The need for scientists to remain humble is straight on. As a geology professor I get a lot of people talking to me about the healing crystal industry (immediately spouting off about their love for crystals the second they find out I'm a geologist). I have been pretty dismissive and condescending about it in the past but am trying to shift my tone. My emphasis when talking to these people and my intro science students should be to remind them that science can only discuss things that can be tested. People who believe in healing crystals (or alternative medicine or any other dubious branch of science) are welcome to run legitimate tests and good scientists will be open to considering the results. Meanwhile, none of the tests for the healing crystals (excepting certain temperature/compression factors with highly directed use) have held up. Therefore science cannot support healing crystals as having any benefit. But the placebo effect and tactile impacts on anxiety or other factors related to the parasympathetic nervous system are not without benefit. If holding/rubbing a certain textured/shaped stone helps stimulate calming breaths and reduce anxiety, those are beneficial results. It doesn't matter if it's quartz or a piece of colored glass, it is helpful to some people and I shouldn't speak in a way that might shame them into abandoning something that works for them (while also not broadly promoting something that doesn't).
Well from the brain standpoint there is a lot of research that supports the positive effect of Placebo..so beliving in healing is going to heal them to a certain degree.. as long as there is no negativ Effekt from the Material used there is no bad in beliving in crystals 😊
This is an interesting situation because on the one hand it's great to have people excited about scientific topics. There is a lot of overlap with this sort of stuff. Crystals, homeopathy, astrology, spiritualism, etc. Provide overlapping interests in geology, astronomy, chemistry, quantum physics, etc. I'd guess that engaging that curiosity scientifically probably has more potential to lead them towards more reasonable stances than just shutting them down.
I'm not against all types of alternative medicine. It can sometimes be a conjunctive/palliative treatment on top of western medical treatments. Alternative medicine should not be your primary care approach. I understand what you're saying and I thank you for being understanding for people who probably don't know they're not correct with their assumptions. Especially with people who cannot take criticism about their beliefs. Patience is a virtue and it's why I cannot go into science lol.
Ok now this is one of my favourite podcasts. Dr Andrea and Dr Jessica I’d like to say a huge thank you for your insightful, intelligent and earnest approach to this collaboration. It’s refreshing to see transparency in your field. Your dedication and passion is almost palpable and you *are* making science sexy! I absolutely believe that you deserve funding and compensation for all of your efforts! 10+ years of education should not go unnoticed, and more importantly, unmerited. In listening to you for an hour and 20 minutes I have learnt more about science than in any textbook I could have read. Thank you Doctor Mike for bringing these amazing women to the fore, may we see more collaborations of this nature in the future 👌🏻
Loved the beggining. First of all, bringing the definitions. During pandemic, everyone became science experts, but not all of theses experts had a proper training.
I sat and watched this whole thing.. Despite me being a child.. I understood almost of what y’all have stated in this conversation.. I believe that everything you say in here is true.. and people just cannot seem to understand that.. Dr. Mike I have learned ALOT from YOUR videos! And I come and want to thank you for spending your own time to host this podcast for your Audience to understand.. That is how much YOU care about US! Thank you Dr. Mike 🙏❤️
I work in healthcare and I am not medically trained but I am around doctors and nurses all day and I learned a lot from this video. Science is beautiful. Thank you all for making this video.
People forget that each person is unique so of course there’s no one procedure, one process to one cure. I’m glad for this discussion, loved every minute of it!
Really interesting conversation. I think people have a hard time understanding nuance and that things can change/things are contextual. I also feel that the way discourse has developed online has lead to escalating arguments as opposed to constructive dialogue.
I’ve been waiting for this upload to hit! Cannot wait to listen to this conversation when I get home this evening! You never disappoint on this podcast!
Thank you Dr Mike for allowing these conversations to exist. It's nice to hear different perspectives. Especially as a person who has struggled with Healthcare overall for years. It's good to know that. I'm heading in the right direction.
I absolutely love this video. Watching the anti science/medicine backlash happen during covid was disturbing on so many levels and I think you all hit the nail on the head around the 18 minute mark when you were talking about scientific discourse happening in the public domain. People who don't understand how science works, don't understand that scientific understanding is in constant flux. This discussion was truly important and I hope it reaches a LOT of people. Thank you
This podcast is the only podcast I will listen too. Dr Mike is always looking at so many different angles of the conversation which makes it so interesting.
