What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Doing your own research (1 Viewer)

The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).
This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?
What percentage of doctors prescribed opioids for secondary gain, realizing their addictive potential?

My guess? 1%, or less. My wife, a physician, thinks < 10%.

What percentage of people in your field of work are unscrupulous?
Its an unknowable number, but, prescription rates have been cut by more than 50%. You think all of the drug companies were in on it, but, none of the doctors...the experts that should have known better?
 
Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic.

Thank you.

The idea it would be seen as a negative that people might dare to think for themselves instead of blindly following the directives of a massive for-profit industrial complex industry seems wild to me.
Ok, you've said this now over and over and over many times here.

There is a MASSIVE difference in what's driving the "massive for-profit industrial complex" and physicians.

Insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, hospital systems, and business administrators are the MASSIVE drivers of cost in healthcare. Not physicians. There's been a huge explosion on the business side and that's why it's spiraling out of control.

Meanwhile, physician salaries, which make up about 8% of healthcare costs, have remained virtually unchanged over the last couple decades, if not longer. In fact, when taking inflation into account, they've actually decreased. Reimbursement is going even further down as we speak. All while the business/administration tasks increase.

So, the "for-profit" area isn't being driven by physicians. Whether a physician decides to order a test or not, give a medicine or not, perform a surgery or not is not dictated by finances. A lot of physicians are salaried (I believe it's something like 70%). Even those that are productivity based, they earn more by having to work more. Physicians don't get more money by prescribing a certain medicine over another or ordering a certain test. Thus, when the face to face encounter that you're implying is being influenced by finances, that is almost entirely untrue. Are there certain instances or "bad apples"? Of course. But the VAST majority.....completely non-existent.

In fact, most of the time, it's patients coming in ASKING for certain medicines or tests or procedures and physicians having to explain why they aren't necessary. Many of those patients, which are likely the ones referred to in the OP, will then "shop around" until they find a physician willing to give in to what they want.

This implication that finances drive most medical decision making just isn't accurate.

Physicians are entirely complicit in the for-profit pharmaceutical business. I fully understand why they'd want to dissociate themselves from it. But there's a very good reason drug companies spend the $$$ they spend trying to influence physicians. Of course the guise is "education". And apparently no better way to educate than catering lunch for the office.

If you don't think finances drive most of the Medical Industrial Complex and the massive For-Profit corporations behind it, we'll have to disagree.
FTR, there are are many physicians who purposefully avoid Pharma reps, including their samples and "educational" dinners, and place extra scrutiny on their research. We're aware of the potential for undue influence.
It also should go without saying that this lumping of all physicians doesn't make sense.

The nephrologist, dermatologist, trauma surgeon, radiologist, ophthalmologist, pediatrician, etc that don't even routinely prescribe those medications or would not be motivated whatsoever by any kind of paid lunches would like to have a word for overly generalizing that "doctors" are being financially influenced.
 
The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue
Hold up. Doctors didn't already know opioids are addictive?

Eta. If they were fed junk data and everyone believed it then how do i know the data they're fed today isn't junk data? Maybe a little more patient research isn't such a bad thing after all.
They know opioids are potentially addictive. But misleading data regarding the potential for addiction was promoted, and policy changes advocating treatment of the "5th vital sign" encouraged doctors to prioritize pain control, at all costs.

if you want a better idea of both sides of the problem, I've had quite a back-and-forth in this thread, which argues we're floridly undertreating pain, even though we still prescribe far more opioids than most of the rest of the developed world.
 
I'd prefer to keep thinking for myself. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. He's a primary source of information for sure, but, they're my decisions.
Can you give an example of a situation where you feel your own research puts you in better position to diagnose and treat a serious medical condition than your physician?
Plus, physicians can't/don't force you to take medicines, have tests done, or have surgeries. That's what consent is for.

They advise, then you can do with it what you want. Don't want to take the medicine they prescribed? Then don't. Don't think the surgery is necessary? Don't have it. Don't think you need the CT scan? Don't go have it done.

And best part: Don't like your physician? Go find another one.
So now we're in the quandary of making those decisions and the OP, and I think you're trying g to agree with him, thinks the only information you should consider in making those decisions is exactly what your DR told you. And it is a primary source of information. So would a second opion if you get one. But I still prefer to include my research, and more importantly my experiences as being the closest to the actual issue, and whatever other information is available to make those decisions.

Information is power and anyone making any decision ought to use any and all information available. You do that in business, you do that in relationships, you do that in every aspect in life. Suggesting your health is somehow different is absurd.

And the argument that some are suseptible to disinformation and AI is making people less smart is a different argument. But you still wouldn't tell them to listen solely to once source of information when making a business or relationship decision.
When you say "my research", what exactly is that?

Are you reading medical studies from journals written by doctors/clinical scientists? If so, are you able to determine good quality studies from not?

If so, do you think you're reading something your physician hasn't read yet? Do you feel your physician doesn't stay up to date? Why do you trust THOSE doctors but not the one you're seeing?

If it's not the above but from other sources, do you think there might be a reason your physician isn't reading "your research"? What makes this other research more helpful despite not being accepted into qualified, respected journals?

Do you feel "your research" is enough to override what your physician is recommending?


I'm genuinely curious about the above.

To answer your question, yes, I do think your physician, who has received vast training to take care of your health, should be your primary source of information. If you don't trust that physician, then get a second opinion or find another physician. But no, I don't think "your research" should play much of a factor except in very rare instances.

If I hire an engineer for a project, I'm not researching it myself and checking his work. I already made the pilot comment above. Etc.
I find it a bit much to think I could spend any amount of reading on those subjects above and think it would even remotely compare to their knowledge in that field that they specifically trained years for.
Ive found the third most valuable piece of information is found by talking with others that have had the surgery or decided not to and their outcomes, successes and regrets. Everyone knows somebody who has had a hip replacement right? And pretty soon that leads to finding out which hip surgeon is the best and which ones to avoid. For example.

The second most important is what your doctors says.

But the very most important piece of information is what your body is telling you. Every surgery we've had we knew it was time. I just can't take the hip pain anymore, something has to be done! And despite exrays and exams saying otherwise there are surgeries likely in the future that we do not need now. Bone on bone with huge spurs, doctor can't believe that shoulder even works!

And any doctor worth his salt will start with #1 above.

Ok, so, that's helpful....

1). Talking to others that have had the surgery. I think that's a GREAT way to find a doctor in your area for that specific surgery or maybe specialist or whatever. Then you can go see them and trust them and their expertise. I would 100% agree that everyone should do this, especially for specific conditions or considering surgery. I don't consider that "doing my research" in any way that was meant by the OP. And this will be location dependent.

2) At the same time, using anecdotal information from the people you talk to about whether or not to have it done, that I would NOT agree with. Even if you found 100 people and asked each about their experience, the surgeon has almost certainly done 10x-100xs more of the actual procedure. If it's not successful or recommended, they aren't going to continue to offer it as an option. No surgeon wants patients that aren't happy and do worse after surgery than before. That's just common sense. So, you might find 10 people that all say "man, don't get the hip surgery, it's been awful". But, if your surgeon is still recommending it, there is likely something specific about your case that may warrant that and is different from your anecdotes. And your surgeon's "n" is far greater than yours with intimately more knowledge about pros and cons.

So, that's an example of your own research I would definitely disagree with. I think having the discussion of "hey, I've talked to some people that had it done and they had this negative experience, can you elaborate on why that may be and why you are still recommending it" is definitely worthwhile so you can get a better understanding.

But if you're telling me that you talking to 10 people that tell you they had hip replacement and it went bad and your surgeon is recommending hip replacement and you are siding with the 10 people over your doctor, then I think that's not wise. At all.

3) What your body is telling you isn't "my research". That's part of the discussion you have with your doctor. If he's recommending no surgery and you think "I need this because of x symptoms or pain", then you have a shared discussion. And, if you still don't feel comfortable, then absolutely get a 2nd opinion. Or even a 3rd. That is also very reasonable, but that's not "doing my own research" as what was intended in the OP at all.


So, interestingly enough, most of what you wrote out is normal patient behavior and is very different from "I did my own research" that OP was referring to.

And I'm glad you actually clarified and explained it as you did. We are in far more agreement than not, I think.

"My research" isn't a limiting term. If someone wants to say "believes whatever Google AI says over their doctor" that's a different discussion and I doubt anyone would waist time arguing it. On its face the thread is the former.
 
I'd prefer to keep thinking for myself. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. He's a primary source of information for sure, but, they're my decisions.
Can you give an example of a situation where you feel your own research puts you in better position to diagnose and treat a serious medical condition than your physician?
Plus, physicians can't/don't force you to take medicines, have tests done, or have surgeries. That's what consent is for.

They advise, then you can do with it what you want. Don't want to take the medicine they prescribed? Then don't. Don't think the surgery is necessary? Don't have it. Don't think you need the CT scan? Don't go have it done.

And best part: Don't like your physician? Go find another one.
So now we're in the quandary of making those decisions and the OP, and I think you're trying g to agree with him, thinks the only information you should consider in making those decisions is exactly what your DR told you. And it is a primary source of information. So would a second opion if you get one. But I still prefer to include my research, and more importantly my experiences as being the closest to the actual issue, and whatever other information is available to make those decisions.

Information is power and anyone making any decision ought to use any and all information available. You do that in business, you do that in relationships, you do that in every aspect in life. Suggesting your health is somehow different is absurd.

And the argument that some are suseptible to disinformation and AI is making people less smart is a different argument. But you still wouldn't tell them to listen solely to once source of information when making a business or relationship decision.
When you say "my research", what exactly is that?

Are you reading medical studies from journals written by doctors/clinical scientists? If so, are you able to determine good quality studies from not?

If so, do you think you're reading something your physician hasn't read yet? Do you feel your physician doesn't stay up to date? Why do you trust THOSE doctors but not the one you're seeing?

If it's not the above but from other sources, do you think there might be a reason your physician isn't reading "your research"? What makes this other research more helpful despite not being accepted into qualified, respected journals?

Do you feel "your research" is enough to override what your physician is recommending?


I'm genuinely curious about the above.

To answer your question, yes, I do think your physician, who has received vast training to take care of your health, should be your primary source of information. If you don't trust that physician, then get a second opinion or find another physician. But no, I don't think "your research" should play much of a factor except in very rare instances.

If I hire an engineer for a project, I'm not researching it myself and checking his work. I already made the pilot comment above. Etc.
I find it a bit much to think I could spend any amount of reading on those subjects above and think it would even remotely compare to their knowledge in that field that they specifically trained years for.
Ive found the third most valuable piece of information is found by talking with others that have had the surgery or decided not to and their outcomes, successes and regrets. Everyone knows somebody who has had a hip replacement right? And pretty soon that leads to finding out which hip surgeon is the best and which ones to avoid. For example.

The second most important is what your doctors says.

But the very most important piece of information is what your body is telling you. Every surgery we've had we knew it was time. I just can't take the hip pain anymore, something has to be done! And despite exrays and exams saying otherwise there are surgeries likely in the future that we do not need now. Bone on bone with huge spurs, doctor can't believe that shoulder even works!

And any doctor worth his salt will start with #1 above.

Ok, so, that's helpful....

1). Talking to others that have had the surgery. I think that's a GREAT way to find a doctor in your area for that specific surgery or maybe specialist or whatever. Then you can go see them and trust them and their expertise. I would 100% agree that everyone should do this, especially for specific conditions or considering surgery. I don't consider that "doing my research" in any way that was meant by the OP. And this will be location dependent.

