I'm a critical care nurse and have a good deal of course work under my belt in treating disease process through diet. i have certification from Cornell University in that discipline as well. i won't offer medical advice to you either, i do not know you. As a healthcare professional i can offer some general information regarding the topic of healthcare.
In the US, it takes about 11 years to become a medical doctor. That's just a general practitioner. That includes a Bachelors degree with lots of science prerequisites, then med school and three years of residency where the doctor learns to practice medicine, largely in a hospital environment. i've always worked in teaching hospitals and it's always interesting watching the process as a doctor puts their book knowledge into practice. They are very different the first year as they progress through their third year of residency and earn the right to practice solo.
All of those requirements are a foundation on which they build their practice of medicine and earn their right to do so, they become authorities on the topic and many go on to specialize in more specific fields, like cardiology, gastroenterology, etc., etc., which involves more education and certification.
When it comes to myself or my patients re choosing where to get medical advice, or from whom, i'd argue to look for someone whose advice and practice is evidence based. There are endless numbers of people willing to give medical advice based on their own authority, from aunty Em on youtube to people with actual medical degrees, and everywhere in between.
One of the reasons i'd argue for evidence based is that includes another layer. Society allows doctors to give medical advice based on their earned authority on the topic, but an evidence based doctor is going a step beyond their own authority using the scientific method to guide their practice and advice vs just their past education and earned authority.
"Evidence based" means utilizing, and backing up their advice, with scientific evidence. Anyone can read a scientific study, but having the background to know what one is reading and what to look for is where the 11 years of prior education and authority get mixed in to the process. There are good studies and not so good studies. Something else evidence based provides is multiple expert input. A purpose behind publishing a study in a known and respected journal is to add layers of experience, expertise, input. Once it's published, that info is there for anyone to see, analyze, critique, support, point out flaws, etc.. In other words, we are not just getting input from one expert, but lots and lots of experts. One of the reasons i love working at a teaching hospital is the doctors travel in packs lol. There is one hospitalist leading the pack, and typically 3 residents. Usually a one year, a two year and a third year resident. As a nurse (or as a patient) i'd rather have 4 experts looking at an issue than just one. That's what an evidence based practitioner is doing, relying not just on their self, but a community of experts vs just their own, sole expertise.
i have 10 years of scientific, evidence based practice in medical critical care. i have a good amount of experience investigating a topic utilizing evidence based info. But say i want to buy an electric car? Sure, i'm going to go online and read and watch all the stuff i can to help guide my choice, but i'm also going to ask my kid for his input. He's an electrical and nuclear engineer and is literally a rocket scientist with 15 years experience as an engineer. i know enough to know whether or not he is using evidence to base his advice to me, but there is an element of trust there as well. i trust he knows how to read and interpret the evidence about electric cars better than i do.
Similarly with medical advice, it makes sense to me to get input from someone i trust. i trust someone who is dedicated to an evidence based practice over someone who is giving input just based on their sole experience or expertise.