My apologies, my previous post was not clear on what I was really questioning. I am attempting to hold up chemotherapy as an example of pragmatism which expose

My apologies, my previous post was not clear on what I was really questioning. I am attempting to hold up chemotherapy as an example of pragmatism which exposes how the premise of "Do not harm" is not a helpful rule. I believe we may be conflating "proven safe" with "does absolutely does no harm", which are much different standards. Assessing treatments on thereputic merit - does a treatment create significantly more benefit than it does harm (As chemotherapy is a standard bearing example), is, based on the evidence I've observed, the preferable approach.