I was very excited in August when I scheduled my appointment to receive the recently arrived, newly approved HPV vaccine, Gardasil. I knew that I was going to be one of the first women to ever be vaccinated against four types of the human papillomavirus (HPV), which I later discovered is the cause 70% of cervical cancer cases and 90% of all genital warts cases (1). While I was thrilled to take part in a new era of women’s health care, one which ushered in previously unattainable levels of protection against the virus for women, I did not truly understand or appreciate the value of this new vaccine at the time of receiving it—I was enticed by the novelty and hype of the product, not necessarily enamored by its benefits or even aware of them as I should have been. I did not know how lucky I was to be getting this vaccine nor was I conscious of how important it is for all women and girls to do what they can to protect themselves and their sexual partners for life against contracting the HPV virus, which contains over 100 different strains, more than 30 of which are sexually transmitted (7). In my quest to better comprehend the medical advances that are affecting my body, our bodies, and our society, I learned much about HPV and the glory of Gardasil, and how fortunate we are to have this new vaccine.

Human papillomavirus is an all too common sexually transmitted virus, responsible for more than 3,700 deaths within the United States every year. About half of all sexually active men and women (6.2 million in the US alone) become infected with HPV at least once in their life time, with the consequences ranging from insignificant to life threatening in the form of cervical cancer (4). Carriers can transmit the virus without every being aware that they are infected, and anyone who has ever experiences sexual activity involving genital contact is potentially exposed to the more than 40 types of HPV that can infect the genital areas of both men and women (3). HPV poses a large threat to women as it is one of the main causes of cervical cancer, the second most common cancer in women provoking more than 233,000 annual deaths worldwide. On June 8, 2006, the United States Food & Drug Administration approved Gardasil, the first ever vaccine developed to immunize women against four of the most threatening types the virus that cause cervical cancer and genital warts (4).

While the HPV virus goes away on its own in most people who become infected, the virus can linger in the body, developing into cervical cancer, precancerous lesions, or genital warts. HPV can infect a woman’s cervix, the lower part of her womb, and then cause cells to change and grow abnormally. These changes in the cells, known as “precancers,” can develop into cervical cancer if not treated (3). Unfortunately, there is no cure for HPV, and often times treatment possibilities only exist for the health problems caused by HPV, such as genital warts, cervical cancer, or even cancer of the vulva, vagina and anus. HPV types 16 and 18 cause 70% of all cases of cervical cancer, while HPV types 6 and 11 cause 90% of genital warts cases—it is these four strains of the human papillomavirus that are contained in the vaccine Gardasil (1). Immunization against these four types of HPV effectively protects women against these strains who have not already been infected with HPV at the time of receiving the vaccine, and since we know that there is no cure for HPV, it is essential to get the vaccine before one ever becomes exposed to the virus, which generally means before one engages in sexual activity (3).

Gardasil is administered as a series of three injections given over a period of six months. I received my first vaccination in August, less than two months after it had been approved by the FDA; my second dose was given to me in October, two months after the date of the first injection, and I will receive my third and final injection in February of 2007, approximately six months after having received the first dose. For women who have not already been infected by one of the four strains of HPV contained in the vaccine, Gardasil is nearly 100% effective in preventing precancerous lesions of the cervix, vagina, vulva, as well as preventing genital warts (4). However, the vaccine does not protect women against less common types of HPV that can still harm the body, so in no way should women stop receiving their annual Pap test from their doctor. Regular Pap testing can detect cancerous and pre-cancerous cells of the cervix and thus is an essential weapon in the detection and treatment of cervical cancer (3).

There is a controversy surrounding Gardasil and the HPV vaccine; ideally, the vaccine should be administered in women before they ever have contracted any HPV. If a woman has contracted any of the four types of HPV in the vaccine, she will only be protected from those strains that she does not already have (1). Thus, the controversy: women and girls should get the vaccine before contracting HPV, and therefore, before they are likely to engage in sexual contact. Gardasil is approved for use in girls and women ages 9 to 26, with the hopes that the younger the patient is, the less likely she is to already be infected. This has many parents in an uproar: many say that immunizing their 9 or 11 year-old daughter against a sexually transmitted infection is jumping the gun and plunging young girls into the world of safe sex way before they should even be thinking about sex. Some say simply that that young are just too young to be concerned with sexual health and activity, and as one doctor stated, "It's almost an assault on their innocence to be talking about those things when they do not even know what I'm talking about" (5). Some also believe that vaccinating young girls will encourage sexual promiscuity, with the point that if girls know that they are safe from contracting a sexually transmitted infection they will start having sex earlier. I personally think that this is a totally bogus argument—no parent can ever protect their child from sexual assault even if she is not sexually active, thus I believe it is better to protect all women against the virus while they still have the chance, even if this morally compromises their innocence. What is innocence anyway and who decides whether or not innocence should interfere with health care and innovative, preventative medical technology?

