(Image: Food To Live)

For many students, junk food is a normal part of the school day. It’s everywhere - A chocolate bar at lunch, a packet of crisps between lessons, and a fizzy drink to get through the afternoon. It's convenient, affordable, and for many, something to look forward to. However, convenience should not come at the expense of health. With growing concerns about young people’s diets, the question of whether or not junk food should be removed from schools is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

It goes without saying that regularly consuming foods high in sugar, saturated fats, and salts can have negative effects on health. Students can spend a large portion of their day at school, so what is available in cafeterias can heavily influence the choices they make. If unhealthy options are constantly within reach, choosing them can become the easiest option. 

However, completely banning junk food may not be the answer. Students should be taught how to make sensible choices, rather than having said choices made for them. One assembly, campaign, or lesson about how to understand food labels and nutrition could change the way students think and feel about junk food. Schools with the right funding could also focus on making healthier food more accessible, such as fresh fruit, vegetables and sandwiches being offered alongside occasional treats. 

Young people should be made to understand balance rather than inhibition because food is not simply ‘good’ or ‘bad’, and having an occasional treat is different from relying on unhealthy food to fuel you during the day. 

So, should junk food be banned? A complete ban goes too far. Students should be held accountable for their own choices, and the school should prepare them for these choices outside of the classroom too. A vending machine full of snacks may not be ideal, but neither is an environment where students are not given an opportunity to learn about their bodies.

There is a strong argument for reducing the amount of junk food sold in school cafeterias, particularly cheaper and unhealthier snacks. Schools should have a responsibility to support their students’ health by informing or actively reducing the least nutritious options with healthier, affordable alternatives.

The aim should not be to control what young people eat but rather give them knowledge to choose when the option is theirs. Sensible limits on junk food and better education can support students without treating them as incapable of making their own decisions.

Works Cited:

Gewertz, Catherine. “Why More Schools Are Excusing Student Absences for Mental Health.” Education Week, Education Week, 27 Feb. 2026, www.edweek.org/leadership/why-more-schools-are-excusing-student-absences-for-mental-health/2021/06. Accessed 13 Aug. 2026.

“Mental Health Days: School Absence Policies.” NAMI, www.nami.org/advocacy-at-nami/policy-positions/improving-health/mental-health-days-school-absence-policies/. Accessed 13 Aug. 2026.

“Pros and Cons of Mental Health Days for Students.” The Lancet Commission on Global Mental Health, globalmentalhealthcommission.org/Pros-and-Cons. Accessed 13 Aug. 2026.

Shorts, Ella. “Should Mental Health Days Be an Excused Absence.” North on Point, 23 Oct. 2024, northonpoint.org/4735/uncategorized/should-mental-health-days-be-an-excused-absence/. Accessed 13 Aug. 2026.

(Image: The Inclusion Solution)

Students are often expected to attend school regardless of how they are feeling emotionally. While physical illnesses such as the flu, fever, or migraines are generally accepted reasons for missing school, mental health struggles are sometimes treated differently. This raises an important question: should students be allowed to take mental health days as excused absences? As awareness of student mental health continues to grow, recognizing mental health days as legitimate absences could help students protect their well-being, reduce stigma, and prevent stress from becoming overwhelming. 

Mental health days are intentional breaks from school or other responsibilities that allow an individual to rest, recover, and manage emotional or psychological stress. Students may experience academic pressure, social challenges, family responsibilities, lack of sleep, or feelings of anxiety or exhaustion. While not every difficult day requires missing school, there are situations where taking a short break can help a student regain the ability to function effectively. Treating mental health as separate from physical health can reinforce the idea that emotional struggles are less legitimate or deserving of attention.

One of the strongest arguments for excusing mental health days is that mental health is an essential part of overall health. When students are physically unwell, schools generally recognize that rest and recovery can help them return to a healthier state. The same principle can apply to mental well-being. A student experiencing significant emotional exhaustion may struggle to concentrate, complete assignments,  in class, or interact with others. Giving students an opportunity to temporarily step away from academic pressures may allow them to return with greater energy and focus. Excusing mental health days could also help reduce stigma surrounding mental illness. Students may hesitate to tell teachers or parents that they are struggling because they fear being perceived as lazy, dramatic, or irresponsible. When schools formally recognize mental health as a valid reason for absence, they send an important message, asking for help is not a weakness. This can encourage students to communicate their needs earlier rather than hiding their struggles until they become more severe. 

However, mental health days should not be viewed as a replacement for professional support. There is an important difference between taking an occasional day to recover from stress and repeatedly avoiding school because of an ongoing mental health concern. Frequent absences may indicate that a student needs additional support from a counselor, healthcare professional, teacher, or family member. Schools therefore have a responsibility to balance flexibility with appropriate intervention. A reasonable policy could allow occasional mental health absences while connecting students with resources when absences become frequent. 

