Academicism vs. Pragmatism in Medical and “Healing” Practices: Between Science, Observation, and Common Sense
Introduction
The history of medicine is marked by a constant tension between two poles: on one side, scientific, academic, and methodological rigor; on the other, practical observation, clinical experience, and popular and ancestral tradition. Frequently, these two dimensions have been treated as adversaries. However, perhaps the true maturity of medicine lies precisely in the ability to balance them.
Today, we value—and rightly so—robust scientific studies: randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews published in respected journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, and Nature. This methodological structure has saved countless lives by allowing us to separate effective treatments from therapeutic illusions. As oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee (2016) well reminds us, medicine constantly walks the fine line between statistical certainty and the uncertainty of the individual patient, demanding that method validates intuition.
Meanwhile, many insights currently considered cornerstones of medicine began merely as empirical observations. Before definitive evidence existed, there were doctors, healers, traditional populations, and keen observers noticing patterns in reality. In many cases, science came later to explain what was already being observed in practice.
On the other hand, it is also true that countless popular beliefs, mystical practices, or fads have never withstood the test of science. Some are merely harmless; others, dangerous. In the name of false promises, many abandon effective treatments, lose precious time, and put their own health at risk.
The central issue, therefore, is not choosing between science and observation. The challenge lies in distinguishing, with balance and common sense, what deserves serious investigation from what belongs to the realm of folklore, marketing, or charlatanism.
When Observation Preceded Science
Ignaz Semmelweis and hand hygiene
One of the most emblematic examples in the history of medicine is that of Ignaz Semmelweis, a 19th-century Hungarian physician. Working in maternity wards in Vienna, he noticed that women attended by doctors and medical students died of puerperal fever at much higher rates than those attended by midwives.
Without yet understanding the existence of microorganisms—as the germ theory of disease would only later be consolidated by Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch—Semmelweis empirically observed that careful handwashing drastically reduced maternal mortality (SEMMELWEIS, 1861). In 1847, he instituted the use of a chlorinated solution for hand sanitization. Mortality plummeted from around 10–18% to less than 2%.
Even in the face of these results, Semmelweis was ridiculed by a large portion of the academic community of his time. Many doctors refused to accept that they themselves could be transmitting disease. Today, hand hygiene is one of the greatest pillars of modern medicine and hospital safety. The historical lesson is profound: sometimes correct observation precedes scientific explanation.
James Lind and scurvy at sea
A crucial historical parallel occurred a century earlier, in 1747, with the Scottish naval physician James Lind. Faced with entire crews decimated by scurvy, Lind conducted what is considered one of the first controlled clinical trials in history (LIND, 1753). By empirically testing different dietary supplements on sick sailors, he observed that those who consumed oranges and lemons recovered miraculously. Science would take nearly two hundred years to isolate vitamin C and explain the biochemical mechanism of collagen synthesis, proving that pragmatic action saved entire fleets long before the biochemical theory was even written.
Alexander Fleming and the serendipity of Penicillin
Even in the 20th century, the pragmatism of observation shaped the shift in global health. In 1928, Alexander Fleming did not design a complex study to discover the first antibiotic; he simply had the sharp clinical attention to notice that a contaminating mold (Penicillium notatum) had created a zone of inhibition around a culture of staphylococci (FLEMING, 1929). If he had discarded the petri dish as a mere laboratory experimental error, the antibiotic era would have been delayed by decades.
Beriberi and grain milling
Another fascinating example comes from nutrition. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Asian populations began to show major outbreaks of beriberi, a severe neurological and cardiovascular disease. The Dutch physician Christiaan Eijkman observed that chickens fed with polished white rice fell ill, while those fed with unpolished brown rice remained healthy (EIJKMAN, 1897).
Decades later, it was discovered that milling removed thiamine (vitamin B1), leading to the nutritional deficiency. Today, it seems obvious that ultra-processed and excessively refined foods can cause metabolic harm. However, for a long time, this was not valued by academic medicine. This episode anticipates highly current discussions regarding food industrialization, nutritional depletion, and modern chronic diseases.
Cinchona, Amazonian peoples, and malaria
Indigenous peoples of the Amazon had used preparations made from the bark of the cinchona tree (Cinchona spp.) for centuries to treat intermittent fevers. Later, quinine was isolated from this plant, becoming one of the most important antimalarial drugs in history. Today we know that quinine acts directly against Plasmodium, the parasite that causes malaria.
