• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

PharmD, PhD, or MD?

med school

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#1 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 28 January 2017 - 01:38 PM


So it looks like I might have an opportunity to do one of the above. IIRC, it takes 135 credits which are to include a handful of science classes to get started on an MD. I might need a few science classes or need to replace some of them as they are more than 5 years old, but that shouldn't take more than a semester or two to meet those requirements and I don't have anything holding me back, I'm free to commit the time to this as long as the job that results from it will be satisfying... 

 

I'm not sure about the PharmD, and the PhD should be doable.

 

The PharmD appears to be 3-4 years shorter than getting an MD, but I'm not sure if it's right for me or how much I will be able to do with it for extending lifespans. I suppose I could get into drug development with it or start my own pharmacy and it would give me alot of respect and functional knowledge if I wanted to produce supplements. Down side is that I wouldn't be able to write scripts or be that longevity doctor everyone was looking for. I don't think I'd be aiming to be a retail pharmacist either. I'd definitely want to be involved in some other aspect of things, but I'm not sure what else there is to do besides work for a pharmacy or insurance company. What other doors open for PharmDs?

 

The PhD would be equally as doable, or slightly longer than the PharmD, though I could perhaps accelerate my progress with off season semesters. I would be able to contribute to virtually any field of science, but would still not be able be that longevity doctor everyone was looking for and employment as a PhD might be harder to obtain and perhaps less permanent than a PharmD or MD.

 

Then the MD would take me around 7-8 years before I could open my doors as that longevity doctor everyone wanted (I would only have ~5 years of support tops as things are now). However, if I could find a way to manage this, the MD would be more extensible. I could add a PhD with the money I would be making and add a specialty too. I could be that longevity doctor I was looking for.

 

Now, that said, I am 35, so I'd be pretty old by the time I finished any of this and the payback would be pretty limited unless we succeeded at radically extending lifespans etc... however I am looking at a fairly long lifespan, and I feel that if I was able to get some gene therapy along the way for the diseases of aging that my genetics tell me to expect, I might even be able to make it to aging escape velocity, though it is a long shot... though then again, I've met some pretty old docs in our movement who were still among the best and still working despite their age. The MD would leave me with the fewest barriers to life extension and rejuvenation. I would presumably be able to obtain Rx materials much more readily and have a much more hands on approach to my own personal care. I don't want to waste any time or get demotivated when things aren't what I thought they'd be, so any demystification anyone could offer would go miles for me.

 

So here's what I want to get out of my career in addition to the job:

  • I want to be involved with the cutting edge medicine that will make us younger and fitter. 
  • Getting involved with gene therapy is of primary importance to me. I feel like I could do alot with it and I want control over and/or input regarding what methods are being researched and brought to market. 

Is there anything I should look out for or which might be counter intuitive and make things take longer?

Anything I might want to know in advance? Tips etc?



#2 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 408
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 28 January 2017 - 06:51 PM

I would go to Medical Doctor (MD)

 

Further I wud specialize something that has to do with the heart or the brain. Perhaps cardiology or neurology.



#3 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,664
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 30 January 2017 - 02:19 AM

Why those? I'm not aware of those specialties doing much to do in the way of regenerative medicine. Perhaps it would be useful if I were to become a surgeon, but I'm not certain I could live the lifestyle required to keep my hands steady. Neurology is an 8 year commitment. I'm not sure I'd have the funds. 

 

I'm thinking dermatology is the most compatible with our mission, not to mention it pays very well. Dermatologists probably hold the lion's share of the rejuvenation market, though I'm not impressed so much by fillers... I'm more interested in regular MSC infusions and I'm wondering if the dermatologist is the best doctor for this kind of thing... Sure it uses infusion technologies, but I think the challenges differ from infusion specialists as they seem to be more interested in infectious disease than anything else, so I don't see why Derms couldn't do infusions for MSCs and whatever else comes down the line for antiaging too. Or am I missing something? I seemed to get all sorts of treatments from my MD (perhaps a family medicine doc or pediatrician?) back in the day, and I'm going to need to do continuing medical education anyways, so could I do my CME in infusion or infectious disease oslt or use it to train in all sorts of things? I'm assuming docs do this routinely in private practice.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 408
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 30 January 2017 - 09:36 AM

Why those? I'm not aware of those specialties doing much to do in the way of regenerative medicine. Perhaps it would be useful if I were to become a surgeon, but I'm not certain I could live the lifestyle required to keep my hands steady. Neurology is an 8 year commitment. I'm not sure I'd have the funds. 

