(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best medicine books

Thank you for the effort! I'll try to do you justice with a thorough response.

----

> 1. God says what he needs to say to us through the Bible.

Sure it's the Bible and not Harry Potter? To anyone without your obvious bias, the Bible looks like a collection of fanciful but poorly edited fiction. God's message hasn't reached me and it hasn't reached 5 billion other humans alone among the living. In other words, if this is an omnipotent's idea of effective communication, God sucks as a communicator.

> 2. God is not inert, he sometimes does miracles

Prove this and I'll leave you alone. Has God ever healed an amputee? Has God ever accomplished a miracle that has no natural explanation?

No wait, references to the work of fiction mentioned in #1 don't count. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that your precious Bible is anything more than a stack of useful rolling papers. I've addressed this before. J.K. Rowling has Harry Potter performing scores of miracles in her books, it's really easy to create a miracle with pen and paper.

> 3. The evidence is not inadequate. If you want evidence of his existence, there is evidence everywhere, and in sheer necessity, it is pointed out that God must exist.

So you say. Your following arguments are... sorely lacking. Here we go:

> 3.1 The need of a creator
If you saw a car in the forest, you wouldn't say it randomly came into existence and over time came together by itself, because it is too complex for that to have happened.

Correct. That's easy for me to say because I know exactly what a car is and how it's made.

> In the same way, this universe and everything in it is far too complex to randomly explode into existence and come together by itself, a creator is needed and that creator is God.

Your analogy doesn't hold. The universe is not very complex conceptually, it's been satisfactorily explained how all heavenly bodies resulted from the expansion of space followed by the clumping of clouds of primeval hydrogen. Suns and the nuclear process in them? A natural consequence of packing a lot of hydrogen with gravity. Heavy elements? The ashes of nuclear fusion. Planets circling around suns? That's what happens when heavenly bodies nearly collide in a vacuum, influenced only by each other's gravity. Finally, the complexity of life on earth is neatly explained by evolution from very primitive beginnings from substances that occur -naturally- in the void of lifeless space. No magic is required to explain any of this. But I see we get to talk about this in greater depth in #4.

Still, for your interest, this video refutes Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument and is thoroughly captivating while presenting modern cosmology. Highly recommended!

> 3.2 The need for an original mover/causer
You know nothing moves by itself correct?

No, I don't know this, because I have a solid education in physics. Atomic nuclei spontaneously explode and particles fly from them - movement without a mover. Plato's Prime Mover argument dates back to a time when people didn't know anything about physics and science was done by sitting on your butt, guessing and thinking.

> 3.3 The need of a standard
When you call something, for instance let's say "good", there has to be a standard upon which good is based.

This response of yours -so far- is sounding suspiciously like a copy of a William Lane Craig debate argument. Please note that all of his arguments have been successfully refuted - though not necessarily within one debate or only within debates. But regardless, I can easily address your arguments on my own.

Now then. Basic moral behavior has been shown to emerge naturally as a result of evolution. Yes, this is why theists hate evolution so much. It explains a lot of stuff that used to be attributed to God. Animals in the wild show moral behavior such as altruism, fairness, love, cooperation, justice and so forth. Even robot simulations, given only the most minimal initial instructions, develop "moral" behavior because that turns out to be a successful selection criteria for survival.

If you try to point out that humans display and think about much more complex moral situations than animals, I'll agree. But you know who invented those extensions of purely survival-oriented moral behavior? Humans did, not God. Humans look at the behaviors that promote survival and well-being in animals and humans and call it "good." They see behavior that hurts and kills animals and people and makes them suffer, and they call it "bad." Your five year old kid can grasp this concept - you insult your god when you claim this is so difficult it necessarily requires divine intervention. I recommend Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics, a thoughtful and thorough discussion of morals far more nuanced and acceptable to a modern society than the barbaric postulates of scripture. Rape a virgin, buy her as a wife for 50 shekels, indeed!

> 4.1 About the Origin of Life/Finely tuning a killer cosmos

> Anyway, for life to come together even by accident, you would need matter

Correct.

> now the universe is not infinite and even scientists know that.

I'm not sure that's certain, but it's probably irrelevant. Let's move on.

> that scientists say made the universe would need matter present.

Correct. We certainly observe a helluva lot of matter in the present-day universe (to the extent we can observe it).

> Where do you expect that matter to have come from?

An empty geometry and some very basic laws of physics (including quantum physics). This is very un-intuitive, which is why people restricted to Platonic thinking have trouble with it. But you know that matter and energy are equivalent, via E=mc^2 , right? Given the raw physics of the very early universe, matter could be created from energy and vice versa. OK, that still doesn't explain where the (matter+energy) came from. Here's the fun part: it turns out that the universe contains not just the conventional "positive" energy we're familiar with, but also negative energy. And it turns out that the sum of (matter + positive energy) on one hand and (negative energy) on the other are exactly equal and cancel out. In other words, and this is important, the creation of the universe incurred no net "cost" in matter or energy. This being the case, it becomes similarly plausible for for the entire universe to have spontaneously popped into existence just like those sub-atomic particles that cause the Casimir Effect. Stephen Hawking has explained this eloquently in his book The Grand Design but you may prefer Lawrence Krauss' engaging lecture A Universe From Nothing.

> I know for a fact that people are smarter than an explosion and even they have been unsuccessful in making organic life forms from scratch

Wrong again. It took them 15 years, but Craig Venter and his project recently succeeded in constructing the first self-replicating synthetic bacterial cell.

By way of interest, people making the kind of claims you do were similarly amazed when Friedrich Wöhler, in 1828, synthesized the first chemical compound, urea, that is otherwise only created by living beings. This achievement torpedoed the Vital Force theory dating back to Galen. Yet another job taken off God's hands.

> let alone have them survive the forming of a planet.

Now this is just dumb. First the planet formed, then it cooled down a bit, then life developed.

> Because of that, I doubt an explosion could do it either.

So you're right there: The explosion just created the planet and the raw materials. Life later arose on the planet.

> Chance doesn't make matter pop into existence.

Yes it does. The effect I was mentioning earlier is called quantum fluctuation.

> 4.2 The human brain

(skipping the comparison of man with god. I don't see it contributing anything. All of this postulating doesn't make God plausible in any way)

> 4.3 The Original Christian Cosmos

> 4.3.1. Maybe because we are after the fall, we have already lost that perfect original cosmos Paul imagined.

Wait, this contradicts your next point.

> 4.3.2 You have to give Paul some credit for trying. He didn't have any the information or technology we have today.

Thank you, this confirms my assertion that the Bible and its authors contain no divinely inspired knowledge. The Bible is a collection of writings by people who thought you could cleanse leprosy by killing a couple of pigeons.

Now, about that original cosmos: either Paul was too uneducated to conceive the cosmos as it really exists, or what he imagined is irrelevant. In any case, what you consider the "after loss" cosmos is trillions of times larger than Paul imagined; it would be silly to call this a loss.

The fact remains that the world as described in the Bible is a pitiful caricature of the world as it is known today. And Carrier's main point remains that our cosmos is incredibly hostile to life; and if man were indeed God's favorite creation, the immensity of the cosmos would be a complete waste if it only served as a backdrop for our tiny little planet.

