Dare you to reply!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
What will you do when the hospitals mandate getting injected with Pfizer's next permutation of the shot lest you lose your privileges? You will suck it up and get it because our job market doesn't really give us any other choice but to let them inject us with things we may not want to be injected with.

You can see what has happened with mandatory influenza vaccination and how that has insidiously become widespread over the past decade. I am sure most people believe flu shots prevent you from asymptomatically spreading flu to patients while at work, even though there is very little evidence for this as the flu is overwhelmingly transmitted by sick people coughing and sneezing everywhere. So don't come to work when you're sick. The dirty little secret is that healthcare organizations support this because it is financially in their interests to not have a lot of staff out sick and they sell it under the guise of doing good for their patients. Perhaps there is an argument to be made that it maintains the workforce during bad flu seasons, but that's not how it's sold. Perversely, mandating flu vaccination might actually increase the rates of staff coming to work sick and spreading it as they believe they are "safe" and are only mildly ill since the vaccine reduced their symptoms, so it's probably not the flu and they don't want to burn PTO by calling out sick.


As a med student, I very clearly remember being told calling out sick during intense rotations like surgery was unacceptable, and if you had a fever, you were expected to take some tylenol, and hydrate. Stories of residents getting IVs so they could keep working were real. So the virtue signalling around the flu shot has always seemed disingenuous to me and always been a huge pet peeve of mine, and I have zero doubt the same thing will happen with covid shots.
Assuming you're not a hospital based rad onc, what's to stop you from telling them to pound sand?

Members don't see this ad.
 
As a med student, I very clearly remember being told calling out sick during intense rotations like surgery was unacceptable, and if you had a fever, you were expected to take some tylenol, and hydrate. Stories of residents getting IVs so they could keep working were real. So the virtue signalling around the flu shot has always seemed disingenuous to me and always been a huge pet peeve of mine, and I have zero doubt the same thing will happen with covid shots.

So true. In my Surgery rotation as a 3rd year med student one of my fellow students told a trauma attending that they were sick and needed to be out. The surgeons response was, "either I see you on the floor or in the ER." During one of my inpatient medicine rotations a PGY-3 was pregnant and had hyperemesis gravidarum and was still rounding while attached to IV Zofran and NS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
However masks in medical facilities remain mandatory for everyone. I have personally accepted the fact that (where I live anyway) this is will be status quo for a long time.

I personally think you will be surprised and come to work on day soon and find the requirement suddenly gone. I know I was. 99% of people hate wearing masks whether their politics allow them to admit it or not. It's just a matter of when those in charge think they can rip the band aid off with acceptable fall-out. As happened with airplanes, they will be a few days of huffing and puffing and op eds about they are killing people, and it will rapidly stop once they are realized they are vastly outnumbered and nobody has a desire to go back to keeping a mask on their face all day ever again. Remember, the staff at the front office have to keep the thing on 9 hours in a row, whereas you are most likely only wearing it for patient facing visits, which is what 20-30% of your time in the building. If you're still having to wear them for meetings, chart rounds (unless food served then it's ok), you have my sympathy.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Assuming you're not a hospital based rad onc, what's to stop you from telling them to pound sand?

Nothing would stop me from telling them to pound sand, and that's exactly what I would do.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Assuming you're not a hospital based rad onc, what's to stop you from telling them to pound sand?
I am not and am freestanding, but have to keep privileges at local hospitals. Do you not have to?
 
So true. In my Surgery rotation as a 3rd year med student one of my fellow students told a trauma attending that they were sick and needed to be out. The surgeons response was, "either I see you on the floor or in the ER." During one of my inpatient medicine rotations a PGY-3 was pregnant and had hyperemesis gravidarum and was still rounding while attached to IV Zofran and NS.
I legit had norovirus and could not keep my body fluids inside me for more than 5 minutes at a time. Nobody cared. We won't stand near you, but yeah it would look really bad if you left. I would rather have the worst possible case of covid (and I did in March 2020) than norovirus again.
 
I am not and am freestanding, but have to keep privileges at local hospitals. Do you not have to?
Given what happened to my cousin, I will never be willing to take another covid vaccination. I would leave medicine before I allowed it to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Given what happened to my cousin, I will never be willing to take another covid vaccination. I would leave medicine before I allowed it to happen.
I have a similar story about a colleague who was actually fired over refusal (on very legitimate medical grounds) that would doxx me. It's messed up.
 