2) At the same time, using anecdotal information from the people you talk to about whether or not to have it done, that I would NOT agree with. Even if you found 100 people and asked each about their experience, the surgeon has almost certainly done 10x-100xs more of the actual procedure. If it's not successful or recommended, they aren't going to continue to offer it as an option. No surgeon wants patients that aren't happy and do worse after surgery than before. That's just common sense. So, you might find 10 people that all say "man, don't get the hip surgery, it's been awful". But, if your surgeon is still recommending it, there is likely something specific about your case that may warrant that and is different from your anecdotes. And your surgeon's "n" is far greater than yours with intimately more knowledge about pros and cons.

So, that's an example of your own research I would definitely disagree with. I think having the discussion of "hey, I've talked to some people that had it done and they had this negative experience, can you elaborate on why that may be and why you are still recommending it" is definitely worthwhile so you can get a better understanding.

But if you're telling me that you talking to 10 people that tell you they had hip replacement and it went bad and your surgeon is recommending hip replacement and you are siding with the 10 people over your doctor, then I think that's not wise. At all.

3) What your body is telling you isn't "my research". That's part of the discussion you have with your doctor. If he's recommending no surgery and you think "I need this because of x symptoms or pain", then you have a shared discussion. And, if you still don't feel comfortable, then absolutely get a 2nd opinion. Or even a 3rd. That is also very reasonable, but that's not "doing my own research" as what was intended in the OP at all.


So, interestingly enough, most of what you wrote out is normal patient behavior and is very different from "I did my own research" that OP was referring to.

And I'm glad you actually clarified and explained it as you did. We are in far more agreement than not, I think.

"My research" isn't a limiting term. If someone wants to say "believes whatever Google AI says over their doctor" that's a different discussion and I doubt anyone would waist time arguing it. On its face the thread is the former.
I'll let @Terminalxylem answer himself, but I'm quite sure that's almost exactly what he's talking about. And it is not that uncommon.
 
Also, the information is all encompassing. The 10 people you talk to is a piece of information that needs to be properly wieghted. It's not useless. But of course you wouldn't make your decision based solely on that.
 
The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).
This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?
What percentage of doctors prescribed opioids for secondary gain, realizing their addictive potential?

My guess? 1%, or less. My wife, a physician, thinks < 10%.

What percentage of people in your field of work are unscrupulous?
Thanks for the reply. I trust your intuition (and your wife’s) more than my own, and find your perspective informative. I’m not in the medical field, which is why I asked the question rather than making an assumption.

Fair question about my field — except I’m not the one in here implying that my field is ethical beyond reproach. So it’s actually irrelevant to the topic.

But since you asked, I think humans are humans. Anyone who has read Russian literature knows that human beings as a broad group are unchanged since the beginning of time. People are fallible. People behave (in part at least) based on things like ego, fear, financial motive, pride, etc.

Why would I think doctors are any different than any other profession? Many/most are well intentioned. That’s true of most people I know. Except for lawyers. :)
 
I'd prefer to keep thinking for myself. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. He's a primary source of information for sure, but, they're my decisions.
Can you give an example of a situation where you feel your own research puts you in better position to diagnose and treat a serious medical condition than your physician?
Plus, physicians can't/don't force you to take medicines, have tests done, or have surgeries. That's what consent is for.

They advise, then you can do with it what you want. Don't want to take the medicine they prescribed? Then don't. Don't think the surgery is necessary? Don't have it. Don't think you need the CT scan? Don't go have it done.

And best part: Don't like your physician? Go find another one.
So now we're in the quandary of making those decisions and the OP, and I think you're trying g to agree with him, thinks the only information you should consider in making those decisions is exactly what your DR told you. And it is a primary source of information. So would a second opion if you get one. But I still prefer to include my research, and more importantly my experiences as being the closest to the actual issue, and whatever other information is available to make those decisions.

Information is power and anyone making any decision ought to use any and all information available. You do that in business, you do that in relationships, you do that in every aspect in life. Suggesting your health is somehow different is absurd.

And the argument that some are suseptible to disinformation and AI is making people less smart is a different argument. But you still wouldn't tell them to listen solely to once source of information when making a business or relationship decision.
When you say "my research", what exactly is that?

Are you reading medical studies from journals written by doctors/clinical scientists? If so, are you able to determine good quality studies from not?

If so, do you think you're reading something your physician hasn't read yet? Do you feel your physician doesn't stay up to date? Why do you trust THOSE doctors but not the one you're seeing?

If it's not the above but from other sources, do you think there might be a reason your physician isn't reading "your research"? What makes this other research more helpful despite not being accepted into qualified, respected journals?

Do you feel "your research" is enough to override what your physician is recommending?


I'm genuinely curious about the above.

To answer your question, yes, I do think your physician, who has received vast training to take care of your health, should be your primary source of information. If you don't trust that physician, then get a second opinion or find another physician. But no, I don't think "your research" should play much of a factor except in very rare instances.

If I hire an engineer for a project, I'm not researching it myself and checking his work. I already made the pilot comment above. Etc.
I find it a bit much to think I could spend any amount of reading on those subjects above and think it would even remotely compare to their knowledge in that field that they specifically trained years for.
Ive found the third most valuable piece of information is found by talking with others that have had the surgery or decided not to and their outcomes, successes and regrets. Everyone knows somebody who has had a hip replacement right? And pretty soon that leads to finding out which hip surgeon is the best and which ones to avoid. For example.

The second most important is what your doctors says.

But the very most important piece of information is what your body is telling you. Every surgery we've had we knew it was time. I just can't take the hip pain anymore, something has to be done! And despite exrays and exams saying otherwise there are surgeries likely in the future that we do not need now. Bone on bone with huge spurs, doctor can't believe that shoulder even works!

And any doctor worth his salt will start with #1 above.

Ok, so, that's helpful....

1). Talking to others that have had the surgery. I think that's a GREAT way to find a doctor in your area for that specific surgery or maybe specialist or whatever. Then you can go see them and trust them and their expertise. I would 100% agree that everyone should do this, especially for specific conditions or considering surgery. I don't consider that "doing my research" in any way that was meant by the OP. And this will be location dependent.

2) At the same time, using anecdotal information from the people you talk to about whether or not to have it done, that I would NOT agree with. Even if you found 100 people and asked each about their experience, the surgeon has almost certainly done 10x-100xs more of the actual procedure. If it's not successful or recommended, they aren't going to continue to offer it as an option. No surgeon wants patients that aren't happy and do worse after surgery than before. That's just common sense. So, you might find 10 people that all say "man, don't get the hip surgery, it's been awful". But, if your surgeon is still recommending it, there is likely something specific about your case that may warrant that and is different from your anecdotes. And your surgeon's "n" is far greater than yours with intimately more knowledge about pros and cons.

So, that's an example of your own research I would definitely disagree with. I think having the discussion of "hey, I've talked to some people that had it done and they had this negative experience, can you elaborate on why that may be and why you are still recommending it" is definitely worthwhile so you can get a better understanding.

But if you're telling me that you talking to 10 people that tell you they had hip replacement and it went bad and your surgeon is recommending hip replacement and you are siding with the 10 people over your doctor, then I think that's not wise. At all.

3) What your body is telling you isn't "my research". That's part of the discussion you have with your doctor. If he's recommending no surgery and you think "I need this because of x symptoms or pain", then you have a shared discussion. And, if you still don't feel comfortable, then absolutely get a 2nd opinion. Or even a 3rd. That is also very reasonable, but that's not "doing my own research" as what was intended in the OP at all.


So, interestingly enough, most of what you wrote out is normal patient behavior and is very different from "I did my own research" that OP was referring to.

And I'm glad you actually clarified and explained it as you did. We are in far more agreement than not, I think.

"My research" isn't a limiting term. If someone wants to say "believes whatever Google AI says over their doctor" that's a different discussion and I doubt anyone would waist time arguing it. On its face the thread is the former.
Correct. If we want to frame this discussion as people who say their doctor tells them they have cancer, but Google AI says they don’t and they believe Google AI then I think that’s a un serious strawman.

The real question is if by doing your own research can you often significantly improve your outcomes relative to just listening to the snippets you get from your doctor
 
I'd prefer to keep thinking for myself. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. He's a primary source of information for sure, but, they're my decisions.
Can you give an example of a situation where you feel your own research puts you in better position to diagnose and treat a serious medical condition than your physician?
Plus, physicians can't/don't force you to take medicines, have tests done, or have surgeries. That's what consent is for.

They advise, then you can do with it what you want. Don't want to take the medicine they prescribed? Then don't. Don't think the surgery is necessary? Don't have it. Don't think you need the CT scan? Don't go have it done.

And best part: Don't like your physician? Go find another one.
So now we're in the quandary of making those decisions and the OP, and I think you're trying g to agree with him, thinks the only information you should consider in making those decisions is exactly what your DR told you. And it is a primary source of information. So would a second opion if you get one. But I still prefer to include my research, and more importantly my experiences as being the closest to the actual issue, and whatever other information is available to make those decisions.

Information is power and anyone making any decision ought to use any and all information available. You do that in business, you do that in relationships, you do that in every aspect in life. Suggesting your health is somehow different is absurd.

And the argument that some are suseptible to disinformation and AI is making people less smart is a different argument. But you still wouldn't tell them to listen solely to once source of information when making a business or relationship decision.
When you say "my research", what exactly is that?

Are you reading medical studies from journals written by doctors/clinical scientists? If so, are you able to determine good quality studies from not?

If so, do you think you're reading something your physician hasn't read yet? Do you feel your physician doesn't stay up to date? Why do you trust THOSE doctors but not the one you're seeing?

If it's not the above but from other sources, do you think there might be a reason your physician isn't reading "your research"? What makes this other research more helpful despite not being accepted into qualified, respected journals?

Do you feel "your research" is enough to override what your physician is recommending?


I'm genuinely curious about the above.

To answer your question, yes, I do think your physician, who has received vast training to take care of your health, should be your primary source of information. If you don't trust that physician, then get a second opinion or find another physician. But no, I don't think "your research" should play much of a factor except in very rare instances.

If I hire an engineer for a project, I'm not researching it myself and checking his work. I already made the pilot comment above. Etc.
I find it a bit much to think I could spend any amount of reading on those subjects above and think it would even remotely compare to their knowledge in that field that they specifically trained years for.
Ive found the third most valuable piece of information is found by talking with others that have had the surgery or decided not to and their outcomes, successes and regrets. Everyone knows somebody who has had a hip replacement right? And pretty soon that leads to finding out which hip surgeon is the best and which ones to avoid. For example.

The second most important is what your doctors says.

But the very most important piece of information is what your body is telling you. Every surgery we've had we knew it was time. I just can't take the hip pain anymore, something has to be done! And despite exrays and exams saying otherwise there are surgeries likely in the future that we do not need now. Bone on bone with huge spurs, doctor can't believe that shoulder even works!

And any doctor worth his salt will start with #1 above.

Ok, so, that's helpful....

1). Talking to others that have had the surgery. I think that's a GREAT way to find a doctor in your area for that specific surgery or maybe specialist or whatever. Then you can go see them and trust them and their expertise. I would 100% agree that everyone should do this, especially for specific conditions or considering surgery. I don't consider that "doing my research" in any way that was meant by the OP. And this will be location dependent.

