[ Home ] [ Dietary Supplements or Functional Foods ] [ Darwinian Medicine ] [ Adaptation & Darwinian Medicine ] [ TGA & the Pan Crisis ] [ Pan Crisis ] [ Health Trends ] [ Medical Rationing ] [ Do Not Resuscitate ] [ Alternative Medicine Takeover ] [ Holistic or Reductionist? ] [ Orthodox Medicine ] [ Science Today, Quackery Tomorrow ] [ Integrated Medicine ] [ Medical Bias ] [ Health Topics ] [ Hypophobia ] [ Nutrition Breakthroughs ] [ Nutrition & Megavitamins ]

Darwinian Medicine: mainstream medicine goes alternative

Section 1 - The Nature of Darwinian Medicine

What is Darwinian Medicine?

Darwinian Medicine or Alternative Medicine?

Vitalism and the Wisdom of the Body

A Question of Balance

Darwinian Medicine and the Failings of Orthodox Medicine

The "Evolution" of Heart Disease and Asthma

Normality and the Nature of Disease

Nutrition or Malnutrition?

Section 2 - Stress and Adaptation: an individual perspective  

Stress, Cortisol and the HPA Axis

Adrenal Insufficiency and Adrenal Fatigue

The General Adaptation Syndrome

Variations in Individual Adaptive Capacity: causes and consequences

Over Adaptation

Adaptability, Darwinian Medicine, and Mental Illness

Links and References

Section 1 - The Nature of Darwinian Medicine

Introduction

The crucial importance of Darwinian medicine for the survival of orthodox medicine should not be underestimated. Increasingly overwhelming evidence of the importance of diet and nutrition in disease causation has created a massive dilemma for conventional medicine. These are factors which have traditionally been a fundamental part of holistic medicine and could not be seen to be openly embraced by orthodox medicine. What was needed was some way of disguising these concepts as new scientific discoveries. Darwinian medicine answers these needs.

Darwinian medicine is an attempt to understand disease, or "vulnerabilities to disease" (1), from an evolutionary perspective (1,2,3,4,17,18,19,20). In the words of Nesse (1): "Darwinian medicine is the enterprise of trying to find evolutionary explanations for vulnerabilities to disease. Every trait needs an evolutionary as well as a proximate explanation." The distinction between "evolutionary factors" and "proximate factors" is further emphasised by Nesse (116):

In other words, Darwinian medicine looks beyond symptoms in an attempt to understand basic mechanisms of disease which affect the entire human race (1,2,3,4,17,18,19,20). While conventional medicine is satisfied to adopt a purely symptomatic approach wherein causality is unimportant, Darwinian medicine on the other hand attempts to understand underlying factors which cannot be understood from the reductionist perspective of modern medical science.

Darwinian medicine is particularly involved with viewing disease susceptibility from the perspective of adaptive or defensive processes (1,2,3,4,17,18,19,20). Symptoms such as pain, fever, and coughing may be considered as normal defensive processes the aim of which is to protect the integrity of the body. Darwinian medicine would not seek to automatically suppress these symptoms without considering their purpose (1,2,3,4,17,18,19,20). This conflicts sharply with conventional medicine which, because of its symptomatic approach, regards such defensive or protective symptoms as "diseases" which must be suppressed. In fact (2), "much of what medicine terms disease or breakdown is in fact a defence the body has evolved to protect itself from the possibility of even worse ailments."

Darwinian medicine in many ways represents a return to the principles of holistic medicine and alternative therapies. Respecting and understanding the defensive abilities of the body and differentiating between disease symptoms and defensive or recovery symptoms has always been an absolutely fundamental part of the various forms of holistic or alternative medicine (see Orthodox Medicine). Orthodox medicine on the other hand has traditionally taught that all symptoms should be suppressed and there should be no distinction between disease symptoms and healing or defensive symptoms ( see Orthodox Medicine). According to orthodox medicine the cause or purpose served by any symptom is unimportant and therefore the goal should be to simply suppress all symptoms rather than support the body in its defensive efforts (see Symptom Suppression). Orthodox medicine refuses to acknowledge and support the wisdom of the body and the mechanisms by which it attempts to restore or preserve normality (see Interventionism or Vitalism?).

In essence, Darwinian medicine represents an attempt to rename and reclaim some of the fundamental principles of alternative medicine and include these principles (which are still largely regarded by medicine as quackery) under the umbrella of orthodox medicine. It is an attempt to revive the importance of vitalistic medicine which is based upon a recognition of the importance of vital energy and the wisdom of the body and embrace these long abandoned concepts within modern medical science.

At a time when modern medicine is increasingly discovering the importance of nutrition (see Nutrition and Megavitamins 2), primarily because of the inability of science to explain or control diseases such as heart disease and cancer (see Health Trends), other aspects of alternative medicine, such as vitalism (see Interventionism or Vitalism?), are also being increasingly accepted (5,6,7). Medicine it seems, is increasingly looking to alternative medicine for answers. "Vitalism in medicine (and more generally in society) experienced a resurgence beginning in the late 20th century" (7) because "no complete reductionist theory has yet been proposed which coordinates all of the actions which occur in a living cell (let alone a higher organism)" (7). Strangely, as alternative medicine is being encouraged to "professionalise", abandon its holistic roots and move towards orthodox medicine (see Alternative to Mainstream), orthodox medicine is itself moving in exactly the opposite direction. 

As far as mainstream medicine is concerned perhaps the most envied aspect of holistic medicine is its reliance upon nature. While holistic medicine's desire to work in accord with natural laws has been directly responsible for the restorative, strengthening and harmless reputation of its therapies, mainstream medicine's disrespect and violation of natural laws on the other hand, has led to its reputation for exceedingly dangerous, toxic, and symptomatic treatments. Now however, in recognition of the superiority of nature, Darwinian medicine strives to "provide a more natural view of disease" (114).

