inhabit the Earth. This rapid expansion in population has come at a cost. The cost being; a constant feeling of unwellness and disease due to cereal crops, which lack vitamins and cause allergic reactions throughout the human body.

3. Quote - The word "exterior" doesn't exist. Invading does

Reply - My opponent has shown me the error of my ways (lol) by pointing out that germ theory doesn't contain the word 'exterior' lol
My opponent doesn't seem to understand basic logic or the English language, for that matter. It is impossible to invade without coming from an exterior source or place. Note - Invasion is a term mostly used to describe an act of war. Germ theory and modern medicine in general, is an aggressive male orientated pursuit. They perceive germs as being the enemy which needs to be killed. Modern medicine uses acts of violence on a regular basis as a means of fixing perceived faults with the human body. They use dangerous chemicals, burning, radiation, vaccinations and other absurd methods of curing human disorders. These are all barbaric and unnecessary methods which generally cause further damage which is far worst than the original condition.

The alternative to these male orientated barbaric methods, is the more feminine/natural approach which doesn't see germs as the enemy. This would involve the use of vitamins, iodine, fresh air, sunshine and exercise to gently return the body back to its natural condition. During this period of recovery, all the toxins would be expelled from the body and natural hormone circulation would be re-established.

Reference - Wade Frazier

The section on - Masculine, Feminine, and "modern " Medicine.

At this stage, I would ask my opponent -
How does a virus attack?

Viruses don't have legs; viruses don't have ears, viruses don't have intelligence, viruses can't see and viruses can't feel.

Thus, how do these viruses organise themselves to attack us poor humans? lol

As we can see, dear voter, germ theory is just a load of bull-crap nonsense which doesn't make any sense what-so-ever!

In closing, I would like to present two documentaries which show that Leaky Gut Syndrome is the cause of most disease and the second documentary is about the failure of 'Tamiflu' which was supposed to be a cure for the common cold.


Pro likes to assert things without explanation for why he's right.

To start, he mentions my "bullying tactics", but never explains why my burdens analysis is wrong. Pro is affirming the resolution. I explained what he has to do to affirm: prove that germ theory is a fraud. If Pro fails to prove that, then I have no burden, since the resolution isn't proven true. I'm not required to prove germ theory is true (though I have). All I'm required to do is show how Pro fails to affirm (spoiler: he has).

Pro states that I haven't proved that germ theory is valid, ignoring every single example I presented. He ignores the 21st century version of Koch's postulates that I presented, which provides the means (i.e. the experiments) necessary for determining whether a given organism causes a given disease, and the two papers I presented that show the proof of that causality for several organisms.

What Pro does respond to has little to no bearing on the debate. Even if I conceded every response Pro gives, that wouldn't prove the resolution true. But I'll humor him.

Pro defends Bechamp's theories by talking about how "[t]he terrain determines the pleomorphic nature of cells," but fail to provide a mechanism that supports this view. It's solely an assertion of how Pro believe nature works. Pro doesn't explain what he means by terrain changes, nor does he provide evidence of such changes altering cells.

A human cell is not made up of viruses and bacteria.[15] A human cell does have an organelle called a mitochondria that is thought to have originated as a bacterial endosymbiont, but it cannot transform into a bacterium that can exit the cell and go elsewhere. The human genome has many viruses embedded in it, but that doesn't mean that the cell itself is composed of active viruses since these are dormant and non-replicative.[16]

Cells do not morph. Stem cells differentiate, becoming more complex, but that's not morphing, nor is it shifting to "a more primative form".[17]

Eukaryotic cells (like human cells) do not suddenly eject all their organelles and rupture their nucleus, nor do they build a cell wall, which is what would be required for a human cell to become a bacterium.[18] Nor do cells ever rupture entirely, leaving behind infectious nucleic acid, which would be required to become a virus.[19]

Pro says that Leaky Gut Syndrome causes "the vast majority of human disease." This ignores the fact that it "is a hypothetical, medically unrecognized condition"[20] for which Pro has presented no support. It's a theory presented by alternative health practitioners to to promote alternative health remedies that are entirely unproven, including diets, herbal preparations, and dietary supplements.[20] The rest of this is just Pro asserting that agriculture is responsible for all human disease, which again, comes without any support. So Pro is hedging his bets on a farcicle condition with farcicle causation.

