Doing your own research (3 Viewers)

[The Longtime Lurker]

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.

 

[Max Power]

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.

I think the bolded is where some of this "do your own research" turned into a negative connotation. Because covid-19 was a novel virus the entire world was figuring things as we went. As our understanding of the virus evolved, so did theories about treatment and prevention. At one point there was an attempt to implement a one size fits all solution that people didn't like or agree with. I feel like this was when the doing your own research shifted negatively and anyone going against the established grain was basically called an idiot.

 

[Mister CIA]

Feel like there's a fork in the conversation being overlooked here (or more accurately, being talked past), PCP/Chronic conditions vs actual procedures/surgeries.

For the former, asking questions and doing research is great, if only because it could allow me to communicate more effectively with my doctors. Would probably be good if laypeople could agree upon a well-established body of work upon which to base their research, of course.

For the latter, knock me out and do your best work - I'm sure I'll be plenty distracted and stressed trying to deal with insurance as it is.

If your chasing a hideous disease with few treatment options and loved one's life is on the line, you do whatever you can.

 

[Sand]

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

One of the key issues is that AI is basically crowdsources public information...information that is often outdated or inaccurate.

AI is a big interpolation/extrapolation machine. It isn't good at retaining and regurgitating particular facts. It is very good at creating plausible verbage, summarization of big sources of data, etc.. If you're looking for specific facts, though, it is close to the last thing you want to rely on.

There are many cases out there now of lawyers getting in big trouble using AI; the AI made up quotes from real cases, cited completely fictitious cases, and so on.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

If your chasing a hideous disease with few treatment options and loved one's life is on the line, you do whatever you can.

Amen to that. When doctors don't offer, can't offer, or there isn't an established treatment protocol you have little choice other than to find what answers you can on your own.

 

[fatness]

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.

I've had to see many different doctors in the last 3 years due to multiple health problems, and always have made it clear that I've done some reading prior to the visit. "I've done some reading about this, and this is my layman's understanding of it. I'm not a medical professional. I'm also not stupid and I pay attention to my problems. I'm here to get your advice and help with this, and to give you what information about me that you need" seems to dispel any suspicions on either side of the conversation. I haven't had one doctor (PCP, specialist, or surgeon) react badly. And during the visit I listen, and ask questions, and make sure I'm listened to.

 

[fatness]

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?

Are you counting "making people misinformed" in the "makes 99% of people more informed"?

 

[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?

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?

People can ask whatever questions they want regarding their health, and can always seek a second opinion.

While it’s hard to define, the “research” to which I refer is stuff that directly conflicts with evidence-based standards of care. Usually the sources aren’t revealed, or opinions may be gleaned from health influencers, podcasts, and/or “ alternative” medicine websites. In many cases, there is obvious secondary gain involved, in the form of supplements, devices, or services provided by the alt “experts”. Logical fallacies like the appeal to nature are common. And miraculous results are promised, absent the scrutiny of conventional medicine.

 

[Max Power]

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?

Are you counting "making people misinformed" in the "makes 99% of people more informed"?

I'm sure there are people who are going to go down the wrong route. That is true with anything in this world. There are plenty of dumb people.

What do you mean by misinformed? There are a variety of medical views and multiple treatment options.

 

[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.

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?

No, because that's not true either (unless you are equating misinformed and informed because they both have "informed" in the word). There are so many factors here that the initial statement is just wrong. What is absolutely true are these three things:

1. Disinformation is easier to get than real information. It's not close. The studies are out there showing the social side of this. I encourage you to read them.
2. The average person will NOT go through all the steps to be thoroughly researched on the topic they are "researching".
3. If the average person is off on their own to do "research" given #1 and #2, more often times than not, they will likely be steered astray because it is incredibly difficult for those outside the fields of study to wade through all the mis/disinformation to get at the nuggets of truth. Hell, there's no way I could do it on many topics if I didn't have access to subscriptions of various medical journals and research databases. I'd spend months trying to figure out truth from fiction.

