But from the perspective of philosophers of science, when do such shifts in scientific approaches actually occur?

Thomas Kuhn’s Perspective

Kuhn believed that changes in scientific approaches resemble political revolutions. Simply put, when a government can no longer manage society or effectively administer its affairs, dissatisfaction gradually spreads among the public and opposition begins to form. In other words, the inability to respond to society’s needs becomes the driving force behind revolutionary movements. This process continues until a capable system emerges that can meet those needs, eventually leading to the establishment of a new order.

A similar process occurs in what Kuhn calls scientific revolutions. According to him, in every era the majority of scientists accept and follow a general framework. Kuhn refers to this dominant framework — which contains a collection of theories and practical models — as a paradigm. Paradigms are patterns widely followed by scholars, such as the paradigm of modernity or the paradigm of cognitive science.

As long as these paradigms remain aligned with the requirements of life and are capable of addressing existing problems, they continue to be valued and are used in major policy frameworks. However, when a dominant paradigm fails to respond to contemporary challenges and the solutions derived from it prove ineffective at addressing large-scale needs, doubts arise about its continued relevance. Under such circumstances, dissatisfaction intensifies to the point that scholars begin to consider laying the groundwork for a new, updated paradigm.

In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn emphasizes that scientific transformations are not linear or step-by-step processes. Rather, they are complex and revolutionary developments in which social and historical factors play a crucial role. Under normal conditions, scientists operate within the framework of an accepted paradigm — what Kuhn calls normal science. However, when persistent anomalies emerge and the paradigm proves incapable of addressing them, the existing structure eventually collapses and a scientific revolution occurs.

Karl Popper’s Theory of Science

Like many philosophers of science, Popper believed that change is not only inevitable but also a necessity. The Popperian view rests on the principle of falsifiability. In this framework, science begins with a problem, and solving a problem means finding solutions to existing challenges. As long as a scientific theory remains open to criticism and falsification, it retains the capacity to address and solve problems.

In Popper’s view, bold conjectures do not weaken science; rather, they strengthen it. Solutions proposed under the principle of falsifiability help correct previous errors, and this is precisely where the strength of the scientific approach lies. If existing approaches are not falsifiable, they lose the possibility of logical trial and error and are therefore considered weak. In such cases, the need for a shift in approach and the introduction of new models becomes evident.

Popper believed that learning is essentially problem-solving guided by the principle of falsifiability.

To move beyond temporary and ineffective solutions, followers of science must avoid false certainties, accept falsification, and search for effective alternatives.

The Need to Shift from Data-Driven AI to Learning-Science-Based AI

Today, numerous criticisms are directed at the purely computational and mechanical approach to artificial intelligence. In constructive critiques, the goal is not to deny the existence of large language models; rather, the central question concerns how and under what conditions they should be used. There is a growing consensus that the closer artificial intelligence moves toward the essence of human cognition, the lower its potential risks become.

In recent years, I have repeatedly emphasized that human theories and perspectives must be reexamined through a technological and contemporary lens so that the nature of the human mind is properly reflected in technologies that themselves were modeled after it. 

My focus lies on deep theories of learning (including cognitive approaches, neuroscience, behaviorism, evolutionary perspectives, structuralism, and other related frameworks).

In this direction, the following steps appear essential:

1. Integrating human and computational perspectives

The current approach, which relies excessively on probability laws in large language models, must be integrated with psychological perspectives. A reasonable solution is to pursue interdisciplinary studies and systematic research in this area.

2. Revisiting theories of the learning sciences

Theories that analyze the human mind and behavior should be reassessed by specialists, and their practical dimensions should be extracted for application in advanced technologies.

3. Developing integrative (hybrid) approaches

Experts should develop comprehensive perspectives on learning derived from multiple scientific approaches so that, based on research rather than mere speculation, practical recommendations can be provided to designers and engineers.

In general, the time has come to move beyond a purely logical and mathematical approach toward a human-centered perspective. To address the concerns and challenges surrounding artificial intelligence, we must return to systematic and interdisciplinary research.

The era of relying on personal opinions without a research foundation — or on mathematical rules alone — has come to an end. Now is the time to revisit the learning sciences from a new perspective in order to realize truly human-centered artificial intelligence

Author’s Note:

The ideas presented in this article are part of a broader research project. I am currently working on a comprehensive book on a new approach to human-centered artificial intelligence with a strong emphasis on the learning sciences. While a detailed and systematic discussion of these concepts is presented in Chapter Two, the book also includes a dedicated chapter introducing the new paradigm’s framework. Furthermore, at least one chapter is specifically focused on the practical methods and applied implications of this approach for implementation in artificial intelligence systems.

References

• Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

• Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson.

• Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge.

The post The Shift from Pure Modernity to Human-Centered Modernity appeared first on Medika Life.

Mentorship is, at its core, an educational role, and it must therefore operate on established pedagogical principles. The emergence of any new technology can reshape both concepts and practices. 

One of the most profoundly impacted areas over the last two years is “Education.” In the era of Artificial Intelligence and the race to deploy Large Language Models (LLMs), educational systems have felt the greatest impact. As global giants compete for AI investment, educational institutions are equally racing to research the qualitative and quantitative use of AI. 

Central to this is the concept of “Mentoring and Mentorship.” As the name suggests, it refers to guiding the flow of thought and performance of a human user. 

Since this process involves providing specialized knowledge to achieve a specific result, we can say a mentor is akin to a “teacher” in a formal classroom, and mentoring is fundamentally an educational concept.

Redefining Mentorship in the Age of LLMs

Both the term and the practice of mentorship have been transformed by LLMs like GPT and Gemini. Yet, despite the ease they offer, this shift is open to critique and raises significant concerns. 

Choosing an AI mentor is far more difficult than choosing a human one, because an AI is an ultra-fast intelligent machine lacking experiential history, focused instead on ultra-heavy data processing. 

Among the hundreds of apps recommended daily, three giants claim this path:

• Gemini 3 Pro: The “Analytical and Realistic” mentor. Accesses live data and all your personal files.

• ChatGPT 5.2: The “Strategic and Methodological” mentor. Provides a framework for your mental chaos.

• Claude 4.5: The “Literary and Considerate” mentor. Focused on human-like tone and output quality.

According to February 2026 statistics (LMSYS Arena & Artificial Analysis), ChatGPT 5.2 leads in reasoning intelligence, while Gemini 3 Pro excels in memory and processing speed. 

