Before I get to my main point here--which is gonig to be about a BIG inaccuracy I believe I see in a very simple part of this website that appears to be being BOTCHED--let me say why, for two reasons, I feel forced to sort of generalize in my own evaluation of this doctor. Yes I have given 2 stars straight across the board--which I think I may later feel in a way is unfair, but need to do, for now. First, this doctor , so far, pretty much strikes me as--IN MY CASE --overall coming across this way, and all I can probably really rate so far is my overall feeling (call it "gut" feeling if you want). My case, which has been going on for a while, clearly has run into complications that are the very least are highly worrisome. And which, while they may over time gradually go away or, with specialist help, be overcome--if they don't, they look like they will become fairly to quite life-changing. And despite that clearly Dr Fabian, among parts of her past record as well as apparently training, has more than just a little in it that looks unquestionably brilliant--in my case at least whether I am or am not a rare exceptional case in which the results and at least some of her judgment decisions "feel through the cracks" way below her (again) apparent brilliant capabilities--at the very least, she , first , failed to believe the complications...AND apparently broke a promise about being willing , after the complications came along, to agree to changes in plan and therapy...AND probably--inn contrast to the high skills I strongly think she has "WHEN AND IF SHE'S USING THEM AND PAYING ATTENTION"--probably is in truth going to be due (unofficically, since I 'm someone who outside of cases of very big negligence, am not someone who would sue a doctor) justly speaking, to actually bear at least some substantial responsibility personally for things going wrong if they aren't at some point overcome to turn things eventually basically successful. And so, how can I praise her beyond about two stars? And yet, with me being possibly for some reason a bit of a personal exception as far as whether she was actually able to feel respectful enough to me (personally) in the first place to in fact really be able to treat me with quite the full normal best intentions--I at least suspect she inwardly took exception to something about whatever I represent to her ( maybe , really,even just my being, for reasons of partial disability and resultant using of government insurance to pay her (though I'm close , anyway and separately, to being old enough to qualify just due to age)--otherwisde I still feel that for many, she may well still do the best of medical work. LIke I say--maybe I largely just "fell through the cracks", and represent pretty much an exception. Time will tell; I could either heal before too many more months go by, or end up indefinitely pretty hampered as to more than minimal ability to still "get around"; yes, have my life changed and begin needing help in simple everyday living and functioning even in retirement now. They do say that surgeons in particular, are held on a pedistal in general and tend to end up with big big egos, which maybe make them tend to be more and more self-centered as their careers, like her long one, go along Those things, and probably eventually eventually feeling they're tending to end up doing the same procedures over and over, and hearing the same reports come up about problems and side symptoms happening--perhaps eventually make them a little bored and jaded with much of it. "Focus on yourself" the last part of your career, and relax quite a bit , except for the surgery event itself, about the patient side of things; maybe even, for unconscious wish for variety, take the occasional chance with decisions made and course of treatment chosen...which seems not likely at all what most patients want to have happen however major the doctor's genius otherwise in the past or in most cases. And I think they may still , even in these patient cases of questionable proceedings they could occasionally be tempted to do, yet have very little awareness of their varying from usual coarse, and very likely almost no lessening of good intentions...Anyway, the "other' aspects to discuss about things here on this website, also happen to drive me toward trying to make somewhat of a point in my ratings choices-- to perhaps do my little bit to correct a somewhat outrageous thing this webiste appears to be doing, which is this: it is appearing to be , routinely though only in a minority of cases (yet, more than just a little portion) be whether knowingly or unknowingly, falsely averaging up the final, one-number star rating they are summing up many of the doctors' "star" count to actually be. It goes like this, it seems: when they are getting ratings somewhat above a number of stars, they may be averaging ALL those ones "upward" to the next star count HIGHER! Even though of course, nearly half of these are by number, closer to the lower number of stars and by simple sense as well as by the strict mathmatical rule on this, should be (the lower number of stars as the final averaged rating) be the direction they should be averaging those ones less than half, DOWN to. NOT averaging ALL ones BETWEEM two exact number of stars, ALL UP to the higher star count! Basically,the ones over half way toward the next higher number, are allowed to be averaged--if you are choosing to average everything--UP to the higher even number above. But all the others between just over an even number (like, say, an even 2 stars people on average have rated them) and up to either just under halfway to the next number, are supposed to be averaged down, which in this case would be down to an even 2. It's called,m of course, "rounding off", and those are most of the rules. When it falls exactly halfway between t