3 ms·

With doctors, you are your own doctor and the doctors you see are subcontractors. First appointment is a job interview. That’s the best way to think of it IMO.

With doctors, you are your own doctor and the doctors you see are subcontractors. First appointment is a job interview. That’s the best way to think of it IMO. I guess I’m privileged to have the money to do this. Google helps you know what it could be, but you need to do a fair bit of research and critical thinking. Unfortunately if you are sick this is the last thing you want to do!

ryandrake 5y ago
I'm all for taking charge of your own health priorities, but don't go too far to the other side of the spectrum. Witness all the "shade tree epidemiologists" that came out of the woodwork last year. One or two Facebook conspiracy videos, and they were suddenly health care experts, confidently spouting off COVID-19 facts they picked up from the YouTube channels of Crystal Energy Lady or Vitality Supplement Guy. Doing research means actually researching. Not doing a few Google searches and watching YouTube videos that already validate what you feel in your heart.
- quickthrower2 5y ago
  Good point. Reader beware! There are sites that seem to give good evidenced based and well researched answers. Even then when you go to the doctor and say “I read about x can I get that tested” it might be “sure you can get a test but the information cannot guide treatment so it’s not worth it” so in that case maybe the doctor knows the details better than you could ever hope by searching the internet. But the internet is a good way (and not including avoiding YouTube!!) if building up an initial mental model, then you can suggest things to doctor and see how they respond. I feel that if you go in blind you are at more risk of a lazy doctor doing the 3 things lazy doctors live to reach for as a snap judgement: antidepressants, antibiotics and a psychologist referral.
- Arete314159 5y ago
  Ok, but doing a little research on pubmed in March of 2020 allowed me to see all the research that had already been done on SARS, that showed spread within apartment complexes and indicated these sorts of diseases were almost certainly airborne rather than spread by droplets. And a lot of "outsider" aerosol experts were saying that all year. Still it took the CDC months and months to admit it. When the experts start acting like experts, I'll be happy to hang up my shadetree epi role for good. But for now the WHO and CDC have been very political in their pronouncements and not as science-based as I would like.
  - refulgentis 5y ago
    Sadly, the bar, and duration required for the science you describe is higher than "a little research on pubmed...on SARS". I'm a little flummoxed by the description of not rushing science as political.
    - civilized 5y ago
      It's not scientific to assume spread is not airborne, then tell everyone to assume spread is not airborne, until research confirms beyond a reasonable doubt that it's airborne. Science isn't about pretending that the first guess that comes into your head is the truth until proven otherwise.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      You: “Not rushing science”. March 2020 HHS Head: “MASKS DON’T WORK! …” NIAID Head: “At this time, in the United States, there is no reason to wear a mask” Dude, looks like someone rushed the science, man. They just rushed it in the wrong direction because they are not good at their jobs. Bezos was a better epidemiologist in March 2020 than our institutions. I wonder why that is. Maybe smart is smart and dumb is dumb.
- throwaway205826 5y ago
  Unironically, becoming a crystal healing hippy is probably better for you on expectation than subjecting yourself to the iatrogenic interventions the median doctor will probably subject you to. The same is true of e.g. faith based healing. It doesn’t matter if it literally does nothing except make you feel a bit better - that’s probably better than going to the doctor for most conditions. Beyond that, doing a bit of research yourself will almost certainly give you better info than listening to whatever bullshit the CDC puts out for mass consumption. This isn’t specific to coronavirus or anything - this has always been true. Establishment medical organizations already have shit results, and it’s not going to get better when you throw political appointments in the mix. Same is true of health recs from other government bodies like USDA. Their health recs change constantly with no evidentiary basis.

ryandrake 5y ago

I'm all for taking charge of your own health priorities, but don't go too far to the other side of the spectrum. Witness all the "shade tree epidemiologists" that came out of the woodwork last year. One or two Facebook conspiracy videos, and they were suddenly health care experts, confidently spouting off COVID-19 facts they picked up from the YouTube channels of Crystal Energy Lady or Vitality Supplement Guy. Doing research means actually researching. Not doing a few Google searches and watching YouTube videos that already validate what you feel in your heart.

quickthrower2 5y ago
Good point. Reader beware! There are sites that seem to give good evidenced based and well researched answers. Even then when you go to the doctor and say “I read about x can I get that tested” it might be “sure you can get a test but the information cannot guide treatment so it’s not worth it” so in that case maybe the doctor knows the details better than you could ever hope by searching the internet. But the internet is a good way (and not including avoiding YouTube!!) if building up an initial mental model, then you can suggest things to doctor and see how they respond. I feel that if you go in blind you are at more risk of a lazy doctor doing the 3 things lazy doctors live to reach for as a snap judgement: antidepressants, antibiotics and a psychologist referral.
Arete314159 5y ago
Ok, but doing a little research on pubmed in March of 2020 allowed me to see all the research that had already been done on SARS, that showed spread within apartment complexes and indicated these sorts of diseases were almost certainly airborne rather than spread by droplets. And a lot of "outsider" aerosol experts were saying that all year. Still it took the CDC months and months to admit it. When the experts start acting like experts, I'll be happy to hang up my shadetree epi role for good. But for now the WHO and CDC have been very political in their pronouncements and not as science-based as I would like.
- refulgentis 5y ago
  Sadly, the bar, and duration required for the science you describe is higher than "a little research on pubmed...on SARS". I'm a little flummoxed by the description of not rushing science as political.
  - civilized 5y ago
    It's not scientific to assume spread is not airborne, then tell everyone to assume spread is not airborne, until research confirms beyond a reasonable doubt that it's airborne. Science isn't about pretending that the first guess that comes into your head is the truth until proven otherwise.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    You: “Not rushing science”. March 2020 HHS Head: “MASKS DON’T WORK! …” NIAID Head: “At this time, in the United States, there is no reason to wear a mask” Dude, looks like someone rushed the science, man. They just rushed it in the wrong direction because they are not good at their jobs. Bezos was a better epidemiologist in March 2020 than our institutions. I wonder why that is. Maybe smart is smart and dumb is dumb.
throwaway205826 5y ago
Unironically, becoming a crystal healing hippy is probably better for you on expectation than subjecting yourself to the iatrogenic interventions the median doctor will probably subject you to. The same is true of e.g. faith based healing. It doesn’t matter if it literally does nothing except make you feel a bit better - that’s probably better than going to the doctor for most conditions. Beyond that, doing a bit of research yourself will almost certainly give you better info than listening to whatever bullshit the CDC puts out for mass consumption. This isn’t specific to coronavirus or anything - this has always been true. Establishment medical organizations already have shit results, and it’s not going to get better when you throw political appointments in the mix. Same is true of health recs from other government bodies like USDA. Their health recs change constantly with no evidentiary basis.