Should doctors refuse to teat PTs who do not follow instructions?

[Abakus]

To preface, my posts have little substance on this issue because it has been beaten to death numerous times, and thus you won't find too much substance here. Vaccines are one of the greatest medical advances in the last 200 years. I say you have no idea because you qualify vaccines as having risk, which no one would deny, but you fail to adequately weigh it against the risks, which are far greater, of serious illness with potentially life-altering complications. The risk is relative.

Okay. I haven't been on Anandtech for long so I haven't seen the instances where the subject was talked to death, but I understand.

As for the vaccines; I didn't say they weren't great medical advances, or that they weren't beneficial to mankind or history, or anything else. I was only trying to argue that some people find even the small risk too much of a risk for them or their children. And before I knew the context of the thread was for private practices only—having pretty much be told the proper context a few posts after my second post—I said just because someone has that view doesn't mean one can deny them health care.

That was all I was trying to say, at first. Then it turned into trying to prove adverse effects happen to justify said people's rejection of vaccinations on another misunderstanding and now? Well...

Attacking the immune system? Where do you get this from? The body is under constant attack from the environment. A vaccine, or even mutliple ones at the same time, is not dangerous to an infant.

I got it from a uni med book, and a few pamphlets at the medical station at my nearest hospital. As for my comment, I meant it puts a greater strain on the immune system being vaccinated with more than 5+ vaccines.

A lawsuit is not scientific evidence of a vaccine actually causing the injury.

This is true. I was just providing it as a means to prove it does happen and that even if it is rare, it has hurt people before. But this was apparently on a misunderstanding.

Lastly, on the mercury point: Thiomersal has not been shown to produce a toxic form of mercury and it is not in use for the majority of vaccines used in the United States.

Okay, that clears it up. I remember reading an article at uni a few weeks back about how vaccines used to have them (back in the '80s when babies were dying after vaccination) but I guess I read it for either another country or maybe it was someone's views on it.

You should consider doing some basic reading from some authoritative, and scientifically backed sources:

eg: the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm
The preceding section even explains the flaws of using the VAERS system alone to infer vaccine risk.

MISCONCEPTION #4. Vaccines cause many harmful side effects, illnesses, and even death - not to mention possible long-term effects we don't even know about.

Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications (which sometimes contain the number of reports received by VAERS, and allow the reader to infer that all of them represent genuine vaccine side-effects). Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary....More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically. Of all deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 1992, only one is believed to be even possibly associated with a vaccine. Each death reported to VAERS is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem, but little or no evidence suggests that vaccines have contributed to any of the reported deaths. The Institute of Medicine in its 1994 report states that the risk of death from vaccines is "extraordinarily low."

And finally, they include some risk analysis

Risk from Disease versus Risk from Vaccine: Even one serious adverse event in a million doses of vaccine cannot be justified if there is no benefit from the vaccination. If there were no vaccines, there would be many more cases of disease, and along with the more disease, there would be serious sequelae and more deaths. But looking at risk alone is not enough - you must always look at both risks and benefits. Comparing the risk from disease with the risk from the vaccines can give us an idea of the benefits we get from vaccinating our children.
DISEASE

Measles
Pneumonia: 6 in 100
Encephalitis: 1 in 1,000
Death: 2 in 1,000

Rubella
Congenital Rubella Syndrome: 1 in 4 (if woman becomes infected early in pregnancy)
​

VACCINES

MMR
Encephalitis or severe allergic reaction:
1 in 1,000,000
​

----


Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis vs. DTap Vaccine

DISEASE

Diphtheria
Death: 1 in 20

Tetanus
Death: 2 in 10

Pertussis
Pneumonia: 1 in 8
Encephalitis: 1 in 20
Death: 1 in 1,500
​

VACCINES DTaP
Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000
Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000
Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000
Death: None proven

To top it off, they have a great line:

In fact, to have a medical intervention as effective as vaccination in preventing disease and not use it would be unconscionable

Thank you for the link. I am reading over it right now, and at least I can maneuver through the website and search results actually give me something.

 

[Brainonska511]

Thank you for the link. I am reading over it right now, and at least I can maneuver through the website and search results actually give me something.

