Doing your own research (1 Viewer)

[Terminalxylem]

Interesting article from YLE, discussing how some people approach scientific topics, especially healthcare.

Like “misinformation” and “disinformation,” the phrase “doing your own research” has become deeply polarizing.

To some, it’s a call to think critically about health information and do their due diligence before making health decisions. To others—especially in science and medicine—it represents the mistaken belief that a Google or AI chatbot search can substitute for years of scientific and medical training.

Adding to the polarization, some prominent voices use this phrase to undermine trust in clinicians, urging people to reject medical advice in favor of their own research. In response, some in science and medicine view the desire to do your own research as an outright rejection of expertise, and respond with ridicule.

“Doing your own research” is hard, and easy to get wrong​

The problem, of course, is that investigating things on your own takes time and skill, and it’s easy to get it wrong. Nobody can do all of the work on their own; ultimately everyone must rely on other people’s data, analysis, and summaries. This can sometimes send a well-intentioned beginner on a quest for knowledge that goes sideways:

1. The beginner’s bubble. In early stages of learning, confidence tends to increase faster than skill, meaning people often overestimate their accuracy when they are first learning something new.
2. The quest to “do it all on your own” can backfire. "Epistemic superheroes" want to figure out everything on their own and distrust other people’s information. But their task is impossible—nature is too complex for us to solve by ourselves. When the “trust no one” mantra inevitably leads to “I must decide who to trust,” it is easy to gravitate towards other like-minded skeptics. This creates a highly biased information bubble, the exact opposite of the original goal.
3. Assuming “unbiased” knowledge will contradict consensus. For many, doing their own research began with doubting the consensus view. Challenging consensus is healthy when new data emerges, but assuming “real” truth always opposes the consensus creates bias, undermining the search for unbiased answers.
4. Avoiding responsibility. Some use “do your own research” to avoid citing sources, encouraging others to do their own research to figure out if it’s true. This allows people to spread unverified information while giving the appearance of supporting autonomy, and shifts the burden of proof entirely onto the audience.

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:

How do we stop talking past each other, and what should we do instead?​

In today’s health landscape, doing your own research is unavoidable. But too often, it leads to people navigating complex and at times conflicting information without the tools to make sense of it. Rejecting expertise is not helpful; mocking people for doing their own research is not helpful either. Here’s how we can do a better job meeting in the middle:

1. Recognize the value of experience. No generation before has had the information-sorting task that we have, and it’s hard. Experts play a critical role in helping people navigate the noise. A bias against expertise will derail the quest for unbiased information.
2. Don’t demand trust because you’re an expert. On the flip side, experts should realize that “trust me I’m an expert” doesn’t work well anymore. Expertise matters, but building trust is often more about how we treat people than the letters after our names.
3. Offer knowledge, don’t push it. For those who want more autonomy in their health decisions, offering knowledge is helpful, but telling them what to do is not. For this audience, it’s more helpful to provide information (“the benefits of the MMR vaccine outweigh the risks, here’s why”), without telling them how to use it (“you need to vaccinate your child.”)
4. Acknowledge uncertainty in the data. When the data aren’t straightforward, we must embrace nuance—acknowledge what we do and don’t know instead of giving overly simple answers.
5. Don’t gatekeep, do explain. Telling people not to read research studies because it’s “too complicated” won’t stop them, but it will alienate them. Instead, invite people to understand the data: “here’s why that study was flawed” is a whole lot better than “stop trying to read papers you don’t understand.”

As AI gets better, it becomes more realistic to seek as a source of expertise. So I expect this trend will only continue.

I also realize I may facilitate this phenomenon, by providing advice here.

With all this in mind, how do you go about addressing a medical problem, or answering a scientific question (eg. the value of a nutritional supplement)? How much, and what kind of research do you perform before seeking the "experts"? How often have you been disappointed, or rejected their advice, based on your own research?

 

[McBokonon]

Similar to Wikipedia, these things are good starts but you gotta check the sources they give you, at a minimum. Or ask for them. I used Gemini to try and track down some data for a grant I was working on, and it was incredibly helpful. But I couldn't replicate one of the numbers it gave me, so I asked it a couple of different ways to track down the source. It actually had pointed me to the source, but I couldn't figure put how to filter the website/table to pull that specific number on my own. Once it walked me through it, I was able to cite it properly. I never would have found it on my own - it wasn't intuitive AT ALL. And it was a real, authoritative (and medically-related) source.

