Can/should environmental factors be assessed/exploited by geographic prevalence of disease for diagnosing/treating mysterious diseases?
"Environmental factors" are sometimes implicated in mysterious diseases. I think that probably goes without saying but in case that is not to be presumed I point to this study as an example.
Is it possible that if a patient for a mysterious disease lives in a location where that disease is statistically prevalent might it be a plausible and warranted step in the diagnosis of the disease to move the patient from a geographic location where the disease is prevalent to one where it is unknown, even without understanding what are the relevant differences between the two environments? Would that not go a long way to "ruling out" environmental factors?
Environmental things "we know that we don't know":
air
water
radon
pollens
etc.
But I think this approach would be more important for the things that "we don't know that we don't know", which are always more elusive and abundant.
(0)Terms of Use Privacy policy Contact About Cancellation policy © freshhoot.com2025 All Rights reserved.