There is no available data which supports the "both considerably limit covid transmission" statement.

Given that my cousin died from a vaccine-related heart injury at the age of 41, I will not be undergoing any further covid immunization.
I am sorry, but wasn't that the point of the NEJM-paper on Pfizer's vaccine trial?

A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6).


If those who got vaccinated had a vastly inferior chance of catching COVID, doesn't the vaccine prevent transmission?
Less people catching COVID --> Less people that can transmit COVID?
 
I have a similar story about a colleague who was actually fired over refusal (on very legitimate medical grounds) that would doxx me. It's messed up.
I was on board with mandating COVID vaccines when they were first released… less so now.

I have had COVID twice (OG COVID and omicron in the summer)… and still got the bivalent booster. That’s just me, though. I am paranoid about getting people sick. Given the rapid rate of mutation and the immunity we have all developed, I think we have reached a point where it is difficult to assert that additional booster/vaccination is always helpful for everyone. It should be up to individuals to decide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I am sorry, but wasn't that the point of the NEJM-paper on Pfizer's vaccine trial?

A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6).


If those who got vaccinated had a vastly inferior chance of catching COVID, doesn't the vaccine prevent transmission?
Less people catching COVID --> Less people that can transmit COVID?
It would be interesting to look at both cohorts at this point and see if there is a statistical difference in acquiring covid infection or not. Unfortunately, there is no way to measure that. I don't think anybody is arguing that the vaccine doesn't give some short term protection, but the reality turned out to be that everybody who leaves their house will get covid eventually, vaccinated or not. The vaccine was initially sold as something that would protect you from covid transmission. What you are arguing, that fewer people getting covid means fewer people transmitting covid, only makes sense if it is possible to permanently protect against it like we can for polio, or if we are in the middle of an overflowing-hospital situations with a variant significantly more deadly to unvaccinated, neither of which are true, so then who cares if we just kick the can down the road and keep somebody from getting a mild covid variant for an extra couple of months? Maybe three things are now true in life: Death, taxes, and covid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What you are arguing, that fewer people getting covid means fewer people transmitting covid, only makes sense if it is possible to permanently protect against it like we can for polio, or if we are in the middle of an overflowing-hospital situations with a variant significantly more deadly to unvaccinated, neither of which are true, so then who cares if we just kick the can down the road and keep somebody from getting a mild covid variant for an extra couple of months? Maybe three things are now true in life: Death, taxes, and covid.
Or if simply everyone gets an adequate antibody count at the same time. Which can be done by either mass-infection or mass-vaccination. I think we are going cyclic all the time and it actually seems that the peaks of COVID infections may be coming at shorter intervalls, because people get infected and say "Oh, cool then I won't need a vaccine again this year!" Bang, 4 months later they get COVID.
I only had COVID once, spring 2022. It was not pleasant. I have only had the flue (influenza) once and it felt pretty much the same.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Nuclear weapons certainly are horrific. A Japanese Empire of the Rising Sun ruling over the pacific islands in which nuclear testing was performed would also have been horrific- I would argue much more so, and the Chinese experience in WWII speaks to that. Sucks big time for those islands that they were caught in the crossfire, but I will defend nuclear testing and use of nuclear weapons in WWII until the end of days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nuclear weapons certainly are horrific. A Japanese Empire of the Rising Sun ruling over the pacific islands in which nuclear testing was performed would also have been horrific- I would argue much more so, and the Chinese experience in WWII speaks to that. Sucks big time for those islands that they were caught in the crossfire, but I will defend nuclear testing and use of nuclear weapons in WWII until the end of days.
Jimmy Carter was pro Japan nuking
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Did we have to nuke cities? Thoughts? Maybe a nice demo in the countryside first?

At some point, seems like a demonstration of ruthlessness becomes a strategic thing in nearly all war.

I believe Tokyo firebombing killed more people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Did we have to nuke cities? Thoughts? Maybe a nice demo in the countryside first?
It probably wouldn't have worked.
I believe Tokyo firebombing killed more people?
Yes.
The other alternative to nukes would have been cutting of the Home Islands, which was already being done, mining of waterways and stopping of all transportation. The death toll due to famine would have been considerably higher, including any POWs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Did we have to nuke cities? Thoughts? Maybe a nice demo in the countryside first?

