I would like to ask you directly, because you say that you do not make this distinction, whether you think that body/mind influence each other or that what happens on the mental/psychosomatic level in a person has an effect on the organism.

It can be stated that the view called e.g. materialism is opposed to the view called e.g. spiritual.

I did not invent this conflict, it is not my assertion, but it is based on a millennia-old dispute that has philosophical backgrounds. Countless people observed this split and called it by different terms.

For example, the cosmic bodies existing in the universe as a dull programme running according to the laws of nature, without any intelligence. This is also called the Newtonian view or the Decartian view of the world, as well as a purely mechanistic view.
This is contrasted with another view that works with the concepts of consciousness and intelligence, according to which life, and the consciousness of livingness that arises from it, cannot be attributed solely to observable and investigable phenomena whose ultimate explanation is not possible, but nevertheless exerts an influence on everything that is alive or connected with living things within their dynamics.

To these two main currents - a universe running according to a strict programme, events underlying physical principles, contrary to that of a spiritually intelligent, inspired divinely assumed one, for instance. Beyond that, there are other views, but I don't think they outrank the main currents, or not yet.

One could also say "fate" and " coincidence", two equally opposing concepts. According to the former, everything is predetermined (determined), the latter is a purely coincidental sequence of events, sometimes proceeding in one way or another.

Personally, I am undecided, but tend to emphasise the mental/spiritual influence, as it seems to me that my fellow world is determined to treat health & illness more like physics and mathematics by machine medicine and looking at the smallest particles.

I left the following as a comment somewhere else and just copy it here:

Behind every scientist there is also a will. If this will is such that it tends towards making something repeatable, which is considered a significant step in any scientific experiment, it will want reproducibility to be feasible because it rejects the fact that something cannot be reproduced.
The word "fact" comes from the Latin "facere", from "to do". Therefore, all "information" appearing as facts is open to dispute. Only fiction is indisputable.

Apparently, people equate biology with astrology or other physical phenomena, which they mathematically calculate via indirect factors influencing the as yet unidentified object. For example, the movement of cosmic bodies, through the observation of which one can discover a previously unrecognised or invisible other cosmic body. I think this is called "extrapolating"?

I looked it up:

"Extrapolation is the estimation of a value. The estimate is based on an extension of a known sequence of values or facts and goes beyond the known range. In general, extrapolate means to infer something that is not explicit from the information available."

It goes on to say:

"Interpolation is the estimation of a value within two known values in a sequence of values. Polynomial interpolation is a method of estimating values between multiple known data points. For example, if graphical data has a gap, but the data is available on both sides of the gap, or even at some specific points within the gap, interpolation can be used to estimate the values between the gap."

Source

I spontaneously saw the similarity to genetics here. Since you have genetic bases as a model, it is apparently much easier to use them for further calculation than the subject itself. So you have an abstraction of the subject to be studied, but not the subject. From here, from this abstract subject you can endlessly reproduce experiments.

Yet there, you have other terms referring to the dualism "abstract" versus "concrete".

I would say the divisive camps regarding virus theory and disease in general are falling back on their worldviews. Every worldview is a simplification of dynamics beyond our comprehension.

I don't assume you are claiming you don't have a picture of the world/cosmos/universe. Since we have already talked about it, yes.