There is also an ethical argument for allowing mental health days. Schools have a responsibility to support student well-being while providing an environment where students can learn safely and effectively. Recognizing mental health days reflects the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, which emphasize promoting well-being and preventing harm. Requiring a severely overwhelmed student to continue attending school without support may worsen their condition, while providing an opportunity for recovery may help prevent further distress. 

Ultimately, mental health days should be recognized as legitimate excused absences when students genuinely need them. This does not mean students should be encouraged to avoid responsibilities whenever school becomes difficult. Instead mental health days should be one part of a broader system of support that includes counselling, accessible resources, supportive teachers, and open communication. By recognizing that students cannot learn effectively when their well-being is severely compromised, schools can create environments that value both academic success and personal health. Mental health deserves the same understanding and care as physical health, and acknowledging this can help students feel supported rather than ashamed when they need a break.

Works Cited:

Gewertz, Catherine. “Why More Schools Are Excusing Student Absences for Mental Health.” Education Week, Education Week, 27 Feb. 2026, www.edweek.org/leadership/why-more-schools-are-excusing-student-absences-for-mental-health/2021/06. Accessed 13 Aug. 2026.

“Mental Health Days: School Absence Policies.” NAMI, www.nami.org/advocacy-at-nami/policy-positions/improving-health/mental-health-days-school-absence-policies/. Accessed 13 Aug. 2026.

“Pros and Cons of Mental Health Days for Students.” The Lancet Commission on Global Mental Health, globalmentalhealthcommission.org/Pros-and-Cons. Accessed 13 Aug. 2026.

Shorts, Ella. “Should Mental Health Days Be an Excused Absence.” North on Point, 23 Oct. 2024, northonpoint.org/4735/uncategorized/should-mental-health-days-be-an-excused-absence/. Accessed 13 Aug. 2026.

(Image: National Center for Education Statistics)

In the past few decades, earlier school start times have become a common practice, but it wasn’t always like this. Before the 1970’s, schools typically started later, but due to the work schedules of parents they’ve gotten earlier and earlier. While this move is beneficial for parents’ work schedules, it has become a problem for teens, like me. 

Studies have shown that during adolescence, the circadian rhythm undergoes a shift. This makes it so that melatonin doesn't rise until later in the night. This oftentimes causes high schoolers to struggle falling asleep. This is an issue because 8 to 10 hours of sleep is highly recommended during the ages of 13-18, but many schools in the U.S start before 8am.

Delayed school times have been found to improve more than just sleep duration. Research has shown that when schools start later, teens’ test scores, moods, and cognitive development improve as well. 

Research has also shown that students with previous disadvantages have improved the most from later school times. Students are able to engage more, which causes better standardized test scores, even for those who may have struggled beforehand. 

Fortunately, some schools have been pushing for a change. California became the first in the United States to make later start times a law. Because of this, other states have tried to pass similar ones.

So why are early school start times still a thing?

Well, despite the benefits, the idea of changing start times is controversial for many. From parents to school administrators, the cons of changing school schedules are a primary concern. A change like this would cause districts to get creative. As for parents, it would call for a change to the schedules they’ve adjusted their families to over the years. 

In order to accommodate later start times, school districts would need to change their times for transportation, athletics, other general extracurricular activities and neighboring schools. Most bus schedules would need to change, and for many communities that would mean pushing back Elementary school times. When it comes to athletic practices, they usually start in the earlier afternoon and would have to begin later. This change could clash with students who have jobs or responsibilities at home. 

While these challenges may seem major, many schools around the United States have been able to accommodate it.  

Districts that had to change to these schedules reported that the adjustment came without failure. 

Should a change like this, one that may seem large and impossible for some, still happen?

In my opinion, it should. Creating a way that makes school easier to attend while simultaneously fixing the sleep schedules for adolescence should be a no brainer. Not only will it ensure the health of students, it also helps them academically. And if other states could find a balance, surely there’s a way to maintain this throughout the country.

Earlier school times have become a common practice, but they don’t have to be. While the decision benefits parents, it’s harmful to adolescents. Disadvantages like sleep deprivation and cognitive decline are very serious outcomes of this practice. A change in school start times should be a measure taken to assist students, because if not, they pay the price for a decision that doesn’t benefit them.

Works Cited:

Bui, Alyssa. “History of Schools Start Times and How It Is Today.” Medium, 8 Mar. 2024, https://medium.com/@buial/history-of-schools-start-times-and-how-it-is-today-2f05d950b7a1. Accessed 6 Aug. 2026.

Weir, Kirsten. “Schools Shift as Evidence Mounts That Later Start Times Improve Teens’ Learning and Well-Being.” American Psychological Association, 30 Oct. 2023, https://www.apa.org/topics/children/school-start-times. Accessed 6 Aug. 2026.

Wheaton, Anne G., et al. “School Start Times, Sleep, Behavioral, Health, and Academic Outcomes: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of School Health, vol. 86, no. 5, Apr. 2016, National Library of Medicine, pp. 363–81, https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12388 . Accessed 6 Aug. 2026.