Pro's final "quote" is taken out of context. I followed that quote with this: "an organism that's already in one tissue in the body can invade other tissues, as is the case with Pro's own exam[pl]e of gut microbes." An organism moving from one organ to another is "coming from an exterior source or place" to another place. Externality is relative to a given location, and invasion can occur with any externality.

But this is moot because I've given a half dozen examples of diseases that result from organisms external to the body. Pro has failed to address a single one of them. He's also failed to address polio and Hepatitis C, which I cited last round.

Pro talks about male and female oriented approaches to disease, but a) this seems to be Pro's personal preference rather than a statement of fact, b) just because Pro wants it to be so doesn't mean that the "feminine" approach to disease is accurate, c) as I showed earlier, the remedies he asserts have positive effects on the body are unproven, and d) whether it's male or female is irrelevant to the factual nature of the statement.

As for Pro's later questions...

Viruses don't "attack." They infect. A virus comes into contact with a host cell, penetrates the cell, and inserts its genetic material.[22] They don't need to see, hear, or have intelligence " viral proteins recognize its target by interacting with specific proteins or sugars on the surface of a given host cell.[23] This isn't a war, where viruses need to be organized into regiments to attack us. It only takes one getting into one cell to many " Influenza, for example, produces 1000-10000 new virions per infection.[24]

Back over to Pro to make more unsupported assertions that don't meet his burdens for this long since conceded debate!

Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has suddenly shifted his ground. In the last round, he corrected and advised me that germs don't come from exterior sources, but, instead they "ATTACK US". Now, upon seeing the stupidity of the attack concept, he has again changed his position. Now, he asserts, that germs "INVADE US". Well, we can plainly see that my opponent really doesn't know what he is talking about, because he keeps changing his story to suit the circumstances. I wonder what new definition that he will supply us with in the next round of debate! lol

Koch's postulates are just scientific methods of bias confirmation. If the initial assumption is wrong, then, any subsequent analysis will also be wrong. Its a matter of the dragon swallowing its tail in a continual circle of deceit. (Its a multi-layered faulty analysis.)

Extracted from the book by Arthur M. Baker
Awakening Our Self-Healing Body

"Viruses" Are Not Micro-organisms

Even though medical authorities mistakenly attribute to this dead cellular debris the powers of life and malevolence, microbiologists acknowledge that viruses are dead bits of DNA in a protein-lipid membrane coat, although FAILING TO REALIZE ITS SOURCE. As such, genomes are control mechanisms but not micro-organisms as the medical establishment would have us believe, since these so-called "viruses" are merely lifeless fragments of mitochondrial generic debris. Because of this, VIRUSES CANNOT CAUSE DISEASE unless they accumulate as filth and pollute our cells, tissues and circulation upon cellular death.
Viruses, then, are dead genomes from disintegrated cells whose cellular membrane is not completely broken down by cellular lysosomes.

Genomes have no characteristics of life whatsoever, and are merely bits of nucleic acid material normally recycled through phagocytosis or excreted as waste. Photos of alleged viruses "injecting themselves" into a cell actually show the cell literally engulfing the "virus" or proteinaceous debris. A dent, called invaginarion, then forms and the organic matter is surrounded by cellular substance which closes off, forming an impromptu stomach, and the "virus" disappears. The stomach then fills with powerful lysosome enzymes which digest the organic material, breaking it down into ammo acids and fatty acids for recycling or elimination. This process is a normal feature of cell physiology called phagocytosis (literally, cell-eating)" the routine process of cellular ingestion and enzymatic digestion of bacteria, dead tissue debris and other errant cells. Viruses are merely inert organic material totally devoid of all life qualities and are never seen to act. Photographs purporting to show viruses in action are outright frauds: what is actually shown is an ordinary physiological process of phagocytosis which occurs countless times daily within the body.

Remember, according to medical texts on virology and microbiology, viruses have the following un-lifelike characteristics:

1) Viruses have no metabolism"they cannot process food-stuffs or nutriment and they have no energy formation. They are only a template, or pattern of information, as are all genomes.

