Rand Paul's Doctor Credentials Questioned

[docB]

Based on this story it appears that Rand Paul, the son of Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, established his own board certifying entity so he could side step the rules of the American Board of Ophthalmology.

I don't have any particular feelings about Rand Paul but my specialty, EM, has had problems with bogus boards sprouting up to allow docs to claim board certified status without meeting the requirements of ABEM. The main thing they want to avoid in our case is the requirement of having done an EM residency.

In that context I'm appalled that someone would establish a "board" made up of himself and several family members and claim that it has certified him.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hithere3387]

Based on this story it appears that Rand Paul, the son of Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, established his own board certifying entity so he could side step the rules of the American Board of Ophthalmology.

I don't have any particular feelings about Rand Paul but my specialty, EM, has had problems with bogus boards sprouting up to allow docs to claim board certified status without meeting the requirements of ABEM. The main thing they want to avoid in our case is the requirement of having done an EM residency.

In that context I'm appalled that someone would establish a "board" made up of himself and several family members and claim that it has certified him.

I absolutely agree with you. However, this case is more confusing as it appears that nothing that he's currently involved in requires continued board certification. The hospitals that he has privileges at both require one-time board certification (which he has from The American Board of Ophthalmology), but not continued maintenance of said certification (the purpose for which he created The National Board of Ophthalmology). I don't understand the motivation. A week ago, he claimed to be certified by both boards, then a few days later he released a statement saying he misspoke and that he had only maintained certification through his own board.

I just don't understand why he would claim certification maintenance at all as it appears that his board is a sham. For example, various documentation list him as having inconsistent positions within his organization. His wife is listed as the vice president, but she claims that she has nothing to do with the organization. A preliminary search only discovered 7 other physicians (in addition to Dr. Paul) who are certified by his board, and all 7 are also currently certified by The American Board of Ophthalmology. The National Board doesn't maintain a website, and it's address is a UPS store. Further, he allowed the organization to lapse in its "certification-duties" for several years, only to restart the organization when his own certification with The American Board of Ophthalmology needed to be renewed in 2005.

I begin medical school this summer, and as such, my career hasn't yet begun. I don't believe I fully understand this situation, and I would really appreciate it if someone here were to explain to me Dr. Paul's motivation for creating this "board" when it doesn't appear that he needs to maintain his certification to continue to work as an ophthalmologist.

 

[orangele]

I read the story that is linked to your post. I find NOTHING wrong or unethical in what Paul did. In fact I admire Paul for his stated reason. I quote from the article,

Paul said he helped formed the rival group because the established organization exempted older ophthalmologists from recertification. He likened it to members of Congress passing laws that don't apply to themselves.

Paul was certified by the American Board of ophthalmology intitially so it is not as if he was not smart enough or qualified to do this. He was protesting the fact that older ophthalmologists are grandfathered in from recertification. If anything, this story reinforces his claim that he is a principled outsider.

 

[hithere3387]

I read the story that is linked to your post. I find NOTHING wrong or unethical in what Paul did. In fact I admire Paul for his stated reason. I quote from the article,

Paul said he helped formed the rival group because the established organization exempted older ophthalmologists from recertification. He likened it to members of Congress passing laws that don't apply to themselves.

Paul was certified by the American Board of ophthalmology intitially so it is not as if he was not smart enough or qualified to do this. He was protesting the fact that older ophthalmologists are grandfathered in from recertification. If anything, this story reinforces his claim that he is a principled outsider.

I'm sorry, I think I'm still misunderstanding something. I realize that he claims to have created this group in protest of age discrimination, but I don't understand how it is meant to protest it.

 

[cpants]

It has nothing to do with age discrimination. He disagrees with the policy of the optho board which allows older physicians to be exempt from recertifying. I think it's a valid point. If a board has certain requirements for certification, why should certain members be exempt from those requirements. How is he any less qualified to practice than an ophthalmologist who was board certified 40 years ago and has never recerted?

 

[hithere3387]

It has nothing to do with age discrimination. He disagrees with the policy of the optho board which allows older physicians to be exempt from recertifying. I think it's a valid point. If a board has certain requirements for certification, why should certain members be exempt from those requirements. How is he any less qualified to practice than an ophthalmologist who was board certified 40 years ago and has never recerted?

