Rad Onc Twitter

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted1002574
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
thecarbonionangle said:
guy is not even a clinician. Is he senile?
Click to expand...
I don't know but I was at a meeting once and heard a colleague tell him "Ralph, I've got two bad pieces of info to share with you. First, you've got Alzheimer's. Second, that grant approval for the oligomet study you've been working on is going not to go through this year."
After a long pause Ralph said "Well thank god I don't have Alzheimer's."
 
scarbrtj said:
I don't know but I was at a meeting once and heard a colleague tell him "Ralph, I've got two bad pieces of info to share with you. First, you've got Alzheimer's. Second, that grant approval for the oligomet study you've been working on is going not to go through this year."
After a long pause Ralph said "Well thank god I don't have Alzheimer's."
Click to expand...

you’ll hear some of the best stuff at these meetings if you just keep your ears perked up and open.
 
I'm friends with Mo Khan and he's an honest, decent guy. We all have differences of opinion, and we all get excited about what we're doing and have detractors that want to knock us back down. I've never seen him bully or gaslight like so much of Twitter.

I stay off Twitter because of crap like this. It's probably better not to be too public about ideas for studies because these detractors can seriously derail your ideas.

At least on forums we can have a reasoned discussion with facts, links, and ideas, and not just little mostly worthless self-promotional snippets.
 
Neuronix said:
I'm friends with Mo Khan and he's an honest, decent guy. We all have differences of opinion, and we all get excited about what we're doing and have detractors that want to knock us back down. I've never seen him bully or gaslight like so much of Twitter.

I stay off Twitter because of crap like this. It's probably better not to be too public about ideas for studies because these detractors can seriously derail your ideas.

At least on forums we can have a reasoned discussion with facts, links, and ideas, and not just little mostly worthless self-promotional snippets.
Click to expand...

i agree same reason why i stay away as well. It seems to attract a lot of bullies and self-aggrandizing virtue signalers. I hope your friend presses on.
 
radoncgrad2019 said:
🤣


this is the funniest ish I've ever seen here, and I've read plenty of carbonionangle posts.

Got damn man, you gotta warn us when you drink in the morning.

SDN is a lot of things, but a place for reasoned discussion is not it.
Click to expand...

Only drinking coffee so far this morning. I don't think there's anything else in it.

We have plenty of serious and reasoned discussions on here. If some people want to have more lighthearted discussions that's fine. We try to cut the unprofessional stuff, and my apologies for when it sneaks through.
 
radoncgrad2019 said:
🤣


this is the funniest ish I've ever seen here, and I've read plenty of carbonionangle posts.

Got damn man, you gotta warn us when you drink in the morning.

SDN is a lot of things, but a place for reasoned discussion is not it.
Click to expand...
Quit trolling. Anonymity on SDN has its perks exactly for that reason
 
Neuronix said:
I'm friends with Mo Khan and he's an honest, decent guy. We all have differences of opinion, and we all get excited about what we're doing and have detractors that want to knock us back down. I've never seen him bully or gaslight like so much of Twitter.

I stay off Twitter because of crap like this. It's probably better not to be too public about ideas for studies because these detractors can seriously derail your ideas.

At least on forums we can have a reasoned discussion with facts, links, and ideas, and not just little mostly worthless self-promotional snippets.
Click to expand...
Mo K is A-OK

Ralph W not following the rad onc twitterquette!

 
Neuronix said:
I'm friends with Mo Khan and he's an honest, decent guy. We all have differences of opinion, and we all get excited about what we're doing and have detractors that want to knock us back down. I've never seen him bully or gaslight like so much of Twitter.
Click to expand...

I know him well and agree completely. Doesn't seem like Twitter is the best place for these kinds of discussions.
 
It's like folks are clutching pearls and retiring to the fainting couch over half a gray or so XRT to the lungs. I still say you didn't need a "trial" for this mess. Should have just started doing it with some simpatico internists and pulm guys and report as case series. E.g., where's the "trial" that you need to intubate COVID patients or that intubation improves survival? Where's the trial for azithromycin? Many guidelines I saw weeks ago *were* recommending hydroxychloroquine and golly people's hair wasn't on fire because there was no HydroxyQ trial. People thought it was risky maybe but HQ was waaaayyy more risky than a few beam-seconds to the lungs. I say again: XRT to the lungs *is* a standard of care for pneumonia, by definition. That radiation-trained folks are just finding that out now and getting their feelings hurt about it is on them. There has been extant data for almost a century that it's reasonable and there's been no (can argue that somewhat) refutational data that it's unreasonable. So there!
radoncdoc16 said:
Lmao each portion of the CMP and CBC is individually listed as an outcome

I feel bad for khan but this is kind of silly

Great trial name though!
Click to expand...
And 100% agree.
 
medgator said:
Pandemic changed the calculus?
Click to expand...

Grants become very fundable when you're writing about a hot topic. The government sets aside grants for studying whatever topic is hot at that time. So people rush in to adapt their research to the hot topic. In this case it's COVID-19. Next year it will probably be something else.

Point is that if someone beats you to the punch with a human trial and people start to think animal studies are unnecessary, you might lose your grant.

Or maybe it's just conspiracy theories on my end.
 
radoncdoc16 said:
Lmao each portion of the CMP and CBC is individually listed as an outcome

I feel bad for khan but this is kind of silly

Great trial name though!
Click to expand...

