I have recently had a debate with someone on a forum about this subject. My position is that the germ is only opportunistic and not the causative agent and that in fact a germ can only take advantage of the situation when a person's immunity is declined over a prolonged period of time. To get my point across I thought to find episodes in various countries and cities around the world at various times when there were plagues and epidemics and see what was happening at the time. In all cases so far, and I have looked at dozens, there is always some major problems such as war, invasion and cruelty by the invaders or natural disasters such as fires that raged for days destroying and leaving homeless thousands of people. In the majority of cases however it is cruelty and harsh treatment by colonizers or invading armies that formed the majority of cases.

So the evidence is there, loud and clear, that a person's immunity has to be declined and over a prolonged period of time due to fear and more so terror, for the person to become sick. And under the worst situations not recover from the disease. The millions of deaths from disease in the America's that wiped out much of the indigenous population was not caused by imported germs but immense cruelty and thus corresponding terror that the natives were forced to live with over the rest of their lives.

It is clear evidence not only that the germ theory is wrong but even more importantly that the body is purpose-driven and not a machine.