"Dr. x is just against ccsvi; he's paid by pharma to publish fake results; he's trying to make sure MS never gets cured so he keeps his job; his study is flawed cause only zamboni can ever publish results on this; study is useless because it doesn't prove what I believe/want" <-- ALL of these I have actually heard!
It's the internet....do the doctors care what patients say in a CCSVI subforum on the internet? Have you ever read the comments after a CNN article? There will be a story about a death and the comments will be about Darwin's awards and random things and then people chiding the people making jokes...there is a freedom to say anything that does not much exist outside of the internet.
I wish I was the type. Now that you mention it, I think that neurologists and other docs have much tougher skin. They have to, otherwise their sense of self would be shattered.
But in all honesty, the majority of people I know that went into medicine say that the best part of their job is being able to help someone, even if only once in a while, having a patient say they feel a little better (in any field not just MS).
If in this field, it is unlikely to get that satisfaction, then the best part of the job, the helping people part, is going to be missing. That really makes it a crappy career in my view.
Maybe in the doctor's rush to be first and get the rewards you mentioned, he failed to properly design the trial or to do all the 'tweaking' of the procedure necessary before trialing.
Entirely possible. Anything is possible. But the same argument can go for positive studies. (that's why we need more than a few to verify).
Nonetheless, despite best efforts to properly conduct a study, and to make sure the conclusions are related to the findings that not exaggerated, there's really not much I can think of to avoid getting results that others don't like and will blame you for... even if those findings end up being true.
The pharmaceutical companies benefit from those unwanted results....
But I think we should all choose our career paths based on our interests and aptitudes and not let the opinions of strangers on the internet influence that choice! Particularly during these 'interesting' times! ("May you live in interesting times....")
I don't think researchers or IRs are used to having quite so many people following everything they do. We are invested.
I also think that, from a clinician's perspective, you cannot expect patients to be rational. Some will be, some won't. Some will be desperate, some will still believe in CCSVI two decades after it's disproven if that were to come to pass, and they'll have cognitive fogginess and mistrust in authority and they might make fun of your uselessness as a distraction from the misery of the disease with its useless treatments....then again even Dr. Freedman got a hug from a former patient (anyone remember that one?!) so it can't all be the ugly stuff.
True. All patients may not be completely rational 100% of the time just as doctors are not empathetic and understanding of patients' plight at all times.
But it's tough to deal with this if it's so frequent. Which field has the LEAST mistrust (I'm considering dermatology or ophthalmology now... i have zero interest in either, but who can spread rumors about a guy that just fixes your vision in 15 mins... no mess, no fuss, no controversy).
It's an interesting discussion, willowford.
Perhaps if you really want to help MS patients, you ought to be an interventional radiologist.
IR? Sounds great. Wouldn't there be the same controversies there too? (some others argue that these money hungry docs are just taking advantage of patients in desperate situations when they actually have no evidence that their treatment will improve the patients' lives!) LOL There's just no winning in this field, no matter what you do!