I think there’s ethical issues putting an unproven conclusion as the title of a trial. Otherwise I’m in favor of more innovative uses for RT and support this.
 
StIGMA said:
I think there’s ethical issues putting an unproven conclusion as the title of a trial. Otherwise I’m in favor of more innovative uses for RT and support this.
Click to expand...

yea I’m uncomfortable with patients being offered the “RESCUE” trial as it seems like false advertising and could be coercive to desperate patients
 
Krukenberg said:
yea I’m uncomfortable with patients being offered the “RESCUE” trial as it seems like false advertising and could be coercive to desperate patients
Click to expand...

Or coercive to their families as these poor patients may not be in position to consent
 
Mandelin Rain said:
I'm currently writing a trial:

Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy: Can Urologists Refer Earlier Somehow?

Shortened for CTEP to Disease Site: Prostate Cancer; Trial Name: XRT CURES
Click to expand...

Can I open that trial here immediately? I would add “All” to the end of the title.
 

"Interest in radiation oncology continues to decline: The absolute number of U.S. senior medical students applying to radiation oncology fell to 128, which is 35 (21%) lower than in 2019. This number is 61 U.S. senior applicants fewer than the number of residency spots in the match and represents 0.40% of all graduating U.S. senior medical students, the lowest proportion in the documented time period (down from 0.52% in 2019 and 0.62% in 2018)."

The smart medical students are on to other things..
 
radoncdoc16 said:
I don’t know if I should be annoyed or not by this

Erin gillsespie one of the biggest twitter gaslighters in past few years

Oh well. Whatever it takes To wake them up

I’m just surprised they haven’t blamed SDN yet
Click to expand...

1) There was a lot of blaming SDN behind the scenes during this talk, rest assured.

2) ARRO and Shauna Campbell really seem to be swinging for the fences in terms of advocating for the health of the specialty. I'm so impressed with what they're willing to do, non-anonymously. I sit here and complain behind a silly internet forum moniker and this crew is out there trying to make changes for the better.

ARRO - you have my sincere gratitude.
 
elementaryschooleconomics said:
1) There was a lot of blaming SDN behind the scenes during this talk, rest assured.

2) ARRO and Shauna Campbell really seem to be swinging for the fences in terms of advocating for the health of the specialty. I'm so impressed with what they're willing to do, non-anonymously. I sit here and complain behind a silly internet forum moniker and this crew is out there trying to make changes for the better.

ARRO - you have my sincere gratitude.
Click to expand...

Agreed - I just hope the takeaway from this is not "oh well we need to get more interest into the field!!11 virtual rotation for everybody!!"
 
radoncdoc16 said:
I don’t know if I should be annoyed or not by this

Erin gillsespie one of the biggest twitter gaslighters in past few years

Oh well. Whatever it takes To wake them up

I’m just surprised they haven’t blamed SDN yet
Click to expand...
One day Paul is persecuting and stoning Christians and the next he's converted and spreading the word wherever he could.
Better to convert than burn?
She even #TimesUp'd 'em?!?! Look out. She's gonna cast thieves out of the temple. I hope.
 
Look on the bright side, maybe next year we can hit 30%. We’re already in the lead but at that point would be blowing away the competition. Top of the pack baby.
 
tomballunger said:
Don't forget about the programs that avoided SOAP and interviewed and ranked every warm body who simply applied and showed up to interview day, and thus filled. Radonc residency google sheets lists them all (Dartmouth, Case, Baylor, Cornell, Jeff , Kentucky are listed on the sheets).
Click to expand...

YES!!! This is why even counting for the SOAP doesn't tell the full story

There were ppl with 190s who matched this year. We couldn't even sniff an interview without a 240 back in the day
 


forums.studentdoctor.net

Bloodbath in Red Journal

Anyone catch the beat down this kid at Wash U took in the most recent Red Journal? When your department is expanding it's residency, probably best not to call out the process in the specialty's primary journal. Especially if you graduated last year.
forums.studentdoctor.net forums.studentdoctor.net
 
2014XRT said:
Click to expand...


At least Smith is on board....though it was his article (https://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.2010.31.2520) that was propped up as the reason it was OK to add more residents.

The same article that in 2010 COMPLETELY IGNORED hypofrac/SBRT for the three biggest cancers we see - breast, prostate, and lung - when making their calculations. Also ignored automation/improvements in speed in plan development.

Either a methodology mistake or they weren't interested in a calculus that said we didn't need this many rad oncs. Either way, it was a major error. Only a hand waving mention of hypofrac in their discussion section.
 
I enjoyed this reminder that someone does actually monitor the ABR Twitter account:

IMG_7602 - Copy.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

uchihastan
Rad Onc vs. Heme/Onc
Replies
16
Views
2K
medgator
M
B
Rad Onc Procedures and RVUs
Replies
35
Views
5K
CurbYourExpectations
CurbYourExpectations
D
Saving Rad Onc
2
Replies
60
Views
7K
RickyScott
R
TheWallnerus
Rad Onc is in a dark place
Replies
13
Views
3K
RickyScott
R
M
Rad Onc Oral Boards: To quote or not quote studies?
Replies
5
Views
744
RSAOaky
R
Top