However, in mentorship, quantitative superiority is not the whole story. While Gemini is touted as analytical and exploratory, I believe further investigation is needed: 

1- Which model analyzes, and on what topics? 

2-Quantitative and mathematical? Qualitative and characteristic? In what context? 

3- Similarly, if ChatGPT is “strategic,” can logic truly be separated from data critique? Is “strategizing” not dependent on one’s unique mental background? And what, exactly, does a “considerate writer” mean in this context?

Scaffolding: Human Mentoring vs. Large Language Models

Let us compare the two. The most striking feature of a human mentor is their experiential background and their specific perception of that experience—which includes an interpretation and an emotional component. 

A human mentor provides an empirical direction shaped by cognitive and emotional dimensions alongside their knowledge. 

Conversely, an LLM is a data repository pulling from websites in real-time. It lacks lived experience and cannot integrate intuition or “gut feeling” into a decision-making system. 

While AI excels at helping with “brainstorming” by providing a vast range of references instantly, it suffers from a fundamental flaw: the absence of personal perception and the emotional weight that is vital in mentoring.

Furthermore, the stages of guidance differ. Human mentoring is a gradual, step-by-step flow. A human mentor assesses your capacity and scaffolds you accordingly. In contrast, with GPT or Gemini, there is no “scaffold.” Education is not incremental, and there is no cognitive challenge.

The model provides a massive amount of information in one or two steps. The user is pleased with the instant result, but a “missing link” remains: the user becomes perpetually dependent on the AI. They cannot independently solve subsequent challenges because they never underwent the necessary experiential and cognitive stages.

A Biological Analysis

Biologically, learning and acquisition are based on protein exchange at the neural level. This occurs when an organism encounters challenging and unknown subjects. 

According to the laws of evolution, the brain automatically triggers biochemical reactions to resolve these challenges, ultimately leading to “Learning” and “Adaptation.”

When a human mentor gradually confronts a user with their errors and potential consequences, they provide the necessary neurobiological challenge. 

This scaffolding is exactly what an evolved brain requires for “Deep Learning” to occur. However, when dealing with a “Digital Mentor,” this cognitive elasticity disappears. The process of “Cognitive Trial and Error” is compressed into a high-speed instant. 

The digital mentor dictates, and the user merely mimics and obeys. This pattern does not align with our biological necessity. Therefore, this process cannot be considered natural mentoring; it is merely “Modeling.”

Conclusion and Critical Perspective

In recent years, the surge of trend-driven discourse surrounding education and Artificial Intelligence has led to the analysis and judgment of fundamental pedagogical concepts without sufficient theoretical or empirical backing.

The oversimplification of concepts such as Mentoring, Scaffolding, and Large Language Models (LLMs) risks reducing them to mere buzzwords—widely used yet hollow. Therefore, it is essential that this movement be examined by specialists grounded in scientific evidence and core educational principles, ensuring that superficial, word-centric views are replaced by rigorous, research-based analysis.

In this article, mentoring was addressed as a dependent subset of Education—a concept that, whether in formal settings like schools and universities or in informal domains such as personal life, healthcare, industry, and business, remains rooted in the profound foundations of the learning process. Furthermore, the relationship between scaffolding, mentoring, and LLMs was scrutinized.

Based on the arguments presented, the primary challenge is not the necessity of digital mentors, but rather that these mentors are currently simulated versions, not complete replacements for human mentors. In this regard, the following questions demand serious investigation and review:

• Can development companies scientifically bridge the gaps identified in this article?

• Is it possible to integrate a form of experiential history, historical memory, and emotional/perceptual dimensions into digital mentors to truly impact a user’s deep learning process?

• Can they activate the biochemical mechanisms and cognitive friction necessary for deep learning and adaptation to new situations within the user-system interaction?

• How deep and operational is these companies’ understanding of Scaffolding, and can they genuinely integrate it into innovative design?

If a precise understanding of these gaps and challenges is formed, the digital mentors developed by tech giants could evolve beyond passive information packages. By leaning on the Sciences of Learning, they could redesign the process of educational guidance into one that is both challenging and incremental.

The core issue is not the necessity or lack thereof of the digital mentor; the issue is whether it can recreate the challenge, the experience, and the gradual process of learning, or if it will simply replace growth with speed.

References

1. Primary AI Benchmarks (2026):

•LMSYS Chatbot Arena (The industry-standard for human-preference and helpfulness ranking).

2.MMLU-Pro (The leading benchmark for advanced reasoning and multi-step logic).

3.Gemini Technical Reports 2026 (Official performance metrics for real-time data latency and multimodal accuracy).

2. Specialized Publications by the Author:

• Ferdosipour, A. (2026). Choosing an AI Mentor That Challenges Your Mind: My Statistics.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/choosing-ai-mentor-challenges-your-mind-my-statistics-ferdosipour-y0g2f?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&utm_campaign=share_via

• Medika Life (2025/2026). What 2025 Taught Us and What 2026 Will Demand.

• Medika Life (2026). Why Biological Learning Demands the Friction We Seek to Delete.

The post Is Your LLM Mentor Human Enough? appeared first on Medika Life.

My earlier research in educational psychology, particularly in text comprehension, cognitive processes, and instructional design, consistently showed that learning improves when information is structured in ways that align with the human mind. Features such as cohesion, rhetorical patterns, and paragraph organization are not stylistic choices; they directly influence understanding, memory, and motivation. When educational technology ignores these principles, learning becomes shallow and exhausting. When technology respects them, learning becomes clearer and more meaningful.

Artificial intelligence has advanced dramatically, yet many learning systems today still focus on automation rather than understanding. They deliver content, grade assignments, or predict performance, but they rarely engage with the emotional and cognitive realities of the learner. Learning is not a mechanical transfer of information. It is a psychological journey shaped by curiosity, confusion, emotion, prior knowledge, and the need for meaning.

This gap between technological capability and human learning is exactly where ETech-DrAtefehF is positioned.

A New Approach to Learning Technology

Instead of building yet another educational app, the goal is to create a new category of intelligent learning systems that are grounded in psychology. These systems aim to respond to the learner in real time, adapting not only to what the learner knows, but also to how the learner feels, how they process information, and how their understanding evolves moment by moment.