2) Viruses have no faculties for action of any kind"no nervous system, no sensory apparatus, and no intelligence that may coordinate movement or "bodily invasion" of any kind.

3) Viruses cannot replicate themselves"they supposedly depend entirely upon "obligate reproduction""meaning, reproduction by a host organism, something totally unheard of in all biology.

Quote - Cells do not morph. Stem cells differentiate, becoming more complex, but that's not morphing, nor is it shifting to "a more primitive form"

Reply - Note - Cancer cells change from aerobic to anaerobic cells. (Anaerobic cells are more primitive than aerobic cells.)
'Otto Warburg observed that cancer cells' metabolism is different than the one of normal adult cells. Normal adult cells use a small energy plant located inside them to produce most of their energy needs from oxygen, this is an aerobic process. In contrast, cancer cells rely mainly on the first part of the energy production process dependant on glucose (sugar), this is an anaerobic process. The anaerobic process is called glycolysis.'

Quote - Pro says that Leaky Gut Syndrome causes "the vast majority of human disease." This ignores the fact that it "is a hypothetical, medically unrecognized condition"

Reply - The Paleo Diet website has dozens of research papers and books that state otherwise.


Shifted my ground? My opponent decided to quote a sentence and 2 words from an argument I made in R2, and he thinks I'm shifting my ground because I happened to quote the rest of that second sentence and re-explain the rest? This isn't me shifting my ground. This is my opponent straw manning my argument and then being shocked when I tell him he"s perceived it incorrectly.

Pro finally responds to Koch"s postulates, but a) his response assumes bias confirmation without ever proving it, b) he never responds to the postulates I presented in R1, which aren't Koch's postulates, and c) he doesn't explain how those postulates reach incorrect conclusions, despite my presenting examples for him to critique.

The rest of Pro's new analysis this round is absolutely baffling, as most of it comes word-for-word from a source he cited 2 rounds ago, which appears to include solely the authors opinions.

Viruses are microorganisms. A microorganism, by definition, is "A"microorganism"or microbe is an organism that is so small that it is microscopic (invisible to the naked eye)." Neither my opponent nor I can see a virus unaided by a microscope, ergo a virus is a microorganism.

Viruses aren't "merely lifeless fragments of mitochondrial generic debris". Many viruses aren't even composed of DNA, so that makes no logical sense.[25] They encode a wide variety of proteins that are found nowhere in the human genome.[26]

Viruses can cause disease, hence the many examples of virulence factors I mentioned earlier in this debate.[27] Pro has also conveniently forgotten that viruses have many virulence factors that allow infection to occur - these are not just through "invaginarions".[28] For the sake of clarity, there are such things as invaginations, which seem to fit what the author is talking about. He does mention phagocytosis, which is a major means by which this process is carried out, and while this can be used to eliminate viruses from a given body, it doesn't explain viral replication or virulence factors, and therefore is not a reasonable alternate explanation for how viruses get into cells. As for photographs being frauds, I suppose the author is referring to all of pictures from peer reviewed sources?[29-33]

It's nice to claim, it's quite another to prove. Pro's source is not an expert in this field, he's no authority, and even if he was, Pro needs to show where and how he supports his views, not just assert it.

As viruses replicate and make far more of themselves, they are not "dead genomes from disintegrated cells".

"Genomes have no characteristics of life whatsoever" is yet another blatantly false statement which ignores the ability of viruses to replicate, evolve, grow, organize and respond to stimuli.

Pro's wrong that viruses have no metabolism: viruses require energy for the replication of their genomes and the production of necessary proteins.

Pro's right that they have no nervous system or "intelligence" (though neither do a great deal of other organisms), but that doesn't mean they lack sensory apparatus as they have surface receptors. That's all that's required to invade a single cell " no coordination necessary.

Pro's right that they cannot replicate themselves, but the same is true for any parasite, including many fungi and bacteria.[34]

Cancer cells are not anaerobic. They do require less oxygen than normal cells, but that doesn't mean they require none.[35] Yes, they undergo glycolysis as the major means for acquiring energy, and that process is oxygen independent, but a) all cells can use this pathway, and b) no cell can continually work without oxygen due to a lack of necessary NADH.[36]

More importantly, this is a permanent mutation of cells in the human body to a deleterious state. It's not morphing, it's not a response to external stimuli, and the cells can't go back.

