Thanks for being a leader and champion 🙏

R2- Interesting idea but even the show highlights that we need to know ourselves fully & we need to have purpose to be okay. Knowing the work without knowing yourself will be problematic.
I am sure my outtie would be living her best life tho... in the very few hours my innie would give her ;)

R1-
I think we are a bit severed as a profession, TBH. We spend so much time immersed in our training & work that we already live in a space quite distinct from the 'real' world.
If truly severed- we'd be terrible, unrelatable docs w/ no grasp of realities or complexities of life.

@heart-sisters.bsky.social & @limbic.bsky.social - you are both too kind.
If memory serves Carolyn, I kinda crashed the premiere and did some HeartSister Fan-girling! What a lovely experience & fabulous audience. Seriously, a professional peak for me!! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Completely. Distribution of care (in all forms) is so inequitable that universality is meaningless in Canada.
#healthcare

TY for sharing.
Elected leaders have publicly attacked health care professionals. Eroding public trust in HCPs is a dangerous for public health & the HCPs themselves.
Also must admit that the hierarchical systems of medicine don't help-ppl can see that staff have differential value, which must stop.

Awww...thank you! Following right back 🤗

Moving on:
- We have so much PR at institutional, agency & journal levels- streamline, value & standardize it
- Promote inclusion by considering lotteries for grants using agreed on eligibility criteria vs. PR perceived quality & significance
Use PR to inform & improve, not gatekeep.
9/9

Don't get me wrong, PR has a purpose.
We *always* learn from sharing & dialogue.
Effective critical appraisal is an essential skill.
The problem is PR being positioned as a gatekeeper that removes ppl or ideas from open discussion.
Arrogance does not foster trust. 8/9
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Please watch this vid from @glaucomflecken.bsky.social on the exploitive nature of PR which is normalized throughout the academy.
H-Index does not = real human impact but we have an academy & publishing industry that profit from this spurious association. 7/9
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt_b...

PR is stupid expensive. The inkind resources redirected to PR is estimated to be in the BILLIONS of $$ per year.
Yes. BILLIONS.
As noted above, billions per year on a system that is largely of historic significance & questionably effective.
Truly, PR is STUPID expensive. 6/9

Further, there are clear review biases in review that favour male authors, high income countries & prestigious institutions.
This means our knowledge about science & medicine is shaped by a select few. Systemic exclusion in clinical science >>> systemic health inequities. Hugely problematic. 5/9

PR for quality: Evaluating the degree to which PR "works" is challenging & there is a reporting bias re: PR failures. But there are notable PR failures & high qual journals are not immune. Lancet, NEJM, BMJ- have all had notable, impactful PR errors that did not root out bad science. 4/9

Funding is an eternal challenge for scientists, but sharing info is easy.
We don't need a gatekeeper for sharing. The gate has been obliterated by predatory journals and pseudoscience platforms.
We need to support engagement in science dialogue via public critical appraisal competency. 3/9

PR & resource stewardship: Two centuries ago, publishing at scale & doing science were both very hard. PR provided an ability to pace both by identifying priority work to do & share.
Times have changed. 2/9