The vision includes systems that can sense when a learner is overwhelmed and adjust the pace, restructure complex ideas into simpler forms, or provide alternative examples that restore clarity. They can identify curiosity and deepen a topic intelligently. They can reorganize reading materials based on evidence-based principles so that comprehension improves without adding cognitive load. These ideas are rooted in decades of research on cognition and learning, yet AI now allows them to be implemented dynamically.

The theoretical foundations include the contributions of Piaget, Vygotsky, Bloom, and many other psychologists who emphasized how understanding develops, how knowledge is constructed, and how learners benefit from supportive guidance. These theories can now be integrated into adaptive learning frameworks in ways that were not technologically possible before.

Why This Matters Today

Education is entering a period of global transformation. Learners in every setting, from schools to universities to professional environments, need systems that support meaningful learning rather than fast consumption of information. Artificial intelligence can play a central role in this transformation, but only if it is built on a deep understanding of human psychology.

ETech-DrAtefehF aims to bring together the strongest elements of learning theory, cognitive science, and human-centered AI design to create educational solutions that are both scientifically grounded and practical. These systems are designed to honor the learner’s cognitive architecture, reduce unnecessary complexity, and promote genuine understanding.

Across diverse learning environments, the need for such approaches is growing rapidly.

Educators are seeking tools that are ethical, transparent, and effective. Learners are asking for technology that supports their growth, not just their performance metrics. Institutions want systems that are scalable and adaptable to global contexts.

An Open Invitation

As this initiative expands internationally, I am now entering a stage focused on building a wider community of collaboration around ETech-DrAtefehF. I welcome conversations with researchers, educators, psychologists, and AI specialists who share a belief in responsible, human-centered innovation. I am also opening discussions with global investors who recognize the long-term value of educational technology that is grounded in scientific insight rather than short-term trends.

My goal is to bring together partners who see the same opportunity: to create learning systems that are meaningful, ethical, and capable of supporting real human growth. If this vision resonates with you, I would be glad to exchange ideas and explore future collaboration.

The next generation of educational technology should not simply deliver information. It should understand learners.

That is the mission at ETech-DrAtefehF.

The post ETech-DrAtefehF appeared first on Medika Life.

Imagine a newly minted graduate stepping into their first job—a remote position in a fast-moving industry. They have excelled in school, mastered structured curricula, and demonstrated proficiency in following prescribed paths. But when work begins, they flounder.

No set schedule, no professor to dictate next steps, no predefined rubric for success. They are not unqualified, they’re simply unprepared for an environment that demands self-direction.

The same holds true for older professionals. Having spent decades in office settings with clear hierarchies, meetings, and deadlines, they now find themselves “alone at work”—physically isolated in home offices, struggling to replicate the structure that once framed their productivity.

This is the great mismatch of our time: our education system conditions individuals for structure, while the modern workforce increasingly demands autonomy and innovation.

The Pavlovian Problem—How Education Conditions Us for Structure

Education, as it often exists today, is a machine of conformity. From kindergarten to graduate school, students move through a rigid sequence of scheduled classes, standardized assessments, and regimented learning objectives. Bells ring to signal transitions, assignments dictate focus, and grades validate progress. Success is measured not by one’s ability to navigate knowledge, but by one’s ability to follow a predefined path.  In a word, regurgitate.

This model produces disciplined workers, but it does not foster adaptability. It prepares individuals for a world of predictability, not one of uncertainty. The tragic consequence is that generations of workers enter the professional world equipped with knowledge but lacking the cognitive agility to operate independently.

When these individuals enter remote work environments, the conditioned comfort of the external structure vanishes. Left to their own devices, many find themselves lost—not because they lack intelligence, but because they were never trained for autonomy.

Culture Crushes Innovation—A Second Mismatch

Even when individuals develop the ability to work autonomously, they often encounter another roadblock: workplace culture actively stifles innovation.

Many organizations espouse a commitment to creativity and forward-thinking, yet their internal cultures prioritize stability, efficiency, and adherence to existing processes. Just as education rewards conformity over independent thought, corporate environments reinforce the same pattern—subtly (or overtly) discouraging risk-taking and unconventional problem-solving. Yes, even today.

• Hierarchical approval processes slow innovation.
• Failure is punished rather than treated as a learning opportunity.
• Operational efficiency is prioritized over creative exploration.
• Bureaucracy suffocates experimentation.

The paradox is that businesses need innovation to thrive, but their cultures often reject the very behaviors that drive it. Workers conditioned by rigid and rubric-based educational systems are then placed in workplaces that continue to suppress independent, experimental thinking.

The Workplace Shift—From Fixed Maps to Dynamic Webs

For much of the 20th century, work mirrored education. Offices operated on hierarchical structures, rigid schedules, and clear oversight, making the transition from school to work seamless. But today’s professional landscape is different:

• Remote work is no longer a rare exception—it’s commonplace
• Autonomy is expected. Without managers physically present, employees must drive their own productivity.
• AI and automation are shifting job functions. Workers are required to think iteratively, adapting in real-time rather than following rigid instructions.
• Innovation is critical. Yet cultural inertia holds companies back from embracing the very mindset shifts necessary for future growth.

This shift means that workers must abandon fixed maps and instead navigate evolving knowledge networks. Success is no longer about adherence to process; it is about the ability to engage with nonlinear, dynamic systems of information and problem-solving.

Breaking the Yoke of Academic and Corporate Structure—The Path Forward

If the fundamental issue is a mismatch between education’s rigidity, corporate culture’s resistance to innovation, and work’s fluidity, the solution lies in rethinking how we prepare individuals for autonomy and creativity.

1. Education Must Embrace Dynamic Knowledge Systems

• Schools must move away from linear curricula and instead foster adaptive, web-like learning models, where knowledge is interconnected rather than compartmentalized.
• AI-driven education should replace one-size-fits-all lessons with personalized, self-directed learning, teaching students how to explore knowledge rather than simply absorb it.

2. Workplaces Must Rewire Employees for Self-Sufficiency and Innovation

• New employees should undergo structured onboarding into autonomy, gradually transitioning from guided work to independent problem-solving.
• Companies should prioritize cognitive flexibility training, helping workers unlearn dependency on rigid processes.
• Leadership should actively create cultures of experimentation, where failure is reframed as learning, and innovation is genuinely encouraged, not just paid lip service.

3. AI as a Cognitive Scaffold, Not a Crutch

• AI should not replace structure—it should enhance autonomy by acting as a thought partner that guides without dictating.
• The right balance between AI assistance and human initiative can help individuals navigate the complexity of modern work.

