1237

Sherri Tenpenny is no longer a licensed physician after airing fringe comments and ducking investigators.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

I was told by multiple MD holders that DOs and MDs were basically the same at this point. Were they being polite?

[-] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe.

Although, medical doctors are also known to be severely lacking in skepticism and understanding of the scientific method (much like engineers), so depending on the doctor you talked to, they might actually believe it.

Source: anecdotal, but I've spent my entire adult life in higher ed chemistry departments taking classes with and then teaching premeds, and it's a real thing. Med school does nothing to alleviate this, being focused as it is on basically troubleshooting a single particularly complicated and poorly designed machine.

Edit: here are a few studies that corroborate my experience, although they're far from comprehensive ( Source 1 and Source 2)

[-] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

This comment is severely out of line and admittedly anecdotal.

"Medical doctors are also known to be severely lacking in skepticism and the scientific method (much like engineers)"

That is a broad and ignorant statement that is as outlandish as it is contrived.

[-] skullone@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Found the MD. /s

[-] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lol, ok. Then why do the editors at numerous medical journals and other science writers agree with me? Like this one, that concludes that medical doctors are far too quick to abandon scientific skepticism in favor of new treatments. Or this one, which argues that doctors ascribe too much importance to one-off studies. Or this one, which flat out states that doctors do not think like scientists.

Outlandish and contrived, my ass. Just because you like to believe doctors can think like scientists doesn't make it so. If you disagree, feel free to provide sources.

[-] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Your ass, indeed. You said they severely lack an understanding of the scientific method and lack skepticism. Those are wild and ridiculous claims, and the commentaries you link do not even prove them.

Just because you think every doctor is incapable of using/understanding the scientific method does not make it so.

There are doctors who do medical research, as well as engineers, that is a fact. Not to mention the scientific method othen applies in daily practice, inherently.

There's a difference between saying that not all MD are physician scientists and need to better apply their fundamental principles, verses claiming that doctors don't understand the scientific method.

[-] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Just because you think every doctor is incapable of using/understanding the scientific method does not make it so.

I didn't say every doctor. I said that doctors in general and medical education as a whole are lacking in understanding of and curriculum supporting skepticism and the scientific method.

Those are wild and ridiculous claims, and the commentaries you link do not even prove them.

Correct. They do not provide conclusive proof. But when educators and editors of scholarly journals both agree with the premise that medicine is not science and physicians do not apply proper scientific rigor in the course of their work, it's fairly suggestive, don't you think? Especially in the absence of any sources with claims to the contrary. After all, I've yet to see you provide a single source...

But while you look, you could consider these commentaries that look into the lack of fundamental science education in modern and historical medical education (Source 1, Source 2, and Source 3)

[-] GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Hm yes outlandish and contrived, I concur.

[-] somethingp@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I just want to emphasize that the two studies you've linked to are not for US graduate DOs/MDs. One is for practicing physicians in Israel and the other is 1st year medical students in India. Not sure about the Israeli medical education, but in India a medical degree (mbbs) is an undergraduate degree. So looking at 1st year medical students is the equivalent of a fresh high school graduate. I would be interested to know what this looks like in the US because a large part of medical education is built around research, at least early in training. Everyone has varying aptitude and interest in research (like anything else), but you'd be hard pressed to find a US trained MD/DO who has become licensed in the last 20 years and has never done any research. It might surprise you to know that most of medicine is, in fact, evidence based which requires us to learn how to interpret said evidence. Both for when we need to make decisions about applying research to our own practice, as well as for answering patient questions about things they might've come across on Google, MD.

[-] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So, since my sources are fairly small focused studies, I assume you have sources that are more comprehensive, right? Because I found these after less than 30s of searching, and a couple more minutes yielded a multitude of articles and op-eds from medical and scientific journals that all agree that MDs are not scientists. Like this one. Or this one. Or this one, which talks about how physicians do not apply proper levels of scientific thinking to new treatments in

So, I think it's safe to say that applying evidence-based research is not the same as understand the scientific method or having a healthy level of skepticism.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

There are plenty of outstanding DOs and many poor MDs. But it is a fact that you need better qualifications to get into MD school.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I am not taking a position on this, I am just asking. When you say qualifications what are they? Like they didn't take a single math class or they didn't take multiple biology courses?

[-] PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Generally a better GPA or more prestigious college diploma. Perhaps more research experience depending on the MD school. Most of all it's just the fact that MD schools have been around longer and developed more of a reputation so they can pick and choose their candidates, and it's historically been the case that when some students get rejected from MD school they will turn around and apply for DO school.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

This is correct

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I see, that wasn't what I was expecting to read. Well, thank you for answering.

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

GPA, MCAT scores and intangibles.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

As most med schools it's the same program, maybe a few different classes. From a courtroom perspective, there is no difference and their opinions carry equal weight; residency and specialized training after med school is what counts.

this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
1237 points (98.5% liked)

News

23409 readers
3051 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS