While a lot of what you say is true, e.g., that viruses were blamed for poisonings, I see no reason why viruses could not exist. Also, it's important to note that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
As for the germ vs terrain theory, I would bet that the argument resembles the old "nature vs nurture" conflict. In reality it's …
While a lot of what you say is true, e.g., that viruses were blamed for poisonings, I see no reason why viruses could not exist. Also, it's important to note that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
As for the germ vs terrain theory, I would bet that the argument resembles the old "nature vs nurture" conflict. In reality it's not an either -or situation but rather it's both.
The controversy seems to indicate that we humans do not yet know or understand everything, and that we ought to question everything especially "authority."
While a lot of what you say is true, e.g., that viruses were blamed for poisonings, I see no reason why viruses could not exist. Also, it's important to note that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
As for the germ vs terrain theory, I would bet that the argument resembles the old "nature vs nurture" conflict. In reality it's not an either -or situation but rather it's both.
The controversy seems to indicate that we humans do not yet know or understand everything, and that we ought to question everything especially "authority."