You are right in that you only get one shot at UCL but you only need one. I did an EPQ and talked about it quite a lot. Mine was something like "do the benefits of stem cell research exceed the ethical complications" or something like that. It's something I'm really passionate about and I'm sure you won't struggle to keep talking about it. If your's is something you are interested in try an steer the conversation that way early. I don't know whether it was just by the time I did my UCL interview I was getting better at them or the nature of the interview but I felt like I controlled the direction of the conversation and lead it the way I wanted it to go, if you can try and do the same, if you can go in with a few points that you want to make and lead the conversation that way you will do well. Don't worry about silly questions, I'm afraid I'm from a preposterously privileged background and had enough interview practice to get someone in who had been lobotomised but I know most people are in your situation. Some of my friends who are much better people than I am are involved in a thing called target medicine, they go to schools like yours and do practice interviews and BMAT prep, it's worth finding out if they are at your school. I would say the main questions to be ready for are: why medicine, why UCL, possibly a tell me about yourself (I always hate that as it's almost impossible to tread the line of not underselling and not seeming arrogant.), Work experience (I had a few things and people I saw that had an impact on me and tried to talk about that rather than general things as it seemed more personal). Then obviously anything on your personal statement, go back through it and see what you would ask about or get someone else to do that for you, if want I can send you my email and I'll do it for you but you might find it more useful to do it with a teacher or someone else who knows you. Once you've done that just drill answers in your head, don't go through them entirely because it will sound scripted but have the phrases you want in your head and the ideas you want to express and know them like you would know material for an exam. I used this which was quite helpful and it's reassuring when you hear a question that you've already thought through. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Medical-Interviews-Questions-Analysed-Multiple-Mini-Interviews/dp/1905812051/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421325700&sr=1-1&keywords=medical+school+interviews.

I also read ths but it wasn't as helful. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Medical-Ethics-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192802828/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1QZ21GB5NZE9YRJE84PN

That's about all I can think of at the moment but keep asking questions if you have any and I'll keep thinking about stuff. On the day try and keep relaxed as best as possible if you don't know what sort of person you are when you are afraid yet but you will know soon but most quiet people get chatty and chatty people go quiet. Some people will talk about all this stuff they've done, I don't know whether they do it to get into people's heads or to reassure themselves but ignore it. I met some really lovely people on my interview at UCL but there are a lot of arseclowns too, just let their crap wash over you and keep your head in as relaxed as space as possible and think about what you want to say. One last point is script links between your ideas, if you can go from why UCL or why medicine into other things like work experience or your job there make your last sentence leading. Don't think of it as them asking you questions, you can influence the questions they ask you. Of course you won't get 20 minutes perfectly moving from one thing to another under your control but doing it a bit will help your rhythm but don't fall into the trap of saying what you wanted to say next instead of answering their question. If they do blindside you don't say the first thing in your head, wait a few seconds, under that kind of pressure you think at a million miles an hour 3 seconds will feel like forever in your head because you are thinking so fast but you can use that time to think it through and say something sensible. I guess most of my advice is really on mentality largely because it's probably what I do best as you might guess from my username I'm a jump jockey in another life so I'm quite used to being in high pressure situations crapping myself with fear, so I have routines to put it to one side and relax which makes all the difference in the world. I can talk about that stuff if you are interested but I've always found it a very personal thing and what works for me may well not help you and it takes time to do well which you might find better spent on other things. Good luck with it all and remember that even the people the other-side of the table where in your position once and just see them as no different from you just further down the line. If it doesn't happen this year almost everyone else will consider you next year so don't build it up into a do or die thing in your head and good luck.

Not really any books to read, but learn the instruments and be focused. Anticipate the needs of the team.

Be super familiar with running a balloon pump. Try to be the expert of that machine.

Learn from the anesthesiologists about vasoactive drips, purpose, normal dose ranges.
Know what the invasive line numbers mean and where they are.

Be interested in more than just positioning, prepping, counting, and closing.

I work as a CVICU RN and scrubbed CV for several years. Its a super fun area to work in. You can be the best on the team with a strong knowledge base. When you gain that knowledge share it!!! See one, do one, teach one. Dont be a know it all, just look for opportunities to learn and opportunities to share knowledge.

I can recommend one book to you. Its intended to learn critical care basics, but it touches nicely on balloon pump, hemodynamics, invasive monitoring, and Swan Ganz. It will help you understand what you are dealing with. The surgeons and anesthesiologists will eventually be impressed by your interest in learning and you will be very successful. Plus you will be the BOMB at giving report to the ICU nurse!
Critical Care Nursing Made Incredibly Easy! (Incredibly Easy! Series®) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1496306937/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_i_6y.CDbC649HT3

My flight program requires that our medics obtain these certifications - so I have had to help out many of them getting through these exams.

What I can recommend is a multi-angled approach.

First, consider a review book - this will just provide an outline of what material is testable. Of the ones I've looked at, the The Resource and Study Guide for Critical Care Clinicians is the best one of the ones I've seen. Expensive though.

Next you'll need an actual text to help fill in the blanks. Critical Care Transport 2ed is a solid text - and this edition is brand new. Honestly though, if you can get an older edition for cheap, I'd just do that.

Critical Care Transport Core Cirriculum is an intriguing book - joint project between ASTNA and the IAFCCP. I haven't seen it personally, but I've heard good things, and it's also quite pricy.

Next I would consider a mechanical ventilation text - the vent section of most CCT textbooks is pretty scant. I enjoy the FlightBridge vent text - Ventilator Management: A Pre-Hospital Perspective.

Next you'll want something with lots of practice questions. For this I like the IAFCCP practice text: IAFCCP Critical Care Exam Review. There are other ones, like the well known Will Wingfield book which are also worthwhile. You can't go wrong with lots of practice questions.

Don't forget the riveting CAMTS 10th Edition Guidelines. Read those. Try not to fall asleep.

Finally, podcasts - consider podcasts specifically from FlightBridge as you mentioned, but also Meducation Specialists. They both provide lots of great info and each have a series speaking specifically to exams.

Hopefully this gives you a good start.

Good luck!

I would avoid test-prep books then-- those tend to skim the surface of things like pathophys and always seem to be more focused on important facts and associations, etc., and not on the science.

Sadly there is no quick answer for getting better at pathophys (it takes 2 years to cover the basics in med school). Working in an ED you don't have massive amounts of time to read either. As a resident I find myself wanting to review stuff all the time but am pretty busy too, so with that in mind, my recommendations would be:

-UpToDate/Dynamed/Medscape/etc. usually have nice sections in their articles on the pathophysiology of various conditions. The temptation is to skip to the "diagnosis" or "management" sections but there is usually some good stuff in those articles that you can read on the fly

-For critical illness and general physiology, The ICU Book is great and not too dry a read. If you want much more in depth stuff on medical conditions, Harrison's Internal Medicine is a great resource but reads like a phonebook sometimes. If you care about the microscopic level, Robbins & Cotran is basically all the pathology for the non-pathologist you will ever need- can also be a bit dry at times too.

-Look up the mechanism of action of meds you don't know about (Micromedex smart phone app is great for that)

-When you consult someone because you are unsure about something, ask them about what is going on (subspecialists are usually not shy about dropping knowledge if you ask for it); it may also help prevent future un-needed consults which they appreciate

Hope this helps.

https://www.amazon.com/Kaplan-MCAT-528-Advanced-Students/dp/1618656317

http://offers.aamc.org/mcat-study-materials-1

https://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Review-Complete-MCAT-Preparation/dp/0804125082

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDkK5wqSuwDlJ3_nl3rgdiQ

https://nextstepmcat.com/course

You can google Anki. If you have some money it might be good to check out a program that meets in person near you. Depending on your knowledge, study habits, and natural test taking abilities. Altius is a program near me that people seem to like, it comes with personal tutors. If you were planning on a self study schedule, make sure you have time set aside for it.