As for Pro's Paleo Diet source, he should probably read those papers. None of them include the words "Leaky Gut Syndrome" anywhere. Yes, gut disease is bad, but Pro and this website are asserting that there's some common syndrome that is causing practically all gut disease and that none of it is caused by any microorganism. That's an assertion that requires direct and clear support, not to mention refutation of any and all infectious causes of gut diseases, something that Pro is apparently unwilling or unable to do. Either way, assertions aren't proof, and Pro has failed to prove that Leaky Gut Syndrome is real and causal to all gut disease.

Back to Pro for one final round of unresponsive claims from biased and ridiculous sources that still fail to affirm the resolution!

Debate Round No. 4


Sorry, White Flame, the old straw man defence can't save you this time. You have to admit that you have been caught with your pants down and need to face the music! lol

I have included a video of how a virus attacks a human. This is the establishment view of how a virus attacks us poor humans. lol

All the stages of this invasion are just manufactured theories which fit the supposed model. It is just a like a Walt Disney fantasy of what scientists believe is happening. This is not reality. Nothing here has been proved by laboratory experiments.

Germ theory was created for the purpose of protecting governments, manufacturers and universities from litigation. The new age of chemical warfare on the human body, which could be patented, was the object of this defence. Thus, if any chemical poison or toxin killed or injured any individual or group, then, germs could be held responsible for the death or injury of that person and no further questions or investigation would take place. Thus, germ theory is a means of protecting against criminal negligence and lazy governments that don't provide adequate water treatment, sewerage systems and food quality checks.

The 500 year inquisition was a period of time when all natural healers in Europe were tortured or burnt at the stake. This left a healing vacuum which was replaced by artificial healing practices. These artificial healers would be know as modern day doctors that rely on chemicals and pharmacy products to cure disease. Gone are most of the natural healers that used herbs and vitamins to cure disease.

Germ theory supports the pharmacy industry. Without germ theory, the pharmacy industry would only be a fraction of its current size. It was the pharmacy industry that financed Adolf Hitler to power and allowed the holocaust to occur.

Germ theory blamed mosquitoes for disease, thus, this allowed world governments to spray the streets and playgrounds of most western countries for a period of two decades. This stupid action resulted in thousands of deaths and paralysis injuries as a result of DDT poisoning. (See video above.) Note - Polio is not a disease.

No doctor or researcher is ever going to say that germ theory is a fraud. This is because germ theory supplies the reason for these people to exist. But, this reason is a fraud, because in pristine nature, disease does not exist. Disease is a man-made phenomenon which only occurs to people who eat unnatural foods like grains, sugar, alcohol and dairy products. These products cause inflammation, blockages and vitamin deficiency within the human body resulting in what is know as disease. Diseases have thousands of different names, but, you should note, that all disease have flu like symptoms. This is no mere coincidence. This is because all diseases really are just flu viruses with slightly varying symptoms. Note - doctors only use symptoms to diagnose disease. They never look at live blood samples to identify a disease. It is only by looking at live blood samples that one can understand what disease is and how it occurs.

Thus, a vote for con is a vote in favour of the holocaust, the inquisition, DDT spraying of children and murder by vaccination.


It's been... well, it's been.

Pro wants you to punish me for his in ability to read beyond the first sentence of a line I posted in R3 and clarified further in R4. He's wrong.

I've clearly presented how viruses invade cells, providing detailed links that further explicate the process and even images showing those processes in action. The Flu video he posted supports this, and he doesn't explain how it's wrong, so it's yet another point in my favor. Pro's denial isn't enough.

I'll get to these conspiracy theories later.

Many diseases don't produce solely flu-like symptoms: hemorrhagic fevers (like Ebola), colds, and polio, to name a few.[37-39] But the fact that symptoms are redundant doesn't prove that all diseases come from the same sources; flu symptoms are produced mostly by the body to kill the virus. Just because our immune response is consistent doesn't mean that the cause of disease is.