2) At the same time, using anecdotal information from the people you talk to about whether or not to have it done, that I would NOT agree with. Even if you found 100 people and asked each about their experience, the surgeon has almost certainly done 10x-100xs more of the actual procedure. If it's not successful or recommended, they aren't going to continue to offer it as an option. No surgeon wants patients that aren't happy and do worse after surgery than before. That's just common sense. So, you might find 10 people that all say "man, don't get the hip surgery, it's been awful". But, if your surgeon is still recommending it, there is likely something specific about your case that may warrant that and is different from your anecdotes. And your surgeon's "n" is far greater than yours with intimately more knowledge about pros and cons.

So, that's an example of your own research I would definitely disagree with. I think having the discussion of "hey, I've talked to some people that had it done and they had this negative experience, can you elaborate on why that may be and why you are still recommending it" is definitely worthwhile so you can get a better understanding.

But if you're telling me that you talking to 10 people that tell you they had hip replacement and it went bad and your surgeon is recommending hip replacement and you are siding with the 10 people over your doctor, then I think that's not wise. At all.

3) What your body is telling you isn't "my research". That's part of the discussion you have with your doctor. If he's recommending no surgery and you think "I need this because of x symptoms or pain", then you have a shared discussion. And, if you still don't feel comfortable, then absolutely get a 2nd opinion. Or even a 3rd. That is also very reasonable, but that's not "doing my own research" as what was intended in the OP at all.


So, interestingly enough, most of what you wrote out is normal patient behavior and is very different from "I did my own research" that OP was referring to.

And I'm glad you actually clarified and explained it as you did. We are in far more agreement than not, I think.

"My research" isn't a limiting term. If someone wants to say "believes whatever Google AI says over their doctor" that's a different discussion and I doubt anyone would waist time arguing it. On its face the thread is the former.
Correct. If we want to frame this discussion as people who say their doctor tells them they have cancer, but Google AI says they don’t and they believe Google AI then I think that’s a un serious strawman.

The real question is if by doing your own research can you often significantly improve your outcomes relative to just listening to the snippets you get from your doctor
I don’t think this is what the OP means by the phrase “I’ve done my own research.” As mentioned previously, I think it is more akin to my cousin telling me vaccines cause autism, or raw milk is healthy, based on the research she has done.
 
I'd prefer to keep thinking for myself. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. He's a primary source of information for sure, but, they're my decisions.
Can you give an example of a situation where you feel your own research puts you in better position to diagnose and treat a serious medical condition than your physician?
Plus, physicians can't/don't force you to take medicines, have tests done, or have surgeries. That's what consent is for.

They advise, then you can do with it what you want. Don't want to take the medicine they prescribed? Then don't. Don't think the surgery is necessary? Don't have it. Don't think you need the CT scan? Don't go have it done.

And best part: Don't like your physician? Go find another one.
So now we're in the quandary of making those decisions and the OP, and I think you're trying g to agree with him, thinks the only information you should consider in making those decisions is exactly what your DR told you. And it is a primary source of information. So would a second opion if you get one. But I still prefer to include my research, and more importantly my experiences as being the closest to the actual issue, and whatever other information is available to make those decisions.

Information is power and anyone making any decision ought to use any and all information available. You do that in business, you do that in relationships, you do that in every aspect in life. Suggesting your health is somehow different is absurd.

And the argument that some are suseptible to disinformation and AI is making people less smart is a different argument. But you still wouldn't tell them to listen solely to once source of information when making a business or relationship decision.
When you say "my research", what exactly is that?

Are you reading medical studies from journals written by doctors/clinical scientists? If so, are you able to determine good quality studies from not?

If so, do you think you're reading something your physician hasn't read yet? Do you feel your physician doesn't stay up to date? Why do you trust THOSE doctors but not the one you're seeing?

If it's not the above but from other sources, do you think there might be a reason your physician isn't reading "your research"? What makes this other research more helpful despite not being accepted into qualified, respected journals?

Do you feel "your research" is enough to override what your physician is recommending?


I'm genuinely curious about the above.

To answer your question, yes, I do think your physician, who has received vast training to take care of your health, should be your primary source of information. If you don't trust that physician, then get a second opinion or find another physician. But no, I don't think "your research" should play much of a factor except in very rare instances.

If I hire an engineer for a project, I'm not researching it myself and checking his work. I already made the pilot comment above. Etc.
I find it a bit much to think I could spend any amount of reading on those subjects above and think it would even remotely compare to their knowledge in that field that they specifically trained years for.
Ive found the third most valuable piece of information is found by talking with others that have had the surgery or decided not to and their outcomes, successes and regrets. Everyone knows somebody who has had a hip replacement right? And pretty soon that leads to finding out which hip surgeon is the best and which ones to avoid. For example.

The second most important is what your doctors says.

But the very most important piece of information is what your body is telling you. Every surgery we've had we knew it was time. I just can't take the hip pain anymore, something has to be done! And despite exrays and exams saying otherwise there are surgeries likely in the future that we do not need now. Bone on bone with huge spurs, doctor can't believe that shoulder even works!

And any doctor worth his salt will start with #1 above.

Ok, so, that's helpful....

1). Talking to others that have had the surgery. I think that's a GREAT way to find a doctor in your area for that specific surgery or maybe specialist or whatever. Then you can go see them and trust them and their expertise. I would 100% agree that everyone should do this, especially for specific conditions or considering surgery. I don't consider that "doing my research" in any way that was meant by the OP. And this will be location dependent.

2) At the same time, using anecdotal information from the people you talk to about whether or not to have it done, that I would NOT agree with. Even if you found 100 people and asked each about their experience, the surgeon has almost certainly done 10x-100xs more of the actual procedure. If it's not successful or recommended, they aren't going to continue to offer it as an option. No surgeon wants patients that aren't happy and do worse after surgery than before. That's just common sense. So, you might find 10 people that all say "man, don't get the hip surgery, it's been awful". But, if your surgeon is still recommending it, there is likely something specific about your case that may warrant that and is different from your anecdotes. And your surgeon's "n" is far greater than yours with intimately more knowledge about pros and cons.

So, that's an example of your own research I would definitely disagree with. I think having the discussion of "hey, I've talked to some people that had it done and they had this negative experience, can you elaborate on why that may be and why you are still recommending it" is definitely worthwhile so you can get a better understanding.

But if you're telling me that you talking to 10 people that tell you they had hip replacement and it went bad and your surgeon is recommending hip replacement and you are siding with the 10 people over your doctor, then I think that's not wise. At all.

3) What your body is telling you isn't "my research". That's part of the discussion you have with your doctor. If he's recommending no surgery and you think "I need this because of x symptoms or pain", then you have a shared discussion. And, if you still don't feel comfortable, then absolutely get a 2nd opinion. Or even a 3rd. That is also very reasonable, but that's not "doing my own research" as what was intended in the OP at all.


So, interestingly enough, most of what you wrote out is normal patient behavior and is very different from "I did my own research" that OP was referring to.

And I'm glad you actually clarified and explained it as you did. We are in far more agreement than not, I think.

"My research" isn't a limiting term. If someone wants to say "believes whatever Google AI says over their doctor" that's a different discussion and I doubt anyone would waist time arguing it. On its face the thread is the former.
I'll let @Terminalxylem answer himself, but I'm quite sure that's almost exactly what he's talking about. And it is not that uncommon.
Well like I mentioned, that's not a very interesting discussion. From his quotes:

The problem, of course, is that investigating things on your own takes time and skill, and it’s easy to get it wrong.

This suggests that it's possible but most people aren't smart enough. They should just forget it and do what their doctor says. That's more than just asking Google AI if I need a hip replacement.
 
I'd prefer to keep thinking for myself. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. He's a primary source of information for sure, but, they're my decisions.
Can you give an example of a situation where you feel your own research puts you in better position to diagnose and treat a serious medical condition than your physician?
Plus, physicians can't/don't force you to take medicines, have tests done, or have surgeries. That's what consent is for.

They advise, then you can do with it what you want. Don't want to take the medicine they prescribed? Then don't. Don't think the surgery is necessary? Don't have it. Don't think you need the CT scan? Don't go have it done.

And best part: Don't like your physician? Go find another one.
So now we're in the quandary of making those decisions and the OP, and I think you're trying g to agree with him, thinks the only information you should consider in making those decisions is exactly what your DR told you. And it is a primary source of information. So would a second opion if you get one. But I still prefer to include my research, and more importantly my experiences as being the closest to the actual issue, and whatever other information is available to make those decisions.

Information is power and anyone making any decision ought to use any and all information available. You do that in business, you do that in relationships, you do that in every aspect in life. Suggesting your health is somehow different is absurd.

And the argument that some are suseptible to disinformation and AI is making people less smart is a different argument. But you still wouldn't tell them to listen solely to once source of information when making a business or relationship decision.
When you say "my research", what exactly is that?

Are you reading medical studies from journals written by doctors/clinical scientists? If so, are you able to determine good quality studies from not?

If so, do you think you're reading something your physician hasn't read yet? Do you feel your physician doesn't stay up to date? Why do you trust THOSE doctors but not the one you're seeing?

If it's not the above but from other sources, do you think there might be a reason your physician isn't reading "your research"? What makes this other research more helpful despite not being accepted into qualified, respected journals?

Do you feel "your research" is enough to override what your physician is recommending?


I'm genuinely curious about the above.

To answer your question, yes, I do think your physician, who has received vast training to take care of your health, should be your primary source of information. If you don't trust that physician, then get a second opinion or find another physician. But no, I don't think "your research" should play much of a factor except in very rare instances.

If I hire an engineer for a project, I'm not researching it myself and checking his work. I already made the pilot comment above. Etc.
I find it a bit much to think I could spend any amount of reading on those subjects above and think it would even remotely compare to their knowledge in that field that they specifically trained years for.
Ive found the third most valuable piece of information is found by talking with others that have had the surgery or decided not to and their outcomes, successes and regrets. Everyone knows somebody who has had a hip replacement right? And pretty soon that leads to finding out which hip surgeon is the best and which ones to avoid. For example.

The second most important is what your doctors says.

But the very most important piece of information is what your body is telling you. Every surgery we've had we knew it was time. I just can't take the hip pain anymore, something has to be done! And despite exrays and exams saying otherwise there are surgeries likely in the future that we do not need now. Bone on bone with huge spurs, doctor can't believe that shoulder even works!

And any doctor worth his salt will start with #1 above.

Ok, so, that's helpful....

1). Talking to others that have had the surgery. I think that's a GREAT way to find a doctor in your area for that specific surgery or maybe specialist or whatever. Then you can go see them and trust them and their expertise. I would 100% agree that everyone should do this, especially for specific conditions or considering surgery. I don't consider that "doing my research" in any way that was meant by the OP. And this will be location dependent.

2) At the same time, using anecdotal information from the people you talk to about whether or not to have it done, that I would NOT agree with. Even if you found 100 people and asked each about their experience, the surgeon has almost certainly done 10x-100xs more of the actual procedure. If it's not successful or recommended, they aren't going to continue to offer it as an option. No surgeon wants patients that aren't happy and do worse after surgery than before. That's just common sense. So, you might find 10 people that all say "man, don't get the hip surgery, it's been awful". But, if your surgeon is still recommending it, there is likely something specific about your case that may warrant that and is different from your anecdotes. And your surgeon's "n" is far greater than yours with intimately more knowledge about pros and cons.

So, that's an example of your own research I would definitely disagree with. I think having the discussion of "hey, I've talked to some people that had it done and they had this negative experience, can you elaborate on why that may be and why you are still recommending it" is definitely worthwhile so you can get a better understanding.

But if you're telling me that you talking to 10 people that tell you they had hip replacement and it went bad and your surgeon is recommending hip replacement and you are siding with the 10 people over your doctor, then I think that's not wise. At all.

