More ABR back and forth in RJ

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
C

Chartreuse Wombat

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 7, 2014
Messages
1,761
Reaction score
3,782
Separate thread..what nothing about the job market?
Members don't see this ad.
 

Attachments

"Who we are, what we want to be, and how we want to be perceived among our peers and - equally important - the public at large."

Actually no one knows or cares that we are torturing ourselves with all this physics and rad bio minutiae. Inferiority complex much?

"RO is a unique specialty that combines technology and the physics that drives it, along with cancer biology and recent significant advances in molecular biology."

Literally all fields of medicine involve aspects of molecular biology but we are the only specialty with a basic science exam as a component of board certification.

Thank you Drs Lee and Amdur but it seems like the powers that be are intent on resisting any meaningful change...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Another Wallner editorial where it seems any "dialogue" is futile because guy already made up his mind. I don't understand how somebody can have such unchecked power and their opinion can mean so much when it comes to these things. There is no check on PW's opinions, however wrong, outdated, they may be. Who is this guys and where did he come from?
 
It is simply amazing how these people continue to toot their own horn. "We know better".
I would be curious to see Wallner's exam results from back in the day...
 
"Practicing radiation oncologists owe a great debt of gratitude to the foresight of our founders, who elevated RO to a well-respected specialty in the house of medicine. "

Thanks Paul Wallner. I owe you my career. Sorry you had to ask for our debt of gratitude. We should have just trusted you all along.
 
Haybrant said:
these are old articles right, we already knew about these?
Click to expand...


no, new

Amdur and Lee published something in PRO about rad bio/physics boards last year too, BEFORE the whole failure incident

Wallner is a straight chump
 
xrthopeful said:
no, new

Amdur and Lee published something in PRO about rad bio/physics boards last year too, BEFORE the whole failure incident

Wallner is a straight chump
Click to expand...

Ok right makes sense. Ya we’ve been saying it here for a while now Wallner is a stain on our field and needs to be reigned in. It would send a very strong signal to do something about him and to disavow his leadership and views. In not sure why Kachnic follows him like a lapdog. I’m more than certain a lot of program directors around the country feel the same way. Hearing how he treated that examiner from radiology that went to the wrong room is sick
 
RadOncG said:
"Practicing radiation oncologists owe a great debt of gratitude to the foresight of our founders, who elevated RO to a well-respected specialty in the house of medicine. "
Click to expand...

So well-respected, programs routinely went unfilled or took FMGs (or DOs like Wallner) in 70s and 80s and 90s.
 
Last edited:
RadOncG said:
"Practicing radiation oncologists owe a great debt of gratitude to the foresight of our founders, who elevated RO to a well-respected specialty in the house of medicine. "

Thanks Paul Wallner. I owe you my career. Sorry you had to ask for our debt of gratitude. We should have just trusted you all along.
Click to expand...

Isn't he referencing the same people who thought that treating with 180 cGy fractions would advance our field based because of "understanding" radiobiology?

Edit:
Also interesting that there were no COI disclosures despite recent scrutiny elsewhere.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Curses! Bob L & Bob A have been lurking 'round here evidently so they could serve up SDN dreck's in the light of day. (I loathe being here amongst the rabble. Your base opinions and banter infect me I fear.) And they write this in my precious Red Journal no less. Whoever approved their editorial is gonna get it!!!!!

Goo goo g'joob
 
Paul Wallner, July 2013: "It falls upon these rising physicians to determine the direction of their future, and not according to the paternalistic views of their elders"

Paul Wallner, April 2019: "Practicing radiation oncologists owe a great debt of gratitude to the foresight of our founders, who elevated RO to a well-respected specialty in the house of medicine. Future generations of radiation oncologists should expect nothing less from us."

This isn't the first time he has published completely contradictory opinions. I mean, what kind of person would write such galling things like that? Does he actually talk that way in real life?

Why does the Red Journal have to give him a forum to respond to any article that he may not like?

He is literally trolling our field into the ground. Just making up ---- and somehow getting away with letting his personal opinion affect the lives of all of us.

