Dan,
Firstly I appreciate your post. Before going further, know that I am not a "critic" of yours. What I am critical of, however, is the manner in which you conduct and portray yourself when it comes to your work. Allow me to explain, because many in the SDN group have been similarly critical, yet after you posted your first comment above they all began giving you sycophantic replies. To that end, I give high respect to
@evilbooyaa for at least mentioning that he was critical of your opinions and how you came off to others. I always strive to be genuine and real, even if the opinion isn't a popular one, so I won't sugarcoat anything.
I have never met you, nor probably will I ever, because people like me who work in small facilities in places of the country where no one cares to go are always seen as inferior by your circles of the academic Twitterati. This issue has been discussed at length on multiple SDN threads. I don't care if you perceive me as inferior, or anyone else on SDN. So with that being said, let me discuss a few things.
Being a recognized "thought leader" in rad onc, your work is admirable and has influenced patient care for millions of patients across the globe. However, you need to understand that with this power comes great responsibility. Your bravado and "guns ablaze" attitude in presenting your data is unacceptable. Is it great to get enthused about your research? Of course. And you have every right to that because you worked immensely hard to earn it all. But there is a fine line between enthusiasm and the feeling of imposing your opinions on others. You have not found that fine line yet. As a "thought leader" in rad onc, you need to understand that just as important as what you publish is how you come across to deliver that message. One can deliver that message with humility and thus come across that 1) there are many ways to address x clinical question, and/or 2) there are limitations in your approach. What I, and others on SDN who are too scared to say it to your face, am concerned about is that the way you present your work gives off a strong impression that your way is the only way and is practice changing. It almost feels like your goal in a plenary session is to "convert" others to your ideas and way of thinking. To offer a parallel analogy, converting others in the context of religion is insulting because it assumes that the converter thinks his religion is superior to the convertee's religion. Dan, there is nothing wrong in the least about having strong opinions. It's awesome that you're pushing to advocate for your patients. But keep those opinions between you and your patients, instead of coming across as imposing them on others. It's OK to have a wide variety of opinions, even if they aren't the same as yours! For instance, I agree with you 100% about your opinions on protons for prostate...but it's OK for others to be pro-proton for prostate. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Politics these days have become so divisive because both parties think they're the only right ones and can't tolerate the others' opinions. Although SDN folk may be able to glean my political leanings from prior posts, I fully respect others' views on this forum (e.g.
@KHE88) and have never once criticized them for their opinions. If one actually respects others' opinions, they will automatically not seek to impose their own on others. Just remember that. Words matter, along with the way you present those words. You need to learn this, plain and simple. The way something is delivered is just as important as its content.
Perhaps if you have an open mind, you will see what I mean if you rewatch any of your conference presentations. Case in point your 9601 secondary analysis. I'm an n=1, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but your talk was perceived as a guns ablaze imposition of your opinion from your end, trying to make everyone "see the light" that you saw. Whereas Paul Nguyen, in a mild mannered way, nicely reminded the audience to look at the big picture in light of the nonrandomized nature and some other major limitations of your analysis, which have been discussed ad libitum on this forum. Thus, the way you vs Paul were perceived by the audience was very different. Hopefully this is an example of how, while no one is belittling your research, your words and delivery thereof matter a lot. Imposing your opinion on others is really no different than Fox News/MSNBC/CNN imposing their opinions on their audience, when in reality their job is to just report the news. So I am sure many people will appreciate it if you just present your great data and leave it at that, without editorializing, without coming across as imposing any opinion on others, without any of that extraneous material. The words you choose matter, as does how you deliver your message. But feel free to ignore anything and everything I wrote above. After all, I don't have my own research team, fancy job titles, or any of that... I'm just a small-time rad onc who treats patients in forgotten regions of the country. But I have core morals such as respect for all others, a strong belief in God, and helping those who are less fortunate. And I'll take the lasting satisfaction from each of those over the transient satisfaction of publishing a paper any day of the week.