Xceed. “Why Should School Start Later? Sleep, Grades, & Well-Being.” Xceed Preparatory Academy, 28 Oct. 2025, https://www.xceedprep.org/why-its-ridiculous-that-high-schools-start-so-early-in-the-morning/. Accessed 6 Aug. 2026.

(Image: element8)

Not long ago, if you had a medical question, you had two options. You could wait until your next doctor's appointment or flip through an encyclopedia. Today, you can type a symptom into a search bar and get thousands of answers in seconds. On social media, you can watch surgeons explain procedures, dietitians break down nutrition myths, and patients share their own experiences with chronic illnesses. Health information has never been easier to access.

But has that actually made us better patients?

I think it has, with one important condition: we have to learn how to separate reliable information from misinformation. The internet is not the problem. The way we use it is.

For many people, especially teenagers, the internet is the first place they turn when something feels wrong. Whether it is a persistent headache, a new rash, or questions about mental health, searching online often happens before calling a doctor's office. Some people argue this habit creates unnecessary anxiety. There is even a well-known term, "cyberchondria," which describes excessive online health searching that increases worry instead of providing reassurance.

That concern is real. A study published in the *Journal of Medical Internet Research* found that people who repeatedly search for health information online are more likely to experience health anxiety, particularly when they rely on unverified sources or continue searching after finding reassuring information. Endless scrolling can convince someone that a common cold is a life threatening illness, simply because dramatic stories receive more attention online.

However, focusing only on the dangers ignores the bigger picture. The internet has also created one of the most informed generations of patients in history.

Before appointments, many people now understand basic medical terms, know what questions to ask, and arrive prepared to discuss treatment options. Instead of passively accepting every recommendation, patients are increasingly participating in decisions about their own healthcare. The American Medical Association encourages physicians to welcome informed questions from patients because shared decision making often leads to better communication and greater satisfaction with care.

The internet has also given a voice to people living with rare diseases. Years ago, someone diagnosed with an uncommon condition might never meet another person with the same diagnosis. Today, online communities connect patients across countries, allowing them to exchange practical advice, emotional support, and information about new research. While these groups should never replace medical professionals, they can make patients feel less isolated and more empowered.

The biggest challenge is not access to information. It is access to trustworthy information.

Social media platforms reward content that grabs attention, not necessarily content that is accurate. A confident creator with no medical training can attract millions of views by making bold claims about supplements, detoxes, or miracle cures. At the same time, licensed physicians often spend far longer explaining why those claims are false.

Researchers continue to find that health misinformation spreads quickly online, especially when it appeals to emotions or confirms what people already believe. During recent public health emergencies, false medical claims circulated faster than corrections, making it harder for people to know whom to trust. This has real consequences. Misinformation can discourage vaccinations, promote unsafe treatments, or convince people to delay seeking professional care.

That does not mean we should stop looking up medical information altogether. Instead, we should become smarter consumers of it.

One simple habit is checking who wrote the information. Is it a physician, a registered dietitian, a government health agency, or a respected hospital? Another is comparing information across multiple trusted sources rather than relying on one TikTok video or Instagram post. Websites ending in ".gov," ".edu," or belonging to major medical organizations generally provide evidence based information that is regularly reviewed.

It is also important to recognize what the internet cannot do. No search engine can perform a physical exam. No chatbot can listen to your heartbeat or order a blood test. Even the most accurate article cannot fully account for your medical history, medications, allergies, or family history. Online information should prepare you for conversations with healthcare professionals, not replace them.

Health literacy is becoming just as important as reading literacy. The National Institutes of Health defines health literacy as the ability to find, understand, and use health information to make informed decisions. As more healthcare moves online, these skills are becoming essential. Schools teach students how to analyze literature and evaluate historical sources. They should also teach students how to recognize trustworthy medical information.

The internet has changed what it means to be a patient. We no longer walk into appointments knowing nothing. We arrive with questions, articles, and sometimes even research papers. That shift has the potential to strengthen the relationship between patients and healthcare providers rather than weaken it.

So, is the internet making us better or worse patients?

Overall, it is making us better patients because knowledge gives people the confidence to ask questions, understand their health, and participate in medical decisions. But that benefit only exists when we treat every online claim with healthy skepticism and rely on evidence instead of popularity.

The internet should be a starting point for learning, not the final word. The best patients are not the ones who believe everything they read online. They are the ones who know how to question it.

Works Cited:

National Institutes of Health. “Health Literacy.” National Institutes of Health, https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/nih-office-director/office-communications-public-liaison/clear-communication/health-literacy. Accessed 25 July 2026.

“Online Health Information Seeking and Patient Empowerment: Systematic Review.” Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5107186/. Accessed 25 July 2026.

World Health Organization. “Infodemic Management.” World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/teams/risk-communication/infodemic-management. Accessed 25 July 2026.

