I wish people would stop with this “target trial emulation” business. You did a retrospective observational study with propensity matching. Period. Be honest & call it that. Result won’t affect my practice. If atypical pna possible give azithro. If it’s a typical pathogen, don’t.

One must admire the strange habit of waving the Makary paper like a tattered flag of indictment—proof, we are told, that medicine is not merely imperfect, but fundamentally untrustworthy. This is like discovering that aviation reports its near-misses, and concluding that flying is therefore a conspiracy. The paper itself—often cited, rarely read—does not demonstrate a legion of rogue physicians dispatching patients with abandon. It is an estimate, built on extrapolation, attempting to quantify system-level errors in a complex and often chaotic environment. In other words: an audit. I find those who waive this paper around are often on the fringes of medicine, a chiropractor, a functional medicine witch doctor, or someone who couldn't get into medical school, so wants to point out this on social media.

This is why I always use bedside cardiac ultrasound to confirm capture

I am once again pitching my romantic comedy: - two academics start dating - discover they are each other's terrible reviewer - hijinks ensue Working title: Love is Double-Blind