Quote:
Originally Posted by NuclearFart
Well about 50% of doctors are specialists. As myself and Cracher alluded to, my number also doesn't include the 1000's of hours on call, teaching, attending rounds, journal club, etc. which is all mandatory clinical training outside of the the standard hours. Furthermore, the classroom component often has 1-2 days a week spent with hands on patients, or joining docs in the clinic/hospital. Once you add it all up, I think 20,000+ hours of hands-on clinical training is rather accurate.
Sounds like you are more embroiled in semantics here, which is ironic because this particular statement is far from the definition of hyperbole.
|
My problem isn't a semantic one.
Pseudoscience continually uses bad data to try to make points. For example in a measles outbreak they will state 1/2 of all people who got measles were vaccinated and state that vaccines don't work. Because they ignore the populations of vaccinated people vs non vaccinated people.
Here you have 800 hours of clinical work on patients required by the naturopath comparing it to 10s of thousands required by doctors. This comparison should not be made unless its true in all cases. If they wanted to refer to specialists then refer to specialists.
Really the comparison shouldn't be made because is stating that a clinical hour of a doctor is somehow equal to a clinical hour of a naturopath. And it implies that a lack of clinical hours is the problem with licensing naturopaths.
The problem is nothing they do is science based.