LADoc00

Gen X, the last great generation
15+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2004
6,996
986
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
nice link!!! awesome just awesome:
fail-owned-shiny-cat-in-sauce-packaging-fail.jpg
 
About the Ads

SeenTheLight

Junior Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 12, 2004
77
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Wow! I enjoyed reading the fail blog as well as the thread. But with respect to the thread you quote yaah, I am flabbergasted that this is what premed education has been reduced to.

Where I went to college, there was a distinction between A and A+ but to do something unethical like that to try to bump one's grade from A to A+ is unbelievable.
 

Gut Shot

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Sep 7, 2003
6,526
107
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
This page is overloaded with fail (be sure to check out all the related topics at the bottom).
 
About the Ads

docbiohazard

Highly ranked amateur
10+ Year Member
Mar 22, 2007
609
0
Biocontainment
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Ahh glad Gutshot posted that link... I scanned a bit of that thread about the pre-med cheater. I'd like to dedicate this to him/her:

fail_at_failing.jpg



We must all remember, there is a great continuum between Epic Fail and Epic Win. We must always strive for Win, and avoid Fail.

DBH
 

LADoc00

Gen X, the last great generation
15+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2004
6,996
986
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
BEST THREAD EVER ON SDN?

failbeaver.jpg
 
About the Ads

schrute

RoyalCrownChinpokoMaster
10+ Year Member
Feb 12, 2007
413
16
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I highly recommend the "Highest Rated Fails" on the right side. #1 is killer.
Oh my god I was crying I was laughing so hard. I love the guy's determination to just irritate the crap out of someone.
 

LADoc00

Gen X, the last great generation
15+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2004
6,996
986
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
okay okay, must catch my breath, I got coffee on my shirt with this one:
roflbot-gifx.jpg
 

djmd

an Antediluvian
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Oct 3, 2001
1,515
1
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
okay okay, must catch my breath, I got coffee on my shirt with this one:
roflbot-gifx.jpg

Well they do refer to swaddled babies as baby burritos...
:rolleyes:

That must have been some giant burrito!



The picture before is sad... all that wasted Grolsch...
 

SeenTheLight

Junior Member
15+ Year Member
Dec 12, 2004
77
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The picture before is sad... all that wasted Grolsch...

I was bawling in tears after seeing that picture.

But then the surgical FAIL and chemotherapy FAIL made that stop.

yaah, you have a lot of time on your hands today. Go start that private practice job now! :laugh:
 
Last edited:

LADoc00

Gen X, the last great generation
15+ Year Member
Sep 9, 2004
6,996
986
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
AP enterprise: Activists complain that tobacco settlement money is being squandered

the billions that began flowing from cigarette makers to the states a decade ago also helped outfit the niagara county, n.y., golf course with new carts and sprinklers. And the money has gone toward college scholarships in michigan, tax breaks in illinois and ohio, a dog catcher in lincoln, neb., and jails and schools elsewhere around the country.

Of the $61.5 billion divided among 46 states between 2000 and 2006, only 30 percent was spent on health care, according to federal government accountability office data analyzed by the associated press. Less than 4 percent went to anti-smoking efforts.

Government fail!
 
About the Ads

yaah

Boring
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Aug 15, 2003
28,059
430
Fixing in 10% neutral buffered formalin
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Spectacular, and very public, pathology fail, please read these in the order they’re listed…

I am always surprised when journals actually print stuff like this, but it is interesting. I remember one that I randomly encountered a couple of years ago, it reference a Human Path article, here

To the Editor:

I was disappointed to read the study by Naeem et al[1] on c-kit expression in small cell lung carcinoma and its implications for prognosis. The studied neoplasms were from patients with all disease stages, including IA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, and IV. The authors did not state whether these stages were clinical or pathologic. The use of adjuvant therapy varied and appeared to be unrelated to disease stage. Scoring criteria of c-kit expression were arbitrarily devised by the authors. The authors found that c-kit expression had a significant association with survival on univariate analysis. No multivariate statistical analyses that included adjuvant therapy, age, or disease stage were reported. Based on the results of a single univariate analysis, the authors concluded that c-kit was associated with survival. The authors then used this conclusion to suggest that “clinical trials may be considered for selected small cell carcinoma patients with c-kit expression.”

The authors, in my opinion, fell far short of providing sufficient, clear, strong evidence to substantiate their conclusions and claims, especially pertaining to the initiation of clinical studies. I also question and chastise the reviewers and the editor for the scrutiny given to this study when it was under review. Studies with this number of gaping methodology flaws and overstated conclusions have no place in reputable pathology journals.

Neal S. Goldstein MDa

a William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA

Would have been perfect if he just ended the letter with FAIL. I don't know if I would ever have the balls to write such a letter to an editor.
 

listeriaismfb

sleep deprived
10+ Year Member
Apr 19, 2008
190
0
Bikini Bottom
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I am always surprised when journals actually print stuff like this, but it is interesting. I remember one that I randomly encountered a couple of years ago, it reference a Human Path article, here



Would have been perfect if he just ended the letter with FAIL. I don't know if I would ever have the balls to write such a letter to an editor.

Crappy science is everywhere, and it is up to the reviewers and editor to run defense and prevent this kind of garbage from making it to press. Both the article and the letter were amusing.

Not citing someone elses work (even out of ignorance) is somewhat different, but it still reflects poorly on the reviewers & the editor.
 
About the Ads
This thread is more than 11 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.