Thread: i wanna be a doctor whooo interesting...maybe

hey i am still young im 15 i am in my first year of highschool and i am pretty no absolute in my resolve that i wanna be a doctor in the future(when i grow up i wanna be a fireman mummy) well i wanna be a doctor and i was wondering if there are any doctors in the house and i mean a doctor of medicine could u recomend some types of courses i should take in highschool maybe some litirature or textbooks i should read (i know what u are syaing textbook to read what does this kid want who does he think he is well i dont have much of a life outside school i live way out there and until i can drive i dont get to have muh of a social life)any way back on subject if u could gove me some recomendations on what i should do to achive my goal of becomeing a doctor u know like the doctor in a hospital and maybe u could list the different types of doctors and what they do???


any thing u can do would be much appreciated so write away...type anyway.

I'm not a doctor or a biologist (yet) But read about, "Genetics, biology, anything about diseases, disorders, symptom's and memorize about 85% of the content." Preferably 95%. But it's fairly difficult to memorize that much.
Myself? I have a horrible memory, which is why i'm becoming a geneticist instead of working in a hospital diagnosing and treating patients.

Ironically, i'm watching House right now. =)

Medical doctors are fake doctors. Become a real doctor. The one that kills thousands of mice a year so he can claim to be looking for a cure for cancer on research grant applications.

So we don't get confused, Spur is being sarcastic, and being kind of a prick about it as well.

Besides, I don't want to work on cancer research. I want to work on human genetic alteration, modification, and enhancement. I would be researching on how the black plague is the cause for a genetic vaccine against HIV and the like. Creating a universal vaccine to protect humans from all diseases that would infiltrate the body.
=)

And I am also a proper research biologist.

And maybe I am not being sarcastic, just truthful. But truthful in the sense of conveying the right idea, but not painting the whole picture.

You're insinuating that all cancer research doctor's sit on their ass, start the cancer growth in rats, inject the rats with an experimental drug, cut open the rats at a later date and see if it works, then rinse and repeat pretty much wasting government funds because YOUR research is going unfunded, correct?

Sounds pretty sarcastic to me... Maybe you need to learn to reword things otherwise everything you say can come off as satire.

I like House.



Way back when I was still planning to be a doctor, I read a lot on Human Anatomy and Physiology. When you comprehend every part and enzyme of your body, it becomes easier to understand the rest.
(And when you start to learn about your endocrine system, you may even doubt your true feelings or emotions.)

I was really planning to be a doctor but for some reasons took up engineering instead.

Originally Posted by verzen

You're insinuating that all cancer research doctor's sit on their ass, start the cancer growth in rats, inject the rats with an experimental drug, cut open the rats at a later date and see if it works, then rinse and repeat pretty much wasting government funds because YOUR research is going unfunded, correct?

Sounds pretty sarcastic to me... Maybe you need to learn to reword things otherwise everything you say can come off as satire.

No. Not insuating that whatsoever. That's an interpretation made by your associations.

Remember. I am a real research biologists. I do not think according to stereotypes regarding research scientists.

My research is funded quite nicely at the moment. So not that either.

Cancer research is actually one of the best funded research topics. Most researchers include it in their research applications, whether they are actually doing research on cancer or not. There is always a sideline to be found that correlates to some aspect of cancer.

I do insinuate now (I didn't do it before) that cancer researchers have no gain from finding a 'cure' for cancer. But most people know that. They simply want to understand cancer. And get the funding to do so.

Only a naive person would think researchers do not think about funding all the time. Without funding there is no research. It is as simple as that.

I'm not insinuating that cancer researchers are wasting mice. We (as in most researchers in this kind of field) all are.

Wasting mice has become the modus operandi for all of us. Mainly because of the advent of the transgenic mouse model. In the last 10 years I have seen an expontential expansion of the mouse facilities just for this reason: to house all the different transgenic mouselines.

No longer does a simple inbred mouseline suffice. I think we have close to 20 in our little lab alone. And the regular mice of course. They all need to be bred extensively to get the right combination of alleles and to clean up the transgenic mouseline. This means a massive amount of culling before there even has been an experiment.

This is reality. Life in biological sciences usually goes hand in hand with a massive amount of animal use. I do it myself.

So I could go on forever. Or I could leave it at a small statement (as I opened in this thread) that will be understood by some, and misinterpreted by most.

Whether anything I state is good or bad is for other people to decide. As you did.

I make no moral judgement regarding science. I am a scientist. Should I label myself as evil because I murder animals for the sake of funding and a quest for knowledge?

And which is more important? Knowledge or funding? I have to feed my children. Should convince my peers that this certain idea is right. What is right and what is wrong? What is more important?

Should people become doctors to help people? Why do more people die in hospitals than anywhere else? Even if you correct the statistics for the obvious traps in that statement?

Why do people who say to be interested in finding a cure for cancer waste their lives and a great deal of public money understanding cancer?

Should we not come to the conclusion that all human activity is dual in nature: shit and shine, good and evil, waste and productivity.

The intent of people does not correspond to actual deeds.

Hey spurious monkey,

ok I am a medical student, but I was doing some cancer research last summer. TOTALLY agree with you. Spent the majority of the time learning about the molecular junk in cancer and about 5 minutes realising the limits of what we can do. This is always the qualm I have had about cancer research, so much money being pumped into it and yet quite frugal results in terms of affecting patients (in proportion to the money spent, I know things are improving).

But it is all fascinating stuff nonetheless, and I again agree with you, I was motivated y a thirst for knowledge more than anything else, but perhaps with the hope it will some day produce a worthwhile use.

