There is *real* anger toward this organization. Honestly, more than I even heard about from MD students and the NBME.
You asked. So here are my thoughts on how osteopathic medical students should respond to the NBOME.
(thread)
I think most of us are over here waiting to see what @jbcarmody has to say about the latest NBOME email pic.twitter.com/bVWkS23V7z
— Jake Berg (@jberg521) January 28, 2021
There is *real* anger toward this organization. Honestly, more than I even heard about from MD students and the NBME.
Amorphous anger on social media is easy to ignore. But if that anger gets channeled into organized efforts to facilitate change, then improvements are possible.
Best case scenario, you’ll get another “town hall” meeting, a handful of platitudes, and some thoughtful beard stroking before being told that they’re keeping the exam.
Almost all states allow DO licensure by completing the USMLE series. If you aren’t required to engage with the NBOME, don’t.
As an MD who has passed the USMLE, I could practice in any state. Why shouldn’t a DO who passed the USMLE be able to do the same?
(State boards that prop up the NBOME with a COMLEX requirement are listed in the Tweet below.) https://t.co/stace4lMjD
For those wondering, DO students who completed Step1 & Step2CK are eligible to sit for Step3 and receive state licensure w/o COMLEX series in ~44/50 states; 5 states can accommodate others w/o Level2PE; 1 state, FL, does not.
— Mustafa Basree MS (@mustafabasree) January 26, 2021
See below if you're considering below 5 states \U0001f447\U0001f3fd
The board may be friendly with the NBOME, but they’re still accountable to the legislature.
It’s ultimately the COCA requirement that keeps the NBOME in business.
They should think carefully about whether, at this point in history, a “separate but equal” licensing exam hurts DOs more than it helps.
https://t.co/pFwaAx01oB
More from Education
.@MassGovernor Baker says FY22 budget proposal will fully fund the 1st year of the Student Opportunity Act. #mapoli #MassMuni21
— Mass. Municipal Assn (@massmunicipal) January 22, 2021
First up:
The FIRST year, Governor Baker?
This is the second year of SOA implementation: you're missing one.
So, are we going to do this in six years, or are we just going to kick the can ANOTHER year on kids?
Remember, school funding is builds on prior years.
We never get that missing funding back.
Also: what are the base numbers being used?
Is the Governor dropping enrollment, even though we all know that was an artificial drop?
There's a decent chance that a WHOLE bunch of those kindergartner and preschoolers are going to be back this fall if we manage to get kids into buildings, PLUS we'll have the USUAL enrollment of preK and K!
...and less funding than usual?
You May Also Like
RT-PCR corona (test) scam
Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
4/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
...indication, first of all that testing for a (single) respiratory virus is done outside of surveillance systems or need for specific therapy, but even so the lack of consideration of Ct, symptoms and clinical findings when interpreting its result. https://t.co/gHH6kwRdZG
2/12
It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
6/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
The neither validated nor standardised hypersensitive RT-PCR test / Ct 35-45 for SARS-CoV-2 is abused to mislabel (also) other diseases, especially influenza, as COVID-19.https://t.co/AkFIfTCTkS
3/12
The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.https://t.co/mbNY8bdw1p pic.twitter.com/OQBD4grMth
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) November 29, 2020
4/12
Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID
Thread web\u2b06\ufe0f\u2b07\ufe0f
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) December 16, 2020
The fabrication of the "asymptomatic (super) spreader" is the coronation of the total nons(ci)ense in the belief system of #CoronasWitnesses.
Asymptomatic transmission 0.7%; 95% CI 0%-4.9% - could well be 0%!https://t.co/VeZTzxXfvT
5/12
Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
8/8
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) March 24, 2020
By the way, who the f*** created this obviously (almost) worldwide definition of #CoronaDeath?
This is not only medical malpractice, this is utterly insane!https://t.co/FFsTx4L2mw