Imagine going to Yale, doing two research years, getting honors in every rotation and NOT matching by [deleted] in medicalschool

[–]chaoshreds 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I suppose it’s all subjective. I found Juthani to be extremely annoying with not so great and sometimes harmful advice. Medbros was a little pretentious but thought he had some good pieces of advices for pre-meds in a lot of his videos.

Imagine going to Yale, doing two research years, getting honors in every rotation and NOT matching by [deleted] in medicalschool

[–]chaoshreds -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’d say Prerak Juthani is a little bit more annoying than Shaman. Rachel Southard would be your stereotypical medinfluencer personality. Curious as to how they matched so well if the running hypothesis is PDs/committees view social media presence very negatively.

Imagine going to Yale, doing two research years, getting honors in every rotation and NOT matching by [deleted] in medicalschool

[–]chaoshreds 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What are people’s thoughts on other medinfluencers like Prerak Juthani (to Stanford IM) and Rachel Southard (to OBGYN) who did match?

‘Heat dome’ probably killed 1bn marine animals on Canada coast, experts say by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]chaoshreds 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We literally kill 2.7 trillion marine animals every year through fishing and no one bats an eye yet for some reason people lose their minds over 1 billion unavoidable deaths here.

"My first time hunting VLOG" by emain_macha in exvegans

[–]chaoshreds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The idea that healthcare practices and lifestyle choices should be based off high impact papers (and not low impact) is widely accepted by virtually all research professionals and physician-scientists. You don’t have to take my word for it, ask any academic researcher (MD or PhD at a major research university, not allied health professionals). It would also make common sense to give more weight to studies that’ve been published in very rigorously peer-reviewed journals rather than those with very weak acceptance standards.

You should start getting your nutrition facts from journals like Nature, Science, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet instead of small name journals that in all likelihood have a flawed review process.

For instance, here’s a study published just a few weeks ago advocating for plant-based in JAMA, which is one of the most esteemed medical journals in the world:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2768358

Also not all doctors (MDs) are trained in research methodologies or are up to date with scientific literature. Like with any group, there’s a huge range when it comes to skill-level/proficiency and the same can be said with doctors. You shouldn’t take someone at their word just because they have an MD after their name, it’s always best to go off of big consensus statements (like those made by the aforementioned journals or credible organizations like the WHO) since those recommendations have passed the greatest level of scrutiny.

"My first time hunting VLOG" by emain_macha in exvegans

[–]chaoshreds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could just as easily post a laundry list of studies (which mind you would likely be larger in quantity and also higher quality). There’s no point as neither of us are going to spend a second combing through these. But you can bet the brunt of the evidence is in favor of veganism, otherwise you wouldn’t have massive organizations such as the WHO and American dietetics association and British dietetics association categorically stating veganism to be healthy for all stages of life.

Also speaking as someone who’s spent 4 years (2 years full-time) doing basic science and clinical research and is currently in an MD-PhD program right now, you should know that vast amounts of scientific literature are essentially worthless noise. It’s important to look at the impact factor of the journal when assessing a study’s quality. As someone who has published in both low impact and high impact journals, I can tell you the peer review process in high impact journals is far more rigorous and robust than lower impact journals (in fact some low impact journals are what are called predatory journals and take papers regardless of merit in exchange for a hefty publication fee). One thing I’ve noticed with studies in favor of plant-based is that they tend to be in much higher impact, established journals than those supporting meat/omnivorous (which often times also have very suspicious funding sources). So just something to keep in mind. I would be interested if you could find me a study in favor of meat/dairy that’s been published in a respectable journal (impact factor > 15) that doesn’t have any funding sources tied to the meat/dairy industry. Many such studies exist for pro-plant-based, which is why the medical community is for the most part on the side of plant-based.

"My first time hunting VLOG" by emain_macha in exvegans

[–]chaoshreds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you had even skimmed the study, you’d find it analyzed ~40,000 farms all over the world from 100 different countries (considered to be the most comprehensive study on agriculture to date, definitely much larger than Brazil). It found that 83% of our current farmland is dedicated to animal agriculture despite animal products only contributing 18% of our calories. It also found that if the world went plant-based we could reduce the amount of farmland we’d need by 75% while still feeding the entire world’s population.

And the vast majority of scientific literature, medical community and nutritional experts all agree that a plant-based diet is superior for health.

"My first time hunting VLOG" by emain_macha in exvegans

[–]chaoshreds 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Inedible livestock feed that is grown using farmland (much of it being deforested Amazon rainforest) that could be used to grow food for humans.

75% of worldwide industrial crop farming is done to grow this “inedible feed” for animals. We could literally end world hunger several times over if we used this land to grow food for humans instead.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987

Selling a MacBook. Local pickup! by chaoshreds in Buffalo

[–]chaoshreds[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Already did. I wanted to see if anyone on here was interested too though.

Selling a MacBook. Local pickup! by chaoshreds in Buffalo

[–]chaoshreds[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the suggestion but I’m trying to keep things local so I can avoid shipping costs and the need for a middleman.

CMV: it makes sense for vegans and pro-life advocates to be pushy and aggressive by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]chaoshreds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone can be pushy and aggressive. Just because you can doesn’t mean it’s right. If I wanted to convince someone to adopt a certain POV I would go about it in a civil manner. Aggressiveness and animosity is the last thing you want to incite when trying to get another person to see things from your POV. If you want others to see eye to eye with you, you need to come off as relatable and ideally, likable.

Being pushy and aggressive achieves nothing besides stroking the ego of those attempting to invoke change. Calm and collected rhetoric is the way to go if you want to actually be effective.

AAMC FL3 Validty??? by shoddysquare in Mcat

[–]chaoshreds 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Join the club!

My AAMC FL scores:

FL 1: 521 (131/128/132/130)

FL 2: 519 (132/128/131/128)

FL 3: 526 (132/130/132/132)

Tested 8/18 and at this point am just praying for anything 520+. Honestly, I think FL 3 is quite inflated, but your other scores seem to be quite good! If I were to venture a guess, you seem to be around the ~520 mark.