While there is currently not a vaccine available for men and boys against HPV, studies are being done to see whether or not such a vaccine for males would be effective. If so, the vaccine could prevent men from contracting genital warts and rare cancers, such as penile and anal cancers. Vaccinating men may also protect women from then contracting HPV from their male sexual partners (3). Gardasil is here and Gardasil can change our lives, and as the spokesman for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in relation to cervical cancer, “this is now a vaccine- preventable problem, we have a huge opportunity to make a significant improvement in the health care of women” (5). With knowledge available both about HPV and its new vaccine Gardasil, we can all protect ourselves before becoming victims of a virus that can ultimately take our life—this breakthrough in women’s healthcare is great progress to the overall attainment of good health and safe sex. I once again express my gratitude to the developers of Gardasil for their commitment to preserving women’s health, and as a newly informed member of society, I encourage everyone, especially al women, to see whether the vaccine is right for you, and if it is, good luck and congratulations for embracing Gardasil and kicking HPV to the curb.

Each year, American students are responsible for the deaths of millions of animals in the interests of science education. Frogs, fetal pigs, cats, and cows’ eyeballs bear the brunt of the education industry’s demand for vivisection education, which may be defined as the act of dissecting or injuring animals for purposes of scientific investigation or experimentation. [1] While alternatives to classroom dissection do exist in the form of instructional videotapes and other “hands-off” materials, cutting up a dead animal remains a rite of passage for students around the nation.

An estimated six million animals are killed for classroom dissection each year; these animals are often collected from the wild, contributing to anthropogenic ecological consequences not easily visible from the microscope of a seventh grader. [2] Another method of obtaining animals for dissection is through special breeding facilities that also cater to the pharmaceutical, cosmetology, and even automobile industries. A quick Google search for biological supply companies yields lists of available “organisms” for sale, both “preserved” and “live.” An individual can set up an account with, for one, the Carolina Biological Supply Company - which touts itself as “world-class support for science & math [instruction]” - and become eligible for a 25% discount off her first order of trademarked “Carolina’s Perfect Solution Rats” or “Carolina’s Perfect Solution Pigs.” [3]

When I was younger my Aunt Maggie would randomly get really depressed and irritable. I never understood why, but my mom always told me to just ignore it. As I grew older I started to notice that these ‘episodes’ would only occur around certain months of the year, particularly in the winter. I then observed some more unusual characteristics: she quickly gained a lot of weight, most of her free time was spent sleeping, and she became less involved in our family affairs. When she did get involved it was only to start unnecessary and petty fights. I couldn’t comprehend why she was acting so distant towards her own family. It was a known fact that she hated the winter along with the snow so when I was thirteen-years-old she moved from Newtown, Pennsylvania to West Palm Beach, Florida. After a year or so she was back in shape and her attitude was nothing but friendly. She no longer slept her days away, and even though she lived twenty-four hours away she still remained really close to us. I now know that what my Aunt Maggie was suffering from was seasonal affective disorder, but in order for me to fully understand what she was going through I must first understand the disorder itself. It is for this reason that I will be looking at the symptoms and causes in particular that are related to this disorder.

The full phrase is “Ya tibya lyublyu,” but it's that last word that ties up my tongue. No matter how many times I rehearse saying “I love you” in Russian, it never comes out naturally; the “blyu” gets stuck to the roof of my mouth and I end up saying either “lyubloo” or sometimes just “lyubu.” Once in a while it comes out correctly, but I have to pause between “lyu” and “blyu,” calculating in my head what my mouth is going to have to do next.

Why?

Obviously, I'm not used to putting sounds together this way. But one might think, after a few tries, I'd get the hang of it and there would be no more trouble. Grammar and vocabulary take time to memorize, but why is making unfamiliar sounds difficult, too? I assume that everyone's mouth and tongue are basically the same structurally, and have the capability to make all the sounds found in every human language – but why is it hard or sometimes impossible to do?

According to Wikipedia's article on second language acquisition, this isn't just my problem. Although “those who begin learning a language late in life are capable of gaining a high level of fluency,” it seems clear from research that “the overwhelming majority of those who begin learning a language after puberty are unable to acquire a native-like accent.” (1) And interestingly, Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins claims that “in multilingual persons, an accent in their third language often reflects the pronunciation of the speaker's second language. I have observed this when a West African from a French-sphere country is speaking English. Though he sounds like an African, he has a French accent in English also.” (2)

So, accents are a fundamental part of language acquisition – now I'm a little less worried about my trouble with the word “люблю.” But I still want to get it right! Knowing this happens to everyone doesn't explain why.

