The article discusses the importance of personal knowledge in clinical practice, highlighting a study by Chaudry and colleagues that examines how doctors' experiences with adverse events influence their prescribing decisions. The study found that doctors exposed to patients with adverse bleeding events were less likely to prescribe warfarin to subsequent atrial fibrillation patients. This suggests that doctors' personal experiences can significantly impact their clinical decisions, challenging the notion that doctors are merely passive recipients of clinical evidence. The author emphasizes that doctors engage in an "inner consultation" with evidence, influenced by heuristics and personal biases. This interaction between doctors and patients is guided by statistical and clinical significance, but a third dimension—personal significance—is crucial for understanding the dynamic nature of their consultations. The article also explores the concept of personal participation in understanding, drawing on Polanyi's work, which argues that comprehension requires tacit skills and intellectual passions. In the editorial section, the author critiques the overregulation of research involving personal health data in the UK, noting that overly strict interpretations of laws have led to delays and costs. The article highlights the challenges faced by researchers in obtaining consent and accessing identifiable data, particularly for epidemiological studies. It calls for a clearer framework and greater public engagement to address these issues, emphasizing the need for proportionality in risk assessment and consent requirements.The article discusses the importance of personal knowledge in clinical practice, highlighting a study by Chaudry and colleagues that examines how doctors' experiences with adverse events influence their prescribing decisions. The study found that doctors exposed to patients with adverse bleeding events were less likely to prescribe warfarin to subsequent atrial fibrillation patients. This suggests that doctors' personal experiences can significantly impact their clinical decisions, challenging the notion that doctors are merely passive recipients of clinical evidence. The author emphasizes that doctors engage in an "inner consultation" with evidence, influenced by heuristics and personal biases. This interaction between doctors and patients is guided by statistical and clinical significance, but a third dimension—personal significance—is crucial for understanding the dynamic nature of their consultations. The article also explores the concept of personal participation in understanding, drawing on Polanyi's work, which argues that comprehension requires tacit skills and intellectual passions. In the editorial section, the author critiques the overregulation of research involving personal health data in the UK, noting that overly strict interpretations of laws have led to delays and costs. The article highlights the challenges faced by researchers in obtaining consent and accessing identifiable data, particularly for epidemiological studies. It calls for a clearer framework and greater public engagement to address these issues, emphasizing the need for proportionality in risk assessment and consent requirements.