Most people won't do all that. AI only eats what it's fed, so if it's sourcing answers to your medical question from a gigantic internet filled with homeopathic remedies from www.hippiegranolanovax.biz and www.westernmedicineisthedevil.org, and you don't bother checking those out and be a discerning user and filtering out garbage, then good luck to (the royal) you.

 

[Ilov80s]

I think part of the problem with this is that people can find souces that say anything so they are susceptible to honing in on sources that support the view they have or want to take whether this is about vaccines or drug use or diet or anything.

 

[McBokonon]

I think part of the problem with this is that people can find souces that say anything so they are susceptible to honing in on sources that support the view they have or want to take whether this is about vaccines or drug use or diet or anything.

They do that now with or without AI.

 

[Ilov80s]

The other way this works is someone telling other people to "do your own research" is a way of them kind of wiping their hands of any guilt or responsibility for whatever info, advice, etc. they just shared. "I heard drinking raw milk will clear your psoriasis right up in months. It's also this pasturized stuff that is actually making us sick. I read about and it's true, studies show all these immune disorders came up when we starting messing with our milk. I think it would help you but it's just what I heard so you know do your own research, see what you find." So now if the person tries the raw milk and gets sick, their source for this idea has an easy out on their culpability.

 

[TripItUp]

It's nearly impossible to get concrete data and information. Particularly in this hyper-political environment.

One of the key issues is that AI basically crowdsources public information...information that is often outdated or inaccurate.

 

[The Dreaded Marco]

This is one of the main trends in medicine that has me thinking about an early retirement, along with the overwhelming regulations and metrics instituted and monitored by health plans and increasing difficulty getting my patients treatments that they need (another insurance issue).

 

[Scoresman]

I blame social media. "Doing your own research" is usually people not wanting to say they saw it on social media and believe it to be true.

Your default assumption should be that anything you see on social media is false.

 

[Dezbelief]

This is one of the main trends in medicine that has me thinking about an early retirement, along with the overwhelming regulations and metrics instituted and monitored by health plans and increasing difficulty getting my patients treatments that they need (another insurance issue).

A psychologist told me that he doesn't diagnose patients based on their symptoms, he diagnoses based on what their insurance will cover.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

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"

Here here!!!! I judge those people immediately. Right up there with the likes of "here's something you should know they won't tell you" kinds of theories.

 

[gianmarco]

This is one of the main trends in medicine that has me thinking about an early retirement, along with the overwhelming regulations and metrics instituted and monitored by health plans and increasing difficulty getting my patients treatments that they need (another insurance issue).

You are clearly not alone. Especially with those of us at the age we're at.

 

[Mister CIA]

Anyone have thoughts on ubiquitous wearables and how they may shape doing your own research? I recently jumped into the smart watch and smart ring ring, and I'm just slow burning learning all the bells and whistles. While I'm digging it, I'm increasingly more interested where the sensor technology will be in say five years.

 

[Nipsey]

I get how it could be annoying when patients come in claiming to have done their own research but at the same time what do you expect when drug companies are allowed to pepper the airwaves with ads urging people to “ask your doctor” about specific medications? Doesn't it kind of train patients to see themselves as part of the diagnostic process? Especially in a time where all doctors are not created equal. I had a great doctor for about 15 years until he retired. Since then have gone through three gps trying to find someone even half decent.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

I do my own research. I'm using sources like JAMA, The Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, MD Anderson, the American Heart Association, etc. I hope you are okay with that.

I can sing about Jardiance if that helps. Those stupid things get stuck in my head.

(You have my sympathies.)

 

[El Floppo]

How hard can medicine be?

 

[Terminalxylem]

I blame social media. "Doing your own research" is usually people not wanting to say they saw it on social media and believe it to be true.

Your default assumption should be that anything you see on social media is false.

Sure. But it’s not just social media - podcasts, YouTube, and conventional media are guilty as well.

 

[Terminalxylem]

This is one of the main trends in medicine that has me thinking about an early retirement, along with the overwhelming regulations and metrics instituted and monitored by health plans and increasing difficulty getting my patients treatments that they need (another insurance issue).

A psychologist told me that he doesn't diagnose patients based on their symptoms, he diagnoses based on what their insurance will cover.