Pubmed is a good source for scientific literature, but the main problem with scientific literature is the level it is written at. The terminology, techniques, and references to earlier works are not written for lay people, they are written for other scientists in those fields and surrounding fields. And there is an art to searching with Pubmed. I love it though, as I've use it frequently to find relevant literature in my field.

As for my comment, I meant it puts a greater strain on the immune system being vaccinated with more than 5+ vaccines.

That's been addressed in my link. In brief, people are exposed to more things by simply living and the additional exposure from vaccines is negligible, and as far as I know, has never been shown to be a real issue.

 

[Sulaco]

Never going to happen because doctors who value anything more than money are few and far between.

Right right, hold this powerful crystal and think happy thoughts. I'm sure Kevin Trudeau has all your cures in his bank accoun---I mean---books.

Nothing like a Texashiker thread to bring out the imbeciles and truly uneducated. And out they are, in force.

 

[Abakus]

Pubmed is a good source for scientific literature, but the main problem with scientific literature is the level it is written at. The terminology, techniques, and references to earlier works are not written for lay people, they are written for other scientists in those fields and surrounding fields. And there is an art to searching with Pubmed. I love it though, as I've use it frequently to find relevant literature in my field.

That's been addressed in my link. In brief, people are exposed to more things by simply living and the additional exposure from vaccines is negligible, and as far as I know, has never been shown to be a real issue.

Definitely not for laypeople, and I think I'm figuring out the search engine. I finally got a result.

I just finished reading the link and you are right, it does direct my comment. I was under the impression the vaccines were created very potent to help build immunity, especially in the "combo vaccines" so with that in mind I was thinking that it would effect the immune system differently.

But I haven't found anything that says they increased the potency of the vaccines drastically as I was led to believe. I tried the search option but I can't get some of the docs to even open. A local doctor here by the name of Bulric is often stopping parents from vaccinating their children because of potency increases of vaccines. He's pretty old and hard to talk to so getting sources out of him is like wrestling a cougar. Can the potency of the vaccines make any differences?

 

[Moonbeam]

Definitely not for laypeople, and I think I'm figuring out the search engine. I finally got a result.

I just finished reading the link and you are right, it does direct my comment. I was under the impression the vaccines were created very potent to help build immunity, especially in the "combo vaccines" so with that in mind I was thinking that it would effect the immune system differently.

But I haven't found anything that says they increased the potency of the vaccines drastically as I was led to believe. I tried the search option but I can't get some of the docs to even open. A local doctor here by the name of Bulric is often stopping parents from vaccinating their children because of potency increases of vaccines. He's pretty old and hard to talk to so getting sources out of him is like wrestling a cougar. Can the potency of the vaccines make any differences?

I have a theory that break calipers cause hearing loss. Do you think if I washed them in silver chloride I would be able to hear better. But sometimes I think to myself, why do I have this theory and why did I fix on silver and the answer I always give myself is, well, who else is there to ask? I mean where could I find an expert better than me. Of course silver chloride has to be the answer, I thought of it didn't I? But because you're a nobody and not an expert like me, I can tell you quite frankly what I would never tell myself, and that is that you are absolutely unqualified to ask or answer meaningful questions about vaccines. You are one of the peons, not like me, who isn't an expert with expert questions. Leave the science to some mouth breathing Nobel Prize chaser who is determined to make himself famous by discovering the real truth about vaccines. If she can prove they are dangerous the world will be a better place and she will be famous and qualified to be. I know, I am the worlds leading authority of break caliper pads and silver chloride, very well known and famous in my own head.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Which is where a doctor comes in, and why they hold the keys to the medicine cabinet and expensive machines and labs.

Patient - Hey here's my deal, should we 'x'?
Doctor - Yeah, that's likely, good plan.

or

Doctor - I don't think so in this case because of 'y'. Instead, let's try 'z'.

Patient (either way) - Goodo, thanks for the increased understanding.


My point is for a reasonable person to do their own legwork, and maintain awareness of, and responsibility for, their own health. The idea of a doctor being a 'life coach' or having input into any other aspect of your life besides medicine isn't just laughable to me, it's offensive.

I don't know what a "life coach" is, but here's the first thing you said

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't go to a doctor for medical advice and guidance. I go for treatment or to have prescriptions written. I can do the research and make the choices myself, but I'm not able (legally or because of resources) to obtain the treatment. That's all a doctor is for me.