Freedom and Innovation Require Training

There is an irony in all of this.  We spend decades training students to follow, only to expect them to suddenly lead themselves in the workforce. Organizations, in turn, demand innovation while structuring their cultures in ways that suppress it. This is not just an academic problem—it is an economic one, affecting productivity, job satisfaction, and long-term career viability.

But this mismatch is not an inevitability.

If we embrace dynamic webs of knowledge, we can reimagine both education and work in ways that cultivate self-starters, problem-solvers, and adaptable thinkers. The future does not belong to those who simply know the most—it belongs to those who can navigate knowledge and systems in ways that are agile, insightful, and self-directed.

The challenge before us is clear. Will we redesign learning itself and workplace culture to meet the realities of work?

The post The Great Mismatch: How Education and Workplace Culture Fail the Modern Worker appeared first on Medika Life.

While introducing a notable research achievement, I aim to encourage readers, especially educational technology researchers, to pursue further interdisciplinary and experimental studies.

Advanced Learning with the Help of LLM 

In the previous article I published in Medika Life, I explained one of the strong psychology theories: Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. That article also discussed the connection and application of social theories in LLM. 

In general, socio-cultural theories believe that human learning occurs in the highest possible state in the context of culture and social interactions. I call this learning model community-centered personal development.

 The main focus is on individual needs and skills, but the social context and constructive interactions support and guide the learning process.

 This principle is embedded in LLM chat technology, particularly when used correctly. Intelligent and well-informed critics know that LLM technology does not eliminate the key role of teachers and human interactions but rather the role of a teacher who knows how to use LLM to facilitate the teaching-learning process.

 In summary, some key factors of the effectiveness of LLM on effective education are:

1. Learning in the context of social interactions: 

These two-way interactions occur between information systems, technology, learners, teachers, and all the components present in the educational context. 

This flow increases the speed of learning and prevents wasting time. 

These interactions are based on the knowledge of individual needs and skills. So, it is better to call them personalized interactions because they focus on individual strengths and potentials. By identifying these potentials, they provide the basis for individual progress toward achieving the high goals of educational learning. 

This continuous recognition and evaluation of individual potentials cannot be realized without interactions and social context.

• Gaps and deficits in learning are filled with the help of technology:

LLM fills gaps by giving quick feedback to the learner. The key point here is that LLM and GPT technology continuously evaluate the learner and give him feedback. 

The learner’s and teacher’s awareness of the learning and teaching process has double and even multifold efficiency. 

A Key question: Why is the efficiency higher?!

LLM gives quick and immediate feedback on the learner’s progress. The learner learns about his progress in small steps based on his personal speed. The steering wheel is in the learner’s hands. Therefore, awareness and self-confidence progress without comparing with others.

 All these steps are done in the shortest possible time.

On the other hand, the teacher is informed about the flow of learning and teaching with LLM feedback. Therefore, technology evaluates the teacher’s teaching method quickly and systematically. 

As a result, the efficiency and effectiveness of the teaching and learning process, compared to the process without the use of technology, are two or more times faster and more rhythmic. While increasing the quality, it prevents the wastage of time and manpower. Therefore, according to quantitative criteria, it is fruitful and profitable. 

• The third key element in increasing the effectiveness of this process is the supportive teacher:

As mentioned earlier, deep-thinking experts know that GPT technology, if used correctly, does not eliminate human interactions and gives them a new meaning.  Here, the role of the teacher is not removed or even reduced, but a new update is defined for it. This new role affects both the teacher’s knowledge and teaching and learning results.

The teacher has the same role which Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective calls scaffolding.

In addition, the teacher is a supporter, and in addition to social interaction and constructive dialogues with the learner, the teacher uses LLM technology to increase the quality and quantity of the teaching process. 

 In this process, an artwork and outcome called” learning” are created. Learning is the product of the effort and interaction of the learner, teacher, peers, and educational facilities. LLM controls and guides this interaction. 

Please see this article: https://medika.life/llms-as-a-modern-partner-in-Vygotsky’s-zone-of-proximal-development/ 

So, the LLM partner is this flow and helps the outcome (learning) fix its possible defects sooner and better. It does this with feedback, evaluation, speeding up, and enriching the information. 

Therefore, it prevents the waste of energy and time and increases the quality and quantity.

 In the next section, a report of experimental research is presented that confirms the effectiveness and facilitation of the education flow by ChatGPT. It is mentioned in the reference of this research. Those interested can refer to this research article for more references about the studies done have access.

A Research Report 

As mentioned, research resources are needed to examine the relevance and effectiveness of LLM in the educational atmosphere.  Fortunately, these detailed experimental investigations have been seriously started in different places. For example, consider a research paper derived from an actual experimental study. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-024-00273-3.pdf 

 As you can see in the link, this research has investigated the effectiveness of GPT4 chat and LLM in analyzing classroom dialogues and improving the quality of teaching.

 In addition, the GPT method has been compared with traditional coding methods. 

The subjects included middle school students, and the elective subjects in the classes included mathematics and Chinese language. The results of the research and statistical analysis were very interesting, which are summarized as follows:

• The use of GPT for coding saves users’ time, which cannot be compared to traditional methods. This time saving positively and significantly affects the teacher’s performance in teaching and evaluation. 

• In addition, due to the fact that reliable methodology methods were used to check the efficiency of the performance, a significant reduction in the performance time and validity of the methodology was confirmed.

• This research, which was based on cultural-social perspectives, confirmed the effectiveness of dialogues on high-level learning of students, such as reasoning, collaborative problem–solving, and autonomy during learning.

• As expected, it was found that using LLM educational technology effectively increases dialogue analysis and important learning outcomes. The time range and speed of dialogue analysis are significantly reduced. 

• For example, the dialogue analysis time by ChatGPT was 5 minutes, and in the traditional methods used in this research, it was 41 minutes, which is a significant difference. In general, the results of the comparisons showed that GPT surpasses the traditional methods in terms of accuracy and speed. So, the differences are both quantitative and qualitative.

Conclusion and Suggestions

Integrating LLM technologies such as chat GPT with the educational environment, regardless of the purpose and topic of education and who the learners are, can increase the quality of education and help teachers and trainers. Along with this qualitative achievement, it optimizes time resources and avoids spending extra energy and time. 