I absolutely loved this collab/conversation that took place! It was so refreshing and amazing to hear from these two wonderful women, making a difference in science. Without science we don’t have medicine! Thank you so much for this Dr. Mike for this particular podcast episode. It was educational and entertaining!
By far, the most complex yet intriguing podcast on the Checkup. Wonderful observations from all three of you. Dr. Mike, bravo for constantly adding value to our lives by having such insightful conversations regarding under-researched issues in science and medicine.
Definitely enjoyed listening to this convo; it would be interesting to see Jess and Andrea interview Dr Mike on like a part 2! Also, please Jess and Andrea, never consider deleting your page- there's a wealth of beautifully designed infographics on there and we need time to get through them! :)
It’s understandable, uncertainty can be anxiety inducing enough when it’s about relatively trivial things, let alone your health. I do agree with you tho, fear is absolutely the enemy.
After watching this, my vote is that you stay on Tiktok. I am starting med school this summer and we need people like you, with nuance, talking to a sizeable population of the public.
Most people on TikTok are not looking for nuance. He needs to get off that platform. It’s going to ruin his credibility. Intelligent TokTok watchers who are interested will graduate to RU-vid when they grow up. Those who don’t . . . who cares?
As someone who’s always been a skeptic about what I feel are ridiculous things (like the products marketed towards gut health for the general population who have nothing wrong with their guts) but is still open minded enough to utilize things like the practice of yoga, I absolutely love this episode because it talks about the collaboration of science and medicine and the middle ground between the two and how they work together instead of against each other. Let’s lift each other up and work together instead of tearing each other down to feel superior, great episode!
This is a conversation that I have had a few times. Originally it was initiated by a young sister (emergency Dr) of a good friend, who when introducing me to her colleague made the point of saying “he’s not a real Dr”. This was after my 2nd PhD in the sciences. Of course the clumsiness was in her understanding of the meaning of Dr vs the colloquial use of Dr etc. But it struck me then that I had to consider “if I’m not a real Dr, with my PhD’s, is she a real scientist with no research degrees”? She uses the products and findings of other scientists, but is she a scientist or not? For the record only my colleagues ever call me Dr, I never use it, and they do it in jest. My over simplification of this is “scientists” discover the new, develop the fundamental understanding of phenomena, whereas the “physician” applies the body of knowledge and products of “scientists” to subjects. Obviously there are physicians who are also scientists too.
I feel like people forget that your clinical pharmacist are those people who have the clinical background but also are very well educated in the research. they are that middle ground between scientists and physicians that always keep up to date with the clinical guidelines but also those articles that get published. Pharmacists are constantly doing journal clubs, case presentations, topic discussions and keeping up to date with anything and everything going on in terms of treatment. Alot of times they are the people who are able tell a medical team how pertainent and appropriate in the care plan for the patient
I agree that pharmacists are sometimes under appreciated for their role and that’s why I was so shocked to hear that some pharmacists were refusing prescribed treatments for their customers/patients.
There's a reason why I try to keep the words right and wrong (i.e. all-or-nothing language) out of meetings at work. It's hard. I'm an engineer. Our natural state is to think we have the solution. 😁
That was a fantastic conversation. You three knocked it out of the park on that. I do think this information sharing conversation in relation to expertise vs public education is a super valuable topic and it doesn't get talked about enough. Certainly not with as much of a balanced view anyway. It's easy for some people to get caught up in this really technical terminology and fixating on whether it's totally accurate instead of understanding that concept of meeting the audience at the level that they're at. I often encounter this same issue with my boyfriend when he talks about programming and I'm trying to summarize in laymen's terms for my own understanding and he's correcting me on how the terminology is used. I have to remind him that I'm using that terminology in a broader sense of the English language and not in a technical jargon way because I'm not highly educated on programming. But it's a serious barrier sometimes for people to focus too much on the details at the expense of the big picture. And then sometimes they focus too much on the big picture 🤣 There's gotta be a balance and you do really have to pick your battles.
