In the United States, being a doctor is usually associated with the idea of earning a high income. But is that true for other places? Today, we're going to talk about how much money doctors make in different corners of the world, and we're going to talk about six regions altogether. I was shocked to learn that doctors only make up to about $15,000 in one of the areas we're going to talk about today. Also, be sure to stick around until the end, because I'm also going to talk about the countries that are paying their positions the most. Alright, let's get started. First, let's cover North America. A physician working in the United States can expect to make about $352,000 per year. Over in Canada, a doctor usually makes about $233,000 per year. And in Mexico, a doctor can expect to make about $59,000 per year. Next, let's look at some countries in South America. Doctors working in Brazil tend to make about $58,000 a year. In Peru, a doctor makes about $41,000 per year. And in Argentina, a doctor makes about $27,000 per year. And hopping across the Atlantic, let's take a look at Europe. In France, a physician typically makes about $152,000 per year. In Germany, a doctor typically makes about $126,000 per year. And in the United Kingdom, a doctor will make about $78,000 per year, which is a pretty significant difference for being that close in location together. Jumping over to Australia, doctors typically make about $169,000 per year. Moving on to Africa, physicians in South Africa make about $88,000 per year. A physician in Morocco can expect to make about $40,000 per year. And in Egypt, physicians only make about $15,000 per year. Last but not least, let's take a look at Asia. In China, physicians make about $97,000 per year on average. In Singapore, a doctor can expect to make about $86,000 per year. And a doctor practicing in India usually makes about $36,000 per year. And moving on, as promised, we're also going to cover the five best paying countries to work as a physician. Coming in at number five is going to be Switzerland. Specialists make about $130,000 per year, where general practitioners make about $116,000 per year. Over in Australia, specialists make about $247,000 per year, and general practitioners actually make a good bit less at $91,000 per year. In the Netherlands, coming in at number three, specialists make roughly $260,000 per year, and general practitioners make about $120,000 per year. Coming in at number two is the United States, where specialists make about $329,000 per year on average, and general practitioners make about $299,000 per year. And coming in at number one, the best paying country for physicians will be Luxembourg. Specialists here make about $360,000, where general practitioners make about $280,000 per year. As you can tell, looking at all the countries we covered today, physician pay varies widely throughout the world, but I really hope that you enjoyed today's content, and if you did, feel free to click that like button to support our video and the channel. Drop your comments below on which countries surprised you the most, and please correct us if you're more familiar with different numbers for any of the countries we talked about today. If you're on your medical journey and you want the best tips and strategies, access our free med school success handbook below and join thousands of med students who've benefited from using them. If you enjoyed this episode, also feel free to check out some other episodes like the seven habits of highly successful students and this episode on the medical specialties in the highest demand. Thanks for being part of our journey. Hopefully, we were a little help to you on yours. Until next time.


Speaking about the Dutch community actually they are very friendly they have tolerance toward international people also they are free supportive if you need any support by the people that surround you also leaving in another land make you feel safe and they have a very quality leaving standards their transportation public transportation healthcare so basically everything in the Netherlands is very good from my experience at least also I liked much the their activities their social activities especially in the libraries every weekend every evening I joined them to learn Dutch and also to speak with Dutch people and make friendship


All right, let's start with the lab leak story. This is a story that the Wall Street Journal two days ago, or three days ago now. It's hard for me to keep track while I travel. But the Wall Street Journal broke a story that says the Department of Energy in the United States government, I guess the Department of Energy has its own intelligence agencies. It's a little spooky how many different intelligence agencies there are in the United States and how little I think they still talk to each other. That was supposedly one of the lessons learned from 9-11, but I don't think it was actually learnt. Anyway, the story is that the Department of Energy in the United States has come to the conclusion that it is likely, although not certain, but likely that COVID was a result of a lab leak, not a purposeful lab leak, an accidental lab leak at the Wuhan research facility. Now, of course, this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody if I talked about this on the show many times during COVID, and then I actually had Matt Ridley on the show to discuss the lab leak theory when he published a book about it. I had read the book and the book, I thought, made a very credible case for the lab leak as being more likely than the