Earning an M.D. : Too easy?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Pointing out that the following:

...have little to no support from the scientific community is just being current with modern science. Some herbal remedies, some folk remedies, and some aspects of chiropractic/osteopathy have their place in modern society, but if pointing out to you that most of those are complete and utter bull means that I'm arrogant and narrow-minded, then consider me such.

Oh wow, I'm speechless. I guess that's why you have a MD and not a PhD. You've been trained to think everything's either black or white.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Oh wow, I'm speechless. I guess that's why you have a MD and not a PhD. You've been trained to think everything's either black or white.



You learn pretty quickly in medicine that medicine is a business and the system is therefore strongly biased to oversell the utility of therapies. When the medical establishment labels a therapy as useless its pretty much always really useless. Its the therapies that are the standard if care that you need to doubt.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
so according to that website..the only real medicine is allopathic medicine and everything else are fake...

oh how can someone be so darn arrogant and close-minded!?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-S0T4xTdLY&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
 
According to Wikipedia population estimates, 95% of New York residents live in the metro area of NYC.

Your statements are contradictory and undermine your point. Yes, I do live in the Midwest, and yes, I do resent it when coastal states act as if the "flyover states" are full of ignorant hicks while the coasts are chock full of the intelligentsia who would never fall for such nonsense. Meanwhile, your state is full of people whose critical thinking leads them to believe that vaccinating against Hep B at birth isn't worth it.

I don't want to argue, because A) You're a resident (respect) and B) I read your other posts and I know that you you know your stuff, so therefore, I will reiterate that what I was saying was from personal experience, and that it isn't meant to be offensive. This is the third time I am stating this, btw.

I never meant to offend you, and I have nothing against the Midwestern states. I don't understand why you are flaming me for an innocent question/statement. Also, "New York" is not my state. I don't feel any pride in being a "New Yorker", I am an American, just like you, and I didn't want this to turn into a turf battle. Just as a reminder, point out to me in my post where the hell I was hostile or offensive, like you are being to me right now:

I live in NYC, so (not to start a flame war) I think people are not as terribly misinformed here. I have noticed that people around the coasts generally fair better in terms of being more adept at critical thinking, than in the middle states. I can't explain that though. (My hypothesis is that the coasts are immigrant heavy, so that might play a role). Btw, I don't say that to offend anyone or anything. My notions are purely benign and reflect my personal observations which admittedly, probably in the real world, count for nothing.

Seriously, I didn't mean to hit anyone's sore spot.

Also, according to Wikipedia (trusted source?)
New York City is home to more than two-fifths of the state's population.

and

New York City, with a population of over 8.1 million, is the most populous city in the United States. Alone, it makes up over 40 percent of the population of New York state.
There is a lot more to NY than just NYC, we have many great cities like Rochester, Albany, and Buffalo. Not everything is always about NYC, and many people seem to miss that. Again, not trying to be offensive.
 
The fact that they claim that they can treat the things they list on their website [see below] is reason enough to completely discredit anything they say. That site is a danger to the public and should be shut down.

Learn about conditions that can be treated successfully with a Functional Medicine approach

Acid Reflux
Acne
ADD/ADHD
Alzheimer's
Anxiety
Arthritis
Asthma
Back Pain
Breast Cancer
Candidiasis
Carpal Tunnel
Cellulitis
Cervical dysplasia
Cholesterol
Depression
Diabetes
Fibromyalgia
Heart Disease
High Blood Pressure
Insomnia
Menopause
Multiple Sclerosis
Osteoporosis
Parkinson's Disease
Prostate Health
Ulcer
Vertigo
 
Oh wow, I'm speechless. I guess that's why you have a MD and not a PhD. You've been trained to think everything's either black or white.
I'd love to see a legitimate PhD who thinks that any more than a few of those "therapies" have been shown to be more effective than placebo and have a risk/benefit ratio less than 1.
 
You narrow-minded, ignorant...starfish.
tumblr_lmhmxo4ujJ1qhfmrto1_400.jpg
 
I like this site a lot. :thumbup:
I have to say this, because being a DO in about a year, I do not want to be grouped with the lot on that site. A few things:

1) A lot of those providers are licensed outside the United States which means they do not practice conventional medicine.
2) Alternative medicine (besides what some would group OMT into) is not taught as a standard of care the in the osteopathic or allopathic curriculums.
3) Osteopathic physicians are fully licensed and trained in the United States to practice medicine.
4) Most of those providers deviated from the standard of care and engaged in unethical practices (recommending chelation therapy, recommending herbal supplements over chemo/surgery/radiation, providing cosmetic services with unverified, unchecked sources of Botox) which the overwhelming majority of osteopathic physicians do not.
 
