3 ms·
You’re correct in that this is a prevailing view in epidemiological/Public Health circles. But Medical Science is not only the macro but also the micro level pe
by bijant 5y ago
You’re correct in that this is a prevailing view in epidemiological/Public Health circles. But Medical Science is not only the macro but also the micro level perspective. Individual Practitioners of medicine might well appreciate more and earlier Data. A first principals based argument is a complementary approach that might uncover things that an empirical view might hide.A good example of this is the Australian Noble Laureate Barry Marshall (https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank-infectious-broth-gave-himself-an-ulcer-and-solved-a-medical-mystery https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank...). As long as the hypothesis can consequently be validated in controlled clinical studies, a theoretical argument even without existing foundation in empirical literature can still make for good science.
- jacquesm 5y agoAbsolutely, on an individual basis is where the difference can be made and this is exactly why it is important if you are tested positive for some cancer to work together with your oncologist to ensure the best possible outcome for you. The interesting thing here is that laypeople tend to be in favor of massive testing and almost always want to be operated on/have chemotherapy/have radiation therapy even if that is not necessarily the best path for them. This leads to lots of suffering and hardship.