Since mainstream medicine could not be seen to be openly embracing the fundamental and natural principles of alternative medicine which for so long they had rejected as quackery, it became necessary to rename and conceal these principles under the new science of Darwinian medicine. I will consider below two primary areas where Darwinian medicine embraces the concepts of alternative medicine, namely vitalism and the wisdom of the body, and the matter of metabolic balance.

Vitalism, which refers to the inner vitality which permits the body to repair and defend itself, often referred to as the "healing force" or "wisdom of the body" (5,10,11,12,22,23,24; see also Interventionism or Vitalism?), has long been a fundamental part of alternative medicine (7,9; see also Interventionism or Vitalism?, Traditional Medicine). Although supporters of Darwinian medicine may seek to avoid terms such as vitalism or vital energy (3), the point must be emphasised that the holistic concept described by such terms as vital energy, healing force, adaptive energy and wisdom of the body (5,11,22,23,24; see also Interventionism or Vitalism?, Traditional Medicine) is an absolutely integral part of Darwinian medicine (2,5,6). Without vital energy, the adaptive restorative and defensive processes which are central to Darwinian medicine simply could not exist. The vitalistic connection between alternative medicine and Darwinian medicine does however involve a much more fundamental mechanism.

Alternative medicine has long had a reputation for the "gentleness" and harmlessness of its treatments (see Orthodox medicine). The reason for this reputation is that alternative medicine possesses a fundamental respect for the body and its various defensive and restorative processes which is absent from orthodox medicine (see Orthodox Medicine). This respect ensures that alternative practitioners strive to work with the natural healing mechanisms of the body, always seeking to strengthen and support such processes. Conversely, because of the outstanding sense of conscience and sensitivity that this respect produces, alternative practitioners naturally tend to avoid harmful treatments or treatments which interfere with natural restorative processes. This strengthening constructive approach is the very essence of alternative medicine (see Orthodox Medicine).

Reductionist orthodox medicine on the other hand has traditionally been opposed to any respectful constructive approach to health care, According to modern science the body's own restorative and defensive processes exist merely to be suppressed and overridden by the "wisdom of the doctor." This lack of respect for the body has permitted doctors to employ exceedingly dangerous and toxic treatments in their efforts to conceal symptoms and prevent normal restorative processes (see Orthodox Medicine). In such a system of "health care" there is no formal recognition of any central healing force or vital energy as the patient is seen as powerless and is required to surrender all healing efforts to the doctor. Although doctors may acknowledge that certain healing functions must be performed by the patient, such as the knitting of broken bones, these repair processes are explained simply as an independent local phenomena involving for instance, the formation of new bone cells. Reductionist science has always been most vehement in its denial of the existence of any holistic healing force. This traditional disagreement between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine clearly goes to the very fundamental roots of both forms of health care.

The consequences of orthodox medicine's lack of respect for normal restorative and defensive processes are many. The simple act of coughing for instance, viewed by both alternative medicine and Darwinian medicine as a natural defensive symptom whereby the body attempts to expel harmful substances from the lungs (2,3,17), has always been regarded as a disease by orthodox medicine and therefore is normally suppressed with cough medicines. Of course medicine had to learn the hard way that to prevent such natural defensive processes with drugs may lead to much more serious lung disease (3,17). Although the body, in its wisdom, attempts to expel harmful materials from the lungs, modern medicine seeks to thwart this protective process and ensure such materials are retained in the lungs where they can do the most damage. As has been noted by Nesse and Williams in their classic publication on Darwinian medicine (3): "cough is not a happenstance response to a bodily defect; it is a coordinated defence shaped by natural selection and activated when specialised sensors detect cues that indicate the presence of a specific threat." This is just one example of the ways in which modern scientific medicine seeks not to work with the body, but rather to work against it.

It is also interesting to explore asthma from an evolutionary or defensive perspective. In the 1960's it was first reported that asthma inhalers and bronchodilators were associated with an increasing asthma death rate (13,14). Astonishingly, when these products were withdrawn from the market death rates were seen to return to their previous levels (13). This was described as the "asthma paradox" (13). Since that time evidence has continued to accumulate regarding the dangers of bronchodilators (13,14,15,16,25). How could this be? How could the treatment possibly be worse than the disease?

It seems that the bronchoconstriction that occurs during an asthma attack may be a defensive measure, an attempt by the body to prevent the ingress of allergenic substances which may cause serious lung disease if permitted to reach the deeper tissues of the inflamed and hypersensitive airways of the asthmatic person (15,16). According to this theory, bronchodilators open up the airways and expose more of the respiratory tract to the damaging effects of allergens (13,15,16). It is for this reason that doctors have now learnt to be very cautious about reliance upon "reliever" inhalers without the simultaneous use of "preventers" to lower inflammation of the respiratory tract.

Other defensive symptoms which are normally suppressed by conventional medicine include fever, pain, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea (1,2,3,4,5,17). Fever for instance, is a defensive process which helps the body destroy invading microbes and overcome infections (2,3,4,17). In both animals and humans it has been repeatedly shown that treatments to reduce fever are associated with a worse outcome and an extended recovery period (3,4,17). According to Nesse and Williams (3) "medications that block fever apparently interfere with the normal mechanisms that regulate the body's response to infection, with results that may be fatal." Fever however, like most of the body's adaptive responses, is very demanding of the body's resources and therefore can be quite damaging in itself (3,4,88). It can also be excessive or inappropriate in which case it becomes a disease in itself rather than a defensive symptom (3). It is for these reasons that "we need to know what we are doing before we interfere with it" (3).

