Yet another reason to hate needles is vaccines. If you could take an injection-free vaccine, would you do it?
Scientists at King’s College London have been able to deliver a dried live vaccine to the skin without a traditional needle, and shown for the first time that this technique is powerful enough to enable specialized immune cells in the skin to kick-start the immunizing properties of the vaccine.
Not only is this a cheaper alternative to hypodermic needles, this method also removes safety risks from needle contamination, and the pain-free benefit could attract more people to taking vaccines. The researchers add that it could have an impact beyond infectious disease vaccination programs, for example managing autoimmune and inflammatory conditions such as diabetes. So basically, it’s a win-win-win.
The King’s College scientists used a silicon mold to create a microneedle array, a tiny disc with several micro-needles made of sugar which dissolve when inserted into the skin. They formulated a dried version of a live modified adenovirus-based candidate HIV vaccine in sugar and used the mold to create the microneedle array. They found that the dried live vaccine remained stable and effective at room temperature, thus eliminating the need to keep the vaccines refrigerated.
The scientists tested the microneedle array on mice. When compared with a traditional needle vaccine method, the immune response generated by the dried microneedle vaccine (kept at room temperature) was equivalent to that induced by the same dose of injected liquid vaccine that had been preserved at -80�C.
Dr Linda Klavinskis from the Peter Gorer Department of Immunobiology at King’s College London, said: ‘We have shown that it is possible to maintain the effectiveness of a live vaccine by drying it in sugar and applying it to the skin using microneedles – a potentially painless alternative to hypodermic needles. We have also uncovered the role of specific cells in the skin which act as a surveillance system, picking up the vaccine by this delivery system and kick-starting the body’s immune processes.”
This development could help to reduce the cost of manufacturing and transporting vaccines, improves safety, and avoids the need of hypodermic needle injection, reducing the risk of transmitting blood-borne disease from contaminated needles and syringes.

Ever have something traumatizing or embarrassing happen to you that you really just would like to forget, rather than relive over and over again? Well, this just might be possible sometime in the future. Scientists from the Florida campus of The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) have been able to erase dangerous drug-associated memories in mice and rats without affecting other more benign memories.
The scientists are attempting to to find strategies that will selectively eliminate evidence of past experiences that are related to drug abuse or a traumatic event.
Producing a memory is somewhat complicated. It includes the alteration of the structure of nerve cells via changes in the dendritic spines, which are small, bulb-like structures that receive electrochemical signals from other neurons.
In the new study, the scientists inhibited actin polymerization (the creation of large chainlike molecules), by blocking a molecular motor called myosin II in the brains of mice and rats during the maintenance phase of methamphetamine-related memory formation. The animals were put through behavioral tests, which showed that they immediately and persistently lost memories that were associated with methamphetamine, and had no other memories affected.
The mice and rats were trained to associate the rewarding effects of meth with a rich context of visual, tactile, and scent cues during their test. They were then injected with the inhibitor many days later in their home environment. After doing so, they later showed a complete lack of interest when they encountered drug-associated cues. However, their responses to other memories, such as food rewards, were the same as before.
The scientists believe that the role of dopamine in the tests is beneficial when it is released during both learning and drug withdrawal. Their hope is that their strategies may eventually be applicable to other harmful memories.

We all grew up hearing adults tell us to eat carrots so that we could have better eyesight. But what about nighttime vision? This study explains that a person’s night-time vision gets better after playing electronic action games.

Scientists found that video games involving aiming and shooting at virtual objects on a computer screen can significantly increase people’s ability to see objects in twilight conditions, when colors fade into different shades of gray. Researchers have found that keeping your eyes trained on a video game can be just as effective, or even more so, as using contact lenses, glasses, or getting surgery.

In the study, the scientists tested the contrast sensitivity of a group of people who regularly played action-heavy video games, Call of Duty, where the player has to shoot at virtual targets. The scientists found that the group’s ability to detect different shades of gray was 58 per cent better on average than people who had not played the games.

The people who were not regular game players were then put through a training regime involving hours of console gaming. When they had completed the course, their contrast sensitivity had improved by an average of 43 %.