At some point, seems like a demonstration of ruthlessness becomes a strategic thing in nearly all war.

I believe Tokyo firebombing killed more people?

The use of nuclear weapons saved many, many lives on both sides of the conflict. We could argue about the details of said act (location of targeting, for example, as you mentioned), but those details aren't consequential in the overall picture of things. As was mentioned, the firebombing of Tokyo and the firebombing of Dresden (casualties on Dresden were hard to measure given refugee influx but could have been as high as 250k) both had more casualties than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Did we have to nuke cities? Thoughts? Maybe a nice demo in the countryside first?

At some point, seems like a demonstration of ruthlessness becomes a strategic thing in nearly all war.

I believe Tokyo firebombing killed more people?
All the movies I’ve watched…. Ha… show the Japanese military, after Hiroshima, being all like “we will now go on to plunge our nation in a bath of fire and will never surrender” … they were unshockable, unaweable (til after Nagasaki I guess and even then the military had to be overruled, lots of harikari etc)

93243EA8-A1B4-44CE-910A-7482C9D3809C.jpeg
 
Last edited:
It probably wouldn't have worked

Yeah, I just don't see the downside of a demo. Talk about paradigm change. Talk about orders of magnitude impact. I believe a significant portion of the most prominent scientists involved with creating the bomb were against an initial strike on a population center.

The use of nuclear weapons saved many, many lives on both sides of the conflict.
Of course. I think that this is almost undeniable. I also believe that nuclear weapons themselves have significantly contributed to remarkable measures of global peace since WWII. Whether demonstrating assured destruction with less casualties was possible is the question I was asking. Whether Dresden or Nagasaki, at some point there is a little malice and intentional demonstration of ruthlessness IMO (strategic military or geo-political thinking I guess).

I will probably not read the paper in question, but I didn't really like Lemmiwinks snark on this one. It's not that I think this sort of work is terribly exciting, but I don't actually know if such work represents grievance. Is discussing the Tuskegee Syphilis Study as part of a context regarding hesitancy to participate in clinical trials a grievance?

The truth is, the public has a poor understanding of the risks of therapeutic radiation, and whether it's Hiroshima or Fukushima or Three Mile Island, these rationally unconnected to XRT events can resonate with the public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I know plenty of Jews who are fine with German doctors and drive German cars. Almost no Hawains were impacted by nuclear testing. There is an agenda of hate behind this kind of research to blame every disparity on you know who. Japanese are fine with radiation treatment. Maybe the reason Pacific Islanders refuse xrt has nothing to do with nuclear bombs and more to do with belief in healing power of spirits? I have no idea, but there certainly is a movement to blame every evil in the world on Americans.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Did we have to nuke cities? Thoughts? Maybe a nice demo in the countryside first?

At some point, seems like a demonstration of ruthlessness becomes a strategic thing in nearly all war.

I believe Tokyo firebombing killed more people?
An invasion of Japan was expected to cost one million American lives. During the invasion of Okinawa, 25-50k brainwashed Japanese civilians jumped off a cliff rather than accept an American occupation of the island. This was an all out war of aggression and annihilation- Japanese killed 20 + million Chinese and unleashed biological weapons. (Bubonic plague is still endemic in some areas of China from Japanese efforts during world war 2) When the Japanese left Manila, they executed over 100k civilians in several days. One of our future presidents was almost eaten by a Japanese commander:

usa was well within their right to kill 100k Japanese to prevent large death toll of American lives from further continuation of the war. The American presidents obligation is save the lives of American soldiers not an enemy nation that tried to annihilate and conquer most of the world.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 1 users
I will probably not read the paper in question, but I didn't really like Lemmiwinks snark on this one. It's not that I think this sort of work is terribly exciting, but I don't actually know if such work represents grievance. Is discussing the Tuskegee Syphilis Study as part of a context regarding hesitancy to participate in clinical trials a grievance?

The truth is, the public has a poor understanding of the risks of therapeutic radiation, and whether it's Hiroshima or Fukushima or Three Mile Island, these rationally unconnected to XRT events can resonate with the public.