virus coming about naturally and spreading through the market. I thought that Ridley and Julie Chen, I think her name is, Julie or any way, Chen, a post graduate Chen who he worked with made a compelling case that it was lab leak. I think some of the intelligence agencies in the United States are coming to the same conclusion. Of course, China continues to deny it. So intelligence agencies in the United States are still claiming it was natural. I suspect that there are people in the US who know, there are people in the US who are helping fund some of this research. I mean, the research in and of itself is probably not research that we should say, you know, fundamentally should be banned, but the research was being done in laboratories that were not at the highest security category, certainly not at the security category that would be justified for a virus that could affect human beings the way COVID did. So it's probably that one of the, during the research, one of the researchers got COVID, went to the market and the rest of history, probably in October and November of 2019. So part of this story though is kind of a story that repeated itself during COVID and is generally a story and that is that some people in the administration and then some people in the mainstream media decided that the lab leak story was some kind of conspiracy theory. I never thought it was. I thought the idea that Russia did it, that China did it on purpose was a conspiracy theory and didn't make any sense. But some people thought that the lab leak theory was a conspiracy theory. And therefore, a lot of publications, a lot of scientific publications, and Selina Mates Media, pooped it, ridiculed it, shut it down, prohibited people from talking about it and really did a lot of damage to the cause of journalism and the cause of a free press.  In spite of that, and this is the good news, in spite of that, there were people talking about it, researching it, describing it, and then there was a breakthrough story in, I think, the New Yorker of all places, the New Yorker that basically laid down the whole lab leak theory and kind of gave it credibility. And at some point kind of the damn burst and many more people came on board on this. And of course, Matt Ridley's book was a defining moment. So I think that the lab leak theory really was never a conspiracy theory. It was being suggested by incredibly thoughtful scientists and journalists. It didn't look like the kind of a theory that you could dismiss offhand, even very early on. It was nobody knew, and the fact is nobody still knows exactly what caused or what started COVID. But I don't know who exactly in the energy department. I don't know why the energy department is investigating this. I'm not even sure why an energy department even exists, why we need an energy department. But somebody at the energy department who is supposedly is qualified to do these things has this report, again this is secret reports, the Washington Journal got access to it, and they are conflicting views within the Biden administration with regard to whether lab leak is legit or not. But again, as I said, Matt Ridley's book seemed pretty persuasive. I think since the Ridley's book was published, there's been a lot more evidence to suggest that the lab leak is likely, although there was some people who counted it with some things that suggested it could be natural after all. So I don't know that we'll ever know for sure, but a little bit more evidence. And again, part of the issue is here how our media and how the authorities dealt with these things and what happens when you silence and when you don't allow these things and we know this from Twitter and we know this from elsewhere, you don't allow honest debate and discussion. And particularly on issues that nobody is really sure. I don't think anybody can say with, what do you call it, with certainty what exactly happened. All right, let's see. So that is the lab through a story.  Let me see if I can, oh, let me just one second. Oh, so you asked who, somebody in chat asked who the Department of Energy was. So it turns out that the Department of Energy manages labs around the country and the world and reportedly has new evidence about this. So they have some expertise in this.  But suddenly this came out. And I'm trying to look just quickly when the New York Magazine, the New York Magazine articles in early 2021. So this is relatively early on. They had a 12,000 word piece on a lab leak in October 2021, October 2021. That was early 2021. The FBI came out and said, you know, there's some suspicion that it is a lab leak. And by December 2021, according to polls, 70% of Americans believe that COVID came from labs. So anyway, that is where we are.  Also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow, please consider sharing our content. And of course, subscribe, press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