I watched a medical chemist with a PhD. correct false claims from tiktok last month. She called out a doctor who's regularly on this channel... that was a wake up call for me. DOCTORS are NOT SCIENTISTS.
Dr. Mike do a good job for us as a general people to make us understand most of the content. Good job for enlightening things we have no idea and also make clear about thing that we overthought.
Im glad y'all mentioned acupuncture. Andrew huberman gets undue flak for bringing it up. I think the main issue with acupuncture is that there's skilled component to it. Just like going to a masseuse or physical therapist. Those things work... But there's such a great deal of variety in skill of the practitioner. Plus the individual receiving the service has unique circumstances and it's not certain if the practitioner will have the clarity of mind or foresight to account for that.
Do you realize you're talking about a thousands of years old healing practice which originated in and has been proven affective in Asian and subsequently in other parts of the world. So obviously, just because it's not accepted by Western medicine doesn't mean that it's not valid.
I really love the ideas of bringing different people related to the medical field who are not too seen by people. Just an idea, you should bring Nurses for the future podcast.
I literally had a previous psychiatrist tell me to read about leaky gut syndrome because she was like "you're fatigued? Probably a leaky gut." I read about it and it sounded like total garbage. I saw all the supplements being sold for it and ran the other way.
I love how they mention the fact of a reel, I mean that's the problem with everything now, people judge and criticize everything, without knowing the content of what they are actually watching, we have to be more tolerant and also known better what we are watching to be in the same line of the person in the social media, or could be also that people who made those kind of reels/content should state at least they are answering to something, wow. Social media is so wild.
In order to become a doctor, one must typically complete a rigorous educational program that includes courses in basic and applied sciences, such as biology, chemistry, and physiology. Medical students learn to use the scientific method to evaluate evidence, formulate hypotheses, and design experiments to test their theories. In addition, doctors are also required to keep up-to-date with the latest scientific research in their field. They regularly read scientific journals, attend conferences, and participate in continuing education programs to ensure that their knowledge and skills are current and evidence-based. If you're a good clincian you will also be a good scientist. I for myself completed *years* of research in the lab before applying to medical school. While some people may argue that doctors are not true scientists because they focus on only the practical application of scientific knowledge rather than advancing scientific knowledge itself, this argument ignores the fact that medicine is a highly specialized field that requires a deep understanding of many different scientific disciplines.
I feel like we patients an assembly line. Time shouldn't matter. The well being of us patients is the most important. The last time I saw my doctor, I had so much to say I couldn't get a word in. He kept talking and then I forgot what I needed to say. People need to quit complaining. I have stories about the beginning of COVID and how it affected my heat condition, the fear mongering, and so much more about this convo that I really want to talk about, but nobody wants to read a novel in somebody else's comments. I'm so self conscious about holding people up. We need to be more encouraging to others to say what they need to say. It's hard to speak up sometimes. Another great convo, Dr. Mike. Loved it. A lot to think and talk about here. :)
Dr Mike I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the psychology of persuasion, because when you discuss your method of trying to open conversation with people that don't agree with you, you seem to follow only one method of persuasion (interrogation). Why do you only use one? Do you believe that there are places for the other forms of persuasion? Did you know they exist?
As a doctor... One of a doctor's aspects must always be scientist. Scientists measure accurately, record systematically and think critically. Clinical work has the best outcomes when these are done with scientific skill. A non-scientist may not care if the blood pressure reading isn't accurate. A scientifically literate clinician should, and the best ones do.
I think science should continue to be debated on open forums (social media). I actually think this is crucial for transparency and will eventually evolve into more trust with the public. Eroding trust in scientific establishments is multifactorial and I would argue it has more to do with scientific arrogance, money in science, massive corruption in pharma. AND the incestous conflict of interest of the revolving doors between big pharma and government.
I would suggest the distrust of medicine and science today is not that there is public discourse between professionals, but rather the lack of transparency about the discource. When one side is trying to keep discourse behind the scenes, we are not able to understand how clinical practices are decided on. Explain to us the nuances. Don't hide them. We are not dummies. But when you hide the discourse between professionals, we are being treated like children incapable of understanding and we begin question who has our best interest in mind.