(Image: SEPA Pain & Spine)

Pain is a normal part of life. A broken bone, a wisdom tooth removal, or recovery from surgery can leave someone uncomfortable and in need of relief. Modern medicine has made it possible to treat pain more effectively than ever before. However, an uncomfortable question deserves more attention: has access to powerful pain medications become too easy?

Prescription opioids are medications designed to reduce moderate to severe pain. Drugs such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, and codeine can be incredibly effective when used for the right reasons and for short periods of time. The problem is not that these medications exist. The problem is how easily some patients can receive them and how quickly a legitimate prescription can develop into a dangerous dependence for vulnerable individuals. 

For decades, pain was often described as something that doctors needed to treat more aggressively. As a result, opioid prescriptions became increasingly common. Millions of prescriptions were written every year across the United States. While many patients used these medications responsibly, others found themselves facing a new challenge. The medicine that had once helped relieve pain became something the body began to rely on.

One of the most troubling facts about opioids is that addiction does not always begin with reckless behavior. Popular images of addiction often focus on illegal drugs or dangerous choices. In reality, many cases begin in a doctor's office with a legal prescription. A patient recovering from surgery may take medication exactly as directed. Over time, the body can develop tolerance, meaning the same dose no longer provides the same level of relief. Some individuals may begin needing higher doses or longer treatment periods, increasing the risk of dependence.

This is where concern about easy access becomes important. Prescriptions are often viewed as automatically safe because they come from healthcare professionals. Yet prescription status does not eliminate risk. Powerful medications remain powerful medications. A bottle with a pharmacy label can still lead to serious consequences if proper caution is not exercised.

Some healthcare providers have become much more careful about opioid prescribing in recent years, and that progress deserves recognition. However, concerns remain. In some situations, opioids may still be prescribed before alternatives are fully considered. Physical therapy, non-opioid pain medications, and other treatment options can often help manage pain without exposing patients to the same addiction risks. These approaches may not always provide instant relief, but they can be safer in the long run.

Teenagers and young adults should pay particular attention to this issue. Prescription medications are sometimes viewed differently than illegal drugs because they come from pharmacies rather than street dealers. That perception can create a false sense of security. The brain does not distinguish between a dangerous opioid obtained illegally and the same drug obtained through a prescription. The risk of addiction remains real.

Another concern is the way pain is viewed in modern society. Discomfort is often treated as something that must disappear immediately. Yet some pain is temporary and manageable without the strongest medications available. Not every injury requires an opioid prescription. Not every ache needs a powerful painkiller. When medicine becomes the first response instead of one option among many, unnecessary risks can follow.

The opioid crisis did not appear overnight. It developed through years of overprescribing, misunderstanding addiction, and underestimating the power of these drugs. While important improvements have been made, the lesson should not be forgotten. Easier access does not always mean better healthcare.

Doctors should continue to help patients manage pain, but caution must remain a priority. Prescriptions should be carefully considered, alternatives should be discussed, and patients should understand the risks before leaving the pharmacy. Pain relief is important, but preventing addiction is equally important.

A prescription should solve a problem and not help create a new one. When powerful pain medications become too easy to obtain, the cost can extend far beyond physical pain. It can affect families, communities, and lives for years to come.

Works Cited:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About Prescription Opioids. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/prescription-opioids.html. Accessed 21 June 2026.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Basics About Prescription Opioids. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.cdc.gov/rx-awareness/information/index.html. Accessed 21 June 2026.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Initiating Opioid Therapy. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/hcp/clinical-care/initiating-opioid-therapy.html. Accessed 21 June 2026.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Patients’ Frequently Asked Questions About Prescription Opioids. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/manage-treat-pain/patients-faqs.html. Accessed 21 June 2026.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing Opioid Use Disorder. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/prevention/preventing-opioid-use-disorder.html. Accessed 21 June 2026.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing Opioid Overdose. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/prevention/index.html. Accessed 21 June 2026.

(Image: The Hill)

Medicine is supposed to be one of the most basic guarantees of modern life: you get sick, you get treated, and you recover. However, in today’s healthcare system, especially in the United States, medicine has become something closer to a luxury product than a public necessity. My opinion is clear. The current pricing system for prescription drugs, shaped by large pharmaceutical companies, is not just flawed. It is ethically unsustainable and economically distorted in a way that harms patients far more than it helps innovation.

Across wealthy countries, the United States stands out for one simple reason: price. Prescription drugs cost significantly more in the U.S. than in other developed nations, often by several times over. A major international comparison found that overall drug prices in the U.S. are nearly three times higher than in other high-income countries, even after accounting for discounts and rebates. Brand-name drugs show an even larger gap, sometimes exceeding three times the international average. 

