You'd be surprised at the lack of statistical knowledge most doctors have.

This seems an offtopic generalisation and looks unhelpful to me in this context.

I’d like it more if it linked to a study. Or if it had more details, preferably addressing placebos too.

It seems that way, but it’s not.

https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/9078698

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28166019

There is a depressing amount of evidence that doctors don’t have a basic level of statistical literacy.

Better than my years of experience doing statistics professionally?

Good comeback, reminds me of:

"Did you win the Putnam?" Yes, I did.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079

I'm flattered to be in such company!

My experience has been that doctors are terrible statisticians

And, to their credit, they don't really have time to become good statisticians. Once upon a time I had a classmate who was an experienced anesthesiologist, but when it came to probability and stats he was as much of a scrub is anyone else in the room. Why would it be any different? He's spent his life learning and applying his field of practice, not someone else's.

That said, baaic statistical analysis and statistical intuition is a severely underappreciated skill. It's hard to see it almost totally neglected in American public schools, even ones that purport to have a strong focus on STEM.

Yes, that is very true. I'm sorry I didn't include that sentiment in my own post. But it does mean that you should press your doctors for information, do your own research, argue with your doctor if you do have a good handle on stats.

I wonder how many doctors (truly) understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Heuristics are a hell of a drug.