Gaming the system is super gross, especially when healthcare providers do it.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Anyone have thoughts on ubiquitous wearables and how they may shape doing your own research? I recently jumped into the smart watch and smart ring ring, and I'm just slow burning learning all the bells and whistles. While I'm digging it, I'm increasingly more interested where the sensor technology will be in say five years.

I think the tech is objectively pretty good. Finding clinically relevant use for it is a bit more murky.

 

[The Dreaded Marco]

I get how it could be annoying when patients come in claiming to have done their own research but at the same time what do you expect when drug companies are allowed to pepper the airwaves with ads urging people to “ask your doctor” about specific medications? Doesn't it kind of trains patients to see themselves as part of the diagnostic process? Especially in a time where all doctors are not created equal. I had a great doctor for about 15 years until he retired. Since then have gone through three gps trying to find someone even half decent.

I'm not overly concerned about those ads. I can discuss a new medication that a parent has seen advertised and likely already know something amount about it if it's a treatment for conditions I address with my patients with any regularity. If I don't, I research it further and discuss again later.

I'm talking about the patients/parents taking their general medical and vaccine advice from a chiropractor or woefully unqualified government official (unqualified in the medical profession) who have far, far less (or zero) training and experience in general primary care than I do.

A chiropractor certainly has specialized training in their field and knows far more about that than I do. Frankly, I know nothing about that field and so would never give a patient advice in that area. But I'll put my knowledge of general pediatrics and vaccines up against any one them. And I can back up my recommendations with large, peer-reviewed studies.

I have too many parents making what, are in my opinion, poor health care decisions that put their child at unnecessary risk based on woeful misinformation obtained from inaccurate sources. And it's very frustrating. These parents have trusted me for many years for almost all other healthcare questions, and still do other than in a few narrow areas of their child's healthcare.

I'm tiring of fighting that fight every day. Sometimes I make some headway and that encourages me but more often than not, I hit a brick wall and that is exhausting. Definitely making me think about pulling the trigger on that early retirement.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I get how it could be annoying when patients come in claiming to have done their own research but at the same time what do you expect when drug companies are allowed to pepper the airwaves with ads urging people to “ask your doctor” about specific medications? Doesn't it kind of trains patients to see themselves as part of the diagnostic process? Especially in a time where all doctors are not created equal. I had a great doctor for about 15 years until he retired. Since then have gone through three gps trying to find someone even half decent.

I don’t think most healthcare providers are producing those ads, nor do they approve of them.

Also, it’s completely appropriate to ask questions, and seek multiple sources regarding the answers to complex medical quandaries. The problem is, more often than not, self “research” yields incomplete, erroneous conclusions, and patients seem less willing to defer to expertise in grey areas.

At some point, it’s a battle not worth fighting.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Anyone have thoughts on ubiquitous wearables and how they may shape doing your own research? I recently jumped into the smart watch and smart ring ring, and I'm just slow burning learning all the bells and whistles. While I'm digging it, I'm increasingly more interested where the sensor technology will be in say five years.

I got an Apple Watch to monitor myself when I developed atrial flutter. While amazing, I find that it creates a hypochondriac under current to my mental state that I never had before. Which I really don’t like. I’m using it less and less to monitor anything these days. For a long time I was hyper focused on anything it could tell me. HR EKG steps. Closing exercise rings . Sleep patterns. Breathing rates on and on. The first time I got a warning that my heart rate fell below 50 while sleeping i freaked out. Turns out it’s normal and I do it all the time.

For me, the tech needs to interface a little bit better in real time and in more effective ways to be a game changer. As it is now, it’s neat, but not all helpful IMHO.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I joke with my doctors that I got a degree in google medicine last night before I ask my questions. They oblige me with a smile, but I’m not coming in hot with anything fringe related. I use sources such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland, JAMA, etc. I’d like to think that I’m reasonably smart and my questions aren’t annoying. I don’t trust what AI says at all yet.

When I had my ablation I asked a few questions about the procedure. Burning vs freezing and which one was he going to do. I had a question about the collagen plug that was going to seal the entry point (very cool).

