Pharmtards Anonymous: "Clinical" Controversy

Over the past few weeks I've been trying to divine what the true meaning of the word "clinical" is intended to be. When Dr. A gave us the 'clinical' lecture on cervical cancer, I thought it meant "don't pay attention to all that shit Dr. Jipper told you, here's what matters." When they said they were training 'clinicians' I think it meant "trivia masters in white coats." When Dr. P and SheMaJo told us we were making "clinical decisions" I think it meant "practicing voodoo medicine."

Honestly, in a patient with GERD who failed bisphosphonate *because*of*her*GERD*, why would your next option be another oral bisphosphonate? That's like treating diarrhea with Magnesium Citrate "to just get all of that out of your system real good." Y'know and I get that we should be treating it with something beyond some Citracal -- she just had a fracture, Harvard. But when you can get a yearly IV bisphosphonate or a plethora of other options why would you ride the same pony again? Sorry for being so goddamn correct.

You know it's true
But think again about their response to our complaints about their questions being so vague and ambiguous. You see, these questions were intentionally shitty just to make us think! I'm sure all of the earlier ARS questions (this has gotten better) intentionally blew chunks just to make me nauseous and they'll make me fail the first exam intentionally to make me try harder on subsequent ones. With all of this intentional-dicking-me-over one has to wonder if the staff is some kind of Jedi Master that is fourteen steps ahead of us, or if they're having some problems with this whole 'teaching' thing.