In this case, may I suggest that it seems we have a difference of opinion.

The “gold standard.” That magical phrase physicians utter with the same reverence as one might invoke the Holy Grail or a particularly solid IKEA warranty. It’s the safe space of clinical inertia—comforting, defensible, and conveniently free of pesky nuance.

From my perspective, it appears that some doctors seem to believe that medicine is best practiced like cooking from a box mix: just add water (or ADT) and voilà, you have Evidence-Based Excellence™. Ask a question? Receive a number. Challenge the dogma? Watch the eyebrows raise and the malpractice risk calculator start whirring in the background.

As for eloquence—don’t sell yourself short. If clear thinking and a willingness to critically evaluate medical orthodoxy don’t qualify as eloquence, then we may as well hand the microphone to the nearest prescription pad and call it keynote speaker.

Your surgeon prescribing two years of ADT when your RO floated a 3–5% benefit? Classic. It’s like being told to wear a raincoat in the Sahara just in case. And yet, somehow, questioning this earns you a suspicious glance, as if you’ve suggested treating cancer with moonlight and essential oils.

But I hear you. When you're in a fight, you fight. It’s just unfortunate that sometimes you're not sure if your corner is shouting strategy or just reading off a flowchart in Latin.

Still, here's to the rebels, the researchers, and those of us who politely raise our hand in the temple of "standard care" and ask, “Yes, but… why?”