So why does detecting all of these shades of gray matter? Well, when you’re out in the dark, maybe driving through the fog at dusk, you’ll be able to detect objects such as animals crossing the road, or make out road signs more clearly.

Daphne Bavelier, professor of brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester in New York, sums up the study perfectly. “It shows that if you need to improve your vision, you can train your brain to get better at using the visual information you get,” she said. 

And what better way to train your brain than doing it while playing video games?

If you’re like me and hate needles, and especially getting shots, you may want to consider this method when treating allergies. Pills and liquid drops are emerging as a more available option for people to use to prevent allergies. They’re already available in Europe, and if they are approved in the United States, this type of therapy could be more broadly available by allowing people to treat themselves at home rather than going to the doctor’s to get shots. It’s also beneficial for children who could be scared of needles.
Of course, there are drawbacks to taking pills or drops instead of getting shots. Tablets and liquid drops target a more standardized, general allergy, while shots can be tailored to match the patient’s allergies. 
This article explains that between 30 million an 60 million Americans, including up to 40 percent of children and 10 to 30 percent of adults, suffer nasal congestion, runny nose, sneezing, itchy eyes or other symptoms from allergies to something they inhale. Typically, people treat these allergies with antihistamines (like Claritin), or nasal steroids. However, these only alleviate symptoms, they don’t get rid of them completely.
You can receive longer-lasting relief from immunotherapy, which is allergy shots and under-the-tongue treatments. Some studies have shown that three years of immunotherapy provides substantial relief for two years after treatment is stopped, in some cases for longer. Some studies also suggest that immunotherapy can reduce the risk of developing asthma.

A study was done by Merck involving 1,500 adults and children who are allergic to Timothy grass. Those who took the tablets had a 20 percent reduction in symptoms during one allergy season compared with those who received a placebo. They also used antihistamines or other symptom-relieving drugs less often.

In my opinion, the fact that using these tablets and drops are as effective as getting shots is more than enough reason to not only stop getting shots for allergies, but to not use antihistamines, either (or at least not as often). Do you think you would use pills or drops if they were easily available in the US?

My freshman year at Penn State, I came across an article that said something along the lines of chewing gum five minutes before you take an exam will improve your exam grade. Although I thought it had to be too good to be true, I decided it couldn’t hurt to try out as I usually chew gum on a regular basis anyways. I can’t actually remember if it improved my test score, so I decided to re-visit the question. Dr. Serge Onyper, a psychologist from Saint Lawrence University, tested the theory by conducting a study that showed that students who chewed gum for five minutes before taking a test did better on the test than non-gum-chewing students.
The sudden intelligence boost is called “mastication-induced arousal,” and lasts about 20 minutes. Researchers believe that it’s basically a form of exercise. So pretty much any type of physical activity you do before an exam will give you a performance boost.
The article emphasizes the fact that the gum-chewing has to start five minutes before the exam, not during, because the benefits persist for only the first 15-20 minutes of the exam.
So whether you think this theory actually works, considering how cheap gum is and often we already chew it, you might as well give it a try and see if it works for you!

I have a pretty solid addiction to painting my nails. It’s gotten to the point that when I do take my nail polish off, my nails are gross and yellow and I’ve been told that they look like a smoker’s nail. However, lack of sunlight and oxygen to the nail is not the only negative side effect of long term nail polish wear. A lot of nail polish contains a decent amount of gross chemicals. This Huffington Post article explains that in the past most nail polishes contained chemicals including formaldehyde, toluene and DBP, which can cause eyes, skin, nose and throat irritation, and headaches, dizziness, and fatigue. These chemicals can all be absorbed through the nail bed into your body. However, recently, certain brands such as OPI and Sally Hansen opted to get rid of those chemicals after complaints from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Harm from nail polish doesn’t end there though. When polish is thrown out their toxicity can be leaked into the soil and groundwater. So basically, they’re about as bad for the environment as insecticides and car batteries. So if you can’t live without nail polish like I can’t, try out nail polish brands that don’t have those harmful chemicals, and you should be good to go!