I agree 100% with Al on CRP. CRP is not a specific marker and you should start your investigation by comparing it to other inflammation markers.

The problem here is CRP is being used as the only proxy for bodily inflmmation. Even being perfunctory, they could test for ESR or Sedimentation Rate, which is even more non-specific. But then what? You need to be able to move on to Il-6, fibrinogen, TNF, Ferritin, ANA and other autoimmune antibodies antibody tests ...

They just don't know enough: they do not know well enough about these new blood markers, and are only trained for specific treatment remedy via prescription. But then, most of them are following Best Practice protocols set up by their local boards anyway. These Best Practices themselves become ossified and change at a glacial rate. It takes 50 years to change. Or, as Taubes saysays, some of the pratcie leaders have to die for the standards to be tweaked.

Why test for CRP when you don't know what to do with it? The business model for doctors is to pigeonhole someone's complaint to a dozen disease patterns via very obvious blood markers. If a patient does not meet those blood markers, he doesn't really have to exert himself: why do that, unless you're a naturopath or an alternative practitioner? The Best Practices say do nothing. You're not gonna be sued for it, since no trial attorney could go against the established Best Practice protocols.

In fact, there is a business disincentive to doing anything proactive or using any new, emerging blood markers that go against traditional treatmentstreatment. Patients themselves might resist in the end due to additional cost (Medicare and insurance qualifications, etc.). Insurance companies will balk. This keeps the incompetent in practice while the competent just gets by by keeping up with the herd.

I agree 100% with Al on CRP. CRP is not a specific marker and you should start your investigation by comparing it to other inflammation markers.

The problem here is CRP is being used as the only proxy for bodily inflmmation. Even being perfunctory, they could test for ESR or Sedimentation Rate, which is even more non-specific. But then what? You need to be able to move on to Il-6, fibrinogen, TNF, Ferritin, ANA and other autoimmune antibodies ...

They just don't know enough: they do not know well enough about these new blood markers, and are only trained for specific treatment remedy via prescription. But then, most of them are following Best Practice protocols set up by their local boards anyway. These Best Practices themselves become ossified and change at a glacial rate. It takes 50 years to change. Or, as Taubes say, some of the pratcie leaders have to die for the standards to be tweaked.

Why test for CRP when you don't know what to do with it? The business model for doctors is to pigeonhole someone's complaint to a dozen disease patterns via very obvious blood markers. If a patient does not meet those blood markers, he doesn't really have to exert himself: why do that, unless you're a naturopath or an alternative practitioner? The Best Practices say do nothing. You're not gonna be sued for it, since no trial attorney could go against the established Best Practice protocols.

In fact, there is a business disincentive to doing anything proactive or using any new, emerging blood markers that go against traditional treatments. Patients themselves might resist in the end due to additional cost (Medicare and insurance qualifications, etc.). Insurance companies will balk. This keeps the incompetent in practice while the competent just gets by by keeping up with the herd.