Behrouz Zand

Cancer cells are metabolically promiscuous, they eat whatever’s available. When patients cut carbs to ‘starve’ the cancer, they starve themselves first, lose muscle, tolerate chemo worse, and recover from surgery worse.

@DrPlantel Agree. And what’s alarming is how many have MD after their name and are now hawking unproven supplements. The credential doesn’t disappear, it just gets used sell the grift with supposed authority.

The wellness industry has spent years sowing mistrust in modern medicine by convincing people that doctors “just want to keep you sick.” Ummm no. Yes, every profession has its bad apples. Medicine isn’t exempt. But let’s not pretend the wellness industry is some moral high ground either. It’s got its own share of grifters. If you think we don’t feel actual joy when our patients get better, come off meds, avoid surgery, reverse risk factors, survive cancer, get pregnant, breathe easier, walk farther, sleep better, or finally feel like themselves again…then you’ve bought into a story that just isn’t true.

@KUPERWASSERLAB @jsm2334 @NIHDirector_Jay @SenRonJohnson @SecKennedy @EricTopol @MaryBowdenMD @weldeiry @RetsefL Gyn onc here. Global age-standardized ovarian cancer incidence has declined in high-income countries since 1990. Absolute cases rose due to aging/population growth not the same thing. The ‘rising incidence’ framing here is misleading.

SEER data for ovarian cancer. @jsm2334 @NIHDirector_Jay @SenRonJohnson @SecKennedy @EricTopol @MaryBowdenMD @weldeiry @RetsefL

@MaryBowdenMD @KUPERWASSERLAB Gyn oncologist here. The SEER data is real but “steep” isn’t and graph says why: the footnote excludes 2020 data due to COVID. The 2021–23 spike likely reflects post-pandemic diagnostic catch-up, not a true biological surge. Overall OC incidence is down 1.4%/yr.

Tragic….. steep rise in ovarian cancer in women under 40. Thanks to @KUPERWASSERLAB for sharing this data.

@DrSuneelDhand Stop spreading misinformation. There is ample evidence Flu vaccine mandates in hospitals and military exist because they WORK. Higher coverage, fewer sick patients, fewer sick soldiers. This isn’t debatable.

In my opinion, any physician who says that there should be flu vaccine mandates in ANY setting— whether it’s the military, schools, or even for hospital staff— has failed the IQ test necessary to be a doctor. They shouldn’t have a medical license. There’s absolutely zero scientific justification for forcing this vaccine. Personal choice only.

@RepLuna As a gyn oncologist, I watch women die from cervical cancers Gardasil could have prevented. You’re a congresswoman recommending against the vaccine that stops them based on your friend’s arthritis. No study supports this. Delete it.

Gardasil needs to stop advertising their garbage to young people. I had friends in the military who had this pushed on them and later developed arthritis. Recommend you don’t take it.

As a gynecologic oncologist, I see women die from cervical cancer that Gardasil could have prevented. No large study links it to arthritis. Anecdote ≠ evidence. This post will cost lives. Please delete it.

@DrDeepMD Half right. But ‘don’t ask doctors’ just trades one bad authority for yours. You never say what patients should do instead

This is the worst advice I’ve ever heard Let me explain to you who most doctors are. Medical school selects for lemmings. The rule followers. The studious ones who put their heads down and did everything right. The dorks who were afraid of getting in trouble. How does that play out? Everything is “by the books”, you do what you are told by your professor or your attending, and then your administrative overlord or the insurance company paying you, and then you do that thing for the rest of your career without really questioning it. You have top cover by following the consensus, you can do no wrong by treating the lowest common population denominator. Most doctors read a headline or a guideline and just commit that to memory rather than understanding how data, research, and consensus is actually derived. There is a HIGH cost for questioning the status quo in medicine. If you question what the book says, or how we came to certain conclusions, or just ask WHY, you are punished and ostracized, not celebrated for the discourse and discussion. So, why then, would we bring abstract and rapidly changing information to a group of stale thinkers who are bred to toe the line? They will merely chastise you for questioning their authority and not have enough time to engage in dialogue with you about important topics you are curious about. I’ve been a primary care doc my whole career. My dad was a PCP for 50 years. I have many many friends and colleagues who I love and respect that are PCPs. It’s not their fault. The system really just doesn’t put people in these roles who are critical thinkers and will expose the grift for what it really is. They will forever be the muppets who have been surreptitiously co-opted by big pharma to be their lifelong peddlers. Many props to all those on the front lines who are trying to help people every day But. This is still the worst advice I’ve ever heard. And Dr Mike is a major dumbdumb