I’ve reached out to @Terminalxylem for some medical advice because I’ve met him and I trust him. I’ve also reached out to my cousins, both doctors, for their input as well on things. All of the “research” that I’ve done for my various maladies over the years has had me come to the same conclusion as the learned ones. But I’m not looking to debunk what’s there. I’m just looking to understand as well as I can, what’s going on with me and what to do to fix it.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I think this is actually a really complex issue with plenty of blame to go around. It’s becoming increasingly clear that research is flooded with fraud and bad research and that even some of the most reputable publications are doing a really poor job of peer review.

Far too many (IMO) researchers/experts/scientists/doctors have also been far too certain on a lot of things. I get that they often have done that to try to keep patients from worrying or gain trust, but in the end I think it’s done just the opposite. Nothing destroys the public’s confidence more than being told something is definitely true and then it turns out that it’s only maybe true, partially true, or not true at all.

The media plays a role here too as they often take scientific findings and jump to conclusions with them that isn’t justified. Now, the researchers themselves are often complicit as well because they have incentive to juice their findings a bit to further their careers and if the media runs with a sexy incorrect conclusion then they have little incentive to correct them. Inevitably it gets found out at some point and the public loses confidence.

So the public has been given some reason to not blindly trust academics and experts. Unfortunately charlatans have exploited that and created a large group of people who have decided that rather than carefully accept experts, they now just outright reject them and trust Grandma Granola Yoder instead.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I remember going to a gastroenterologist years ago when I was having extreme stomach / reflux problems. Did a bunch of basic research ahead of time. Nothing exotic — just lots of basics. Sat down with the doc and he was asking me questions, so I answered honestly and included some basic info that I had learned from “research.”

He looked at me like “silly child, I’m the doctor here.” And then proceeded to repeat back to me the same info, except with more jargon. My BIL is a doctor, and to this day he likes to make fun of me for this incident, which includes imitating what I probably sounded like to the doctor.

To be clear, I actually did need the doctor’s advice. But…..basically I learned nothing that visit. The next step? As suspected, an endoscopy. After that? Reflux meds.

I’m really grateful it was nothing worse. But that wasn’t because of the doctor. And he really didn’t do anything that I wouldn’t have done, despite him being an expert.

It was a weird experience. But I still trust doctors and still want to look to them as experts.

 

[Terminalxylem]

To be clear, I’m not expecting blind faith in experts, in any field.

But in medicine, it seems some “questions” aren’t really looking for answers at all; rather, they’re veiled demands for internet-inspired testing/treatment. Or worse, part of a quasi-political agenda.

A big part of this is uncertainty in the process. There are large swaths of medicine which lack evidence-based guidance. Clinicians must elaborate these limits, and prescribe without paternalism.

Shared decision making is important here, but at some point, expertise needs to be trusted imo.

 

[BlackCrowes]

good topic. i don´t do this much on medical issues, but it can apply to just about anything. i´m a bit of science nerd, so i love digging into stuff, and sometimes its hard to know when you just have to stop and take the experts work for it.

 

[BlackCrowes]

I think this is actually a really complex issue with plenty of blame to go around. It’s becoming increasingly clear that research is flooded with fraud and bad research and that even some of the most reputable publications are doing a really poor job of peer review.

Far too many (IMO) researchers/experts/scientists/doctors have also been far too certain on a lot of things. I get that they often have done that to try to keep patients from worrying or gain trust, but in the end I think it’s done just the opposite. Nothing destroys the public’s confidence more than being told something is definitely true and then it turns out that it’s only maybe true, partially true, or not true at all.

The media plays a role here too as they often take scientific findings and jump to conclusions with them that isn’t justified. Now, the researchers themselves are often complicit as well because they have incentive to juice their findings a bit to further their careers and if the media runs with a sexy incorrect conclusion then they have little incentive to correct them. Inevitably it gets found out at some point and the public loses confidence.

So the public has been given some reason to not blindly trust academics and experts. Unfortunately charlatans have exploited that and created a large group of people who have decided that rather than carefully accept experts, they now just outright reject them and trust Grandma Granola Yoder instead.

good reporting on science is so critical, and the state of it right now is not good. exaggeration for clicks is contributing to the distrust you describe here.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Interesting article from YLE, discussing how some people approach scientific topics, especially healthcare.

Like “misinformation” and “disinformation,” the phrase “doing your own research” has become deeply polarizing.

To some, it’s a call to think critically about health information and do their due diligence before making health decisions. To others—especially in science and medicine—it represents the mistaken belief that a Google or AI chatbot search can substitute for years of scientific and medical training.