I'm sorry, clearly I've misspoken. I don't disagree that it's a valid argument. I just don't see the connection between creating one's own board for certification and disagreeing with The American Board of Ophthalmology about how many years in practice justifies not having to be re-certified.

 

[cpants]

I'm sorry, clearly I've misspoken. I don't disagree that it's a valid argument. I just don't see the connection between creating one's own board for certification and disagreeing with The American Board of Ophthalmology about how many years in practice justifies not having to be re-certified.

Interesting question. I think it probably has something to do with local law. Maybe to practice as a specialist in his state you must be "board certified"?

 

[hithere3387]

Interesting question. I think it probably has something to do with local law. Maybe to practice as a specialist in his state you must be "board certified"?

Perhaps, but I know a physician (ophthalmologist, in fact) who lives in Kentucky who practiced without board certification for a short period of time. He didn't seem to think it was an issue.

 

[cpants]

Perhaps, but I know a physician (ophthalmologist, in fact) who lives in Kentucky who practiced without board certification for a short period of time. He didn't seem to think it was an issue.

Probably depends on the state. Legally, I think physicians with medical licenses can do pretty much anything that MD's can do.

 

[hithere3387]

Probably depends on the state. Legally, I think physicians with medical licenses can do pretty much anything that MD's can do.

I think the same.

 

[MOHS_01]

Based on this story it appears that Rand Paul, the son of Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, established his own board certifying entity so he could side step the rules of the American Board of Ophthalmology.

I don't have any particular feelings about Rand Paul but my specialty, EM, has had problems with bogus boards sprouting up to allow docs to claim board certified status without meeting the requirements of ABEM. The main thing they want to avoid in our case is the requirement of having done an EM residency.

In that context I'm appalled that someone would establish a "board" made up of himself and several family members and claim that it has certified him.

Then you have little understanding of the issue at hand I'm afraid. Board certification status can denote a level of competence, but absence of board certification status in no way can denote an absence of similar skill or knowledge. The board he formed was in response to a number of abuses by organized medicine, including the BS nature of "grandfathering". It is compounded BS when one entity is granted monopolistic right over credentialing -- and constitutes both cause and effect of the very system that landed us in the ****hole of a mess we find ourselves in today.

 

[doctorFred]

in that case, i have decided to announce the formation of the North American Board of Emergency Physicians Who Happen to be Me. the first official act of the NABEPWHM is to recognize myself as a lifetime board certified emergency physician, despite not having completed a medical residency of any kind.

this is, of course, a political issue, and not at all motivated by auto-cronyism.

 

[Slack3r]

in that case, i have decided to announce the formation of the North American Board of Emergency Physicians Who Happen to be Me. the first official act of the NABEPWHM is to recognize myself as a lifetime board certified emergency physician, despite not having completed a medical residency of any kind.

this is, of course, a political issue, and not at all motivated by auto-cronyism.

He was certified by the ABO...it's not like he's some yahoo off the street who one day decided he was a BC physician.

 

[MOHS_01]

in that case, i have decided to announce the formation of the North American Board of Emergency Physicians Who Happen to be Me. the first official act of the NABEPWHM is to recognize myself as a lifetime board certified emergency physician, despite not having completed a medical residency of any kind.

this is, of course, a political issue, and not at all motivated by auto-cronyism.

...and if you do an adequate job, engender trust, and develop name recognition you will be serving your new board will serve its purpose admirably.

 

[docB]

I dunno. Sounds to me like he just didn't want to have to recert periodically so he created a new board to avoid it. In EM we have a lot of docs who don't want to do a residency but still want parity with those of us who did so they created a bogus board in Florida to allow them to claim they are boarded.

We can debate the whole issue of board certification and even the Libertarian attitude that boards and licensing amount to protective guilds and are inherently anti-consumer, but that's really a different issue.

In many states there are laws about who can claim to be boarded. Again such laws are anathma to Libertarians but so are fire departments. In any case few people would consider a board made up of one's family as legitimate.

 

[GoLytely]

This is in line with his political philosophy and only serves to make me like him more. He has an MD and has completed a residency, and requiring anything more of him is patriarchal and insulting.