Amazing content and discussion about science and medical topics in social media and in general, but also did anyone see the chemistry between dr love and dr mike? 😂😂
The topic on natural fallacy is my biggest annoyance with this too. I often say **everything is natural**. Because humans are also part of nature lol. And then also all the things that were said, arsenic is natural, etc. It's so infuriating
I think it's important to consider that anecdotes are always the beginning of coming up with an idea for investigating something scientifically. Nobody working in medical science would investigate something that isn't relevant to any people. That doesn't mean anecdotes should be taken as something more than what they are, one person's experience.
I really wish that Doctor Mike would stop saying "I have a theory" when he means that he has an hypothesis. A theory is evidence-based and is something that is known to be true. For instance, we know that evolution is a fact, but it is not directly observable; there is no person who will live long enough to observe it directly. So it is theoretical, but that does not mean that it's not known to be true. Other than that, this is an excellent episode that exposes a very prevalent problem - science is not meant to be gatekept, but a lack of understanding of what science actually IS is facilitating that.
When are you going to Collab with Huberman Lab? He is from Stanford and has a great podcast....I'd be interested in knowing what you think about some of his topics....
So I spent almost 2 decades as clerical support at a hospital that also was a medical school that was renowned for its’ research. I Was startled when I saw this headline, As I was surrounded by doctors who definitely were (also ?) scientists. Our department had several professors who also had PhDs. And doctors did not get hired at my hospital they didn’t have a heavy research background. My bosses were constantly writing research papers. And the weekly rounds that happened were legendary for heavy scientific discourse. In fact one of my duties was to gather and distribute all the journal club articles every week. That was a job. My direct bosses published numerous articles. We’re always going to conferences to discuss and sometimes defend their research. But now that I think about it there are lots of people that do not have this experience in medical school that I observed.
I have noticed that chiropractors are refered to as Sudo science but I have a joint condition and I rely on my chiropractor to relocate joints and help relieve pinched nerves, also suggest new exercises to reduce the frequency of these issues
Your anecdotal evidence is completely irrelevant. Just because you want it to be true doesn’t make it true. Chiropractics is complete quack medicine. Chiropractors hurt thousands of people every year and there is zero evidence that chiropractics has any provable benefit. It should be completely illegal.
I keep hearing the phrase "there's not a whole lot of evidence for..." How do you as a lay person identify the metric used for whether or not something is worth looking into? What is the bar of evidence to differentiate between "not enough evidence" versus "no evidence" versus "evidence against"? As a person who seeks solutions, if there is some evidence, then something seems worth investigating. Like you identified with acupuncture. There's "a little" evidence and there's very low risk. Why is that not more encouraged as an option then? Is standardization of care really that big of a goal in our medical community?
I would like to know what "scientific studies" show that younger clinicians (maybe clinicians in general?) are more "scientific" and researched-based than the older generations of clinicians? That, in itself, is making a broad generalization, a stereotype if you will, of our healthcare providers that we have grown to trust and feel comfortable with.. so many factors at play here. To me...a lay person...this perception doesn't appear fact-based, but rather, it appears judgmental and biased against the doctors (and NP's and PA's) who actually take the time to know not only their patients' medical history, but their patient as a whole, and create a treatment plan based on not ONLY facts, research and studies, but also, medical intuition and experienced decisions. Unlike the majority of responders here, I'm feeling more of a division rather than a collaboration.