Adding to the polarization, some prominent voices use this phrase to undermine trust in clinicians, urging people to reject medical advice in favor of their own research. In response, some in science and medicine view the desire to do your own research as an outright rejection of expertise, and respond with ridicule.

“Doing your own research” is hard, and easy to get wrong​

The problem, of course, is that investigating things on your own takes time and skill, and it’s easy to get it wrong. Nobody can do all of the work on their own; ultimately everyone must rely on other people’s data, analysis, and summaries. This can sometimes send a well-intentioned beginner on a quest for knowledge that goes sideways:

1. The beginner’s bubble. In early stages of learning, confidence tends to increase faster than skill, meaning people often overestimate their accuracy when they are first learning something new.
2. The quest to “do it all on your own” can backfire. "Epistemic superheroes" want to figure out everything on their own and distrust other people’s information. But their task is impossible—nature is too complex for us to solve by ourselves. When the “trust no one” mantra inevitably leads to “I must decide who to trust,” it is easy to gravitate towards other like-minded skeptics. This creates a highly biased information bubble, the exact opposite of the original goal.
3. Assuming “unbiased” knowledge will contradict consensus. For many, doing their own research began with doubting the consensus view. Challenging consensus is healthy when new data emerges, but assuming “real” truth always opposes the consensus creates bias, undermining the search for unbiased answers.
4. Avoiding responsibility. Some use “do your own research” to avoid citing sources, encouraging others to do their own research to figure out if it’s true. This allows people to spread unverified information while giving the appearance of supporting autonomy, and shifts the burden of proof entirely onto the audience.

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:

How do we stop talking past each other, and what should we do instead?​

In today’s health landscape, doing your own research is unavoidable. But too often, it leads to people navigating complex and at times conflicting information without the tools to make sense of it. Rejecting expertise is not helpful; mocking people for doing their own research is not helpful either. Here’s how we can do a better job meeting in the middle:

1. Recognize the value of experience. No generation before has had the information-sorting task that we have, and it’s hard. Experts play a critical role in helping people navigate the noise. A bias against expertise will derail the quest for unbiased information.
2. Don’t demand trust because you’re an expert. On the flip side, experts should realize that “trust me I’m an expert” doesn’t work well anymore. Expertise matters, but building trust is often more about how we treat people than the letters after our names.
3. Offer knowledge, don’t push it. For those who want more autonomy in their health decisions, offering knowledge is helpful, but telling them what to do is not. For this audience, it’s more helpful to provide information (“the benefits of the MMR vaccine outweigh the risks, here’s why”), without telling them how to use it (“you need to vaccinate your child.”)
4. Acknowledge uncertainty in the data. When the data aren’t straightforward, we must embrace nuance—acknowledge what we do and don’t know instead of giving overly simple answers.
5. Don’t gatekeep, do explain. Telling people not to read research studies because it’s “too complicated” won’t stop them, but it will alienate them. Instead, invite people to understand the data: “here’s why that study was flawed” is a whole lot better than “stop trying to read papers you don’t understand.”

As AI gets better, it becomes more realistic to seek as a source of expertise. So I expect this trend will only continue.

I also realize I may facilitate this phenomenon, by providing advice here.

With all this in mind, how do you go about addressing a medical problem, or answering a scientific question (eg. the value of a nutritional supplement)? How much, and what kind of research do you perform before seeking the "experts"? How often have you been disappointed, or rejected their advice, based on your own research?

Good topic.

What do you consider "their own research" vs asking valid questions? What's the line and where does it go from concern about one's own health and into "cringe". How does a patient determine when a second opinion is appropriate?

An example for me was high cholesterol. I had a very high level (to many steaks and to much butter) a few years back and my doctor insisted i go on statins. I asked if it was possible to lower it through diet and was told it was unlikely (age, level, family history, my assumption that he just lumped all his patients into the same basket). I decided against his advice and to try, he did agree there was unlikely any harm retesting in 3 months, but his demeanor showed i was now in "cringe" territory. It was probably closer to 5 months, but after diet changes it was comfortably in the optimal range at retest and has been maintained drug free ever since. His response wasn't a pat on the back, but a grunt. Was i inappropriate in going against his advice? Was this a case of "doing my own research" or a common sense first approach?