 

I'm thinking dermatology is the most compatible with our mission, not to mention it pays very well. Dermatologists probably hold the lion's share of the rejuvenation market, though I'm not impressed so much by fillers... I'm more interested in regular MSC infusions and I'm wondering if the dermatologist is the best doctor for this kind of thing... Sure it uses infusion technologies, but I think the challenges differ from infusion specialists as they seem to be more interested in infectious disease than anything else, so I don't see why Derms couldn't do infusions for MSCs and whatever else comes down the line for antiaging too. Or am I missing something? I seemed to get all sorts of treatments from my MD (perhaps a family medicine doc or pediatrician?) back in the day, and I'm going to need to do continuing medical education anyways, so could I do my CME in infusion or infectious disease oslt or use it to train in all sorts of things? I'm assuming docs do this routinely in private practice.

 

It is simply my current thinking. You may become a random medical speciality, and you will be able to deal with the aging at some extent, because we people have aging changes everywhere. You may choose by yourself. If you like skin diseases fine. Skin doctor is fine, you may eventually deal with the aging skin and how to rejuvenate it. You may eventually consider a plastic surgeon. They unwrinkle the skin the best lol. Maybe only the pediatrics, the veneric and the infectious diseases dont have what to do with aging changes. 

 

When you browse the human body and the age-ralted diseases from which we die out as flies, you will notice, that we die from several organs - brain, herat, liver, kidneys + the cansers 

The corresponding medical specialities are internal diseases, neurology, neurosurgery, cardiology, invasive cardiology, cardiosurgery, abdominal surgery, urology, nephrology(not neurology). P.S. and oncology :) 

 

The brain and the heart are the most important. Thats why if I had the chance to reeducate in medicine, I would become neurologyst or a neurosurgeon. 

 

I think that sooner or later the regenerative medicine will touch to the medical specialities, because ok, you have the stem cells that have to enter in your heart. And who will place them in there? Well... maybe the cardiosurgeon, or at least the invasive cardiologyst. They may have touched each-other by the way. PRP and stem cells are being injected and implanter wherever. The good results are not much ansd powerful enough (until now) unfortunately... 


Edited by seivtcho, 30 January 2017 - 09:38 AM.

  • Agree x 1

#5 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,664
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 30 January 2017 - 11:37 PM

The results all come down to information. Stem cells need to be given frequently, but the cost is mostly the time taken to do the infusion. Is a doctor going to turn down a patient for MSCs if they only want it once? No they're going to hope they come back for it again when they wise up and listen to the advice and take the money... but some will be driven away when it doesn't work for them. If done right, the benefits are really pretty good. You just have to look at the cells which won't be rejected (patient's own) and those which are given on a regular basis and which are capable of regenerating the tissue in question. It works, it just has to be done right and at the right age. It takes more to see benefits the older you get, so you need to start using it when you're young to keep your body healthy enough to get the most benefit for the longest amount of time.



#6 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 408
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 31 January 2017 - 10:04 AM

Infusion of MSCs.. do you mean injecting them directly in the organ neeeded, or simply infusing them in the blood stream? If you believe, that infusing the mesenchimal stem cells directly in the blood stream is the future, that is needed to defeat aging, then you better go to the sciences, that deal with stem cells. What are they- I am not sure. Maybe cell biology or genetics. You may learn to make infusions after a one month practical course (normally such courses are designed for nurses).

 

Yes, patient's own cells won't be rejected.

 

What is the right age for that to be done?



#7 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 408
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 31 January 2017 - 10:07 AM

P.S. the medical speciality that deals with the blood is haematology.

 

Treating patients with blood tumors (they use stem cells there) should be the onco-haematology.



#8 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 8,953 posts
  • 1,807
  • Location:UK

Posted 31 January 2017 - 11:52 AM

PharmD. You have some prior knowledge. PhD is just an entry point. You won't last through an MD. You can build on it later. You can be a pharmaceutical advisor to LE people. 



#9 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 408
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 31 January 2017 - 05:57 PM

Or you may be the next Doctor Oz lol

 

http://www.doctoroz.com/

 

He has become a medical specialist dealing with the heart (maybe due to advices simmilar to mine lol). 

 

You may try to contact him and ask him what is his oppinion. 

 



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 Pour_la_Science

  • Guest
  • 126 posts
  • 177
  • Location:Clermont F. France

Posted 05 February 2017 - 12:55 PM

  • I want to be involved with the cutting edge medicine that will make us younger and fitter. 
  • Getting involved with gene therapy is of primary importance to me. I feel like I could do alot with it and I want control over and/or input regarding what methods are being researched and brought to market.