I thought i would be able to devote two hours a day to studying, but with work, my school, my family responsibilities, etc. I have time for maybe an hour a day. When summer rolls around, i will be able to spend 6-8 hours until my test date. At that point, it will be a lot easier to sit down and focus.

You should also be aware of your cycles. From your other posts, it looks like you are mid-twenties, you might want to consider how old you will be when you enter school, and possibly make plans to at least take the test this summer, even if you apply next cycle.

Only you know who you are and how studying goes for you, but i would say that you should limit your studying to less than a year, probably less than 6 months, if we are being honest.

Check your reading comprehension, and make sure you are practicing CARS daily. As in, go get a CARS book tomorrow and start doing passages. It takes time to learn reading comprehension. Also, start leisure reading some adult books, even if it is just audiobooks. That helps your comprehension more than you think, and it is good for your brain too.

Good luck. I know a lot of people haven't given you straight answers as to what you need, hopefully this will help. Take charge of your destiny, the side bar is also helpful, and so is the one over at /r/Mcat

Tchau!

I don't know of any "popular science" books that would actually give you a head start in medical school.
For example, Oliver Sacks' books, especially Musicophilia are broadly neurological in topic and really interesting, but reading them won't actually give you any major advantage when it comes to your studies.

However, if you're determined to get that headstart, I'd recommend reading up on either anatomy or physiology.

For anatomy, I'd recommend the Thieme Atlas of Anatomy books, although I might be biased, since one of my professors co-authored them and therefore used them religiously.
The books aren't text books in the classical sense, so there is little explanation given, but the illustrations are arguably the best I've seen so far.
You might also want to check out the google body project, although I found it severely lacking in terms of features, you can't, for example, look up innervations or muscle insertion points. Or maybe those are available once you shell out for premium content, I haven't tried that.

For physiology, I found Boron/Boulpaep's Medical Physiology to be thorough, detailed and very easy to read and understand. So this might actually be the book you're looking for. Even with limited or no prior knowledge in physiology and minimal experience with science in general, you'll be practically guaranteed to gain a deep working knowledge of physiology, which is arguably the basis for medicine in general and will serve you well throughout your studies at medical school.

If you already feel confident in both anatomy and physiology, maybe because you've done both in your undergraduate studies, I can't recommend Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine enough. Almost everything you'll ever need to know about medicine is contained in this book and it is generally pretty well written. If you'd actually have enough time in medical school to thoroughly read and digest this two-volumed beast of a textbook, med school would be less about cramming than it is today.

So maybe get a headstart on that one.

Edit: On the other hand, you might as well enjoy your time before medical school and keep the fire burning by shadowing a physician from time to time or watching the first couple of seasons of House. That'll be more fun.

> socialism already has democratic elements built into the system.

Not necessarily, example USSR. This video touches on the delineation well enough.

>there weren't as many corporate subsidies that would have ravaged our revenue

I could not possibly agree with you more.


As for programs medicaid, let's acknowledge that it is a poor indicator of how single payer healthcare would function in our society. The redundancy of departments mixed with required paperwork/administration (thus ensuing systemic inefficiency), inability to negotiate price with pharmaceutical companies, and the endless pitfalls of profit motive in warping ethical decision making create an environment where healthcare is senselessly expensive and inefficent. Free market profit motives cannot be trusted to fix our healthcare issues. A government body, for better or worse, is the only institution of sufficient size and importance that is able to offer us an ability to manage population level health care properly.

Not to mention the increased public health benefits gained by a society through providing basic human health care are undeniable (in terms of pocketbook as well as basic safety in our future. I can't recommend Paul Farmer's "Infections and Inequality" highly enough to learn more about the ever growing importance of public health and safety and its relation to economics).

I'm not saying current programs are adequately functional to serve their intended purpose, in fact quite the opposite. I don't believe it wise to dismiss the goal of universal health care or the benefits of social welfare programs in principle because we don't currently achieve perfection. Saying 'we tried these programs, and they just don't work, you end up with too many takers' is illogical.

Fundamentally, I think what might separate us in our ways of thinking is the level of trust we are willing to put into the free market to optimally work out our problems (socially, politically, economically, etc.)

I enjoyed this book: Multiple Mini Interview (MMI): Winning Strategies From Admissions Faculty https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01C4FP99A/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_COAQBbN856MEV

It’s well reviewed and rated. It has a ton of examples to help get you thinking about what kinds of questions you might get and how you could answer. The book, as well as most others will advise you to not try and over prepare or memorize answers. Instead, if you choose to practice, practice your answer structure. Restate the scenario in your own words to make sure you understand it right, talk through all of your thought process in a coherent and sympathetic manner, and answer the question as honestly as possible. Don’t give the answer you think they want to hear, answer how you truly feel. Leave 2-3 min for any follow up questions depending on time allotment.

Beyond that the best advice I’ve heard is to make good eye contact, be present with your interviewer, don’t make up an answer if you don’t know, and convince yourself you’re just happy to be there and don’t let the nerves ride you.

Well, the good news is that you will get training. They're not just going to throw you to the wolves. So you'll have some time to work closely with a preceptor and ask a bunch of questions. And it's great that you're already brushing up on vent concepts.

Honestly, I think the only way to really gain confidence is to just go out there and do it. Once you have a couple of ICU shifts under your belt, it won't seem so scary anymore. And hopefully you have coworkers that you feel you can go to if you're stumped on a patient.

For mechanical ventilation concepts, I'd suggest this book: http://www.amazon.com/Ventilator-Book-William-Owens-MD/dp/098529650X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462453163&sr=8-1&keywords=the+ventilator+book. It has very short chapters and is very easy to understand. Chapter 2 or 3 covers exactly what you're worried about: knowing when/why to make vent changes and what to do to solve "x" problem.

I always tell myself that I can ALWAYS bag the patient. If the vent is going crazy and the patient is in some kind of distress and I don't know what to do, I know that I can always bag the patient and call for help. And I have had to do that a few times. In my experience, most RT's are pretty good to each other as far as helping each other out. I hope you will be working with a good team.

Until more recently, it wasn't common to find books/articles on "how to do" psychoanalytic psychotherapy. The knowledge of how to perform the therapy came from the therapist's training analysis, which, going back to Freud, used to be the only requirement for becoming a psychoanalyst (cf. The question of Lay Analysis by Freud). However, there are now some "psychodynamic" therapies that provide a "how to" look at therapy using psychoanalytic principles. Two that I am familiar with are Intensive Short Term Dynamic Psychotherapy or ISTDP and Brief Dynamic Therapywhich is a little better in my opinion. Glen Gabbard, who I like a lot, has also written a text that lays out some of the basics of psychotherapy from an analytic perspective.

Speaking of Gabbard, I highly recommend his text Psychodynamic Psychiatry in Clinical Practice. It provides an overview of some of the major psychoanalytic theories (drive, ego, object, self). Unfortunately he doesn't cover Lacan, and briefly touches on intersubjectivity. Another book in this vein (without the diagnostic applications) is Freud and Beyond by Stephen Mitchell and Margaret Black. Not to diminish Dr. Black, but Stephen Mitchell is really great. I recommend anything by him, especially Hope and Dread in Psychoanalysis and Relationality.