I am so sick of this JERK and his just awful patronizing attitude and overall hatred of young radiation oncologists. Go back and read the emails posted on the radbio thread in reply to those from residents confused as to why they failed a minimum clinical competence exam that surprisingly tested irrelevant cancer biology minutiae. As if you needed any reminder of what's going on in this guy's head.
 
Last edited:
The Wallner editorial is obviously just nonsense. Like, it would be brilliant satire if were not so sincerely malicious.
 
Honestly, why does a 75 year old guy whose been in private practice for years have any say in resident education? I can’t think of a single human being who would be less equipped to decide the fates of budding radiation oncologists than someone who hasn’t worked with trainees in decades. Kudos to people like Dr. Amdur and Dr. Lee. I’ve never met either but both seem to genuinely have residents' interests at heart and quite frankly I think they should be given more of a platform for change in our field.
 
RSAOaky said:
Honestly, why does a 75 year old guy whose been in private practice for years have any say in resident education? I can’t think of a single human being who would be less equipped to decide the fates of budding radiation oncologists than someone who hasn’t worked with trainees in decades. Kudos to people like Dr. Amdur and Dr. Lee. I’ve never met either but both seem to genuinely have residents' interests at heart and quite frankly I think they should be given more of a platform for change in our field.
Click to expand...

Just looked at the reply to in the editorial. The guy works for 21c?! Wow, what the ****. So the big wigs in our field listen to this 21c doc? Seriously how do we get rid of this guy

 
Last edited:
the guy is very trump-esque in manner.

no one knows how we got the guy, no one knows how to get rid of the guy.

Lisa Kachnic is his Mike Pence.
 
xrthopeful said:
the guy is very trump-esque in manner.

no one knows how we got the guy, no one knows how to get rid of the guy.

Lisa Kachnic is his Mike Pence.
Click to expand...

It says he is responsible for legislative and regulatory affairs for 21C. So he’s a lobbyists for one of the most pathetic medical groups in recent memory and he remains responsible for resident education? When was the last time a resident rotated with him at 21C? And zietman just gives him a forum to publish drivel in red journal? What a complete farce
 
Wallner and me go way back like Cadillac seats. Guy was at Penn for years, an early RTOG guy. Established many of the billing what nots and peculiarities of rad onc. Has the ear of government: what I mean is when some clueless government entity wants some dirt on radiation oncology they go to radiation expert Paul Wallner. He's not Trump-esque, he's Cheney-esque. Maybe an amalgam of Dick Cheney and Tracy Flick. The tentacles go pretty deep, academically and private-practice wise.

Our specialty as great as it is tends to repeatedly confirm the Peter Principle (the rise of protons, the zombie that 21st century's become), and Wallner's ridden that for all it's worth! Yee-haw. Please read some of my, er Wallner's, old musings. Those were the days. Back then rad onc consisted of china marker scribblings on X-rays, long times spent in the simulator suite, and an afternoon cocktail at 2 pm.
 
Last edited:
IAmTheWallnerus said:
Wallner and me go way back like Cadillac seats. Guy was at Penn for years, an early RTOG guy. Established many of the billing what nots and peculiarities of rad onc. Has the ear of government: what I mean is when some clueless government entity wants some dirt on radiation oncology they go to radiation expert Paul Wallner. He's not Trump-esque, he's Cheney-esque. Maybe an amalgam of Dick Cheney and Tracy Flick. The tentacles go pretty deep, academically and private-practice wise.

Our specialty as great as it is tends to repeatedly confirm the Peter Principle (the rise of protons, the zombie that 21st century's become), and Wallner's ridden that for all it's worth! Yee-haw. Please read some of my, er Wallner's, old musings. Those were the days. Back then rad onc consisted of china marker scribblings on X-rays, long times spent in the simulator suite, and an afternoon cocktail at 2 pm.
Click to expand...

I believe it. I had my interactions with him (via email) and every encounter I've had with him, made me want to punch the dude in the face. At that time, I gritted my teeth and moved on but never once did I think this guy was good for our field and actually believed he was out to get me.