I only hope he's in a position to fight it when the feds decide that we're required to accept medicaid if we want to be licensed.

 

[docB]

This is in line with his political philosophy and only serves to make me like him more. He has an MD and has completed a residency, and requiring anything more of him is patriarchal and insulting.

I only hope he's in a position to fight it when the feds decide that we're required to accept medicaid if we want to be licensed.

I disagree. This seems like a dodge. If he really felt that the whole idea of board certification was at issue then he could have just gone without rather than establishing his own board. In fact, as president of his board, he's the partiarch now.

 

[doctorFred]

Again such laws are anathma to Libertarians but so are fire departments.

http://angrytownhall.com/

 

[NotAProgDirector]

It's amazing how much spin you can put on this if you want.

The ABO decided, like every other board in the ABMS, to require recertification. They allowed physicians prior to 1992 to be grandfathered -- either because 1) their certificates which they were given specifically stated they were lifetime (which means the board can' really take them away or require recertification; or 2) because the board is run by cronies who didn't want to recertify, so simply forced the young new docs to do so.

Even if you believe the second, more evil, suggestion -- refusing to recertify via the ABO and creating your own board in protest simply doesn't make sense given the facts:

1. The new board he created doesn't seem to have any rules / regulations. We have no idea what being board certified means. Maybe you just pay a fee? Maybe you just ask? Perhaps his new board has higher standards. Perhaps it has no standards.

2. If he really believed that his board was better for forcing recerts for everyone, then he should have been trying to advocate for it. He could have pressured the ABO (and perhaps the rest of the ABMS boards) to force everyone to recertify. But instead, his board seems to have remained quiet/silent and kept a low profile.

 

[morning]

I read the story that is linked to your post. I find NOTHING wrong or unethical in what Paul did. In fact I admire Paul for his stated reason. I quote from the article,

Paul said he helped formed the rival group because the established organization exempted older ophthalmologists from recertification. He likened it to members of Congress passing laws that don't apply to themselves.

Paul was certified by the American Board of ophthalmology intitially so it is not as if he was not smart enough or qualified to do this. He was protesting the fact that older ophthalmologists are grandfathered in from recertification. If anything, this story reinforces his claim that he is a principled outsider.

That's who I want performing eye surgery on me. A "principled outsider" who has the means to get around any rules he doesn't feel like following. Hell, why settle for Rand Paul? I'll just find an NP to do it, since we're saying board certification doesn't matter and people can just create their own boards out of thin air.

And don't say he was board certified in the past so he obviously must be good to go now. You don't know WHAT his current skills are, especially since he's now campaigning and going to news shows around the country. Without any reasonable measuring stick, no one does know his current capacity for opthalmology.

 

[MOHS_01]

....

Which side of most arguments any given individual will fall is fairly predictable if you know just a few things about them. Leaving that for a moment....

I was in residency during the time that the ABD was wrestling with the ABMS on the issue of maintenance of certification. The good guys lost that one too, but at least there was some appearance of a fight. The pressure from the ABMS was simply too great... and so we now have some additional BS regulatory (all at a fee payable directly to a sanctioned monopoly board, of course) requirements that do very little to ensure quality or safety beyond that which is guaranteed from fear of the financial repercussions of incompetence.

 

[MOHS_01]

...You don't know WHAT his current skills are, especially since he's now campaigning and going to news shows around the country. Without any reasonable measuring stick, no one does know his current capacity for opthalmology.

...and you would know no more of his "skill" with the touted board stamp of approval. Book knowledge, possibly -- but anyone familiar with the practice of medicine outside of the microcosm of academia understands that the subject matter tested in these board exams is often significantly different from that which one encounters in community practice.... not to mention the fact that these exams have no way of gauging ones technical skills or competence. Stick to what you know.

 

[Regnvejr]

He was certified by the ABO...it's not like he's some yahoo off the street who one day decided he was a BC physician.

Well, the yahoo skills do run in the family. After all, his father is a young-earth creationist, which necessitates rejecting almost all science.