3) What your body is telling you isn't "my research". That's part of the discussion you have with your doctor. If he's recommending no surgery and you think "I need this because of x symptoms or pain", then you have a shared discussion. And, if you still don't feel comfortable, then absolutely get a 2nd opinion. Or even a 3rd. That is also very reasonable, but that's not "doing my own research" as what was intended in the OP at all.


So, interestingly enough, most of what you wrote out is normal patient behavior and is very different from "I did my own research" that OP was referring to.

And I'm glad you actually clarified and explained it as you did. We are in far more agreement than not, I think.

"My research" isn't a limiting term. If someone wants to say "believes whatever Google AI says over their doctor" that's a different discussion and I doubt anyone would waist time arguing it. On its face the thread is the former.
Correct. If we want to frame this discussion as people who say their doctor tells them they have cancer, but Google AI says they don’t and they believe Google AI then I think that’s a un serious strawman.

The real question is if by doing your own research can you often significantly improve your outcomes relative to just listening to the snippets you get from your doctor
I don’t think this is what the OP means by the phrase “I’ve done my own research.” As mentioned previously, I think it is more akin to my cousin telling me vaccines cause autism, or raw milk is healthy, based on the research she has done.
Sky is blue? Nobody would argue. Why make a thread about crazy cousin Eddy? Huge waste of time if that's all it is.
 
I'd prefer to keep thinking for myself. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. He's a primary source of information for sure, but, they're my decisions.
Can you give an example of a situation where you feel your own research puts you in better position to diagnose and treat a serious medical condition than your physician?
Plus, physicians can't/don't force you to take medicines, have tests done, or have surgeries. That's what consent is for.

They advise, then you can do with it what you want. Don't want to take the medicine they prescribed? Then don't. Don't think the surgery is necessary? Don't have it. Don't think you need the CT scan? Don't go have it done.

And best part: Don't like your physician? Go find another one.
So now we're in the quandary of making those decisions and the OP, and I think you're trying g to agree with him, thinks the only information you should consider in making those decisions is exactly what your DR told you. And it is a primary source of information. So would a second opion if you get one. But I still prefer to include my research, and more importantly my experiences as being the closest to the actual issue, and whatever other information is available to make those decisions.

Information is power and anyone making any decision ought to use any and all information available. You do that in business, you do that in relationships, you do that in every aspect in life. Suggesting your health is somehow different is absurd.

And the argument that some are suseptible to disinformation and AI is making people less smart is a different argument. But you still wouldn't tell them to listen solely to once source of information when making a business or relationship decision.
When you say "my research", what exactly is that?

Are you reading medical studies from journals written by doctors/clinical scientists? If so, are you able to determine good quality studies from not?

If so, do you think you're reading something your physician hasn't read yet? Do you feel your physician doesn't stay up to date? Why do you trust THOSE doctors but not the one you're seeing?

If it's not the above but from other sources, do you think there might be a reason your physician isn't reading "your research"? What makes this other research more helpful despite not being accepted into qualified, respected journals?

Do you feel "your research" is enough to override what your physician is recommending?


I'm genuinely curious about the above.

To answer your question, yes, I do think your physician, who has received vast training to take care of your health, should be your primary source of information. If you don't trust that physician, then get a second opinion or find another physician. But no, I don't think "your research" should play much of a factor except in very rare instances.

If I hire an engineer for a project, I'm not researching it myself and checking his work. I already made the pilot comment above. Etc.
I find it a bit much to think I could spend any amount of reading on those subjects above and think it would even remotely compare to their knowledge in that field that they specifically trained years for.
Ive found the third most valuable piece of information is found by talking with others that have had the surgery or decided not to and their outcomes, successes and regrets. Everyone knows somebody who has had a hip replacement right? And pretty soon that leads to finding out which hip surgeon is the best and which ones to avoid. For example.

The second most important is what your doctors says.

But the very most important piece of information is what your body is telling you. Every surgery we've had we knew it was time. I just can't take the hip pain anymore, something has to be done! And despite exrays and exams saying otherwise there are surgeries likely in the future that we do not need now. Bone on bone with huge spurs, doctor can't believe that shoulder even works!

And any doctor worth his salt will start with #1 above.

Ok, so, that's helpful....

1). Talking to others that have had the surgery. I think that's a GREAT way to find a doctor in your area for that specific surgery or maybe specialist or whatever. Then you can go see them and trust them and their expertise. I would 100% agree that everyone should do this, especially for specific conditions or considering surgery. I don't consider that "doing my research" in any way that was meant by the OP. And this will be location dependent.

2) At the same time, using anecdotal information from the people you talk to about whether or not to have it done, that I would NOT agree with. Even if you found 100 people and asked each about their experience, the surgeon has almost certainly done 10x-100xs more of the actual procedure. If it's not successful or recommended, they aren't going to continue to offer it as an option. No surgeon wants patients that aren't happy and do worse after surgery than before. That's just common sense. So, you might find 10 people that all say "man, don't get the hip surgery, it's been awful". But, if your surgeon is still recommending it, there is likely something specific about your case that may warrant that and is different from your anecdotes. And your surgeon's "n" is far greater than yours with intimately more knowledge about pros and cons.

So, that's an example of your own research I would definitely disagree with. I think having the discussion of "hey, I've talked to some people that had it done and they had this negative experience, can you elaborate on why that may be and why you are still recommending it" is definitely worthwhile so you can get a better understanding.

But if you're telling me that you talking to 10 people that tell you they had hip replacement and it went bad and your surgeon is recommending hip replacement and you are siding with the 10 people over your doctor, then I think that's not wise. At all.

3) What your body is telling you isn't "my research". That's part of the discussion you have with your doctor. If he's recommending no surgery and you think "I need this because of x symptoms or pain", then you have a shared discussion. And, if you still don't feel comfortable, then absolutely get a 2nd opinion. Or even a 3rd. That is also very reasonable, but that's not "doing my own research" as what was intended in the OP at all.


So, interestingly enough, most of what you wrote out is normal patient behavior and is very different from "I did my own research" that OP was referring to.

And I'm glad you actually clarified and explained it as you did. We are in far more agreement than not, I think.

"My research" isn't a limiting term. If someone wants to say "believes whatever Google AI says over their doctor" that's a different discussion and I doubt anyone would waist time arguing it. On its face the thread is the former.
Correct. If we want to frame this discussion as people who say their doctor tells them they have cancer, but Google AI says they don’t and they believe Google AI then I think that’s a un serious strawman.

The real question is if by doing your own research can you often significantly improve your outcomes relative to just listening to the snippets you get from your doctor
I don’t think this is what the OP means by the phrase “I’ve done my own research.” As mentioned previously, I think it is more akin to my cousin telling me vaccines cause autism, or raw milk is healthy, based on the research she has done.
Sky is blue? Nobody would argue. Why make a thread about crazy cousin Eddy? Huge waste of time if that's all it is.
Again, this is where you're wrong. A lot more would argue than you may think.

10% of parents request a delayed vaccine schedule because of "research" even though physicians do not recommend doing so. That's not a "sky is blue that nobody would argue" number. This is exactly a thread about crazy cousin Eddy because it's no longer just crazy cousin Eddy. He's brought along Aunt Jane and even brother Jim.
 
I'll also add, as a former engineer, we always listened to our clients (mostly governments) and they always thought they knew better than us. 99% of the time they didn't, but, we always respected it and welcomed the 1% that was helpful. Its a matter of respect for them and they are our clients. They pay the bill! How on earth do you get to a place where you're publishing crap about what your clients think.
 
I'd prefer to keep thinking for myself. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. He's a primary source of information for sure, but, they're my decisions.
Can you give an example of a situation where you feel your own research puts you in better position to diagnose and treat a serious medical condition than your physician?
Plus, physicians can't/don't force you to take medicines, have tests done, or have surgeries. That's what consent is for.

They advise, then you can do with it what you want. Don't want to take the medicine they prescribed? Then don't. Don't think the surgery is necessary? Don't have it. Don't think you need the CT scan? Don't go have it done.

And best part: Don't like your physician? Go find another one.
So now we're in the quandary of making those decisions and the OP, and I think you're trying g to agree with him, thinks the only information you should consider in making those decisions is exactly what your DR told you. And it is a primary source of information. So would a second opion if you get one. But I still prefer to include my research, and more importantly my experiences as being the closest to the actual issue, and whatever other information is available to make those decisions.

Information is power and anyone making any decision ought to use any and all information available. You do that in business, you do that in relationships, you do that in every aspect in life. Suggesting your health is somehow different is absurd.

And the argument that some are suseptible to disinformation and AI is making people less smart is a different argument. But you still wouldn't tell them to listen solely to once source of information when making a business or relationship decision.
When you say "my research", what exactly is that?

Are you reading medical studies from journals written by doctors/clinical scientists? If so, are you able to determine good quality studies from not?

If so, do you think you're reading something your physician hasn't read yet? Do you feel your physician doesn't stay up to date? Why do you trust THOSE doctors but not the one you're seeing?

If it's not the above but from other sources, do you think there might be a reason your physician isn't reading "your research"? What makes this other research more helpful despite not being accepted into qualified, respected journals?

Do you feel "your research" is enough to override what your physician is recommending?


I'm genuinely curious about the above.

To answer your question, yes, I do think your physician, who has received vast training to take care of your health, should be your primary source of information. If you don't trust that physician, then get a second opinion or find another physician. But no, I don't think "your research" should play much of a factor except in very rare instances.

If I hire an engineer for a project, I'm not researching it myself and checking his work. I already made the pilot comment above. Etc.
I find it a bit much to think I could spend any amount of reading on those subjects above and think it would even remotely compare to their knowledge in that field that they specifically trained years for.
Ive found the third most valuable piece of information is found by talking with others that have had the surgery or decided not to and their outcomes, successes and regrets. Everyone knows somebody who has had a hip replacement right? And pretty soon that leads to finding out which hip surgeon is the best and which ones to avoid. For example.

The second most important is what your doctors says.

But the very most important piece of information is what your body is telling you. Every surgery we've had we knew it was time. I just can't take the hip pain anymore, something has to be done! And despite exrays and exams saying otherwise there are surgeries likely in the future that we do not need now. Bone on bone with huge spurs, doctor can't believe that shoulder even works!

And any doctor worth his salt will start with #1 above.

Ok, so, that's helpful....

1). Talking to others that have had the surgery. I think that's a GREAT way to find a doctor in your area for that specific surgery or maybe specialist or whatever. Then you can go see them and trust them and their expertise. I would 100% agree that everyone should do this, especially for specific conditions or considering surgery. I don't consider that "doing my research" in any way that was meant by the OP. And this will be location dependent.

2) At the same time, using anecdotal information from the people you talk to about whether or not to have it done, that I would NOT agree with. Even if you found 100 people and asked each about their experience, the surgeon has almost certainly done 10x-100xs more of the actual procedure. If it's not successful or recommended, they aren't going to continue to offer it as an option. No surgeon wants patients that aren't happy and do worse after surgery than before. That's just common sense. So, you might find 10 people that all say "man, don't get the hip surgery, it's been awful". But, if your surgeon is still recommending it, there is likely something specific about your case that may warrant that and is different from your anecdotes. And your surgeon's "n" is far greater than yours with intimately more knowledge about pros and cons.

So, that's an example of your own research I would definitely disagree with. I think having the discussion of "hey, I've talked to some people that had it done and they had this negative experience, can you elaborate on why that may be and why you are still recommending it" is definitely worthwhile so you can get a better understanding.

But if you're telling me that you talking to 10 people that tell you they had hip replacement and it went bad and your surgeon is recommending hip replacement and you are siding with the 10 people over your doctor, then I think that's not wise. At all.

