The Germ Hypothesis Part 2
In the first part of this investigation into the germ hypothesis, we established what exactly a hypothesis is supposed to be in regard to natural science, which is a proposed explanation for an observed natural phenomenon
We briefly touched on what led to Louis Pasteur (pictured) conjuring up his explanation of disease through germs with his plagiarized work on fermentation that he lifted from Antoine Bechamp.
We also examined the experimental evidence that he produced for both chicken cholera and rabies in order to see if his germ hypothesis was ever scientifically proven and validated.
What became clear upon investigating was that Pasteur’s experiments did not reflect his hypotheses for how the germs were supposed to invade a host in order to cause disease as “seen” in nature, thus invalidating his results.
On top of that, Pasteur also misinterpreted what he was working with in regard to chicken cholera, and he was unsuccessful in isolating any microbe as the causative agent for rabies, further invalidating those experiments as he had no valid independent variable (assumed causative agent) that he was working with.
There were also issues with the vaccines that were produced by Pasteur, with his chicken cholera vaccine determined to be ineffective while his rabies vaccine was linked to causing the very disease it was supposed to prevent.
Regardless, Pasteur is regularly regarded as a bona-fide hero and a scientific savant, given such titles as “the Father of Microbiology,” “the Father of Immunology,” “the Father of Bacteriology,” etc.
He is considered a savior for taking old ideas, dusting them off, and then selling them back to the public as his own. However, while Pasteur is credited with developing and popularizing the germ hypothesis, he did not “prove” that germs cause disease.
According to the book Science, Medicine, and Animals published by the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences, that glory belongs to German physician and microbiologist Robert Koch.
It is stated that the discoveries of Robert Koch led Louis Pasteur to describe how small organisms called germs could invade the body and cause disease. The book goes on to say that it was Koch who conclusively established that particular germs could cause specific diseases, and that he did so beginning with his experiments investigating anthrax.
This is backed up by Hardvard University’s Curiosity Collection, which states that Koch is “credited with proving that specific germs caused anthrax, cholera, and tuberculosis.”
They point out that Koch’s Postulates, the four criteria designed to establish a causal relationship between a microbe and a disease, “are fundamental to the germ theory” and that they “prove both that specific germs cause specific diseases and that disease germs transmit disease from one body to another.”
While Pasteur also believed in the idea, it is Robert Koch who is the one who is credited with developing the concept of “one pathogen for one disease.” Unsurprisingly, the Robert Koch Institute also states that it was Koch, and not Pasteur, who was “the first to prove that a micro-organism was the cause of an infectious disease.”
Thus, while it should be argued that Louis Pasteur falsified his germ hypothesis, at the very least, it can easily be said that his work, by itself, was insufficient to prove his germ hypothesis.
In order to “prove” the germ hypothesis, the work of Robert Koch is considered integral due to his innovative techniques involving new staining practices that allowed for greater visualization, and his utilization of “appropriate” media to culture bacteria in a pure form.
The four logical postulates that developed over the course of his work, known as Koch’s Postulates, have stood for two centuries as the “gold standard” for establishing the microbiological etiology of “infectious” disease.
The postulates are considered so essential that, according to a 2015 paper by Ross and Woodyard, they are “mentioned in nearly all beginning microbiology textbooks” and “continue to be viewed as an important standard for establishing causal relationships in biomedicine.”
Lester S. King, a Harvard educated medical doctor who authored many books on the history and philosophy of medicine, wrote in his 1952 paper Dr. Koch’s Postulates that Koch’s contribution was in “forging a chain of evidence which connected a specific bacterium and a given disease.”
King stated that this chain was so strong and so convincing “that his principles have been exalted as ‘postulates’ and considered a model for all future work.”
As Koch’s contributions to “proving” the germ hypothesis appear to be even greater than that of Louis Pasteur, we will examine the three main contributions that he supplied to the effort, with a primary focus on his work with anthrax, followed by tuberculosis and cholera.
We will inspect his experimental approach in order to see if it was reflective of anything that occurred naturally within the physical world.
We will see if Koch’s experimental evidence actually fulfilled his own logical postulates for proving microbes as the cause of disease.
What will be clear by the end of this investigation is that the combined efforts of both Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch were not enough to confirm the germ hypothesis, and contrary to popular belief, actually led to the falsification of the entire doctrine.
The rest of this article is behind a paywall, read it here substack.com
Header image: Institut Pasteur
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.