Does that mean one doesn't go and read and study about it? Of course not. Does that mean you just blindly listen to your doctor and try not to educate yourself at all? Nope. Those are the extremes that are both incorrect. The answer is in the middle and if you're doing either extreme, you're doing it wrong. Period. We all know the 80/20 rule around the demo of the "do your own research" crew and what that has come to mean when we hear it. Perhaps those of us in medical fields are more sensitive to this than the average person. I'm not sure, but that generalization is a red flag as pointed out in the OP with which I completely agree.

 

[beer 30]

I rely almost exclusively on Joe Rogan for my medical advice since he became an expert. I also just watched the Pitt so I feel like I have some of the higher level stuff covered now as well

 

[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?

People can ask whatever questions they want regarding their health, and can always seek a second opinion.

While it’s hard to define, the “research” to which I refer is stuff that directly conflicts with evidence-based standards of care. Usually the sources aren’t revealed, or opinions may be gleaned from health influencers, podcasts, and/or “ alternative” medicine websites. In many cases, there is obvious secondary gain involved, in the form of supplements, devices, or services provided by the alt “experts”. Logical fallacies like the appeal to nature are common. And miraculous results are promised, absent the scrutiny of conventional medicine.

Makes sense and your ethical duty is to offer the best care and advice you have to the patient, which I'm sure most doctors do.

From your response is it safe to say you don't pooh pooh a patients concerns, questions, inputs if they're evidence based medically? I understand hesitation with ideas that come out of left field, but i feel like an educated patient with valid questions/concerns can't be seen as a negative can it?

My health is the most important thing in my life outside of my family and i can't imagine not being somewhat involved in decisions I'll need to live with the rest of my life.

 

[fatness]

What do you mean by misinformed?

Odd question.
And answered above already: "stuff that directly conflicts with evidence-based standards of care."

 

[Sparky Polastri]

COVID is a great example of what I am talking about. The science is crystal clear. The majority is better off with the vaccine than not. As with any other vaccine, there are some who won't be able to take it and who won't respond the way most do. That happens in EVERY SINGLE VACCINE we have because every single immune system is different. People conflated the "rules" around it (the politics) with the science of it. Example? People would get pissy that having had it wasn't taken into account in the calculus of protection and getting back to work. They'd dump that political decision on vaccine efficacy or some other nonsense. In that case your issue isn't with the vaccine, it's with the policy. Keep them separate. There are dozens and dozens of things like this that were litigated in the COVID thread putting into question the vaccine when it was never a question about the vaccine. It was about policy. To date, the answer in battling COVID is STILL to get vaccinated for most people. We are 5 years into the biggest trial the world has ever seen of a vaccine and we're doing pretty well, but people will continue to point to "safety" or "testing" or whatever else. That ship sailed. It's gone. It's dispelled. It's time to move on or shift to a different talking point.

And the VENN diagram of "do your own research" and the people I describe above are pretty close to a circle. That doesn't mean it's 100%.

 

[Terminalxylem]

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.

I don’t object to questions at all. Nor am I dismissing people’s concerns. That’s not the “research” I’m talking about.

Also, @gianmarco has it right. Physicians should be altruists. It’s a part of the Hippocratic Oath.

Now, that doesn’t mean I’m naive to the business of medicine. But the best doctors aren’t really thinking about money at all, even if that concept is antithetical to “good” business.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

I think we've warped the word.

Amazon and consumer information online has led to people being able to do a ton of research for consumer items, vacations, where to eat dinner....etc. That is valuable information and worth the time to research. And almost all of it is based solely on experience and opinion of others.

Too many people have taken that consumer research to be the equal of scientific research which is not remotely close to the same thing and is based on verifiable fact, repeatable outcomes and expertise that comes from a lifetime of education.

 

[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.

I don’t object to questions at all. Nor am I dismissing people’s concerns. That’s not the “research” I’m talking about.

Also, @gianmarco has it right. Physicians should be altruists. It’s a part of the Hippocratic Oath.

