copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Viruses don’t exist, terrain theory explains why diseases occur (Matt Roeske, 2024-02-15)
Evidence (2020-09-29): It was Louis Pasteur who convinced a skeptical medical community that contagious germs cause disease; his "germ theory" now serves as the official explanation for most illness. However, in his private diaries he states unequivocally that in his entire career he was not once able to transfer disease with a pure culture of bacteria (he obviously wasn’t able to purify viruses at that time). He admitted that the whole effort to prove contagion was a failure, leading to his famous death bed confession that "the germ is nothing, the terrain is everything." [...] >> At the core of this debate, I think many people pose terrain theory vs. germ theory in simplistically binary way - it's worse than "nature vs. nurture"! The need for suitable soil and water to grow a garden does not disprove the role of seeds - and vice versa - the importance of a healthy human immune system does not disprove the importance (or existence) of germs or viruses, or vice-versa. <<
Claim: Viruses don’t exist, terrain theory explains why diseases occur (Matt Roeske, 2024-02-15)
Evidence (2021-08-08): Listen up, sheeple: COVID-19 doesn't exist. Viruses don't cause disease, and they aren't contagious. Those doctors and health experts who say otherwise don't know what they're talking about; the real experts are on Facebook. And they're saying it loud and clear: the pandemic is caused by your own deplorable life choices, like eating meat or pasta. Any "COVID" symptoms you might experience are actually the result of toxic lifestyle exposures—and you have only yourself to blame. [...] Germ theory denialism isn't new. It can be traced back to the origin of germ theory itself, often to two contemporaries of Louis Pasteur: Claude Bernard and Antoine Béchamp. Both came up with opposing hypotheses to Pasteur's enduring germ theory. Bernard proposed the concept of milieu intérieur, which suggests that the body's internal environment—or terrain—maintains its equilibrium. The state of the terrain, rather than the presence of pathogens, ultimately dictates whether disease will develop (which is not an entirely crazy idea, given what we now know about the microbiome and the immunocompromised). Meanwhile, Béchamp—considered a bitter crank and rival of Pasteur—suggested that pathogenic bacteria are produced by human tissue as a response to a harmful change in the terrain. Thus, bacteria do not cause disease; they are merely a self-created symptom of it—which is clearly just incorrect.
Claim: Viruses don’t exist, terrain theory explains why diseases occur (Matt Roeske, 2024-02-15)
Evidence (2024-07-31): Many of my followers and students have asked me to comment on the ongoing germ vs terrain theory/ "viruses don’t exist" debate. I first explored this topic with Dr Tom Cowan and Sally Fallon-Morell on my previous podcast, Beyond Health in March of 2021. You can listen to that here (it’s a good primer if you’re new to this conversation). [...] Terrain Theory vs. Germ Theory: Analysis of the debate between terrain theory, as advocated by Antoine Bechamp, and germ theory, popularized by Louis Pasteur.
Claim: Viruses don’t exist, terrain theory explains why diseases occur (Matt Roeske, 2024-02-15)
Evidence (2022-08-30): There is plenty of proof that viruses exist and cause disease. Flu viruses have been photographed in the process of infecting cells, under powerful microscopes. And their RNA, their unique genetic information, has been sequenced and studied. [...] Béchamp’s hypothesis was that pathogens were harmless unless the body or "terrain" they occupied was ill. This is why its supporters call it "terrain theory". Terrain theory is incorrect, but has attracted plenty of believers during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Claim: Viruses don’t exist, terrain theory explains why diseases occur (Matt Roeske, 2024-02-15)
Evidence (2021-07-05): One much-referenced text about Béchamp is a 1920 book that tells his story as a "lost chapter in the history of biology". It describes his notion that microbes were not the malicious invaders that germ theorists claim (why else would they not cause disease always and everywhere?). Instead he thought illness essentially depended on "tiny molecular granulations" called microzymas, which only become pathogenic when a change in environmental balance or function made them so. It was from this change in the bodily "terrain", and not from germ invasion, that illness arose. Many germ theory deniers are adherents to this terrain theory, extrapolating from Béchamp a variety of alternative therapies specifically tailored to reduce toxins and rebalance the body. The therapies promise to create a corporal environment rendered immune (though they would not use this term) to microbes because it lives peaceably with them. This is an idea that inflames many of those who police the lines of medical and scientific orthodoxy. Yet, as diametrically opposed adherents to germ theory and Béchamp’s terrain theory seem, the two ideas have not always been considered mutually exclusive.