In this article, we discussed some unique advantages and benefits of LLM for the educational environment and experimental research that included a specific group of subjects and teaching materials.

This research, along with other academic and experimental research, can make us more optimistic about the formation of a new world of education with the help of LLM, provided that we have a future-oriented and logical perspective.

The most important point is that we are at the forefront of conducting systematic and academic research on GPT and education. In other words, nothing without sufficient research in different situations, different educational subjects, different geographical and cultural conditions, ecological and social issues, biological variables, language, and finally, ethical issues and many other components contribute to the structure of artificial intelligence scientific research. 

The future of artificial intelligence and education is meaningless without considering socio-cultural variables and everything related to humans. Therefore, as mentioned before, variables should be studied in the context of interdisciplinary research with the cooperation of experts from different groups and in experimental research. Another guideline is that researchers in the cognitive age must focus on the educational goals in other systems on high cognitive functions such as problem-solving, creativity, critical thinking, and reasoning rather than superficial educational functions and goals. 

As a last guideline, whether teachers, coaches, parents, or any group and society that intends to use LLM for education and to facilitate educational performance, they should first be involved and update themselves with current knowledge. 

Culture and knowledge of the correct use of technology take precedence over its use. This is an obvious principle in the application of all technologies, including artificial intelligence technologies!

The post How LLMs Transform the Teaching and Learning Processes  appeared first on Medika Life.

While the entire United States is still reeling in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the recovery process has not been even nationwide. Many rural students and communities — especially certain pockets — are facing multiple crises in terms of educational loss, economic outcomes, unemployment and mental health.

Why Rural Matters 2023, the latest in a series of 10 research reports on rural education, shows that roughly 9.5 million students attend public schools in rural areas — more than 1 in 5 nationally. Nearly 1 in 7 of those rural students experience poverty, 1 in 15 lacks health insurance and 1 in 10 has changed residence in the previous 12 months. Related: STEM with a Purpose Sparked Better Learning, and a Patent, for My Rural Students

Roughly half of all rural students live in just 10 states. Texas has the largest number, followed by North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Virginia and Michigan. Texas has more rural students than the 18 states with the fewest combined.

In 13 states, at least half of public schools are rural: South Dakota, Montana, Vermont, North Dakota, Maine, Alaska, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Wyoming, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Mississippi and Iowa. In 14 other states, at least one-third of all schools are rural. 

• More access to psychologists and guidance counselors is needed. In non-rural districts, there are an average of 295 students per guidance counselor or psychologist. In rural districts, the ratio increases to 310:1, with seven states (Minnesota, California, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, Indiana and Michigan) having ratios worse than 400:1. 
• More access to gifted and talented programs is needed for Black and Hispanic students in rural districts. Though 17% of students in rural schools identify as Hispanic, they represent only 9% of participants in these schools’ gifted programs. Similarly, 11% of the rural school population identifies as Black, but only 5% of the gifted student population in rural schools is Black. In contrast, 65% of rural students are white, as are 77% of participants in gifted programs. 
• Rural areas appear to offset some of the impact of poverty on educational outcomes. Overall, students experiencing poverty scored 27 points lower than their peers on the grade 8 NAEP math assessment and 22 points lower in reading; in rural schools, these differences were 22 and 18, respectively. Socioeconomic equity in reading appeared to be highest within rural schools in Arizona, Idaho, Texas and Oklahoma, and most concerning in Illinois, Mississippi and Virginia. For math, the most equitable states were Hawaii, Arizona, West Virginia and Oklahoma; the least equitable states were Colorado and Louisiana.
• Many rural areas continue to lack basic internet access. The pandemic made clear that adequate internet connectivity is essential to equitable education opportunities. However, 13% of rural households lack minimum broadband connection for streaming educational videos or engaging with virtual classrooms. In six states, more than 1 in 6 rural households doesn’t have at least a basic broadband connection: New Mexico (21.4%), Mississippi (20.6%), Alabama (18.9%), West Virginia (17.5%), Arkansas (17.4%) and Louisiana (17.2%). 
• Students in rural districts are more likely to graduate high school than their non-rural counterparts. In the majority of states with enough rural students to make data available, (34 of 46), rural students graduate at rates higher than their non-rural peers. Despite facing a range of spatial inequities, the unique strengths of rural areas —such as smaller schools and close community ties — combined to create graduation advantages of at least 5 percentage points in Nebraska, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island.  
• Many states provide a disproportionately larger share of school funding for rural districts because of the higher relative costs of running rural schools. Fourteen states, however, devote disproportionately less: Nebraska has the greatest disparity, followed by Vermont, Rhode Island, Iowa, Delaware, South Dakota, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts and Minnesota. 
• Rural school districts in Delaware, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Nevada are the most racially diverse in the United States. In these states, two students chosen at random from a school in a rural district are more likely than not to be of a different race or ethnicity. 
• Communities surrounding schools in rural districts on average have a household income of nearly three times the poverty line. Rates were lowest in New Mexico (1.85) and highest in Connecticut (5.32).

As post-pandemic recovery continues, states and local districts must reevaluate what it means to provide a public education that meets student and family needs and prepares young people for life beyond pre-K-12 schooling (including college and career readiness and engaged citizenship). These challenges are widespread but are most intense in the Southeast, Southwest and Appalachia. What is needed is the will to address them.

The post New Report Shows Millions of Rural Students Facing Multiple Crises after COVID appeared first on Medika Life.

CHICAGO, June 30, 2022 — The Chicago ARC, a new venture collaborative focused on accelerating health equity solutions, has signed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the University of Chicago Medicine and Sinai Chicago as the organization’s first Founding Healthcare Partners, where they will play a crucial role in directing and piloting new technologies to transform healthcare and improve health equity in Chicago and beyond.

The Chicago ARC was founded on the belief that where you live, work, and play should be positive drivers of your health and how you receive healthcare. Areas of focus and impact for the Chicago ARC include maternal and child health, chronic disease management, rural healthcare, aging in place, behavioral and mental health, and cancer diagnosis.

“We’re creating an innovation community in Chicago centered on the healthcare providers and communities they serve,” said executive director Kate Merton, Ph.D., who previously launched the digital health incubator for Anthem and ran the East coast region of JLABS, J&J Innovations’ science incubator and accelerator lab. “With unprecedented access to and involvement from Healthcare Partners, startups will be able to direct their efforts for the greatest impact and benefit from Partner expertise and clinical networks to test, model and scale new solutions.”

Chicago ARC builds upon the proven ARC model (Accelerate, Redesign, Collaborate) of Sheba Medical Center — a Newsweek Top-10 global hospital — which brings together startups with experienced operators and an extensive healthcare partner network.

“Health systems in Chicago and the Midwest create Sheba’s North American epicenter for bringing global innovation and U.S. healthcare communities together – and the Chicago ARC is bringing that community together in new ways to invite more global investment and innovation,” said Dr. Eyal Zimlichman, chief digital transformation officer and chief innovation officer for Sheba Medical Center. “Now, by combining expertise and market opportunity, Chicago ARC and its Healthcare Partners will catalyze new solutions for some of our biggest healthcare challenges. Sheba Medical Center will share our experience to impact equitable healthcare and benefit from learning together with Chicago-area health systems and the community.”

Areas of Focus for Healthcare Partners

Healthcare Partners will pilot technologies that meet the needs of healthcare professionals and the communities they serve, create a community of learning to connect local and global best practices, and promote collaboration and joint projects. In addition, organizations have prioritized areas for increased focus or additional collaboration.

Kenneth S. Polonsky, MD, Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs and Dean of the Biological Sciences Division at the University of Chicago: “The South Side of Chicago has experienced shrinking health care resources for many years. Partnering with the Chicago ARC creates the dual benefit of identifying and integrating global technologies that meet the needs of our patients and healthcare professionals while enabling the University of Chicago to bring its research and innovation expertise to a local and global community seeking to address health inequities. As a partner, we plan to help enhance and utilize UChicago as a community engagement and collaboration epicenter to understand — and address effectively — the South Side community priorities and needs.”

Dr. Ngozi Ezike, president and CEO, Sinai Chicago: “As the largest private safety-net health system in Illinois, the communities Sinai Chicago serves face some of the city’s most severe systemic barriers and suffer the greatest health inequities. Sinai has a successful track record of working in collaboration with the communities we serve across the South and West Sides of Chicago. Working with the Chicago ARC will support Sinai in scaling our existing programs and resources to further serve our patients equitably and effectively.”

The Chicago ARC also presents significant opportunities for international collaboration, in a model that can be replicated in other U.S. markets. “The work Chicago ARC is undertaking with partners in Israel is an example of how Israel and the United States can share expertise to have a significant impact on the realization of equitable healthcare through innovation and community collaboration,” said Yinam Cohen, Consul General of Israel to the Midwest. “The top research institutions, health systems partners, and providers of Chicago and the Midwest – like those the Chicago ARC is bringing together – present an excellent opportunity for Israeli startups looking to establish and expand their presence in the U.S.” 

About Chicago ARC The Chicago ARC is on a mission to accelerate tomorrow’s healthcare solutions to those in need today. Its venture collaborative provides a trusted U.S. partner for startups, accelerating market entry and growth through matched commercial opportunities, investment, and end-to-end support. The Chicago ARC will be the centerpiece of a $3.8 billion health-focused Bronzeville Lakefront along the scenic shore of Lake Michigan next to downtown Chicago and the largest convention center in the Western Hemisphere. Chicago is the top U.S. city for foreign direct investment, corporate relocations, life science VC funding growth, and female founders. The region is home to over 1,600 life science companies, three tier-1 research institutions, and over 28,000 physicians. For more information, visit https://www.chicagoarc.health/.  

The post UCHICAGO MEDICINE, SINAI JOIN CHICAGO ARC AS HEALTHCARE PARTNERS FOR HEALTH EQUITY INNOVATION appeared first on Medika Life.

Here is the background of the four thought leaders who joined in conversation:

Bob Martineau, JD, a Senior Partner with FINN Partners, a global integrated marketing communications agency, who heads the Environment and Social Impact Group, and the former Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation, served as moderator.

James Hildreth, MD, President and Chief Executive Officer of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, the nation’s largest private, independent and historically black academic health sciences center. Dr. Hildreth is also a member of President Biden’s Health Equity Task Force. 

Rachel Hodgdon, CEO and President of the International WELL Building Institute. Rachel joined IWBI in November 2016, bringing her broad sustainability expertise and her track record as a leading global advocate for green schools, better buildings and social equity to IWBI’s work to advance human health through more vibrant communities and stronger organizations.

Gil Bashe, Chair Global Health and Purpose at FINN Partners.  He currently serves as editor-in-chief of MedikaLife, an online health magazine, and is a global correspondent for Health Tech World. He is also an ordained rabbi who is exploring how spiritual strength is a moral compass in addressing many of the world population’s most pressing physical needs.

Bob Martineau/FINN:  The discussion of many environmental and public health issues brings to the forefront environmental equity and social justice. So many studies show a direct correlation between public health in a community and the socio-economic impacts. Your work at Meharry with the social determinants of health speaks to that. It’s the lower income neighborhoods that sit next to factories and landfills and have contaminated water supplies. Low-income housing is the least energy efficient. How do we address these disparate impacts in our communities as we set public policy, both on the environmental health and the public health side of the coin?

Dr. Hildreth/Meharry:  First, I think we have to incentivize organizations, large and small, to start making different decisions about how they’re going to approach the business that they do and where they’re going to do it. Simple things like having walkways and parks and access to healthy foods would make such a huge difference in the lives of people. Even though I’m in healthcare, I understand that healthcare only accounts for about 10% of one’s overall health.

Health comes from being able to breathe clean air, eat healthy foods and have a certain level of educational attainment; that can only happen if organizations, even the governments that make the policies and laws that we live by, take a different approach to this. I point out that we spent $3.8 trillion on healthcare, but we’re not among the ten healthiest nations on the planet. If we just took 10% of that and use it to invest in children and their health and public health measures, we could actually change the dynamic for health in this country in a very dramatic way. But that’s going to take some will and dedication on the part of our leaders to get it done.

 Rachel Hodgdon/IWBI:  Health equity is a focus for IWBI as well.  Rabbi Bashe is working with us as a co-chair of our health equity advisory and the honor is mutual. We’re working on a new certification product or rating product that’s focused specifically on advancing diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility.

We start with the social determinants of health as the foundation of that work. Dr. Hildreth made mention to the social determinants without using the name. The social determinants of health, which is sort of a universally accepted truth within the public health community, must tell us is that where you sit and who you sit next to, your physical and social environment, have a greater impact on your health and wellbeing than your access to healthcare, your lifestyle and behaviors and any other factor combined.

