> But the doctor likely makes the same money for less effort that contributes to the patient dying, because it's hard to prove the link.

This makes no sense with how endocrinology works. And OP did not give any evidence of malpractice, so we have no reason to believe that less effort or patient risk regarding the practice of medicine was involved.

Are you unable to engage with the full context of the situation? You repeatedly refer to the OP in your comments but there is a much larger context.

Simple logic, see if you can follow:

1. Sophie publishes flawed research (nitroglycerin for osteoporosis)

2. Sophie practices medicine and gives patients nitroglycerin for osteoporosis, with knowledge that her study is a lie. This causes harm to patients, because she knowingly gives them a therapy that doesn’t work. This is malpractice.

> Are you unable to engage with the full context of the situation?

Absolutely. I am also able to

- Not make attacks at the person making arguments.

- Not assume that the OP's mother received nitroglycerin

> Simple logic, see if you can follow:

You are assuming facts not in evidence, buddy.

> This is malpractice.

This is the absolute definition of a straw man.