The Linguistic Society of America backs up part of my original thought; apparently, everyone is “born capable of both producing and perceiving all of the sounds of all human languages.” However, this does not last; soon, “a child begins to learn what sounds are important in his or her language, and to disregard the rest.” By a child's first birthday, he or she has learned to ignore sound distinctions that don't matter to whatever language he or she is learning to speak. (3) So that's why I can't hear the difference between hard and soft Russian consonants; since English doesn't distinguish between consonants in this way, I've grown up thinking of them as the “same” sound, when in fact there are differences. I'm tempted to say they're subtle differences and so I can't be blamed for my confusion, but that isn't right, either; I only think they're subtle because I've been trained since birth not to notice them. The same thing happens to speakers of Japanese who learn English; there's no distinction between l and r in Japanese, so they sound the same to a Japanese speaker listening English. My first reaction as an English speaker is that the difference between l and r is enormous, but of course, that's because I've been trained to hear it!

Differentiating between important and unimportant sound distinctions makes sense. Learning to communicate would be a lot harder otherwise, because every possible inflection of every possible sound or combination of sounds would mean something different, and most of these sounds would not be used by any given language. It is easier, it seems, for the brain to just lump similar sounds together and understand them as only one sound – so much easier that this is literally what it does when we first learn language. In the infant brain, “a different cluster of neurons in the auditory cortex of the brain responds to each sound” in the language, so that certain sets of sounds are wired to a single neuron cluster as one sound. (4)

This hardwiring of neurons cannot be completely unchangeable; after all, some people can and do learn to distinguish the unfamiliar sounds of another language, even if those sounds are grouped under one heading in their native tongue. However, these individuals are usually “unable to acquire a native-like accent” when speaking (assuming they did not learn the second language during childhood). For me, this is counter-intuitive – I would imagine that rewiring your brain is more difficult than forcing your mouth and tongue to do things it is technically already capable of – but my own experience tells me otherwise. I can now tell the difference between a hard and soft 'л' in spoken Russian (well, sometimes, anyway), but I still can't say the right thing.

Language itself is produced by learning how to control the various “resources” the body has at its disposal for speaking: the sound generator (vocal chords) and sound chambers (larynx, nasal cavity, and mouth). (5) Presumably, if the brain can be rewired to hear new differences between sounds, it could also be rewired to make new cues to these resources and come up with the correct vowel or consonant for the new language. However, this does not seem to happen as readily – though, in fact, it does happen. I remember in middle school I watched a lot of unsubtitled Japanese films, having read the plots beforehand; sometimes I would try to mimic the language out of curiosity or boredom, but could never get the 'r' sound right, because it's something of a mixture between English 'r' and 'l'. One day, however, I just said it during one of my monologues and found that I could say it. Simply by practice, I had hit upon how to use my “resources” to make this sound; it required putting my tongue behind my front teeth as in 'l' but shaping my mouth in an entirely different way. This unintentional process of trial-and-error mimics what occurs in young children; they listen to what is spoken around them and test out sounds until the ones they produce compare favorably with what they hear. (5) I have experienced other examples of this principle in my life as well; after six years of taking Spanish class, I could pronounce Spanish words more like a native speaker than not, although I had never actively attempted to improve.

This is not to say that learning how to produce an unfamiliar sound is simple, or that once you “get it,” you say it correctly forever. (My Spanish pronunciation has fallen off since I stopped studying it, after all.) But it seems from my personal observations that the steps required to produce sounds outside one's own language are identical to the steps required to differentiate those sounds from native ones when hearing the new language spoken. The learner must hear the new sounds over and over (and perhaps in comparison to each other) to recognize that they are different; he or she must also test out different ways of producing a perhaps familiar sound to come up with the correct way to make the foreign sound. (Think of people trying to learn the English sound “th” by working their way from a native “z.”) But if the process is the same, why is one so much more difficult than the other? Why can people learn to hear differences faster than they can learn to speak them – and usually, never learn to speak them perfectly?

I turned up no conclusive answer for this question in my online research. Some posit that pronunciation is simply given a backseat to grammar and vocabulary, leaving students insecure about fully exploring new sounds. (5) However, the primary consensus seems to be that one's first language is hardwired so thoroughly into the brain that foreign sounds have difficulty tearing away from the sound “magnets” that are built around the native language. If you grow up bilingual, great – you get two sound sets already built in. But try to learn later in life, and one will have to wrench itself out of the pattern of the other – and it's harder to make the new sounds than it is to understand them.

This is frustrating, because I want answers, and somehow the above conclusion doesn't satisfy me. What about those rare people who don't have an accent in the language or languages they learn after childhood? What about people who are naturally gifted at learning languages and absorb them relatively quickly? What if I work really, really hard to rewire my brain and produce new sounds – will that help reduce my accent? Or does it all have to be unconscious and gradual, like with children? Since there is little readily available literature on the subject, I suppose I'll just have to find out for myself.