I have to say this, because being a DO in about a year, I do not want to be grouped with the lot on that site. A few things:

1) A lot of those providers are licensed outside the United States which means they do not practice conventional medicine.
2) Alternative medicine (besides what some would group OMT into) is not taught as a standard of care the in the osteopathic or allopathic curriculums.
3) Osteopathic physicians are fully licensed and trained in the United States to practice medicine.
4) Most of those providers deviated from the standard of care and engaged in unethical practices (recommending chelation therapy, recommending herbal supplements over chemo/surgery/radiation, providing cosmetic services with unverified, unchecked sources of Botox) which the overwhelming majority of osteopathic physicians do not.
I agree with you and I don't have any serious problem with osteopathic training in this country, but the site does mention that "osteopathy" has different meanings outside the US and it seems to me that they're referring to things in line with craniosacral therapy (essentially cranial OMM/OMT, and I will admit I have a problem with its inclusion in curricula and the COMLEX) and not at all about the use of conventional, modern medicine by DO's. It doesn't appear to me that they're attempting to lump all DO's in under the "Osteopathy" category.
 
Personal case study: My father-in-law has stage 3 multiple myeloma. He is highly religious and refused chemo and opted for the natural/alternative/spiritual approaches - e.g., diet, supplements, prayer, etc. None of these helped and he continued deteriorating. As a result he has suffered severe bone loss from the cancer progressing. He finally gave in and started chemo last month. His numbers are now improving. However, the bone damage will not improve, and he may suffer from chronic severe pain for the rest of his life.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
...have little to no support from the scientific community is just being current with modern science. Some herbal remedies, some folk remedies, and some aspects of chiropractic/osteopathy have their place in modern society, but if pointing out to you that most of those are complete and utter bull means that I'm arrogant and narrow-minded, then consider me such.
My favorite -- what's the harm in denying evolution? For Rudi Boa, the harm was someone beating him to death...a direct correlation.
 
Ok hold up.
1) every figure in the OP link is 100% accurate (or .000000001% accurate for the resident homeopathaths, either way crazy legit)

2) the problem is in interpretation.

Palmer takes 3 semesters for anatomy. Does that mean they have more anatomy or does it mean they take longer to learn it? I vote for the latter. It doesnt follow that a group of people who on average had grades and scores that would put them in the "burn immediately" application pile for medschools can handle a more rigorous course load.

My med biochem course was 2 semester hours and it was an obnoxious amount of work. You can assign whatever credit value you want as a school because the accreditation does not rely on "semester hours". So palmer can call one of their classes 6sh but the actual work put in is still likely a fraction of that of a low sh med school course. I would bet that my phys course alone rivals the total effort input of at LEAST an entire year of DC schooling. This is just a personal belief based on interacitons with people in those programs and my own anecdotal experience on the max workload and brain-strain those people can handle before suffering brainstem explosions (pretty sure the brianstem works like a circuit breaker... which explains why DCs can just click them over and reset the problem :laugh:)
 
I'd love to see a legitimate PhD who thinks that any more than a few of those "therapies" have been shown to be more effective than placebo and have a risk/benefit ratio less than 1.

Just because some of the alternative medicine therapies aren't as "efficient" as allopathic medicine therapy that doesn't mean they don't work. Most synthetic medications usually do more harm than good.
 
Just because some of the alternative medicine therapies aren't as "efficient" as allopathic medicine therapy that doesn't mean they don't work. Most synthetic medications usually do more harm than good.

No this is false. Nearly every approved "synthetic" (quoted due to the varying degree of "unaltered" that natural meds are) does more good than harm. Just because harm can happen does not mean the good is diminished. And just because a "therapy" has no harmful effects does not mean it does good.
 
Lmao this has got to be a joke?

" We took the admission requirements for medical schools from the publication titled: Medical School Admission Requirements, 1997-1998: United States and Canada, 47th edition (published by The Association of American Medical Colleges). Admission requirements for accredited chiropractic schools are dictated by the Council on Chiropractic Colleges (the agency appointed by the U.S. Dept. of Education to accredit chiropractic colleges)."

Outdated and old data. I haven't looked at the prereqs for Harvard but I have looked at the prereqs for my own state school and they require 2 semesters of English, so I am going to go on a limb and assume that Harvard will also. And this person whoever wrote this, forgot to factor in a residency time?


an MD doesn't even know how to summon their patronus by the end of the second year

what a dumb degree

128839661683230129.jpg
 
Just because some of the alternative medicine therapies aren't as "efficient" as allopathic medicine therapy that doesn't mean they don't work. Most synthetic medications usually do more harm than good.


The FDA's incredibly arduous 3 stage clinical trial system is specifically designed to test whether something does more harm than good. To get FDA approval you not only need to prove hat something is safe, but that it works and that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are still mistakes made, but its a minority of medications.