Claim: Viruses don’t exist, terrain theory explains why diseases occur (Matt Roeske, 2024-02-15)
Evidence (2022-08-30): Africa Check published an article on 18 May fact-checking another claim that "contagion is a myth" and that germs do not cause disease. We pointed out that this claim is part of a broader set of beliefs known as "terrain theory". [...] Terrain theory, developed by a rival of Pasteur, suggests that germs do not cause disease, and that a person becomes ill because of toxins in their environment, or unhealthy behaviours. The Facebook post even claims that because germs do not cause disease, "there is nothing to be immune to, nor any need for nor existence of an immune system". [...] Gainty said "traces of terrain theory underlie our contemporary obsession with the so-called ‘good’ bacteria of our digestive tract", but that rather than disproving germ theory, these findings have been incorporated into it. "Along the way," she wrote, "germ theory has continued to survive as a theory because it explains so much".
Claim: Viruses don’t exist, terrain theory explains why diseases occur (Matt Roeske, 2024-02-15)
Evidence (2024-09-28): Terrain theory [edit]The terrain theory is a variation of Béchamp's ideas that is also an obsolete medical theory that held that diseases were caused by the composition of the body. The "terrain", will attract germs to come as scavengers of the weakened or poorly defended tissue. Béchamp believed that the pH of the body is important, and that an acidic pH will attract germs and an alkaline pH will repel them. Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation with a series of experiments in the 1870s.[4] However, understanding the cause of a sickness does not always immediately lead to effective treatment of sickness, and the great decline in mortality during the 19th century stemmed mostly from improvements in hygiene and cleanliness. In fact, one of the first movements to deny the germ theory, the Sanitary Movement, was nevertheless central in developing America's public health infrastructure. Providing clean water and sanitation reduced the environment for pathogens to develop, and mortality rates fell dramatically.[8][9][10]
Claim: Viruses don’t exist, terrain theory explains why diseases occur (Matt Roeske, 2024-02-15)
Evidence (2024-02-15): The terrain theory, which can be traced back to French chemist Antoine Béchamp, has been used as a competing explanation with germ theory for why diseases occur. The terrain theory argues that diseases aren’t caused by germs, but by imbalances in the host organism resulting from lifestyle, such as nutritional deficiencies. As such, correcting the imbalance will cure the disease. [...] Health Feedback previously addressed a similar claim about terrain theory, explaining that the existence of microzymes has never been demonstrated and that viral infection demonstrably produces changes even in healthy cells that are consistent with disease. [...] However, the fact that some principles of the terrain theory explain why certain diseases occur doesn’t mean that germ theory is wrong. Diseases can result from infectious and non-infectious causes. Our understanding of diseases and how to treat them draws on the principles of both theories. The denial of germ theory espoused in the Instagram reel lends users an incorrect understanding of how diseases occur and can be potentially dangerous if it leads them to reject proven treatments and preventative measures.
Claim: Viruses don’t exist, terrain theory explains why diseases occur (Matt Roeske, 2024-02-15)
Evidence (2022-03-29): More on Germ Theory vs Terrain from my blog. [...] Just wondering if now, after even MORE evidence those "viruses" you reference above as existing, in fact do not exist and are not pathogenic and have NEVER been proven to be pathogenic (even if your claim of existence were ever true), if you have altered your position on this?
Claim: Viruses don’t exist, terrain theory explains why diseases occur (Matt Roeske, 2024-02-15)
Evidence (2021-12-10): The COVID-19 pandemic has breathed new life into a 160-year-old rivalry. Science skeptics are flocking toward a fringe set of beliefs called "terrain theory," an ideology that ranges from total denial of the existence of viruses and bacteria to the belief that lifestyle choices alone force otherwise benevolent microbes to transform into pathogens. The central gist is that the body’s "terrain," not germs, creates disease—reasoning that offers legitimacy to skeptics of masks and vaccines. In the Facebook group "Terrain Model Refutes Germ Theory," which has grown from 147 followers to 20,700 since the beginning of the pandemic, one member who tested positive for COVID-19 speculated that he fell ill because he broke his ankle. Another member argued that "measles is a developmental cleansing." [...] It didn’t take the rivals long to jump from chemical reactions to illness, and that’s where their ideas veered in different directions. When Pasteur began to develop a theory of infectious disease, Béchamp called it "the greatest scientific silliness of the age," according to the same article in the South African Journal of Science. In response, he developed what he later called "terrain theory," which looked quite different from the modern movement. He believed that microorganisms are essentially benign, and that pathogens emerge when structures inside our cells, called microzymes, transform into bacteria in response to unhealthy environmental conditions—like tiny Dr. Jekylls transforming into Mr. Hydes. In other words, he believed that disease causes pathogens, and not the reverse.