Infection of the bloodstream is called sepsis, is often quickly fatal, and normally involves so few organisms that they cannot be detected by microscopy, making Pro's preferred method impossible to implement.[40] But most organisms don't infect the bloodstream, and those infections require detection methods that look at other areas of the body. Pro doesn't explain why "looking at live blood" is a) an effective means of diagnosing illness ("there is no scientific evidence that live blood analysis is reliable or effective, and it has been described as fraudulent by means of convincing patients that are ill and should purchase dietary supplements"[41]), and b) the sole effective diagnostic method, as opposed to culturing, histology, or polymerase chain reaction (PCR), to name a few.[42]

As for his more *ehem* outlandish claims...

The fact that germs cause disease didn't result in the Holocaust. Health has become an industry, for better or worse, but the theory did not create that industry. It's no more blameworthy than the theory of gravity is for plane crashes and suicides; it's a theory, a basis for knowledge, and not a code of conduct.

DDT was a poor choice to control for them, but mosquitos are a grave threat to many people, trafficking diseases like malaria, yellow fever and West Nile.[43] That's why they're the deadliest creature.[44] Blaming the choice of DDT on germ theory has no basis in reality, and the response to mosquitos was justified by a basic knowledge of insect vectors.

Lastly, vaccination is not murder - it's saved countless lives.[45]

Onto summation.

Let's be clear: a fact debate requires that we debate facts. Not assertions, not opinions, not interpretations, and not net benefits. Facts. As such, when Pro spends so much of his every round asserting the existence of a massive conspiracy behind every single peer-reviewed paper on infectious disease (a claim requiring a MASSIVE BoP, as he'd have to prove that almost every researcher of the last century and beyond from academia to industry are in on one massive Ponzi scheme involving doctoring of evidence and making outrageous and easily disprovable claims), he wastes his time. Asserting that germ theory has been used to justify terrible things is also a waste because, while that's objectively wrong, it wouldn't matter if it was correct. We're debating whether germ theory is fraudulent, not whether individuals have abused the knowledge that germs exist. He's also spent the entire debate flatly denying the validity of my evidence without explanation or contrary evidence, despite the fact that almost any one of the sources I've presented would negate the resolution on its face.

Pro is dead set on making his opinion known, but he's failed to prove it true, let alone meet his conceded burdens. He hasn't proven that holistic medicine works, dropping my evidence that it doesn't, but even if he's absolutely right, that doesn't prove germ theory wrong or fraudulent. This is a debate, one where he's required to prove the resolution he crafted true, and he's utterly failed in that. He tried to shift the burden to me by twisting the definition of germ theory, but he dropped all of my responses, and continues to fail on the clear and obvious definition of the term.

Moreover, Pro has now conceded the debate twice, once in the first round and once here. He said in R1 that gut microbes can cause disease in the bloodstream. He now says that "all diseases are really just flu viruses", implying that viruses cause disease. This ends the debate; vote Con because Pro clearly agrees that germ theory applies to at least some diseases.

This is a no-brainer. Pro failed to: argue consistent case, meet his burden, or even argue germ theory coherently. For all these reasons, it's an easy decision: vote Con.

Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BlazingRodent 9 months ago
@VoT yeah, that kind of makes him cocky too.
Posted by airmax1227 9 months ago
>Reported vote: TheResistance// Mod action:Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro was a bit toooooooooo condensending by saying whiteflame had many straws. I was actually pretty interested. Whiteflame is a WELL respected debater, and is very strong. AKhen was very much relying on common and logical fallacies. Whiteflame did way better by proving again and again that the Con won.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G or sources. (2) Argument points are explained insufficiently. The voter has to point to specific arguments made in the debate and not overgeneralize about the existence of fallacies in one side's arguments. (3) Conduct is explained insufficiently. Condescension in a debate may be sufficient reason to award this point, but the voter has to point to examples if it's egregious enough to warrant it.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 9 months ago
"My opponent sounds very confident and cocky, even at this very early stage in the proceedings. He believes that he has already won this debate before it has even started."

