Copied from another posting of this article:

The headline (and the article for that matter) are very sensationalist and I don’t think they’ve presented this in a balanced way. They are discussing how sorbitol behaves in zebrafish with limited data presented on human biochemistry, and they discuss it in a vacuum without quantifying the amount of sorbitol it takes to cause a problem. Yes, any substance in excess can be harmful, but the amount of sorbitol in food compared to the amount of high fructose corn syrup makes it the substantially lesser evil. The artificial sweeteners are vastly more potent than actual sugar, so you don’t need very much of it to get the same amount of sweetness. High fructose corn syrup is used in massive amounts in food and is much worse for you on the scale that either substance would be consumed.

What on earth do you have against paragraphs? I don’t want to read your comments just based on the formatting, let alone the actual content.

Responding to the content though: In this situation, this woman was being social at a bar with her friends. Women existing in public is not an open invitation to bother them and being unable to read social cues is probably a big part of Anon’s problems with women. Women utilize a great deal of non-verbal communication and not being able to read that or refusing to even try is a great way to plaster oneself in red flags.

They once tried to prove that DNPs (Doctorate of Nurse Practitioner) was just as good as an MD or DO education. They did this by taking the top DNP grads from the best programs and gave them a dumbed down version of the easiest part of the medical license exam, and only 40% passed it.

For context, to get a medical license, a physician has to have passed Steps 1-3 of the USMLE (US Medical License Exam) or Levels 1-3 of COMLEX (Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Exam) to be eligible to apply for a medical license. Step/Level 2 is usually considered the hardest one of the three, and Step/Level 3 is the longest exam (2 full days), but generally considered to be the easiest. This DNP exam took the easiest 20% of questions from Step 3 and made a half-length version of the exam…and 60% of the DNPs still failed it.

The NP/DNP education is almost entirely algorithm-based and doesn’t meaningfully get into the anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology, and pharmacology that the first 2 years of medical school are devoted to. I have seen NPs miss life-threatening diagnoses because they were rare diseases that don’t come up outside of those first 2 years of drinking from a firehose of textbooks in medical school. Their education just isn’t long enough or in-depth enough to actually be equivalent to an MD or DO degree.

Also, MDs and DOs have almost 4000 hours of supervised medical practice where a physician is checking their work and directly observing or guiding their clinical experience before finishing medical school. Residency is, at minimum, another 8000 to 10000 hours of supervised practice in the specialties that only require 3 years of residency (it ranges from 3 to 9 years based on specialty).

NPs don’t have any standardized requirements for supervised practice to get their licenses and most programs only require 1000 hours or less of shadowing where they are just observing a licensed NP practice and not actually doing anything hands-on themselves… And they try to argue that this education is sufficient for them to be equal to physicians. There are some NPs who are amazing providers, but they’re usually the ones that were bedside nurses for 10+ years before going back to school for their NP license. The newer NPs that are going straight through from their BSN without any actual experience are the really dangerous ones.

TO BE CLEAR: I love the nurses I work with and I value their work and their input immensely. I was an EMT/ER tech before med school and it’s really sad when nurses are so confused when I help them clean up patients or reposition or whatever as a med student because most physicians and medical students don’t stop to help the nurses clean up poop. You can always tell which physicians have never had to clean up poop before, and I try very hard not to be like them.

Actually, the problem is the number of residencies. Once you graduate from medical school, you MUST complete an accredited residency program to be able to practice independently. The number of residency programs is controlled by Congress because residencies are funded through Medicare, and the last substantial increase in the number of residencies was when they added 1000 more in the Covid Omnibus bill.

It’s actually a growing crisis because more medical schools are opening and existing ones are increasing their class sizes, but the number of residencies isn’t keeping pace. This means that more and more people are going to be medical graduates with no way of obtaining a medical license without a residency and therefore no way to pay off their student loans. There’s a couple stories every year about medical graduates that couldn’t get into residency or couldn’t complete residency that end up dying by suicide, but it gets pretty effectively swept under the rug.

That “clinical experience” can usually be fulfilled by shadowing and supervised practice like medical students and medical residents have to do isn’t actually required for NPs. Also, in most places, those 4 years of clinical practice can be as an MA or CNA, not necessarily an RN. The education and certification requirements for NPs are wildly inconsistent which I think is actually more dangerous than a standardized lower level of education.

A huge piece of a physician’s medical training is knowing what questions to ask (as well as how and when to ask) to uncover the sneaky things that aren’t apparent on the surface. For example, as a 4th year medical student, I had a patient in the ER that came in with shortness of breath, fatigue, and chest discomfort. There were a couple hints of red flags, so I asked more questions that didn’t seem like they were related at all. Was he having unintended weight changes, night sweats, or changes to his bowel movements? The answer to all three was “yes”, but he had no idea why I was asking about that when he was there for breathing problems. I had a suspicion that he was having complications from metastatic cancer, and I was right. The resident I was working with hadn’t even thought to dig into those other niggling suspicions and was more focused on cardiac and pulmonary causes of chest pain and breathing problems.