Doctors, especially specialists, conduct scientific research all the time. Most have done university-level research from high school, undergrad, and med school, and then tons of residency programs require scientific research as well. Then they continue to learn and many do more clinical research as part of their work. It’s an over generalization to say doctors are not trained in analyzing scientific data and recognize outliers… and what about md/phd programs? CDC guidelines and physician discretion can be separate and they may influence one another but how could someone just say doctors in general are not scientists or they don’t understand data science? It’s different for everyone
Please can you three make a video about the epidemic of aspergillosis in wet, humid, tropical regions. It is really scary and so many suffer without knowing. Having asthma and being susceptible to Covid increases the risk of long term lung damage too.. please address this if you have time 🙏
Excuse me, but from my ancient college Statistics 101 course, I remember a very important rule that MOST tend to frustratingly ignore: You can extrapolate statistical data to a larger group, but you may NOT use data to scale down to an individual. This makes you incorrect, and... A BAD PERSON! (an anal opening) OK??? Example: If you calculated that 50% of the class is failing math, that's a fact you calculated. However, if you tell a straight A student that she has a 50% chance of failing math - this makes you incorrect and A BAD PERSON! I don't know how much simpler I can make this explanation. You can't extrapolate scientific data down to an individual. In medical cases, the doctor needs to treat that specific individual -- having personal experience and """anecdotal evidence""" from other """non-scientist""" doctors... is absolutely CRUCIAL to the treatment's success. Hell, anecdotal evidence of FAMILY HISTORY from non-scientist non-doctor family members can be crucial to the treatment's success! PS: I'm also frustrated with "you're wrong and an asshole" style of data MISINTERPRETATION! Examples: "Most serial killers are men, so most men are serial killers" "There are more deaths in Hospitals than any other building, so let's ban hospitals" "There are small villages where only babies and old people die, so let's scare adults with the low AVERAGE life expectancy and ignore the fact that their village literally has NO MEDIAN life expectancy." etc. PPS: It's also devastating just how easily statistical data can be corrupted and falsified, either by shamelessly removing a bunch of data or by just shamelessly lying about having collected data at all... ie: "98.7% of all statistical data is made up, 65.4% of the people know that!" Anyway, the fact that you're trying to extrapolate statistical data down to an individual, that makes you wrong and an asshole (ie: telling a straight A student she has a 50% chance of failure, because statistical data shows this 50% of the students in her class are failing). Please don't do that, please don't be wrong and an asshole - stick do the data, and let medical doctors rely on their experience and the experience of other "non-scientist" doctors to treat the individual - it saves lives! Thank you,
This was a really enjoyable conversation--I especially like the distinction made about science in research vs application. Regarding the part about acupuncture and alternative medicine, I want to add an extra dimension that conversations about that are also cultural. I personally agree about it's efficacy, but if you called it pseudoscience in front of me, you just insulted my grandmother, innumberable relatives, and that's me as acclimated immigrant. Sometimes called traditional medicine is often sold in wellness and the like for its exociticsm along with a festish for the "natural", but it's important to remember to some audiences it is traditional, and maybe in the cultural history of your patient. The appeal of some of it is not just desperation, or exoticism, but practical if anecdotal, and that weight/relationship should be respected in conversation. These practices with long history are not pseudo--they may be less effective--but are sometimes reflective of practical knowledge when techniques and tools where less sophisticated, but people were no less smart. It wasn't a guess that willowbark has pain treatment functions, that's a deduction from before modern techniques as we know it. Or an old martial arts teacher talking about chi (which sounds woo woo to me, but youtube has been feeding vids to me), but applied, the techiniques of breathing and tension are biomechanics by another name. We have better ways of testing now, and teaching and transmitting information, but older and incomplete should be at least be respected for what they are, reflective of their times. And also remembering audience you're adressing via social media is everyone (too many really), but that includes people whose jargon and framework is different and not just those being fed bad advice by the algorithms.
I personally do think that doctors are scientist. However, I always love having conversations with individuals who think differently. Especially those who can discuss it with me in a thoughtful way without getting defensive. It doesn’t make someone bad or dumb all because they think different than ourselves. I think we as people should be respectful when discussing our own ideas to each other and be able to hear people fully out without interrupting them all because we don’t agree on an idea. This is a great example of that and I love it. Keep up the great work Doctor Mike.
Experts in highly technical fields can be pedantic about details and precise language because simplification of the topic of their expertise takes away from accuracy and, yes, the nuances of the topic. When communicating to the public, experts must be trained to adjust that level of nuance to the level of the audience. Naturally there will be some loss of detail when doing this. The experts who don’t get this are not ready to be communicating to the public; in trying to show off their expertise through pedantic arguments on social media, they are just exposing their lack of media training.
scientist is a person who researches to advance knowledge in an area of the natural sciences. as defined by Wikipedia. the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained as defined by the Oxford dictionary. Physician, medical practitioner, medical doctor, or simply doctor, is a health professional who practices medicine, which is concerned with promoting, maintaining or restoring health through the study, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of disease, injury, and other physical and mental impairments as defined by wiki. I think the misconception is that learning the science that someone else figured out doesn't infact make you a scientist. We love to use terms like rocket scientist and science this science that and actual scientist have come to be identified more as researchers. I blame Hollywood.
