Question 1. A microbial pathogen can be defined as: "An organism capable of causing disease". How good is this definition?

A microbial pathogen can be defined as: "An organism capable of causing disease". How good is this definition?


Draft Phase

Introduction;
Define the key principals in the phrase;

• Microbial Pathogens
• Organisms; Organisms include; viral, fungal, helminth (worms) and protozoan forms of life.

Body;

• What aspects of infectious disease support this definition?
  • Koch's Postulates - identifies the microbe as responsible for causing disease
    • Despite a number of exceptions to Koch's postulates (including anthrax ect); today's definition of microbial pathogens still puts those that don't fit Koch's model at cause of diseases.
  • Microbial pathogens manifest infectious disease.
  • All are capable of causing disease, most rarely do cause disease because of the host's natural defense mechanisms, or through direct competition among other microbes.
  • Opportunistic infections; may only attack when the host is immunocompromised, a new route of entry has occurred or direct competition with other microbes is reduced, can microbes seize the opportunity to enter the body and cause disease.

• What aspects of infectious disease attempt to reject this notion and can they be downplayed to support the original hypothesis?
  • Prions cause diseases and are pathogenic. HOWEVER not considered an 'organism'!
  • It may follow to reason that a number of aspects regarding microbial life are ignored in accepting this hypothesis. i.e. microbes Encounter, Enter, Survive, multiply, cause damage and transmit from host to host... Microbial pathogens all fall under the class of disease causing... To cause disease they need not to be associated with any of these categories. (provide examples)
  • Some microbial pathogens don't cause disease in vectors of a disease e.g. mosquitos... Yes but these microbes are still considered pathogenic through their ability to TRANSMIT.

It is True, it is robust