Questions lead to experimentation, which leads to evidence, allowing for conclusions, and then–voila!–practice.
Equipoise was a new word for Dave, Mitch, Nathen and Riley. Jeff explains that it describes a state of equilibrium at which debate on a topic is no longer required, and factuality has effectively been achieved.
But in science, that state has time and again been upset by new ideas and evidence that initially seem wrong. So, who decides whether the debate is remains open, or has gone on long enough?
We Want to Hear From You: YOUR VOICE MATTERS!
No matter where you fall on any spectrum, we want your thoughts on our show. Do you agree or disagree with something we said today? Did you hear something really helpful? Are we delivering a podcast you want to keep listening to? We’ll be sure your ideas are heard by all–leave a message at 347-SHORTCT (347-746-7828) and we’ll put your message in a future episode (use *67 to be an “Unknown caller”).
Is labeling people during a med school interview a good idea? Is such labeling always an example of ad hominem? Are doctors who write newspaper articles espousing antivaccination ideas deserving of sanction by their employers, or are they simply expressing valid concerns? Are their employers guilty of the same sins as administrators at NASA who didn’t listen to engineers before the space shuttle Challenger disaster? Our first-ever tweetstorm critique brought Dave to consider all these thoughts with Matt Wilson, newbies Laura Quast and Kendra Frey, and Adam Erwood. Also, radiologists face the extinction of diagnostic radiology by AI and pigeons, 3D printers capable of producing functionally complete human skin are here, and hybrid pig-human embryos all found their way into the news this week. And Dave tests his co-hosts’ knowledge of medical history in a Pop Quiz. Listeners, share your thoughts with us each week. Call us at 347-SHORTCT any time, and see our Facebook page for a question to consider every Monday.
Dylan Todd joins the team, along with Aline Sandouk, Marc Toral, and Cory Christensen to talk about magic. Specifically, whether there is a role for it in medicine. How far should we go in accepting the unknown as valid in treating sick people and in medical research? Complementary medicine, the placebo effects, cochlear implants, many drugs…all (maybe? usually? not always?) work but we don’t always know why or how. Continue reading Magical Mystery Medicine→
An honest guide to the amazing and intense world of medical school.