Pain and inflammation are also defensive symptoms which are normally automatically suppressed by doctors (3,4,17). Pain is clearly an attempt by the body to prevent tissue damage by stopping the movement of, or the use of, a particular body part or function (1,3). People who cannot feel pain usually die before they reach thirty years of age (1,3,17). Drugs used to block pain may lead to a false sense of well being and "may lead to activity levels that interfere with defensive adaptations or repairs" (3). Pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs may also aggravate the course of infectious illnesses, perhaps leading to serious consequences (4). The frequently fatal Reye's syndrome for instance, occurs when various infectious illnesses, particularly influenza, are treated with aspirin (4). According to Ewald (4): "a sabotaging of the inflammatory response by aspirin is therefore a viable explanation for the association between infection and Reye's syndrome."

The final defensive symptom I will consider here is diarrhea. 

Diarrhea is a defensive process which seeks to rapidly remove irritating and toxic substances from the intestine (2,3,4,17) and therefore any medical treatment which prevents this process may incur a penalty (2,3,4). This theory was put to the test with 25 volunteers infected with the diarrhea causing Shigella infection (3,4). This study demonstrated that "those who were treated with drugs to stop the diarrhea stayed feverish and toxic twice as long as those who did not" (3). According to Nesse and Williams (3): "there are dozens of studies of side effects, of safety, and of the effectiveness of medications that block diarrhea, but few consider the consequences of the main effect of blocking a normal defence." This comment underlines the fundamentally unscientific nature of clinical trials which in fact adopt a simplistic symptomatic perspective, a point which I have made elsewhere (see Medical Evidence, Nutrition and Megavitamins).

In summary, according to Nesse (2): "perhaps the most important contribution of Darwinian medicine is an increased capacity to distinguish diseases from defences."

It is absolutely astonishing that modern scientific medicine had to wait for the "invention" of Darwinian medicine to discover the foolishness of deliberately seeking to override and work against the natural healing force or wisdom of the body. Iatrogenic diseases are of course the end result of deliberately working against the body and therefore the incidence of such diseases is a measure of the abandonment of holism and vitalism. As has been pointed out by Konner (163) "the iatrogenic cardiovascular disease patterns of the 1960s and 1970s resulted in part from the specific dietary recommendations of physicians and other health authorities that promoted the consumption of large amounts of whole milk products and beef." Konner further emphasises that (163): "a bit of knowledge of our ancestors' diet and activity could have made a big difference." 

After teaching for the past 100 years that dietary requirements can be determined solely by science rather than nature, now it seems, medicine is beginning to recognise the superiority of nature. Perhaps medicine can now begin to learn other facts from holistic medicine also. After all, that iatrogenic diseases are rooted in a deviation from nature should have been abundantly clear to all.

Notwithstanding my above comments regarding the similarities between alternative medicine and Darwinian medicine, the point must be emphasised that both these forms of medicine have developed their views of vitalism from diametrically opposed starting points. Whereas the views of alternative medicine originated internally, from a deep understanding of, and respect for, the natural processes of the body and a desire to support these processes, orthodox medicine on the other hand had no understanding or respect for the body's restorative processes and has only learned the hard way, by the consequences of working against the body. The consequences of these two opposing approaches will continue to be of major significance until medicine changes its fundamental philosophy and develops more respect for the natural processes of the body. 

Balance is an integral part of optimum health. The human body, if it is to successfully adapt, must have myriads of systems, glands or organs which are capable of going from lowered levels of function right through to various states of hyperfunction. To do this the body must possess a multitude of regulatory chemicals or hormones which have antagonistic effects. The heart, the blood pressure, the rate and depth of breathing, and the metabolic rate generally, must be able to vary enormously if we are to be able to adapt and survive. The same is true for the body's temperature regulating system, the various hormonal systems and the nervous system, not to mention regulatory systems for the control of substances such as sodium, potassium, calcium and blood sugar. Serious problems may ensue when these systems remain out of balance, a fact which underlines the demanding and stressful nature of many natural adaptive processes.

For thousands of years vitalism and constitutional balance have formed the fundamental basis of holistic healing systems throughout the world. From ancient Greece through to Eastern systems in India and China, constitutional balance was seen as an integral part of optimum health (see Body Types, Traditional Medicine). As science advanced evidence of the underlying glandular or biochemical reasons for the various types of constitutions began to accumulate (see Western Glandular System). Those whose glandular make up was dominated by the adrenal glands were seen to be particularly susceptible to various chronic degenerative diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and obesity (see Adrenal Type). On the other hand, those with an opposite type of constitution (ie. weak adrenal glands) tended to suffer more from asthma, allergic diseases, hypoglycemia, frequent infections and general hypersensitivity (see Pituitary Type). Interestingly, adrenal involvement in asthma and allergic diseases has recently been confirmed (see Asthma page).

Bearing the above points in mind it is interesting to observe the importance of balance in Darwinian medicine, particularly in regard to genetics. According to Darwinian medicine genetic diseases tend to be perpetuated because they also produce a benefit (1,2,3,17). A person who has the gene for sickle cell anemia for instance, may be protected from malaria (1,3,17). Strangely, the gene which produces gout is claimed to be associated with an increased life span (3). One relationship that is particularly interesting is the apparent connection between allergies and cancer (3,4,21). Of 22 different scientific studies 16 found that allergic people are less likely to have cancer (3,4,21). Three of the 22 studies suggested that allergic persons are more likely to suffer from cancer while only 3 out of the 22 studies found no relationship at all between these diseases (3,4,21). Because of these results there is concern that current therapies aimed at suppressing allergic responses may in fact lead to death from cancer many years later (4).