 

[thedrjojo]

...and you would know no more of his "skill" with the touted board stamp of approval. Book knowledge, possibly -- but anyone familiar with the practice of medicine outside of the microcosm of academia understands that the subject matter tested in these board exams is often significantly different from that which one encounters in community practice.... not to mention the fact that these exams have no way of gauging ones technical skills or competence. Stick to what you know.

While I agree with you here, and agree with your previous statements about Dr. Rand Paul and his reason for creating his own board if the actions met the rhetoric. If it indeed only have 7 physician members, if the board is made up family members, and really has no posted or established tenets, then it looks very suspicious and lame, and he should be having to answer questions for it. And if it was a legitimate attempt on his part, then that calls into question how good of a leader/advocate he will actually be in the senate if he can only get 7 physicians to join his board and support his efforts and seems to give up on them... so what is it, is he an incompetent organizer or was he trying to avoid keeping his certification by creating his own board? Then again, GWB failed miserably at every one of his previous ventures, and we saw how great of a president he made...

 

[cpants]

While I agree with you here, and agree with your previous statements about Dr. Rand Paul and his reason for creating his own board if the actions met the rhetoric. If it indeed only have 7 physician members, if the board is made up family members, and really has no posted or established tenets, then it looks very suspicious and lame, and he should be having to answer questions for it. And if it was a legitimate attempt on his part, then that calls into question how good of a leader/advocate he will actually be in the senate if he can only get 7 physicians to join his board and support his efforts and seems to give up on them... so what is it, is he an incompetent organizer or was he trying to avoid keeping his certification by creating his own board? Then again, GWB failed miserably at every one of his previous ventures, and we saw how great of a president he made...

Well, his board probably has little to do with being a legitimate specialty board, and more to do with complying in some way with his state's laws regarding medical practice and advertising standards. I suspect that Dr. Paul believes, as many libertarians do, that medical licensing and specialty boards are restrictive organizations designed to limit free market economics and keep compensation high for members. This sham board is kind of a way of not participating in that system.

 

[morning]

...and you would know no more of his "skill" with the touted board stamp of approval. Book knowledge, possibly -- but anyone familiar with the practice of medicine outside of the microcosm of academia understands that the subject matter tested in these board exams is often significantly different from that which one encounters in community practice.... not to mention the fact that these exams have no way of gauging ones technical skills or competence. Stick to what you know.

So where do you stop?

You're allowed to start your own board and style yourself as a physician who is currently board certified after you've passed recertification twice? Three times? Just once? Never? At what point is a physician competent enough to certify himself forevermore?

 

[Regnvejr]

So where do you stop?

You're allowed to start your own board and style yourself as a physician who is currently board certified after you've passed recertification twice? Three times? Just once? Never? At what point is a physician competent enough to certify himself forevermore?

Right-wingers always want to use the law to control OTHERS. It never really applies to themselves, because they are special and can be trusted, after all.

Rand is a cheap-ass con artist why want to practice medicine, but not do the work.

 

[thedrjojo]

Well, his board probably has little to do with being a legitimate specialty board, and more to do with complying in some way with his state's laws regarding medical practice and advertising standards. I suspect that Dr. Paul believes, as many libertarians do, that medical licensing and specialty boards are restrictive organizations designed to limit free market economics and keep compensation high for members. This sham board is kind of a way of not participating in that system.

I am still perplexed. I mean, I understand the libertarian viewpoint is that anyone should be able to do anything that another person will let them do, and that if someone is unqualified or not good at what they are claiming to do, no one will go to him and thus there needs be no reason to have government / regulatory oversight (a simplified version, but do I get the gist?). [Sidebar: So any libertarian out there upset with the Noctor thing should stop being a hypocrit... ]... BUT, because we are dealing with other individuals who are not qualified nor able to educate themselves enough to make that type of informed decision, the boards make the decision of who is fit to provide care (which granted, only having 1 board per specialty does create a monopoly on the credentials marketplace, but it also sets a universal standard). I also understand the boards are a very poor measure of fitness to provide care, as MOH pointed out, they test minutia that does not represent common everyday practice and they are written tests which test knowledge only and not patient skills... we could advocate for the recertification to be Oral boards and/or Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (like Step 2 CS) which are more skills based but again are not all that realistic, and most physicians would oppose that (mainly because they have god like complexes, but I'd like to see them taken down a few pegs). Even with all of this, the fact that he felt entitled enough to create his own board for the purpose of saying he is good enough to practice strikes me as a bit of arrogance, overconfidence, showing he has something to hide/had a reason that the ABO wouldn't certify him, moreso than it shows sticking it to the man, breaking the monopoly the boards has, or advocating for physicians (because, like I stated, if he really wanted to stick it to the man, break the monopoly or establish competition, he would have made an attempt to recruit more individuals to his board, establish guidelines (even if there were to be no guidelines except "completed a Optho residency" would have stated that), hold meetings, appoint people to the board that weren't his family/knew they were administrators... and again, he either was a shady, arrogent, overconfident physician with something to hide (not someone I want to be a senator) or was a disorganized, ineffective leader, and unable to follow through with his beliefs (also, not someone I want to be a senator)...