Ya tibya lyubloo...lyublYOO...

Many health-conscious people take a multivitamin daily because they wish to provide
their bodies with an optimal amount of vitamins and minerals. This simple idea, that one cannot
rely solely on diet to take in all the nutrients one needs, is widely accepted. A field of
complementary and alternative medicine called orthomolecular therapy draws on the same basic
understanding. From the Greek "ortho," right, orthomolecular describes a treatment that
provides "the body with optimal amounts of substances which are natural to the body" (4).
Orthomolecular psychiatry, in particular, is the prescription of extra nutrients to treat mental
disorders. Some orthomolecular practices, such as those attempting to cure cancer and
schizophrenia, are advised against by health agencies (6). However, the therapy can also be
applied as a preventative measure for more common disorders, or for conditions that might
otherwise seem like a result of societal pressures instead of physical problems. If vitamins and
minerals enhance day-to-day bodily functions, their absence in the diet may account for
abnormal functions of the mind.

As a young child, many of us have seen if not read comic books and seen the heroes of that world of Marvel and their amazing abilities that seem so beyond our own capacity, but each character seems to have their own biological reasoning for why they are the way they are. Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider (Spiderman), Matt Murdoch becomes blind but develops heightened senses (Daredevil), Reed Richards and his closest friends are hit by cosmic rays that their experimental rocket ship travels through (Fantastic Four) etc. Charles Xavier and his X-men are the most biologically explainable creation and yet the most common explanation cannot account for what is possible; if one puts aside the fact that these works are fictional of the creator.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a psychiatric disorder that is commonly characterized by obsessions and compulsions (1).  Obsessions are recurrent thoughts, images, or impulses that an individual with OCD experiences frequently.  These obsessions are unwanted and usually occur automatically.  People with OCD perform compulsive acts in order to relieve the anxiety caused by the obsessions.  Compulsions are repetitive rituals that are completed according to “rules” that may or may not be related to the obsession (2).  Although people with the disorder recognize that their actions are irrational, they feel compelled to do them out of fear that something disastrous will ensue.  Most compulsions fall into four categories: counting, checking, cleaning, and avoidance.  An example of compulsive cleaning is someone who washes her hands five hundred times a day because she is afraid of being contaminated by germs (1).  Clearly a life based around the completion of rituals is not an easy or particularly pleasant one, but people abstain from getting help because of the shameful stigma attached (to the disorder).  There are a variety of treatments available, however, and due to technological advancements there is serotonin therapy which is based on a neurobiological model of OCD.

As we evolve from zygotes to fully-functioning adults, we are influenced by a myriad of various factors, from the way we are raised to who we associate ourselves with. When I think of what I have become, I think of all my external influences- what I have read, whom I have met during my lifetime, the experiences I have had; what I rarely ever think of is my genetic makeup and how it has influenced me as a person. Out of the functions that genes oversee in the human body, the most intriguing is sexual differentiation, which is the development of a person from an “undifferentiated zygote” to a fetus, which will then evolve into a walking, talking, conscious male or female (2).

What is a belief, and why bother having any? After all, if nothing can be proven as true, why would we believe in anything anyway? But certainly, we believe things, even against all sensory input.

For instance, if you stand in the middle of train tracks and look at them going off in the distance, your sensory input tells you that they meet up yonder a ways. And yet, you don’t believe that. Why would you go against your perceptory input on this? Probably it is because you have prior experience with tracks, watching them while on a train or walking, and have had the experience of seeing them open up before you as you move. Or do they open up before you? Though your senses tell you they do, you don’t believe that either. You believe they are stationary, not moving. But if that is true, how come they come together at the horizon, but never where you are?

Do you feel sick after ingesting milk products? Do you have to stay away from foods that
contain milk or cheese? If so, you are possibly lactose intolerant. You might also be
allergic to dairy. The two conditions are not the same, though they share one effect on
people’s lives; staying away from dairy foods. We will not explore dairy allergies in this
paper.

Here we are exploring lactose intolerance. What is lactose intolerance? Lactose
intolerance is a condition brought on by a lack of the digestive enzyme lactase, whose job
it is to break up the lactose molecule during digestion. If you don’t have enough lactase
to break up the lactose in your digestion system, lactose will remain inside the intestine.
It can not pass through the intestinal membrane wall to be absorbed into the blood stream.
When the lactose is sitting in your intestine, digestive bacteria will do its best to
metabolize the lactose. In doing so, the bacteria put off large amounts of gas, resulting in
your experience of bloating, flatulence and diarrhea, all of which can be quite painful. (1)