3) What your body is telling you isn't "my research". That's part of the discussion you have with your doctor. If he's recommending no surgery and you think "I need this because of x symptoms or pain", then you have a shared discussion. And, if you still don't feel comfortable, then absolutely get a 2nd opinion. Or even a 3rd. That is also very reasonable, but that's not "doing my own research" as what was intended in the OP at all.


So, interestingly enough, most of what you wrote out is normal patient behavior and is very different from "I did my own research" that OP was referring to.

And I'm glad you actually clarified and explained it as you did. We are in far more agreement than not, I think.

"My research" isn't a limiting term. If someone wants to say "believes whatever Google AI says over their doctor" that's a different discussion and I doubt anyone would waist time arguing it. On its face the thread is the former.
Correct. If we want to frame this discussion as people who say their doctor tells them they have cancer, but Google AI says they don’t and they believe Google AI then I think that’s a un serious strawman.

The real question is if by doing your own research can you often significantly improve your outcomes relative to just listening to the snippets you get from your doctor
I don’t think this is what the OP means by the phrase “I’ve done my own research.” As mentioned previously, I think it is more akin to my cousin telling me vaccines cause autism, or raw milk is healthy, based on the research she has done.
Sky is blue? Nobody would argue. Why make a thread about crazy cousin Eddy? Huge waste of time if that's all it is.
Again, this is where you're wrong. A lot more would argue than you may think.

10% of parents request a delayed vaccine schedule because of "research" even though physicians do not recommend doing so. That's not a "sky is blue that nobody would argue" number. This is exactly a thread about crazy cousin Eddy because it's no longer just crazy cousin Eddy. He's brought along Aunt Jane and even brother Jim.
Got it. You don't respect your clients. I'll bow out now.
 
The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).
This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?
What percentage of doctors prescribed opioids for secondary gain, realizing their addictive potential?

My guess? 1%, or less. My wife, a physician, thinks < 10%.

What percentage of people in your field of work are unscrupulous?
Its an unknowable number, but, prescription rates have been cut by more than 50%. You think all of the drug companies were in on it, but, none of the doctors...the experts that should have known better?
No, I think many doctors were misinformed, and erred on the side of over- versus underrating pain. This was facilitated by Pharma propaganda and policy, not being "in on it" for secondary gain. And prescription rates have been cut at the expense of pain being undertreated, in some cases. I refer you to this thread.
 
Last edited:
I'll also add, as a former engineer, we always listened to our clients (mostly governments) and they always thought they knew better than us. 99% of the time they didn't, but, we always respected it and welcomed the 1% that was helpful. Its a matter of respect for them and they are our clients. They pay the bill! How on earth do you get to a place where you're publishing crap about what your clients think.
That's great, but I think it's a mistake to treat medical care like any other business. Shared decision making is ideal, but ultimately clinicians are responsible for following best practices, even if they differ from popular opinion/expectations predicated on "doing the research".
 
What do you mean by misinformed?
Odd question.
And answered above already: "stuff that directly conflicts with evidence-based standards of care."
So let's take covid shots for under 2 years old. Up until recently the US was one of the only countries recommending the covid shot for all babies. Most other developed nations were only recommending it for "at risk" children because that's where the evidence points to for who needs it.

A U.S. parent who didn't want to get their baby vaccinated for covid gets looked at sideways because they consume "misinformation"?
How do you know which is correct? There's a cost to distributing vaccines, that could factor into other countries decision. The US has some of best medical professionals in the world, I would tend to trust a US recommendation over other countries. In this case risk to babies may be low but risk of the vaccine is also low. Also I'm not sure people were looked at sideways for this but admittedly this didn't come up in my social circle.
 
I'd prefer to keep thinking for myself. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. He's a primary source of information for sure, but, they're my decisions.
Can you give an example of a situation where you feel your own research puts you in better position to diagnose and treat a serious medical condition than your physician?
Plus, physicians can't/don't force you to take medicines, have tests done, or have surgeries. That's what consent is for.

They advise, then you can do with it what you want. Don't want to take the medicine they prescribed? Then don't. Don't think the surgery is necessary? Don't have it. Don't think you need the CT scan? Don't go have it done.

And best part: Don't like your physician? Go find another one.
So now we're in the quandary of making those decisions and the OP, and I think you're trying g to agree with him, thinks the only information you should consider in making those decisions is exactly what your DR told you. And it is a primary source of information. So would a second opion if you get one. But I still prefer to include my research, and more importantly my experiences as being the closest to the actual issue, and whatever other information is available to make those decisions.

Information is power and anyone making any decision ought to use any and all information available. You do that in business, you do that in relationships, you do that in every aspect in life. Suggesting your health is somehow different is absurd.

And the argument that some are suseptible to disinformation and AI is making people less smart is a different argument. But you still wouldn't tell them to listen solely to once source of information when making a business or relationship decision.
When you say "my research", what exactly is that?

Are you reading medical studies from journals written by doctors/clinical scientists? If so, are you able to determine good quality studies from not?

If so, do you think you're reading something your physician hasn't read yet? Do you feel your physician doesn't stay up to date? Why do you trust THOSE doctors but not the one you're seeing?

If it's not the above but from other sources, do you think there might be a reason your physician isn't reading "your research"? What makes this other research more helpful despite not being accepted into qualified, respected journals?

Do you feel "your research" is enough to override what your physician is recommending?


I'm genuinely curious about the above.

To answer your question, yes, I do think your physician, who has received vast training to take care of your health, should be your primary source of information. If you don't trust that physician, then get a second opinion or find another physician. But no, I don't think "your research" should play much of a factor except in very rare instances.

If I hire an engineer for a project, I'm not researching it myself and checking his work. I already made the pilot comment above. Etc.
I find it a bit much to think I could spend any amount of reading on those subjects above and think it would even remotely compare to their knowledge in that field that they specifically trained years for.
Ive found the third most valuable piece of information is found by talking with others that have had the surgery or decided not to and their outcomes, successes and regrets. Everyone knows somebody who has had a hip replacement right? And pretty soon that leads to finding out which hip surgeon is the best and which ones to avoid. For example.

The second most important is what your doctors says.

But the very most important piece of information is what your body is telling you. Every surgery we've had we knew it was time. I just can't take the hip pain anymore, something has to be done! And despite exrays and exams saying otherwise there are surgeries likely in the future that we do not need now. Bone on bone with huge spurs, doctor can't believe that shoulder even works!

And any doctor worth his salt will start with #1 above.

Ok, so, that's helpful....

1). Talking to others that have had the surgery. I think that's a GREAT way to find a doctor in your area for that specific surgery or maybe specialist or whatever. Then you can go see them and trust them and their expertise. I would 100% agree that everyone should do this, especially for specific conditions or considering surgery. I don't consider that "doing my research" in any way that was meant by the OP. And this will be location dependent.

2) At the same time, using anecdotal information from the people you talk to about whether or not to have it done, that I would NOT agree with. Even if you found 100 people and asked each about their experience, the surgeon has almost certainly done 10x-100xs more of the actual procedure. If it's not successful or recommended, they aren't going to continue to offer it as an option. No surgeon wants patients that aren't happy and do worse after surgery than before. That's just common sense. So, you might find 10 people that all say "man, don't get the hip surgery, it's been awful". But, if your surgeon is still recommending it, there is likely something specific about your case that may warrant that and is different from your anecdotes. And your surgeon's "n" is far greater than yours with intimately more knowledge about pros and cons.

So, that's an example of your own research I would definitely disagree with. I think having the discussion of "hey, I've talked to some people that had it done and they had this negative experience, can you elaborate on why that may be and why you are still recommending it" is definitely worthwhile so you can get a better understanding.

But if you're telling me that you talking to 10 people that tell you they had hip replacement and it went bad and your surgeon is recommending hip replacement and you are siding with the 10 people over your doctor, then I think that's not wise. At all.

3) What your body is telling you isn't "my research". That's part of the discussion you have with your doctor. If he's recommending no surgery and you think "I need this because of x symptoms or pain", then you have a shared discussion. And, if you still don't feel comfortable, then absolutely get a 2nd opinion. Or even a 3rd. That is also very reasonable, but that's not "doing my own research" as what was intended in the OP at all.


So, interestingly enough, most of what you wrote out is normal patient behavior and is very different from "I did my own research" that OP was referring to.

And I'm glad you actually clarified and explained it as you did. We are in far more agreement than not, I think.

"My research" isn't a limiting term. If someone wants to say "believes whatever Google AI says over their doctor" that's a different discussion and I doubt anyone would waist time arguing it. On its face the thread is the former.
I'll let @Terminalxylem answer himself, but I'm quite sure that's almost exactly what he's talking about. And it is not that uncommon.
Well like I mentioned, that's not a very interesting discussion. From his quotes:

The problem, of course, is that investigating things on your own takes time and skill, and it’s easy to get it wrong.

This suggests that it's possible but most people aren't smart enough. They should just forget it and do what their doctor says. That's more than just asking Google AI if I need a hip replacement.
I don't think it's fair to put that many words into someone else's mouth.
 
The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue
Hold up. Doctors didn't already know opioids are addictive?

Eta. If they were fed junk data and everyone believed it then how do i know the data they're fed today isn't junk data? Maybe a little more patient research isn't such a bad thing after all.
They know opioids are potentially addictive. But misleading data regarding the potential for addiction was promoted, and policy changes advocating treatment of the "5th vital sign" encouraged doctors to prioritize pain control, at all costs.

if you want a better idea of both sides of the problem, I've had quite a back-and-forth in this thread, which argues we're floridly undertreating pain, even though we still prescribe far more opioids than most of the rest of the developed world.


Yeah, I posted more than 100 times in that thread, and your back and forth was mostly with me. There is no doubt in my mind that we undertreat pain in the US. On the last part of your comment here, I will repeat something I posted in that thread in 2022:

This is simply untrue as written. I posted a link here that shows that the US fell to 8th globally in per capita opioid sales for the period 2015-2019. As I commented in that post, the article shows that these 7 countries have now surpassed the US (Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Australia, Austria), and Norway, Netherlands, and Belgium were all just behind the US. All of those are OECD countries whose health care/resources are comparable to the US.

And, given the continuing opioid hysteria in the US since 2019, I fully expect that the US has fallen further in this ranking.

Is it true that we are still ahead of "most of the rest of the developed world?" Maybe, I haven't seen any updated data since this post. My guess is that we have trended down due to the opioid hysteria climate our government created. But even if not, being grouped behind the 7 countries listed here and just ahead of the other 3 listed here shows that we are in line with the developed world.
 

The real question is if by doing your own research can you often significantly improve your outcomes relative to just listening to the snippets you get from your doctor
Great question, one to which I don't know the answer.

One the one hand, patients need to be involved, and advocate for their care. And good communication improves outcomes.

OTOH, I don't think much of the typical "research" helps at all, and sometimes causes harm.

I guess I believe a misinformed patient is more likely than a bad doctor, though I'm open to data which suggests otherwise.
 
As for doing your own medical research, I agree with the notion that someone who isn't truly invested in it might have only superficial and/or misleading results. But I can tell you that doing our own research was hugely beneficial to my wife's healthcare over the years, and her doctors generally appreciated it. And I can also tell you that we really appreciated the doctors who were interested in listening.

Finally, I can also say that there have been multiple occasions when my wife was complaining of something that the medical professionals initially blew off but eventually realized was a very serious issue that they had to address urgently, including with major surgery. It is imperative that any patient who has serious healthcare issues has an advocate, whether that is the patient him/herself or a loved one.
 