I can almost guarantee that a nurse practitioner wouldn’t have asked those questions either. I keyed into some very subtle signs on his exam which prompted me to dig deeper, but NP’s aren’t even really trained on how to get a deeper history, let alone when to do so.

As a patient, you do have the right to refuse to be treated by anyone. You may have to wait for a physician to be available, but no one can treat you without your consent and you can always ask for a provider’s title and licensure.

The AI alleviates the process of critical thinking though. I make my own review notebooks for my boards and for clinical rotations by taking the time to figure out what’s important and what I don’t know to put those things in my notebooks. I write these out by hand on paper, so I have to be judicious about what is going to actually be important, and just the process of making those priorities helps me to have a better understanding of my own deficiencies.

Making a good study guide requires critical thinking skills, and if that gets outsourced to AI, that means the critical thinking isn’t being done by the human that needs to learn that skill.

Nope. They can (and these days often do) go straight from their nursing degree to an NP program with no real work experience.

The problem is that most people don’t double check or they check a couple things then think “good enough”, and turn off the critical thinking part of their brain. That’s how lawyers ended up submitting a case brief with fake case citations. The “citations” look real enough, but to verify it, you have to go read the source yourself.

This goes for people citing studies without reading them first. There are a lot of studies that squidge the numbers around to make things look better and you have to look for things like how they parsed the data for the results and conclusions. I’ve personally made pharma reps very uncomfortable by digging into things like how they did or did not parse complications by sex (ie one complication was parsed by sex, but the other was combined)

Part of my concern is that APPs like nurse practitioners that have no supervised practice as part of their training are going to become even more poorly educated. Their curriculum is already algorithm-based, and because of the Nursing lobby pushing for more and more independence for NP’s, they have dwindling physician oversight requirements (in some places a physician only needs to audit 10% of their notes and never actually lay eyes on the patient themselves.)

Our board exams can only cover so much, so there are little things that can slip under the radar. Like I said in another comment, one of my classmates in medical school used Chat GPT to summarize the reading and it swapped the warning signs for 2 different neurological conditions, one of which is transient and can be fixed with medications, the other is one that can be lethal if not recognized quickly.

Residency training will weed some of them out, but if they never see/recognize those zebras until they show up on the autopsy, that patient still suffered for their laziness and cavalier attitude towards their education.

Medical student here. Some of my classmates did the same thing with summaries and study guides and it scrambled a couple of fine but extremely important details. The mistake meant that my classmate mixed up two presentations of neurological problems, one of which is transient and fixable with medications and the other is something that can rapidly become lethal if not recognized fast enough.

RT’s are precious resources for physicians, but the stakes for us fucking up are profoundly higher. (And if the RT does something wrong and the patient suffers harm, it’s still likely to land on the physician to some extent in terms of liability.)

I’m absolutely not advocating for removing that option. However, increasing the options for male birth control is necessary for a wide variety of reasons, including allowing male partners to take the burden off of their female partner if she isn’t able to tolerate the side effects or can’t find a birth control method that actually works well for her. It is, in effect, another birth control option for women to be able to defer some responsibility to a male partner in a committed relationship.

It’s not a great option for more casual encounters or early in relationships, but for established couples that already have children and don’t want more or are in a committed, trusting relationship, male birth control opens the possibility for the male partner to ease the burden of birth control effort and side effects.

Vasectomies are a great option, but there are a lot of folks who don’t want a permanent birth control so they won’t get a vasectomy.

Women and girls end up with suicidal ideation all the time when going through the trial and error process of finding the right hormone combination. There’s dozens of different formulations of hormonal contraceptive pills and it can be extremely difficult to find the one that will work for you with the least amount of side effects.

The suicidal ideation is so common that it just gets lumped into the fast-forward list of side effects alongside the potential for life-threatening blood clots and other things.

I think men should consider the potential harms to their partner in their calculus. If a man participates in causing a pregnancy that results in serious complications or death, I would sincerely hope that he would be as devastated by the loss of his partner as he would by suffering the harm himself. If men can’t empathize with their partner enough to consider the risks to her, then he shouldn’t be having sex in the first place.

Non-surgical birth control options for women tend to come with a lot of side effects and a number of risks that don’t always outweigh the benefit. Hormonal birth control can cause tons of problems for the women taking them and some of them are associated with life-threatening side effects like increased risk of clotting leading to DVTs, PEs, and strokes.

They’ve tried, but they can’t get FDA approval because the men in the clinical trials aren’t able to tolerate the side effects that pale in comparison to common side effects of hormonal birth control for women.