I'm just glad my experience was aligned with other people's interactions and not a misnomer as I once believed. It's sad to see him in such a significant leadership role.
 
IAmTheWallnerus said:
Wallner and me go way back like Cadillac seats. Guy was at Penn for years, an early RTOG guy. Established many of the billing what nots and peculiarities of rad onc. Has the ear of government: what I mean is when some clueless government entity wants some dirt on radiation oncology they go to radiation expert Paul Wallner. He's not Trump-esque, he's Cheney-esque. Maybe an amalgam of Dick Cheney and Tracy Flick. The tentacles go pretty deep, academically and private-practice wise.

Our specialty as great as it is tends to repeatedly confirm the Peter Principle (the rise of protons, the zombie that 21st century's become), and Wallner's ridden that for all it's worth! Yee-haw. Please read some of my, er Wallner's, old musings. Those were the days. Back then rad onc consisted of china marker scribblings on X-rays, long times spent in the simulator suite, and an afternoon cocktail at 2 pm.
Click to expand...

what about "Tricky dick"?
 
Drs. Lee and Amdur have provided a detailed analysis of the current state of IC. This is supported by review of other medical specialties as well as other non-US Radiation Oncology programs. Ultimately, it is a well written thoughtful analysis of the current state of IC with several proposed solutions.

Unfortunately, the response from Dr. Wallner falls considerably short. Stating "comparison of content on any specific examination is thus not appropriate" is a disservice to the field. Using similar logic, we would never translate data to other unique, challenging clinical situations if a patient did not meet exact inclusion criteria. Second, I did not find a single instance in which the ABR or any of those affilated with ABR assumed ownership despite authoring and administering the examination. Instead it appears that ASTRO and other organizations have acted in response to recent events. It was never suggested that the ABR should act alone, yet nearly 2/3rds of the article notes collaboration. If you are not contributing you are not collaborating.
 
I guess there are 2 concerns here. 1) The recent ABR debacle 2) Testing in Radiation Oncology

I think 1 test is fine, but I also think the old format with > 90% pass rate was fine as well. If the current pass rate was the same, we wouldn't have so much bru haha.

On another note, I didn't know that these tests are supposed to make us look incredibly good per the Wallner article. Is this something that the ABR wants to advertise to other specialties? I don't have a real opinion on this, but I have yet to see any society level statement saying radiation oncologists are among the most vigorously tested physicians that require much more basic science knowledge then almost every other specialty. I have enough trouble telling people I am not "Radiology Oncology."
 
randomname2018 said:
Drs. Lee and Amdur have provided a detailed analysis of the current state of IC. This is supported by review of other medical specialties as well as other non-US Radiation Oncology programs. Ultimately, it is a well written thoughtful analysis of the current state of IC with several proposed solutions.

Unfortunately, the response from Dr. Wallner falls considerably short. Stating "comparison of content on any specific examination is thus not appropriate" is a disservice to the field. Using similar logic, we would never translate data to other unique, challenging clinical situations if a patient did not meet exact inclusion criteria. Second, I did not find a single instance in which the ABR or any of those affilated with ABR assumed ownership despite authoring and administering the examination. Instead it appears that ASTRO and other organizations have acted in response to recent events. It was never suggested that the ABR should act alone, yet nearly 2/3rds of the article notes collaboration. If you are not contributing you are not collaborating.
Click to expand...

So how do we empower the Lee/Amdurs of our fields and push out/rein in the Wallners? is there any check on PW, whatsoever?
 
Does anyone else just find this embarrassing?

Not only the fact that only two program directors have the gumption to stand for the residents they purport to serve, not just that the ABR director is a man who has run an organization that has defrauded Medicare out of (hundreds?) of millions of dollars and can't help but come off as hateful/arrogant/dismissive, but that our society's/country's lead journal has given them a forum to air this in the most public and passive aggressive manner possible (likely because they have nothing better to publish).

The state of Rad Onc in America is rotten to the core.
 
before throwing all of the other PDs under the bus, realize that the 2 'standing up' up for the residents represent the most powerful of the group (maybe outside of Zietman ?) as both are full professors, one is editor of PRO and the other (or both?) a former RRC chair. Other PDs have been vocal on twitter I believe.
 
Mandelin Rain said:
Does anyone else just find this embarrassing?

Not only the fact that only two program directors have the gumption to stand for the residents they purport to serve.
Click to expand...

That statement is categorically false. Did you honestly believe those words when you wrote them? Even if you think we as educators don't care about your well-being, I will remind you that this boards debacle has serious ramifications for us as well. The ACGME has minimum requirements for first-time boards rates and most mid-tier programs which have 2-3 residents per year can quickly find themselves having to deal with accreditation issues if they are going to keep the pass rate in the cellar. And their rules are BS. On paper we look pretty good but wait...one of our residents transferred programs during residency and the ultimately failed the boards and guess who gets the credit for that one? And do we get credit for the resident who replaced her that we trained for years who did pass? No. Even if we really are a bunch of self-serving A-holes looking out for our own bottom line, self-preservation would dictate that we are in fact in this together.

There is plenty of work going on behind the scenes. Performance on the boards this year will be key. At this point it is not clear if last years results were a childish cry for attention by the ABR (pay attention to us...we are still important!) or if they really believe the crap they are saying. If it proves to be a trend and not an anomaly, I feel pretty confident that there will be more movement by the people who can actually make changes (hint: its not the lowly PDs). Like it or not, it is a VERY big deal for organizations to try to forcefully remove people from national committees and most chairs are exercising patience. But they are not going to watch the ABR threaten their labor over the long-term. Additionally, most of them do actually care about your development. PDs do a ton of extra work that doesn't always count towards tenure or promotion (depending on your structure).
 
Mandelin Rain said:
Does anyone else just find this embarrassing?

Not only the fact that only two program directors have the gumption to stand for the residents they purport to serve, not just that the ABR director is a man who has run an organization that has defrauded Medicare out of (hundreds?) of millions of dollars and can't help but come off as hateful/arrogant/dismissive, but that our society's/country's lead journal has given them a forum to air this in the most public and passive aggressive manner possible (likely because they have nothing better to publish).

The state of Rad Onc in America is rotten to the core.
Click to expand...

I mean it's just the two with the least to lose as stated above (full professors). I haven't really met a PD who didn't care about the welfare of his residents in this field. The PDs in Rad Onc are generally under immense pressure from the chairmen/women (who IMO are the primary problem) to expand residencies. Doesn't mean they're all perfect, but I've only personally had issues with chairpeople, not program directors, across the multiple programs I've interacted with.
 
ramsesthenice said:
That statement is categorically false. Did you honestly believe those words when you wrote them? Even if you think we as educators don't care about your well-being, I will remind you that this boards debacle has serious ramifications for us as well. The ACGME has minimum requirements for first-time boards rates and most mid-tier programs which have 2-3 residents per year can quickly find themselves having to deal with accreditation issues if they are going to keep the pass rate in the cellar. And their rules are BS. On paper we look pretty good but wait...one of our residents transferred programs during residency and the ultimately failed the boards and guess who gets the credit for that one? And do we get credit for the resident who replaced her that we trained for years who did pass? No. Even if we really are a bunch of self-serving A-holes looking out for our own bottom line, self-preservation would dictate that we are in fact in this together.

There is plenty of work going on behind the scenes. Performance on the boards this year will be key. At this point it is not clear if last years results were a childish cry for attention by the ABR (pay attention to us...we are still important!) or if they really believe the crap they are saying. If it proves to be a trend and not an anomaly, I feel pretty confident that there will be more movement by the people who can actually make changes (hint: its not the lowly PDs). Like it or not, it is a VERY big deal for organizations to try to forcefully remove people from national committees and most chairs are exercising patience. But they are not going to watch the ABR threaten their labor over the long-term. Additionally, most of them do actually care about your development. PDs do a ton of extra work that doesn't always count towards tenure or promotion (depending on your structure).
Click to expand...

What are the ACGME's minimum requirements for first time board pass rate? Does that mean overall (all three written exams and oral board passed on first attempt) and what about if one "conditions" (I can't remember if that is a "conditional pass" or fail)? So what happens if the minimum is not met, which must have been the case for a lot of programs last year, correct?

Is it the same requirement for all specialties and out of just further curiosity are board pass rates roughly similar across all specialties (or are there some that have 99% first time pass rates while others have 75% or whatever)?

I'm just curious and you seem like you might have the answers readily available.
 
Remind me of how many PDs called out Lisa Kachnic on the line of BS she dropped at the ASTRO meeting when they had the chance.
 
oldking said:
What are the ACGME's minimum requirements for first time board pass rate? Does that mean overall (all three written exams and oral board passed on first attempt) and what about if one "conditions" (I can't remember if that is a "conditional pass" or fail)? So what happens if the minimum is not met, which must have been the case for a lot of programs last year, correct?

Is it the same requirement for all specialties and out of just further curiosity are board pass rates roughly similar across all specialties (or are there some that have 99% first time pass rates while others have 75% or whatever)?

I'm just curious and you seem like you might have the answers readily available.
Click to expand...
Not all specialties publish their rates of failure but those that do range from 3-20% with most about 10% (as did ABR until last year).

The ACGME Board Pass Rate requirements are changing. Below is a screen shot (the marked through language is the old version). In the old way, programs were OK so long as 60% of their trainees passed over a period of five years.

In the old days, the ABR created reports that were sent to the PDs with the 10 year rates. To count as a pass (numerator) a candidate needed to pass all exams on time. If the exam was delayed (e.g., for pregnancy or family sickness/death) then this was a "not-pass" according to the ABR report and the resident would appear in the denominator but not the numerator (although there was no negative consequences for the resident). I had two occasions when I counseled residents to postpone the exam. This "hurt" the ABR score for the program but was in the best interest of the resident.

In the old way with 10% fail rates even mediocre programs were rarely disciplined because the methodology made it very difficult to be that bad. If the failure rate becomes 25-30% then it would be easy to get in trouble. But the methodology is changing.

The new language is spectacularly non-quantitative. The changes are currently open for public comment and I intend to criticize them for the lack of specificity.

257781
 
Mandelin Rain said:
Remind me of how many PDs called out Lisa Kachnic on the line of BS she dropped at the ASTRO meeting when they had the chance.
Click to expand...

I couldn't honestly tell you. I am a physician scientist and sadly, ASTRO rarely has much high-yield going on anymore and I rarely attend. Thats a different problem...

oldking said:
What are the ACGME's minimum requirements for first time board pass rate? Does that mean overall (all three written exams and oral board passed on first attempt) and what about if one "conditions" (I can't remember if that is a "conditional pass" or fail)?
Click to expand...

This is the beauty of it. You need to stay above 60% over 5 years. That sounds reasonable on paper. Here is the but...this is 60% passing all 4 exams (physics and rad bio count as separate exams) the first time around. If your resident fails any of them, it counts against you. If the pass rate stays like it did last year, 60% may not be a given anymore.
 
Mandelin Rain said:
Remind me of how many PDs called out Lisa Kachnic on the line of BS she dropped at the ASTRO meeting when they had the chance.
Click to expand...

I heard of at least 4 or 5 who recommended that they just increased the pass rate. At least 2 or 3 were angry enough to walk out of the room during that meeting. Again, while not all PDs are perfect, I personally don't think this is where frustration and anger should go. You're welcome to disagree, just saying.

And anyways, Kachnic is just the face of the operation who doesn't have any significant power of her own, while Wallner is the Mr. Burns brain behind it all.
 
ramsesthenice said:
I couldn't honestly tell you. I am a physician scientist and sadly, ASTRO rarely has much high-yield going on anymore and I rarely attend. Thats a different problem...
Click to expand...

