Recent changes within the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), along with revisions to portions of the pediatric vaccine schedule, have reignited a now familiar debate – one framed as a contest between trust and authority, freedom and expertise, risk and reassurance. Predictably, the conversation has hardened into opposing camps. One side defends vaccination as an unquestionable public good. The other treats any institutional recommendation as suspect, or even coercive. Both claim to be protecting children. Neither fully addressing why children are increasingly sick.
What is striking about this moment is not the controversy itself, but its narrowness. We are debating the mechanics of disease prevention while ignoring the conditions that make disease so prevalent in the first place. We are arguing about what to inject into developing immune systems without reckoning with the metabolic, environmental, nutritional, and social terrain those immune systems inhabit. This reintroduces a false dichotomy that has become a reductionist talking point of health care.
Two divergent but historically significant theories of disease, germ theory and terrain theory, have shaped our understanding of health for over a century. Each emerged from a particular scientific and cultural milieu, and each has evolved into more than a biological framework. They have become symbolic of competing ideologies in health care with one centered on external threats, the other on internal resilience.
Germ theory, formalized by Louis Pasteur in the late 19th century, asserts that specific microorganisms cause specific diseases. This theory revolutionized medicine by enabling the development of antiseptic techniques, vaccines, and antibiotics, and it laid the foundation for the modern biomedical model. From a practical standpoint, germ theory offered an elegant and actionable explanation for contagion and infection, allowing public health to pivot rapidly toward sanitation, sterilization, and vaccination.
Terrain theory, associated with Claude Bernard and later Antoine Béchamp, posits that the body’s internal environment, or “terrain,” determines whether disease takes hold. According to this view, microbes are not the primary cause of disease; rather, disease emerges when the body's systems are imbalanced or compromised. Terrain theory never achieved the empirical triumph of germ theory, but it seeded ideas that remain relevant in functional medicine, nutrition science, and preventive care.
Today, these theories have evolved into health belief systems, with germ theory often weaponized to justify medical interventions for both acute and chronic conditions, and terrain theory appropriated by anti-vaccine, alternative medicine, or anti-establishment groups as an argument against conventional care. This bifurcation has proven dangerous. Germ theory has been stretched beyond its original scope, contributing to the overuse of antibiotics, a proliferation of symptomatic treatments, and an underinvestment in the root causes of chronic disease. At the same time, terrain theory has been distorted into conspiracy or denialism, fostering mistrust of vaccines and public health interventions during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Yet these two theories need not be at odds. In fact, their integration offers a framework for a more complete health care ecosystem. Germ theory should remain the backbone of acute care, trauma management, infectious disease response, and emergency medicine. But terrain theory, when grounded in science, offers the philosophical and practical foundation for chronic disease prevention, behavioral medicine, and population health initiatives.
If germ theory teaches us to combat the agent, terrain theory reminds us to nourish the host. A health care system focused solely on pathogens without addressing the terrain, factors like stress, diet, pollution, physical inactivity, and socioeconomic inequity, will inevitably fall short in solving the modern epidemics of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and mental illness. Conversely, a system that ignores the real and present dangers of infectious disease and relies solely on strengthening the body is ill-equipped to manage acute threats.
The fusion of these paradigms is not only possible but necessary. We should preserve the scientific rigor of germ theory while expanding our understanding of terrain to include epigenetics, the microbiome, metabolic health, and social determinants of health. A well-regulated immune system, shaped by both internal resilience and environmental exposure, can better respond to microbial threats. Precision public health must account for both the microbe and the milieu.
The challenge now is not to choose between germ and terrain theory, but to evolve beyond the false dichotomy. Integrating them allows us to reclaim health care as a dynamic system, responsive to threats, resilient in the face of chronic stressors, and rooted in both science and compassion. In doing so, we shift from disease management to health promotion, and from isolated intervention to systems-level thinking.
It is important to stress that good health is not a force field. Being metabolically fit, nutritionally supported, and physically active certainly reduces the risk and severity of many illnesses, especially chronic disease, but it does not eliminate the possibility of acute infection, injury, or death. This misconception has become a core tenet of terrain theory extremists and anti-vaccine rhetoric that if one’s “terrain” is optimal, one cannot become sick. This is not only biologically false, it is medically dangerous.
Consider the COVID-19 pandemic. A healthier baseline with normal weight, absence of diabetes, strong cardiovascular and immune health, was clearly associated with lower rates of hospitalization, complications, and mortality. But the risk was never zero. Healthy individuals were still infected, and in rare cases, died. Viruses, bacteria, and fungi are not spiritual energy tests, they are biological entities that exploit vulnerabilities, known or unknown. A fit body may respond better, but it cannot guarantee immunity.
The belief that good health alone guarantees protection is akin to strapping on wings and leaping from a building, expecting biology to be overruled by ideology. The body is not a closed system immune to the external world; it is an adaptive organism within it. True health is a harmonious integration of terrain and environment, resilience and precaution, freedom and responsibility.
Dr. Mirrer is a practicing reconstructive plastic surgeon working in trauma and complex care. In his clinical work, he routinely sees the downstream consequences of long-term underinvestment in prevention and the arguments that ignore the overall failure of our health care system.
This article is part of the Medical Insights vertical on Op-Med, which features study breakdowns, resources, and insights from Doximity members on popular topics in medicine. Want to submit to Medical Insights? See our submission guidelines here; note that we are especially interested in articles covering oncology, dermatology, or rheumatology.
Image by master1305 / Getty Images