My issue with a lot of this work is that the science is garbage and Im worried it is making a joke of the actual problem you describe. The problem you describe is a huge problem, so what is really the goal with this kind of work? Is it to fix the problem or to pad a CV?

Contrast these garbage studies with the marketing and education efforts of Targeting Cancer in Australia. If we are going to be encouraging young radiation oncologists to work on this problem, the latter is a far, far better approach.

It is wrong to attack the author, the blame lies with ASTRO and the Red J. I continue to be very surprised at the quality of the stuff the Red J is publishing these days, very sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
you know who
Whaaaa?

Do you think this type of work is all about blaming whitey? I'm pretty white. Never, ever, ever felt this way.


Not Hawaiian but Polynesian. Lots of cultural continuity here.

I think what's bothering me are two things.

One, that any critique of historical, militaristic US policy here is seen as almost heretical. (Remember the Catholic Pope created Heresy as a way of addressing diversity of opinion and practice).

Two, that a pretty liberal narrative about "context" is viewed defensively by some as some sort of cultural or racial blame game.

There is an endpoint to be addressed with work like this. Namely, can you get more people on board with therapeutic radiation recommendations. That is a reasonable endpoint to address. No?

When you take your research ethics recertification, it goes through a litany of historical research events that would never be done that way presently, and which by most standards represent immoral behavior by today's research ethics. It is a reflective process. It is not intended to blame.

I am confident that I could go into any diversity training program and not walk out angry. I think that's a reasonable goal for any whitey.

Now are people bitter because of the absurd standards for academic advancement in a dying field and the outsized value of DEI type work in this environment? I think probably. But, this should be the problem addressed, as @NotMattSpraker does so above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My issue with a lot of this work is that the science is garbage and Im worried it is making a joke of the actual problem you describe. The problem you describe is a huge problem, so what is really the goal with this kind of work? Is it to fix the problem or to pad a CV?

Contrast these garbage studies with the marketing and education efforts of Targeting Cancer in Australia. If we are going to be encouraging young radiation oncologists to work on this problem, the latter is a far, far better approach.

It is wrong to attack the author, the blame lies with ASTRO and the Red J. I continue to be very surprised at the quality of the stuff the Red J is publishing these days, very sad.
I also want to piggyback - the author and the actual paper is not the problem. It’s work that deserves credit and the story deserves to be told. Whether it belongs in our flagship oncology journal is the issue. The resident is a very smart, hard working physician. The data is interesting to read. What is the hypothesis? What is actionable? Guidance needs to come from the journal about what is scientific and what is not. There can be an adjacent journal or separate section for this type of work. Even better, make a Substack and monetize your content.

We have a problem. It’s not the resident, it’s not what they wrote. Those are to be lauded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I also want to piggyback - the author and the actual paper is not the problem. It’s work that deserves credit and the story deserves to be told. Whether it belongs in our flagship oncology journal is the issue. The resident is a very smart, hard working physician. The data is interesting to read. What is the hypothesis? What is actionable? Guidance needs to come from the journal about what is scientific and what is not. There can be an adjacent journal or separate section for this type of work. Even better, make a Substack and monetize your content.

We have a problem. It’s not the resident, it’s not what they wrote. Those are to be lauded.

The data is only interesting because I cant recall anyone looking at the radiation refusal data element in NCDB. Beyond that, you can pull nothing from it at all. The rates of refusal are very low and the radiotherapy data in NCDB is known to be sketchy. I don't even believe the data to be honest. To be clear, I do believe that some are more likely to refuse RT due to their context, but I don't think the numbers reported are reliable.

But even if I did, to quote the author: "Moreover, the RT refusal variable is coded as RT refusal from the patient or their family member/guardian and therefore it is not possible to differentiate whether RT refusal was specifically from the patient or their caregiver. Moreover the reasoning behind the decisions is largely unknown."

I'd argue it's completely unknown, but that is splitting hairs. :)

This is a good and interesting blog post that communicates an important idea. If it was in the ASTRO blog or news focusing on the story and downplaying the numbers, it might have even been more impactful.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Btw: guessing the entering class of radonc based on twitter sample is less than 20% white male. Good for diversity vs rats fleeing sinking ship?