That is such a powerful way of thinking about what we have to shift to shift public health outcomes. We need to think about how to do that in an equitable fashion. What we learned during COVID-19, very quickly, is that those who had the least suffered the most, but that is true for virtually every other public health issue that is out there, from diabetes and obesity to heart disease to cancer. We need to think about how we can reach those communities and reach them first.

One of the most important ways to do that is through policy. I would say those on the line who come from the media and communications world, the other most important vehicle that we have, are through those engines. In other words, in order to shift health outcomes, we have to shift perspectives and perceptions in the communities that we serve; that can happen in any variety of ways, but we need to go straight to the heart of low-income communities, both within this country and outside of it. Places where there are high concentrations of black and brown people- rural communities, urban communities. These are the places with the highest areas of need.

 Bob Martineau/FINN:  Rachel, Gil, Dr. Hildreth, those are great points. You are right- framing that message, and as Gil alluded to, right now, we’re in an era in a world where we distrust so many people.

We distrust our politicians and government officials.  We even distrust scientists standing at a podium explaining the facts and the cause and effect. We are a distrustful group.

So, how do we frame those messages? And as you alluded to, you need to find the right messenger, who they trust, whether it’s their minister or a pop star celebrity. But how do we frame those messages to really hit home and explain the behaviors that you suggest we need to change so that we can address these health equity impacts? Any thoughts or suggestions from the three of you on that? I’ll let you jump in, Dr. Hildreth. Any thoughts on how we communicate with people so they will listen and take action given the distrustful era that we live in today?

Dr. Hildreth/Meharry:   I think that it’s very clear that when the messenger comes from the same cultural background and community as the population they’re engaging, messages are much better received, and people actually listen. Part of our problem today is that people only tune into and engage those who reinforce the disbeliefs and the negatives they bring to it. We’ve got to find a way to change that.

In our work at Meharry, in my work on President Biden’s Task Force, we recognize that trusted messenger means that the messenger comes from the community that you’re trying to engage. I want  to make one other point here: to solve some of the problems that we’ve been talking about there’s an issue that has to be addressed that is seldom talked about seriously. That is that there’s bias and racism in so many areas of life in our country that if we don’t address it, inequities will persist. We are not going to be able to fix it unless we address that issue, which is at the heart of much of what we’ve been talking about here today. All lives are valued the same. We say that, but there a lot of ways our actions seem to belie that we actually believe it.

Rachel Hodgdon/IWBI:  I’ll pick up where Dr. Hildreth left off. We know that intellectual agreement alone is not inspiration to act. We cannot continue to fool ourselves into thinking that if people accept the notion that climate change is real, that they’ll change the choices that they make day to day. We have to start to pivot our messaging to make it more about what’s in it for each one of us. What’s in it for our family’s health and well-being? What’s in it for our communities and their ability to thrive? What’s in it for organizations and their ability to be successful and do good work? I think that a more health focused spin on climate change is one that is proving to be extremely successful. This is about the livelihood of our families and of ourselves.

When we focus on solutions that are good for the planet, what we’re really doing is focusing on solutions that are good for ourselves- healthier food, more sustainable agricultural practices, more access to nature and to greenery, more physical activity, less driving. All these things serve to benefit us in so many different ways. It’s a matter of translating the solutions to universal imperatives that call us all to action. I think at the heart of all of it is our desire to be well and our desire for our families to be well.

Gil Bashe/FINN:  I want to reinforce some things that Dr. Hildreth and Rachel shared, and I also want to acknowledge their organizations for a moment. Meharry Medical College with Dr. Hildreth’s leadership is really doing some very incredible things in terms of education. I want to start there. Children of all ages, even adult children, have great influence on their peer group and their families. When you start training a fifth grader about the importance of environmental health in a way that they appreciate it, and feel safe, they go home and talk about it. Children can be very influential advocates on their parents. So, education, whether it’s children, whether it’s a medical school,

I think Dr. Hildreth nailed that. Rachel alluded to something, but it’s much more important than her passing comment- the International Well Building Institute certification. It’s an organization that is dedicated to examining every element of environmental health, from racial disparities and inequities, to making sure that areas have walking paths, to certification and really means setting standards. That is critical. I also want to say that there’s something that was not said that I’m worried about and that is our “cancel culture.”

Dr. Hildreth alluded to that and talked about how half the people follow this group, and half the people follow that group. We all end up producing produce from the same soil. We breathe the same air, we have to drink the same water, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of race, regardless of religion, yet we are terribly divided. Rachel alluded to something through my work in spirituality, and that is the fact that we are all here, visitors, finite visitors on this planet, and we have to remember that we’re placed here in partnership, perhaps with a higher source to do good things for future generations.

We’re in an Amazon-like, environment, People want it delivered tomorrow. People want healthier environments tomorrow. Well, guess what? Make it better now, for tomorrow. I think that’s what we have to understand. We can do great things immediately- recycling, sparing water, voting, as Rachel said, for people who want to educate our children appropriately. These are all things we can do now.

Bob Martineau/FINN:  Thanks, Gil. To wrap this up, I want to ask you one final question and get your thoughts. I think the message here is so correct that we need to bring it together.  As Dr. Hildreth said at the beginning, the planet will be just fine without us, but we can’t survive on an unhealthy planet. We need to use our own human ingenuity to fix the problems we’ve created, and we can because we created the problems. We can fix them and save us and our planet. So, how do we take those messages recognizing the need to personalize it so people see what’s in it for them?

The consequences of these health issues are generally the same, but the impact is different based on socioeconomics and race and education. What are one or two things that the attendees, the listeners can take back and help really take action to start to move the needle in their communities and in their institutions? In other words, what is your call to action?

 Rachel Hodgdon/IWBI:   I’ll present a three-part strategy. The first is a personal commitment that we all can think about making and that is to really take a look at how much time we spend on planes year over year. Again, this goes back to that notion that we’re gaining more than we’re giving up. During COVID, we learned the value of staying in one place, many of us, at least, who had the luxury of comfortable situations. For those of us who are on the road a lot, many of us spent more time with our partners and with our families. We realized that we could get a lot done remotely as opposed to face to face. So, I’m not saying don’t travel, I love that as much as anyone else, but I’m saying travel more efficiently and more mindfully. And when possible, think about alternative forms of transportation other than planes.