Also the quackery discussed here isn't less efficient. It doesn't work at all. They have been definitively proven not to work, for anything. Some of the more ridiculous theories, like reiki, acupuncture, and healing crystals are based on a theory of life energy that implies that not only is all of modern medicine wrong, but also all of biology and physics.

As a physician you are likely the only doctoral level science student your patients will ever encounter. You will provide all the science education they will get after they finish high school. You cannot be wish washy on the difference between evidence based medicine and BS.
 
The FDA's incredibly arduous 3 stage clinical trial system is specifically designed to test whether something does more harm than good. To get FDA approval you not only need to prove hat something is safe, but that it works and that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are still mistakes made, but its a minority of medications.

Also the quackery discussed here isn't less efficient. It doesn't work at all. They have been definitively proven not to work, for anything. Some of the more ridiculous theories, like reiki, acupuncture, and healing crystals are based on a theory of life energy that implies that not only is all of modern medicine wrong, but also all of biology and physics.

As a physician you are likely the only doctoral level science student your patients will ever encounter. You will provide all the science education they will get after they finish high school. You cannot be wish washy on the difference between evidence based medicine and BS.

:thumbup:
 
Just because some of the alternative medicine therapies aren't as "efficient" as allopathic medicine therapy that doesn't mean they don't work. Most synthetic medications usually do more harm than good.
This is a completely unqualified statement to the extent of being useless.

All FDA-approved medications have a risk:benefit ratio, and neither the risks nor the benefits are the same for everyone, and it's ignorant to make blanket statements like you did. Chemotherapy and radiation would do me more harm than good, but if I had lymphoma, then the benefit portion of the equation shifts drastically.

The FDA's incredibly arduous 3 stage clinical trial system is specifically designed to test whether something does more harm than good. To get FDA approval you not only need to prove hat something is safe, but that it works and that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are still mistakes made, but its a minority of medications.

Also the quackery discussed here isn't less efficient. It doesn't work at all. They have been definitively proven not to work, for anything. Some of the more ridiculous theories, like reiki, acupuncture, and healing crystals are based on a theory of life energy that implies that not only is all of modern medicine wrong, but also all of biology and physics.

As a physician you are likely the only doctoral level science student your patients will ever encounter. You will provide all the science education they will get after they finish high school. You cannot be wish washy on the difference between evidence based medicine and BS.
Truth.
 
http://whatstheharm.net/

I saw a young guy with a wife and kids who completely stroked out after a chiropractor dissected his vertebral artery. If there's no benefit in your risk:benefit ratio, then that's a pretty horrific potential outcome.

Nice link, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I don't disagree with it at all, my only complaint is that it would be nice to balance the info there with an acknowledgement that MD's can and do harm their patients as well, both through the application of "alternative therapies" and through the application of evidence based medicine. Sometimes an incorrect diagnosis is made, sometimes an error in prescribing is made and not caught in time, and sometimes a mistake is made in surgery harming or killing the patient.

It's not that these things aren't to be expected, or even that they are wrong, but that site makes it seem like the "Quacks" are the only ones who ever harm people, and that's not an honest stance.

Still, nice link.
 
The FDA's incredibly arduous 3 stage clinical trial system is specifically designed to test whether something does more harm than good. To get FDA approval you not only need to prove hat something is safe, but that it works and that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are still mistakes made, but its a minority of medications.

Also the quackery discussed here isn't less efficient. It doesn't work at all. They have been definitively proven not to work, for anything. Some of the more ridiculous theories, like reiki, acupuncture, and healing crystals are based on a theory of life energy that implies that not only is all of modern medicine wrong, but also all of biology and physics.

As a physician you are likely the only doctoral level science student your patients will ever encounter. You will provide all the science education they will get after they finish high school. You cannot be wish washy on the difference between evidence based medicine and BS.

+1. So many people seem to completely ignore the FDA approval process when making conspiracy claims about drug companies (even heard a (now former) med student go into that tirade. )
 
so according to that website..the only real medicine is allopathic medicine and everything else are fake...

oh how can someone be so darn arrogant and close-minded!?

Well, "allopathy" is treating something by provoking a different symptom. So, no that's not real medicine either.

Now, Evidence-based medicine or just plain medicine works quite fine. Evidence-based medicine is quite literally the opposite of close-minded. We're not too picky--we use whatever works.
 
Just because some of the alternative medicine therapies aren't as "efficient" as allopathic medicine therapy that doesn't mean they don't work. Most synthetic medications usually do more harm than good.

???
Um, are you planning on going the MD/DO route?
 
Just because some of the alternative medicine therapies aren't as "efficient" as allopathic medicine therapy that doesn't mean they don't work. Most synthetic medications usually do more harm than good.

You are just going to shine like a star when you open your mouth for interviews. I'd pay for tapes.
 
I literally stopped reading after the first sentence regarding school admission...