The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue
Hold up. Doctors didn't already know opioids are addictive?

Eta. If they were fed junk data and everyone believed it then how do i know the data they're fed today isn't junk data? Maybe a little more patient research isn't such a bad thing after all.
They know opioids are potentially addictive. But misleading data regarding the potential for addiction was promoted, and policy changes advocating treatment of the "5th vital sign" encouraged doctors to prioritize pain control, at all costs.

if you want a better idea of both sides of the problem, I've had quite a back-and-forth in this thread, which argues we're floridly undertreating pain, even though we still prescribe far more opioids than most of the rest of the developed world.


Yeah, I posted more than 100 times in that thread, and your back and forth was mostly with me. There is no doubt in my mind that we undertreat pain in the US. On the last part of your comment here, I will repeat something I posted in that thread in 2022:

This is simply untrue as written. I posted a link here that shows that the US fell to 8th globally in per capita opioid sales for the period 2015-2019. As I commented in that post, the article shows that these 7 countries have now surpassed the US (Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Australia, Austria), and Norway, Netherlands, and Belgium were all just behind the US. All of those are OECD countries whose health care/resources are comparable to the US.

And, given the continuing opioid hysteria in the US since 2019, I fully expect that the US has fallen further in this ranking.

Is it true that we are still ahead of "most of the rest of the developed world?" Maybe, I haven't seen any updated data since this post. My guess is that we have trended down due to the opioid hysteria climate our government created. But even if not, being grouped behind the 7 countries listed here and just ahead of the other 3 listed here shows that we are in line with the developed world.
I'm glad you've joined in this discussion, as we've had what I believe is helpful discussion on the topic, including appropriate research, with different conclusions.
 
I'll also add, as a former engineer, we always listened to our clients (mostly governments) and they always thought they knew better than us. 99% of the time they didn't, but, we always respected it and welcomed the 1% that was helpful. Its a matter of respect for them and they are our clients. They pay the bill! How on earth do you get to a place where you're publishing crap about what your clients think.
That's great, but I think it's a mistake to treat medical care like any other business. Shared decision making is ideal, but ultimately clinicians are responsible for following best practices, even if they differ from popular opinion/expectations predicated on "doing the research".
No. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. Healthcare isn't special compared to any other profession, on the contrary, if anything it's more personal and more mine.
 
I'll also add, as a former engineer, we always listened to our clients (mostly governments) and they always thought they knew better than us. 99% of the time they didn't, but, we always respected it and welcomed the 1% that was helpful. Its a matter of respect for them and they are our clients. They pay the bill! How on earth do you get to a place where you're publishing crap about what your clients think.
That's great, but I think it's a mistake to treat medical care like any other business. Shared decision making is ideal, but ultimately clinicians are responsible for following best practices, even if they differ from popular opinion/expectations predicated on "doing the research".
No. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. Healthcare isn't special compared to any other profession, on the contrary, if anything it's more personal and more mine.
You can't go to your doctor and say "give me a prescription for x" or "order this test for me".

That's not how it works. That's a big reason for the medical license to begin with.

He may "work for you" , but he's not obligated to fulfill any request.
 
At the end of the day, we need to acknowledge all doctors are not equal. There are good doctors and poor doctors. Finding the right one is important and can be a long difficult process.
This is at the heart of my earlier comment. I've had the misfortune of having a bad doctor. One that lost my trust and caused me to question their motivation for even being a doctor.

Since then I've found a much better doctor that is more than willing to discuss treatments, treatment alternatives, and accept patient input. It's refreshing. For the record in almost every instance i defer to their expertise, but will push for non pharmaceutical methods if possible or PT vs surgery.

Medicine isn't one size fits all and when i felt lumped into the same category as a patient not willing to work at their health like i am and told refusing pills in lieu of dietary intervention was wrong I "researched" a new doctor.

Eta. There was much more to this particular doctor than haggling over medication. Just an easy example of a conflict over treatment.
Although their communication was poor, it’s entirely possible your initial doctor wasn’t wrong.

Diet and exercise typically lower LDL (“bad” cholesterol) 10-20%, and compliance is usually poor. Guidelines account for this, and suggest immediate medication, plus lifestyle modification, if LDL is sky high. What is sky high? 190+, or lower, if coupled with other vascular risk factors.

There should have been more shared decision making in that process, and tolerance for your trial of lifestyle modification. That was your doctor’s failure.

You also should know, “optimal” LDL hasn’t been well defined, as every 40 point drop associated with roughly 20% cardiovascular risk reduction, all the way down to 45 mg/dL - I’m guessing yours isn’t that low. For this reason, some physicians think HMG reductase inhibitors (aka “statins”) should be nearly universally prescribed.
Can't recall excact numbers, but was in the 270-280 total cholesterol range. Tris were good, HDL good, LDL high, no apob or LPa testing.

I'm sure there's guidelines (have also seen the case for everyone on statins), but for me, a patient that is willing to stick to dietary and lifestyle modification, which he knew i was capable, willing, and medication averse unless all other options fail it felt generic and his dismissive attitude that i wouldn't just go along with his recommendation off-putting.

Now, was he wrong, i guess not. Was i wrong, no, the results then and still today speak to that. And again it wasn't a single issue, but this was the easiest example. He seemed to despise questions.

I guess the point i wanted to make was that patient input isn't necessarily obtuse and out of left field. Sometimes we know ourselves and what we're comfortable with.
The bolded is the rub: patients sometimes choose suboptimal care, based on little more than not wanting to take medication. That's their right, of course, but frustrating nonetheless, when the data suggests otherwise.

But you're absolutely right that physicians should be willing to field questions, engage in shared decision making, and remain respectful of patient autonomy, including behavior against medical advice.
 
I'll also add, as a former engineer, we always listened to our clients (mostly governments) and they always thought they knew better than us. 99% of the time they didn't, but, we always respected it and welcomed the 1% that was helpful. Its a matter of respect for them and they are our clients. They pay the bill! How on earth do you get to a place where you're publishing crap about what your clients think.
That's great, but I think it's a mistake to treat medical care like any other business. Shared decision making is ideal, but ultimately clinicians are responsible for following best practices, even if they differ from popular opinion/expectations predicated on "doing the research".
No. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. Healthcare isn't special compared to any other profession, on the contrary, if anything it's more personal and more mine.
I didn't say you work for your doctor.

Your doctor attempts to act in your best interest, which sometimes conflicts with personal preference. As we all have free will, you are the ultimate arbiter of your care. Just don't expect physicians to stray from evidence-based standards.
 
I'll also add, as a former engineer, we always listened to our clients (mostly governments) and they always thought they knew better than us. 99% of the time they didn't, but, we always respected it and welcomed the 1% that was helpful. Its a matter of respect for them and they are our clients. They pay the bill! How on earth do you get to a place where you're publishing crap about what your clients think.
That's great, but I think it's a mistake to treat medical care like any other business. Shared decision making is ideal, but ultimately clinicians are responsible for following best practices, even if they differ from popular opinion/expectations predicated on "doing the research".
No. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. Healthcare isn't special compared to any other profession, on the contrary, if anything it's more personal and more mine.
You can't go to your doctor and say "give me a prescription for x" or "order this test for me".

That's not how it works. That's a big reason for the medical license to begin with.

He may "work for you" , but he's not obligated to fulfill any request.
Really, wow.

And the roofing contractor isn't obligated to roof my house in pink shingles. I fire him and find another one. And if I wanted to roof my house with something that didn't meet code I probably wouldn't find a certified roofing contractor to do it. That's a big reason for the certification to begin with.

Zero difference. Still works for me. I pay the bill.
 
Just in our lifetimes doctors have pushed dietary guidelines and foods that turned out not to be beneficial, and in some cases, like trans fats, were actively harmful. Antibiotics were handed out like candy and now we’re dealing with resistance. Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic. Sure, the person who refuses a vaccine because of something they read on Facebook is probably super frustrating. But a healthy dose of skepticism (even “research") doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it’s just a patient trying to stay informed in a system that doesn’t always earn blind trust.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with a Nipsey post in 25 years here but this is crazy to me. You're penalizing science for doing science. Of course dietary guidelines and recommendations change over time as we learn more, are better able to analyze data, and become more informed about the human body. That's literally how science is supposed to work.

I don't understand the logic in attempting to override scientific consensus and advice from your doctor who literally spent 7 years becoming an expert because of a Facebook post or a podcast from a comedian. In almost every scenario, you are better off taking the advice from your physician rather than contradicting her/his advice because you "did your own research".

Think of it as placing bets. You walk into a casino and a team of MIT mathematicians offer you blackjack advice. When is it ever smart to say, "nah, my ex-wife's uncle once hit on 19 and got a 2, so that's my strategy". Even if you hit and get a 2, it was a stupid bet.
Thank you!!!
 
I'll also add, as a former engineer, we always listened to our clients (mostly governments) and they always thought they knew better than us. 99% of the time they didn't, but, we always respected it and welcomed the 1% that was helpful. Its a matter of respect for them and they are our clients. They pay the bill! How on earth do you get to a place where you're publishing crap about what your clients think.
That's great, but I think it's a mistake to treat medical care like any other business. Shared decision making is ideal, but ultimately clinicians are responsible for following best practices, even if they differ from popular opinion/expectations predicated on "doing the research".
No. My doctor works for me, not the other way around. Healthcare isn't special compared to any other profession, on the contrary, if anything it's more personal and more mine.
I didn't say you work for your doctor.

Your doctor attempts to act in your best interest, which sometimes conflicts with personal preference. As we all have free will, you are the ultimate arbiter of your care. Just don't expect physicians to stray from evidence-based standards.
I wouldn't. Just like any other profession. Most of which respect what their clients think.
 
Just in our lifetimes doctors have pushed dietary guidelines and foods that turned out not to be beneficial, and in some cases, like trans fats, were actively harmful. Antibiotics were handed out like candy and now we’re dealing with resistance. Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic. Sure, the person who refuses a vaccine because of something they read on Facebook is probably super frustrating. But a healthy dose of skepticism (even “research") doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it’s just a patient trying to stay informed in a system that doesn’t always earn blind trust.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with a Nipsey post in 25 years here but this is crazy to me. You're penalizing science for doing science. Of course dietary guidelines and recommendations change over time as we learn more, are better able to analyze data, and become more informed about the human body. That's literally how science is supposed to work.

I don't understand the logic in attempting to override scientific consensus and advice from your doctor who literally spent 7 years becoming an expert because of a Facebook post or a podcast from a comedian. In almost every scenario, you are better off taking the advice from your physician rather than contradicting her/his advice because you "did your own research".

Think of it as placing bets. You walk into a casino and a team of MIT mathematicians offer you blackjack advice. When is it ever smart to say, "nah, my ex-wife's uncle once hit on 19 and got a 2, so that's my strategy". Even if you hit and get a 2, it was a stupid bet.
That’s a weird post to quote if you want to pick a nit. Opioids and antibiotics are two areas where it’s no longer debatable whether or not the medical-industrial complex has behaved appropriately.
Medical industrial complex <> most doctors.
 
Just in our lifetimes doctors have pushed dietary guidelines and foods that turned out not to be beneficial, and in some cases, like trans fats, were actively harmful. Antibiotics were handed out like candy and now we’re dealing with resistance. Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic. Sure, the person who refuses a vaccine because of something they read on Facebook is probably super frustrating. But a healthy dose of skepticism (even “research") doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it’s just a patient trying to stay informed in a system that doesn’t always earn blind trust.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with a Nipsey post in 25 years here but this is crazy to me. You're penalizing science for doing science. Of course dietary guidelines and recommendations change over time as we learn more, are better able to analyze data, and become more informed about the human body. That's literally how science is supposed to work.

