During my medical training, one of my attendings who did a fair bit of teaching used to parrot the same 3 bits of advice. He rose to relative prominence as the first Chief Cancer Control Officer of the American Cancer Society and I remember my interactions with him as generally favorable. His advice was spot-on, in a humorous way.

His 3 points of advice: 1. Eat plants - okay, few would argue 25 years later that this is largely good advice 2. Estrogen replacement is a fountain of youth - Oopsies! Turns out it increases the risk of breast and uterine cancer as well as cardiovascular disease. So...that bit of advice changed maybe 15 years ago now. 3. Half of all we teach you in medical school will be proven wrong.

Kudos to our instructor as 1 and 2 proved 3 correct - though a small sample, for sure. The third point is the most important advice you can give in medicine - "This is my best advice with the information available to me now".

No hubris that we are always right.

This disinformation nonsense is anti-science. Arguing that the science is settled is only true until disproven. The first step in the scientific method is the observation that something is not as it should be based on prior assumptions and knowledge. This leads to a hypothesis that is counter to the common belief, and then to a study (or studies) pursuing the truth.

Anti-science is denying the scientific method, not denying those using it. The thought that medical boards are going to police when and how the "truth" can be challenged is an almost unthinkable premise. You want more doctor shortages? Start slapping the wrists of those willing to challenge convention by trying to move the needle of knowledge. Watch the rats continue to jump from the sinking ship.