{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02228224172856178, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00675219446320054, 'mean_word_length': 5.333333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A new era for nuclear medicine.

It could be argued that the first medical historian in the Western Medical Tradition, is the author of the treatise On Ancient Medicine, included in the Hippocratic Corpus, in all probability, Hippocrates himself. In our time, the domain of the history of medicine is inhabited by two factions, often indifferent towards each other's contributions, if not occasionally confrontational. One faction is represented by medical practitioners who, usually upon retirement from clinical care, research and seek to understand the practice and evolution of their craft in the recent and distant past. They are the medical historians. The other, by academic historians with a background in humanities who view and research the history of medicine from a different perspective. Historiography, the philosophy of science, philological concerns, the provenance of manuscripts, textual scrutiny, the cultural and social parameters relevant to their historical subject, are the focus of the work of these historians of medicine. Rarely, researchers of the history of medicine combine optimally humanities with a medical background. Many will recognize Sir William Osler (1849-1919) as the best representative of this happy cohabitation. The opportunity now arises for a fruitful collaboration between medical historians and historians of medicine in recording the unprecedented times and the global challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now is the time for truce.