I don't understand the logic in attempting to override scientific consensus and advice from your doctor who literally spent 7 years becoming an expert because of a Facebook post or a podcast from a comedian. In almost every scenario, you are better off taking the advice from your physician rather than contradicting her/his advice because you "did your own research".

Think of it as placing bets. You walk into a casino and a team of MIT mathematicians offer you blackjack advice. When is it ever smart to say, "nah, my ex-wife's uncle once hit on 19 and got a 2, so that's my strategy". Even if you hit and get a 2, it was a stupid bet.
I’m absolutely not saying people should ignore their doctors because they watched a podcast. And I understand that science and guidelines change as we learn more but it is not always just about new facts. Politics, industry (money), and incomplete research can all play a role in how recommendations are shaped. That is why I think it's is reasonable for people to be cautious and ask questions instead of accepting everything without thinking it through.
Nobody is arguing against this approach :wall:
 
Admittedly, I usually cringe when people address their medical care in this manner. "Doing my own research" is on the short list of trigger phrases which bias me against a patient, along with "I know my own body" and "everybody's different", as these statements usually precede noncompliance with the suggested plan. I realize that's not ideal, and the link offers advice to communicate more effectively:

But you also understand why people ask questions, right?

I don't know you, of course, so I'm not saying you do this, but I know some people in the medical field who become indignant if the lowly patient dares to question even the smallest things as the medical person hands down the omniscient answers.

Medicine is business. A huge business. I do find it interesting how some people will blindly ignore the financial motivations that drive the business and somehow assume there's some sort of magical altruism to the business of healthcare, where the best interests of the customer are the only factor and the best interests of the company are ignored.
Where is the connection between doing my own research and medicine is a business?


They're connected as they relate to the person/customer/patient.

And they don't necessarily have the same motivation. Hopefully they do. But not necessarily.

And I fully understand some people have much more faith that zillion dollar for profit corporations will operate with magical altruism than I do.

The fact that merely daring to ask questions about a treatment or procedure can be seen as defiant or a negative by some is incredibly telling.
No one here is doing the bolded, and not really the point of this discussion imo.

Disagree. I think when a physician is bold enough to admit in public,

"Admittedly, I usually cringe when people address their medical care in this manner. "Doing my own research" is on the short list of trigger phrases which bias me against a patient, along with "I know my own body" and "everybody's different", as these statements usually precede noncompliance with the suggested plan. I realize that's not ideal, and the link offers advice to communicate more effectively:"

that's exactly the bolded of "merely daring to ask questions about a treatment or procedure can be seen as defiant or a negative"

Not sure what you mean about it not being the point of the discussion. It was literally in the original post.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then.

Admitting I find certain characteristics of the “I’m doing my own research” crowd off putting is hardly the same as stifling questions, or shared decision making.

We’ll definitely disagree then. All good. I don’t see finding “certain characteristics of the “I’m doing my own research” crowd off putting” The same as:

“Doing my own research" is on the short list of trigger phrases which bias me against a patient,”

I still am wondering how holding that bias against the patient fits with the Hippocratic Oath.
 
"Don't expect physicians to stray from standards"

Red herring? Who is asking for this? Other than the opioid crisis that you can argue doctors are complicite in what's being asked of them?

Doing your own research to not take a vaccine, eating red meat or drinking yourself to death isn't asking anything from them. It's just not following "doctors orders" which I say again, my doctor doesn't give the orders, he works for me.
 
The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).
This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?

But those free lunches at the doctor's office were pretty sweet.

Pharma Spending on Doctors Is Correlated With Opioid Deaths​

A new study shows that doctors wrote more prescriptions, and more people overdosed on opioids, in counties where drug companies spent more money.


This is not representing today. The article cites a study of the 2013-2015 timeframe. Things have changed drastically with opioid prescribing since 2015, as detailed in the thread linked earlier. IMO this is irresponsible posting. If you want to post on this subject, you should do the diligence to find current data to cite.
 
As for doing your own medical research, I agree with the notion that someone who isn't truly invested in it might have only superficial and/or misleading results. But I can tell you that doing our own research was hugely beneficial to my wife's healthcare over the years, and her doctors generally appreciated it. And I can also tell you that we really appreciated the doctors who were interested in listening.

Finally, I can also say that there have been multiple occasions when my wife was complaining of something that the medical professionals initially blew off but eventually realized was a very serious issue that they had to address urgently, including with major surgery. It is imperative that any patient who has serious healthcare issues has an advocate, whether that is the patient him/herself or a loved one.
Thank you for sharing. I’m thankful your wife was able to get quality care there.
 
The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).
This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?
What percentage of doctors prescribed opioids for secondary gain, realizing their addictive potential?

My guess? 1%, or less. My wife, a physician, thinks < 10%.

What percentage of people in your field of work are unscrupulous?
Thanks for the reply. I trust your intuition (and your wife’s) more than my own, and find your perspective informative. I’m not in the medical field, which is why I asked the question rather than making an assumption.

Fair question about my field — except I’m not the one in here implying that my field is ethical beyond reproach. So it’s actually irrelevant to the topic.

But since you asked, I think humans are humans. Anyone who has read Russian literature knows that human beings as a broad group are unchanged since the beginning of time. People are fallible. People behave (in part at least) based on things like ego, fear, financial motive, pride, etc.

Why would I think doctors are any different than any other profession? Many/most are well intentioned. That’s true of most people I know. Except for lawyers. :)
Agree 💯

The issue is, patients making ill-advised decisions, based on "research", is far more pervasive than you may think. Distrust in science/public health/medicine seems to be at an all-time high as well. And this has occurred in parallel with access to mis-/disinformation.

There are only so many hours in the day, so how does a thoughtful clinician efficiently and effectively assert their expertise, without having to disprove every snake oil salesman the internet has to offer?
 
The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).
This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?

But those free lunches at the doctor's office were pretty sweet.

Pharma Spending on Doctors Is Correlated With Opioid Deaths​

A new study shows that doctors wrote more prescriptions, and more people overdosed on opioids, in counties where drug companies spent more money.


This is not representing today. The article cites a study of the 2013-2015 timeframe. Things have changed drastically with opioid prescribing since 2015, as detailed in the thread linked earlier. IMO this is irresponsible posting. If you want to post on this subject, you should do the diligence to find current data to cite.

This is discussing how we got here and the Purdue Pharma situation. And unfortunately during the time when I lost my brother. Fortunately and obviously they were forced to address the issue.
 
The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).
This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?
What percentage of doctors prescribed opioids for secondary gain, realizing their addictive potential?

My guess? 1%, or less. My wife, a physician, thinks < 10%.

What percentage of people in your field of work are unscrupulous?

To make sure I understand, you’re saying 99% of physicians that were prescribing opioids didn’t realize their addictive potential?
 
"Don't expect physicians to stray from standards"

Red herring? Who is asking for this? Other than the opioid crisis that you can argue doctors are complicite in what's being asked of them?

Doing your own research to not take a vaccine, eating red meat or drinking yourself to death isn't asking anything from them. It's just not following "doctors orders" which I say again, my doctor doesn't give the orders, he works for me.
Happens all the time, when patients ask for tests that aren't indicated, unnecessary antibiotics, hormone replacement, alternate vaccination schedules, etc. These problems are compounded by doctor shopping.
 
Last edited:
The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).
This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?
You guys are reading a lot into my comment. I'm not pretending anything. So let me be clear. WIth this specific incident, the damage was done well before the frauds were exposed as such. And the pills continue to be prescribed today. What I said is 100% true. Prior to data being exposed as fraudulent it would have been virtually impossible for someone "doing their own research" to look at that data and come to a different conclusion than the doctors. It wasn't until other studies were performed and data analyzed that they could prove otherwise. And it's wonderful that doctors and researchers were observing some odd patterns to even think about digging into it to verify. When they did, Purdue was exposed.
 
Just in our lifetimes doctors have pushed dietary guidelines and foods that turned out not to be beneficial, and in some cases, like trans fats, were actively harmful. Antibiotics were handed out like candy and now we’re dealing with resistance. Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic. Sure, the person who refuses a vaccine because of something they read on Facebook is probably super frustrating. But a healthy dose of skepticism (even “research") doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it’s just a patient trying to stay informed in a system that doesn’t always earn blind trust.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with a Nipsey post in 25 years here but this is crazy to me. You're penalizing science for doing science. Of course dietary guidelines and recommendations change over time as we learn more, are better able to analyze data, and become more informed about the human body. That's literally how science is supposed to work.

I don't understand the logic in attempting to override scientific consensus and advice from your doctor who literally spent 7 years becoming an expert because of a Facebook post or a podcast from a comedian. In almost every scenario, you are better off taking the advice from your physician rather than contradicting her/his advice because you "did your own research".

Think of it as placing bets. You walk into a casino and a team of MIT mathematicians offer you blackjack advice. When is it ever smart to say, "nah, my ex-wife's uncle once hit on 19 and got a 2, so that's my strategy". Even if you hit and get a 2, it was a stupid bet.
I’m absolutely not saying people should ignore their doctors because they watched a podcast. And I understand that science and guidelines change as we learn more but it is not always just about new facts. Politics, industry (money), and incomplete research can all play a role in how recommendations are shaped. That is why I think it's is reasonable for people to be cautious and ask questions instead of accepting everything without thinking it through.
Nobody is arguing against this approach :wall:
So to be clear you’re okay with patients who “do their own research” to better understand an illness/diagnosis/treatment options? It’s only when they disagree with your advice that you might feel biased against them?
 
The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).
This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?
What percentage of doctors prescribed opioids for secondary gain, realizing their addictive potential?

My guess? 1%, or less. My wife, a physician, thinks < 10%.

What percentage of people in your field of work are unscrupulous?

To make sure I understand, you’re saying 99% of physicians that were prescribing opioids didn’t realize their addictive potential?
No, I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying 99% physicians prescribed them for the benefit of their patients, based on available data and policy, after weighing the benefits and risks, including addictive potential. I suspect less than 1% of docs were prescribing opioids for secondary gain, as one might see working at a "pill mill", for example.

Now did the 99% fully realize what would result from prescribing practices? I doubt it. But they were prescribing in good faith, at the time.
 
The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).
This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?

Sometimes the data and science is wrong and a bunch of people die. Not to worry though, That's apparently how it works :shrug:
 
Admittedly, I usually cringe when people address their medical care in this manner. "Doing my own research" is on the short list of trigger phrases which bias me against a patient, along with "I know my own body" and "everybody's different", as these statements usually precede noncompliance with the suggested plan. I realize that's not ideal, and the link offers advice to communicate more effectively:

But you also understand why people ask questions, right?

I don't know you, of course, so I'm not saying you do this, but I know some people in the medical field who become indignant if the lowly patient dares to question even the smallest things as the medical person hands down the omniscient answers.

Medicine is business. A huge business. I do find it interesting how some people will blindly ignore the financial motivations that drive the business and somehow assume there's some sort of magical altruism to the business of healthcare, where the best interests of the customer are the only factor and the best interests of the company are ignored.
Where is the connection between doing my own research and medicine is a business?


They're connected as they relate to the person/customer/patient.

And they don't necessarily have the same motivation. Hopefully they do. But not necessarily.

And I fully understand some people have much more faith that zillion dollar for profit corporations will operate with magical altruism than I do.

The fact that merely daring to ask questions about a treatment or procedure can be seen as defiant or a negative by some is incredibly telling.
No one here is doing the bolded, and not really the point of this discussion imo.

