How can "spend less than you earn" be jargon that people don't understand? 1. 50% of people don't know their own household income 2. A lot of people do not understand that they can control what they spend. Yes, really. In fact, they have an "external locus of control" and genuinely believe that life happens to them, so when you tell them to "spend less than they earn," it's a nice intellectual idea that they do not connect to their own reality. They see themselves as having no control over their job, relationship, and money. (This is almost always passed down from parents, who quite rationally believed they had little control over their lives because it was often true!) These are descriptions to help you understand why people behave the way they do, not to excuse it If you get truly curious about human nature, you can start to see these patterns everywhere

This gatekeeper argument is so silly. Just because we advise caution doesn’t mean we can actually stop anyone from getting these scans. Plus we have AI now, you don’t actually really need a doctor. Until you do. It’s a free country baby. Capitalism. I honestly think we should actually let the med spas run wild. Can’t wait for the $$$ from all the follow up testing I’m going to interpret.

Again. I repeat: The Roosevelt’s “man in the ring” criticism of trial appraisal is to be noted and ignored Trial appraisal is not personal; it’s LITERALLY our job as evidence-based clinicians #acc26

off topic from current discussion but relevant still. this is why i'm not truly worried about "AI will replace doctors" cuz in the real world where I live and practice medicine, most patients in my experience want a doctor who can not only do math but also has these silly useless "skills" we call social skills, empathy, emotional intelligence etc etc yes, there are doctors who sorely lack in people skills but it doesn't mean we should push for a future where our "doctors" don't have them at all

A greatly under-appreciated side effect of niche academic debate on twitter is that everyone else (aka gen public) can see it too. While other docs rightly call out obvious misinformation, John comes out and says well actuallyyyyyy, if you look at the data, he’s not *actually* wrong! See?! What others see: hmm Aseem Malhotra is making sense… hey look an esteemed cardiologist using papers to support Aseem Malhotra’s claim, looks legit! 🤔 Do you think people realize the nuance that the actual problem (the “fuss”) is not that data itself but the fact that it is being intentionally misused to push a dangerous and misleading narrative that might influence people who actually need their statin the most, to stop taking them? No. Why should they either? John could have used this opportunity to really highlight that, but he didn’t. Interesting. The problem is not the data, it is the messaging and narrative.

major life hack: don't bother reading any article whose title includes the word "associated" there are ~1 million medical publications per year, don't spend your time reading retrospective associative studies

Dr. Aseem Malhotra: "If you take a statin for 5 years after a heart attack... in that 5 year period, how much would you think or hope it would add to your life expectancy?" Joe Rogan: "25%? 30%?" Malhotra: "Just over 4 days."

Just a PSA about treating high cholesterol: I recently helped two young women who were told to take meds for high cholesterol calculate their 10-year ASCVD risk Both had 10-year risk less than 3%. Why aren't primary care clinicians using a risk equation?

A nice summary of the implications of ChatGPT Health @TIME – with a focus on whether you should trust @OpenAI with your health data. Quotes by me, @AdamRodmanMD, @dbittermanmd, others. time.com/7344997/chatgpt-hea…

RFK Jr: HHS Launches Program Rewarding Doctors for Healing, Not Profiting from Sickness HHS is creating incentives for healthcare to focus on patient recovery rather than profits. Currently, hospitals, doctors, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies benefit by keeping people sick