If we refer again to the data concerning constitutional body types (see Traditional Medicine) we find that cancer and allergic diseases seem to represent opposite sides of the constitutional spectrum. Allergic diseases are more prevalent in those with weaker adrenal glands (see Asthma page) whereas chronic degenerative diseases like cancer and heart disease are more prevalent in those with dominant adrenal glands (see Traditional Medicine). The same is true for asthma and diabetes, and interestingly, asthmatics have recently been reported to be genetically protected from diabetes (see Asthma page). Or, instead of claiming that asthmatics are genetically protected from diabetes, we could say that both these conditions tend to be associated with opposite types of constitutions. Amazingly, diabetes and cancer on the one hand, and asthma and allergic diseases on the other, are all increasing astonishingly, these diseases being amongst the most rapidly growing diseases in modern times (3;see also Health Trends, Science or Progress?).

How is it possible for these 'opposing' types of diseases to be all proliferating so remarkably? Is society becoming more unbalanced or polarised? Are constitutional extremes becoming more prevalent? Modern scientific medicine has neither an explanation nor a solution to these trends.

For most of recorded human history constitutional balancing has been a central part of holistic healing systems. It was only the introduction of reductionist science over the past 200-300 years which has seen medicine abandon holism and any belief in the need for constitutional balancing. Now however, as is the case with vitalism, modern science and genetics are once again underlining the importance of balance.

We have seen that in many respects, Darwinian medicine is simply an attempt to rename some of the fundamental principles of of holistic medicine and incorporate these into the reductionist framework of modern science and medicine. In order to fully appreciate the reasons why science has found the need to move in this direction it is essential to understand recent trends in medicine and the modern medical environment. I will consider this background of medicine in three separate areas, firstly, heart disease and asthma, secondly, normality and the nature of disease, and finally, nutrition.

There is nothing new about Darwinism, so why the sudden development of Darwinian medicine during the last decade of the 20th century? If necessity is indeed the mother of invention then the timing of the introduction of Darwinian medicine is of crucial importance.

The final decade of the 20th century, as I have previously indicated, was characterised by a growing sense of desperation within the medical world regarding the complete failure of science to provide any explanation (or cure) for the worsening epidemic of chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and asthma. Throughout the 20th century, in spite of the efforts of modern science, heart disease had grown to become the number one killer throughout the world (see Health Trends). As drug treatments failed medicine increasingly resorted to more and more surgery in desperate last minute attempts to save our ailing hearts ( see Health Trends). Without hope on the horizon a new approach was needed. At this point medicine began to embrace two radically new (new for medicine, old for alternative medicine) alternative approaches, namely, nutrition and Darwinian medicine.

Although Darwinian medicine does not promise any immediate cure for heart disease (apart from lifestyle and dietary manipulation - which have long been practised by alternative medicine) it is claimed to explain the current world wide epidemic of cardiovascular disease. According to Darwinian medicine we simply have not yet had time to adapt to our modern sedentary life style and excessive intake of high fat and high sugar foods (2,3,17,19). We have developed so called (79) "diseases of civilisation" which are "are illnesses and ailments resulting from maladaptations to our present environment; these are non-communicable diseases that are primarily due to over indulgent lifestyles resulting from our increased ability to acquire resources (79)." 

In the words of Nesse and Williams (3): 

Science is indeed strange. Although science has constantly suggested that the long held belief of holistic medicine, that heart disease is related to nutrition and diet, is quackery, and what is really needed is more drugs and more surgery, now scientists tell us that these drugs and surgery are needed because our diet and environment are not adequate for our needs!!

There are serious problems with the hypothesis that heart disease is simply the result of our inability to adapt to our fatty and sugary diets. Firstly, it ignores scientific evidence of other possible explanations. For instance, during the last century, the century in which heart disease reached epidemic proportions, other possible contributory factors have also emerged. This century has been characterised by extensive and increasing evidence of widespread nutritional deficiencies which may cause heart disease, possibly by interfering with the body's ability to correctly metabolise fats (see Nutrition and Megavitamins 2, B Vitamins, Health Trends - I will consider nutrition in more detail below). This extensive scientific evidence seems to be completely ignored by evolutionists. According to evolutionists we are suffering from nutritional excesses rather than nutritional deficiencies.

Scientific evidence has also clearly demonstrated the prevalence of "stress" diseases during the past century, including heart disease, obesity, dementia and numerous other diseases (see Body Types). Science has also demonstrated that such disorders may result from elevated levels of our stress hormones (see Body Types). What has not been determined however, is whether such stress induced changes are due totally to our stressful environment or whether our internal ability to adapt and resist stress has been compromised. If individual susceptibility is a significant factor then it would be expected that there would be considerable individual variation. If on the other hand environmental stress is the predominant factor then we should all be affected to a similar extent. Heart disease of course varies enormously, some people dying from it in their 30's or 40's while others have not succumbed to it at 100 years of age.

It is also interesting to note that the current epidemic of heart disease has correlated with the unprecedented use of of toxic drugs and chemicals. Never before in human history has the human body been bombarded with such a broad range of toxins, from agricultural chemicals, food contaminants and additives, pharmaceutical drugs, industrial chemicals to atmospheric pollution and domestic chemicals. The effects of this extraordinary cocktail of chemicals remains unknown. I would suggest however that they are far more important than the "artificial lights" mentioned by Nesse and Williams (3).

Another problem with the Darwinian explanation of heart disease is simply that it is not scientifically testable - we simply will need to wait, perhaps millions of years, until we adapt!! By then of course the environment will also have changed!! It seems we will always be behind!! As has been pointed out by Nesse(114) in regard to obesity, "natural selection will eventually fix such design problems, but it will take hundreds or thousands of generations to do so." At a time when the incidence of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes are spiralling out of control, such statements are, at best, meaningless.

