Dr. Megan Olson Rogers, MD

I've had issues with Dr. Megan Rogers since day 1, but given my insurance, I didn't have any other options for an endocrinologist. I also wanted to give her a chance anyway to prove her credibility. She seems knowledgeable about her field, but my issues are threefold: (A) She is easily agitated--unhinged, in fact--and talks over me without letting me explain myself, (B) she doesn't exercise epistemic humility, e.g. will claim to know more about mainstream cardiology than a highly rated--certainly much higher rated than her, and for good reason--and also mainstream cardiologist, and (C) she doesn't keep her word so I always have to babysit to ensure that prescriptions and appointments are even made. The irony is that these issues reflect rationalism and bad science: Knowledge is justified through correspondence with reality whereas rationalism assumes that beliefs are true; good science explains the unexplained whereas bad science insulates itself--whether through dismissal or… rationalistic rationalization--from challenging views to preserve the status quo. This is exactly how human progress is halted because progress inherently challenges the status quo. I presented an unconventional diet and despite my blood work challenging 99% of what mainstream science, Dr. Rogers blindly--yes, blindly--insisted that I was wrong, focusing on that 1% and distorting it as falsifying when it is actually just unexplained. Talk about jumping to conclusions! Contrast this with my other doctors, all of which are also mainstream, who instead were perplexed and thereby *curious*. You can tell a lot about a person by how they respond to disagreements: Do they immediately react defensively/offensive or are they curious about learning more *before* passing judgment? Worth emphasizing: Again, I have the lab work to prove that my unconventional diet is worth looking more into--which is exactly why Harvard just started a large scale study on that diet--and all of my other doctors recognize this and so are curious about closely following my markers. Dr. Rogers, if you're reading this, here's something that you didn't let me explain: Cardiology, and nutrition, is largely contextualized around epidemiology, a science of correlation. Non-causative correlation does have its uses; the bigger problem is that epidemiology compares against the standard American diet (SAD), which is high in carbohydrates. So cardiology and nutrition are largely contextualized around the SAD; change the context, like with people who aren't on the SAD, and our current understanding of cardiology and nutrition may indeed no longer apply to these people. Critical thinking involves deeper thinking to avoid dropping context. If you want to stay mainstream, regardless of whether the mainstream is true, you may not have issue with Dr. Rogers; she seems to know how to enforce the status quo. If you want to experiment and explore, stay far away. Regardless, she is a bad doctor because (A) her unprofessional, emotional, condescending, intolerant, and impatient attitude, (B) her arrogant epistemic overreach, and (C) she doesn't keep her word.