> You're making the standard error of the medical world of focusing too much on stuffing pigeons into pigeonholes because once you have found the supposedly correct (look at the patients who go to doctor after doctor after doctor until someone finally finds the rare issue that's the correct diagnosis--and realize that there are those who never get answers) pigeonhole you see the pigeonhole rather than the patien

This is another common misunderstanding of why people so commonly struggle to get a convincing diagnosis. The problem isn't a clueless doctor robotically listening for keywords. It's that the doctor has 10 minutes to dedicate to you and if it's not in the 80% of straightforward cases for them, the patient gets the bare minimum and then becomes someone else's problem. To solve that you need to fix provider shortages and (in the US) remove the corporate overlords constantly applying pressure on the little worker bees beneath them.

> out doesn't mean you can't look at the patients and see how things are turning out. And recognize that things are not static--your first patient doesn't exist. Things don't just sit there at three for three years and then kill you.

It's becoming clear to me you have a really odd sense of what doctors generally know and don't know. I don't really have an interest in exploring the left side of the Dunning kruger curve with respect to how medicine works.