Suggesting that this makes Nick’s group looks better is clinical levels of delusion.

We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

I want to see an actual exposure number like yesterday.

Credit to the trialists for a really good execution here, but not mentioning the intermittent fasting component was the only part designed to result in a caloric deficit is a bit of a hand wave, no?

Update no one ask for: I now officially hate the term “protocols” on the modern era.

“AI cannot compress space and time” is a pretty darn good line.

It is… not great that they are just becoming familiar with lab timelines. Wait until they hear about clinical trial timelines.

The thunder just adding Mara is madness.

I don’t know a lot of residents that only work 65 hours per week, either.

Rare day where I got some results/data that made me stand up from my chair.

Frankly offensive levels of chart crime here

The term “woke” is now so diluted as to have lost any and all credibility, nuance, or value.

Setting aside “studying actual medicine for a second” — let’s not over-exacerbate how indicative of medical mastery differences even a started deviation level difference in grade or step1 score are. We are talking about 1 or 2 questions per test on highly biased question structures from reams of PowerPoint slides chosen by lecturers with motives that vary wildly on question selections that result in focusing on memorizing esoteric slide details over topic mastery. For step1 (which I’ve historically defended, and I’ll tell you my score if you care/think I’m biased), a 5 point difference is a couple of questions with unclear relevance to patient outcomes— is knowing lesch nyhan is an hprt1 mutation that impedes purine recycling or objectively challengable theoretical biochemistry questions (I took graduate biochemistry courses, suggesting single metabolites are definitely the right answer to hypothetical TCA manipulations is hilarious) predictive of clinical success? Further, is making most questions structured as frequentist statistical approaches over Bayesian ones in order to make the questions more arbitrary and therefore “harder” helping make anyone a better clinician? Especially if it results in answering in such a way that you’d never be caught dead actually practicing on the clinic? Absolutely no chance. I know no one will real this, but I disagree with almost all the commentary here. Design med school to be mastery-based, increase the residency spots so the number of competitive seats grows, and let kids separate themselves on aggregate honest reviews, genuine clinical mastery, step1/2 scores on a more representative test, and substantive research output. Demand a more fair and less gameable framework, and the future doctors will rise to that level.

This account seems fun/cool but this is the absolute worst in grading behaviors and should be characterized as such. Bringing guac or bagels or whatever should be actively denigrated in grading as a likely grade bribe… I’m sure the kid who did it was totally competent, but the idea that residency fates are being decided by who brings in snacks is categorically absurd

I’m sick of people who don’t know what they are talking about blasting out commentary about clinical medicine

I love Pelissero in every way, but this is ridiculous today. Between the “how much does he love football” and now the post-reporting mea culpa, this is journalism by tweet at its worst.

There is so much public and non-public info on insane medical and medical-adjacent malpractice (not even including the brain stuff) by nfl medical staffs and coaching staffs… idk how they get a pass for it all. I know it’s tough because players advocate to play a lot, but my goodness.

Rare occasion where I genuinely hope someone is cosplaying as a doctor

Really feel like this should be presented in context, as heart disease deaths at any given age have been going down (or are flat if we want to be pedantic about any and all age group)