I know what you mean when you say "do your own research" and agree with the overall theme and find the term cringy aswell, but what's ok when it comes to a patient wanting input in their own health?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

To be clear, I’m not expecting blind faith in experts, in any field.

But in medicine, it seems some “questions” aren’t really looking for answers at all; rather, they’re veiled demands for internet-inspired testing/treatment. Or worse, part of a quasi-political agenda.

A big part of this is uncertainty in the process. There are large swaths of medicine which lack evidence-based guidance. Clinicians must elaborate these limits, and prescribe without paternalism.

Shared decision making is important here, but at some point, expertise needs to be trusted imo.

In today's world, "Do my own research" is almost always a replacement for the science that is out there. It's not a supplement or asking questions in a discussion.

 

[The Z Machine]

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"

Here here!!!! I judge those people immediately. Right up there with the likes of "here's something you should know they won't tell you" kinds of theories.

Experts hate it when you do this one simple thing.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I know what you mean when you say "do your own research" and agree with the overall theme and find the term cringy aswell, but what's ok when it comes to a patient wanting input in their own health?

Yes. Finding that balance in my opinion is the real issue.

 

[Joe Bryant]

My best friend is an MD. We talk about this a lot.

 

[gianmarco]

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.

The actual "medicine" side is and should be separate from the business side.

Physicians don't have customers. That's the first problem with the bolded section. They have patients. Part of the reason why physicians should not be called "providers" or labeled as such. It's becoming commonplace and it's coming from the administration and business side trying to turn the physician/patient relationship into some consumer transaction. It's not.

And yes, there is absolutely supposed to be "magical altruism" between a physician and patient. Financial motivation shouldn't ever be a part of the medical decision making process. Are there bad apples? Sure, you can say that about any field, but by and large, your physician isn't making decisions because of how they will get paid.

It's unfortunate you, and others, feel that way.

 

[Max Power]

I support doing your own research. It can only make you more informed on a condition. Of course there is going to be bad information floating around, but the important thing is to not marry that information and change your views as more information comes to light. Walking into a doctors office and blindly following their assessment posses risks as well.

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.

During my father's last few years he experienced several health related issues and was a big proponent of getting a second or third opinion. He was running into situations where three different doctors would provide three different diagnoses and treatment plans for the exact same symptoms with similar testing done. It's frustrating, because how does a patient know which way to go from there without doing their own research?

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

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.

The actual "medicine" side is and should be separate from the business side.

Physicians don't have customers. That's the first problem with the bolded section. They have patients. Part of the reason why physicians should not be called "providers" or labeled as such. It's becoming commonplace and it's coming from the administration and business side trying to turn the physician/patient relationship into some consumer transaction. It's not.

And yes, there is absolutely supposed to be "magical altruism" between a physician and patient. Financial motivation shouldn't ever be a part of the medical decision making process. Are there bad apples? Sure, you can say that about any field, but by and large, your physician isn't making decisions because of how they will get paid.

It's unfortunate you, and others, feel that way.

I mean I feel this way because its been my experience with most doctors. Not all but most. VERY mixed bag in my experience. Below are just a few: (Ive been to A LOT of doctors in my lifetime)

+ I have a kind and excellent ENT. Dude will call me just to check in on me. He does free surgeries in 3rd world countries. GREAT person and doctor.

- My Dentist for over 20 years was phenomenal but recently retired/sold his practice - now these folks moved from his modest office and staff to a far more luxurious office, but they do injections, eye care and are pushing products on myself and my wife. Now its time to find a new one and its not fun to do the whole feeling out process with peole working inside your mouth.

+/- My kids dentist/ortho - This place was run like a Ford assembly line. Literally a giant open room with dozens of chairs and half frazzled dentists/hygienists. They were good but my kids were just a statistic and were farmed for their insurance. Rarely got the same doctor. Fast and efficient though.

- Every time I found a good primary they soon left to join a concierge service. So I have to pay $1,200 a year just to get good help?!?!?!

- My insurance is both a curse and a blessing. I have " Cadillac " grade insurance. Once some doctors find this out they want to see every chance they get and sell me products. They also love to pull the old "Im going to give you these _______ for you to try/use". Their use of the word "Give" does not mean what I know the word to mean.