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2024-05-31): Mammography is a medical imaging technique that helps detect breast tissue abnormalities, including possible tumors. Published scientific studies show that women aged 40 and older who go for a mammogram annually have a greater chance of detecting breast cancer early, thus improving their chances of successful treatment and survival. Although mammography uses X-rays, the radiation doses are low, and the benefits of routine mammograms outweigh the possible risks.
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2024-08-09): FULL CLAIM: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammogram contributes to cancer development because they expose breasts to x-rays and because of tissue damage [...] However, naturopath Barbara O’Neill claimed that mammograms actually contribute to cancer rather than prevent it. In an interview posted on TikTok in May 2024, O’Neill was asked about mammograms and stated that "it’s pushed to prevent and it does not prevent". She further added that repeated mammograms contribute to breast cancer because of the radiation sent through the breast and because of breast tissue damage that allegedly occurs during the test. This video generated 1.6 million views on TikTok at the time of writing. It was also posted on Facebook. [...] O’Neill’s claim that mammograms don’t prevent cancer is also inaccurate. Indeed, regular screening allows early detection of cancer, and early diagnosis is associated with an increased chance of survival. According to Cancer Research UK, all women diagnosed at an early cancer stage will survive for at least five years. This statistic falls to three out of ten women if the diagnosis is made at a late cancer stage.
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2024-02-21): Getting regular screening mammograms lowers the risk of dying from breast cancer, but it doesn’t completely remove the risk. The benefits of mammography are real, but it’s not a perfect test. Some women who get regular screening mammograms will be diagnosed with breast cancer and unfortunately, some women will die from the disease. [...] While the radiation exposure during a mammogram can increase the risk of breast cancer over time, this increase in risk is very small [12-15].
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2024-07-17): The benefits and the harms of mammography came as a surprise to nearly half the study's participants. More than one-quarter said what they learned from the study about overdiagnosis differed from what their doctors told them. [...] For the past 28 years, the influential U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has been flip-flopping in its recommendations about when women should begin mammography screening. [...] An editorial accompanying the new study stresses the need for education about mammography and the value of shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2023-04-04): Approximately 300,000 new cases of breast cancer are diagnosed in the USA yearly. Screening mammography has allowed for early cancer detection with increasing efficacy leading to 500 prevented deaths for every 100,000 women screened and a 5-year survival rate of 91%. Mammography screening promotes the earlier detection of breast cancer, hence minimizing mortality, years of life lost, and treatment morbidity associated with advanced breast cancer at the time of diagnosis. [...] Role of Screening Mammography in Early Detection/Outcome of Breast Cancer
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2016-04-15): Impact of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality - PMID: 26562826 - DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29925 [...] Analogy analysis of United States data identifies 14 other cancers with a similar distinct onset of mortality reduction for which screening is not performed. These five lines of evidence from three different approaches and additional observations discussed do not support the hypothesis that mammography screening is a primary reason for the breast cancer mortality reduction in Europe and North America. [...] How effective are breast cancer screening programmes by mammography? Review of the current evidence.Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jul;45(11):1916-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.03.022. Epub 2009 Apr 22. Eur J Cancer. 2009. PMID: 19398327 Review.
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2023-08-30): And that is exactly what the Swiss Medical Board did. Explaining their position, they said: "We were struck by how non obvious it was that the benefits of mammography screening outweighed the harms…It’s easy to promote mammography screening if the majority of women believe that it prevents or reduces the risk of getting breast cancer and saves many lives through early detection of aggressive tumors. Unfortunately, they are not, and we believe that women need to be told so. From an ethical perspective, a public health program that does not clearly produce more benefits than harms is hard to justify." [...] That is, "systematic mammography screening might prevent about one death attributed to breast cancer for every 1000 women screened, [but] there was no evidence to suggest that overall mortality was affected," meaning no lives are actually saved. There have been ten randomized trials of mammogram screening, and not one has ever shown an overall mortality benefit. How does that make sense? If mammograms prevent one in a thousand women from dying from breast cancer, then the only way no lives are saved is if mammograms somehow led to the deaths of one in a thousand healthy women. But that’s preposterous, right? [...] - Understanding the Mammogram Paradox - Overtreatment of Stage 0 Breast Cancer DCIS - Women Deserve to Know the Truth About Mammograms - Breast Cancer and the Five-Year Survival Rate Myth - Why Mammograms Don’t Appear to Save Lives - Why Patients Aren’t Informed About Mammograms - The Pros and Cons of Mammograms
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2017-12-06): That was the reason behind a worldwide push to have every woman get regular mammogram screenings. The idea was to lower the rates of advanced cancers and ultimately deaths from the disease. But in a new study published in BMJ, researchers show that mammography did little to reduce either deaths or advanced breast cancer over a period of 23 years in the Netherlands. Instead, they found that the X-ray based test designed to pick up tumors led to overdiagnoses 60% of the time. [...] Mammography doesn’t actually pick up tumors but rather the changed breast tissue surrounding tumors; it’s possible that many advanced cancers are growing without significantly changing breast tissue, and therefore not getting picked up by mammograms in time. [...] Autier says that he was a champion of mammogram screening in previous decades, believing that the benefits for women in detecting cancer outweighed the harms of developing advanced cancer. However, he says the evidence no longer supports that position. "We, and I include myself in the we, promoted mammography screening for plenty of good reasons then," he says. "I am not glad at all that we found [in this study] that mammography is probably not the ideal solution for protecting women from breast cancer. There is no good evidence that mammography makes a difference in mortality and if it does, it’s probably marginal. But the overdiagnosis toll is enormous."