@LocasaleLab You don’t win games swinging for home runs every at-bat. Singles and doubles add up. So does 6 months when it’s your life.

This is exactly the kind of hype and misrepresentation that has defined cancer research and oncology for decades. After 40+ years of work and well over $100B in taxpayer funding, what’s being presented as a revolution is a survival improvement of about 6–7 months. Patients don’t even get an additional birthday. This is now being hyped by the biotech industry and amplified by academic scientists as if it represents some fundamental breakthrough. It doesn’t. What’s even more concerning is that almost no one is calling this out. The same narrative gets repeated, the same approaches get reinforced, and the same cycle continues. Billions of taxpayer dollars will continue to fund this. Venture capital will continue to flow into biotech companies built around these claims. Pharma will continue to allocate time and resources here. Healthcare expenses for the public will continue to be greater than ever. Meanwhile, entire areas of cancer research and oncology practice—particularly early detection and prevention—remain neglected.

Our Houston Methodist residents @AlwynDO and @AIBagdasaryants presenting their work at #SGOAM2026. Great to see them asking the right questions and see this level of work early in their training. 👏 @MethodistHosp @pedroramirezMD

Our team at the #SGO2026 Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer in 🇵🇷. Speakers, poster presenters, and strong representation from @HMethodistMD @MethodistHosp.

Exciting data from our @MethodistHosp team at #SGO2026 presenting on GLP-1 agonists and reduced obesity-associated cancer risk, with a striking signal in endometrial cancer. Congrats to @HsuMd Aparna Kamat , and @pedroramirezMD on a fantastic rapid-fire oral.

#SGO2026 ROSELLA: First OS benefit in PR ovarian cancer with a chemo backbone: Relacorilant + nab-paclitaxel vs nab-paclitaxel: 📊 OS: 16.0 vs 11.5 mo (HR 0.69) 📊 PFS: 5.6 vs 3.7 mo (HR 0.66) 📊 ORR: 45% vs 31% ✅ No biomarker needed ✅ Novel GR modulator blocks resistance

@j707_g @drterrysimpson Yes your job is safe. Don’t listen to the AI exaggeration.

@drterrysimpson I am going to start Orthopedic surgery training soon. Does it actually worth it with the AI revolution?

We surgeons will be replaced - robotic surgery will do it better than we can - and that is ok.

This is a step in the right direction. Better than general LLMs or Google, but still informational. Real impact comes when it’s integrated with clinicians to guide care or shown to improve patient outcomes. Downside is that it can amplify noise in clinical care.

Reddit and LinkedIn over PubMed. This is why clinical expertise or RAG systems like OpenEvidence matter. Source data is everything.

@TexasOncologist Reddit and LinkedIn over PubMed. This is why expertise or RAG systems like OpenEvidence matter. Source data is everything.

I’m framing this for my patients to see…

@DrSuneelDhand Patient satisfaction doesn’t equal clinical accuracy. LLMs tell people what they want to hear confidently, even when wrong.

I have talked to at least two people in the last couple of weeks, no medical background whatsoever, telling me how they are routinely having medical conversations with AI— really happy with the results, and telling me they think it’s way better than talking to their doctor. I really don’t think the medical professional understands what a complete gamechanger we are witnessing. A lot of arrogant physicians out there have no idea what’s coming!

I said years ago AI would outperform most doctors on diagnosis and medical decision-making. Many thought that was crazy. This despite a poorly done comparison Now research comparing AI systems on real clinical cases shows the best models already outperform generalist physicians. Still early. But the direction is unmistakable! forbes.com/sites/jessepin…