-/+ Been to a lot of foot doctors. Ive been to the best specialists in the area. Good ones have prodived solid advice and remedies, opting against surgury. The "BEST" doctors at John Hopkins? They want to push surgury and want to insert titanium implants in both my feet. I even had one tell me how "He is the best in the world at this".

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

Are you honest with your patients and disclose to them you hold this bias against them?

That feels like a super important thing for the patient to know.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

The actual "medicine" side is and should be separate from the business side.

Physicians don't have customers. That's the first problem with the bolded section. They have patients. Part of the reason why physicians should not be called "providers" or labeled as such. It's becoming commonplace and it's coming from the administration and business side trying to turn the physician/patient relationship into some consumer transaction. It's not.

And yes, there is absolutely supposed to be "magical altruism" between a physician and patient. Financial motivation shouldn't ever be a part of the medical decision making process. Are there bad apples? Sure, you can say that about any field, but by and large, your physician isn't making decisions because of how they will get paid.

It's unfortunate you, and others, feel that way.

The medical business absolutely has customers.

And forgive us if we question the magical altruism of a zillion dollar for profit industry.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

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"

Here here!!!! I judge those people immediately. Right up there with the likes of "here's something you should know they won't tell you" kinds of theories.

Experts hate it when you do this one simple thing.

This is a good one too. Always, always, always a

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I support doing your own research. It can only make you more informed on a condition. Of course there is going to be bad information floating around, but the important thing is to not marry that information and change your views as more information comes to light. Walking into a doctors office and blindly following their assessment posses risks as well.

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.

During my father's last few years he experienced several health related issues and was a big proponent of getting a second or third opinion. He was running into situations where three different doctors would provide three different diagnoses and treatment plans for the exact same symptoms with similar testing done. It's frustrating, because how does a patient know which way to go from there without doing their own research?

This is flat out completely, 1,000,000% wrong. It can also make you completely uninformed and mislead. This board is FULL of examples. I think you know that as you immediately attach a caveat right after the statement.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I support doing your own research. It can only make you more informed on a condition. Of course there is going to be bad information floating around, but the important thing is to not marry that information and change your views as more information comes to light. Walking into a doctors office and blindly following their assessment posses risks as well.

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.

During my father's last few years he experienced several health related issues and was a big proponent of getting a second or third opinion. He was running into situations where three different doctors would provide three different diagnoses and treatment plans for the exact same symptoms with similar testing done. It's frustrating, because how does a patient know which way to go from there without doing their own research?

This is flat out completely, 1,000,000% wrong. It can also make you completely uninformed and mislead. This board is FULL of examples. I think you know that as you immediately attach a caveat right after the statement.

By your logic, researching a condition will make you less informed "1,000,000% of the time? Really? How do doctors get their information? Did they not do research, read and regurgitate information to pass a written exam? How about the pamphlets provided to you at nearly every visit for every condition ever?


I mean since you're Mister Judgy McJudgerson, you wont mind me saying that your last two responses are very hyperbolic and come off as unhinged.

 

[urbanhack]

I get how it could be annoying when patients come in claiming to have done their own research but at the same time what do you expect when drug companies are allowed to pepper the airwaves with ads urging people to “ask your doctor” about specific medications? Doesn't it kind of train patients to see themselves as part of the diagnostic process? Especially in a time where all doctors are not created equal. I had a great doctor for about 15 years until he retired. Since then have gone through three gps trying to find someone even half decent.

And at what point do you draw the line. Can you go to your doctor and tell them how you want your heart surgery done? Can you request that they perform your colonoscopy a certain way? No. So why they hell do we allow this for prescriptions??

 

[Mister CIA]

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?

 

[Max Power]

I support doing your own research. It can only make you more informed on a condition. Of course there is going to be bad information floating around, but the important thing is to not marry that information and change your views as more information comes to light. Walking into a doctors office and blindly following their assessment posses risks as well.

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.

During my father's last few years he experienced several health related issues and was a big proponent of getting a second or third opinion. He was running into situations where three different doctors would provide three different diagnoses and treatment plans for the exact same symptoms with similar testing done. It's frustrating, because how does a patient know which way to go from there without doing their own research?

This is flat out completely, 1,000,000% wrong. It can also make you completely uninformed and mislead. This board is FULL of examples. I think you know that as you immediately attach a caveat right after the statement.