I knew there's a reason I pay more attention to the stuff getting presented at asco and published in jco than the stuff out of ASTRO/ijrobp..
 
evilbooyaa said:
I heard of at least 4 or 5 who recommended that they just increased the pass rate. At least 2 or 3 were angry enough to walk out of the room during that meeting. Again, while not all PDs are perfect, I personally don't think this is where frustration and anger should go. You're welcome to disagree, just saying.

And anyways, Kachnic is just the face of the operation who doesn't have any significant power of her own, while Wallner is the Mr. Burns brain behind it all.
Click to expand...

Thats his point precisely, that there is a MINORITY of PDs who actually spoke up and cares enough to voice an opinion. What were the others doing?

Well intentioned or not if “good people” do nothing, they are not really on people’s side when things matter.
 
thecarbonionangle said:
Thats his point precisely, that there is a MINORITY of PDs who actually spoke up and cares enough to voice an opinion. What were the others doing?

Well intentioned or not if “good people” do nothing, they are not really on people’s side when things matter.
Click to expand...

Maybe they could do more, someone out there should be able to do more. But that’s what medicine does to physicians. If you’re an attending in clinical practice you understand. You’re so drained from work/admin duties/maybe research/answering emails/calling patients/reviewing and re-reviewing plans/battling for sim spots or apts to be made etc that going to battle about something like this is not even on your radar. Hard to blame em, but someone should be blamed, probably the old chairs and profs that sit and do little. Wallners record is sickening and our field should find a way to disavow this loser before he keeps ruining a beautiful specialty
 
thecarbonionangle said:
Thats his point precisely, that there is a MINORITY of PDs who actually spoke up and cares enough to voice an opinion. What were the others doing?

Well intentioned or not if “good people” do nothing, they are not really on people’s side when things matter.
Click to expand...

There is a very valid counter argument to consider. A lot of people honestly felt like the ABR did this on purpose or to prove a point. If you try to negotiate with a toddler during a meltdown what generally happens? It frequently gets louder and lasts longer. In the physics and rad bio thread that is what, 20 pages now (?) I begged and pleaded with people to strongly consider fighting their instincts and try to accept this for what it is. They knew damn well this was going to cause a reaction when they decided to fail so many people at once. Have you heard the expression bad publicity is better than no publicity? If we reward them too much they may come back for more.
 
Haybrant said:
Maybe they could do more, someone out there should be able to do more. But that’s what medicine does to physicians. If you’re an attending in clinical practice you understand. You’re so drained from work/admin duties/maybe research/answering emails/calling patients/reviewing and re-reviewing plans/battling for sim spots or apts to be made etc that going to battle about something like this is not even on your radar.
Click to expand...
Yet some of them seem to be fine maligning SDN and those who called these issues out when they first happened. SDN was bad for telling the truth that most PDs won't admit in public
 
medgator said:
Yet some of them seem to be fine maligning SDN and those who called these issues out when they first happened. SDN was bad for telling the truth that most PDs won't admit in public
Click to expand...

Well this is true. SDN is pretty low hanging fruit though and academics are sheep that follow authority wo question, we know that. They don’t question who or what this loser Wallner is but once they think about the fact they are following a 21st Century lobbyist they’ll start to wake up. Like seriously, Kachnic has tied her name to a lobbyist and doesn’t really realize how that looks. She’ll wake up soon enough I would expect

Just as an aside, remember when that 21C guy gave the immunotherapy talk at the presidential symposium at ASTRO maybe 4-5 years ago. What a train wreck, it would be pretty great if we could find that video.
 
Last edited:
The most frustrating thing is academics implying SDN is full of lunatic "misanthropes" (that "leader" on ROHUB). For example, theres a post in the "google doc" saying hey if you want to talk to a "sane person" talk to this well known academic female. Follow the "sane" to the logical conclusion and the implication is that the "echo-chamber" is filled with INSANE individuals.
 