 

[MOHS_01]

.

 

[MOHS_01]

.... Even with all of this, the fact that he felt entitled enough to create his own board for the purpose of saying he is good enough to practice strikes me as a bit of arrogance, overconfidence, showing he has something to hide/had a reason that the ABO wouldn't certify him, moreso than it shows sticking it to the man, breaking the monopoly the boards has, or advocating for physicians (because, like I stated, if he really wanted to stick it to the man, break the monopoly or establish competition, he would have made an attempt to recruit more individuals to his board, establish guidelines (even if there were to be no guidelines except "completed a Optho residency" would have stated that), hold meetings, appoint people to the board that weren't his family/knew they were administrators... and again, he either was a shady, arrogent, overconfident physician with something to hide (not someone I want to be a senator) or was a disorganized, ineffective leader, and unable to follow through with his beliefs (also, not someone I want to be a senator)...

You are assigning WAY too much nefarious intentions to Rand; I know him both professionally and personally, and I can assure you that his objections to the ABO are philosophical and in no way represents any lack of competence. He is the ophtho that most of the docs I knew went to -- and this was well before any political aspirations. He's a good guy who knows his ****; unfortunately he is being dragged through the mud by partisan hacks who know nothing of the man and likely could not find their ass with both hands.....

 

[ronaldo23]

I dunno. Sounds to me like he just didn't want to have to recert periodically so he created a new board to avoid it. In EM we have a lot of docs who don't want to do a residency but still want parity with those of us who did so they created a bogus board in Florida to allow them to claim they are boarded.

We can debate the whole issue of board certification and even the Libertarian attitude that boards and licensing amount to protective guilds and are inherently anti-consumer, but that's really a different issue.

In many states there are laws about who can claim to be boarded. Again such laws are anathma to Libertarians but so are fire departments. In any case few people would consider a board made up of one's family as legitimate.

he was furious that older docs told everyone that they will be grandfathered in, while at the same time forcing the younger ones to recertify every 10 years...to him that is very hypocritical and he lead a nationwide protest in the 90s against it. If you go on the opthamology board, this question is asked, and all the opthmalogists that responded agreed at least in principle with rand paul's decision.

 

[morning]

There is no arbitrary cutoff -- and that was the point of creating this "board" to begin with. The issue was taken with the creation of a privileged class via the grandfathering clause.

A couple of things:

1. Board certification status does not weed out bad doctors effectively. There are docs who abuse the system for financial gain. There are docs who really don't know *******s from elbows. Both are more likely to be board certified than not.
2. Lack of board certification does not render one incompetent or a quack. I imagine that you would be surprised at the number of well established and respected physicians who are no longer "board certified".

If the system cannot positively predict quality -- good or bad -- what good is it? If some "certified" by the system do not have to comply with rules of the system, what good is it? Here's a question for those who are still having trouble understanding the f'ed up nature of our current system -- what is the likely quality or predictive value of a pass/fail test designed for >95% of test takers to pass? Given that there is only one logical answer to that question, what is the value of board certification status? It is akin to being named in the "Who's Who" book of idiots with more $ than sense... something that sounds good, or provides for something that looks good on the wall -- with no great significance.... other than, of course, demonstrating that you paid good money to join "an exclusive club who welcomes all". *


* all who are willing to pay the cover charge, that is.