And you do wonder does acute/primary healthcare impact sufficiently on human survival/population to justify its existence when clean water, the Haber process and immunisation, each alone, have had a greater effect alone than the remainder of modern medicine.

This thread has totally digressed btw!;
maddog, go for it, I rarely look back, scientists know more and all respect is due to them, but I think we get the moral reward on the frontline (no disrespect guys!).

thx for the support robbie i aprieciate it. and spur i am amazed at your abilitie to spin few words and interpret them into so many it realy is an amazing talent wich i could forsee you using to a great deal toaquire any kind of grant that u might need to help you in your quest to aquire knowledge abot cancer.

and last but not least spurzen

u were the only one that actualy put any information regarding to my question for help but not the only one to help and for that i thank you.

apart from my bad punctuation i think that was a well put together reply dont u???

Originally Posted by maddog67

hey i am still young im 15 i am in my first year of highschool and i am pretty no absolute in my resolve that i wanna be a doctor in the future(when i grow up i wanna be a fireman mummy) well i wanna be a doctor and i was wondering if there are any doctors in the house and i mean a doctor of medicine could u recomend some types of courses i should take in highschool maybe some litirature or textbooks i should read (i know what u are syaing textbook to read what does this kid want who does he think he is well i dont have much of a life outside school i live way out there and until i can drive i dont get to have muh of a social life)any way back on subject if u could gove me some recomendations on what i should do to achive my goal of becomeing a doctor u know like the doctor in a hospital and maybe u could list the different types of doctors and what they do???


any thing u can do would be much appreciated so write away...type anyway.

Do biology and chemistry for your senior years in highschool. Make sure you study the course material well and try to get a good handle on the connections between the two. The text books for your level will probably be fine, though if you want more detail a university text book such as Jane Reece and Neil Campbell's Biology should have you covered for most of what you'll encounter at highschool. Get the most recent edition (I think it's the 8th edition at the moment) as the field moves fast and textbooks are always left behind within a couple of years. At this point I wouldn't recommend going much further than that since your course material will be quite broad and you won't want to get into too much depth in certain areas.

In terms of being a medical doctor- all of the various kinds of MD start with the same university level course. That is Medicine. In most countries you'll do 6-7 years of study and practical before you graduate and become some form of intern. That stage involves you basically doing any and all work demanded of you in a hospital for several more years before you begin to specialise further. It's at that point that you get to decide whether you will be a consultant, surgeon, GP (family doctor in a private surgery) or various other specialities.

If research is what interests you, then the above is very much optional. Few MDs get actively involved in new research and when they do it is typically clinical trials (which are a whole strange area in themselves). If lab type research is your interest then you instead want to do a degree in biology, get a first class honours or high second class degree from that and then do a different kind of doctorate degree called a PhD. This will bring you into Spurious' world of killing mice to understand cancer, or my world of looking at cells and viruses in dishes (and ordering the deaths of mice) to understand gene therapy. Essentially we're the ones who end up creating the drugs and techniques that the MDs will one day use or research in their clinical trials. At least if our experiments work, that is.

Either route you're looking at a minimum of 6 years of university. Even for a PhD, you're probably talking about 7-8 years including your degree.

Hi! Well, I'd like to be a doctor too you know, and I'm looking at neurology as my calling! My father is also a doctor (internist), and I have some suggestions for good books to start reading. But first of all, you must know your rudimentary biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Medicine is of no use if u dont know ur general science fields.

So here are some books: The Cartoon Guide to Genetics by Larry Gonick (it sounds childish i know, but it is actually VERY interesting, and occasionally humorous too)

Netter's Neurology (just to see the different ailments of the nervous system)

Atlas of Anatomy (Great illustrations and information)

.........Anyway, I hope this helps............if not, I'm sorry.......by the way, there are also cartoon guides to physics, chemistry, and of the universe. So you might wnat to look into those for fun!

Read anything you can get your hands on. Neuropsych, Genetics, Classic Lit, History books....don't get burned out by devoting too much time to one thing. Be alive..don't be droll and one-sided like too many others...oh yes..also have a social life..don't work in the ER!!!

I wanna be a doctor...no..just kidding..i really wanna be a balla, shot calla', 20" rims on the impala..called up gettin laid tonight..etc, etc...

To be completely honest a cure for cancer is more likely than a cure for AIDS. AIDS is a constantly and premeptively mutating disease. every time the white blood cells try to kill it, it mutates and can no longer be killed. so the white blood cells mutate to kill the "new" AIDS but it has mutated again. Cancer cure much more likely.

No that's wrong, highly active retroviral treatment can completely switch off the AIDS virus which induces it into a latent type state; no more mutations; it almost reduces the virus to behaving like herpes.

Cancer mutates a LOT which is how drug resistance develops; and the fact is there are so many different cancers involving different regulatory systems, each of which probably requires its own "cure" or target drug by today's rationalisation that it could well take longer to develop "cures" to cancer.

I use "cure" in inverted commas as cancer will forever arise unlike HIV were we to eradicate it.

I know but retroviral treatment is difficult and unpredictable. also if as you say, then why havent they developed a cure for AIDS? Cancer is pretty effectively eradicated with chemotherapy and cancerous tissue removal

No a lot of cancers are not eradicated and chemotherapy serves only to contain it (it is curative in many cases too of course). For example many lymphomas, or chronic leukaemias or metastatic colonic cancer.

As for HIV, it cannot be cured as it integrates into the host genome so you need to kill all infected cells to eradicate the virus and "cure" the host.

It really isnt that unpredictable; its just side-effects that require regime change usually. Resistance does still occur but remember, under modern regimes you're being given 5 drugs with different mechanisms, it is very difficult for the virus to be given the chance to produce a viable mutation.