David Cochrane: "We're about 20 days away from the 25th anniversary of 9/11, and Donald Trump has imposed a 50% tariff on the country that gave refuge to thousands of its citizens on the day of the worst terrorist attack in American history."
110 years ago today, more than 800 Newfoundlanders went into battle at Beaumont-Hamel. More than 700 were killed, wounded, or went missing in a single day. Despite their horrific losses, the Newfoundland Regiment fought in World War I until 1918.
Today, as we celebrate the greatest country on Earth, we remember all those who served and sacrificed so that we could live in freedom and peace.
As a doctor, I would simply like to observe that we do not, routinely, conduct ward rounds with a flock of attending bald eagles, nor assess patients with bolts of light emanating from our palms, nor have satanic angels rising from our toupees. Other than that, the AI pic of Dr Trump was spot on.
For years, Canada sent 70 cents of every defence dollar straight to the United States. Mark Carney just told Parliament that stops now. The room gave him a standing ovation.
It is a striking thing to get a standing ovation for announcing that your country will stop subsidising someone else’s arms industry. But that is where Canada is in 2025.
Carney’s case is blunt: the United States is “beginning to monetize its hegemony, charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contributions to collective security.” 

And MAGA is celebrating. Winning. Always winning. USA, USA. Somewhere a man in a red hat is pumping his fist.
Let me explain what is actually happening, because clearly no one has bothered.
In ten months, the United States has torched eighty years of alliance architecture that its own soldiers, diplomats and taxpayers built from the rubble of the Second World War. Eighty years. Gone. Detonated, with a smile, by people who genuinely believe this is genius.
Canada is not drifting away. Canada is leaving. Europe is not hedging. Europe is building a defence industry specifically designed to cut Washington out. Allies are not quietly grumbling over dinner. They are signing contracts with other people.
And the MAGA faithful are cheering every single step of it, because someone told them this is what dominance looks like.
It is not dominance. It is a man burning down his own house and whooping at the flames. The saddest part is not that America is losing its allies. The saddest part is that half the country thinks that is the point.
Stay connected,
Follow Gandalv @Microinteracti1
Peer review was supposed to be science’s quality filter, but somewhere along the way it started acting more like a bouncer who only lets in the regulars. It’s slow, it tends to favor established labs and familiar names, and it gets uncomfortable around anything too unconventional. Papers loaded with mountains of data tend to cruise through, while bold ideas that actually challenge the consensus get stuck in limbo or turned away at the door.
The irony is that where a paper gets published almost never determines its real worth. What actually matters is what the scientific community does with it afterward, whether people cite it, argue with it, build on it, or use it to blow up a long-held assumption. That’s where the value lives, not in the journal’s logo.
A major survey a few years back found that roughly 70% of researchers think the current system is fundamentally broken, and it’s not hard to see why. Publicly funded research hides behind paywalls, editors chase whatever topic is hot that month, and the whole incentive structure pushes toward safe bets over genuinely risky and potentially important work.
Science has always been complicated and deeply human and full of ego and inertia, but the conversation is shifting.
For decades, peer review has been treated as the gold standard of scientific validation.
Yet many scientists know the reality: the system is far from perfect. Peer review is broken and sometimes even corrupted.
The process can be slow, inconsistent, and vulnerable to bias. Reviewers are sometimes asked to judge work outside their true expertise. In other cases, they may be evaluating ideas that challenge the very paradigm in which they were trained. And occasionally, reviewers are simply competitors.
Ironically, the most prestigious journals can also be the most conservative. Truly new ideas are often met with skepticism, while safer work that fits the current narrative moves more easily through the system.
Increasingly, papers are judged less by the originality of the idea and more by the volume of data, the sophistication of statistics, and the beauty of the figures. Science risks becoming data-rich but idea-poor.
But there is an important reality to remember: journals do not ultimately decide the impact of scientific work. Impact is decided later, by the community. By the scientists who read it, test it, debate it, and cite it.
In the end, citations and ideas determine the legacy of a paper, not the impact factor of the journal that first published it.
Science has always advanced by questioning assumptions. Perhaps it is time we also question the system that filters scientific ideas.
This qualitative study explored why family physicians in Ontario are leaving comprehensive care and what policy changes could help retain them.
