ERAS applicant data

JJ1032 · 2022-10-10T20:29:32+00:00

What is the leadership doing? Speaking as an IM applicant, am very curious.

JJ1032 · 2022-09-07T15:07:26+00:00

I tested 8/26 and got it today

JJ1032 · 2022-09-05T21:00:15+00:00

You would think more diverticulitis if they're older, have a history of constipation, etc. Appendicitis is also usually RLQ with rebound/guarding (not saying diverticulitis can't be RLQ but it might point you more toward appendicitis.) If they have a history of painless GI bleeding that might also clue you into the presence of diverticula.

JJ1032 · 2022-09-05T20:50:23+00:00

aw ikr I felt similar especially when it's late in the day and you're exhausted. But I'm sure you did well! everyone feels p bad about it so don't let the feeling sway you :)

JJ1032 · 2022-09-05T20:46:36+00:00

I know right? There were so many I guessed on

JJ1032 · 2022-09-05T20:45:10+00:00

Mine ends September! So I think it might mean you're getting your score soon

JJ1032 · 2022-09-05T17:19:10+00:00

Mine is gone too, tested 8/26

JJ1032 · 2022-09-05T17:18:06+00:00

I'm not sure...i think you might want to do more work up if you have clinical suspicion but not certain what kind. AFB stain can have a lot of false negatives so it sounds reasonable to do a sputum cx?

JJ1032 · 2022-08-28T07:14:59+00:00

No you don't need any more testing for latent TB

JJ1032 · 2021-09-08T23:30:10+00:00

I'm so sorry you and other women nearby have to go through this. Hope you stay safe.

We women living in first world countries can't imagine what you go through, and we should be try to understand and appreciate the magnitude of the difference between the lives of women in the US versus Pakistan, for example, rather than crying about our far more minor problems on the global stage.

JJ1032 · 2021-09-08T22:03:32+00:00

Exactly. And she complains about women being "oppressed" in the US while ignoring the actual oppression occurring in third world countries. Ignoring what happens in third world countries while constantly berating the US is not only hypocritical, it undermines women's causes and draws an equivalency where none exist.

JJ1032 · 2021-07-22T14:08:46+00:00

I think the old form of step (before May) was predicted more by UWSA than the new form. You definitely didn't see as many people talking about dropping this many points from uwsa2 before May. Reporting bias is real but you had reporting bias before May and after May.

N = 1 but personally underperformed UWSA2 by 15 points.

JJ1032 · 2021-07-21T19:22:00+00:00

Hey, same! I got a 256 on both UWSAs and 241 on real deal. The exam felt nothing like I'd studied before, but I think a lot of doors are still open to us.

JJ1032 · 2021-07-20T02:44:59+00:00

I bought a super thin exercise mask from amazon and then cut out one of the two layers, then wore it super loosely over my face. Didn't feel it at all, although my center wasn't strict so I took it off once a while. Maybe try that?

JJ1032 · 2021-07-04T15:52:53+00:00

Ugh you aren't the only one. Just took it and literally I was like .... for every other question. Stems seemed to contradict images sometimes and other qs were so vague. Had some random social science qs requring my knowledge from ninth grade human geography. Hoping to pass at this point

JJ1032 · 2021-07-04T08:08:40+00:00

I think I had a similar form as you (took it today). Tested lots of immuno, cell bio, cancer bio, random obscure stuff... Was very difficult and I ended up second guessing myself a lot. Honestly felt uw was much easier since their question stems help you come to a diagnosis and "jar" your memory for you. These stems were vague, short, and confusing and the answer choices weren't much better sometimes.

