What you're describing is the swim against the tide of reductionist allopathic thinking resulting from siloed "healthcare" providers and band-aid solutions that do little to improve overall health and much to support a profit- & pharma-driven industry.
The idea that the body has - as you say - "infinite wisdom" is anathema to most for exactly this reason - they've been inculcated into quick fix system (really, not fix so much as suppress symptoms). It also speaks to the profound lack of understanding of our place in space & time, and in particular to our evolutionary history. It shocks me how ignorant people are (and lacking in interest) about the health challenges of our ancestors or of those in resource-poor populations, as if all groups across all of human history and space are identical in their exposures, resilience, and outcomes. I was invited to present in an NCI-ranked cancer hospital once... I chose to select some literature from the breast cancer epidemiology and embed it within our broader understanding of cross-cultural breast cancer risk and exposures from anthropology. Oh sure, they already knew that parity decreased the risk, along with other variables identified in post-industrialized populations, but it BLEW THEIR MINDS that women in pre-industrial pop'ns don't get breast cancer, or that the protective effects of fewer menstrual cycles is related to the default ancestral context of women being pregnant or nursing infants for most of their reproductive lives.
No hablo Inglés, por supuesto tampoco lo entiendo al escucharlo, entonces, cómo voy a saber por qué está loco Dr. Remmant. Si al escucharlo quedo loco.
This sounds very sound, Dr. "Remnant." I have noticed that there is a difference between the clinician who has little commitment to understanding the biology, normal biology first, and then pathobiology. These might have been business majors who decided to go to medical school for mercenary reasons (okay, please, let's understand that I know that a business major can get hooked on biology and, as a practice, medicine). There is a book about (corn) geneticist, Barbara McClintock, entitled 'A Feeling for the Organism'. That work might be helpful.
[Doctors, as I have witnessed in hospital work, especially if they are in in community and purely clinical settings, tend to be dogmatic. Their training (and the potential for mobbing by nurses, colleagues, etc; drug-detailer simplification and laziness by the practitioner for theory; as well as the threat of liability and accusation) has driven them to behave always as if they must always act as gods. More academic settings and scientific commitment, if not active research, can lessen the dogmatic attitude and group think.]
It sounds like you have a good grasp of the practice of Multiple Working Hypotheses.
A good scientist (and physicians should strive toward this) should be radically agnostic about mechanisms, even as model[s] solidify---and work to acquire and incorporate new data.
It sounds like you appreciate that medicine cannot be reduced simply to clinical quick-notes tools and that RCT are not necessarily appropriate for understanding how a particular patient is responding to treatment. Pharma companies can "wash away" a very useful treatment with an RCT--especially if, as we witnessed during COVID and even now--the companies and regulators use and accept inappropriately low numbers, tortured measures of efficacy, and are willing to bury contradictory evidence.
Regarding the tedious argument of so-called "Germ Theory" versus " Terrain Theory," to a biologist this is a silly debate at the theoretical level, and I hope that astute physicians realize this too. The organism is immersed in an environment and the human organism interacts with that environment (including food and drink) in peculiar ways. I had a fascinating discussion with the manager of a supermarket. The ways in which your local neighbors' food choices shape YOUR food options are disheartening. This is more of the upstream swim we must endure.
Also, the intelligence and education of the individuals that make up the public that we all must deal with, the physician in a particular way, cannot be overlooked---even though RCTs, drug-package inserts, and TV ads about drugs and most polite discussions specifically avoid this. This all gets rolled up into ideas that worm their way to the surface and face off in the pseudo-arena of "Germ versus Terrain Theory." That, like the other great pseudo-dispute, "Creation versus Evolution," is stuff for the uneducated. I flee from these big-tent shows for suckers as soon as I hear the barkers selling tickets.
What you're describing is the swim against the tide of reductionist allopathic thinking resulting from siloed "healthcare" providers and band-aid solutions that do little to improve overall health and much to support a profit- & pharma-driven industry.
The idea that the body has - as you say - "infinite wisdom" is anathema to most for exactly this reason - they've been inculcated into quick fix system (really, not fix so much as suppress symptoms). It also speaks to the profound lack of understanding of our place in space & time, and in particular to our evolutionary history. It shocks me how ignorant people are (and lacking in interest) about the health challenges of our ancestors or of those in resource-poor populations, as if all groups across all of human history and space are identical in their exposures, resilience, and outcomes. I was invited to present in an NCI-ranked cancer hospital once... I chose to select some literature from the breast cancer epidemiology and embed it within our broader understanding of cross-cultural breast cancer risk and exposures from anthropology. Oh sure, they already knew that parity decreased the risk, along with other variables identified in post-industrialized populations, but it BLEW THEIR MINDS that women in pre-industrial pop'ns don't get breast cancer, or that the protective effects of fewer menstrual cycles is related to the default ancestral context of women being pregnant or nursing infants for most of their reproductive lives.
So much knowledge... so little context.
No hablo Inglés, por supuesto tampoco lo entiendo al escucharlo, entonces, cómo voy a saber por qué está loco Dr. Remmant. Si al escucharlo quedo loco.
prefer "woodshed" to "roughwork"
This sounds very sound, Dr. "Remnant." I have noticed that there is a difference between the clinician who has little commitment to understanding the biology, normal biology first, and then pathobiology. These might have been business majors who decided to go to medical school for mercenary reasons (okay, please, let's understand that I know that a business major can get hooked on biology and, as a practice, medicine). There is a book about (corn) geneticist, Barbara McClintock, entitled 'A Feeling for the Organism'. That work might be helpful.
[Doctors, as I have witnessed in hospital work, especially if they are in in community and purely clinical settings, tend to be dogmatic. Their training (and the potential for mobbing by nurses, colleagues, etc; drug-detailer simplification and laziness by the practitioner for theory; as well as the threat of liability and accusation) has driven them to behave always as if they must always act as gods. More academic settings and scientific commitment, if not active research, can lessen the dogmatic attitude and group think.]
It sounds like you have a good grasp of the practice of Multiple Working Hypotheses.
A good scientist (and physicians should strive toward this) should be radically agnostic about mechanisms, even as model[s] solidify---and work to acquire and incorporate new data.
It sounds like you appreciate that medicine cannot be reduced simply to clinical quick-notes tools and that RCT are not necessarily appropriate for understanding how a particular patient is responding to treatment. Pharma companies can "wash away" a very useful treatment with an RCT--especially if, as we witnessed during COVID and even now--the companies and regulators use and accept inappropriately low numbers, tortured measures of efficacy, and are willing to bury contradictory evidence.
Regarding the tedious argument of so-called "Germ Theory" versus " Terrain Theory," to a biologist this is a silly debate at the theoretical level, and I hope that astute physicians realize this too. The organism is immersed in an environment and the human organism interacts with that environment (including food and drink) in peculiar ways. I had a fascinating discussion with the manager of a supermarket. The ways in which your local neighbors' food choices shape YOUR food options are disheartening. This is more of the upstream swim we must endure.
Also, the intelligence and education of the individuals that make up the public that we all must deal with, the physician in a particular way, cannot be overlooked---even though RCTs, drug-package inserts, and TV ads about drugs and most polite discussions specifically avoid this. This all gets rolled up into ideas that worm their way to the surface and face off in the pseudo-arena of "Germ versus Terrain Theory." That, like the other great pseudo-dispute, "Creation versus Evolution," is stuff for the uneducated. I flee from these big-tent shows for suckers as soon as I hear the barkers selling tickets.