This is a classic example of how traditional knowledge can contain real and valuable therapeutic observations. Science did not “invent” the effect of cinchona; it validated, refined, and biologically explained it.
Acupuncture: from skepticism to partial acceptance
Acupuncture is perhaps one of the best-known examples of a practice initially rejected by the West and later partially incorporated into evidence-based medicine. Although many traditional Chinese concepts—such as the “flow of vital energy”—do not have objective scientific proof, several modern studies have demonstrated the benefit of acupuncture for specific conditions, especially chronic pain, lower back pain, osteoarthritis, and nausea.
Systematic reviews published in high-impact journals suggest that, although part of the effect may involve placebo and contextual factors, there are real clinical benefits in certain situations (ZHOU et al., 2021). This illustrates an important point: a practice can contain unproven symbolic or traditional elements but still possess useful physiological components.
Lifestyle and the Microbiota: The Greatest Modern Examples
Perhaps no topic better represents the conflict between academicism and pragmatism than lifestyle. Throughout a large part of the 20th century, diet, sleep, stress management, physical activity, and social connections were underestimated by conventional medicine. The emphasis was predominantly on medications, procedures, and hospital interventions.
Today, however, there is an enormous amount of evidence demonstrating that lifestyle profoundly influences cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, depression, dementia, and even certain types of cancer (ORNISH, 2019).
Sugar and ultra-processed foods: decades of scientific delay
For decades, saturated fats were treated as the primary cardiovascular villain, while the impact of sugar and ultra-processed foods received less attention. Historical documents revealed in JAMA Internal Medicine showed that sectors of the sugar industry funded research and influenced scientific narratives to minimize the effects of sugar (KEARNS; SCHMIDT; GLANTZ, 2016).
Today, large-scale studies associate the excessive consumption of ultra-processed foods with increased mortality, obesity, cardiovascular diseases, and metabolic disorders (ALLEN et al., 2018; NATURE REVIEWS CARDIOLOGY, 2024). The experimental study by Hall et al. (2019), published in Cell Metabolism, demonstrated that ultra-processed diets spontaneously increase caloric intake and weight gain. More recently, comprehensive reviews have reinforced the causal link between the consumption of these products and the general decline in health (BMJ MEDICINE, 2024; LANE et al., 2024). In other words: clinical and population observations by proponents of “real food” had existed for decades before a robust academic consensus was reached (POLLAN, 2008).
The resurgence of gut health and the microbiota
The field of gastroenterology and systemic health offers a striking contemporary example: the intestinal microbiota. For generations, Western medicine viewed the colon primarily as an organ of excretion and resident microbes as irrelevant commensals or potential pathogens. Meanwhile, Eastern medical traditions and European naturalistic physicians of the early 20th century insisted that “death and health begin in the gut.”
The pragmatic turning point came with the resurgence and validation of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT). Initially met with revulsion and skepticism by academia, the transfer of fecal matter from a healthy donor to the gastrointestinal tract of a sick patient proved to be the most effective and decisive treatment against recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, vastly outperforming latest-generation antibiotics (BAUNWALL et al., 2024). Empirical practice forced science to investigate the mechanisms of bacterial symbiosis, opening the doors to a new era connecting the microbiome to immunity, healing, and the gut-brain axis (CRYAN et al., 2025).
Physical exercise: a neglected “medicine”
Today we know that physical exercise reduces mortality, improves insulin resistance, decreases inflammation, and lowers cardiovascular risk. But for a long time, physical activity was seen almost as a secondary detail by standard medical practice.
Contemporary studies show that sedentary behavior rivals smoking as a population-wide risk factor (WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, 2020). The publication of the Lancet Physical Activity Series consolidated the understanding of exercise as one of the most powerful and cost-effective medical interventions in existence.
Sleep and mental health
The same occurred with sleep. Chronic sleep deprivation, previously downplayed or even romanticized in academic and corporate environments, is now directly associated with obesity, diabetes, depression, dementia, cardiovascular events, and reduced immunity (JAMA, 2023).
Psychosocial stress followed a similar trajectory. What was once vaguely labeled as “nervousness” or a “psychological factor” has gained rigid neuroendocrine definitions. The work of neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky (2004) brilliantly demonstrated how chronic stress physically damages the hippocampus, chronically elevates cortisol, and dysregulates the immune system. Modern medicine is rediscovering something that ancient traditions already intuited: body and mind do not function in isolation.