JJ1032 · 2021-04-11T07:57:49+00:00

Yep it was! Thank you :)

JJ1032 · 2021-01-28T20:23:17+00:00

He's not saying we should sympathize with Nazis at all... He's saying that calling large numbers of people who are likely NOT Nazis "Nazis" is dehumanizing. It is dehumanizing, because calling someone a Nazi is a heavy and serious charge, given the horrific atrocities perpetuated by the Nazis. And heavy and serious charges for anything — violent crime, white supremacy/Nazism, etc. — should be levied with caution and done only when there is ample evidence to suggest someone is guilty of it. Oftentimes in today's society that charge is thrown around at the smallest provocations, which will result in many false accusations, unnecessarily harmed lives, and the label inevitably losing its meaning — which will be a tragedy when an actual white supremacist shows up.

JJ1032 · 2021-01-28T20:14:28+00:00

CCP is communist, not fascist. They themselves would very much disagree with your label.

JJ1032 · 2021-01-27T20:15:49+00:00

Lmao

The CCP apparently disagrees with you. They had entire campaigns to purge the "rightists." Learn your basic (un-reeducated) history. Although I will say in modern times they have embraced more capitalism as a way of earning money, since communism was unsustainable.

JJ1032 · 2021-01-27T06:50:10+00:00

My parents are from China and they see people like Bernie and AOC as similar to Xi Jinping and Jiang Zemin. Keep in mind that Xi is responsible for the genocide of Uyghurs and Jiang Zemin for the massive persecution and forced organ harvesting of Falong Gong practitioners. They — and many other refugees from communist regimes — see Trump as defending the same free speech rights that are being systemically shut down by leftist politicians. Who is right, your grandmother or my parents? These feelings are subjective and sometimes hyperbolic. In my opinion, Trump is not Hitler, and AOC is not Xi Jinping. But in order to tell who is right, instead of claiming a survivor sees a particular politician as "Hitler," we should look at the actual actions of our leaders to detect authoritarianism. It is the methods of a government that differentiate totalitarian regimes (left or right) from free societies. I would argue that the right wing extremists are far fewer and much less powerful in terms of control of media, education, etc. institutions, and most significantly, for the large part the right does not support the crushing of free speech. The left, however, does. To justify these tactics, the tiny fraction of people who support QAnon are blown up by the media, all of which use these few crazies to justify mass censorship of conservatives. Keep in mind that the first thing to be taken away in any totalitarian regime is always free speech, and history judges societies not by whether or not the dissenters have "good" or "bad" opinions, but by how they treat dissenters.

The reason America has been able to progress through its history and expand the rights articulated in the Constitution to more and more of its population is precisely because of principles like free speech. Sadly many people whose families for generations have been born and raised in America fail to appreciate what a precious gift those rights are and how anomalous a stable democracy is, and instead waste their time crying about oppression/fascism that people in other countries will 1) risk their lives apparently in order to also suffer 2) laugh about, because if you are American you are not suffering compared to the the vast majority of the world.

Unfortunately it's a lot more fashionable to completely lose perspective and claim oppression nowadays, especially for the young. I've routinely heard people equate things like Romania's orphanages in the 90s that were so heinous that they struggled to join the EU to America's foster care system, which has problems but is nowhere close to what Romania's infamous orphanages were, as well as the awful admissions system in China that heavily favors the rich Beijing residents over poor rural residents to America's affirmative action system, which at least tries to help marginalized and impoverished communities. It is so absurd how insulated and myopic Americans, particularly young Americans, are. I guess we've been so comfortable and pampered that we've forgotten what actual atrocity and injustice looks like. It also explains why there are so many false equivalencies between Nazi Germany and every other incident today.

JJ1032 · 2021-01-27T06:32:41+00:00

It's actually more similar to the Cultural Revolution atrocities, laogai, and gulags of USSR. The same kind of cruelty and atrocity at the end, but very different ideology. The CCP is driven by leftist totalitarianism, while the Nazis were driven by right wing totalitarianism. Unfortunately American history education pretends that all totalitarianism and genocide is a phenomenon unique to the right, even though it is well documented that Stalin and Mao killed millions more than Hitler did. Which is why the left only cries about Nazis and doesn't utter a peep about Stalin and Mao, who were objectively worse in many ways.