Check out the full study here: https://t.co/vZkYCCMI8w
The study identified financial strain, heavy administrative burdens, rising costs, and limited support as key reasons for leaving, and highlighted four priority areas for improvement to help retain physicians. @grady_colleen
The beauty of a PhD lies not in the title, but in the resilience it takes to earn it.
Your students will forget most of their coursework.
But they'll remember how they solved an impossible problem at 1 AM.
How they survived 3 rejections in a row.
How they learned to keep going when nobody believed in their idea.
That's what you're training them for.
BREAKING: The Actors Guild and the Writers Guild unleash scathing responses to the MAGA-fueled firing of Jimmy Kimmel and Donald Trump’s blatant war on free speech.
We have entered dark, dark times…
“Suppression of free speech and retaliation for speaking out on significant issues of public concern run counter to the fundamental rights we all rely on,” stated SAG-AFTRA on behalf of its actors.
“Democracy thrives when diverse points of view are expressed,” they continued. “The decision to suspend airing Jimmy Kimmel Live! is the type of suppression and retaliation that endangers everyone’s freedoms. SAG-AFTRA stands with all media artists and defends their right to express their diverse points of view, and everyone’s right to hear them.”
The Writers Guild of America West and Writers Guild of America East united for their statement—
“The right to speak our minds and to disagree with each other – to disturb, even – is at the very heart of what it means to be a free people,” they said. “It is not to be denied. Not by violence, not by the abuse of governmental power, nor by acts of corporate cowardice.”
“As a Guild, we stand united in opposition to anyone who uses their power and influence to silence the voices of writers, or anyone who speaks in dissent,” they continued. “If free speech applied only to ideas we like, we needn’t have bothered to write it into the Constitution.”
“What we have signed on to – painful as it may be at times – is the freeing agreement to disagree,” they went on. “Shame on those in government who forget this founding truth. As for our employers, our words have made you rich. Silencing us impoverishes the whole world.”
Yesterday, ABC announced that it would be pulling “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air indefinitely after he made some incredibly tame remarks about the death of Charlie Kirk.
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” said Kimmel.
In truth, we still don’t know what the alleged shooters political ideology is, but it is true that Republicans have been clamoring to exploit this murder for political gain. Kimmel’s cancellation proves it. Donald Trump has been calling for Kimmel to be taken off the air for ages because Kimmel has consistently criticized and mocked him. The Kirk remarks provided the pretext for what ABC has long wanted to do: cave to Trump to curry favor with the White House.
The firing is rendered even more farcical when one considers Kimmel’s comments last week in which he called the killing “senseless.” He also posted an Instagram message sending love to Kirk’s family as well as victims of gun violence across the country. He has been nothing but empathetic and gracious throughout this tragedy and still conservatives are out for his blood.
The irony in all of this is that Kirk was supposedly a “free speech warrior” but now his death is being used to justify an all out assault on free speech. Republicans don’t actually care about principles or decency. All they care about in the MAGA era is the raw exercise of power against their political enemies.
Please retweet and ❤️ if you stand with Jimmy Kimmel!
They want to decide what books you can read, what history your children can learn, what medicines you’re allowed to take, what surgeries you can have, what gender you’re permitted to be, what sports you can play, which bathroom you can use, who you can love, and who you can marry. They want to own your library, your classroom, your hospital room, your bedroom—and now your television. They want to own the page, the pill, the joke, the chant, the kiss, the very pronoun in your mouth. And then, with breathtaking cynicism, they’ll look straight at you and say it’s the Democrats who are coming for your freedom. Small government? My fucking ass. This isn’t small government. This is government in your bloodstream, in your dictionary, in your bed, and now in your goddamn remote control.
https://t.co/IDFPUuNMc5
This is Craig Erwich, the President of ABC Entertainment. He has the power to put Jimmy Kimmel back on air.
RETWEET to demand @ABC reinstate Jimmy Kimmel!
First they came for Stephen Colbert. Now they are coming for Jimmy Kimmel. If you think it'll stop here, you are fooling yourself.
RETWEET if you stand with Kimmel and Colbert!
This wouldn't be possible w/o 100s of dedicated clinical teachers, program directors, medical school leadership. Thnx for doing the hard work to make this historic expansion of family medicine training possible!🥳 Together we're preparing the primary care workforce of the future!