Insulin is one of the clearest and most troubling examples of this pattern. A medication that has existed for nearly a century, and is essential for people with diabetes to survive, costs dramatically more in the United States than elsewhere. Studies comparing dozens of high-income countries consistently show U.S. insulin prices ranging from five to ten times higher than in peer nations. This is not a small pricing difference or a minor policy debate. It is a structural gap that affects whether people can afford to stay alive.

The question is why this happens. It is not because the United States produces better insulin or more advanced medications across the board. Instead, the system is shaped by how prices are set. Drug companies in the U.S. are largely free to set initial list prices, and those prices are later complicated by negotiations between insurers and pharmacy benefit managers. These middle layers often focus on rebates and contracts rather than lowering what patients actually pay at the pharmacy counter. The result is a system where the “official” price and the real price are often completely different, and patients can still end up paying more than expected.

There is also the issue of limited competition. In many drug markets, a small number of companies dominate production. This creates a situation where patients cannot realistically “shop around” for cheaper alternatives in the way they might with other consumer goods. When competition is weak and demand is unavoidable, prices stop behaving like normal market prices.

Some defend this system by pointing to the cost of research and development. It is true that developing new drugs is expensive and risky. But that explanation does not fully account for why older, widely used medications still carry extremely high prices in the U.S. or why prices vary so dramatically between countries. When the same drug can cost multiple times more depending on where you live, it becomes difficult to argue that science alone explains the difference.

The consequences are not abstract. High drug prices directly affect whether people take their medication consistently, whether families go into debt, and whether chronic conditions are properly managed. In some cases, patients ration essential drugs because they cannot afford full doses. That should not happen in any functioning healthcare system.

The core issue is not that pharmaceutical companies should not profit. Innovation matters, and research should be funded. The problem is that the balance has shifted too far toward pricing power without enough accountability. When life-saving medication becomes tied to extreme pricing structures, the system stops serving patients first.

Medicine should not operate under a model where affordability depends so heavily on insurance negotiations, rebates, or market leverage. A more transparent and regulated pricing structure would not eliminate innovation, but it would reduce the gap between what drugs are worth to produce and what people are forced to pay.

Until that gap is addressed, the price of medicine will remain one of the clearest examples of how a system built around profit can drift away from the people it is meant to serve.

Works Cited:

“Prescription Drug Prices in the United States.” UPI, 1 Feb. 2024, https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2024/02/01/prescription-drug-prices-RAND-report-Medicare/4301706817961/. Accessed 16 May 2026.

“Pharmaceutical Expenditure.” OECD Health at a Glance 2025, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2025, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025_8f9e3f98-en/full-report/pharmaceutical-expenditure_ab82eef9.html. Accessed 16 May 2026.

“Prescription Drug Prices in the U.S.” Disabled World, https://www.disabled-world.com/medical/pharmaceutical/us-drug-prices.php. Accessed 16 May 2026.

“The Rising Cost of Prescription Drugs.” NCBI Bookshelf, National Center for Biotechnology Information, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK611300/. Accessed 16 May 2026.

(Image: Бабель)

During the height of the Cold War, fear and competition between global superpowers drove the United States to pursue increasingly secretive and controversial scientific programs. Among the most disturbing was Project MKUltra, a covert operation led by the Central Intelligence Agency that aimed to explore mind control techniques through the use of drugs such as LSD. Conducted largely in the 1950s and 1960s, these experiments often involved unwitting participants, including mental patients, prisoners, and ordinary citizens. From a medical and ethical standpoint, MKUltra represents a profound violation of human rights and serves as a stark warning about the dangers of unchecked government power in scientific research.

At the core of MKUltra’s ethical failure was the complete absence of informed consent. Participants were frequently given powerful psychoactive substances, including LSD, without their knowledge or permission. In some cases, individuals were told they were receiving treatment, when in reality they were being used as test subjects in experiments designed to manipulate cognition and behavior. This directly violates the principle of autonomy, which requires that individuals have full knowledge of and voluntarily agree to any medical or experimental procedure. The deliberate deception used in MKUltra not only stripped participants of their rights but also undermined the trust essential to ethical medical practice.

The medical consequences of these experiments were severe. LSD and similar substances can profoundly alter perception, mood, and cognition, especially when administered in uncontrolled or repeated doses. Many subjects experienced intense psychological distress, including paranoia, hallucinations, and long term trauma. In extreme cases, these experiments contributed to lasting mental health issues and even death. From the ethical standpoint in experimentation that researchers should do no harm, MKUltra represents a clear and egregious failure. Researchers knowingly exposed individuals to significant risks without therapeutic intent, prioritizing experimental goals over patient welfare.

Another critical issue was the exploitation of vulnerable populations. Mental patients, in particular, were frequently targeted because they were less able to question authority or advocate for themselves. This raises serious concerns about justice and fairness in research. Ethical standards require that vulnerable groups receive additional protections, not increased exposure to risk. By deliberately selecting individuals with limited autonomy, MKUltra amplified its ethical violations and reinforced patterns of inequality within medical experimentation.

