When a plane crashes or a building collapses, investigators are expected to find out why. They recover records, interview witnesses, examine the physical evidence and reconstruct the chain of failures. The goal isn't simply to assign blame. Knowing what went wrong is the most reliable way to stop it from happening again.
That principle sits at the heart of everything I write about health. Lasting healing comes from working from the inside out: finding the root cause of a problem, rather than endlessly managing its symptoms. Insulin resistance, chronic inflammation and the terrain of the body are root causes; high blood sugar, weight gain and fatigue are often the symptoms.
A recent analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola applies this same root-cause thinking on a global scale. More than six years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, its origin remains unresolved. And if we don't know how the last pandemic started, how can we be sure our safeguards are aimed at the right risks for the next one?
Searchers and Blockers: Lessons From Major Disasters
In a September 2026 presentation, investor Bill Gurley compared the search for COVID-19's origin with the investigations that followed other major disasters: the Challenger shuttle explosion, Hurricane Katrina, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Boeing 737 MAX crashes and the 2021 Surfside condominium collapse.
In each case, he pointed out, many independent groups searched for answers: journalists, government investigators, scientists, whistleblowers and victims' families. They didn't always agree, and sometimes they challenged one another. That independence was a strength, giving the public several paths to the truth rather than a single institution's account.
Gurley describes two kinds of players in any investigation: "searchers," who pursue the cause, and "blockers," people or institutions that resist scrutiny, often because their own past decisions are under the microscope.
His favourite example is the physicist Richard Feynman. After the Challenger disaster, rather than simply reviewing the information handed to the presidential commission, Feynman investigated on his own. During a televised hearing, he dipped a piece of the shuttle's O-ring material into ice water and showed how it lost its flexibility in the cold, revealing a key cause of the disaster.
The lesson: expertise alone isn't enough. Real answers require independence, access to evidence and the freedom to follow it wherever it leads.
The CAPA Framework: Five Steps to the Root
Gurley highlights a process called Corrective and Preventive Action, or CAPA. It is not an abstract idea; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires it in pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing whenever a quality problem arises. CAPA follows five steps:
Detect the problem.
Investigate what happened.
Confirm the root cause.
Correct it.
Prevent it from happening again.
Notice the order. Prevention comes last, because it depends on everything before it. Think of repeated water damage in your home. You can replace the wet drywall, but unless you find whether the leak comes from a pipe, the roof or the foundation, the damage will keep coming back. As Gurley puts it, you don't know how to fix it if you don't know what actually happened.
COVID-19's Origin: Still an Open Question
Gurley's central question is simple: did COVID-19 receive the kind of independent, persistent root-cause investigation that follows other major catastrophes? He argues that it did not.
Early answers narrowed the search. Gurley contends that influential virologists and scientific journals quickly established natural animal spillover as the favoured explanation, while questions about a possible lab-related origin were dismissed as conspiracy theories. He sees this as a failure of scientific inquiry, because investigators need the freedom to test every credible explanation.
A specific lead worth examining. He points to DEFUSE, a 2018 research proposal from EcoHealth Alliance involving coronavirus researchers in the United States and China. It described plans to insert a furin cleavage site, a feature that helps a virus enter cells, into a bat coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2 has a furin cleavage site too. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency declined to fund the proposal, and whether any of the work was done with other funding remains unknown. Gurley is clear that a proposal is not proof; it is a lead that calls for primary records and further investigation.
No predetermined verdict. When asked which origin he believed most likely, Gurley said he had intentionally not taken a side, because the root cause has not been found. He even said he would support researchers continuing to search for evidence of animal spillover.
That is what makes his argument so compelling. It isn't about winning a debate. It's about insisting on a genuine search, because only a confirmed root cause can tell us which safeguards will truly prevent the next pandemic.
The Same Question Applies to Cancer
If root-cause thinking matters for pandemics, it matters just as much for what many now call a cancer epidemic. Cancer rates are rising, particularly among younger adults, and after decades of research and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, one question still deserves an open search: what is the root cause?
There are several competing theories:
The somatic mutation theory, which views cancer primarily as a disease of genetic damage within cells. This has shaped most conventional treatment: surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and targeted drugs.
The metabolic theory, rooted in the work of Otto Warburg and championed today by researchers such as Dr. Thomas Seyfried, which sees cancer primarily as a disease of damaged cellular energy metabolism, closely tied to insulin resistance and the fuels cancer cells depend on.
The tissue organisation field theory, which proposes that cancer arises from a breakdown in communication between cells and the tissues around them, the "soil" rather than the "seed."
Terrain and environmental factors, including chronic inflammation, insulin resistance, ultra-processed food, toxic exposures and a weakened immune system.
These ideas are not necessarily mutually exclusive; the truth may involve several of them. But using Gurley's language, the search has not always been an open one. Research that questions current standards of practice often struggles for funding and attention. Studies of approaches that cannot be patented, such as diet, fasting, metabolic therapies or inexpensive repurposed drugs, attract little commercial investment, because there is no product to sell at the end. Meanwhile, global spending on cancer medicines now exceeds $200 billion a year. When an industry of that size is built around one way of understanding a disease, the incentives to look elsewhere are weak, and the blockers have a great deal to protect.
Conventional cancer treatments have saved many lives, and none of this is a reason to turn away from them. It is a call to apply the same discipline Gurley asks for: detect, investigate, confirm the root cause, correct and prevent. Until we are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, we risk spending ever more on treatment while the root cause of the epidemic continues to grow.
Root-Cause Thinking for Your Own Health
The same process that could prevent the next pandemic can help you get to the bottom of your own health problems. Rather than reacting to the most visible symptom or accepting the first explanation you hear, slow down and work from the inside out.
1. Ask what caused the problem before trying to fix it
If you are constantly exhausted, pushing through with more coffee treats the symptom, not the cause. Ask instead: what changed, and what could be driving this? Keep a simple log of your sleep, meals, stress and energy for two weeks, then take it to your healthcare provider so testing can target likely causes. Fatigue, cravings and weight gain, for example, can all point back to insulin resistance, which a fasting insulin test can help uncover.
2. Separate evidence from interpretation
Whether you're reading about COVID-19, nutrition or any controversial subject, distinguish what has been documented from what someone concludes about it. When you meet a strong claim, ask: what evidence would I need to believe this? And what evidence would change my mind?
3. Go back to the original source
Headlines and social media add layers of interpretation. When a decision matters, trace a claim back to the original research or document. You may not understand every technical detail, but you'll often spot missing context or a gap between what the source says and what others say it says.
4. Consider who has an interest in the answer
Ask who funded the work, who benefits from the conclusion and whether independent sources agree. A conflict of interest doesn't make a claim false, but it tells you where independent checking matters most. I apply this to every source I read, including those I respect. I trust much of Dr. Mercola's work, for example, but I look more critically when one of his own products is presented as the solution.
5. Match your solution to the root cause
Once you've identified the cause, choose an action that addresses it rather than endlessly managing its effects. Turn CAPA into your own checklist: What happened? What evidence explains why? What can I change? How will I know whether it worked?
Whether the problem is a global pandemic, a chronic illness or a recurring health struggle, the path is the same: find the root, correct it, and prevent the repeat. That is the heart of healing from the inside out.
Source and Credit
This post draws on "Pandemic Prevention Starts with Finding COVID-19's Root Cause," an analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola published October 2026, which reviews Bill Gurley's September 2026 presentation, "Searching for Feynman," at the All-In Summit.
This content is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Please consult your doctor or care team before making any changes to your diet, supplements, or treatment plan.
"As to diseases, make a habit of two things: to help, or at least, to do no harm." — Hippocrates