Since what is (19) "important to Darwinian medicine is the marked disparity between the environment in which the human species now lives and that in which it evolved," our current scientifically developed chemical laden society could be seen as deliberately frustrating the ideals of Darwinian medicine. In fact, there seems very little doubt that two of the greatest adaptive challenges of the 20th century have been the adulteration of our food supply and the proliferation of drugs and chemicals, both hazards being deliberately created by science. While according to evolutionists we may have to wait millions of years to adapt to these deliberate environmental changes, it is clearly within our power to reverse these environmental changes and fast track the adaptive process by millions of years.

Surely the importance of this matter is such that it should not be left to the determination and resourcefulness of consumers to avoid the scientific hazards of modern society. Governments should act immediately to guarantee the purity and nutritional quality of our food supply and outlaw damaging scientific practices such as the development of GE foods. Clearly we do not need other scientific hazards to which we will be forced to adapt.

One fact which stands out remarkably throughout human history is the consistency with which medical scientists have blatantly disregarded the possible consequences of adaptive stresses caused by a deviation from man's natural requirements. Although Darwinian medicine now pretends to acknowledge the consequences of such adaptive stresses in regard to most of human history, it conspicuously avoids confronting many of the most prominent adaptive challenges with which we are faced today. While the main purpose of Darwinian medicine today, in view of the lessons of the past, should be to eliminate modern adaptive stresses, this is its biggest failing.

Also of interest is the claim by Nesse and Williams (3) that "in studying heart attacks, the evolutionist wants to know why natural selection hasn't eliminated the genes that promote fat craving and cholesterol deposition." And additionally (3): "an overwhelming amount of preventable disease in modern societies results from the devastating effects of a high fat diet. Strokes and heart attacks, the greatest causes of death in some social groups, results from arteries clogged with atherosclerotic lesions." It is noteworthy that Nesse and Williams fail to mention the extensive scientific evidence that, since the metabolism of dietary fat is influenced by various micronutrients, numerous nutritional deficiencies have the ability to cause cholesterol accumulation and atherosclerosis even when dietary fat is not excessive (see Health Trends, B Vitamins, Nutrition and Megavitamins 2). If this were not the case the relationship between dietary fat consumption, cholesterol levels, and heart disease would be much more consistent (41). One example of this interaction is vitamin B6 deficiency which is one of the most common deficiencies in modern society (see B Vitamins). A deficiency of this vitamin, through its effects upon fat metabolism, being well known to cause heart disease and cholesterol accumulation, which of course becomes worse the higher the saturated fat content of the diet (see B Vitamins).

When it comes to the relationship between dietary fat content and heart disease it should be noted that the high fat Mediterranean and Eskimo diets are both associated with a lower incidence of heart disease (41). Additionally, elevated cholesterol levels in the elderly have been reported to be associated with increased longevity due to a reduced risk of mortality from infectious diseases and cancer (42).

Nesse and Williams also seem to overlook the effects of stress, which I have already referred to, upon fat metabolism (see Body Types). Other hormonal disorders such as hypothyroidism, which is extremely common, also disrupt fat metabolism and cause cholesterol accumulation. Other micronutrient deficiencies such as folate, essential fatty acids, vitamin E and chromium may also cause disturbed fat metabolism and heart disease (see Health Trends, Nutrition and Megavitamins 2). It is simplistic in the extreme, especially in view of all this extensive scientific evidence, to suggest that cholesterol accumulation can only result from excessive dietary fat.

Evolutionists also seem to refuse to acknowledge the influence of disordered metabolism as far as obesity is concerned (see Body Types). According to Nesse in this regard (89):

Nesse seems to completely overlook the voluminous and increasing amount of scientific evidence that obesity may in fact be caused by various metabolic disorders (155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161,162; see also Body Types)  . Doctors and scientists generally also seem to overlook the simple fact that if the human body is not working with optimum efficiency it will, by definition, be wasteful of its resources. In other words it will require more input for less output. The obvious analogy here is with motor cars. If a car engine is not working efficiently it will require more fuel and oil for less power output. This of course will ultimately result in the engine becoming "coked up".

The suggestion that the increased infant mortality of previous generations is what saved them from heart disease (3) is also unconvincing. According to this belief we simply did not live long enough to suffer from heart disease (3). However, this statistical approach seems to overlook the fact that the total lifespan of humans has not increased for centuries (3). If we are to accept the proposition that heart disease is a function of lifespan, then quite clearly, over the generations everyone over a certain age would have heart disease. This is obviously not so today, and neither is it consistent with the fact that heart disease was practically non existent a century ago (see Health Trends). Nether does it explain why so many younger people now have heart disease.

We must be careful indeed not to use Darwinian medicine as an excuse for the failings of medicine, especially when there is extensive scientific evidence to the contrary. I have made the point elsewhere (see Medical Evidence) that each time medicine is renamed and a new type of medicine is developed it is simply because of the failure of the previous version of medicine. This process will obviously continue as long as medicine continues to fail.

According to recent claims it is not only the development of heart disease which is being selected for in our genetic makeup, for other diseases like asthma are also involved. Unlike heart disease however, which it is claimed is caused by our failure to adapt to the fat content of the modern diet, with asthma it seems that we have simply failed to adapt to the cleanliness of modern society.

Recently it has been claimed that the increasing prevalence of asthma and allergic diseases and certain other immune conditions may be the result of us being too clean (18,26,27,28,29). This has been referred to as the "hygiene hypothesis" (26,27,28,29). According to the hygiene hypothesis excessive cleanliness of children simply prevents there from experiencing infections which, so it is hoped, will ultimately strengthen their immune systems and prevent certain diseases later in life (26,27,28,29). It is believed that excessive cleanliness interferes with the evolutionary process and therefore results in a weaker immune system. While not wishing to consider the pros and cons of this matter in any detail I reiterate the words of Weiss in a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (26): "eating dirt or moving to a farm are at best theoretical rather than practical clinical recommendations for the prevention of asthma."

