The difference between a PhD and MD, is that a PhD has actually made a significant contribution to their field.
How are you qualified to generalize an entire field away just like that? I know a family member who got their PhD in Scandinavian literature who - while intelligent - hasn't made a significant contribution to their field. Inb4 you say "oh well I just meant STEM PhDs". Oh Please, like STEM PhDs aren't flooding the field. And you're going to argue that each and every one made a significant contribution to their field. Circle-jerk harder.
Many countries, with excellent medical services, only require for years of schooling for their brain surgeons. It is treated more like an intense trade school, with all the education focused around the specialty of medicine the student wants to go into.
Again, dubious claims about how "excellent" these medical services are, and sort of suggestive that you don't know what your talking about. In America, you need to do four years of medical school, followed by seven years of a neurosurgery residency before you can become a full-fledged neurosurgeon followed by an X-amount of years of fellowship. Most do research during this time.
From the Journal of the American College of Surgeons:
Authored by four MDs. No PhDs here, must not be real functioning scientists.
From the New England Journal of Medicine:
Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes
Authored by MDs and MD-PhDs. But nope, only the MD-PhDs are scientists, the other MD-only authors are not true scientists. Not an elitist stance at all.
Of course, I'm sure you're perfectly qualified to determine exactly what counts as a meaningful contribution to medicine and science, being both a lowly doctor and a true scientist, huh?