"The educational requirements for the MD degree (doctor of medicine) are often exaggerated"

Ask all the people on this forum with stellar GPA's, EC's and multiple failed attempts at admission if the process is exaggerated.
 
The FDA's incredibly arduous 3 stage clinical trial system is specifically designed to test whether something does more harm than good. To get FDA approval you not only need to prove hat something is safe, but that it works and that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are still mistakes made, but its a minority of medications.

Also the quackery discussed here isn't less efficient. It doesn't work at all. They have been definitively proven not to work, for anything. Some of the more ridiculous theories, like reiki, acupuncture, and healing crystals are based on a theory of life energy that implies that not only is all of modern medicine wrong, but also all of biology and physics.

As a physician you are likely the only doctoral level science student your patients will ever encounter. You will provide all the science education they will get after they finish high school. You cannot be wish washy on the difference between evidence based medicine and BS.

+1 and :thumbup:

So, yeah, most of alternative is complete BS. I do, however, think it is important to distinguish between therapies that cause no direct harm and those that do. For example, there are no evil side effects to reiki. If you can afford it, and receive reiki in conjunction with allopathic therapies (i.e. have no illusions that reiki will cure your cancer), it might have a psychological or calming benefit for some patients. I know that, culturally, some patients choose to use reiki in addition to evidence-based medicine, and having that option is calming for them. And everyone one knows that a patient with less stress is a patient with a higher chance of recovery.

But no one is going to get a stroke or liver failure from reiki. You basically wave your hands gently over the patient, so there is no direct harm from the therapy. Now, chiropractors, on the other hand...those guys really bug me. Not only are the treatments based on the pseudo-science of "subluxations," which aren't even defined consistently from practioner to practioner (red flag of BS), but they also have the potential to cause irreparable harm. Strokes, for one thing, aren't uncommon, due to splitting or tearing of the arteries of the neck. My mom has gone to chiropractors for years, against my advice, and tried to force me into trying it as a child. Even then, I was a bright cookie and refused. Years later, my dad decides to go against my advice, and comes home with a slipped disk and needing surgery. So, yeah...
 
Also....

Both chiropractic and medical schools require certain course work for admission. These vary from school to school. Very few schools of either type require a bachelor's degree, although some specify that they prefer the applicant have such a degree.

and...

Chiropractic colleges do not require the MCAT. Some medical schools do.

Anyone want to tell me what medical schools I can apply to without a bachelor's degree and without an MCAT score? :laugh: So, yeah, I stopped reading after seeing how sadly misinformed the article was.
 
Also....



and...



Anyone want to tell me what medical schools I can apply to without a bachelor's degree and without an MCAT score? :laugh: So, yeah, I stopped reading after seeing how sadly misinformed the article was.

There actually is one that doesn't require an MCAT, or so I've heard. Could be untrue
 
Some guaranteed acceptance programs, where you apply early in your college career for MD but you're committed, don't require the MCAT. But that's really all I can think of..

They say that chiropractic colleges don't require the MCAT so nonchalantly, like it's not that big of deal haha.. :scared:
 
Also....



and...



Anyone want to tell me what medical schools I can apply to without a bachelor's degree and without an MCAT score? :laugh: So, yeah, I stopped reading after seeing how sadly misinformed the article was.

I know that some schools have the Early Assurance Program method of entrance (Wake Forest is one I can think of off-hand) do not require the MCAT. But I think the number of students that matriculate through this route are usually less than 5 per school and almost always less than 10. I'm guessing you have to be an EXTREMELY great applicant to get accepted through this. Most require an ACT or SAT score that is above or around the 99th percentile to even be considered. Lastly, I've seen a few schools that say something along the lines of: "99% of entering class had a Bachelor's degree." So, it's basically one or two people that don't have a Bachelor's degree. So, while it's technically correct, it is horribly misleading, which is really the theme of the whole article and what the author was really going for.
 
Lol, classic. I like how they make sure to highlight that chiropractors have to take a WHOLE SEMESTER of psych but fail to mention that Harvard requires two semesters of calculus.

Harvard doesn't require a year of calculus anymore...

http://hms.harvard.edu/content/requirements-admission

Which is great news for me! Does anyone know if any other schools require a full year of calculus instead of a full year of stats and/or calculus?
 
Well I for one went to medical school because I flunked "Communicative Skills" and couldn't apply for DC. My communication was fine, but I lacked the skillz.
 
Good to see you back in action. :cool:
fonz.jpg


If you have the time could you tell me your opinion of the FDA's efficiency after watching this economist's critique? I was primarily swayed to believe that the FDA is not as effectively run as the European counter-parts are run in some ways concerning type 1 and type 2 errors due to arduous and slow clinical trials carrying morbid consequences.

thalidomide
 
Last edited:
Top