The comparison I made deals with the verbiage, not the outcome.
For OP sake, without a valid explanation (or even with one for that matter), and although unfortunate, it's not misguided to state that there stats in undergrad is not enough anymore, and that they will more than likely be passed up by DO programs (even if we talk money-hungry programs, its more valid to take a student who will likely pass and keep future tuition payments than to take someone with a one-time tuition deposit and more than likely fail out).
Then again, perhaps my understanding is limited, and that indeed it is common for DO programs to take on students who failed out of MD institutions. I'd be interested to know if that is a common pathway and why some (not all) perceive DO below the MD pedestal?
OP, the real question remains (and I am curious): what exactly, and specifically, would you do differently in terms of your studies to convince a committee that you are worth the investment compared to someone else who has no cause to make a committee doubt their ability to excel? Also, does this post mean you are pushing away from pharmacy and other avenues? I'm just not sure where your career compass is (of which case, I refer you to my post on taking your time and not rushing sporadically to multiple avenues at once).