this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
739 points (98.7% liked)

science

26856 readers
58 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.)

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

unquestionable

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

[–] tristynalxander@mander.xyz 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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 1 points 5 days 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.

[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

The way MAGA questions it is far from beautiful my friend.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

You are correct, but I'm willing to give some leeway for using "unquestionable" as shorthand for "backed by such a remarkable corpus of evidence that for any contradictory hypothesis to seriously call it into question would require a literally unimaginable scope of evidence".

I think germ theory and gravity are about the only ones I can readily think of. Not relativity based gravity, just... Gravity.