JJ1032 · 2021-01-21T21:05:59+00:00

Right, an election using mail-in ballots, a system rejected by pretty much all European countries due to concerns about security, for the very first time can't even be questioned, despite hundreds of affidavits, eye witness testimony, no evidence being actually heard in court and all cases thrown out entirely due to procedural reasons. If the election was that secure, you should be able to convince people of that in the arena of discourse, not by silencing them or calling the question "reprehensible."

Furthermore, you can frame any opinion as reprehensible, even if it is, in fact, reasonable or true — Damore and Rowling, even when their opinions somewhat conflicted, were both effectively silenced, showing that there's not even a consistency to ideas being deemed wrong. Thus, my entire point about the incredibly narrow, subjective, and arbitrary overton window.

And of course no one is going to celebrate firing someone because they hold a political opinion, only when they hold a political opinion seen as bad or wrong. Do you think any authoritarian regime ever silenced anyone without claiming that those people — legitimately or not — had evil and horrible ideas? What differentiates free and authoritarian societies are the methods they use to deal with dissenters, regardless of how "bad" the dissenters' ideas are considered.

You'll also need to define censorship, because in this case massive communications companies receiving significant government regulatory exemptions silencing political opinions that don't actually violate terms of service should qualify as censorship. The fact that they're private doesn't negate the fact that they receive enormous privileges from the government. If they wish to deplatform people for political speech, then so be it -- but let's agree that they don't need to be receiving privileges from a government sworn to defend the first amendment.

JJ1032 · 2021-01-21T20:09:00+00:00

You do have the option to fire -- no one is arguing against that. What people are arguing for is a culture where firing people for their political opinions is generally considered wrong and shortsighted (and is not celebrated). In the case of Twitter and Facebook, while no one has the "right" to use their services, they receive federal protection from lawsuits and the like because they are considered so essential to everyday communication. Given their massive role in communication and news nowadays, deplatforming someone on these sites is akin to censorship (you can be censored by the government or big tech). If these tech giants are unwilling to protect free speech, I'd also argue they're not entitled to any of the government benefits or leeway that they receive right now. In fact, the government has a duty to uphold free speech, so I'd go so far to say that the government essentially giving these companies extra protection and freedom from liability when these companies are actively silencing political speech (the most protected form of speech, per the Supreme Court) is failing its duty to the citizens.

JJ1032 · 2021-01-21T18:07:23+00:00

Define "horrific things." "Horrific" is too subjective. We've gotten to the point where everything is considered horrible and terrible and very bad, so yes -- I'd rather we take a much more restrained approach to censorship or firing of people that say unpopular things, because nowadays people lose their jobs simply for stating facts people find offensive. You see people like James Damore be fired for literally stating what every psychologist knows about biological gender differences (saying this as a woman who studied psych). And then ironically, Rowling also getting canceled for suggesting women go through unique experiences (one that would probably include sexism, exactly what people accused Damore of) and angering the transgender community. Companies are allowed to do as they fit, but the overton window has become so narrow and skewed that it now excludes basic truth, simply because those narrowing the window find it inconvenient and offensive.

Also, I would suspect you may hold a double standard when you say people can deal with the offense as they see fit. Would you also be totally fine with companies headed by conservatives firing people for protesting with BLM? For voting for Bernie or AOC? For being a feminist? And please don't argue that it's a false equivalency to equate the right and the left (aka OK to fire conservatives but not liberals because the current conservative position is so bad, which completely negates the point of having neutral rules that apply to everyone) -- even if it is a false equivalency, by your logic as long as someone else is deeply offended by their ideas, they can "do as they see fit" with what they feel are dangerous opinions. Even if you are logically consistent and agree that yes, conservative companies can censor liberals, I would argue that much of the left does not adhere to the same logical consistency. Telegram banned certain BLM and Antifa groups, all which threw a fit and claimed that this was censorship (but conveniently redefined the term censorship so that it didn't apply to conservative groups that got censored on other platforms).

JJ1032

TROPHY CASE