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that I don't agree this is the best way to make his point. You're creating a false choice where Paul and other physicians either have to accept the flawed system as it is OR do something like create their own board to certify themselves. There are other options, one of which seems much more preferable...figure out how to make a predictive board exam or create another method to examine a physician's skills. Moving to a world of NO standards whatsoever is a drastic overreaction.

 

[thedrjojo]

he was furious that older docs told everyone that they will be grandfathered in, while at the same time forcing the younger ones to recertify every 10 years...to him that is very hypocritical and he lead a nationwide protest in the 90s against it. If you go on the opthamology board, this question is asked, and all the opthmalogists that responded agreed at least in principle with rand paul's decision.

then it seems he failed his protest and failed in follow-up, because he has gotten no one to join his board and seems to have given up interest in keeping it going, besides having shady dealings with it (who is on the board, what it takes to be certified by the board, etc).

You are assigning WAY too much nefarious intentions to Rand; I know him both professionally and personally, and I can assure you that his objections to the ABO are philosophical and in no way represents any lack of competence. He is the ophtho that most of the docs I knew went to -- and this was well before any political aspirations. He's a good guy who knows his ****; unfortunately he is being dragged through the mud by partisan hacks who know nothing of the man and likely could not find their ass with both hands.....

Well, I did give 2 options for what occured... if it is like you purport, which I have no reason to doubt you, then he failed in his mission to challege the ABO and prevent their monopoly on certification, and seems to have given up any effort to continue to challenge it. I can respect his objection, but he seems to have given up trying to make any sort of change, and the whole undertaking does, from an outsiders perspective, look very shady and nefarious, and he should at least have to be able to answer for it, and if I hold it against him in my view of him politically, he only brought it upon himself.

 

[Regnvejr]

You are assigning WAY too much nefarious intentions to Rand; I know him both professionally and personally, and I can assure you that his objections to the ABO are philosophical and in no way represents any lack of competence.

Somehow, that's not reassuring. A right-wing hack backing up another right-wing hack as anti-Government rather than incompetent with things to hide. You can blabber all you want, rand looks like a guy with something to hide.

As runs in the family of right-wing, anti-science loons.

 

[cpants]

Kentucky has no such requirement for licensure and established well respected physicians have no need to advertise. Specialty boards do precious little to "keep compensation high for members"; the matter is largely beyond their direct control. This "sham" board has nothing to do with compensation, advertising, or anything else thrown at it on this forum or any number of similar outlets over the last few weeks; it is solely in response to a belief that that ABO acted unjustly in creating a privileged class on the basis of tenure and an understanding that a monopolistic structure to assign competence is one wrought with moral hazard.

Well, it is and it isn't beyond their control. Sure they can't directly cap the number of MD's in their field, but most specialty or subspecialty boards require candidates to complete a board-approved residency or fellowship in the specialty, correct? A hospital can't just open up a derm residency and start pumping out dermatologists.

I wasn't aware that you knew Dr. Paul. Do you have any insight into why he started this board? If it wasn't for state requirements or advertising laws (which it may have been--putting your specialty on the sign outside your practice counts as advertising), then why was it? If he was unhappy with the optho board, why would he start this sham board instead of just walking away and forgetting about them?

 

[MOHS_01]

The board of respective specialties do not determine the number of specialty training positions for their specialty; as such they do not control or determine the number of trainees. For what it's worth, the number of dermatology residency positions has exploded from what it was in 2001 through today, with a significant increase in just the past few years. From a percentage and effect on equilibrium standpoint, the increase has been both massive and frankly irresponsible as each dollar taken for a new derm spot is a GME dollar diverted from another specialty.

http://residency.wustl.edu/medadmin/resweb.nsf/L/91E21203CA2CF2F386256F8F00721E39?OpenDocument

I cannot speak for Rand as to why he would have created the board as we have never discussed it. I can only take him at his word -- the motivation behind which I wholly understand and agree with. He most likely wanted to create an alternative to the monopolistic board, believing that competition for credentialing status is a good thing. If he failed in any way, it is in not pursuing the board to its end and possibly dropping the idea when it became expensive/difficult/untenable for whatever reason. I can assure you that it was not because he could not pass the recert exam. It was probably more of an anti-establishment statement than anything else -- again, something that I empathize with and can respect.