It would be cool to see you and healthygamergg talking I know he tends to use discord rather than physical stuff for his videos but I feel like you guys might do well with how he talks to people without waiting to jump people for their ideas similarly to you
The Doctor most previous gift for World 🌟 Doctor Always give blessing to Healing helping to Always others The broken bodies and the shattered souls Of those who fight until the bitter end. With every wound and every pain they face The healers work with skill and grace To bring the light of hope into the dark And guide the wounded to a healing ark. With every pulse and every breath they take The healers are the ones who make A difference in the lives of those they save And show the world that love is brave. So let us thank the healers far and wide For all the work they do with pride For healing hearts and soothing souls And making the broken whole. First Always say thankful Doctor 🙇🏻
Is there such a thing like the opposite of Placebo effect? say a patient was given a real medicine that supposedly work on that person's condition but it didn't because she didn't believe it will make any difference.
One thing to add is that when health services researchers like me assess the evidence behind an intervention, we are dealing with average effects. For example, we might determine that antidepressants A, B, and C produce the highest reduction in average depression scores. It is the nature of averages that some people will be above and some below the average. Sometimes a lot above or below. On the ground, patients need clinicians to balance evidence-based practice with the fact that antidepressant A might work on average but it might not work for me. Dr Mike phrased it as the distinction between science and art. I would call it more applying expert judgment to the actual person and their situation, but sure, call it art if you want.
I’m only 20 minutes in but I’m liking this. Two smart confident women. I hope Dr Mike gets to speak a little more though. The one with the long hair speaks so much but isn’t saying a lot if you know what I mean. I want to hear the other talk more
So I would love to see you have on Dr. Layne Norton on one of these podcasts (Biolayne). He has a PhD in nutrition, and makes a lot of great content. I think a conversation between you two would be fascinating.
HEY Doctor mike I am a senior from wayside sci tech. We are a charter school with low funds who are struggling to be able to afford prom.Our prom is soon and we have little money as we were not given much time to fundraise. Is there anyway you could help with this. Thank you.
the fact that as an AS student studying for CIE (basically in grade 11) I knew almost everything they said, understood it and agreed with it ... people are dumb.. thats why u gotta educate urself people... and tbh, I think, I'm a scientist myself.. actually, I have tried to actively participate in making theories for cure of cancer and many of my theories I've formed could hv been okay.. but becz of some factors.. They got rejected.. I'm even studying HIV to find a cure for it too! the funny part is, I wanna be a pilot!
I use a chiropractor for back issues.... but he also has me go to and do on my own physical therapy. To strengthen the muscles that support my spine. I think that's ok? What kind of chiropractor are we talking about?! Edit... trying not to have back surgery for scoliosis at 33... lmk?
I love what you said about doctors being here to guide us to the right decisions and help us make sense of the science which we have no time or expertise to understand. I would add that this usually happens at a time when the patient has a problem, is stressed out because of this problem and would most likely find it hard to keep a level head, analyse options, and make the best decision.
On the tape issue, my grandfather did that and his hair never grew back in that area. His 2nd son born has hair missing in the same area in straignt lines like he wore the tape 😂 welp
also when mentioned "the black and white rhetoric is more impactful.".. Yes and ironically.. those in academia know this which is why they share things the way they dio... Read Gorgias by Plato. It highlights specifically that.
I am only a few minutes into this podcast episode, so this may be addressed later, but I wanted to pose a question to those of us who do not have a medical or science background…What tends to happen in our society is stereotyping or labeling a group of people based on 1 off situations, such as a well known doctor may also be a scientist, but majority of doctors are not in fact scientists, tends to put out the wrong idea that this episode seems to be trying to correct. I thought it was kind of the guest to say “Clinicians can be called ‘applied scientists’”, but could that be possibly hindering the message? The reason I ask, is people often have select hearing. By saying “yes, clinician are ‘applied scientists’”, some people or a lot of people may just hear “clinicians a scientists.” Does anyone agree or disagree?
