I have been doing cursory research into terrain theory and germ theory over the past day. Still very much on the fence over which holds more merit than the other. As they are both theories it makes sense to me that neither are 'absolute' as it were as both arguments have their strengths and flaws. I'm interested in hearing what more learned people believe and why.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (8)
sorted by:
In a way I think both can coexist
A perhaps naive or simple germ theory suggests that germs cause disease
terrain theory asks, why do some people when exposed to the same germs either get sick or do not?
The difference is, some people have weaker immune systems or are more susceptible to the illness: the "terrain" of their body matters when factoring in if they will get sick or not
So a "naive germ theorist" might fail to recommend people build up the "terrain" of the health of their body
a naive terrain theory might deny that germs cause disease at all, which idk if that's the case; I guess a hypothetical "perfect body" (terrain) could not become ill, but we don't have that on earth as much....