Around 70 years ago, the microbiologist Rene Dubos started publicly discussing his philosophy of health called the “Ecology of Health.”  Here is a discussion of Dubos’ life and views:  Rene Dubos and the Ecology of Health.

Rene Dubos discussed the idea of the microbiome inside of humans, its relationship to the environment, and its relationship to disease decades before this idea became a mainstream topic.   The microbiome and even the virome (i.e. the community of viruses inside of an organism) resemble ecosystems with different species of microbes and different types of viruses interacting with each other inside of the bodies of larger organisms (e.g. plants and animals).  Disruptions to the balance and harmony of these microecosystems can lead to disease and bad health outcomes.

Here is an excerpt from environmentalist Edward Goldsmith’s magnum opus, The Way:  An Ecological World-View:  “Man will always be inhabited by vast populations of microbes; indeed, according to the American microbiologist Lynn Margulis, known for her work on microbial ecology and the Gaia thesis, we harbor in our bodies as many microbial cells (prokaryotes) as animal cells (eukaryotes), most of them playing an essential role in our metabolism.  [Rene] Dubos traces the source of diseases to a breakdown in the critical balance between man and his microbial populations, brought about by a range of possible factors such as old age, malnutrition [e.g. zinc deficiency, vitamin D deficiency], exposure to low-level radiation [e.g. wireless EMR, radon] or to chemical pollutants [e.g. glyphosate and/or other chemicals disrupting the gut flora, air pollution, etc.]…  Louis Pasteur, who was the first to incriminate the microorganism, eventually saw the error of his ways [‘The microbe is nothing, the terrain everything’].  W.R. Day, an authority on plant diseases, also saw very clearly that blaming the parasite leads to the neglect of fundamental causes.  An infectious disease may be caused by a subtle combination of factors which reduces the resistance of an organism, making it vulnerable to an attack which, under normal [e.g. pristine, healthy] conditions, it would repel with ease.”

The human body has a community of viruses (i.e. a microecosystem or virome),  including rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, and influenza viruses that increase and decrease over the seasons, year after year (see this paper:  Virus – Virus Dynamics in Glasgow 2005-2013, which describes how the community of viruses within the human respiratory tract and the human population as a whole changes and interacts over time).  Dr. Skip Virgin gave an interesting talk at the NIH about the mammalian virome and how it resembles a microecosystem.  Also, it may be that these viruses are actually conveying genetic/environmental information about environmental toxins to cells of the body using a form of horizontal gene transfer.

The author Charles Eisenstein and Dr. Zach Bush discuss these various virus topics in this podcast titled “Life is a Community”:  https://charleseisenstein.org/podcasts/new-and-ancient-story-podcast/dr-zach-bush-life-is-a-community-e49/.  Part of the discussion in this podcast is analogous to this discussion of exosome theory which theorizes that viruses are actually damaged DNA/RNA remnants (exosomes) of cells that were damaged by chemical toxins or another type of adverse environmental effect (e.g. stress and anxiety).  Though, in slight contradiction to that exosome theory discussion, it is possible that exosomes could then “infect” other people to transfer the genetic/environmental information about the toxin to the next person.

Despite Rene Dubos’ work and these alternative health theories, why is our society still wedded to germ theory and germ warfare?  Is it because this theory is very profitable for certain pharmaceutical companies and segments of modern medicine? Terrain theory, the theory that disease is more of a function of the environmental conditions within and around the diseased organism than the actions of the microbe, is not taught widely throughout society.   However, terrain theory matches up quite well with the ecology of health philosophy (as well as exosome theory), so here is a discussion of terrain theory by a chiropractic physician to tie my discussion all together:  Germ Theory vs. Terrain Theory.

What is the Best Approach?

Considering the insights provided by the ecology of health philosophy, terrain theory, and exosome theory, is declaring total war against just one of hundreds of microbes the best approach to a pandemic made worse or that is arguably caused by environmental problems?  Another microbe will just take its place, leading to perpetual war if the environmental problems are not resolved.  In addition, how are sick people supposed to truly heal when we turn their bodies and environments into a war zone?  How are healthcare workers and environmental health specialists supposed to address the hundreds of other diseases people are suffering from if the CDC and the WHO tell them to put the majority of their focus onto just one virus?  That doesn’t make much sense, honestly.  Maybe if the mortality rate of the coronavirus was 5%, but it is far lower than that, approaching 0.1 to 0.2%.  And the mortality rate across different areas of the world is directly correlated with environmental problems such as air pollution and malnutrition.

Lockdowns, mandatory masks, social distancing and mandatory vaccinations all have serious side effects on people’s physical and mental health, and these effects (e.g. increased depression from social isolation and job loss) are the collateral damage from a total war approach.  Instead of the germ warfare approach, why not improve people’s immune systems and their local environments so they can withstand viral infections much more easily?  This approach would help for any number of infectious diseases including influenza.  Germ warfare only solves one problem (eradicating the germ) at the expense of causing extensive collateral damage, while the environmental/immune system approach solves many problems all at the same time, though this approach will take longer to have an effect.

Another quote from The Way:  An Ecological World-View sums up the problems with the germ warfare approach succinctly:  “Unfortunately technological expedients [e.g. lockdowns, antivirals, vaccines, social distancing, etc.] only solve technological problems. They cannot reverse the disruption of natural systems [e.g. our immune systems and environments].  Alleviating the symptoms, they render the problems more tolerable and thus serve to perpetuate them.” Consequently, this current infectious disease crisis could go on perpetually if the environmental health problems facing our society are never resolved.

Anything we do to strengthen our immune systems and improve the environments that surround us will help to end this crisis.  We are the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the information we absorb.   One of the silver linings to this crisis is that many people are finally waking up to the immense environmental problems our society is grappling with, and hopefully significant changes on that front will occur over the next few years.  [PS, I hope these changes happen from the ground up on a individual and local level because I definitely do not have a favorable opinion of the UN’s Agenda 2030 plan].