Megan Rogers's Online Review Report Card

I find Dr. Rogers to be a very good, inspiring, and accepting doctor. She has helped me try new tech, which has helped to greatly lower my A1C. I did drag my feet and she waited until I was ready. She has been instrumental in helping me seek help for another health issue that has long been deemed side effects of long term T1D. She was the first endo who looked me in the eyes and said....'those symptoms are not from diabetes' and that I need to go back to the neurologist or find a new one. I had to find another neurologist...and it turns out, she was correct. If it weren't for her, I would have kept accepting a different condition as part of T1D, and it would have continued to worsen without proper treatment. She knows diabetes very well, and she knows that we are human and has never judged me, as many have done before. With that and her knowledge of new treatments, medicines, and issues of the various kinds of diabetes, I am very glad to have found her.

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.

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.

Excellent experience. Staff was welcoming and efficient. Dr. Rogers is thoughtful, compassionate and possess current expertise. My first visit resolved my questions and concerns. She is extremely professional and I feel fortunate to have found her.

I have been a patient of Dr. Rogers for over a year and have found her to be knowledgeable and extremely helpful for me. I am following her from her previous practice with the Perlman clinic. I am very pleased she has been my Endocrinologist and look forward to many more years with her as my doctor.

I really think Dr Rogers is not a good professional and she contributes to diminish the reputation of the medical group. Her practices are not proper and not altruistic, neither, putting patients in a begging mode. Dr Rogers holds the health of her patients and she prioritizes money.

Horrible service! Assistant gives attitude. I didn’t even get as far as seeing a dr. Blamed my healthcare, tricare that they do not send referrals and make it hard for them to see military. Don’t waster your time. I’ve been trying get to be seen since December 2018

I'm a recently new patient of Dr. Megan Rogers. I just switched my insurance and started on Medicare so I needed to find a new doctor for my Diabetes. My first impression of Dr. Rogers is that she is conscientious, careful, and caring. She took the time to listen and understand my family history and data that I brought with me from my medical records. I was impressed by her patience and interest in my particular conditions and looking at how she can help. She immediately changed my insulin and added a new medicine that works well with insulin and has a nice side effect of decreasing appetite! It's been a long while since I've met with a doctor who showed me the level of care and immediate interest in improving my medical care and not just blindly rubber stamping prescriptions without analysis of my individual needs. I'm impressed!

I'm a recently new patient of Dr. Megan Rogers. I just switched my insurance and started on Medicare so I needed to find a new doctor for my Diabetes. My first impression of Dr. Rogers is that she is conscientious, careful, and caring. She took the time to listen and understand my family history and data that I brought with me from my medical records. I was impressed by her patience and interest in my particular conditions and looking at how she can help. She immediately changed my insulin and

I've been seeing Dr. Rogers for Type 1 Diabetes. I've had this condition for a long time and she's given me new options to try and had helped me get needed prescriptions. She has a good bedside manner and knows that T1D is very tricky to deal with.