Finally, any recommendation on contemporary American psychoanalytic writing would be incomplete without mentioning Thomas Ogden, especially The Matrix of the Mind and The Primitive Edge of Experience. His more recent works are great as well, but a little more nebulous and might be less applicable to beginning psychoanalytic work.

Oh, and I can't help but recommend this little book by Owen Renik Practical Psychoanalysis. Renik is great, and I really enjoy is work, especially his thinking on "getting real in psychoanalysis." Though he is far from the traditional views of analytic neutrality and abstinence.

Yup. Adcoms tell us constantly that if they invite you for an interview, they believe you could do well at their program.

Of course I wasn't there to see you interview, but there's always the possibility that you messed up some of the important questions. At the same time, it's 100% possible you did just fine at the interview, but there were people that the adcom liked little better. Or the adcom thought you were a good candidate but ultimately not a good fit for the class. Who knows.

I highly suggest you get this book. It's geared towards med school admissions, but basically you can apply everything it says to PA schools. There's a section that lists the most common interview questions by category and provides the "right" answer. EVERY interview question I got was in this book. (Personally I don't think the popular "How To "Ace" The Physician Assistant School Interview" by Andrew Rodican is very good.)

I realize some may think my advice is overkill, but I'm just going to put it out there. If you can do all of this, and aren't some socially awkward/antisocial person, you will ace your interview:

• know good answers to most of the questions in the book I linked
  
• REALLY know good answers to "why do you want to be a PA," "tell me about yourself," and "why this school"
  
• keep your answers to 30-50 seconds, you can go closer to 50-60 seconds with the important questions in the 2nd bullet point
  
• make a list of "life stories," so to say, that you can draw upon when asked behavioral questions. It's very handy to have 5-6 anecdotes that can be molded to answer typical behavioral questions like "tell me about a time you worked with someone you didn't like" or "tell me about a time you used teamwork." Just google behavioral questions and the STAR technique
  
• practice interviewing with anyone, preferably someone who's really good at interviews
  
• be yourself. i.e. If you're a quiet person, don't force yourself to be the life of the party.
  
  A lot of people poo-poo so much preparation for interviews by saying stuff like... "you'll sound rehearsed" or "stop worrying so much and be yourself." Basically call you out for being a try-hard. Buuut idgaf because it worked for me.

Try a few different techniques to see what works best for you. Everybody is a little different. Some people learn very well by teaching - even if it's to an inanimate object like a television or the wall. I think it's more effective teaching it to a human, because to make them understand, you need teach them the basics needed to understand that subject matter. (You may be tempted to skip that step if your "student" is a wall.)


The teaching process forces you to rethink the concept in your head, and to imagine different ways of explaining it, like thinking up analogies.


I read this book. His method involves making notes - that is, handwriting or typing all the information he needs to know. This not only condenses notes to make future review easier, but in the process of paraphrasing and summarizing the material, you are actively thinking about it - describing it in your own words, or drawing diagrams to summarize mechanisms, etc. THAT is the main reason you want to make notes - to force yourself to think about the material. Getting condensed notes from someone greatly diminishes the learning process. Yes, you have condensed notes, but you skipped the most important part, which was forcing yourself to think of the material in a way other than passively staring at the textbook or handouts given to you in class.


Making notes is very time consuming, but the advantage is that you know the material better, and reviewing later on is much faster. If you have to study from those notes years down the line, you will understand it easier since you wrote it, and since you made it concise.

I'm amazed that you nominated him for "most evil person" on the basis of this one quote. Wikipedia's bio on him describes a man who "was captivated by 'the many mysteries of the brain'" and tried to further our understand of how it works for the benefit of everyone. Some excerpts:

> During the Spanish Civil War he joined the Republican side and served as a medical corpsman on the Republican side while he was a medical student.
...
Some consider one of Delgado's most promising finds is that of an area called the septum within the limbic region. This area, when stimulated by Delgado, produced feelings of strong euphoria. These euphoric feelings were sometimes strong enough to overcome physical pain and depression.
...
Other than the stimoceiver, Delgado also created a "chemitrode" which was an implantable device that released controlled amounts of a drug into specific brain areas. Delgado also invented an early version of what is now a cardiac pacemaker.
...
Delgado hypothesized that the [stimoceiver] method used on Paddy [the chimpanzee] could be used on others to stop panic attacks, seizures, and other disorders controlled by certain signals within the brain.

I don't think that he meant by "political control" any kind of authoritarian mind control of the populace, like something out of dystopian SF. People in this thread are bringing up CIA programs like MKULTRA, but I see no mention that Delgado agreed with or was involved in those programs. It sounds more like a proposal for a more humane alternative to prisons and asylums: instead of locking someone up for being a kleptomaniac or sociopath or drug addict, fix their brains instead and let them free.

I haven't read his book Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilised Society (although it's now on my reading list), but here's a blurb:

> In this Delgado has discussed how we have managed to tame and civilize our surrounding nature. Now it was time to civilize our inner being. ... The tone of the book was challenging and the philosophical speculations went beyond the data. However, the intent was benevolent to encourage less cruel, happier, better man.

And from an Amazon review:

> Dr. Delgado was one of the pioneers of deep brain stimulation research, a technology that is used today to reduce suffering in cases of chronic pain, epilepsy and Parkinson's disease. It never was and is not today capable of turning people into the mind-controlled automatons found in sci-fi thrillers such as the Manchurian Candidate or the X-files. The book offers a lucid and concise description of Dr. Delgado's work up to 1969 and a provocative look at possible applications of this technology (from a 1960's perspective). A recommended read for any Neuroscience or Neural Engineering student.

I hope the knee-jerk replies here celebrating his death and hoping he suffers in Hell, as well as everyone who upvoted this to third-highest in the "most evil" thread, are just assuming "mind control = evil" and don't actually know who he was.

We need more people like José Delgado.

Edit: Physical Control of the Mind is available online. I highly recommend Chapter 21, "Ethical Considerations," as well as the rest if you're likewise fascinated by his work.

> In the early 1950s, a patient in a state mental hospital approached Dr. Hannibal Hamlin and me requesting help. She was an attractive 24-year-old woman of average intelligence and education who had a long record of arrests for disorderly conduct, She had been repeatedly involved in bar brawls in which she incited men to fight over her and had spent most of the preceding few years either in jail or in mental institutions. The patient expressed a strong desire as well as an inability to alter her conduct, and because psychiatric treatment had failed, she and her mother urgently requested that some kind of brain surgery be performed in order to control her disreputable, impulsive behavior.
...
Medical knowledge and experience at that time could not ascertain whether ESB or the application of cerebral lesions could help to solve this patient's problem, and surgical intervention was therefore rejected. When this decision was explained, both the patient and her mother reacted with similar anxious comments, asking, "What is the future? Only jail or the hospital? Is there no hope?" ... People are changing their character by self-medication through hallucinogenic drugs, but do they have the right to demand that doctors administer treatment that will radically alter their behavior? What are the limits of individual rights and doctors' obligations?

For me, being flexible on the hour-to-hour schedule and instead focusing on my daily task list worked best, especially for research life. The American Physician Scientist Association website has a series called "Day in the Life" which you might find interesting. For medical school, this book "How to Study in Medical School" offers some tips on how to structure your day and might give you insight into what the medical school schedule might look like.

