I challenged a doctors diagnosis back in April based on my research. I was certain the doctor was wrong. He said something about the reliability of information found online.
You have to be careful what you read online, he said.
He told me people come in all the time citing something they read online. In the same way you might hear your customers talking about what they read online. He told me, “I’ve been doing this for 37 years.” I thought to myself, that sounds familiar.
Later, on the second visit, the doctor surprisingly changed his mind. He asked, “How were you sure about the diagnosis?” I sensed he was puzzled by my findings. I downplayed it by saying, I know how to decipher data. In this case, I had to decipher bad medical advice from good medical advice in the same way I parse any information.
It came down to being able to identify inconsistencies within the information. It can be spoken words, written words, photos, etc. The analysis works at a level of deductive logic by asking, “is this even possible?” This sort of thing happens all the time, nearly every day, in all aspects of life. My choice is one of two things, 1) speak up when something is wrong or 2) say nothing and allow the “told you so” to occur on its own without saying it.
You could beat the doctor by replacing him with an equation created by people who knew nothing about medicine and had simply asked a few questions of doctors. — The Undoing Project
Typically I go with the second option, but this was a health issue. My motive lies squarely on the prevention of something. In this case, I was trying to prevent a second visit to the doctor because “efficiency.” Part of the process I go through analyzing something is to prevent something from occurring, or existing, or the need to exist. My second doctors visit didn’t need to occur.