If you'd like to read further, here's the full article link: medscape.com/viewarticle/...

I appreciate that for both authors and journals it's a publish or perish world but the problem is, the media amplification of these sorts of studies, especially the food ones, contributes to nutritional and scientific illiteracy and hence publication is not free from harm

The tl;dr is that single food studies (especially p-hacked ones like this) can't really make conclusions and that we shouldn't need a study to tell us standing on a vibrating plate doesn't lead to weight loss

If you prefer a podcast link, here's you go: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/d...

If regulators fail to uphold their statutory duty to act in the public interest, they may be inviting legal challenge — and moral reckoning. The question is: who will test that duty first?

This isn’t just theoretical. Inaction signals to racialized patients that their safety and dignity are negotiable — and to the public that accountability in medicine is optional.

Courts have found regulators can be liable for negligent oversight when foreseeable harm occurs. Ignoring racism that deters or harms patients might meet that threshold.

As statutory bodies exercising public authority, medical regulators could also face Charter scrutiny. Inaction that allows racist conduct to persist may violate patients’ equality rights under Section 15.

If regulators ignore such conduct, they may be breaching not only their own legislation but also the Ontario Human Rights Code, which protects equal access to services, including healthcare.

Racist public conduct isn’t “private speech.” It signals bias that can affect care. Under the Medicine Act, such behaviour could constitute “disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.”

Regulators like the CPSO have a legal duty under the Regulated Health Professions Act to “serve and protect the public interest.” Turning a blind eye to racism is hard to square with that mandate.

Medical regulators exist to protect the public. In Canada and the UK, some have failed to act when physicians publicly spread racist messages. That inaction erodes confidence in both the profession and its regulators.

When physicians post racist content, patients who belong to targeted groups can reasonably fear danger, denial of care, or substandard treatment. That fear alone undermines trust in healthcare.

Link to full piece (registration is, as always, free) medscape.com/viewarticle/...

whereby the studies receiving the most media attention are those reporting literally negative (ie, adverse) outcomes. In contrast, more rigorous studies that challenge these negative findings, even if publicized, rarely achieve comparable societal penetration or awareness /3

Since then have you heard that no, GLP1 meds almost certainly don't increase the risk of suicide and might in fact contribute to improved mood? I'm betting that's less likely and the reason why is negative publication bias - media edition /2

Amazing