Here is how my schedule has been year-by-year (we do MS1-3, grad school, MS4).

During MS1 and MS2: M-F classes 8-12n (either in class or streaming videos), lunch, mandatory activities like labs, standardized patient activities, other special sessions in the afternoon 1-5p, studying all evening. Variably working out, hanging out, or playing video games for breaks. I'd study all weekend for as long as I had motivation (~6-7hrs), and socialized for breaks. I did not participate in any research during these years.

MS3 schedule depends completely upon what rotation you are on. Outpatient is 5 days a week, inpatient is 6. You can assume at least 8-12 hours of your day (usually within a 6a-6p window) are spent on clinical duties, and another 2-3 on studying for the rotation and shelves. I prioritized working out as soon as I got home before studying as it provided a lot of stress relief. I got involved in a clinical research project which worked on during the weekends.

Summer lab rotations between MS0-MS1, MS1-MS2, and GS1 (where I am currently): I go to lab at 8a, work on experiments until seminars/classes/meetings happen around 12n, and then stay in lab until the tasks I set for myself are done (normally 6-7p). I write, work out, and hang out in the evenings.

Hope that helps!

Yes sorry I meant EK 101 passages! And here's the TPR complete MCAT link: https://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Review-Complete-MCAT-Preparation/dp/0804125082. I'd buy the used versions because they're like $20-ish. Optional, but really useful imo for the reasons I mentioned before. I also meant the AAMC CARS Q-packs!

CARS is different from other verbal sections you've seen before (SAT, LSAT, and GRE are all very different from this). The reason is because 90% of your questions concern the main idea. Crafting a main idea from a passage is more difficult than you think, you cannot skim any portion of the passage and you really have to digest every word the author is saying. The passages are convoluted, have random twist and turns in arguments, so you have to really assess the function of every sentence. And you need to do so in under 5 minutes in order to get time to answer questions. It's hard to understand unless you do a CARS passage, and hey you might be really good at it! But for most people, it requires a LOT of practice and correction.

As for O-chem, you won't be asked on an MCAT to recall a super specific mechanism. Common things that I saw were decarboxylation reactions, your basic SN1/SN2, nucleophilic addition and substitution, stuff like that. You will never be asked to thoroughly remember something like hydroboration of alkenes or even the specific names of mechanisms. EK chem will definitely be sufficient for you, in my opinion.

What style of interview is it? I had one standard and one MMI interview last year and prepared for each one a little differently.

If it's a standard, you don't need much time at all honestly. I would say I prepped maybe an hour a night for the week leading up to the interview, mostly looking at common questions and formulating some ideas for answers. You shouldnt be trying to memorize answers, but I'd definitely make a list of personal traits and activities that you want to bring up in your interview and see where they would fit in with the usual interview questions.

For MMI, I would highly recommend this book and practice with someone on the format and timing of the questions. I started prepping seriously for the MMI for a few hours (maybe 1-3) a night for about 2 weeks leading up to the interview.

Good luck!!

Me too, I just applied!

In that case, start reading about medical ethics. You'll need to have a grasp on key issues like assisted suicide, patient confidentiality, alternative medicine, etc. This book is great (I'm sure you could find a PDF online for free if you looked). You won't need in depth knowledge, but it's good to have a grasp of ethics as it's likely you will be asked at interview.

Read the health and NHS news everyday. Make sure you're aware of the significant happenings in the health world. Also, the history and core values of the NHS are important things to know as well, the Wikipedia page is alright for that. Finally, have a read of the GMC's Good Medical Practice.

I recommend [Beating Back the Devil] (http://www.amazon.com/Beating-Back-Devil-Maryn-McKenna/dp/1439123101/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450903258&sr=8-1&keywords=beating+back+the+devil) to learn about the CDC's Epidemic Intelligence Service. It was SO interesting, and you learn a lot about one of the more exciting jobs in public health. I'm in epi but I definitely don't have it in me to travel around the world fighting disease. But even if you're a homebody like me, I would still recommend it just because it's a great read.

Hi there,

Some suggestions for ya!

The Quest for Consciousness by Christof Koch. Minimal neuroscience background required, but the more you know, the more you'll derive from this book. Focused on illustrating how complex networks can manifest behaviour (and consciousness). Outside of Koch's regular pursuits as an electrophysiology, he worked alongside Francis Crick (ya that one), to study arousal and consciousness. It's a fantastic read, and it's quite humbling.

Rhythms of the Brain by Gyorgy Buzsaki. Written for neuroscientists and engineers as an introductory textbook into network dynamics, oscillations, and behaviour. One of my favorite books in the field, but it can also be the most challenging.

Treatise of Man by Rene Descarte. Personal favorite, simply because it highlights how far we've come (e.g. pineal gland, pain, and animal spirits).

Synaptic Self by Joseph LeDoux provides the fantastic realization that "you are your synapse". Great circuit/network book written with a lot of psychological and philosophical considerations.

Finally...

Physical control of the mind--towards of psychocivilized society by the one and only Jose Delgado. (In)Famous for his experiments where he stopped a bull charging at him through amygdala stimulation- along with some similar experiments in people- Delgado skirts the line between good intention and mad science. It's too bad he's not taught more in history of neuroscience.

Not an RT, but CVT here. I just finished 2 years of school (1 year of clinicals) specifically to learn cath lab stuff and I STILL feel overwhelmed. Don't get down on yourself, it takes a long time. Everybody I know says 1-2 years before you're comfortable.

If you haven't read or looked at it yet, I HIGHLY recommend this book by Kern. Easy to understand and good pictures.

You should know the basics of healthcare, but to be honest, I was never asked a single question about healthcare, and I've only asked a healthcare-related question once, and it was as a follow-up to something that the candidate had said.

My advice is to work on commonly asked interview questions (which you can easily obtain from Google). It's also very helpful to find people to practice with in person and have them give you feedback.

Also, I don't know how helpful this would be for you, but I read this book when I was interviewing. Most of the content was stuff that I already knew, but there were a couple of tips that I found to be particularly helpful.

I cannot more strongly recommend Steven W. Smith's The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing.

Every chapter is freely available as a PDF on the website.

Everyone who is interested in EEG/ECoG/LFP/single-unit research should absolutely read this book.

Steve Luck's Introduction to the Event Related Potential Technique is great, and will really help you to set up a top-quality ERP lab, but the DSP book really teaches you what happens to the signals you're recording.

If you want to get deeper into the underlying physiology of EEG, I'd recommend Electric Fields of the Brain by Nunez & Srinivasan.

You'd also be happy reading Buzsaki's Rhythms of the Brain.

I don't think anyone thinks abortion is a great thing and every woman should have at least one... which seems to be what you're implying. Abortion is simply the best available option when a child isn't wanted by parents who desire (and can afford) to raise it, or if the fetus is defective in any way.

Take a look at Peter Singer's Practical Ethics, he has a well written chapter on abortion and an even better one on infanticide.

I asked this question while interviewing for psych residencies, best I've found is Gabbard's text. The first section is an excellent primer on psychodynamic theory, with lots of great historical context.

I'm a medical anthropology Ph.D student studying/interested in infectious diseases. Let me try to explain.