Part of treatment is advice and guidance. You can ignore it if you please but you apparently haven't any idea what proper medicine is about. It's not just what pill to pop. Is there an element of responsibility for the patient? Definitely. Getting people to do what is needed, or compliance, is a difficult thing indeed, but my problem with your attitude isn't about being a responsible adult, but that you seem to think you are qualified in some way, some internet expert. Still, that's not a problem for me. If you "know" what's wrong and "know" the treatment, be my guest. But when you "know" so much and apply it to those who are dependent upon you? Then we have issues, and no I don't mean for every scratch or headache, but you think you know much more than you can.

So you have hypertension. Tell me everything you know about the disease, and treatment. Then tell me a professionals line of reasoning in determining what to test for how a determination of what medication, if any, is to be prescribed. What would he or she want to know before giving out something and why?

By all means please be an educated consumer but don't think that makes you a qualified practitioner.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I don't know what a "life coach" is, but here's the first thing you said

Part of treatment is advice and guidance. You can ignore it if you please but you apparently haven't any idea what proper medicine is about. It's not just what pill to pop.

No, not JUST, but that is an integral part...probably THE integral part. Not merely pharmaceuticals mind you, but treatment in general. If you know how to set a dislocated finger (or whatever) then you don't really need a doctor for it (unless complications arise). People deliver their own children all the time. Except in EXTREMELY rare cases any person can learn enough to treat and deal with most common injuries, conditions, and maladies. Doesn't hurt to see an expert for reassurance, or to maybe hear other options you've missed, but there's no reason a person can't be more or less in charge of their own health.

Advice and guidance on the specific injury or condition you're currently suffering, sure. Advice or guidance on bullshit that has nothing to do with that, then no. A doctor isn't there to tell you how to live your life, they're ONLY there to treat your existing medical problems. At least, that's all I utilize them for, or will accept from them.

Is there an element of responsibility for the patient? Definitely. Getting people to do what is needed, or compliance, is a difficult thing indeed, but my problem with your attitude isn't about being a responsible adult, but that you seem to think you are qualified in some way, some internet expert.

I'm exactly as qualified as anyone else, on any basic subject I choose to learn about...in exactly the same way that a doctor became qualified through their acquiring of that knowledge (or any other person in any other profession or with any other skill or knowledge set). The piece of paper has NOTHING to do with them being qualified...only their reading of books and such (initially, though then experience of course plays in after time). It's the knowledge, not the person, that makes a 'doctor' (or anything else), and that knowledge is freely available to all mankind if they simply choose to pursue it.

Still, that's not a problem for me. If you "know" what's wrong and "know" the treatment, be my guest. But when you "know" so much and apply it to those who are dependent upon you? Then we have issues, and no I don't mean for every scratch or headache, but you think you know much more than you can.

Bullshit, or every expert in every field then 'knows more than they can'. Remember, they're average people like anyone else. All they did was open a book and jump through some hoops. Anyone can do it, at least with specific issues if not the vast body of total knowledge and experience.

What's more, we have no issues with me learning about anything my daughter may be going through. In fact, 'we' do not exist regarding my daughter. You have fuck all to say about my daughter and I, or I then also gain equal right over your relationship with your children. From my posts on this forum I think you know damn well the sorts of things I would insist on them learning and doing. Is that ok with you?

It is my opinion that anyone who entrusts the safety and treatment of their children (or themselves) entirely to 'experts' is frankly too stupid and pitiable to even deserve the care. Consult, sure. Utilize available resources, of course. But be the final arbiter...take responsibility. It's ALWAYS on the individual, not anyone else.

So you have hypertension. Tell me everything you know about the disease, and treatment. Then tell me a professionals line of reasoning in determining what to test for how a determination of what medication, if any, is to be prescribed. What would he or she want to know before giving out something and why?

Pointless exercise. Here's the synopsis: I discovered I had high blood pressure, researched it, arrived at a probable conclusion and likely course of treatment I was ok with. I consulted my doctor, they agreed, ran the necessary tests and off I went with my prescriptions and my newly controlled hypertension.

