But that doesn't make sense in this scenario. My grandad is on the other side of a larger city, my parents & I don't eat the same things or even do a lot of the same things. If everyone in our neighborhood got sick then it might make sense that it was something in the environment, but if they then get people in other parts of the town sick how are they spreading the toxin? With polio it was clear that the lead arsenic pesticides were on the food & you can track that the "infections" spread with the distribution of the food.

I had a situation where I attended a kid's bday party & the mom & kids had been sick earlier in the week, I stayed at their house the night before the party, the dad got sick the day of & literally had to miss the party, I am pretty sure around the time everyone started eating I had a fever & chills but I seemed to be over it in about an hour. Everyone else ate cookies & cake & they all had 24-48hrs of puking & diarrhea in the week following the party. But it wasn't caused by the cookies or cake because they came from outside the house & the same illness was already present in other people earlier in the week. And I think I was over it quicker because sugar (among other things) feeds bugs & weakens us, & I was the only one who didn't eat any sugar the whole time. 

 If you rule out any toxin exposure, the germ spread of disease is still a theory

In fact, I should correct myself - it is not even a theory, it is merely a hypothesis

To upgrade to a theory you would need to present (or generate anew) some body of experimental evidence supporting it

I don't claim to know the specific cause of every illness
I just know that many experiments have disproven the germ hypothesis (eg Koch's own cholera experiments)