It's not so much that educating people about biomedicine is not going to work, more that the education is not being done in a good way. Weird people walking in trying to get them to completely disregard their long, LONG standing beliefs for this new form of "witchcraft" that is completely counter-intuitive is never going to work; this is a cliche, but imagine if the tables were turned and they came here to help us fight an epidemic and insisted germs weren't real and that it was sorcery that was the issue (I know, not a perfect analogy because of one of the systems of knowledge is "scientifically correct" and the other isn't). But, your solution of coming up with brand new magic to incorporate into their beliefs wouldn't help either, because it's not a deeply-ingrained belief. These people have been living with these belief systems for thousands of years. Every part of what they believe about health is interrelated with what they believe about God, relationships with each other and nature, etc. Every part of knowledge is connected with every of type of knowledge. So to run in and say, "Here are your new magic beliefs on health," would never work, because the new beliefs wouldn't be compatible with the rest of their beliefs.

What actually needs to happen is finding a way to make biomedical knowledge compatible with their traditional knowledge. Think of it kind of like how the Christians "got" pagans by turning their old holidays into new Christian holidays. This is why anthropologists (think "cultural brokers") are so sorely needed in situations like this--and the CDC and WHO know this and are hiring/consulting with medical anthropologists...but it should be done before disasters happen, because, like everything, it takes time.

This is rather stream of consciousness so it might not make sense, but it's all I can crank out for now.

Edit: For the people who are interested in medical anthro, I'd suggest reading Stranger in the Village of the Sick by Paul Stoller, The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down by Anne Fadiman, and especially Inequalities and Infections by Paul Farmer.

Small animal vet practicing in the UK.


Probably going to be a bit of an unpopular post but I'm going to leave this link here. In short, there are absolutely zero benefits to feeding raw, and can lead to dietary deficiencies.

In addition, there was a study done looking at bacteria in commercially available raw foods, and around 50% of them contained bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella and Campylobacter, all of which can become quite serious if not treated urgently and are also transmissible to humans.


If you still really want to feed home cooked food, then I'd recommend this book. It's aimed at vets and veterinary nutritionists, so has a lot of detail in it about macro/micronutrients and various requirements in common diseases, but it does have some good recipes in it for people who choose to make their own. I think it's chapter six (I have the older edition).

So that they can be seamlessly rolled into the services if the need arises. For instance, elements of the Epidemic Intelligence Service (part of the Center for Disease Control and US Public Health Service) were inserted into the command structure for the DOD response to the Ebola outbreak in Africa a few years ago. the NOAA commissioned corps has a wartime mission supporting the Navy.

If you had never heard about EIS here is a great book on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Beating-Back-Devil-Maryn-McKenna/dp/1439123101

Merenstein & Gardner’s Handbook of Neonatal Intensive Care is a fantastic resource I have used. It’s very easy to skim for quick information.

Here’s a link to the one I purchased: https://www.amazon.com/Merenstein-Gardners-Handbook-Neonatal-Intensive/dp/032332083X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=NICU+merenstein&qid=1573252195&sr=8-1

Try LITFL's ECG basics, and Maven should keep you in sinus once the basics set in.

There's also this book which is great for the basics, but I'd say LITFL does a great job.

---
edit: typo

Everyone is going to say Dubin's, but The Only EKG Book You'll Ever Need is very good as well. Both are introductory EKG books. I skimmed Dubin's at first along with 90% of my classmates, but I ended up ditching it because the organization wasn't very good and the explanations left something to be desired. You should check your library to see if you can compare them.

Congrats!!

Here is a book I’ve heard recommended a lot: Merenstein & Gardner's Handbook of Neonatal Intensive Care

ISBN-13: 978-0323320832

Link: https://www.amazon.com/Merenstein-Gardners-Handbook-Neonatal-Intensive/dp/032332083X/ref=nodl_

I used this book to get a good idea of what med school personal statements look like. The ones in the book aren't exactly groundbreaking (in fact, a lot are pretty cliche), but it was still useful to at least have that framework to look at.

I always recommend Dr. Samir Desai's book on MMI strategies. He also has a book for the traditional interview, but I never read that one. I'm sure it's just as helpful.

https://www.amazon.com/Cardiac-Catheterization-Handbook-Morton-MSCAI/dp/0323340393/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1536618435&sr=8-3&keywords=cardiac+catherization+handbook

This book is a great place to start. Your background will help you tremendously but be prepared to feel like you have no idea what is happening for a little while. There is a lot of equipment and supplies that are foreign to us ER transplants, but with a little time it all starts to make sense.

It seems your dog has food allergies and you have found ingredients to which he does not react. Good job! Now the important thing is to feed a complete and balanced diet. I would recommend going to petdiets.com. This site is run by Dr. Rebecca Remillard, who (literally) wrote the book on small animal nutrition. You give her all the details of your dog's needs and she will send you a recipe for your dog that will meet all of his nutritional needs. It costs $25. You can prepare these diets at home and freeze portions.
Disclaimer: I am not associated financially with this site in any way. I have referred many clients to this site and they have been happy with the results.

Merenstein and Gardner is often considered the bible for new NICU nurses up here in Canada.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Merenstein-Gardners-Handbook-Neonatal-Intensive/dp/032332083X

​

I found it invaluable and still pull it out from time to time. Enjoy the NICU - it's a fabulous world!

> Mountains Beyond Mountains

Paul Farmer is a fantastic human being. If you want to read some of his own work, I highly recommend Infections and Inequalities.

Sure, I'd start with Neuroscience for an overview, some more cognitive related computational systems are described in Cognitive Neuroscience, more advanced ones in Vision and Finally Rhythms of the Brain, you can then branch out further into language and memory.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Dale-Purves/dp/1605353809/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=neuroscience&qid=1563645060&s=gateway&sr=8-6

https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Neuroscience-Biology-Mind-Fifth/dp/0393603172/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=cognitive+neuroscience&qid=1563645142&s=gateway&sr=8-2

https://www.amazon.com/Rhythms-Brain-Gyorgy-Buzsaki/dp/0199828237/ref=sr_1_1?crid=813HTOI3332A&keywords=rhythms+of+the+brain&qid=1563645094&s=gateway&sprefix=rhythms+of+the+%2Caps%2C199&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Computational-Investigation-Representation-Information/dp/0262514621/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=vision+neuroscience&qid=1563645008&s=gateway&sr=8-1

I tried Dubin's, did not like it that much. Much more preferred Malcolm Thaler's book, was super useful during a cardiology elective I did.

https://www.amazon.ca/Only-Book-Youll-Ever-Need/dp/1451193947/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478375011&sr=1-1&keywords=the+only+ekg+book+you%27ll+ever+need

Edit: Also, Life in the Fast Lane (EM/Crit Care-oriented blog) has a massive set of ECG cases and examples to go through for specific conditions.

If you are looking into going aviation, I would recommend, Back to Basics, EMS -Ventilator Management, and ACE SAT. Those three books were the only thing needed to pass both the FP-C and the CFRN. I took them both in the same week, and they were virtually identical tests.

That and I used Med Cram or EM Crit when I needed visual references or a different approach to a subject.

Aviation is fun.

I got Critical Care Nursing Made Incredibly Easy when I started my preceptorship in the ICU and I found it really helpful. And not too pricey or too massive.

I just finished this book for my IM rotation. Its a good, quick read, and hits all the points you need to impress your residents and attendings!