 
Btw: guessing the entering class of radonc based on twitter sample is less than 20% white male. Good for diversity vs rats fleeing sinking ship?



What a stupid thing to post. I guess Stanford will give them enough cover.
 
The recent red journal DIE issue is just hot garbage and unfortunately foreseen since the beginning of this thread many years ago. The worst part right now to this whole thing is the lack of self reflection. They say institutions are systemically racist, misogynist, etc. but look to these very institutions to fix the problem. It’s all “everyone else but me” or “I’m giving lip service but not making any personal sacrifices, esp. those that would hurt my career or family ” kinda thing.

*Video removed at moderator discretion*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The recent red journal DIE issue is just hot garbage and unfortunately foreseen since the beginning of this thread many years ago. The worst part right now to this whole thing is the lack of self reflection. They say institutions are systemically racist, misogynist, etc. but look to these very institutions to fix the problem. It’s all “everyone else but me” or “I’m giving lip service but not making any personal sacrifices, esp. those that would hurt my career or family ” kinda thing.

I know many here are probably not fans of Dinesh D’Souza, but nonetheless this video is a great example of “everyone else but me” kinda grift.
This Grey Zone is basically emblematic of the field entirely. As a single community doc I liked the grey zone as a way of seeing how others would treat complex cases, think about them etc. Instead, this one's about career advancement in academia, which has since been added to the writer's online CV (I checked...).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: 8 users
Don't discuss politics in this thread. Multiple posts deleted. Discuss the Grey Zone paper linked (IMO, hot garbage and an emblematic problem of academics in Rad Onc) and the overall concept of DEI and social representation AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE FIELD OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY

One more post about Dinesh D'Souza and someone's getting (figuratively) pistol whipped.

Super Troopers Shut Up GIF by Searchlight Pictures
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
Don't discuss politics in this thread. Multiple posts deleted. Discuss the Grey Zone paper linked (IMO, hot garbage and an emblematic problem of academics in Rad Onc) and the overall concept of DEI and social representation AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE FIELD OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY

One more post about Dinesh D'Souza and someone's getting (figuratively) pistol whipped.

Super Troopers Shut Up GIF by Searchlight Pictures
Perhaps I can submit a grey zone article where I write a story about wanting to go to my flagship journal to learn how to be a better radiation oncologist and find the linked article. The question for consideration could then be, do I maintain my ASTRO membership and why?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 6 users
Your ASTRO membership fees at work . . . one of the many reasons I've declined to renew my membership with them.

Greetings ASTRO Members,

ASTRO has partnered with Jernigan and Associates, Inc., to assess our current Diversity, Equity and Inclusion efforts and recommend how we can continue to enhance our focus and initiatives across the organization.

Jernigan and Associates will host a series of virtual member listening sessions (i.e., focus groups). Listening Sessions are designed to engage participants and solicit feedback regarding your experiences with ASTRO as related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Themes from listening sessions will be aggregated to identify strengths, as well as areas of growth, for the organization.

We invite members to register for a listening session (i.e., focus group) that aligns with your availability. Sessions are scheduled for 60 minutes and will be facilitated by our consultants. Listening sessions are anonymous. As such, the information gathered will be analyzed and reported in aggregate, across listening sessions.

*Please note that a few of the scheduled listening sessions are dedicated to individuals who identify in ways that align with the focus of the listening session (e.g., Community Practice is designated for those members who work in community settings).

In the interests of transparency, I "identify" as a Rad Onc Chair although I *do* work in a community practice.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 7 users
Your ASTRO membership fees at work . . . one of the many reasons I've declined to renew my membership with them.



In the interests of transparency, I "identify" as a Rad Onc Chair although I *do* work in a community practice.

LOL, "listening sessions*" for the community docs.

*struggle sessions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Could there BE a worse time to do this?
(Channeling Matthew Perry, RIP)
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Your ASTRO membership fees at work . . . one of the many reasons I've declined to renew my membership with them.



In the interests of transparency, I "identify" as a Rad Onc Chair although I *do* work in a community practice.
LOL, "listening sessions*" for the community docs.

*struggle sessions.