As is the case with an evolutionary explanation for heart disease, the hygiene hypothesis overlooks other scientific evidence regarding nutritional deficiencies and adrenal insufficiency in asthma (see Asthma page). Unless the dirt is particularly nutritious it is difficult to see how eating dirt could prevent these problems. It must also be emphasised that the hygiene hypothesis is simply the result of the failure of modern science to arrest the current asthma epidemic (26,27,28,29). According to Carpenter (29): "the hygiene hypothesis arose from scientists' inability to explain the rising prevalence of asthma and allergies in many developed nations." Or, in the words of Malloy (27), the hygiene hypothesis is "a whacky idea that seems to be getting attention thanks to the oft-parroted factoid that childhood asthma has soared over the last 20 years."

From my own point of view the hygiene hypothesis makes no sense at all. This hypothesis is based upon an assumption of uncompromised adaptability and therefore totally successful adaptation to various immune challenges. As an asthmatic I have suffered from numerous infections throughout my life and never have I experienced any benefit from them. The reverse is true. The more infections I experienced the worse my asthma and immune system became. My brother on the other hand, who did not have the "benefit" of all these infections, did not develop asthma or immune problems and rarely suffers from any infection. How unlucky he has been!!!

In an attempt to explain these anomalies some may claim, in the case of people like my brother, that such persons are also exposed to the same infections even though they do not appear to become ill. However this merely confirms my point. Death, in response to an infection, clearly represents a total failure of adaptation. Conversely, perfect adaptation would be expected to result in no apparent illness even after exposure to an infecting microorganism. Bearing these facts in mind it is abundantly clear that exposure to various immune challenges could not be expected to automatically strengthen the immune system unless adaptation is totally successful and is achieved without undue immune stress. Surely it would be ridiculous to expect otherwise. 

Darwinian medicine contradicts concepts which have long been accepted by medical science. One of these is the very definition of disease. As I have already indicated, many of the symptoms which are treated by medical science as diseases are in fact defensive, adaptive, or restorative processes (1,3,4,5,17). According to Nesse and Williams (3):

Indeed, much of the current practice of orthodox medicine is aimed at blocking the body's attempts to preserve or restore normality (1,2,5). The problems this creates for orthodox medicine are enormous. With its reductionist symptomatic interventionist approach orthodox medicine has been deliberately structured to suppress all symptoms irrespective of their cause. In orthodox medicine there is no established basis for distinguishing between disease symptoms and defensive symptoms, even though in many cases this distinction is obvious, even to the lay person. Added to this, many symptoms could be, in different instances, both a disease symptom as well as a defensive symptom. If we take fever for instance, if it is excessive or inappropriate then it becomes a disease symptom. The same is true for coughing and diarrhea. Then there are symptoms of nutritional deficiencies, which may cause diarrhea or susceptibility to infections with all the resultant consequences. Is it possible to understand all these symptoms without an all encompassing holistic approach?

While the complete inability to distinguish between disease symptoms and defensive symptoms has long been one of the fundamental failings of mainstream medicine, this problem has also still to be satisfactorily addressed by Darwinian medicine. Until Darwinian medicine can provide a scientific means by which diseases can be clearly distinguished from defences then its whole scientific basis seems highly questionable. This is especially true when it comes to mental diseases.

While it would be a positive step indeed if medicine could adopt a more constructive approach (although this would require an abandonment of their current symptomatic interventionist philosophy) and support obvious defensive or adaptive symptoms rather than seeking to block them, this would still fall well short of holistic medicine's level of understanding regarding symptoms (see Symptom Suppression). For instance, symptoms that are caused by a healing crisis, that is an attempt to eliminate toxins and restore normality (see Symptom Suppression), are still not generally understood or accepted by mainstream medicine and science. This is in spite of the fact that the healing symptoms (ie withdrawals) which may occur following withdrawal from alcohol, tobacco and certain drugs are generally accepted. Medical science however, has displayed little desire to understand this process or the force that drives it. Unfortunately medicine has had, until the development of Darwinian medicine, a long history of rejecting anything that is even remotely connected with the body's healing force or vital energy(3).

It is clear that medical science urgently needs to adopt a fundamentally different approach to health care, and, as has been noted elsewhere (see Nutrition and Megavitamins), one of the first requirements is to adopt a health oriented approach rather than one that is devoted to disease. The fundamental basis of any health oriented approach is to develop a complete understanding of what constitutes normality or optimum health. Unless this is clearly understood then deviations from normality also cannot be understood.

As far as modern scientific medicine is concerned normality is an extraneous statistical average derived from others who are entirely remote from the individual (see Nutrition and Megavitamins). For science therefore, normality has no internal definition but is entirely dependent on others. It is a fictitious average value or set of values. As has been pointed out by Zajicek (30), "from the clinical point of view the average is not normal." Zajicek continues (30): "the normal is meaningful only in the context of the individual." The importance of an individualised non-statistical approach to medical science is also emphasised by Lewis (19): "one important task that Darwinian medicine might achieve is to direct the attention of Western medicine and related sciences away from the white, 70kg adult (non- pregnant by definition) male as the representative human entity to a more indivdualised approach." According to Lewis (19) current "textbooks of anatomy, physiology, and pathology" "reflect the interests of the audience for whom they are written more than the organism about which they are written."