However I could have used any example (strep, ear infection, etc). When I can't figure it out (like with my turned rib) I go throw myself on the mercy of experts. In so doing I usually discover other paths of analysis and treatment, and add that to my knowledge base. Just like a doctor (or any other person), I'm in a constant state of growth.

Here's the clincher for me: for most people that rely on others if you remove their access to those others for any reason, they're utterly fucked. For me, I'll be ok with all but the rarest situations. I can build/wire/plumb a house, fix a car, program a computer, treat illness and injury, obtain my own food, learn, educate, fix, deal...I'm more or less capable of doing anything, at least after just a bit of quick reading. I take it upon myself to learn everything I can about everything I can so that I can be responsible for my own life in every way. Doesn't mean I don't go to the experts sometimes, but I don't HAVE to most of the time. That's one reason I can live so well on so little...I don't waste my money giving it to others for things I can do myself.

By all means please be an educated consumer but don't think that makes you a qualified practitioner.

We have a fundamental difference of opinion. You seem to think doctors are born, and are somehow special. I think they're just people who took the time to learn about a subject...usually broadly in order to practice it as a profession. There is NOTHING special about them. Any person of average or greater intelligence can learn anything any doctor knows, given time and determination. Now that doesn't mean that person will easily know EVERYTHING a doctor knows without going through the same education and experiences, but it DOES mean they can learn enough about any given condition/disease or what have you to hazard an educated conclusion about diagnosis or treatment options. The knowledge exists, which is how the doctor's acquired it in the first place. You just have to take the time to learn it for yourself.

 

[glenn1]

Here's the clincher for me: for most people that rely on others if you remove their access to those others for any reason, they're utterly fucked. For me, I'll be ok with all but the rarest situations. I can build/wire/plumb a house, fix a car, program a computer, treat illness and injury, obtain my own food, learn, educate, fix, deal...I'm more or less capable of doing anything, at least after just a bit of quick reading. I take it upon myself to learn everything I can about everything I can so that I can be responsible for my own life in every way. Doesn't mean I don't go to the experts sometimes, but I don't HAVE to most of the time. That's one reason I can live so well on so little...I don't waste my money giving it to others for things I can do myself.

Queue up the "Are you a doctor? No, but I stayed at Holiday Inn Express" commercial. IOW, you're a self-proclaimed genius who thinks he's an expert on complex subjects, but really just does a bunch of stuff really badly because he's a cheap bastard. No wonder you're poor, no one wants to hire a blowhard charlatan who doesn't even realize the depths of his incompetence.

I think I found a picture of you:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Queue up the "Are you a doctor? No, but I stayed at Holiday Inn Express" commercial. IOW, you're a self-proclaimed genius who thinks he's an expert on complex subjects, but really just does a bunch of stuff really badly because he's a cheap bastard. No wonder you're poor, no one wants to hire a blowhard charlatan who doesn't even realize the depths of his incompetence.

I think I found a picture of you:

You can be an ignorant douche resorting to ad hominem out of lack of self-worth all you want, doesn't change the facts, and the fact is I'm correct.

 

[abj13]

I didn't contradict myself. Again you got ahead of yourself. I wanted you to read;

= what I wanted you to read to clarify my stance even further. And this is the content of the page I was referring to;

To help clear up any more confusion over my stance since you seem to keep making them up for me as you go.

I was quite aware of what was said prior or after the section. I assure you I read it entirely. Once again you are trying to give me a stance or an argument I never once made. But you'll ignore this and rant against an imaginary stance for who knows how much longer.

FALSE. You paraded around here with statements like:

"but it is also doing damage to your body, especially if it mandatory to have multiple vaccinations within a year or two span."

And then you quote a website that states the exact opposite. "Studies have shown that vaccines are as effective when administered simultaneously as they are individually and carry no greater risk for adverse side effects." There has not been a study linking multiple vaccines at the same time to "doing damage to your body." I've already posted several peer reviewed studies looking at the idea of multiple vaccines with adverse effects, and they did not find any.

Its your statements that the anti-vaccine nutjobs like to claim over and over, except there has never been an association between "too many vaccines" and a specific adverse effect.