 

[MOHS_01]

Somehow, that's not reassuring. A right-wing hack backing up another right-wing hack as anti-Government rather than incompetent with things to hide. You can blabber all you want, rand looks like a guy with something to hide.

As runs in the family of right-wing, anti-science loons.

Barbara F'ing Boxer is a right wing hack to you... come on now, ol' buddy -- does anyone take you seriously any more? You degrade any remnant of credibility with nonsense posts like this....

 

[Regnvejr]

Barbara F'ing Boxer is a right wing hack to you... come on now, ol' buddy -- does anyone take you seriously any more? You degrade any remnant of credibility with nonsense posts like this....

Yadda, yadda. Rand has something to hide, and covers it behind blustering politics, and you're his errand boy for bad excuses.

 

[ronaldo23]

then it seems he failed his protest and failed in follow-up, because he has gotten no one to join his board and seems to have given up interest in keeping it going, besides having shady dealings with it (who is on the board, what it takes to be certified by the board, etc).


Well, I did give 2 options for what occured... if it is like you purport, which I have no reason to doubt you, then he failed in his mission to challege the ABO and prevent their monopoly on certification, and seems to have given up any effort to continue to challenge it. I can respect his objection, but he seems to have given up trying to make any sort of change, and the whole undertaking does, from an outsiders perspective, look very shady and nefarious, and he should at least have to be able to answer for it, and if I hold it against him in my view of him politically, he only brought it upon himself.

Except over 200 eye surgeons have been certified through his board...

 

[thedrjojo]

Except over 200 eye surgeons have been certified through his board...

I was using hithere3387's number of 7 people to fully blast it... 200 is slightly better, although this past years match had 478 matches, and while I couldn't find it, one would venture to guess probably atleast 5000 Opthamologists are practicing today (if they are graduating ~500 a year nowadays, and probably have for atleast the past 10 years, and most of them are still probably practicing, there are at least 5000 opthos just there) then 200 is hardly a challenge to the establishment, and it still doesn't mean he hasn't given up on it and failed in his effort, but still claims to be certified by it.

 

[hithere3387]

I was using hithere3387's number of 7 people to fully blast it... 200 is slightly better, although this past years match had 478 matches, and while I couldn't find it, one would venture to guess probably atleast 5000 Opthamologists are practicing today (if they are graduating ~500 a year nowadays, and probably have for atleast the past 10 years, and most of them are still probably practicing, there are at least 5000 opthos just there) then 200 is hardly a challenge to the establishment, and it still doesn't mean he hasn't given up on it and failed in his effort, but still claims to be certified by it.

Currently, the ABO certifies 16,000 practicing ophthalmologists. The number 7 came from the Courier Journal (the news paper that broke the story). The article stated that an initial internet search was only able to confirm 7 ophthalmologists other than Dr. Paul who are certified by his group. All 7 are certified by the ABO in addition to the NBO.

 

[cpants]

Currently, the ABO certifies 16,000 practicing ophthalmologists. The number 7 came from the Courier Journal (the news paper that broke the story). The article stated that an initial internet search was only able to confirm 7 ophthalmologists other than Dr. Paul who are certified by his group. All 7 are certified by the ABO in addition to the NBO.

Wow. Misleading journalism at it's best. Instead of doing our homework, we do an "initial" google and imply that only a small handful are registered by this group.

 

[hithere3387]

Wow. Misleading journalism at it's best. Instead of doing our homework, we do an "initial" google and imply that only a small handful are registered by this group.

Perhaps. However, the article stated very clearly that the figure came from an internet search, and that they hadn't yet found any other reliable avenue by which to determine who else was certified by the NBO. Considering that within 3 hours of the article being printed, every national media outlet was giving it major national coverage, I am having a hard time blaming the journalist for releasing the article when he/she did.

 

[thedrjojo]

Except over 200 eye surgeons have been certified through his board...

Can you site a source for the 200...

And if it is 16000 vs 200, Dr Paul, epic fail on your part

 

[MOHS_01]

Can you site a source for the 200...