Unless medicine chooses to adopt a holistic health oriented approach "it seems as if Darwinian medicine has hardly any new ideas to offer" (5). According to Zajicek (5): "since the ideas introduced by Darwinian medicine have been with us for ages, it seems as if Darwin' theory has very little to offer to our understanding of disease. Evolutionary biology is a historical science. A guessing game about how we think evolution worked in the past on humans. Medicine does not need Darwin in order to realise that our organism is the best among physicians." 

The biased and inconsistent nature of the attitude of both mainstream medicine and Darwinian medicine to nutrition is fundamentally unscientific. As far as mainstream medicine is concerned, nutrition experts increasingly acknowledge that the present poor state of nutrition, at both the clinical and research levels, is the result of a century of deliberate nutritional neglect (see Nutrition and Megavitamins, Nutrition is for the Birds, Medical Bias). It was only in the last decade of the 20th century that overwhelming evidence brought about renewed interest in nutrition (see Nutrition and Megavitamins 2). Confirmation of the effects of folate deficiency during pregnancy, the effects of nutrition upon heart disease and cancer, and the importance of antioxidants, have provided considerable impetus for nutrition research (see Nutrition and Megavitamins 2). Additionally, increasing recognition of the prevalence of nutritional deficiencies, and the individualised nature of nutritional needs, have also accelerated nutrition research. In spite of these advances however, as we have recently been reminded by Professor Leaver (31), "too little is known about the link between nutrition and health."

Notwithstanding the fact that the recent increasing awareness of medicine's longstanding neglect of nutrition has further exposed the immaturity of nutritional science, there remain many in mainstream medicine and nutrition who are adamant that nutritional deficiencies are practically impossible in affluent Western nations. This scientifically unsustainable attitude is typical of the neglectful attitude which has held nutrition back over the past century. Such views deny the rapidly increasing evidence of the frequency of imperfect nutritional status in recent years and confer upon nutritional science a level of maturity which is quite undeserved. On the one hand we have increasingly overwhelming evidence that nutritional deficiencies are related to numerous chronic diseases, including heart disease and cancer, but yet, even in spite of this, many medical practitioners still believe we need less vitamins and more drugs (see Nutrition and Megavitamins). In spite of this, the direction in which nutrition research is progressing is quite clear - rather than disprove the essential nature of nutrition, there are ever increasing links between nutrition and various chronic diseases and there is also increasing evidence of the prevalence of nutritional deficiencies throughout modern society.

Irrespective of this evidence and the fact that nutrition experts agree about the shameful neglect of nutrition over the past century, according to Nesse and Williams in their classical publication on Darwinian medicine (3), there is little need for vitamin supplementation today. As I have indicated above, it is this type of claim which has characterised medicine's neglect of nutrition over the past 100 years. Such claims are based upon the totally erroneous assumption that medicine's ability to diagnose nutritional deficiencies has reached a level of perfection. In the words of Nesse and Williams (3): "contrary to pharmaceutical sales pitches, few modern people need vitamin supplements. If we eat a diverse array of fruits and vegetables, some of them preferably uncooked, and especially if we also get abundant protein from grains, legumes and animal products, we are getting all the vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients we need. The current danger for most of us is not the deprivation suffered by our ancestors but an excess of nutrition."

In what seems a direct contradiction of this stance and confirmation of the importance of nutrition for the treatment or prevention of cancer, Nesse and Williams also state (3): "the cell itself ages, and as the cardiovascular and digestive and excretory systems deteriorate, it will be ever less well supplied with nutrients and other essentials and ever less effectively unburdened of waste products. An inevitable consequence is that its potential for growth and cell division is ever less well regulated." These comments emphasise the vital importance of the nutritional microenvironment of the cells and confirm the views of Roger Williams made some four decades earlier (see Nutrition and Megavitamins).

Nesse and Williams also draw attention to the current controversy regarding antioxidants (3):

Nesse and Williams continue (3):

Although Nesse and Williams claimed earlier that there was generally no justification for vitamin supplements, they now refer to the increasing evidence of the importance of antioxidant vitamins and suggest that supplementation with such vitamins may have significant benefits. It is also noteworthy that Nesse and Williams dismiss earlier research by distinguished scientists regarding the importance of antioxidant vitamins as "folklore". As Nesse and Williams also point out however, scientific evidence is increasingly confirming the scientific accuracy of what medicine has been glibly dismissing as "folklore" for more than 50 years (see Nutrition and Megavitamins).

When it comes to "folklore" the reader is reminded that 50 years ago medicine's shameful neglect of nutrition was such that doctors advised women to practice semi-starvation during pregnancy in an effort to produce smaller babies which could be more easily delivered (38,39 ). How many people today are continuing to suffer because of this deliberate iatrogenic embryonic or foetal malnutrition? Even hospital patients suffered from iatrogenic malnutrition or starvation because doctors considered nutrition unimportant (see Nutrition is for the Birds). Although even at that time brilliant scientists such as Roger Williams warned of the critical importance of nutrition, especially during pregnancy (see Nutrition and Megavitamins), such concerns were dismissed by the drug obsessed medical profession as quackery or folklore. We should strive to learn from such 'mistakes' and ensure we never again underestimate the importance of nutrition.

Speculation by Nesse and Williams as to why we may need extra antioxidants is also interesting. They fail to mention the fact that the proliferation of damaging chemicals and toxins in our modern environment would be expected to increase the need for natural protectants. Food chemicals, toxins, drugs, and tobacco, are all potentially damaging substances which contribute nothing to health and therefore must be quickly detoxified and their negative metabolic effects negated if we are to remain healthy and survive. If evolutionists are concerned about adaptation they should be seeking to ensure our internal milieu is preserved in a pure "Stone Age" state free from damaging drugs and chemicals. Why deliberately modify the human environment in such a damaging way and then complain that the human body has failed to adapt? Is this the best science can offer?