Disagree. I think when a physician is bold enough to admit in public,

"Admittedly, I usually cringe when people address their medical care in this manner. "Doing my own research" is on the short list of trigger phrases which bias me against a patient, along with "I know my own body" and "everybody's different", as these statements usually precede noncompliance with the suggested plan. I realize that's not ideal, and the link offers advice to communicate more effectively:"

that's exactly the bolded of "merely daring to ask questions about a treatment or procedure can be seen as defiant or a negative"

Not sure what you mean about it not being the point of the discussion. It was literally in the original post.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then.

Admitting I find certain characteristics of the “I’m doing my own research” crowd off putting is hardly the same as stifling questions, or shared decision making.

We’ll definitely disagree then. All good. I don’t see finding “certain characteristics of the “I’m doing my own research” crowd off putting” The same as:

“Doing my own research" is on the short list of trigger phrases which bias me against a patient,”

I still am wondering how holding that bias against the patient fits with the Hippocratic Oath.
It's not adding up. If you feel that way you should tell the patient to find another doctor.

But for the life of me I can't think of an issue that's relevant today other than vaccinations.
"Don't expect physicians to stray from standards"

Red herring? Who is asking for this? Other than the opioid crisis that you can argue doctors are complicite in what's being asked of them?

Doing your own research to not take a vaccine, eating red meat or drinking yourself to death isn't asking anything from them. It's just not following "doctors orders" which I say again, my doctor doesn't give the orders, he works for me.
Happens all the time, when patients ask for tests that aren't indicated, unnecessary antibiotics, alternate vaccine schedules, etc. These problems are compounded by doctor shopping.
BINGO!

The thinly veild political thread to call anti-vaxxers dumb. (nobody cares about extra tests and antibiotics)

They aren't asking you to not take a shot. That would fall under not following "doctor’s orders". You're not the boss.
 
Just in our lifetimes doctors have pushed dietary guidelines and foods that turned out not to be beneficial, and in some cases, like trans fats, were actively harmful. Antibiotics were handed out like candy and now we’re dealing with resistance. Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic. Sure, the person who refuses a vaccine because of something they read on Facebook is probably super frustrating. But a healthy dose of skepticism (even “research") doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it’s just a patient trying to stay informed in a system that doesn’t always earn blind trust.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with a Nipsey post in 25 years here but this is crazy to me. You're penalizing science for doing science. Of course dietary guidelines and recommendations change over time as we learn more, are better able to analyze data, and become more informed about the human body. That's literally how science is supposed to work.

I don't understand the logic in attempting to override scientific consensus and advice from your doctor who literally spent 7 years becoming an expert because of a Facebook post or a podcast from a comedian. In almost every scenario, you are better off taking the advice from your physician rather than contradicting her/his advice because you "did your own research".

Think of it as placing bets. You walk into a casino and a team of MIT mathematicians offer you blackjack advice. When is it ever smart to say, "nah, my ex-wife's uncle once hit on 19 and got a 2, so that's my strategy". Even if you hit and get a 2, it was a stupid bet.
I’m absolutely not saying people should ignore their doctors because they watched a podcast. And I understand that science and guidelines change as we learn more but it is not always just about new facts. Politics, industry (money), and incomplete research can all play a role in how recommendations are shaped. That is why I think it's is reasonable for people to be cautious and ask questions instead of accepting everything without thinking it through.
Nobody is arguing against this approach :wall:
So to be clear you’re okay with patients who “do their own research” to better understand an illness/diagnosis/treatment options? It’s only when they disagree with your advice that you might feel biased against them?
Nope. I don't know how many more times I can advocate for shared decision making.
 
At the end of the day, we need to acknowledge all doctors are not equal. There are good doctors and poor doctors. Finding the right one is important and can be a long difficult process.
This is at the heart of my earlier comment. I've had the misfortune of having a bad doctor. One that lost my trust and caused me to question their motivation for even being a doctor.

Since then I've found a much better doctor that is more than willing to discuss treatments, treatment alternatives, and accept patient input. It's refreshing. For the record in almost every instance i defer to their expertise, but will push for non pharmaceutical methods if possible or PT vs surgery.

Medicine isn't one size fits all and when i felt lumped into the same category as a patient not willing to work at their health like i am and told refusing pills in lieu of dietary intervention was wrong I "researched" a new doctor.

Eta. There was much more to this particular doctor than haggling over medication. Just an easy example of a conflict over treatment.
Although their communication was poor, it’s entirely possible your initial doctor wasn’t wrong.

Diet and exercise typically lower LDL (“bad” cholesterol) 10-20%, and compliance is usually poor. Guidelines account for this, and suggest immediate medication, plus lifestyle modification, if LDL is sky high. What is sky high? 190+, or lower, if coupled with other vascular risk factors.

There should have been more shared decision making in that process, and tolerance for your trial of lifestyle modification. That was your doctor’s failure.

You also should know, “optimal” LDL hasn’t been well defined, as every 40 point drop associated with roughly 20% cardiovascular risk reduction, all the way down to 45 mg/dL - I’m guessing yours isn’t that low. For this reason, some physicians think HMG reductase inhibitors (aka “statins”) should be nearly universally prescribed.
Can't recall excact numbers, but was in the 270-280 total cholesterol range. Tris were good, HDL good, LDL high, no apob or LPa testing.

I'm sure there's guidelines (have also seen the case for everyone on statins), but for me, a patient that is willing to stick to dietary and lifestyle modification, which he knew i was capable, willing, and medication averse unless all other options fail it felt generic and his dismissive attitude that i wouldn't just go along with his recommendation off-putting.

Now, was he wrong, i guess not. Was i wrong, no, the results then and still today speak to that. And again it wasn't a single issue, but this was the easiest example. He seemed to despise questions.

I guess the point i wanted to make was that patient input isn't necessarily obtuse and out of left field. Sometimes we know ourselves and what we're comfortable with.
The bolded is the rub: patients sometimes choose suboptimal care, based on little more than not wanting to take medication. That's their right, of course, but frustrating nonetheless, when the data suggests otherwise.

But you're absolutely right that physicians should be willing to field questions, engage in shared decision making, and remain respectful of patient autonomy, including behavior against medical advice.
Let me clear this up. If i have cancer, diabetes, hypertension that doesn't respond to lifestyle modification, and any number of serious disease I'm all for the best possible treatments western medicine has to offer.

If there's a less invasion option, diet, exercise, stress reduction, PT, ect i want to go that route 10 out of 10 times.

I have an aunt with type 2 diabetes and she's been told that simply cutting back on the sugar she consumes could possibly get her off meds. With pride she says she'd rather eat ice cream and take the meds. This is madness to me and i can't fathom that attitude. No idea how common this is, but I can see how a doctor with enough if these patients gets fed up and just goes the same route with all their patients and immediately jump to pharmaceuticals, or surgery because recommendations for lifestyle modifications fall on deaf ears.

That's not me though and I'll be blunt with my doctor about that from the get go. I need to have a conversation about my care. I expect that we fix the problem at the root vs bandaiding with medications that aren't 100% necessary.
 
Just in our lifetimes doctors have pushed dietary guidelines and foods that turned out not to be beneficial, and in some cases, like trans fats, were actively harmful. Antibiotics were handed out like candy and now we’re dealing with resistance. Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic. Sure, the person who refuses a vaccine because of something they read on Facebook is probably super frustrating. But a healthy dose of skepticism (even “research") doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it’s just a patient trying to stay informed in a system that doesn’t always earn blind trust.
I don't think I've ever disagreed with a Nipsey post in 25 years here but this is crazy to me. You're penalizing science for doing science. Of course dietary guidelines and recommendations change over time as we learn more, are better able to analyze data, and become more informed about the human body. That's literally how science is supposed to work.

I don't understand the logic in attempting to override scientific consensus and advice from your doctor who literally spent 7 years becoming an expert because of a Facebook post or a podcast from a comedian. In almost every scenario, you are better off taking the advice from your physician rather than contradicting her/his advice because you "did your own research".

Think of it as placing bets. You walk into a casino and a team of MIT mathematicians offer you blackjack advice. When is it ever smart to say, "nah, my ex-wife's uncle once hit on 19 and got a 2, so that's my strategy". Even if you hit and get a 2, it was a stupid bet.
That’s a weird post to quote if you want to pick a nit. Opioids and antibiotics are two areas where it’s no longer debatable whether or not the medical-industrial complex has behaved appropriately.
Medical industrial complex <> most doctors.

Interesting
 
Admittedly, I usually cringe when people address their medical care in this manner. "Doing my own research" is on the short list of trigger phrases which bias me against a patient, along with "I know my own body" and "everybody's different", as these statements usually precede noncompliance with the suggested plan. I realize that's not ideal, and the link offers advice to communicate more effectively:

But you also understand why people ask questions, right?

I don't know you, of course, so I'm not saying you do this, but I know some people in the medical field who become indignant if the lowly patient dares to question even the smallest things as the medical person hands down the omniscient answers.

Medicine is business. A huge business. I do find it interesting how some people will blindly ignore the financial motivations that drive the business and somehow assume there's some sort of magical altruism to the business of healthcare, where the best interests of the customer are the only factor and the best interests of the company are ignored.
Where is the connection between doing my own research and medicine is a business?


They're connected as they relate to the person/customer/patient.

And they don't necessarily have the same motivation. Hopefully they do. But not necessarily.

And I fully understand some people have much more faith that zillion dollar for profit corporations will operate with magical altruism than I do.

The fact that merely daring to ask questions about a treatment or procedure can be seen as defiant or a negative by some is incredibly telling.
No one here is doing the bolded, and not really the point of this discussion imo.

Disagree. I think when a physician is bold enough to admit in public,

"Admittedly, I usually cringe when people address their medical care in this manner. "Doing my own research" is on the short list of trigger phrases which bias me against a patient, along with "I know my own body" and "everybody's different", as these statements usually precede noncompliance with the suggested plan. I realize that's not ideal, and the link offers advice to communicate more effectively:"

that's exactly the bolded of "merely daring to ask questions about a treatment or procedure can be seen as defiant or a negative"

Not sure what you mean about it not being the point of the discussion. It was literally in the original post.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then.

Admitting I find certain characteristics of the “I’m doing my own research” crowd off putting is hardly the same as stifling questions, or shared decision making.

We’ll definitely disagree then. All good. I don’t see finding “certain characteristics of the “I’m doing my own research” crowd off putting” The same as:

“Doing my own research" is on the short list of trigger phrases which bias me against a patient,”

I still am wondering how holding that bias against the patient fits with the Hippocratic Oath.
It's not adding up. If you feel that way you should tell the patient to find another doctor.

But for the life of me I can't think of an issue that's relevant today other than vaccinations.
"Don't expect physicians to stray from standards"

Red herring? Who is asking for this? Other than the opioid crisis that you can argue doctors are complicite in what's being asked of them?

Doing your own research to not take a vaccine, eating red meat or drinking yourself to death isn't asking anything from them. It's just not following "doctors orders" which I say again, my doctor doesn't give the orders, he works for me.
Happens all the time, when patients ask for tests that aren't indicated, unnecessary antibiotics, alternate vaccine schedules, etc. These problems are compounded by doctor shopping.
BINGO!

The thinly veild political thread to call anti-vaxxers dumb. (nobody cares about extra tests and antibiotics)

They aren't asking you to not take a shot. That would fall under not following "doctor’s orders". You're not the boss.
These are much bigger issues in my world. I certainly do care, even if you want to derail this into a political thread.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top