Is it your opinion that anything a doctor says is 100% factual and not to be questioned? I can't wrap my head around this ignorance is preferred agenda.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

 

[Mister CIA]

I get how it could be annoying when patients come in claiming to have done their own research but at the same time what do you expect when drug companies are allowed to pepper the airwaves with ads urging people to “ask your doctor” about specific medications? Doesn't it kind of train patients to see themselves as part of the diagnostic process? Especially in a time where all doctors are not created equal. I had a great doctor for about 15 years until he retired. Since then have gone through three gps trying to find someone even half decent.

Had similar situation. Took a few trips to the clinic to hit upon a new doc I really liked. The one thing that was different about her was that she was young. [/EndAnecdote]

 

[Joe Bryant]

And to be clear, some of the most altruistic honest high integrity people I personally know are in the medical field.

As I said, my best friend is one.

But the idea of putting a negative connotation on wanting to know more or questioning the omniscience promoted by one of the largest for profit industrial complexes in the country is mind blowing to me.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I support doing your own research. It can only make you more informed on a condition. Of course there is going to be bad information floating around, but the important thing is to not marry that information and change your views as more information comes to light. Walking into a doctors office and blindly following their assessment posses risks as well.

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.

During my father's last few years he experienced several health related issues and was a big proponent of getting a second or third opinion. He was running into situations where three different doctors would provide three different diagnoses and treatment plans for the exact same symptoms with similar testing done. It's frustrating, because how does a patient know which way to go from there without doing their own research?

This is flat out completely, 1,000,000% wrong. It can also make you completely uninformed and mislead. This board is FULL of examples. I think you know that as you immediately attach a caveat right after the statement.

By your logic, researching a condition will make you less informed "1,000,000% of the time? Really? How do doctors get their information? Did they not do research, read and regurgitate information to pass a written exam? How about the pamphlets provided to you at nearly every visit for every condition ever?


I mean since you're Mister Judgy McJudgerson, you wont mind me saying that your last two responses are very hyperbolic and come off as unhinged.

I don't know what has happened to the reading comprehension around here, but it's gone down hill quickly. Of course, I said NONE of this. I pointed out how factually wrong it is to say "It can only make you MORE Informed". That's flat out incorrect. Don't believe me, go look at the COVID thread. No need to address any of the absurdity in the strawman created in the rest of the post. At least I hope not.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I support doing your own research. It can only make you more informed on a condition. Of course there is going to be bad information floating around, but the important thing is to not marry that information and change your views as more information comes to light. Walking into a doctors office and blindly following their assessment posses risks as well.

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.

During my father's last few years he experienced several health related issues and was a big proponent of getting a second or third opinion. He was running into situations where three different doctors would provide three different diagnoses and treatment plans for the exact same symptoms with similar testing done. It's frustrating, because how does a patient know which way to go from there without doing their own research?

This is flat out completely, 1,000,000% wrong. It can also make you completely uninformed and mislead. This board is FULL of examples. I think you know that as you immediately attach a caveat right after the statement.

Is it your opinion that anything a doctor says is 100% factual and not to be questioned? I can't wrap my head around this ignorance is preferred agenda.

Of course not. Another straw man that shouldn't really need addressing, but here we are. Virtually NOTHING is 100%. There are almost ALWAYS exceptions. But the "arguments" are much easier to make if you ignore that reality.

 

[Max Power]

I support doing your own research. It can only make you more informed on a condition. Of course there is going to be bad information floating around, but the important thing is to not marry that information and change your views as more information comes to light. Walking into a doctors office and blindly following their assessment posses risks as well.

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.

During my father's last few years he experienced several health related issues and was a big proponent of getting a second or third opinion. He was running into situations where three different doctors would provide three different diagnoses and treatment plans for the exact same symptoms with similar testing done. It's frustrating, because how does a patient know which way to go from there without doing their own research?

This is flat out completely, 1,000,000% wrong. It can also make you completely uninformed and mislead. This board is FULL of examples. I think you know that as you immediately attach a caveat right after the statement.

Is it your opinion that anything a doctor says is 100% factual and not to be questioned? I can't wrap my head around this ignorance is preferred agenda.

Of course not. Another straw man that shouldn't really need addressing, but here we are. Virtually NOTHING is 100%. There are almost ALWAYS exceptions. But the "arguments" are much easier to make if you ignore that reality.

What do you want to do argue semantics? It makes 99% of people more informed to research things. Does that make the statement better for you?