What's going on everyone? Sam here with late in sports cards have been one box of 23 tops for steen baseball hobby for George s so good luck here George. Well, let's do it. Let's see it. Let's see it, buddy Teosca Hernandez blue Sandi Alcantara to 75 seven wonders willy-mays On the super short print congrats on that 27 of 70 very nice That's sick, dude. The first one of these I've pulled. That's a cool insert. Yeah I don't know. I'm a little worried that might be some damage on the left there again I'm not seeing one of these in person. It's not it's not. No, that's what's there. Oh, yeah. Oh, perfect Yeah, cuz we got George. I think we pulled like a Julio out of five. Oh, okay red one And I had I looked it up to make sure what? Oh, okay Well, I had Donna here the other cards on the eBay show drop so 20 Gwyn 275 on the blue.  I don't know just trolls everybody now. Hi France and Dan's me Swanson Brian Bale There's Jim tell me going on going on gold is Davis Martin 250 Nice one there white socks or George, but he is a white sock panic refractor and Nolan Arnaudov's Christopher Morel rookie Cabrera and Kyle Schwabber Sammy Sosa and case base that's and purple Kyle Schwabber to 99 Mike trout. Oh snap Vaughn Grissom Nice one. Yeah, the seven wonders jeers sweet for sure. So is the Julio cool And Patrick wisdom around the diamond jersey auto for the Cubs Henderson rookie fresh faces Riley Greene That's a Cody Clements Refractor rookie auto for the Phillies Nice one there from Revelda's gold max Meyer to 50 Faces at Brett, baby. How about a going going gone Chipper Jones auto 37 of 75 congrats on that one George. That's awesome, dude What me some shipper very nice congrats on that George That'll do it for your break George. Thanks again for the sport buddy. We'll get him right out to my friend


Earl Glant shot foreman here at Township Chevrolet for another episode of Tech Talk You guys did a vote and voted for gasoline direct injected or GDI engine So we're gonna go briefly over that a little bit information and just some things to keep in mind if you have a vehicle with that system on it so the main differences between the older fuel injection or multi-port fuel injection and your GDI would be The gasoline on it and on a multi-port is is injected into the intake meaning it's mixing with the air As it travels through the intake and then pass the intake valve into the engine and then obviously it ignites and that that's your mix so That's the older system and it worked. Okay. Everything. It was good But they've determined now that direct injection is actually better for the engine as far as you can get more horsepower You have a cleaner running engine and they can control the fuel mixture Much more precisely with a GDI So what they're mean by that is they're spraying it directly into the cylinder where the explosion or the event happens, right? so One thing to keep in mind if you've got one of those vehicles that have the GDI is There's a couple of things that go along with that one being the the intake valves will get dirty years ago when you had a multi-port you could just add an injector cleaner to your gas tank and we did every so many Thousand kilometers it would keep the backs of your valves clean and I just got this here as a bit an example So your fuel mix will your air and fuel mix in a multi-port will go buy your intake valve and gasoline is an excellent Cleaner so it kept the backs of those valves clean so now they switch to the GDI now you've got just air going through there and obviously and then you got Valve overlap because of your variable valve timing and you've also got EGR Which EGR valve which recirculates some of the exhaust gas back into the engine to help cool the cylinder It takes in a bit of carbon with it and that carbon after a while will build up just like this Now the inherent danger with that is that carbon is really really hard And as the valves moving up and down inside the cylinder It can actually beat the seat on the aluminum head and actually cause damage and issues down the road So this is a real easy thing to take care of There's tight cleaners that we have available here and a machine that we hook up to your car that that sprays This cleaner into the intake And then it obviously rushes by the valves and it cleans those intake valves for you and cleans the cylinder out so It's not really dependent on what type of fuel you use anymore because the fuel is not getting to this area anymore In driving the car, you know, you're always her people say the car's really carboned up because you know a little old lady drives it And she's barely given it a gas and she's putting along and doing a lot of in-town driving. That doesn't matter anymore it's all about engine runtime and This is gonna build up There's nothing you do about there's nothing. There's no way for you to control it. So Best rule of thumb is 30 to 50,000 kilometer mark come in and have that cleaner done Doesn't take very long only takes but an hour and we hook the cleaner up And what it does is it safely melts this carbon away some cleaners you can buy that you you know You get doing your backyard you kind of sprayed in the in the engine some carburetor cleaner air intake cleaner Can actually cause this carbon to come off in pieces and when it does Pieces of hard carbon going on the cylinder obviously is not a good thing you get that bouncing around there can cause a whole bunch more Damage so the key with the stuff we use here is it actually melts that stuff To determine whether or not you've got a direct injected engine You can bring it in here and we can let you know Your owner's manual might taste something about it. You can call the manufacturer All the manufacturers kind of have their own little names for it Ford's called called EcoBoost Active fuel management in the in the older chevs or eco tech for the chevs is one thing they use Honda's earth dreams sky active is Mazda. You've kind of heard those terms on those on the commercials and that's what they're basically referring to So yeah, it doesn't take that long Direct-injecting engines are very fuel efficient, but they lose fuel efficiency very rapidly if If this carbon builds up so when they're clean and they're