Now, that doesn’t mean I’m naive to the business of medicine. But the best doctors aren’t really thinking about money at all, even if that concept is antithetical to “good” business.

Are you honest with your patients and disclose to them you hold this bias against them? How does holding that bias against a patient fit with the Hippocratic Oath?

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

 

[Terminalxylem]

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.

I try to keep an open mind in these situations. I’m honest with them, but no, I don’t typically find a need to disclose potential biases - it’s incumbent on me to recognize and avoid them.

 

[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.

I try to keep an open mind in these situations. I’m honest with them, but no, I don’t typically find a need to disclose potential biases - it’s incumbent on me to recognize and avoid them.

Interesting. You were clear here to say it was a bias. Not a potential bias.

"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.

 

[Nipsey]

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.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

For the doctors in here, are there financial incentives to prescribe medication? Not necessarily a monetary transaction, but when say a drug rep comes in are there incentives offered for using their specific pharmaceutical company's medications (travel, gifts, outright payments, etc)?

 

[The Z Machine]

Many many years ago I went to the ER with a high fever and wicked headache. Obviously they thought it was meningitis, some varaints of which can be deadly. The doc ordered a CT scan, but I had bare bones basic insurance that would only cover 80% of that cost. I explained that the CT scan would bankrupt me as I was fresh out of grad school with a temp job. The doctor listened to me, and agreed to a lumbar puncture (aka spinal tap) to check and see if I had bacteria in my cerebral spinal fluid. Thankfully it came back clean and there was no bacterial infection. I got a bunch of fluids in me and they sent me home without admitting me since my fever was now under control.

In this instance, the doctor went against his initial course of diagnosis due to the financial situation of the patient. I'm glad he listened to me, but I know he was not happy about it. He may have thought I'd refuse the cat scan (and i honestly might have refused) and this was the best of a bad situation.

I'd like to hear from the physicians about this story and whether they've ever been in a similar jam with a patient.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

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.

I think we've warped the word.

Amazon and consumer information online has led to people being able to do a ton of research for consumer items, vacations, where to eat dinner....etc. That is valuable information and worth the time to research. And almost all of it is based solely on experience and opinion of others.

Too many people have taken that consumer research to be the equal of scientific research which is not remotely close to the same thing and is based on verifiable fact, repeatable outcomes and expertise that comes from a lifetime of education.

This absolutely nails it. Well said.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

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).

 

[Terminalxylem]

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.

Also, it’s disheartening that you believe altruism in medicine is “magical”.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Too many people have taken that consumer research to be the equal of scientific research which is not remotely close to the same thing and is based on verifiable fact, repeatable outcomes and expertise that comes from a lifetime of education.

I wonder if enough people consider the role that massive For-Profit corporations have in influencing scientific research?

 

[Terminalxylem]

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?

Reading between the lines, it seems like people believe many doctors have god complexes, with bad intentions based on financial gain.

 

[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.

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.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

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.

 

[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.

I've had to see many different doctors in the last 3 years due to multiple health problems, and always have made it clear that I've done some reading prior to the visit. "I've done some reading about this, and this is my layman's understanding of it. I'm not a medical professional. I'm also not stupid and I pay attention to my problems. I'm here to get your advice and help with this, and to give you what information about me that you need" seems to dispel any suspicions on either side of the conversation. I haven't had one doctor (PCP, specialist, or surgeon) react badly. And during the visit I listen, and ask questions, and make sure I'm listened to.

Glad to hear you’ve had that experience. So have I — sometimes. Other times (like above)? Not as much.

What were you trying to convey with your counter example?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).

Got it. THAT research and data wasn't to be trusted.

As someone who lost a little brother to opioid-related addiction, that's a real comfort.

 

[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.

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.

I try to keep an open mind in these situations. I’m honest with them, but no, I don’t typically find a need to disclose potential biases - it’s incumbent on me to recognize and avoid them.

Interesting. You were clear here to say it was a bias. Not a potential bias.

"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.

You going to keep hammering on his original post ad nauseum? Or you going to allow him to clarify or even change it to "potential bias" if that's what he truly meant?