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2023-01-03): Among 61 women interviewed, few women perceived breast density as contributing to their risk of developing breast cancer. Most women correctly noted that breast density could make mammograms harder to read: "It’s difficult to detect subsequent lumps or potential problem areas because of the dense breast tissue." (Black woman, HL, respondent 7). When asked about their personal risk factors for breast cancer, few women noted that breast density could be a risk factor. One woman described her concern by saying, "Maybe 10% more worried than I was before because of the dense tissue issues. Just a slight uptick, but it’s not overwhelming" (Hispanic woman, HL, respondent 17). [...] When asked about actions that could reduce their breast cancer risk, many women described detection methods, such as breast self-examinations and mammograms, as prevention strategies. Among women who discussed mammograms or breast self-examinations, a small subset noted that screening methods would not prevent cancer but were useful for potentially detecting breast cancer earlier: "Well, if I go for my annual mammogram and do self-breast examination, I will catch whatever’s growing in my breast will be nipped in the bud...It will be taken care of before it gets out of control" (White woman, LL, respondent 54).
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2020-06-11): Key steps for effective breast cancer prevention [...] Wolfe, J. N. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer37, 2486–2492 (1976). [...] Breast Cancer Risk and Prevention Laboratory, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2017-10-01): 1. Screening mammograms do not reduce death from breast cancer There is no reliable evidence that having a screening mammogram reduces death by breast cancer on a population basis. The Cochrane Collaboration reached this conclusion after taking a good look at the original randomized trials. A recent Canadian trial, considered the best mammography trial, supported this finding for women aged 40 to 59. This is important evidence that needs careful consideration. [...] There are significant harms associated with mammography screening and no reliable evidence of benefit. It is time to discontinue routine mammograms for all healthy women of a particular age. Resources should be shifted toward surveillance of women at higher risk for breast cancer, diagnostic workup for women with a change in their breast that does not go away and for ensuring that women receive timely treatment for a confirmed invasive breast cancer.
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2023-11-29): A systematic review of mammography screening studies in women aged 75 years and over. [...] Relevant outcomes included both the benefits (or surrogate outcomes from which benefits could be inferred) and harms of mammography screening. Such outcomes included: breast cancer mortality; all-cause mortality; incidence of advanced breast cancer (or breast cancer stage distributions); prognostic characteristics of screen-detected breast cancers; evidence on treatment patterns (including data on treatment-related morbidity, such as physical adverse effects of treatment, quality of life measures); false-positive mammography; overdiagnosis; overtreatment; anxiety or adverse impact on quality of life; false positive biopsy or surgery for benign findings, false-negative findings (reported as interval cancer rates). [...] Sprague BL, Bolton KC, Mace JL, Herschorn SD, James TA, Vacek PM, et al. Registry-based study of trends in breast cancer screening mammography before and after the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. Radiology. 2014;270:354–61.
Claim: Mammograms don’t prevent cancer; mammograms contribute to cancer development (Barbara O’Neill, 2024-05-31)
Evidence (2023-02-21): Mammograms can be used to check for breast cancer in women who have no signs or symptoms of the disease. This type of mammogram is called a screening mammogram. Screening mammograms usually involve two or more x-ray pictures, or images, of each breast. The x-ray images often make it possible to detect tumors that cannot be felt. Screening mammograms can also find microcalcifications (tiny deposits of calcium) that sometimes indicate the presence of breast cancer. [...] Radiation exposure. Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is low, but repeated x-rays have the potential to cause cancer. Although the potential benefits of mammography nearly always outweigh the potential harm from the radiation exposure, women should talk with their health care providers about the need for each x-ray. In addition, they should always let their health care provider and the x-ray technologist know if there is any possibility that they are pregnant, because radiation can harm a growing fetus.