[herdcall]

Questioning science is not automatically "anti-science," IMO it's best to remain skeptical and stay focused on the evidence. The fact of the matter is that current "best medical advice" is not the best either in terms of quality of life or prognosis. I've had a remote member of a family lose sight in an eye, develop short term memory issues, and rapidly deteriorate from cancer in spite of following the best medical advice and guided by top physicians. My family is full of physicians, and I see even them questioning traditional methods. I would caution against media's rush to blame anything going against the mainstream narrative as "anti-science" or "misinformation." Yes, there are quacks and morons, but let's not put labels on anyone questioning bad outcomes.

[gadders]

Fair comment. You would think medicine would be evidence-based, but a lot of it is pattern matching and working on the 80/20 rule, given the limited time they have with clients.

[fn-mote]

> You would think medicine would be evidence-based (…)

Your comment sounds like it refers to the front line contacts with the patient.

It has been a while, but my own experience was that (1) the studies I wanted to see did not exist; (2) the doctor was not forthcoming about their own statistics / outcomes; (3) outcomes were not tracked by anyone past (very small N) year; (4) no access to prior complaints against doctor.

I’ll stop the list there, but when things go wrong it is evident that science is not being done.

The best related published account I know of is of the best cystic fibrosis treatment centers in the country. (Sorry, no reference.)