The secrecy surrounding MKUltra further compounded its ethical breaches. For years, the program operated without public knowledge or oversight, shielded by national security justifications. It was not until the 1970s, during investigations such as the Church Committee investigations, that the extent of the program began to emerge. Even then, many records had been destroyed, limiting full accountability. This lack of transparency highlights the dangers of allowing scientific research to proceed without independent review or ethical regulation.

In response to revelations about MKUltra and similar programs, stricter guidelines were established to protect human subjects in research. Institutional review boards (IRBs), informed consent requirements, and federal regulations now play a central role in ensuring ethical compliance. These safeguards are designed to prevent the kinds of abuses that occurred under MKUltra, emphasizing the importance of oversight, accountability, and respect for human dignity.

MKUltra still stands as one of the most troubling examples of unethical experimentation in modern history. By disregarding informed consent, inflicting psychological harm, exploiting vulnerable populations, and operating in secrecy, the program violated every major principle of medical ethics. While it contributed to reforms that strengthened research protections, its legacy is a reminder that scientific ambition and national security must never come at the expense of fundamental human rights.

Works Cited:

Tabor, Nick. "MK-ULTRA". Encyclopedia Britannica, 3 Mar. 2026, https://www.britannica.com/topic/MK-ULTRA  . Accessed 11 April 2026.

“CIA Mind Control Experiments (MKUltra).” National Security Archive, George Washington University, 2024, nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/intelligence/2017-08-15/cia-mind-control-experiments-mkultra.  Accessed 11 April. 2026.

 “Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room.” Central Intelligence Agency, www.cia.gov/readingroom/ . Accessed 11 April. 2026.

(Image: Byrdie)

In recent years, social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram have fueled an unprecedented obsession with skincare and makeup among younger teenagers. While self expression and care are important, dermatologists and pediatricians are increasingly concerned about the physical and psychological consequences of this trend. From a medical standpoint, the rise in intensive skincare routines raises questions about skin health, product safety, and the impact on adolescents’ developing bodies.

One of the primary dermatological concerns is overuse of products. Many teens are layering multiple serums, toners, exfoliants, and masks daily, often without understanding the science behind them. Over-exfoliation, particularly with chemical exfoliants containing alpha-hydroxy acids (AHAs) or beta-hydroxy acids (BHAs), can damage the skin’s protective barrier. This increases susceptibility to irritation, dryness, and even infections. Similarly, excessive use of retinoids or benzoyl peroxide commonly marketed as spot treatments can lead to redness, peeling, and long-term sensitivity if not supervised by a healthcare professional. From a dermatological perspective, a simpler, gentle routine is often safer and more effective, especially for teenage skin, which is naturally prone to oiliness and hormonal fluctuations.

Another concern is the early use of makeup. Many teens are experimenting with foundation, concealer, and heavy makeup before fully understanding proper hygiene. Shared applicators such as brushes or beauty blenders, infrequent cleansing, and prolonged wear can contribute to clogged pores, bacterial infections, and worsening acne. Dermatologists emphasize the importance of using non-comedogenic products, washing brushes regularly, and removing makeup before sleep. Failing to adhere to these basic principles can have lasting consequences for young skin.

The obsession with appearance also has psychological implications. Teens are exposed to constant messaging that flawless skin equates to social acceptance or personal value. This can exacerbate body image issues, anxiety, and low self esteem, particularly when social media platforms amplify unrealistic beauty standards. While dermatologists are trained to address physical concerns, pediatricians and mental health professionals must work alongside families to ensure that skincare and makeup use does not become a source of stress or harmful comparison.

Despite these concerns, not all trends are harmful. Skincare education can be essential to teaching teens to protect their skin with sunscreen, hydration, and gentle cleansing. These habits, if introduced responsibly, can foster a lifelong routine of healthy skin maintenance. The key lies in moderation, supervision, and critical evaluation of products marketed to an impressionable audience. Parents and healthcare providers can help teens distinguish science backed skincare from cosmetic marketing hype and if accessible and affordable, using a dermatologist is the best and most effective way to combat any skin troubles .

Works Cited:

Wright, Teresa, MD, FAAD, FAAP. “Trendy Skin Care for Tweens & Teens: Is It Safe?” HealthyChildren.org, American Academy of Pediatrics, 7 Aug. 2025, www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/teen/Pages/trendy-skin-care-for-tweens-and-teens-is-it-safe.aspx . Accessed 29 Mar. 2026 

“Teen Skin and How to Take Care of It.” WebMD, WebMD LLC, 16 Feb. 2024, www.webmd.com/teens/teen-skin . Accessed 29 Mar. 2026 

A Dermatologist’s Guide to Skincare from Growing Up to Glowing Up.” American Academy of Dermatology, 28 Oct. 2025, www.aad.org/news/dermatologist-guide-skincare . Accessed 29 Mar. 2026. 

“Teen Skincare.” Dermatology Consultants, www.dermatologyconsultants.org/teen-skincare/ . Accessed 29 Mar. 2026.

