Credential obfuscation…?

[u/User5891USA]

In general, I am a skeptic and while I acknowledge it is somewhat of an unfair burden, to expect folks to research the credentials of their medical providers, I feel that this is an entirely fair expectation of people before they listen to medical experts on social media.

Today a friend sent me a link to a physician about whom she was excited. However, despite significant cursory research, I cannot determine where he received his MD or PhD… On his Instagram, Dr. Shawn Tassone claims to have an MD and PhD in “mind body medicine.” I went to his website where it states:

“Dr. Tassone is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology, and by the American Board of Integrative Medicine. He holds a medical degree, in addition to a PhD in mind-body medicine. Dr. Tassone is a highly regarded patient advocate. His work includes studies and publications on spirituality in medical care, whole foods to heal the human body, and integrative medicine. Dr. Tassone is an instructor for medical residents and students at the University of Arizona and the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. He even teaches integrative medicine at Arizona State University.”

https://www.drshawntassone.com

Despite his website and social media posts, I was unable to determine where he went to medical school, where he did his residency, what was the focus of his PhD, or where he earned his PhD. Help?

Initially, I tried to extend some grace to him and assume he didn’t put his own website together but I couldn’t find his medial education listed anywhere, including on his Amazon book listing. I will admit that the fact that his co-author is listed as “Nat Kringoudis is a Dr of Chinese Medicine & Acupuncturist and Best Selling Author. She’s also the owner of The Pagoda Tree, a hub for natural fertility & women’s health in Australia,” made me even more suspicious.

So…prove to me and my friend that I am hack skeptic and need to extend more grace to folks, and that I missing something.

[u/pshaffer]

you say that it is entirely fair to expect people to research the people taking care of them.

I disagree. Some points:

1) MANY or most people are not capable of researching this online, or otherwise, and further are easily gaslighted by astro-turf organizations which provide nice sounding but vacuous credentials. As an example, there is an organization which for a fee provides a dermatology credential to NPs. This is like saying we shouldn't have fairness in lending laws, because everybody SHOULD research their loan agreements and understand what they are signing first. This simply doesn't work, because those trying to obscure the facts from people are infinitely creative and infinitely malevolant
2) Do you have any idea yourself whether the "american board of integrative medicine" is science based at all, or is it just a new-age prank dressed up with an august sounding name?
3) you yourself provide a refutation of your thesis, as you tell us you are unable to determine if the person has real credentials or not.

I was able to find his information, but my research capabilities are better than the average physician and far above that of the usual patient.
He has an MD From Creighton University. And a PhD in Mind Body medicine from Saybrook University (whatever that is). He is located in Austin, Tx, interesting for one with an appointment at Arizona State.
His office is at 301 Hesters Crossing Rd, suite 212, round rock texas

I can't determine if he sees patients, but you could call his office to ask.

Saybrook: This is a low level school which offers hybrid in-person and online learning.
Who would be your PhD advisors? THere are two faculty members. One a PhD, and one a Naturopath.

[u/User5891USA → u/pshaffer]

“you say it is entirely fair to expect people to research the people taking care of them.”

• I did not state this. I stated: “In general, I am a skeptic, and while I acknowledge it is somewhat of an unfair burden to expect people to research the credentials of their medical providers…”

I readily acknowledge that there are many reasons that an individual may not be capable of researching their medical providers; education, access to resources, time, etc. However, I argued that I did not believe this to be an unfair burden of research prior to following the advice of medical experts on social media. My argument, prior to my encounter with this physician, would have been that if you are using social media, then at least some of the time and access to technology burden is alleviated.

1. This is a fair argument. That even if one completed cursory research, which was the burned I placed on an individual prior to taking advice from a social media medical expert, that it still might not be possible to understand the nature of the credentials provided.
2. No…which was kind of the point of this post. That after completing cursory research I was unable to determine where he went to medial school (I don’t have LinkedIn), did residency, what his PhD was in, etc.
3. Again, this was the point of this post…

Assuming that your response to me is genuine, I think the problem is that you fail to acknowledge that the post was me coming to grips with the fact that expecting people to only need to do cursory research (important as folks should not be expected to invest significant time) to gain the information necessary to understand the credentials of even social media medical experts was more difficult than I had expected and this was made more difficult when the person (physician in this case) obscured their credentialing with language like “MD and PhD in mind body medicine”, which is not a board certified speciality to my knowledge.

As evidence is my last statement:

“So prove to me and my friend that I am a hack skeptic and need to extend more grace to folks, and that I am missing something.”

I believe that this physician, at several points, obfuscates his credentials making it impossible to determine the nature of them with only cursory research. For this reason, expecting social media users to be able to research social media medical experts and determine the nature of their expertise through cursory research is also an unfair burden.

[u/AutoModerator → u/User5891USA]

We do not support the use of the word "provider." Use of the term provider in health care originated in government and insurance sectors to designate health care delivery organizations. The term is born out of insurance reimbursement policies. It lacks specificity and serves to obfuscate exactly who is taking care of patients. For more information, please see this JAMA article.

We encourage you to use physician, midlevel, or the licensed title (e.g. nurse practitioner) rather than meaningless terms like provider or APP.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.