I propose a pathological state: ‘Famosis’ — a chronic condition characterised by a sustained sense of being the object of others’ attention. When onset is sudden — through rapid visibility, status elevation, or viral internet exposure — the acute form may just as easily be termed ‘Famitis’.

While adopting new technologies carries risk, so too does uncritical adherence to existing dogma. A sober reassessment of current paradigms is essential if we are to frame risk honestly.

Healthcare should prioritise prevention first. When illness does occur, it should aim to cure and restore people to a well state. Only when these options are no longer viable should we accept the long-term management of chronic disease, and finally, palliation and end-of-life care. This is the logical and humane order in which therapies should be prioritised.

I hope 2026 becomes a year of genuine advancement—of freedom to explore alternatives to the twentieth-century health system, and of prudent, evidence-informed innovation. The question is not whether the current model will change, but what will replace it. Will the next era be better, more human, more focused on causes rather than symptoms?

'… can now find greater meaning in advocacy, policy, innovation, or education where they can address root causes rather than symptoms - not of disease but of dysfunction within the healthcare system itself.

The conversation about pharmacist prescribing is devoid of nuance - at least in the media - which is rarely able to convey the complexities or context appropriately nowadays. Our society faces real problems, of magnitude, but they will not be resolved by bulk billing or pharmacy prescribing.

When business leaders recognise that the clinician’s moral framework is not a liability but an asset — one that keeps the enterprise credible, humane, and trusted — true partnership becomes possible.

For decades, we have invested trillions into a system designed to manage disease rather than promote health. The result is clear—record levels of diabetes, obesity, cancer, and neurodegenerative conditions, despite unprecedented spending and technological advancement. The return on investment has been poor: longer lives perhaps, but not healthier ones.

Version 1000.0 must be the version where we finally grow up as a system — where we replace defensiveness with curiosity, hierarchy with humility, and conformity with courage. That begins with respect: for peers who challenge orthodoxy,

destructive hyper-competition only erodes credibility and fragments effort. We must remember that we are on the same vessel, navigating the same uncertain waters.

what emerged was sobering: a system designed to elevate quality instead producing poor outcomes, inefficient resource distribution, and serving as the justification to suppress alternative and innovative technologies

Would such a system treat science as an open search for outcomes that improve lives, or would the adoption of therapies remain tied to the financial viability of interventions rather than their clinical impact? Would barriers to implementation be regulatory safeguards in the true sense, or obstacles erected to preserve entrenched profit structures?

The modern diet is not just nutritionally imbalanced - it is informationally silent.

Cells communicate in many ways—electrical, chemical, mechanical—but one of the most powerful, the most elegant, is through peptides. Peptides hold a unique position in this conversation of life. They are the whispers and the shouts, the handshakes and the signals, coordinating an orchestra that makes us who we are.

Practitioners are forced into the grey and persecuted at will. This mirrors the analogy of a highway officer who stops one driver for a minor infraction while allowing others to pass unchallenged – ostensibly due to non-risk related characteristics of the driver in question - race. In healthcare, the implications are equally serious.

It is time to recognize that different types of interventions require different levels of evidence. Administering a synthetic enzymatic toxin—something never before present in human environments—may indeed require multiple randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses before widespread adoption. By contrast, restoring a physiologic nutrient deficiency does not fall into the same category of risk and should not be held to the same evidentiary threshold.

That’s the realm of epigenetics—a dynamic, responsive layer of regulation that governs how the genome is read. Epigenetic factors turn genes on and off, modulate their expression, and ultimately shape the proteins that drive function and form. This regulation is profoundly influenced by the environment, lifestyle, diet, stress, circadian rhythms, and even social interactions.

The dominant human mind is no longer young; it is mature — and increasingly elderly. Yet our healthcare systems, economic frameworks, governance structures and social norms were established in a context where youth drove demand, innovation and decision-making. It is worth reflecting on how far we have drifted from those original design parameters — and what that means for future systems planning and the pace of change going forward.

If we do nothing, the result will be a slow but devastating filter…… But our friends in the biomedical sciences may be a beacon of hope…

Do these powers actually protect the public — or do they protect the regulator from scrutiny?

Here lies the paradox: it is the regulator, not the profession, that is suffering a crisis of confidence.