How to READ and UNDERSTAND a Scientific Paper!

A Guide for non-scientists

By Jennifer Raff

Via Bert Mesko MD PhD  



How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists




Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact:


 Product DetailsProduct DetailsProduct Details


PODCAST: What is Epistemic Ambivalence?

Epistemic Ambivalence!


[By staff reporters]

Epistemic Ambivalence is almost the opposite idea of what ambivalence means because to be epistemic means you know, you are sure.

Epistemic ambivalence is when you may know the truth of a situation but cannot say which truth it is, because there is more than one option.

MORE: Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a hypothetical cat that may be simultaneously both alive and dead, a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement) in the course of developing the thought experiment.
Assessment: Your thoughts are appreciated.
Comprehensive Financial Planning Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners(TM)

Invite Dr. Marcinko


Bitcoin “Hodling” and Gresham’s Law


BY Connor Mortell

In 2013, a bitcoiner posted “I AM HODLING” on a bitcoin forum, intending to write that he was holding during a large price drop. He was explaining that most people are not successful traders and as a result they will inevitably just lose out in the process of trying to time the bear market, so instead he encouraged that bitcoiners should hold and trust bitcoin.


Since that day, this typo, “hodl,” has worked its way into the everyday vernacular of bitcoiners. It now represents the stance that not only should one not attempt to trade bitcoin through bull and bear runs, but also should not sell bitcoin under any circumstances because whatever asset it is one may purchase with it will one day be outperformed by bitcoin. For some purposes, this may be helpful, but for the adoption of a private money, this is exceedingly dangerous.


See the source image


Your thoughts and comments are appreciated.



Marriage Penalty Fading – Single Penalty Rising

A Curated Report

By Staff Reporters


The marriage penalty has faded in recent years, particularly after the 2017 Republican tax cuts that targeted high incomes. But the singles penalty remains — the tax code is still written to benefit people in 1950s middle-class marriages who own their homes. That’s not great for the millions of households who are shouldering other cost burdens around single life.


Progressive tax codes are intended, at least theoretically, to ensure equitable distribution of the costs of maintaining civilization. They should (again, theoretically) be readjusted when a certain group begins to shoulder a disproportionate amount of that burden — like, for instance, single or divorced people. That’s not what’s happened, not for couples with two earners and not for the growing number of single or solo households. The reality of how people live and who works has changed. The policy has not kept pace.

The same principle holds true for Social Security, which was created first and foremost as a means of protecting the elderly from living out their final years in the literal poorhouse. The idea was simple: You and your employers pay in part of your salary now, and when you retire, you have enough to survive.




Thank You


%d bloggers like this: