I suspect that we are in substantial agreement.

As part of my day job I teach medical students in their pre-clinical years. This involves supervising a group of them while they consider case-notes about a hypothetical patient. The process takes about 8 hours and is spread over a couple of days.

Their first job is to discuss the clinical evidence, decide what additional investigations might be indicated and consider whether the patient should be referred to a specialist (psychiatrist, endocrinologist, dietitian...). They are actively encouraged to use *all* that they have learned (anatomy, biochemistry, immunology, pharmacology, physiology...) in that process.

At the end of the process, having thought about *all* of the data, they come up with a possible Dx and suggest possible treatment.

If a student jumps to conclusions ("Oh, that is easy, just prescribe drug X or recommend nutritional supplement Y - can we go home now?" then my job is to tell him/her to go back to square one and look at *all* of the data.

The meaningless distinction between "functional medicine" and "traditional medicine" is irrelevant in this process - it is training future GPs in the skills of evidence-based medicine.