I understand perfectly the risks of the vaccines, I understand the risks of the diseases that vaccines fight, I understand how rare the adverse effects are (as previously stated four times), and I certainly "grasp" the idea that it "greatly outweighs" the rare risk.

I'm going to try and say it again and hopefully you won't twist my words any further:

The risks are still there, even if small, and is enough for people to worry over it and decide not to get the vaccinations because of it. Why? Because they fear the off chance it will happen to them or their child.
And there is the risk to worry about. Whether you agree with them or not.

No. This is exactly why I replied to you in the first place. Your comments are completely out of left field, and is not based on science. You like to trump up the "risk" of vaccines. What are the risks of vaccines? As already posted:

DISEASE
Diphtheria
Death: 1 in 20

Tetanus
Death: 2 in 10

Pertussis
Pneumonia: 1 in 8
Encephalitis: 1 in 20
Death: 1 in 1,500

VACCINES
DTaP
Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000
Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000
Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000
Death: None proven

You want to run around saying that there is reason for people to say the risks outweigh the benefits of vaccines. That is simply false. Any logical person, independent to the situation looking at the above risk would realize the risks of vaccination are extraordinarily small, and it would be downright foolish for people to refuse vaccination given the risks of the preventable diseases.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Queue up the "Are you a doctor? No, but I stayed at Holiday Inn Express" commercial. IOW, you're a self-proclaimed genius who thinks he's an expert on complex subjects, but really just does a bunch of stuff really badly because he's a cheap bastard. No wonder you're poor, no one wants to hire a blowhard charlatan who doesn't even realize the depths of his incompetence.

I think I found a picture of you:

Not just a Holiday Inn Express, but one with a good wifi connection! He can look up on the internet what it takes others years upon years to learn. There's an old saying- If someone wants to make a fool out of themselves then hurry up and get out of their way.

Next week: Perpetual motion, immortality, FTL travel and world peace and all before lunch.

 

[Sulaco]

I'm exactly as qualified as anyone else, on any basic subject I choose to learn about...in exactly the same way that a doctor became qualified through their acquiring of that knowledge (or any other person in any other profession or with any other skill or knowledge set). The piece of paper has NOTHING to do with them being qualified...only their reading of books and such (initially, though then experience of course plays in after time). It's the knowledge, not the person, that makes a 'doctor' (or anything else), and that knowledge is freely available to all mankind if they simply choose to pursue it.

You are thoroughly, unashamedly, bullheadedly ignorant on so many levels it's hard to address.

Your total ignorance of the sheer academic and educational rigors of quality medical schools (4 years), let alone the intense competition amongst the highly qualified students once placed (who, for your information, are a little greater than "average intelligence") and would likely run rings around you in any academic setting, medical or otherwise), the rigors and experiences of 4 year residencies and internships, and then years of fellowships beyond if applicable.

I'll be sure to drop a line to my dad that his 4 years of medical school, 3 years interning, 4 years of (chief) residency, and 4+ years of Fellowship was all for naught. Afterall, with a little time and determination, practically anybody with working WiFi can diagnose and understand treatment options for the myriad of Neuro-Ophthalmological conditions and diseases one might suffer.

Oh, no, wait...you can set a dislocated finger. Right, sorry House.

 

[PrinceofWands]

You are thoroughly, unashamedly, bullheadedly ignorant on so many levels it's hard to address.

Your total ignorance of the sheer academic and educational rigors of quality medical schools (4 years), let alone the intense competition amongst the highly qualified students once placed (who, for your information, are a little greater than "average intelligence") and would likely run rings around you in any academic setting, medical or otherwise), the rigors and experiences of 4 year residencies and internships, and then years of fellowships beyond if applicable.

I'll be sure to drop a line to my dad that his 4 years of medical school, 3 years interning, 4 years of (chief) residency, and 4+ years of Fellowship was all for naught. Afterall, with a little time and determination, practically anybody with working WiFi can diagnose and understand treatment options for the myriad of Neuro-Ophthalmological conditions and diseases one might suffer.

Oh, no, wait...you can set a dislocated finger. Right, sorry House.

You and your dad can both fuck off and die in a fire like the ignorant, worthless cunts you both are. I'll come roast marshmallows over your flaming corpses and wash it down with the tears of your loved ones. Nothing I said could possibly have been construed as you suggest by your post. Good day fucktard.