I’m no philosopher, and wouldn’t be able to articulate it as well as others have. If you truly care, there is a wide variety of literature on the subject.

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/kenan-malik-on-morality-without-god/

http://ebooks.bharathuniv.ac.in/gdlc1/gdlc4/Arts_and_Science_Books/arts/philosophy/Books/Elements%20of%20Moral%20Philosophy.pdf

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Morality-Introduction-Ethics-Bernard-Williams/dp/0521457297

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/052143971X/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_yewmAbY8W8TGR

I searched my library for "medical school interview" and perused this book which was pretty helpful.

Cardiac Catheterization Handbook, 6e https://www.amazon.com/dp/0323340393/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_CnpIAbP8VJ4WT

I like this book.

Know your cardiac meds (duh), anti-coags, vasoactives... pretty much the ones we use most.

I recommend Barron's Essays That Will Get You into Medical School. Very helpful guide and they give you a dozen or so essays written by past applicants.

He wrote a great (and controversial) book on utilitarian approaches to ethics:

http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/052143971X

Im not a med student (respiratory student) so I'm not sure if this is quite what you are looking for - but I bought this book during my vent class and found it to be quite useful.

I bought this to use for inspiration. I would be cautious though--it can be tough to come up with an original idea if you've been reading examples.

Testing for food allergies is more of a process of elimination with feeding trial diets using novel proteins. Here is the text I was thinking of that is pretty damn comprehensive:

https://www.amazon.com/Small-Animal-Clinical-Nutrition-5th/dp/0615297013

I don't disagree with you. There's something really wrong going on at the CDC, especially in their policy department. The main point that I want to make, though, is that there is a lot of extremely noxious vitriol currently directed at the CDC. While I agree that some criticism is warranted, fear and distrust of the organization may end up being extremely counterproductive in the long run. Much of their good work goes unnoticed in the media. If you have a moment, take the time to read Beating Back the Devil by Maryn McKenna on the CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service -- they do truly heroic work.

I haven't gotten a chance to do more than skim, but I like what I've read of this book so far.

ask a local hospital if you can shadow an ICU RT for a day or two, i work with RT's all the time and have learned loads about vents.
Also this book is really helpful at least for basics "https://www.amazon.com/Ventilator-Book-William-Owens-MD/dp/098529650X"

Buzsaki's book is also a good general reference for this:

http://www.amazon.com/Rhythms-Brain-Gyorgy-Buzsaki/dp/0199828237

And if you are interested in critical care, start learning your pharmacology, start learning how to monitor patients and recognize their pathophysiology. Learn about shock states and interventions. Take ACLS and really absorb the material, learn the drugs (and maybe your hospital will pay for the class). Use your resources.

https://litfl.com/

https://www.aacn.org/education/publications/ajcc

https://www.aacn.org/education/publications/ccn

https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Care-Nursing-Made-Incredibly/dp/1496306937/ref=zg_bs_689795011_5?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=0607QMDKFN47CT1WW80V

https://www.amazon.com/Hemodynamic-Monitoring-Made-Incredibly-Visual/dp/1496306996/ref=zg_bs_689795011_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=0607QMDKFN47CT1WW80V

https://www.aacn.org/store/books/400820/aacn-commonly-used-iv-cardiac-medications-for-adults-pocket-reference-card

I've heard good things about this book http://www.amazon.com/Ventilator-Management-A-Pre-Hospital-Perspective/dp/1492299642

I haven't read it, but I listen to the guys podcast and he knows his stuff.

The Ventilator Book is a solid introduction and is readily accessible to 3rd and 4th year med students.

Videos: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/circulatory-system

Books: http://www.cvphysiology.com, https://www.amazon.com/Only-Book-Youll-Ever-Thaler/dp/1451193947/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=PVZK7GHPGGQXBP2ME4MB (if you Google it you can find a PDF...) and/or https://www.amazon.com/Physiology-STUDENT-CONSULT-Online-Costanzo/dp/145570847X

Also, The Princeton Review has several books available. The one i'm using is:

http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Review-Complete-MCAT-Preparation/dp/0804125082/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1418459067&sr=8-2&keywords=princeton+mcat+2015

His utilitarianism is based on his personal, pragmatic, double-entry-bookkeeping values for 'good'. Even Mill had doubts, but not Singer.

Yet: “an ethical judgement that is no good in practice must suffer from a theoretical defect as well, for the whole point of ethical judgement is to guide practice.” (Singer, Practical Ethics, 1993) and he often admits he fails in his own silly standards yet doesn't admit his edifice of morality is fundamentally flawed.

I confess I prefer American pragmatism and some elements of relativism, but still.

Read ~1500 pages of ridiculously dense pathology material in two semesters while keeping up with the extra material from lecture. Then when you move onto 3rd year you can read ~4000 pages of Harrison's while doing rotations 8-12+ hours a day.

Undergrad is understanding 5-10 topics a week. Med school is understanding those same 5-10 topics in a single lecture x 8 lectures/day. Without exaggeration, we literally covered an entire semester of undergrad anatomy in our first week. Covered a year of biochem in 6 weeks at the same time with anatomy and other courses. The pace of material covered is not understandable until you get there.

btw if you still want to read textbooks, here you go:

http://www.amazon.com/Robbins-Cotran-Pathologic-Basis-Disease/dp/1416031219/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373635912&sr=8-1&keywords=robbins+pathology

http://www.amazon.com/Harrisons-Principles-Internal-Medicine-Volumes/dp/007174889X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373635885&sr=1-1&keywords=harrison%27s+principles+of+internal+medicine

Goes back to it not being any of your business. If it is an open relationship and they wanted you to know you would have been told.

So if you tell your boss best case scenario (for the bosses relationship)what happens, it’s an open relationship and you made him uncomfortable by bringing his personal life into the workplace or it’s not and you once again made him uncomfortable by bringing his personal life into the workplace + you opened up the possibility to misinterpreting the situation (cultural differences eg Italians kiss as greetings) and causing animosity in their relationship.

Forget about what you’d do irl, the Casper is just testing your ability to see both sides of a story and not be impulsive. Your actual response doesn’t matter as long as you display those traits by explaining your thought process but in this case the argument to not tell the boss while also showing restraint and a methodical/logical thought process is far easier than the argument to tell them without any other information


I think you need to read this book. https://www.amazon.com/Multiple-Mini-Interview-MMI-Strategies-ebook/dp/B01C4FP99A

It’s made for the mmi but tbh it still applies to the Casper

So I read a couple of books because even though I've interviewed for jobs, I realized I had no idea what adcoms on a med school were looking for. Link Here: https://www.amazon.com/Medical-School-Interview-Strategies-Admissions/dp/193797801X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=3BM4D155KR9XWQ3TCT0A

That got me in the right frame of mind. There is a MMI version too. After that, I practiced the more common 8 questions aloud and got them within 2 minutes time frame. Did some mock interviews. I usually over research and read on ethics too. Haven't been rejected or waitlisted post II yet.

Oh shit, so I meant to add these as well, but they're the physical books which explains my forgetfulness. Apologies if not everything seems to relate but my original goal was "how did we get from slavery to where African-Americans are today as still-oppressed people?", which obviously the reason is "because white people have historically shown serious inferiority complexes n' mental issues and have been all-around assholes to everyone else" but truly history is tied into everything so, uh, yeah:

Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-1782

• Reads more like a dissertation than a book for the public, ye be warned
  
  Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present
  
• Haven't read it yet
  
  Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues
  
• Haven't read it yet
  
  
  

Top Knife is a little above your level but is absolute gold if you will be performing any kind of trauma surgery in the future. The Ventilator Book is appropriate for absolutely anyone who will step foot in an ICU for more than fifteen minutes and will take about that long to read.