The Other Side: When “Natural” Becomes a Trap
While excessive academicism can ignore important observations, the opposite extreme is equally dangerous. Not every tradition is true. Not every anecdote is evidence. Not everything “natural” is safe.
There is an enormous difference between a promising observation that deserves investigation and a belief irresponsibly transformed into a “treatment”. It is precisely in this gray area that charlatanism, fads, and false promises flourish.
The Problem of Charlatanism and “Miracle Cures”
Cancer as an extreme example
Perhaps no field better illustrates the dangers of abandoning evidence-based medicine than cancer. There are countless reports of patients who abandon proven, effective treatments—surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiotherapy—in search of “natural cures,” alternative protocols, or miracle substances promoted without any unscrupulous constraints on the internet.
A powerful study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute showed that patients who chose alternative therapies exclusively presented significantly higher mortality and drastically reduced survival rates (JOHNSON et al., 2018). It is important to understand a fundamental nuance: a healthy lifestyle, proper nutrition, exercise, emotional support, and spirituality can be extremely important allies in facing the disease (SERVAN-SCHREIBER, 2009). But this means adding to, and never replacing, scientifically proven treatments with unproven promises. Confusing complementary support with therapeutic replacement can cost lives.
Hair loss, hormones, and fads
The same phenomenon occurs in less severe but highly frequent situations in daily clinical practice. In the pursuit of aesthetics, longevity, or instant performance, protocols devoid of any solid scientific evidence proliferate: megadoses of supplements, hormones without real clinical indication, “miracle IV drips,” intravenous antioxidants, commercial “detox” therapies, uncritical biohacking, hair loss fads, and excessive, unnecessary batteries of laboratory tests.
Frequently, commercialized sophistication is sold while the basics are neglected: adequate sleep, a minimally healthy diet, stress management, regular physical activity, smoking cessation, meaningful relationships, and mental health. Often, individuals spend fortunes on exotic supplements while sleeping poorly, remaining sedentary, and maintaining a diet based on ultra-processed foods.
Economic Interests: A Necessary Debate
Another delicate—yet mandatory—debate involves the financial interests driving scientific production. Large clinical trials cost millions or billions of dollars. Naturally, there is a greater economic incentive to fund research into patentable products capable of generating high global profitability.
Tirzepatide and the new classes of incretin receptor agonists are excellent contemporary examples. These are highly promising medications for the treatment of obesity and diabetes, with robust and transformative outcomes published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2022). This does not detract from the drug or the merit of the research. On the contrary: the data are impressive and have redefined global metabolic guidelines.
However, it is also a market reality that infinitely more resources will be allocated to studying a patentable synthetic drug than a behavioral change or a simple, cheap herbal remedy lacking significant financial return. This economic bias directly shapes research priorities worldwide. Consequently, some useful traditional or lifestyle therapies may remain understudied due to a lack of funding, while certain high-cost products receive immense commercial visibility. Recognizing this does not mean rejecting science; it means understanding that it is conducted within complex, real-world economic systems.
The Current Risk: Transforming Everything into “Performance”
We live in an era where health is frequently confused with extreme optimization and neurotic monitoring. Unindicated genetic testing, endless panels of commercial biomarkers, continuous intravenous protocols, and longevity “hacks” are aggressively marketed as symbols of status and modernity.
However, many of these strategies have flimsy, conflicting, or insufficient evidence. A classic and recurring example is food intolerance testing based on IgG antibodies. Several international medical societies of allergy and immunology categorically state that the presence of IgG toward foods merely reflects memory of exposure and immunological tolerance, failing to prove clinical intolerance, while generating severe and unnecessary dietary restrictions (WORLD ALLERGY ORGANIZATION, 2020).
Likewise, the indiscriminate use of intravenous vitamins and antioxidants in “immunity cocktails” lacks robust backing for the healthy population and can, ultimately, overload the body’s clearance systems. The relentless pursuit of sophisticated and expensive interventions frequently obscures what truly yields the greatest impact on actual longevity: the simplicity of the basics done consistently.
The Role of the Prudent Physician
Good medicine lies precisely in prudence. Neither blind academic dogmatism nor naive mysticism. The serious professional must respect robust science, acknowledge the limitations of current knowledge, maintain the intellectual openness to listen to the patient, carefully observe clinical reality, and avoid the arrogance of absolute knowledge, while firmly rejecting irresponsible promises.
