>>>Medical science is not an exact science -- something people often forget (or don't want to know. :)
>
>This also makes it difficult for the public to assess doctors and health advice, when this inexact science can mean that "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity".
>
>FWIW, in many places it's normal to get other degrees along the road to medical qualification. E.g. where I trained it was normal in year 3 to collect a BSc with major in Human Biology, so BHB. Here's somebody in New Zealand who got that same degree, plus a degree in Forensic Medicine, now commenting on COVID vaccines: a bit long and slow, but he covers some of the science from the practitioner POV as well as some of his thoughts and ethics. "My patients are living persons, with names and families." Agree or disagree with the rest of his sentiment, human beings are not sacks of wheat for uniform processing as you might think when numbers and statistics are being slung around.
>
>People often say that medicine is a mix of science and art, but too often they get them mixed up. JMHO.
>
>https://player.vimeo.com/video/553855810

The illnesses coming out of nature treat us worse than sacks of wheat. They literally treat us as a field of dirt to plow and harvest. I prefer rational thought experimentally confirmed treatments.

I worked with my doctor to treat gall stones. What quacks call a liver flush, which it is not, can actually help with gall stones. My MD and I scientifically proved it - if the stones are small enough, so we did ultrasound first, then the treatment and ultrasound after. The tech asked me why I bothered the second time, because they were gone. So even the tech is not scientific.