site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   9063 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 29, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://radiologybusiness.com/topics/healthcare-management/legal-news/whole-body-mri-provider-prenuvo-loses-bid-limit-damages-high-profile-malpractice-case

Prenuvo, the preventative full body MRI company, missed a finding related to a stroke. Is being sued. Tried to go to arbitration, failed. Tried to sue in California for lower torts, also failed (Interesting strategy. The scan was in NY).

The specifics is that the radiologist missed a middle cerebral artery stenosis of 60% and the guy subsequently had a devastating stroke likely from it.

/r/medicine is having a field day of it: https://old.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/1pzre3d/prenuvo_whole_body_mri_misses_impending_stroke/.

Scattered thoughts:

  1. The plaintiff’s neurologist is a silly guy. Probably a hired goon. He says that the stroke could have been prevented with a stent. We have randomized controlled trial data on this. You don’t stent an asymptomatic stenotic intracranial artery. Hell, you don’t even stent the vast majority of symptomatic intracranial arteries. Just completely outside of the standard of care. This isn't new or controversial. It's very well established that stenting is NOT recommended in most cases of intracranial stenosis.
  2. My best guess is that with aggressive stroke risk factor control and a baby aspirin, we could have reduced the stroke rate by up to a ½-1/3 yearly, which compounds quite a bit over the long term. So it's not that we couldn't do anything. It's just that the legal team and the goofy neurologist felt it more compelling to make a case about a missed, "intervention."
  3. Meddit is myopic and hysterical about it. The funny thing is that if they did catch it, prenuvo might have actually prevented a devastating stroke with medical therapy. And vigilance could have helped him warm his family/friends for prompt stroke symptom recognition. The earlier you get to a hospital, the better you do. This is actually a great example of a good finding that could have led to preventing a devastating stroke.., obviously assuming they actually noticed the finding.
  4. Getting into the medical weeds: That’s assuming the stenosis was atherosclerotic to begin with, and not an alternative cause of stenosis (which you would be obligated to monitor and work up in a 30 some year old).
  5. Commenters have mentioned the radiology report looks like AI. I disagree. It just looks like a normal radiology report. But brings up a big issue with AI in radiology. Who do you sue? This one will probably be in the tens of millions if successful. A nice thing for the system about doctors is that we really don't have that much money. 5-10mil at most by retirement. 1-2mil early career. Malpractice limits aren't really that high. The outrageously big bucks are hospital systems and companies. Juries are not going to find AI companies as sympathetic as doctors.
  6. Miss rates with whole body MRI’s are higher than normal. There aren’t any symptoms. A part of a radiologist’s search pattern is to pay EXTRA attention based on the history. For example, if this came through my shop for left sided weakness symptoms, I would give the R MCA/ICA/CCA extra attention. Such a stenosis would not be missed. In coding terms, imagine being given a project and being told, “It works perfectly fine. But find everything currently wrong with it or could go wrong with it,” instead of, “the publish button doesn’t work.”
  7. It would be reassuring to have two radiologists read these reports. It seems like a trivial cost to inoculate against missing these sorts of findings, which is their entire business model. A radiologist is paid ~300-700/hr. A full body MRI probably takes like an 30-60mins to read thoroughly. It really all boils down to the numbers. How many of these lawsuits is worth not hiring a second radiologist. Med mal can climb into the dozens to hundreds of millions.
  8. It's unsustainable for the system if prenuvo loses dozens of millions. It perverts incentives to see all patients as potential multi-million dollar lawsuits. This doesn’t just go for prenuvo, but all of medicine. A part of the job of the healthcare system is to say no to low yield medical care. There will be misses. We cannot afford to treat every patient like a saudi prince at the mayo clinic.

The plaintiff’s neurologist is a silly guy. Probably a hired goon.

Yup, and so is the defense neurologist. Treating physicians aren't experts. I mean, they may be in another case, but if they have direct involvement they can only testify to facts. These facts may concern their thought process and what the relevant standard of care was, but the Voice of God is going to come from a hired gun who is being paid to say that the treating physician did nothing wrong.

As for the rest of it, yeah, that's dynamite; I'm sure it will make for good conversation at cocktail parties. You've just given a bunch of arguments that I'm sure sound persuasive to other doctors and to people like those here who aren't doctors but are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because we have no medical experience of our own. Unfortunately if this goes in front of a jury there's going to be another guy who makes equally persuasive (to them) arguments and of course you're saying that the standard of care was followed because it's your ass on the line and of course the other guy has motivation to say that it wasn't followed and in the end it's all going to come down to... something, but it's hard to predict what. So all that stuff you just laid out is a great argument to make to Plaintiff's counsel, who has done this for a while and knows a thing or two about medicine and juries and you may be able to convince him to settle for less than he otherwise would have, which was going to be nowhere near the tens of millions anyway because that only happens if it actually gets in front of a jury, and no one wants it to get in front of a jury.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats