In a Congressional hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) directly confronted anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on his rejection of germ theory—the unquestionable scientific idea that specific pathogenic microbes cause specific diseases. After Kennedy defended his fringe view, Senator Bill Cassidy fact-checked and debunked Kennedy’s denialist arguments in real time.

The exchanges mark a rare instance in which Kennedy’s dismissal of germ theory has been raised in such a high-profile public setting, in this case, a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Kennedy, who has no background in science, medicine, or public health, is well known as an ardent anti-vaccine activist and peddler of conspiracy theories. But his startling rejection of a cornerstone theory in biomedical science has mostly been underreported.

As Ars Technica reported last year, Kennedy wrote about his germ theory denialism explicitly in his 2021 book The Real Anthony Fauci. In it, Kennedy maligns germ theory as a tool of pharmaceutical companies, scientists, and doctors to promote the use of modern medicines. Instead of accepting germ theory, Kennedy promotes a concept akin to the discarded terrain theory, in which diseases stem not from germs, but from imbalances in the body’s inner “terrain.” Those imbalances are claimed to be caused by poor nutrition and exposure to environmental toxins and stressors. (In his book, Kennedy erroneously labels this as “miasma theory,” but that is a different theory that suggests diseases derive from breathing bad air, vapors, or mists from decaying or corrupting matter. The idea was supplanted by germ theory, while terrain theory was never widely accepted.)

  • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    unquestionable

    Can we not call it that? The beauty of science is that it can be questioned.

    • tristynalxander@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      Eh, while it’s nice to say that science is all about method and nothing is above being questioned, at a certain point there’s so much evidence that it’s insane to argue against them. Like, I’m fine saying more than just germs cause disease or that not all germs cause disease, but saying there are no germs that cause disease when we the mountains of evidence we currently have is insane. It’s a lot like saying gravity doesn’t exist. Like you can argue that maybe gravity is a niche case or a product of a particular frame of reference, but things still fall down. We know that, it’s unquestionable.

      • Hobo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Isn’t the definition of a germ a microbe that can cause disease? Like I don’t think you can, by definition, have a germ that doesn’t cause disease.

        • tristynalxander@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Maybe, Idk. I don’t worry too much about definitions as long as I can figure out what’s physically happening they don’t matter.

          • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            This is what happens when you accept something without question… You might happen to be right, but you don’t know why…

            • tristynalxander@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              I can’t tell if this was a criticism of me or an agreement with me, lol. But, yeah, it’s a lot more important to know what’s physically going on and communicate on that level than to worry about subtle differences between definitions. What’s physically going on is the why.