This is well written, and passes the "not a crank" test that many will surely apply. Mathematicians get inundated with unsolicited false proofs of famous theore

This is well written, and passes the "not a crank" test that many will surely apply. Mathematicians get inundated with unsolicited false proofs of famous theorems, and the cranks always give themselves away by various "poker tells" that they are too delusional to control. This is not that; it is a serious proposal, and it escapes being wrongly classified as otherwise. I am reminded of a famous computer scientist I know, who dropped everything for years because he had an idea about the CD4-CD8 ratio in Aids patients. Aids patients have fewer CD4 cells. Perhaps the body was only sensing the total, and could be triggered to make replacements for the lost CD4 cells if one medically removed CD8 cells. Remind anyone of rebalancing a portfolio during a market crash? I can find no trace of this effort online, so it's not my place to name the researcher. Science does a poor job of recording its failures. In any case, it didn't work; medicine is very hard. Be prepared for this idea to be wrong, too, despite best intentions.