The second is another simple action that I think will be extraordinarily helpful to you in your personal life, and in your work life, no matter what industry you’re a part of, and that is to pick up a copy of Paul Hawkins book, Regeneration. Regeneration launched just a couple of months ago. It’s already a New York Times bestseller, and it is the most beautiful and complete reframing of solutions for solving the climate crisis, taking climate out of the atmosphere and healing our relationships to one another as we heal our relationship to the planet.

Finally, more of a global action- find out if the companies that you work for and otherwise associate yourself with have a plan around ESG and have a target as it relates to reducing their emissions. Ask the questions, volunteer where appropriate to make contributions, but start to make these demands. The more that we start to ask these for these commitments, I believe the more that the organizations that we align ourselves with will really start to heave that call because their one voice may not make a difference, but of course, a business of voices certainly can.

Dr. Hildreth/Meharry:  I guess my call to action is to remind people that leadership matters and we need to elect leaders who will do the things and make the right decisions in terms of the planet in our relationship to it.

Also, to remind people that as Gil said earlier, we’re all connected. We breathe the same air, and when I say “we,” I mean the global we. That is why I’m so concerned that unless we vaccinate the whole planet against COVID-19, none of us are going to be safe. Because these variants that we’re reading about and we’re concerned about, they can arise anywhere.  We need to start viewing ourselves as a global population that make decisions based on the fact that all of us are in this together. All seven and a half billion of us are in this together.

Gil Bashe/FINN:  My call to action is this: Invest more in science; invest more in engineering solutions so that we can correct the course; train our experts to be good communicators. And go out today and look at the eyes of a child very closely and say to yourself I imagine that child growing up to be a healthy 92-year-old with clean air and water and soil around them free of contamination so that we all have access to healthy food and water and a healthy world. Now imagine the opposite for that child and make your choice.

Our thanks to the Global Action Summit, hosted by the Belmont University Massey School of Business, for organizing this world-class conversation on planetary health.

The post Reimagining a World for Health and Environmental Health for Sustainable Well-Being – Part 2 appeared first on Medika Life.

Improving cultural and racial education

Some insights from Diversity and Discrimination in Healthcare note that healthcare practitioners should learn to be aware of their biases to modify existing perceptions and behaviors. Healthcare providers must be willing to learn and self-reflect in an ongoing manner. Here, diversity education could work.

This is training to recognize their personal and institutional biases, then learning how to employ an attitude of curiosity with how patients’ unique contexts shape their health views or behaviors. Diversity education is more than a handful of classes, as it requires a cultural shift against stereotyping and microaggressions. It would help to introduce healthcare workers to diverse populations early on in their careers, maybe through internships or mentoring programs.

Investing in research diversity

Data gaps in current research indicate many disparities. For instance, findings on skincare issues are often skewed towards treatment of white communities; we commonly see symptoms photographed on white skin. Or, research connected to reproductive health may not consider perspectives from the transgender population. When populations are neglected in studies, this can drive poor health outcomes for entire communities.

In an article on inclusive research for Wheel, Ashwini Zenooz, MD highlighted two ways to diversify research: expanding participant pools for studies and clinical trials, and ensuring equitable funding for minority researchers. We need to recruit and engage with patients who truly represent the general population through strategies like remote trial capabilities, which can expand our reach. Next, we have to make sure that a diverse mix of researchers receive better funding; when subjects and patients encounter professionals who look like them, speak their language, and share their culture, they are more likely to cooperate — contributing to accurate findings.

Integrating community in leadership practices

A call to action from the University of Göttingen asked the global scientific community to pay more attention to researchers belonging to disadvantaged social groups in the wake of the pandemic. The crisis, they pointed out, will negatively impact early career researchers — particularly minorities of all genders, women, researchers from the Global South, and persons with disabilities. The university recommended that leadership in workplaces, institutions, and offices should actively strive to improve gender equality measures, targeted funding, and increased state aid.

Indeed, systemic change requires a top-down approach. Hospital leaders should exert effort to learn about the populations they serve and work with, so they can come up with institutionalized solutions and meet specific community needs. Conducting interviews and surveys with their stakeholders can activate real change, like decisions to invest in interpreters, provide Halal dietary options, or change their hiring practices. This commitment within policies and procedures will set the tone for the rest of the organization to follow.

The post Healthcare is Becoming More Inclusive — Here’s How appeared first on Medika Life.

Teachers in Texas are now eligible for Covid-19 vaccination. Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) released new guidance moving teachers up to the 1B category. 

The Biden administration sent all states notice to change the vaccine categories. Texas vaccine providers may now vaccinate teachers and childcare workers, according to a DSHS news release.

Educators who work in all school systems and those employed in daycare centers and Head Start programs are eligible for vaccination.

Covid-19 vaccination access is improving. The enactment of the defense production act allows pharmaceutical giant Merck to help Johnson and Johnson to produce the Janssen vaccine in massive amounts. We are on track for every adult American by the end of May.

Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies is the vaccine arm of Johnson & Johnson. The Janssen vaccine is now approved for use in people 18 years and older. It only requires a single dose to be effective. The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines continue to be available. 

There is some confusion about which vaccine to take. The most important thing to know is all three vaccines are very effective.

Each approved vaccine has different efficacy rates. The Janssen vaccine is 72% effective at preventing infection and 86% effective at preventing severe disease. Pfizer and Moderna quote a 95% efficacy rate. 

It is important to remember these numbers are not direct head-to-head comparisons. Scientists performed the clinical trials for each vaccine in different parts of the world at various pandemic stages.

Protecting our teachers through vaccination access is critical to the safe reopening of schools. 

Every parent wants children back in the classroom. Teachers long to see the children’s smiling faces. Grandparents count down the days until they can cheer on the basketball teams, band concerts, and choir performances.

Texas category 1B candidates include:

• People 65 years of age and older
• People 16 years of age and older with at least one chronic medical condition that puts them at increased risk for severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19, such as but not limited to:
• Cancer
• Chronic kidney disease
• COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
• Heart conditions, such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, or cardiomyopathies
• Solid-organ transplantation
• Obesity and severe obesity (body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or higher)
• Pregnancy
• Sickle cell disease
• Type 2 diabetes mellitus

The vaccine rollout program is confusing and challenging to navigate. The Texas Department of Health released an interactive tool today to help.

Check it out here.

The post Texas Teachers Now Eligible for Covid-19 Vaccination appeared first on Medika Life.