working good They're a lot better than a regular fuel injected engine But if they're unattended to where that carbon builds up because carbon is an excellent source It's it's so tough fuel. It'll soak up fuel So it'll soak the fuel up you'll have a lean mixture on your O2 sensor your computer will see that and it'll start Dumping more fuel even though it's not required. So Doesn't take very long come in and ask us about it It'll get your car running now most of the people I've done it to they usually on their vehicles They come back and they say they've noticed an increase in fuel mileage or an increase in power So it's something that's kind of nice It's one of those things that you do to your car and you kind of feel or see the results from it Just kind of nice and especially when you're paying at the pumps a little savings there is great too. So Just come on and ask us about it and we'll fill you on give you some more information on it And that's been another addition to tech talk Earl Glantte keep your eye out for another vote for a topic or if anyone's got any ideas drop it in the comments below And we look forward to seeing us just to remind everyone out there Tomorrow just Tuesday night. We're having a vehicle car care night And have some stations set up how to change a tire how to look after the paint and the wheels on your car with Our detail department. I'll be doing how to check fluids and what to look for in fluids Well, another one for maintenance boost and vehicles it starts at seven o'clock Everyone's more than welcome to come if you are going to come just let us know on our Facebook page there click attend and We'll have some stuff set up and it'll be a great night and you'll ask some questions And I'll be here along with some of the co-workers and answer any questions you guys have about your car So we look forward to seeing you


Where's it gone? Yes, OK. All right, thank you, Ali, for introduction. And I proceed to my talk in which I describe a quantitative approach to the diffusive dynamics through the first passage statistics, as has recently been explored by a few authors, including us. I believe that everyone is familiar with the phenomenon of diffusion in its chemically pure form. We can fancy what happens with a droplet of ink immersed in a glass of water. The substance with time will spread over the whole volume available to the liquid. How fast this process goes is determined by the diffusion coefficient, which in this case we would call the diffusion constant. In a more general setting, however, we may need to consider inhomogeneous diffusion with a space-dependent diffusion coefficient d and chemical potential u. This situation applies to many problems of biophysical interest in which the diffusion takes place in an aqua solution, solutions near organic surfaces such as proteins. To name just a couple of such systems, I can mention the permission of ions through a cell membrane or the absorption of carbon dioxide by plants and bacteria during the process of photosynthesis. To model the inhomogeneous diffusion, we use the Smoluchowski equation. Or sometimes this equation is also called the Fokker-Planck equation. This equation, this diffusion equation, relates the evolution of the probability in the N-CTP of finding a molecule at the given space point in space or in macroscopic terms, the concentration of the substance to the divergence of the metaflow caused by gradients of the potential u and by the gradient of the concentration itself, p. A problem that often emerges in studies of biophysical systems is how can we measure d and u simultaneously? In principle, many of you know that u could be inferred by taking the logarithm of the concentration p, thus the determination of d usually poses the main issue. In the rest of my talk, I will focus on the transverse diffusion that is in the direction perpendicular to the surface. This problem is both more difficult and more relevant for the studies of the permission and absorption processes that I have just mentioned. Let me choose the coordinate set along the direction perpendicular to the surface as in this sketch. Here, I use the over dot to simplify the diffusion the over dot denotes the time derivative and the prime denotes derivative with respect to the coordinate set. To quantify our observations of a diffusion process, we adopt the first passage statistics as follows. Take a population of molecules in a narrow bin and observe how each molecule diffuses until it passes through a given distance capital L in any direction for the first time. Hence comes the name, the first passage. Then a fraction of the whole population of molecules will travel to the positive direction of z to the right here, whereas the other fraction in the opposite direction in the negative. Thus, we can determine the probability of the positive and negative first passage events, p plus and minus, respectively. That must sum up to 1. In addition, we can measure the time of each first passage event and calculate the mean first passage time, the average of all these observations, tau. First passage, yes, and the probabilities of the positive and negative events characterizes the preferred direction of diffusion, whereas the mean first passage time tau characterizes the speed of the diffusion. To describe the spatial variation of the first passage statistics, we apply the same procedure by varying the position of the molecules' initial populations as we do when constructing histograms of the probability density. Now, to relate the first passage statistics to the space-dependent potential and diffusion coefficient, we need a little bit of theory.  