You asked the question about it and he answered why he's honest and why it's not something that would need to be disclosed and yet you keep going back to "but you said..!!!!"

 

[Terminalxylem]

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.

 

[Mister CIA]

If you ask me, "merely daring" conveys a ton of bias and tilts the conversation.

 

[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.

I try to keep an open mind in these situations. I’m honest with them, but no, I don’t typically find a need to disclose potential biases - it’s incumbent on me to recognize and avoid them.

Interesting. You were clear here to say it was a bias. Not a potential bias.

"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.

You going to keep hammering on his original post ad nauseum? Or you going to allow him to clarify or even change it to "potential bias" if that's what he truly meant?

You asked the question about it and he answered why he's honest and why it's not something that would need to be disclosed and yet you keep going back to "but you said..!!!!"

When he says something isn't happening and he literally said the thing that's happening, yes, I'll reference that. Hope that's ok.

 

[Nipsey]

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?

Reading between the lines, it seems like people believe many doctors have god complexes, with bad intentions based on financial gain.

Yes, some doctors do have God complexes. But I don’t think most have bad intentions driven by money. It’s the drug companies that are motivated by profit and doctors often end up relying on studies that are sometimes biased or incomplete.

 

[Terminalxylem]

If your chasing a hideous disease with few treatment options and loved one's life is on the line, you do whatever you can.

Amen to that. When doctors don't offer, can't offer, or there isn't an established treatment protocol you have little choice other than to find what answers you can on your own.

Of course. I don’t think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

And there’s also a point of futility.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

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?

 

[Joe Bryant]

If you ask me, "merely daring" conveys a ton of bias and tilts the conversation.

Not a bias. It's a strong opinion. I'm not tilting the conversation. I have a strong viewpoint and I'm sharing my opinion. The fact that questioning an authority and not blindly swallowing whatever is offered is seen as a negative trigger by some is remarkable to me. And some others.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

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.

www.wired.com

 

[gianmarco]

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.

 

[Terminalxylem]

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.

I try to keep an open mind in these situations. I’m honest with them, but no, I don’t typically find a need to disclose potential biases - it’s incumbent on me to recognize and avoid them.

Interesting. You were clear here to say it was a bias. Not a potential bias.

"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.

My bad.

I should have said: may bias me against a patient.

 

[BlackCrowes]

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?

i´d say 20%. max.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

If you ask me, "merely daring" conveys a ton of bias and tilts the conversation.

Not a bias. It's a strong opinion. I'm not tilting the conversation. I have a strong viewpoint and I'm sharing my opinion. The fact that questioning an authority and not blindly swallowing whatever is offered is seen as a negative trigger by some is remarkable to me. And some others.

Joe: As a counter, I have to believe you know some people who use the phrase “I’ve done the research” as a reflexive comment to justify any contrarian view they might have. My cousins, for example, use that phrase to justify their views on vaccines, homeschooling, and now the consumption of raw milk, just to name a few.

I don’t really care what they do on any of these subjects. It doesn’t really affect me or (mostly) anyone else. But they also tell my aunt what to do, and she then blindly repeats “I’ve done the research.” Except she hasn’t. And really, neither have my cousins. How do I know? Because when I ask them simple questions like “hey cool, can you share any links with me about raw milk?” there is zero reply. And I hate — hate — pasteurized skim milk. So I’m the target audience on this simple topic.

Anyway, when I think of the phrase “I’ve done the research” this is what comes to mind. Of course it could also be used to mean what it literally says — like when I went into the 10k/running thread and asked all experienced folks in that thread what type of running shoes to buy. Who better to ask? That’s a form of research — except I didn’t ask Joe Rogan (who knows less than me about running shoes, medicine and probably most things). I asked dudes who are really awesome and experienced runners.

I get your broader point though too. We’ve reached this stage where experts are mad - not just mad, shocked and dismayed - that people don’t just blindly bow to their expertise. Even though our world has a lot of problems, many of which *seem* to be either caused by or exacerbated by the experts.