Lol, he seems to not know who he went up against.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 9 months ago
Just by quickly skimming this debate, it seems that Pro is severely lacking in his ability to combat whiteflame's points. I mean, in R1, 2 paragraphs and 2 sources to refute all of Con's opening args. is a bit unbelievable....
Posted by airmax1227 9 months ago
>Reported vote: Balacafa// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro had terrible conduct in the debate and I'm tempted to also vote Con due to the multiple concessions however I'll put this under conduct. He uncivil throughout the whole debate. An example being: "my opponent really doesn't know what he is talking about." This is insulting, uncivil and should not be said within a formal debate. Furthermore, he additionally concedes the debate by saying: "all diseases are really just flu viruses." Con correctly points out that this implies that viruses cause disease.

[*Reason for removal*] The behavior the voter cites isn't worthy of a conduct violation. So long as the debater is solely attacking the content being presented rather than directly attacking the opposing debater, it's not a conduct violation. Saying that the opposing debater doesn't know something is not a personal attack. If the voter sees a concession in the form of an argument and views it as damning, then the voter must reflect that in an arguments vote, and not as a conduct violation.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
...Political correctness isn't an ideology. Plenty of conservatives engage in the practice of enforcing political correctness. And that's just it: political correctness is act of censorship - it requires that I tell you not to say something because it steps over a line I've drawn in the sand. I haven't done that. I haven't said that you shouldn't be racist. I haven't said you couldn't say what you've said about Jews, the pharmaceutical industry or the Holocaust. I'm not being paranoid about them either - I'm responding to your claims about each of them. How is that engaging in any measure of political correctness?
Posted by Akhenaten 10 months ago
You don't have to talk about political correctness directly to be politically correct. Political correctness is about having no opinion other than left wing ideologies. Note - Fear of making a racist remark could be conceived as being politically correct. Thus, your paranoia about Jews, pharmacy industry and the holocaust could be perceived as political correctness.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
I haven't said one thing about political correctness. I didn't say anything that implies that I'm a far left thinker, nor do I identify as a "far left psychopath."

It's really confounding to me that you're actually arguing this issue about the pharmaceutical industry, though frankly, I'd rather not continue it here where it might influence voters. I do, however, feel that I have to address this issue of the Jews and what they did, because it's off topic. The Jews didn't stop he supply of ammunition during WWI - they didn't have nearly that kind of power, and even if they'd tried, they would have been unsuccessful.

As for my ideas being out of date, that's more than a little absurd considering that you're telling me that all scientific evidence, including all of what's been generated recently, that involves infectious disease is wrong. Using "lol" was dismissive of a lot of the evidence I was presenting (and yes, I'd call that rude), though you never actually addressed any of it directly. At least I actually took on the claims you were making.

I entirely disagree on the Paleo diet, but fine, feel free to keep asserting that it's amazing.
Posted by Akhenaten 10 months ago
You are milking the political correctness ideologies of the far left psychopaths. It is not my fault that the pharmacy industry sponsored Adolf Hitler. Note - If the Jews hadn't stopped the supply of ammunition during World War I, then, Hitler may have had a kinder view of Jews. Bad karma will always get you in the end. I use lol a lot because your concepts are ridiculously out of date. Get on the Paleo diet and you wont have any headaches or disease. P.S. - Humour is not equivalent to rudeness.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
Ah, I'm noticing you didn't capitalize it. That actually makes it more confusing when you're referring to Hilter and "the holocaust". Seriously, what were you talking about?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 9 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con listed a bunch of diseases and cited sources that claimed they were caused by bacteria. Con correctly states that for Pro to fulfill his burden of proof, he must disprove each individually listed disease being caused by bacteria. Although Pro made some decent arguments, they were no where close to fulfilling the burden of proof mentioned of Con, since he didn't even address the specific bacterial diseases mentioned by Con. Con could have forfeited each round after the first, and still won because of his first round argument.
Vote Placed by Sidewalker 9 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an extraordinary claim and needed an extraordinary argument to meet the burden of proof. Pro's failure in this was extraordinary, very week to say the least. It amounted to unsubstantiated claims, reliance on conspiracy theory, and misrepresentation of Con's arguments. Con made a very strong argument backed up by strong references and sound logic, , Pro's conduct was poor to say the least, mostly attacking Con's arguments which does not meet his burden by any stretch. Con seemed to take Pro more seriously than deserved, amazingly held back on the sarcasm I'd have had to release, so he gets conduct points.
Vote Placed by YYW 9 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: roflmao this was hilarious