Makary's claim of "no data" illustrates the classic EBM failure mode. Too many don't understand science outside their "gold standard" kiddie pool, everything inside it is slow and retrospective, and without mechanistic understanding they can't generalize - everything is just memorized special cases.

There is a recurring pattern of institutional research integrity offices shielding influential clinical studies and the researchers responsible for them from accountability, and ignoring harm to the public. This is far from an isolated incident.

Trump’s cronies aren’t what broke public health. The structural blind spots that undermine medical progress and how to fix them, by Mark Ungrin
canadahealthwatch.ca/2025/04/18/t... via @canadahealthwatch.bsky.social @nicktsergas.ca

I’m not crying, you’re crying! 😭

Anyone who actively wants to be a Canuck has, by definition, the right attitude to be a Canuck.

Poutine rapée for extra points and a little Acadian flair!

Again, I believe you have missed the point. Have a good day.

Perhaps you have missed the point.

So you feel a complete lack of mention of an external review when discussing being put on pause is “full disclosure”?

Would you use that logic with a patient consent?

Did you read the minister’s statement? It is clear the meeting with the chair of the EER was part of the decision.

And I ask you to answer my question if you will.

Do you feel there is full disclosure in the petition? Enough to ask for a signature?

I do not know the final EER report and that is not the point. If you read my article, it is about the lack of transparency that is exhibited by the task force.

Again, would you consider it to be full disclosure without the mention of an external review? Enough to get a signature?

Read minister Holland’s statement. The point is not about the content of the EER. The point is that while Holland stated that it was a cause for the pause, it was completely ignored in the petition. Would you consider this full disclosure to a patient before asking them sign a consent?

It’s a good query.

We are a grassroots group of leaders in various specialties, family medicine, epidemiology and even patients. It is completely voluntary and there is no financial support. Let me know if you have any questions.

One of the strongest arguments against allowing secretive bodies like the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care to make guidance in back rooms, without transparency or scientific oversight, is the behaviour they exhibit when forced out into the open.

canadahealthwatch.ca/2025/03/11/h...

My opinion on a few of the many problems with the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and what they failed to disclose in their recent petition.

Health guidelines should be transparent. The Task Force’s aren’t canadahealthwatch.ca/2025/03/11/h... @shielaappavoo.bsky.social

Terrific op ed about modernizing our screening guidelines development body. #cancer

I’ve also never seen a formal equation weighing recalls against avoidable late stage cancers (and the attendant heavier treatments and higher mortality). It’s ultimately just a judgment call by the person writing the guideline, no matter how much the analysis is framed as “rigorous”.

So apparently the government asked a group of experts in EBM to review the work of the task force and based on that review the government has asked the task force to pause their work for a month.

The pause on the Task Force was the result of an External Experts Review (EER) by a panel of many well qualified individuals, including family docs and population specialists. www.canada.ca/en/public-he...

Ask yourself why the critical context of that EER is not mentioned in the letter… 🤔

https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1200/JCO.23.00348?role=tab

Important new publication supporting the experts’ recommendation to screen 40-49 yo women for breast cancer. #40not50