In all fields of science, humans have always searched for a prototype, a model or idea on which all other models or ideas can be based. When we try to solve a problem, we use a heuristic in the hope that by following a narrow set of instructions, we can find the same result no matter what the nature of the problem. In this search for normality, we have defined a set of parameters for the ‘ideal, healthy’ human body. We set values for pH, concentrations of ions, and temperature, in the belief that by fitting these guidelines will guarantee a healthy body.
We should not be constricted in our perceptions of normality. By looking at the body and it’s internal mechanisms of regulation, we can see that there is not an ‘ideal’ internal environment. The hypothalamus sets the temperature of the body at around 37 Degrees Celsius. During an infection however, this internal thermostat is reset at a higher temperature, resulting in a fever.
Biologist Matthew Kluger conducted an experiment where he infected a species of lizard with bacteria. Due to the cold blooded nature of these reptiles, they were unable to reset their internal thermostat at a higher temperature. Half of the lizards were placed in a warm environment, while half were placed in cold. A higher survival rate in the lizards in the warm environment suggests that this increase in core temperature (or artificial fever) affected the body’s ability to fight and destroy the pathogen, resulting from the tendancy for the immune system to function better at a higher temperature (Evolution Library).
George C. Williams epitomized the blind approach of contemporary medicine: “The concept of adaptation should loom a bit larger than the concept of normalcy”. He is of course referring to the fact that contemporary medicine tries to treat the symptoms of an infection and return the body’s properties to normal, rather than appreciating that the reason for these symptoms may be beneficial. “The restoration of health depends on our evolved defenses, of which fever is one … a healthy organism includes having adaptive ‘illnesses’” (Evolution Magazine, 2002).
“I think what I’m saying here with regards to a normal temperature, is that the concept of adaptation – is this an adaptive response to the fever – should loom a bit larger than the concept of normalcy.” (Williams, from an interview in 2002).
By definition, if a high temperature is effective in boosting the immune system a ‘normal’ temperature will be detrimental to this cause. Thus “A normal temperature may well be harmful to the victim of an infection” (1996:200).
For contemporary medicine to be effective, we must learn to treat the problem, not the symptoms of that problem. “It is imperative to know whether a given symptom results from what you are doing to them or what they are doing to you.” (1996:200). Often the symptoms of the problem may exist not because of what the pathogen is doing to your body, but rather what your body is doing to the pathogens to reduce their virility.
We must choose what we value most; normality with disease, or abnormality with good health. Once we have chosen we can work with our body to solve the problem.