I was also wondering what happens if you don't "align with the focus of the listening session"?
It's really like they're saying the quiet part out loud. How much are they paying their "consultants?" Maybe they are trading hemp-woven-baskets and baked goods in the spirit of the whole thing? (j/k they in fact do like cash: $207/minute seems reasonable).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Do you think they'll be open to this?

As an ASTRO member, I believe that ASTRO's focus on underrepresented in medicine (URiM) as a means to study diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) does not actually promote broader equity for its membership. URiM boils diversity down to a yes or no question on a spreadsheet--is this person from a selected race or ethnicity--and does not reflect other sources of diversity that lead to need for equity or inclusion.

As such, URiM based intiatives for DEI may target well-privledged, affluent individuals from selected backgrounds while ignoring other forms of adversity and exclusion. There are many individuals in the USA and this specialty who have struggled with disadvantages such as lack of access to quality education, childhood poverty, homelessness, disability, and/or minority sexual orientation whose superficial appearance betrays a wealth of diverse experience. Therefore, by using race and ethnicity as the sole factor for diversity and inclusion, DEI as defined as URiM actually ignores equity for many disadvantaged or otherwise excluded individuals.

ASTRO is also a society to support and promote research within radiation oncology. The NIH has generated a far more inclusive statement that better reflects diversity. Specifically, the NIH's Interest in Diversity statement has defined Underrepresented Populations to be inclusive of various races and ethnicities that can be regional minorities based on the broad geography in the USA, includes as underrepresented those from disadvantaged backgrounds (with definitions such as parents did not go to college, received childhood federal financial assistance, were homeless, etc), and those with disabilities. Therefore, the NIH statement takes into account the diversity of experience and lack of privledge among some of those who have shown true grit and determination in rising to the challenge of biomedical research and medicine.

To the best of my knowledge, ASTRO's surveys and discussions on the topic of DEI have only focused on URiM and for the reasons stated above does not adequately study or promote equity as it applies to its broader membership. ASTRO should embrace the NIH's definition for underrepresented populations within its studies of and programs for DEI. In this way, ASTRO's push for DEI will strive for equity for all forms of diversity and exclusion, becoming more than a simply superficial, skin deep initiative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12 users
Do you think they'll be open to this?

I believe that DEI as defined by URiM does not actually promote equity, as URiM boils diversity down to a Y/N question on a spreadsheet--is this person from a selected race or ethnicity?

As such, URiM promotes well-privledged individuals from certain backgrounds unnecessarily. Examples include Claudine Gay from a wealthy Haitian family or many examples of wealthy Hispanic individuals who grew up in Latin dominated areas of the country like Miami and Los Angeles.

URiM then ignores and disadvantages individuals who have struggled with true adversity. Many families of Asian decent came as refugees or otherwise poor immigrants after wars or genocides, and struggled as minorities in their communities while their American children had to work from young ages without well educated, native English speaking parents to guide them through our society. There are many individuals in the USA who have struggled with childhood poverty and homelessness who on the surface who look privledged, but are not from such backgrounds. By using race and ethnicity as the sole factor for diversity and inclusion, DEI as defined as URiM actually ignores equity.

ASTRO is also a society to support and promote research within radiation oncology. The NIH has generated a far more inclusive statement that better reflects diversity. Specifically, the NIH has defined Underrepresented Populations in the U.S. Biomedical, Clinical, Behavioral and Social Sciences Research Enterprise (NOT-OD-20-031: Notice of NIH's Interest in Diversity) to be more inclusive of various races and ethnicities that can be regionally dependent on the broad geography in the USA, to include as underrepresented those from disadvantaged backgrounds (with definitions such as parents did not go to college, received childhood federal financial assistance, were homeless, etc), and those with disabilities. Therefore, the NIH statement takes into account the diversity of experience and lack of privledge among some of those who have shown true grit and determination in rising to the challenge of biomedical research and medicine.

ASTRO's surveys and discussions on the topic of DEI have only focused on URiM, and for the reasons stated above does not actually study or promote equity. When considering diversity, equity, and inclusion, considerations must be more than simply skin deep.

Esh, Astro just trying to jump on whatever the latest bandwagon is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Do you think they'll be open to this?

I believe that DEI as defined by URiM does not actually promote equity, as URiM boils diversity down to a Y/N question on a spreadsheet--is this person from a selected race or ethnicity?

