As a patient and a nurse with many years of experience , I fully appreciate the skepticism on your part. In so many ways our healthcare “industry “ is all about the money which, of course, is not in the patient’s best interest. I want my physician to go with scientific analysis and not a blind belief in efficacy. Thank you SC.
I think consensus guidelines derived from us poor primary care docs are pretty decently formulated instead of sponsored. The USPTF casts shade on a lot of things we formerly used to do, and at least for me the SORT levels of evidence quality/recommendations are good. You do a great job of being skeptical but not just for skepticism’s sake, which can lead to a cult of personality iconoclastic tendency in the skeptic, and before long you are communicating as a physician like a populist politician. Populist as in the bad connotation.
Many industries - tobacco, auto, paint, soda, mining - support and tout those studies which ostensibly echo that industry's claims - even when the studies don't.
By the way, I just saw you were on LinkedIn and chose to follow there as well. I find LinkedIn provides an opportunity to counteract way too many comments by the uninformed who are convinced their opinions need to be heard. Fortunately when others believe you are the adult in the room, you get pats in the back.
Skepticism is good, but some of those same people, such as Mandrola have also embraced some controversial topics with little evidence to support their positions. His alliance with Vinay Prasad has been unfortunate because his normal thoughtful approach has been undermined by Prasad’s shrill disdain for nearly everything we’ve learned about the COVID disease processes, and vaccines. I still follow both because John often has presented other worthwhile material and i value his insights on cardiology, even when i disagree about some of his conclusions.
Regarding this initial comment "I’m often asked by patients why I call myself the skeptical cardiologist. Some are concerned that a skeptical attitude may not be the best one in their physician."
I think it would be informational, if posted on the door to your office, something like WARNING, If you are concerned in any way in this manner - that a physician with more than XX years of professional practice, who is firmly grounded in a skeptical attitude in order to best serve all who decide to become my patients, is not what you are looking for, I will not be offended if you choose to consult a non-skeptical cardiologist.
As a patient and a nurse with many years of experience , I fully appreciate the skepticism on your part. In so many ways our healthcare “industry “ is all about the money which, of course, is not in the patient’s best interest. I want my physician to go with scientific analysis and not a blind belief in efficacy. Thank you SC.
Can you put some of your skepticism in little red pills? I know more than a few doctors who would profit from a dose.
I think consensus guidelines derived from us poor primary care docs are pretty decently formulated instead of sponsored. The USPTF casts shade on a lot of things we formerly used to do, and at least for me the SORT levels of evidence quality/recommendations are good. You do a great job of being skeptical but not just for skepticism’s sake, which can lead to a cult of personality iconoclastic tendency in the skeptic, and before long you are communicating as a physician like a populist politician. Populist as in the bad connotation.
Keep up the balance in the force!
Many industries - tobacco, auto, paint, soda, mining - support and tout those studies which ostensibly echo that industry's claims - even when the studies don't.
By the way, I just saw you were on LinkedIn and chose to follow there as well. I find LinkedIn provides an opportunity to counteract way too many comments by the uninformed who are convinced their opinions need to be heard. Fortunately when others believe you are the adult in the room, you get pats in the back.
I was in the hospital pharmacy a while back and noticed Dr Mandrola behind me in line. I felt like Elvis was in the room.
Skepticism is good, but some of those same people, such as Mandrola have also embraced some controversial topics with little evidence to support their positions. His alliance with Vinay Prasad has been unfortunate because his normal thoughtful approach has been undermined by Prasad’s shrill disdain for nearly everything we’ve learned about the COVID disease processes, and vaccines. I still follow both because John often has presented other worthwhile material and i value his insights on cardiology, even when i disagree about some of his conclusions.
The information you share never disappoints.
Regarding this initial comment "I’m often asked by patients why I call myself the skeptical cardiologist. Some are concerned that a skeptical attitude may not be the best one in their physician."
I think it would be informational, if posted on the door to your office, something like WARNING, If you are concerned in any way in this manner - that a physician with more than XX years of professional practice, who is firmly grounded in a skeptical attitude in order to best serve all who decide to become my patients, is not what you are looking for, I will not be offended if you choose to consult a non-skeptical cardiologist.