Singer addresses this in his book Practical Ethics. First, most mammals and some birds are not only sentient as well as self-aware. Thus, they can have "goals" for the future (for example, some mammals have life-long partners, and killing them would basically frustrate their preference of always being with them), and thus it becomes wrong to take those from them.

But fishes and bugs are not self-aware, and so as long as we keep the overall "quantity" of happiness, it is acceptable. That means tough, that for each being killed, we need a new one to appear.

>A newborn Infant can in no real sense be considered a person. Not only would a painless death not bother them, their brain would never have developed to the point that they ever would have known they were alive. It's the same reason I have no problem eating beef.

If you want a thourough philosophical argument, I recomend:
http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/052143971X

It is only natural for researchers with vested interests in different levels of analysis - in this case, more abstract computational models that ignore the molecular and subcellular levels of detail, even the cellular level entirely (with point process neuronal models, for example) - to be opposed to so much funding going into the HBP, which inherently is geared towards simulating even the smallest functionally relevant level of analysis (viz., the molecular). This open letter is a window into the general phenomenon of competing visions and paradigms, only amplified because the stakes are so much higher (1.2 Bn Euro higher, to be exact).

On the one hand, I agree that more independent review would be helpful in order to stop some of the more un-scientific moves that the HBP has been taking in terms of letting go of people who do not "toe the line", as outlined here. On the other hand, there would be a downside to independent review as well, in that ideological differences from the reviewers may unnecessarily stifle the project. This is a problem with the reviewing process in most journals, in fact, so in that sense, nothing new there.

From my point of view, I believe that the framing of this debate in terms of the amount of money being "only invested in one person's vision" is misleading and avoids the bigger picture. The fact remains that we do have too much neuroscientific data, and the research & funding structures are geared so as to encourage little bite-sized bits of research that demonstrate some effect of one molecule, or modulation of a synapse, or any similar isolated aspect of the nervous system - i.e., towards "quick returns". True, newer tools like optogenetics are allowing for larger-scale investigations into the nuances of function of entire circuits, but even then, the brain is complex enough that the story of any individual opto paper is inherently narrow and limited. We do need to integrate all of this data, and what better way than to throw it all into one big computational simulation that doubles up as a data repository?

The HBP project aims to be a "service provider" as discussed in the BBC article linked to above. Even in computational neuroscience, where there is fierce debate as to appropriate levels of analysis of study and therefore understanding of brain function - there is no debate as to the fact that neurons do operate on a molecular level. This huge diversity of neurotransmitters, ion channels, cell types, even glial cells (groan, cries almost every neuroscientist who realizes that we can't continue to ignore them) has evolved for a reason, and each one has shown to have some kind of functionally relevant role to a neuron, circuit, and therefore behaviour. So whatever abstract models we use in our pet studies, must necessarily bottom out at the lowest level of detail in order to be relevant to understanding of the actual brain. Otherwise, we are no better than armchair philosophers trying to understand how the brain works. You need to examine the actual product of evolution, the actual tissue itself - the very nuts and bolts - and understand it at that level.

No, the HBP will never be complete, and no, it will probably be grossly incorrect in many, many ways - because important facts about the brain are not known and remain to be discovered. That shouldn't stop us from starting somewhere. As Markram says, sure, we can invest all this money into the usual ecosystem of research. But that will ultimately generate another few hundred isolated and entirely independent papers with more data, but no more integrated understanding of the brain.

The bottom line is that what is at stake is the question of how best to continue doing neuroscience work. Henry Markram believes (as do many others, let's not forget that - it's not just a "single quirky guy's vision") that some kind of integrated approach that starts to put it all together is needed at some point. It won't be perfect, but we have enough data as it is that it is needed now - in fact, it was needed yesterday. Certainly, it won't even provide all the answers, and it's not meant to. For instance, the criticism of the HBP replicating the entire brain and still not providing any answer about its function is correct in a way. It is indeed silly to think that when the "switch is turned on", the simulation will exhibit (rat) cognition. We need input from the environment, not just to provide data but also to entrain the brain and calibrate its endogenously generated rhythms - just think of the unravelling of the mind that occurs when humans are subjected to sensory deprivation. (For a fuller treatment on this issue of the environment serving to entrain or calibrate the brain, see Buzsáki's excellent treatise, Rhythms of the Brain).

What the HBP will provide, however, is a repository for integrating the swathes of data we already have, and a framework for testing any ideas of the brain. No, it will never be complete, but it is badly overdue, and thoughts of continuing to live without an integrating framework that can be tested, prodded, and drawn upon - instead continuing each researcher's narrow pet projects in isolation from one another - is as past folly as it would be to pretend to be studying and understanding genetics without having the entire genome sequenced.

In that sense, the HBP can only help in any and all endeavours in understanding the brain by providing that baseline model with as much cellular and molecular detail incorporated as possible, because any higher levels of analysis will ultimately have to interface with it (or at least with the level of detail the HBP is aiming to capture) in order to show ultimate relevance in terms of the brain. The brain, as a biological system, is inherently different in nature than the phenomena that many computational neuroscientists (coming as they do, mostly from physics and engineering backgrounds) are comfortable dealing with - which is in the framework of physical systems that can be described with a handful of equations that summarize the overall complexity at hand. The brain, sadly, is not such a system and is not amenable to "spherical cow" levels of analysis. That's not to say that it cannot be done, and that no fruitful results will emerge from such studies. On the contrary, we can learn many useful facts about the brain by building and analyzing simplified models. It's just that inherently, any such endeavours will miss the mark in important ways. The "answer", then, is to stop thinking in terms of a zero-sum game (which is the attitude that signatories of this open letter seem to be coming from) and instead consider it as a joint project or venture. Indeed, the more abstract levels of analysis have been too much in the limelight for many years, without paying any dividends. The connectionist paradigm, started in the 80s, hasn't given us any concrete and large-scale understanding of the brain, and has unfortunately (for our knowledge of the brain but not for commercial ventures) and quietly devolved into machine learning tricks for learning Netflix user preferences, etc.

In fact, such an approach that the HBP is embarking on, is badly overdue, and vastly underrepresented. It's not a popular approach because it accepts the messiness of the brain and doesn't shirk away from it by abstracting it away. Sure, it's a double-edged sword, in that by opening the Pandora's box of the molecular level, you risk missing out on what we do not yet know, but that is part and parcel of any scientific approach. Thus, kudos to the HBP project and Henry Markram for managing to get this kind of project off the ground.

I believe it will only help further our understanding of the brain in an integrated way that can evolve over time and with contribution from other levels of analysis. Those who are opposed to it, in my opinion, are doing so unfortunately primarily on personal and ideological grounds -- i.e., on ultimately selfish and jealous grounds -- than on valid scientific rebuttals.

Sadly, I lack Markram's eloquence and diplomacy in addressing the critics, but sometimes you have to grab the bull by the horns and address the real issue rather than skirt around it and be afraid to step on eggshells (meaning other people's egos).

-- PhD candidate in computational neuroscience, whose own biases have been amply revealed, he hopes.