As such, URiM promotes well-privledged individuals from certain backgrounds unnecessarily. Examples include Claudine Gay from a wealthy Haitian family or many examples of wealthy Hispanic individuals who grew up in Latin dominated areas of the country like Miami and Los Angeles.

URiM then ignores and disadvantages individuals who have struggled with many forms of adversity. For example, many families of Asian decent came as refugees or otherwise poor immigrants after wars or genocides, and struggled as minorities in their communities while their American children had to work from young ages without well educated, native English speaking parents to guide them through our society. There are many individuals in the USA who have struggled with childhood poverty and homelessness who on the surface may look privledged, but are not from such backgrounds. By using race and ethnicity as the sole factor for diversity and inclusion, DEI as defined as URiM actually ignores equity.

ASTRO is also a society to support and promote research within radiation oncology. The NIH has generated a far more inclusive statement that better reflects diversity. Specifically, the NIH has defined Underrepresented Populations in the U.S. Biomedical, Clinical, Behavioral and Social Sciences Research Enterprise (NOT-OD-20-031: Notice of NIH's Interest in Diversity) to be more inclusive of various races and ethnicities that can be regionally dependent on the broad geography in the USA, to include as underrepresented those from disadvantaged backgrounds (with definitions such as parents did not go to college, received childhood federal financial assistance, were homeless, etc), and those with disabilities. Therefore, the NIH statement takes into account the diversity of experience and lack of privledge among some of those who have shown true grit and determination in rising to the challenge of biomedical research and medicine.

ASTRO's surveys and discussions on the topic of DEI have only focused on URiM, and for the reasons stated above does not actually study or promote equity. When considering diversity, equity, and inclusion, considerations must be more than simply skin deep.
As Bill Ackman puts eloquently, DEI is a hate cult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Do you think they'll be open to this?

I believe that DEI as defined by URiM does not actually promote equity, as URiM boils diversity down to a Y/N question on a spreadsheet--is this person from a selected race or ethnicity?

As such, URiM promotes well-privledged individuals from certain backgrounds unnecessarily. Examples include Claudine Gay from a wealthy Haitian family or many examples of wealthy Hispanic individuals who grew up in Latin dominated areas of the country like Miami and Los Angeles.

URiM then ignores and disadvantages individuals who have struggled with many forms of adversity. For example, many families of Asian decent came as refugees or otherwise poor immigrants after wars or genocides, and struggled as minorities in their communities while their American children had to work from young ages without well educated, native English speaking parents to guide them through our society. There are many individuals in the USA who have struggled with childhood poverty and homelessness who on the surface may look privledged, but are not from such backgrounds. By using race and ethnicity as the sole factor for diversity and inclusion, DEI as defined as URiM actually ignores equity.

ASTRO is also a society to support and promote research within radiation oncology. The NIH has generated a far more inclusive statement that better reflects diversity. Specifically, the NIH has defined Underrepresented Populations in the U.S. Biomedical, Clinical, Behavioral and Social Sciences Research Enterprise (NOT-OD-20-031: Notice of NIH's Interest in Diversity) to be more inclusive of various races and ethnicities that can be regionally dependent on the broad geography in the USA, to include as underrepresented those from disadvantaged backgrounds (with definitions such as parents did not go to college, received childhood federal financial assistance, were homeless, etc), and those with disabilities. Therefore, the NIH statement takes into account the diversity of experience and lack of privledge among some of those who have shown true grit and determination in rising to the challenge of biomedical research and medicine.

ASTRO's surveys and discussions on the topic of DEI have only focused on URiM, and for the reasons stated above does not actually study or promote equity. When considering diversity, equity, and inclusion, considerations must be more than simply skin deep.

Burn the witch!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Your ASTRO membership fees at work . . . one of the many reasons I've declined to renew my membership with them.



In the interests of transparency, I "identify" as a Rad Onc Chair although I *do* work in a community practice.
JFC. Morans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
If I were a member, I would write a strong letter of disapproval that will go quickly into the trash, since there rarely is people pushing back on this stuff. I get the sense that the reality is that the vast majority are fatigued of this, but are too busy / worried about other things to say anything. A concerted effort by many would probably at least get their attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Top