And if it is 16000 vs 200, Dr Paul, epic fail on your part

OK, so if the logic you apply here were to hold, it would only follow that McDonalds is so much better than Arnaud's, Tru, or The French Laundry.... because, surely, billions served has to be better than.....

 

[thedrjojo]

OK, so if the logic you apply here were to hold, it would only follow that McDonalds is so much better than Arnaud's, Tru, or The French Laundry.... because, surely, billions served has to be better than.....

No, not necessarily. If Arnaud's, Tru, French Laundry etc set out to challenge McDonalds monopoly of fast food burgers (which doesn't exist because there is Wendy's, Burger King, etc) then yes, they would be a failing in their stated goal. But, since those places are trying to fill a different niche in the food industry, are not even attempting to challenge McDonalds, and are very successful as they get plenty of patronage...

You need to look at the scale as well... yeah, billions served in McDonalds over the 60-70 years in existance = only a fraction of all meals served.

Dr. Paul, on the other hand, has failed to challenge the board, a board which has 98% of all licensed Opthos vs the less than 2% licensed by Dr. Paul's board which was established as a direct challenge to the ABO and the policies he opposed.

Usually you think about your posts and cause me difficulty in responding, but you seem to be pulling at straws here for your "buddy" Rand.

 

[MOHS_01]

Huh... it seemed to me that you implied sheer numbers determines validity... it's the very same as the Sam Adams beer argument -- they produce less than 1% of the beer consumed in the US, yet no one considers them to be a hack brewery due to their market share.

 

[thedrjojo]

Huh... it seemed to me that you implied sheer numbers determines validity... it's the very same as the Sam Adams beer argument -- they produce less than 1% of the beer consumed in the US, yet no one considers them to be a hack brewery due to their market share.

Sam Adams even produces a comercial claiming they don't want any larger market share than they have... they have a niche in the market they want to fill and are doing so greatly... and the highest market share of any one beer is probably less than 50%, likely even less, because of the large array of types out there... Budwiser probably corners the market, and so Coors, Miller are failing in a sense because they are trying to challenge for that same market... Just like the Coke and Pepsi battle.

The NBO had pretty much 1 stated goal... to challenge the ABO's monopoly on the credentials market for Opthos and the hypocritical policies in place... and the NBO has done neither of them. Thier is a split of 98.5 vs 1.5%, and those are the only 2 games in the town. How is Rand providing any sort of competition to them to challenge their legitimacy? How is the ABO even knowledgable of Rand Paul's splinter organization if not for media coverage? This is like the XFL vs the NFL battle here, and no one claims the XFL wasn't an epic fail.

 

[MOHS_01]

OK then, let's tease this out just a tad bit more -- what defines a monopoly? At what point should a monopoly be considered "broken"? Is there some magic number that would give this organization some validity in your mind? Do you believe this magic number is reproducible and universally agreed upon by your peers? Do you believe market share is created or destroyed instantaneously?

As I have said before -- I knew nothing of this board prior to hearing about it on the news. I have never heard Rand speak of it prior to this latest ****-storm, so I'm not really convinced how active the board was as of late, how much it spent on getting its name out, etc. It would be interesting to see if any of the ophtho residents have received literature on it, whether there has been any articles on the matter in either peer-reviewed or the "throw-away" literature, etc. I honestly do not know these things, but I do know enough to not discount the organization, its motives, or the intent of the members involved.

 

[thedrjojo]

i agree there is no defined number to be matched, and not everyone would agree with any definition I would throw out, but sometimes you have to do the whole, "i know whats a ____ when I see one" and in my book, it seems this group has been an epic failure, and either he didn't put much effort into it, leading people to question why it was even formed, or he failed in his effort, which probably has more to do with the clout of the ABO and less to do with poor management skills, but if he's all but thrown in the towel with it, then its not really legit to claim to still be BC'd... and your examples have all been lackluster... my NFL vs XFL analogy I think still stands as the best comparison...

i've grown tired of this argument, see no point in it, its not like I have a chance to vote for or against the man, and not that this was ever going to change that one way or another. The whole situation smelt sketchy, still does, and throws some questions, but is more or less a diversion by the media.