The green equation relates Upsilon to the external potential U and the logarithm of the diffusion coefficient. So by substituting Upsilon instead of U, the dual potential instead of the external potential U, we transform the original equation in an entirely equivalent form. In this form, we observe that we pick up a third metaphor term, which is proportional to the gradient of the diffusion. I want really to emphasize that equations 1 and 2 are entirely equivalent because the second equation has been featured several times in the literature as an alternative model of the diffusion equation. Now, it is not as established through this simple substitution rule highlighted in the green color. The dual potential is very convenient when solving the first passage problem for this Molokhovsky equation. Formal solution of this problem is well known and using a few approximations in the limit that we observe the first passage events with a very small first passage distance L, we can derive the following formulas to relate the slope of the effect of the dual potential Upsilon to the log ratio of the first passage probabilities P plus and P minus. And then using just the mean first passage time tau, we can also find the diffusion coefficient. In addition, using numerical integration techniques, we in principle can infer the chemical potential U from the dual potential and the diffusion coefficient that's found. Today, I will not have a report examples of this approach. All right, now from the theory to practice, let me give you an example of the potential and the space-dependent diffusivity curves reconstructed from our molecular dynamic simulations. In this example, I report our results for the diffusion of water molecules near a surface of a glutamine crystal. As the coordinates said, we use the distance to the Gibbs dividing interface that delimits the protein weighting layer from the rest of the liquid water in this instance. You can see that at nanometer lengths away from the Gibbs dividing interface in there, we recover the diffusivity of the bulk water, the purple curve here with diamonds. And the diffusivity of the bulk water, the simulation conditions is about 4 nanometers squared per nanosecond. Close to the protein surface, the diffusion of water molecules slows down. And near the Gibbs dividing interface, it is by an order of magnitude slower than in the bulk liquid. The chemical potential reconstructed here from the log by using the logarithm of the steady state density shows that the hydrophobic surface of the protein expels water as manifested by the growth of the chemical potential, the external potential in this case near and beyond the Gibbs dividing interface. Our estimates can be validated independently through stochastic simulations of the Langevin dynamics. Using the inferred potential and the diffusion coefficient, we can construct a model of a Brownian particle whose phase-space probability evolves according to the same diffusion equation that we have been discussing so far. In the slide, I report the mean first passage time of two Langevin dynamics simulations along with our original molecular dynamics data. The orange curve, which uses the external potential and the diffusion coefficient inferred from the molecular dynamics data, matches very well the original data that we tried to reproduce. However, in this second case of Langevin dynamics, we set the diffusion coefficient to the bulk value. So in this simulation, the diffusion coefficient was constant, peaks to the bulk value of diffusivity of water. And you can see that close to the surface of the protein, this model cannot reproduce the slow down of the dynamics of the diffusive dynamics. This result actually gives through the credence to the incomaginous diffusion framework to describe the dynamics of molecules in these complex environments. And finally, before concluding, let me say thanks to all the members of our team working on these problems. And I would like to advertise a recent paper published in SoftMatter, from which I took the examples reported in my talk. Here, I finish. Thank you. Well, thank you very much for the very interesting talk. We have one more talk left, and time for questions, I believe. Yeah, we have time for one question. So there is enough for me. Right up to me, please. Yeah. Roman, how did you measure the diffusivity by molecular dynamics? I mean, the profile you showed. Yes, so we measure statistics for a population of molecules studying at a given coordinate. That way, we obtain diffusivity at a given point. Then we repeat the same procedure, but taking population of the water molecules at a different coordinate. So we obtain values of diffusivity at various initial conditions z. Then we use, in our case, we use spectral methods, numerical techniques, to reconstruct the interpolating curve. OK, thank you. Great, thank you very much. There is one question more, if I have a question. Ali, OK, sure, we can handle that. Roman, so regarding your way to infer the U of z, the numerical estimate, does it work well for the glutamine surfaces? We have not tested this for the glutamine surfaces. It would be interesting to see how good or bad it is. Well, yeah, we could test it, of course, not on the glutamine surfaces. I don't know, but that's the work that's there. You have the data that's published. So I mean, we know what the real U of z is in some sense there. Yeah, anyway, we'll argue later. OK, well, I'm going to go back to the slide.