I see the appeal for terrain theory. Its weird that there's a versus though... They seem to be compatible. At least at the individual level, if you are fit, you are less likely to be affected by pathogens, but likewise, if you are unfit, this doesn't mean you will encounter the pathogens that make you sick tomorrow.
> The choice between embracing germ theory or terrain theory carries significant implications for healthcare practices and policies. A strict adherence to germ theory may lead to an over-reliance on pharmaceutical interventions such as antibiotics or vaccines without adequately addressing underlying lifestyle factors contributing to poor health outcomes. Conversely, prioritizing terrain theory could result in neglecting critical public health measures aimed at controlling infectious diseases through vaccination campaigns or sanitation improvements.
This quote above gets to the heart of the matter. It isn't what is correct, it is how should the state take action: tell people to get fitter, or take drugs? At a high level, this is a "what is easier, cheaper, more profitable" type question.
But I agree if the answer is just "focus on your health through food and exercise, don't over prescribe, try to reduce drugs where possible, but do take drugs if you need them"
If we're talking about the need for globally applied vaccines, oof, yeah that's tougher I guess.