Haybrant said:
Well this is true. SDN is pretty low hanging fruit though and academics are sheep that follow authority wo question, we know that. They don’t question who or what this loser Wallner is but once they think about the fact they are following a 21st Century lobbyist they’ll start to wake up. Like seriously, Kachnic has tied her name to a lobbyist and doesn’t really realize how that looks. She’ll wake up soon enough I would expect

Just as an aside, remember when that 21C guy gave the immunotherapy talk at the presidential symposium at ASTRO maybe 4-5 years ago. What a train wreck, it would be pretty great if we could find that video.
Click to expand...

I keep asking this question and no clear answer: Who is PW and where did he come from? guy came out of nowhere! Guys basically the low key rad onc monarch.
 
Haybrant said:
Just as an aside, remember when that 21C guy gave the immunotherapy talk at the presidential symposium at ASTRO maybe 4-5 years ago. What a train wreck, it would be pretty great if we could find that video.
Click to expand...
ha more details... I can imagine but
 
thecarbonionangle said:
The most frustrating thing is academics implying SDN is full of lunatic "misanthropes" (that "leader" on ROHUB). For example, theres a post in the "google doc" saying hey if you want to talk to a "sane person" talk to this well known academic female. Follow the "sane" to the logical conclusion and the implication is that the "echo-chamber" is filled with INSANE individuals.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we of SDN faith are the true canaries in the coal mine. I think one has to ask the following. Is SDN the cause, symptom, or scapegoat of our field's issues? For a field that prides itself on new technologies the powers at be are awfully reluctant to accept that in the 21st century, with the internet and its unfiltered dissemination of knowledge, we the powerless will ultimately make ourselves heard one way or another. Thou shalt be callethed on thy bull****.
 
thecarbonionangle said:
I keep asking this question and no clear answer: Who is PW and where did he come from? guy came out of nowhere! Guys basically the low key rad onc monarch.
Click to expand...


you keep asking even though the information is readily available and has also been posted here multiple times.

He is someone who was in academics for a long time, has been involved on the financial side of rad onc/lobbying as well, who then transitioned into the private world. He's definitely not a 'nobody', even if he's unpleasant.
 
RSAOaky said:
Perhaps we of SDN faith are the true canaries in the coal mine. I think one has to ask the following. Is SDN the cause, symptom, or scapegoat of our field's issues? For a field that prides itself on new technologies the powers at be are awfully reluctant to accept that in the 21st century, with the internet and its unfiltered dissemination of knowledge, we the powerless will ultimately make ourselves heard one way or another. Thou shalt be callethed on thy bull****.
Click to expand...
Scapegoat, obviously.

SDN didn't fail more people on the boards or double residency slots in a decade, but certainly did provide insight into these issues well before ASTRO even acknowledged they existed.

And why would academics want to agree we were correct several years ago regarding things like residency expansion and the job market? They can't control the narrative that way and continue to match cheap, educated labor.

Even after this recent match, where the chickens came home to roost, several academicians are still ranting on Twitter and ROhub about misinformed miscreants on SDN
 
Last edited:
because SDN is ridiculous. even in your post you continue to rant about 'academicians' as if they're some monolithic shadowy organization that is out to ruin people.

you have zero clue.
 
xrthopeful said:
because SDN is ridiculous. even in your post you continue to rant about 'academicians' as if they're some monolithic shadowy organization that is out to ruin people.

you have zero clue.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who thinks only PPs are the ones doling out non competes.

I made no such inference, but keep trying. The fact of the matter is, this wasn't even on most academic programs or Astro's radar until the most recent match results
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
ABR resources
Replies
4
Views
1K
MudPhud20XX
MudPhud20XX
R
Radiobiology - ABR history
2 3
Replies
103
Views
8K
evilbooyaa
evilbooyaa
N
ABR Radbio/Physics passing score thresholds [Resurfacing the discussion]
Replies
17
Views
3K
Neuronix
Neuronix
TheWallnerus
Staying A-Breast: SUPREMO and INSEMA
Replies
24
Views
2K
drowsy12
D
elementaryschooleconomics
RadOnc Job Market: Back to the Future
Replies
3
Views
2K
evilbooyaa
evilbooyaa
Top