Practical observation can and should generate valuable hypotheses. But hypotheses must be tested honestly. At the same time, the experienced clinician knows that the absence of statistical evidence at a given moment does not automatically equate to evidence of an absence of clinical effect. This balance is difficult—and precisely for that reason, so valuable.
Conclusion
The history of medicine teaches, above all, humility. Several current truths were born from simple and attentive human observation. Practices initially ridiculed by peers were later validated and incorporated by science. On the other hand, countless popular beliefs and fads have never withstood serious methodological investigation.
Medicine matures when it successfully unites scientific rigor, clinical experience, careful observation, practical wisdom, and common sense. Not all ancestral knowledge is charlatanism; nor does every flashy technological innovation represent a real advance. The true challenge is to discern.
Science remains our safest tool against therapeutic illusions and cognitive biases. But it must also remain open to the honest investigation of what our current technical capacity does not yet fully comprehend.
Meanwhile, the greatest lesson remains surprisingly simple: the essential remains essential. Sleep well. Eat better. Move your body. Cultivate deep social bonds. Reduce excesses. Avoid fanaticism and distrust miracle promises of instant gratification. In an age fascinated by extremes and quick fixes, balance remains the most sophisticated form of wisdom.
References (ABNT)
ALLEN, N. B. et al. Ultra-processed food consumption and cancer risk. BMJ, London, v. 360, p. k322, 2018.
BAUNWALL, S. M. D. et al. Faecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, v. 9, n. 1, p. 41-53, 2024.
BMJ MEDICINE. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, London, v. 384, p. e077310, 2024.
CRYAN, J. F. et al. The microbiota-gut-brain axis: from pathogenesis to therapeutics. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, v. 26, n. 3, p. 145-162, 2025.
EIJKMAN, C. Polyneuritis in chickens. Virchows Archiv, v. 148, p. 523–532, 1897.
FLEMING, A. On the antibacterial action of cultures of a penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae. British Journal of Experimental Pathology, v. 10, n. 3, p. 226-236, 1929.
HALL, K. D. et al. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metabolism, v. 30, n. 1, p. 67-77, 2019.
JAMA. Sleep duration, quality, and cardiometabolic disease risk. JAMA, Chicago, v. 330, n. 14, p. 1320-1322, 2023.
JOHNSON, S. B. et al. Use of alternative medicine for cancer and its impact on survival. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Oxford, v. 110, n. 1, p. 121-124, 2018.
KEARNS, C. E.; SCHMIDT, L. A.; GLANTZ, S. A. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: a historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Internal Medicine, Chicago, v. 176, n. 11, p. 1680-1685, 2016.
LANCET PHYSICAL ACTIVITY SERIES. Physical activity and global health: progress and challenges. The Lancet, London, v. 380, p. 247-257, 2012.
LANE, M. M. et al. Ultra-processed food exposure and health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ, v. 384, p. e077310, 2024.
LIND, J. A treatise on the scurvy: in three parts. Containing an inquiry into the nature, causes, and cure, of that disease. Edinburgh: Sands, Murray and Cochran, 1753.
MUKHERJEE, S. The Laws of Medicine: Field Notes from an Uncertain Science. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2016.
NATURE REVIEWS CARDIOLOGY. Ultra-processed foods and cardiometabolic disease: mechanisms and epidemiologic evidence. Nature Reviews Cardiology, London, v. 21, p. 89-101, 2024.
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE. Tirzepatide once weekly for obesity treatment. New England Journal of Medicine, Boston, v. 387, n. 3, p. 205-216, 2022.
ORNISH, D. Undo It!: How Simple Lifestyle Changes Can Reverse Most Chronic Diseases. New York: Ballantine Books, 2019.
POLLAN, M. In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. New York: Penguin Press, 2008.
SAPOLSKY, R. M. Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers: The Acclaimed Guide to Stress, Stress-Related Diseases, and Coping. 3. ed. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2004.
SEMMELWEIS, I. The etiology, concept and prophylaxis of childbed fever. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1861.
SERVAN-SCHREIBER, D. Anticancer: A New Way of Life. New York: Viking, 2009.
WORLD ALLERGY ORGANIZATION. Position paper on food IgG testing: clinical irrelevance in allergy diagnostics. World Allergy Organization Journal, Milwaukee, v. 13, n. 10, p. 100463, 2020.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Geneva: WHO, 2020.
ZHOU, Y. et al. Acupuncture for chronic pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA, Chicago, v. 326, n. 22, p. 2275-2284, 2021.