“Acne Treatments for Teens: Types, Benefits, Side Effects & More.” Healthline, Healthline Media, 18 Aug. 2022, www.healthline.com/health/skin-disorders/acne-treatment-for-teens . Accessed 29 Mar. 2026 

“Trendy Skincare: Why Pre-teens and Teens Should Stick to the Basics.” Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Nationwide Children’s, Mar. 2024, www.nationwidechildrens.org/family-resources-education/700childrens/2024/03/trendy-skincare. Accessed 29 Mar. 2026.

(Image: China Observers)

Vaccines have been at the center of public discussion for years, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. You have probably seen debates online or heard friends question whether vaccines are safe or necessary. It can be tempting to dismiss people who refuse vaccines as uninformed, but the reasons behind vaccine hesitancy are more complicated than they first appear. Understanding why some people hesitate, the risks of not vaccinating, and how to talk about vaccines effectively is essential if we want healthier communities.

Vaccines are one of the most effective ways to prevent serious illness. They prepare the immune system to recognize harmful viruses and bacteria without causing the disease. Thanks to vaccines, diseases such as polio, measles, and whooping cough are now rare in countries with high vaccination rates. If vaccination rates drop, these illnesses can spread rapidly, causing preventable suffering and even death.

There are several reasons why people avoid vaccines. Fear of side effects is one factor. Mild reactions such as soreness or a low fever are common, but serious complications are extremely rare. Misinformation also plays a large role. Social media, blogs, and celebrities sometimes spread false claims linking vaccines to long-term health problems. Many of these claims, such as the idea that vaccines cause autism, originate from studies that have been disproven or retracted. People may also distrust pharmaceutical companies or government agencies. Some worry that profit motives or politics influence health recommendations. While it is reasonable to question institutions, rejecting vaccines completely puts individuals and communities at risk. Vaccine hesitancy often comes from feeling overwhelmed, anxious, or disconnected from complex scientific information. Emotional reactions can outweigh facts when people feel uncertain about their choices.

The consequences of widespread vaccine refusal are serious. When many people are unvaccinated, herd immunity weakens and diseases spread more easily. Recent measles outbreaks in the United States show how even one community with low vaccination rates can endanger everyone, including children and adults who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. Choosing not to vaccinate affects not only the individual but also families, classmates, and neighbors.

Addressing vaccine hesitancy requires empathy and respect. People rarely change their minds when they feel judged or mocked. Listening to concerns first and then offering clear, fact-based explanations is much more effective. Sharing information from trusted organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the World Health Organization helps counter misinformation. Being transparent about how vaccines are tested, monitored, and approved can help reduce fear, build trust and go a longer way in educating people with the right information, so that they can make the right decision for themselves and their family. 

Vaccines save lives. They protect individuals and communities, prevent outbreaks, and reduce healthcare costs. Hesitancy often arises from fear, misinformation, or distrust, but it has real consequences. Understanding why people resist vaccines allows for more thoughtful and effective communication. Promoting vaccination is not about forcing anyone. It is about safeguarding public health and helping the most vulnerable stay safe.

Works Cited: 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “About Vaccine Safety.” CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/index.html#toc. Accessed 5 Mar. 2026.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Measles Data and Research.” CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html. Accessed 5 Mar. 2026.

Mayo Clinic News Network. “Preventing Measles Outbreaks in the U.S. Through Vaccination.” Mayo Clinic, https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/preventing-measles-outbreaks-in-the-us-through-vaccination/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2026.

World Health Organization. “Vaccines and Immunization Q&A.” WHO, https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/vaccines-and-immunization-what-is-vaccination.  Accessed 5 Mar. 2026.

(Image: Husson University)

Somewhere along the way, exhaustion became impressive. In high school culture, sleep deprivation is delivered like a credential. Four hours of rest turns into proof of discipline. Stacked schedules signal ambition. Overcommitment reads as drive. Academic burnout has been repackaged as dedication, edited into something aesthetic and admirable. However, it is important to note that chronic stress is not a badge of honor. It is a health risk and it needs to be recognized.

Burnout now functions almost like a personality trait. “I haven’t slept” sounds less like a concern and more like an impressive thing to flaunt. Packed planners, constant deadlines, and caffeine dependence become part of an identity. The busier the schedule, the stronger the social currency. In competitive academic environments filled with AP, IB, and honors courses, overload is normalized early. The “grind now, rest later” mentality does not begin in college. It starts in freshman year of high school where students are barely thirteen or fourteen years old. 

Social media accelerates the illusion. Study-with-me livestreams, 4 a.m. morning routines, meticulously color-coded notes, and energy drink collections create a curated version of productivity. What rarely appears on camera are panic attacks, migraines, or the blank stare that follows too many nights without sleep. Exhaustion is filtered and repackaged into something clean and controlled, and the struggle becomes something that is seen as aesthetic.

