I didn’t mean to imply that cancer didn’t exist a century ago, but I think it’s fair to say that it was much less prevalent, even to the extent that it could have been considered rare or uncommon. In relation to people living more naturally back then, which was more by default than choice, this lower prevalence of chronic disease is supported by the work of Weston A. Price, Vilhjalmur Stefansson, and others who’ve studied primitive cultures who were not yet exposed to modern foods and technologies.

I absolutely agree that advances in modern medicine have greatly reduced death from acute infection, and this is of course highly valuable. However, given that such advances are typically followed by profit oriented incentives, they tend to be taken too far. Not that there’s anything wrong with profit, I actually think it’s a valuable motivator for innovation, but there is indeed something wrong with the tendency for many doctors to prescribe antibiotics for practically every symptom of the common cold and neglect to give good advice on how to strengthen immunity and better avoid such symptoms in the first place.

Clearly, I think what we need is balance, and although there’s been a lot of improvement in regard to respecting nature and it’s influence on health, I think we still have plenty of room for improvement.

What you said reminds me of a funny jab at the timeline of modern medicine that I commonly see:

200 BC — Here, eat this root
1000 AD — That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer.
1850 — That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion.
1940 — That potion is snake oil. Here, take this pill.
1985 — That pill is ineffective. Here, take this antibiotic.
2000 — That antibiotic is artificial. Here, take this root.

I agree that we’ve wandered off the trail and have come full circle, but I don’t think it’s a waste. It’s part of the learning process, and despite all of the confusion, there is now more knowledge available to us than ever. For example, in line with the quote above, we now know that natural substances (roots), synthetic drugs (pills), and antibiotics each have a different set of benefits and disadvantages that make each of them more or less preferable than the others in certain situations. However, coming to this understanding seems to have required the sequence of having too much appreciation for one perspective and not enough for the rest of them. Unfortunately, politics and monetary influence can slow this learning process down significantly which is a major problem with much of today’s research.

What’s ironic is that the perceived control resulting from scientific intervention creates situations that are even more worrisome than the uncertainty of nature. I’ve been reading a lot about electromagnetic pollution lately which is an excellent example.

So true, yet so sad.

I think science has been misused as the compulsive attempt to gain control over nature and the future. Because it’s easy for humans to feel out of control of their lives, which brings up a lot of existential fear.

Marci, it’s important to note that no scientific theory can ever be proven. Theory and science are based on statistics, which by nature can never be a complete data set… only a “best explanation.” Evolution may not be proven, but it has significant enough data to be the “best explanation” for various biological phenomena.

Thanks for your feedback, I’m pleased to know that you’re enjoying the site.

While evolution hasn’t been proven, it hasn’t been refuted either and I personally believe that there’s a lot of convincing evidence to support it. As such, I think it’s harsh to say so confidently that it didn’t happen.

I agree that evolution does add a certain level of subjectivity to some of my writing, but regardless of whether or not evolution really happened, the basic premise here is still the same. It’s pretty obvious that during the 200,000 years of our existence and the millions of years that our close relatives existed, processed foods, pharmaceuticals and other forms of synthetic chemicals were not what kept us functioning at our best.

Whether we’re the result of evolution or some form of divine invention, much of modern medicine is based on the notion that we’re smarter than whatever it is that led to our creation. While our intelligence has provided us with some amazing advancement, the primary point I am making here is that there should be more appreciation and respect for our dependency on nature and the fact that we may very well not understand it as well as we think.