No. Good day to you. See you later - much later.
admin allisolm

 

[Nebor]

You and your dad can both fuck off and die in a fire like the ignorant, worthless cunts you both are. I'll come roast marshmallows over your flaming corpses and wash it down with the tears of your loved ones. Nothing I said could possibly have been construed as you suggest by your post. Good day fucktard.

Wow, you really got pounded in this thread. Like a poor native by British Imperialism.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Wow, you really got pounded in this thread. Like a poor native by British Imperialism.

Usually do. People tend to not like harsh truths which conflict with their constructed realities. Fortunately I'm still right, which is all that really matters.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Slippery slope fallacy.

bs....

 

[TheVrolok]

Nothing I said could possibly have been construed as you suggest by your post.

Really? Nothing?

I'm exactly as qualified as anyone else, on any basic subject I choose to learn about...

Sure sounds like something. I was honestly supporting much of what you were saying earlier, but as usual, you've jumped way off the deep end by now.

 

[Sulaco]

You and your dad can both fuck off and die in a fire like the ignorant, worthless cunts you both are. I'll come roast marshmallows over your flaming corpses and wash it down with the tears of your loved ones. Nothing I said could possibly have been construed as you suggest by your post. Good day fucktard.

Wow, and you edited that?

You've shown your true colors clear as day. The truth must hurt, I realize, to be shown for the fool and cretin you are, but wishing death and bringing "loved ones" into it is beyond the pale by any rational, stable adult.

Seek help. And please, don't try and diagnose yourself. It's not working.

 

[abj13]

"The rumors of Saddam's execution is greatly exaggerated. Saddam has been rescued by the graduates of PrinceofWands' basement internet medical school, and they are working around the clock to bring him back to health and running Iraq with an Iron Fist!"

 

[Sulaco]

Advice and guidance on the specific injury or condition you're currently suffering, sure. Advice or guidance on bullshit that has nothing to do with that, then no. A doctor isn't there to tell you how to live your life, they're ONLY there to treat your existing medical problems. At least, that's all I utilize them for, or will accept from them.

I'm exactly as qualified as anyone else, on any basic subject I choose to learn about...in exactly the same way that a doctor became qualified through their acquiring of that knowledge (or any other person in any other profession or with any other skill or knowledge set). The piece of paper has NOTHING to do with them being qualified...only their reading of books and such (initially, though then experience of course plays in after time). It's the knowledge, not the person, that makes a 'doctor' (or anything else), and that knowledge is freely available to all mankind if they simply choose to pursue it.

Bullshit, or every expert in every field then 'knows more than they can'. Remember, they're average people like anyone else. All they did was open a book and jump through some hoops. Anyone can do it, at least with specific issues if not the vast body of total knowledge and experience..

Despite PriceofWands showing exactly what kind of a dreck human being he/she is with his/her little (psychopathic) outburst and subsequent ban, this point is worth addressing for how foolish it really is on a serious note.

Discounting for a second the sheer ignorance at the simple amount of learning and dedication required for even basic understanding of human anatomy, drug interactions, chemistry, and a myriad other topics and building blocks to even be on your way to enter medical school, and asinine idea that you would ever have the free time to "self teach" yourself anything approaching enough to be considered literate, is this:

You can read all the medical books you'd like (of course, you wouldn't, anymore than a 3rd grader would understand a university AP Physics textbook; it requires huge amounts of prerequisite material mastery to even approach; it's not written for laypeople), visit WebMD and read The Idiot's Guide to Neurology...

Even if you do all that, here lies the problem: How do you know what you think you know?. In other words, fools like PrinceofWands might feel confident and acquire some infinitesimally small nugget of knowledge, but without standardized testing, exams, clinical rotation, peer review, and access to those actually knowledgeable enough to teach, you have no idea what you actually understand, and what you think you understand, and what you're totally, assfuckingly wrong about.

Reading a medical text and thinking you understand it is an entirely different universe from actually reading it and being able to demonstrate, through arduous testing, examination, and real-world clinical practice, that you do, really, in fact, know what the fuck you're talking about.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. People like Prince up here possess dangerously little knowledge, but will never have to prove otherwise because they can and will never know what exactly they know or don't know.