When I was 21, my gf at the time was teaching applied stats and research methodology etc to a batch of 30-something MD's who were planning to get PhD's. She was

When I was 21, my gf at the time was teaching applied stats and research methodology etc to a batch of 30-something MD's who were planning to get PhD's. She was struggling a bit with the maths, so I had to read her book and train her in the curriculum. The maths was quite a bit easier than what I was used to from pre-graduate physics, so I found it mostly a fun diversion. (I also learned some concepts that have been useful later, since I only did mathematical stats, not applied stats myself). But even with this course, I would be worried about the ability of many of these doctors, even after a PhD to do a proper critical reading of a research paper. Indirectly this methodology would encourage p-hacking, and from memory, there was not much training in using judgment to see through such activity. And I don't remember if there were any domain-specific training in analysis beyond "statistically significant, P(H0)<0.05", such as calculating confidence intervals from effect sizes, in terms of medical prognosis, reductions in expected lifetime, etc. And THESE would be expected to be the experts. And for doctors WITHOUT this training, I think they have severe trouble digesting an original research paper themselves, which would leave them even more at the mercy of the advertising branches of Big Pharma.