I don't practice in the US.

I would face many. Fortunately we base our prescribing guidelines on actual evidence, not what some 2-bit No Win No Fee leach lawyer thinks.

What's scary is the fact idiots like you can make dangerous - and as has been proven elsewhere in this comment chain, factually wrong - claims about medications without consequences.

Frankly I'm tempted to look into whether I can report you to your professional board because I don't think they would look kindly on a lawyer giving out medical advice online.

> The numbers are out there.

Lol.

Case study in someone having zero understanding of what they are talking about and having used that non-existent understanding to form a dangerously misinformed viewpoint they are going to shout from the rooftops.

You are a dangerous idiot.

And? No different to if they were on warfarin or any of the other DOACs.

It's not some "gotcha" that these medications cause some patients to have serious bleeds, which may kill them. They are given to people who have a very high risk of forming life threatening or disabling clots. These medications reduce that risk, but in order to do that they increase your risk of bleeding. For patients offered these drugs, the risk-benefit ratio is felt to be in favour of treatment i.e. their risk of serious clots is so high that the risk of bleeding is the lesser evil. Patients are counselled on the risks and have every right to choose not to go onto these drugs if they don't want to.

Some individual patients will suffer harm. Overall, more people will benefit.

> advertised

This being the problem.

I hate these posts. What is the purpose of it? You are just naming a couple of random anticoagulants you've heard of to make it sound like you know more than you actually do.

It's also incredibly weird how it's standard in America to call virtually all medications by brand names.