AI in healthcare is often talked about as something magical. Dr. Douglas Manuel, a family and public health physician, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and organizer of Ottawa's recent symposium on AI in health research, pushes back on that. AI is a tool, he argues, an instrument like the thermometer or the blood pressure cuff. A revolution, yes, but medicine has been absorbing new instruments for two thousand years, and like all of them, this one has to be calibrated.

The conversation covers why AI scribes have been adopted faster than anything Manuel has seen in 35 years of medicine, why the messy data underneath the algorithms is the real bottleneck, and what leaders should watch for when choosing between AI products. He also draws on his pandemic experience as one of Ottawa's most visible medical voices, and lands on the warning easiest to overlook in the rush to adopt: almost every new technology widens inequities before it narrows them, and the question is never just whether a tool works, but who it works for.

Misinformation actors have a favourite move: point to scientists who changed their recommendations and say, see, you can't trust the experts. Jeremy Grimshaw, one of the world's leading authorities on evidence synthesis, has a systematic answer to that. He also reflects on a charged public forum in Alberta where he faced a room of organized COVID skeptics, and explains the approach that actually worked.

The conversation makes the case that the most powerful thing leaders and communicators can do is help their audiences understand how science actually develops over time. Changing recommendations are not a sign that experts can't be trusted. They are a sign that the scientific process is working exactly as it should.

Silence is one misinformation strategy — it's just the wrong one. And when organizations do speak up, they often make the same mistake: assuming that better information changes minds. Dr. Ami Palmer, clinical ethicist and health misinformation researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Centre, has a more useful framework, and it starts with showing up in the information environments where your audience actually forms its beliefs.

The conversation covers why frequency matters as much as accuracy, why organizations need to be present in the spaces where misinformation is already circulating, and why targeting the extremists is a waste of resources. The people worth reaching are the ones in the middle, still open to evidence, who just need a clear, respectful, data-backed counter to the talking points they are already hearing. Palmer also explains why changing someone's mind is rarely about giving them better information. And what organizations need to understand about how beliefs are actually formed.