If we are to consider the relative importance of nutrition and drugs from the perspective of Darwinian medicine then of course there is no comparison. Drugs were not part of the Stone Age. Why deliberately produce a drug laden internal environment when such deviations from our original ancestral environment are claimed by Darwinian medicine to be responsible for most if not all of our modern diseases? Darwinian medicine, like holistic medicine, provides convincing evidence of the foolishness of preferring drugs to nutrition.

The vital importance of nutrition has recently been emphasised again by studies which reveal nutritional supplements may significantly reduce violence and criminal behaviour (164,165, 166,167, 172). Gesch and colleagues (172) for instance, have recently reported that "supplementing prisoners' diets with physiological dosages of vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids caused a reduction in antisocial behaviour to a remarkable degree." In the words of Peplow (164): "research suggests that a daily dose of vitamins, minerals and fatty acids could stem the tidal wave of crime that threatens to swamp the prison system, and perhaps society at large." This research continues a long line of research confirming the behavioural effects of nutrition going back more than 70 years (175 ; see also Nutrition and Megavitamins, B vitamins).

Far from disproving the importance of nutrition, it must be admitted that the direction in which science is progressing is abundantly clear. From heart disease and cancer, to mood disorders and crime, nutrition is increasingly being implicated. While the facts are obviously known, they are yet to be accepted by mainstream medicine and Darwinian medicine. The pro-drug paradigm of medicine continues to be favoured even though it is well known that it has no curative or preventative role.

Bearing the above facts in mind it is interesting to note recent attempts to explain fatal child abuse on an evolutionary basis (95). Nesse (95) has cited research which indicates that cases of fatal child abuse have been statistically shown to be 70 times higher in families with one step parent as compared to homes which have both biological parents. According to this theory it seems, parents will only protect their natural offspring. Non-biological parents it appears, not only lose their natural protective instincts, but they may actually have a desire to seriously harm, or even kill, the offspring of their partners. One wonders how evolutionists reconcile this theory with reports that violent adults often seem to have derived pleasure from torturing animals when they were younger. Does this have an evolutionary advantage also? Perhaps it increases fitness as a hunter or provider!

There are two fundamental problems with these attempts to explain child abuse. Firstly, they completely ignore the huge and increasing amount of scientific evidence regarding the importance of nutrition and the prevalence of nutritional deficiencies (see Nutrition and Megavitamins, B vitamins). Evolutionists commonly seem to avoid any consideration of the consequences which may result if the brain is lacking in vital nutrients, preferring instead to blame social or psychological factors. Gesch and colleagues (172) have recently warned of this problem: "without rigorous experimental designs, nutritional effects of antisocial behaviours may be subsumed within effects currently attributed to social risk factors." This anti-nutrition bias is clearly not confined to psychology, psychiatry and sociology, but it is also a central part of mainstream medicine, Darwinian medicine, and evolutionism. After all, any evidence that antisocial behaviour could come from the gastrointestinal tract is bound to shake the very foundations of science and medicine.

Secondly, the evidence provided by Nesse and colleagues seems purely statistical in nature. While there may be evidence of a statistical correlation, there is absolutely no evidence of a cause and effect relationship (173). Gesch and colleagues (172) have also underlined the shortcomings of "correlational research" and the bias towards "societal factors" in behavioural research: "most research into factors involved in antisocial behaviour investigates societal factors. This has produced important correlational evidence but does not demonstrate that such factors have causal relationships with antisocial behaviour, as this requires more rigorous experimental designs." It is most disturbing to note that most behavioural researchers do not consider the full range of possible causes of aberrant human behaviour but confine themselves to a consideration of "societal factors". The practice of using a statistical correlation as evidence of causality should have no place in science.

It is odd that although Darwinian medicine is said to be responsible for creating a "more natural view of disease" (114), it nevertheless clearly continues medicine's traditional ant-nutrition bias. But what could be more natural than nutrition, especially when compared to medical drugs? As has been pointed out by Roger Williams three decades ago (174): "drugs do, of course, modify the chemical environment of the brain cells, and they often alleviate symptoms, but they do not get at the root of the trouble. Their use is largely empirical and artificial, and out of line with the basic philosophy of co-operating with nature. We need to ask, what is nature's way of preventing mental disease? Can we, by co-operating with nature, prevent and treat mental disease successfully?" These questions have clearly now been answered - repeatedly.

Nutrition continues to cause huge problems for scientists, especially in view of the huge amount of evidence now accumulating that nutrition can affect the expression of genetic characteristics. Although science has long believed in the rigidity of the gene (see Nutrition and Megavitamins 2), now it is common knowledge that even nutritional deficiencies during pregnancy may interfere with the production of DNA and cause genetic diseases (32,33,34,35,40), a fact which must be of enormous disappointment to supporters of Darwinism. Even so, this should hardly be surprising since the formation of DNA is dependent upon the supply of essential nutrients (32,33,34,35). Science has confirmed that the survival of the fittest has now become the survival of the best nourished. Given these facts the increasing rate of genetic mutations in humans is hardly surprising (36,37).

We now know that even the healthiest parents in the world may produce genetically deformed offspring, even in spite of the fact that our knowledge about the interaction of nutrition and genetics is in its extreme infancy. Is there not a vitally important lesson here for determining the structure of our health care system and the future direction of medical training? We have much to learn.

Click here to go to Section 2 of this article - Stress and Adaptation: an individual perspective  

The author of this web site expressly disclaims all liability to any person arising directly or indirectly from the use of, or for any errors or omissions in, the information in this web site. The adoption and application of the information in this site is at the reader's discretion and is his or her sole responsibility.

This page was last updated on 21/07/07
Copyright © 2000 Graham Williamson
webmaster@holistichealthtopics.com