 

that's a very difficult question since these two quoted fields DO NOT exist in fact (yet...). That's like being in the beginning of the XX century and asking in what university to go to create AI.

 

You can always study biology (a BS is enough) to study stem cells and genetics.

with MD, you will study geriatrics and the "old" way of preventing aging (like people like Dr OZ for example. Even if you will find A LOT of clients for this type of thing).

 

Look at the asked qualifications for a job in the SENS facility for example: http://www.sens.org/jobs

"Qualifications: Qualified candidates will be local residents who have a BS or MS in the chemical/biological sciences. Duties will include mostly lab work in a small team-oriented environment. Candidates with basic wet lab experience are encouraged to apply. Experience working with human blood and purifying WBCs is a plus, but not required."


Edited by Pour_la_Science, 05 February 2017 - 12:59 PM.

  • Informative x 1

#11 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,664
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 06 February 2017 - 07:33 AM

Infusion of MSCs.. do you mean injecting them directly in the organ neeeded, or simply infusing them in the blood stream? If you believe, that infusing the mesenchimal stem cells directly in the blood stream is the future, that is needed to defeat aging, then you better go to the sciences, that deal with stem cells. What are they- I am not sure. Maybe cell biology or genetics. You may learn to make infusions after a one month practical course (normally such courses are designed for nurses).

 

Yes, patient's own cells won't be rejected.

 

What is the right age for that to be done?

imo? Why not not 19? Maybe earlier? Why age at all or why not as slow as technologically possible? 

 

You need to be a doctor to give infusions and harvesting the MSCs requires a small incision down to the adipose tissue. You'd have to give a local anesthetic by injection... I could do it now, but it would be painful and most likely illegal :) 



#12 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 408
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 06 February 2017 - 10:36 PM

From that point of view the choice is MD



#13 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,664
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 07 February 2017 - 07:05 AM

PharmD. You have some prior knowledge. PhD is just an entry point. You won't last through an MD. You can build on it later. You can be a pharmaceutical advisor to LE people. 

Sent pm. 



#14 kmoody

  • Guest, F@H
  • 202 posts
  • 239
  • Location:Syracuse, NY

Posted 08 February 2017 - 10:54 PM

My two cents...

 

Now, that said, I am 35, so I'd be pretty old by the time I finished any of this and the payback would be pretty limited unless we succeeded at radically extending lifespans etc... however I am looking at a fairly long lifespan, and I feel that if I was able to get some gene therapy along the way for the diseases of aging that my genetics tell me to expect, I might even be able to make it to aging escape velocity, though it is a long shot... though then again, I've met some pretty old docs in our movement who were still among the best and still working despite their age. The MD would leave me with the fewest barriers to life extension and rejuvenation. I would presumably be able to obtain Rx materials much more readily and have a much more hands on approach to my own personal care. I don't want to waste any time or get demotivated when things aren't what I thought they'd be, so any demystification anyone could offer would go miles for me.

 

So here's what I want to get out of my career in addition to the job:

  • I want to be involved with the cutting edge medicine that will make us younger and fitter. 
  • Getting involved with gene therapy is of primary importance to me. I feel like I could do alot with it and I want control over and/or input regarding what methods are being researched and brought to market. 

Is there anything I should look out for or which might be counter intuitive and make things take longer?

Anything I might want to know in advance? Tips etc?

Kudos to you for considering this career path, especially at 35. If you want to contribute directly to anti-aging science/research, you should do the MD or PhD.

 

HOWEVER...

1. MD is harder to get into and complete than PhD. The difference is not close.

2. MD is infinitely more powerful than PhD. MD is a license to practice medicine and research, even though you aren't given the skills for the latter. PhD is only a license to do research (I use "license" in the figurative sense here).

3. PhD is free. MD is >$200k in debt for a cheap one, usually much more.

4. Do not assume that by taking a few courses you can walk into either of these. I would expect a minimum 3.7 GPA, high standardized test scores, previous publications and research experience, and strong letters of recommendation would be necessary to have a chance in any US-based program.

5. Do not underestimate how little either a PhD or MD program cares about your goals and interests.

6. Do not underestimate how conservative and closed minded both of these programs are. They will be outright hostile to you if you try to reinvent them.

7. You must be mentally prepared for how research works in the real world, and the poor shape anti-aging science is in as a discipline. Having been in contact with you for years on this forum, I can tell you that for either of these programs you will need a complete 180 in thinking about aging. Your mindset must default to "everyone is full of crap unless proven otherwise by my hands". This transition from blue-eyed bushy-tailed dreamer to hardened scientist is where a lot of people struggle, and it can be very demoralizing when you are in one of these programs, you don't know anything, your ideas are resisted, and you realize most researchers don't take aging seriously. Getting your confidence and skills up to snuff then regaining momentum is challenging, but doable. Just be mentally prepared for how hard the process is.

