Felix Cunha's 1937 article in The American Journal of Surgery is a biographical essay on Agrippa written from the perspective of the history of medicine. The unlikely venue reflects the context of its composition: Cunha was writing for a medical readership interested in the history of their profession, and his essay emphasizes those aspects of Agrippa's career most relevant to that readership — his periods of medical practice, his views on the arts of healing, and his critique of medical learning in De incertitudine.

Agrippa practiced as a physician at several points in his career, most notably during his time in Geneva (ca. 1521–1523) and in Antwerp (1528–1530). Cunha draws on the available biographical sources — primarily Agrippa's own letters and the early sixteenth-century accounts of his life — to reconstruct these periods of medical practice and to assess Agrippa's standing as a physician within the medical culture of his time. The picture that emerges is of a practitioner with broad knowledge of the Galenic tradition and of humanist medical scholarship, combined with a characteristic skepticism about the pretensions of academic medicine.

The chapter on medicine in De incertitudine is Cunha's primary textual focus. Agrippa's attack on the medical establishment in that work is one of the sharpest in the entire book: he charges physicians with using obscure Greek and Arabic terminology to disguise their ignorance, with killing more patients than they cure, and with the particular vice of blaming their failures on the patients rather than on their own incompetence. Cunha reads this as reflecting genuine frustration with the academic medicine of Agrippa's day — the persistence of Galenic paradigms that excluded empirical observation, the dominance of scholastic commentary over practical experience, the social pretensions of academic physicians.

The article is primarily valuable as a document of mid-twentieth-century interest in Agrippa from outside the humanities: the history of medicine periodically revisited figures like Agrippa, Paracelsus, and van Helmont as early representatives of the conflict between empirical observation and academic authority that would eventually produce scientific medicine. Cunha's reading, while not sophisticated by the standards of later scholarship, documents one strand of Agrippa's reception history and raises legitimate questions about the relationship between Agrippa's medical experience and the epistemological positions of De incertitudine.