This law explains why there are no nociceptors for cancer,
while there are active nociceptors for the acute infections.
It is because nature has no helpful response to offer against cancer,
while in certain of the acute pyogenic infections the nociceptors
force the beneficent physiologic rest.

Could we dispossess ourselves of the shackles of psychology,
forget its confusing nomenclature, and view the human brain,
as Sherrington has said, "as the organ of, and for the adaptation
of nervous reaction," many clinical phenomena would appear in
a clearer light.


Natural Selection and Chemical Noci-association in the Infections


Thus far we have considered the behavior of the individual as a whole
in his response to a certain type of noci-influences. We have been voicing
our argument in terms of physical escape from GROSS physical dangers,
or of grappling with GROSS NERVE-MUSCULAR enemies of the same or of
other species. To explain these phenomena we have invoked the aid
of the laws of natural selection and phylogenetic association.
If our conclusions be correct, then it should follow that in the same
laws we may find the explanation of immunity, which, of course,
means a defensive response to our MICROSCOPIC enemies. There should
be no more difficulty in evolving an efficient army of phagocytes
by natural selection, or in developing specific chemical reactions
against _*microscopic enemies_, than there was in evolving the various
nociceptors for our nerve-muscular defense against our _*gross enemies_.
That immunity is a chemical reaction is no argument against