 

I chose to withdraw from medical school after two years because I raised >$1M for research. Although my PhD is almost done and will be completed sometime this year, and even though my company has now raised several million dollars and is shooting for a series A shortly, I am still super bummed that I did not get to finish the MD. It is SO much stronger than the PhD, and it frustrates me not to have it.

 

If I were you, if you think you have the chops for it I would try to do the MD. If you have ever struggled with wrote memorization or are lacking any of the minimum applications credentials I outlined above, I would apply to PhD programs only. You should only apply to programs that are free and include a stipend. Any research degree you have to pay for is not worth its weight. Even master's degrees. Do a PhD then master's out and save yourself the tuition.


  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#15 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,664
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 10 February 2017 - 06:18 AM

My two cents...

 

Now, that said, I am 35, so I'd be pretty old by the time I finished any of this and the payback would be pretty limited unless we succeeded at radically extending lifespans etc... however I am looking at a fairly long lifespan, and I feel that if I was able to get some gene therapy along the way for the diseases of aging that my genetics tell me to expect, I might even be able to make it to aging escape velocity, though it is a long shot... though then again, I've met some pretty old docs in our movement who were still among the best and still working despite their age. The MD would leave me with the fewest barriers to life extension and rejuvenation. I would presumably be able to obtain Rx materials much more readily and have a much more hands on approach to my own personal care. I don't want to waste any time or get demotivated when things aren't what I thought they'd be, so any demystification anyone could offer would go miles for me.

 

So here's what I want to get out of my career in addition to the job:

  • I want to be involved with the cutting edge medicine that will make us younger and fitter. 
  • Getting involved with gene therapy is of primary importance to me. I feel like I could do alot with it and I want control over and/or input regarding what methods are being researched and brought to market. 

Is there anything I should look out for or which might be counter intuitive and make things take longer?

Anything I might want to know in advance? Tips etc?

Kudos to you for considering this career path, especially at 35. If you want to contribute directly to anti-aging science/research, you should do the MD or PhD.

 

HOWEVER...

1. MD is harder to get into and complete than PhD. The difference is not close.

2. MD is infinitely more powerful than PhD. MD is a license to practice medicine and research, even though you aren't given the skills for the latter. PhD is only a license to do research (I use "license" in the figurative sense here).

3. PhD is free. MD is >$200k in debt for a cheap one, usually much more.

4. Do not assume that by taking a few courses you can walk into either of these. I would expect a minimum 3.7 GPA, high standardized test scores, previous publications and research experience, and strong letters of recommendation would be necessary to have a chance in any US-based program.

5. Do not underestimate how little either a PhD or MD program cares about your goals and interests.

6. Do not underestimate how conservative and closed minded both of these programs are. They will be outright hostile to you if you try to reinvent them.

7. You must be mentally prepared for how research works in the real world, and the poor shape anti-aging science is in as a discipline. Having been in contact with you for years on this forum, I can tell you that for either of these programs you will need a complete 180 in thinking about aging. Your mindset must default to "everyone is full of crap unless proven otherwise by my hands". This transition from blue-eyed bushy-tailed dreamer to hardened scientist is where a lot of people struggle, and it can be very demoralizing when you are in one of these programs, you don't know anything, your ideas are resisted, and you realize most researchers don't take aging seriously. Getting your confidence and skills up to snuff then regaining momentum is challenging, but doable. Just be mentally prepared for how hard the process is.

 

I chose to withdraw from medical school after two years because I raised >$1M for research. Although my PhD is almost done and will be completed sometime this year, and even though my company has now raised several million dollars and is shooting for a series A shortly, I am still super bummed that I did not get to finish the MD. It is SO much stronger than the PhD, and it frustrates me not to have it.

 

If I were you, if you think you have the chops for it I would try to do the MD. If you have ever struggled with wrote memorization or are lacking any of the minimum applications credentials I outlined above, I would apply to PhD programs only. You should only apply to programs that are free and include a stipend. Any research degree you have to pay for is not worth its weight. Even master's degrees. Do a PhD then master's out and save yourself the tuition.

Well, my last GPA was a 3.5 and I was working full-time. I'm of the mind that that's worth something and show just how much I can get done. I have a great memory and all the SNPs for the best of them. If I don't remember things it's b/c I've left them behind or haven't concerned myself with them for a while. Doctors ar generally impressive in that regard, though I often see knowledge limits, so we just know different things. I should be able to become one of them.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: med school

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users