It’s going to be fascinating to watch this dynamic to play out. On many topics.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

 

[Mister CIA]

If you ask me, "merely daring" conveys a ton of bias and tilts the conversation.

Not a bias. It's a strong opinion. I'm not tilting the conversation. I have a strong viewpoint and I'm sharing my opinion. The fact that questioning an authority and not blindly swallowing whatever is offered is seen as a negative trigger by some is remarkable to me. And some others.

All in a span of two pages...

• lowly patient
• omniscient answers
• blindly ignore
• magical altruism
• incredibly telling
• merely daring
• blindly swallowing

And my favorite, "Are you honest with your patients."

 

[Joe Bryant]

If you ask me, "merely daring" conveys a ton of bias and tilts the conversation.

Not a bias. It's a strong opinion. I'm not tilting the conversation. I have a strong viewpoint and I'm sharing my opinion. The fact that questioning an authority and not blindly swallowing whatever is offered is seen as a negative trigger by some is remarkable to me. And some others.

Joe: As a counter, I have to believe you know some people who use the phrase “I’ve done the research” as a reflexive comment to justify any contrarian view they might have. My cousins, for example, use that phrase to justify their views on vaccines, homeschooling, and now the consumption of raw milk, just to name a few.

I don’t really care what they do on any of these subjects. It doesn’t really affect me or (mostly) anyone else. But they also tell my aunt what to do, and she then blindly repeats “I’ve done the research.” Except she hasn’t. And really, neither have my cousins. How do I know? Because when I ask them simple questions like “hey cool, can you share any links with me about raw milk?” there is zero reply. And I hate — hate — pasteurized skim milk. So I’m the target audience on this simple topic.

Anyway, when I think of the phrase “I’ve done the research” this is what comes to mind. Of course it could also be used to mean what it literally says — like when I went into the 10k/running thread and asked all experienced folks in that thread what type of running shoes to buy. Who better to ask? That’s a form of research — except I didn’t ask Joe Rogan (who knows less than me about running shoes, medicine and probably most things). I asked dudes who are really awesome and experienced runners.

I get your broader point though too. We’ve reached this stage where experts are mad - not just mad, shocked and dismayed - that people don’t just blindly bow to their expertise. Even though our world has a lot of problems, many of which *seem* to be either caused by or exacerbated by the experts.

It’s going to be fascinating to watch this dynamic to play out. On many topics.

Oh, for sure. Totally uncool for people to lie and say they've done the research when they haven't really done any research.

I'm talking about the negativity cast toward people by some when they question the authority. And I get why the people in power and authority are clutching so hard to retain their power and authority. That makes total sense.

 

[Joe Bryant]

If you ask me, "merely daring" conveys a ton of bias and tilts the conversation.

Not a bias. It's a strong opinion. I'm not tilting the conversation. I have a strong viewpoint and I'm sharing my opinion. The fact that questioning an authority and not blindly swallowing whatever is offered is seen as a negative trigger by some is remarkable to me. And some others.

All in a span of two pages...

• lowly patient
• omniscient answers
• blindly ignore
• magical altruism
• incredibly telling
• merely daring
• blindly swallowing

And my favorite, "Are you honest with your patients."

I have a viewpoint on this. Do you not like those words?

 

[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.

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.

I try to keep an open mind in these situations. I’m honest with them, but no, I don’t typically find a need to disclose potential biases - it’s incumbent on me to recognize and avoid them.

Interesting. You were clear here to say it was a bias. Not a potential bias.

"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.

You going to keep hammering on his original post ad nauseum? Or you going to allow him to clarify or even change it to "potential bias" if that's what he truly meant?

You asked the question about it and he answered why he's honest and why it's not something that would need to be disclosed and yet you keep going back to "but you said..!!!!"

When he says something isn't happening and he literally said the thing that's happening, yes, I'll reference that. Hope that's ok.

"Hope that's ok".

That's some pretty overt snark from the Boss who asks everyone to "show grace" and be excellent.