The medical reality looks very different. Burnout is not simply feeling tired after a long week. Prolonged academic stress increases cortisol levels, which affects memory, mood regulation, and immune function. Chronic sleep deprivation weakens concentration and slows cognitive processing, which hinder the very skills students are trying to sharpen and perfect. Anxiety disorders, depressive symptoms, and frequent illness often follow. Memory retention declines when rest disappears. It is important to be aware of the fact that the brain running on constant stress cannot operate at full capacity. The body eventually forces a brutal slowdown, whether through illness, breakdown, or disengagement.

The identity problem makes recovery harder. Nowadays, achievement becomes central to self-worth, and rest feels like failure to students. If grades define value, then stepping back feels dangerous. That fear fuels a cycle where stress is not only tolerated but defended. Admitting burnout starts to sound like admitting weakness.

Though, this culture runs deeper than individual ambition. College admissions have grown more competitive, extracurricular expectations have expanded to an astronomical level, and comparison is constant. Social media platforms expose students to curated excellence from around the world. Pressure for students no longer comes only from local classmates, it comes from global algorithms. In these environments, exhaustion becomes evidence of effort and is applauded. 

It is crucial to understand that there is a difference between working hard and eroding health. Sustainable achievement requires sleep, recovery, a moderate schedule, and clear boundaries. Without them, productivity declines rapidly without control.

Burnout is not proof of dedication. It is a signal that something is out of balance in one’s day to day life and schedule. Confusing self-destruction with ambition does not produce stronger students and instead produces depleted ones. Ambition should expand possibility, not shrink well-being!

Works Cited: 

“Academic Stress and Sleep Quality Among Adolescents.” PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36767585/ 

. Accessed 21 Feb. 2026. 

Fadlelmola, Faisal M. et al. “Factors Influencing Academic Burnout and Prevalence Rates in Education.” BMC Medical Education, Vol. 23, Article 4316, https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-023-04316-y 

. Accessed 21 Feb. 2026.

John, Tara et al. “Optimism and Well‑Being Linked to Academic Burnout in Adolescents.” BMC Psychology, Vol. 13, Article 3572, https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-025-03572-5 

. Accessed 21 Feb. 2026.

“Exam Stress Linked to Higher Risk of Depression, Self‑harm.” The Guardian, 12 Feb. 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/feb/12/exam-stress-higher-risk-depression-self-harm-study 

. Accessed 21 Feb. 2026.

“How Exam Pressure Affects Teenage Mental Health.” Times of India, India Times, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/parenting/moments/how-exam-pressure-affects-teenage-mental-health/photostory/126244797.cms 

. Accessed 21 Feb. 2026.

“Academic Stress and Burnout in Adolescents: A Systematic Review.” PMC, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10278958/ 

. Accessed 21 Feb. 2026.

(Image: The New York Times)

Transracial surgeries, procedures aimed at altering physical traits associated with race, have emerged as a controversial topic in recent years. These surgeries go beyond typical cosmetic procedures, raising complex questions about identity, ethics, and societal norms. While still rare, they have sparked debates that touch on medicine, psychology, culture, and human rights.

Historically, societies have placed immense pressure on individuals to conform to racialized beauty standards. Practices such as skin lightening, nose reshaping, or eyelid modification have existed in various cultures for decades, often motivated by social status, aesthetic ideals, or cultural assimilation. Transracial surgeries represent a modern, surgical extension of these longstanding pressures, amplified by globalization, media, and cosmetic technology.

From a medical perspective, transracial surgeries can include a range of interventions, both surgical and non-surgical. Examples include rhinoplasty to alter the nose shape, blepharoplasty (eyelid surgery), hairline modification, or procedures affecting skin tone and texture. While these procedures are often elective and cosmetic, they carry the same risks as other surgeries, including infection, scarring, and dissatisfaction with results. Non-surgical options, like chemical or laser treatments, present additional health considerations.

Psychological motivations for seeking transracial surgery are complex. Some individuals are influenced by cultural or societal beauty ideals, while others may perceive the changes as a way to enhance social mobility, acceptance, or personal identity. The decision to undergo such procedures can profoundly affect self-perception and mental health, making counseling and psychological evaluation important components of the process.

Ethically, transracial surgeries present challenging questions for medical professionals. While patient autonomy is a fundamental principle, these procedures risk reinforcing racial stereotypes and societal biases. Some ethicists compare transracial surgeries to gender-affirming surgeries, highlighting the tension between identity expression and social norms. Surgeons must navigate this fine line carefully, balancing respect for individual choice with the broader implications of perpetuating racialized ideals.

Legally, transracial surgeries generally fall under the same regulations as other elective cosmetic procedures. There is ongoing debate about whether they require additional oversight due to their social and ethical implications. Laws vary internationally, and professional guidelines differ, reflecting the lack of consensus on how to approach these highly sensitive interventions.

Public reaction to transracial surgeries has been mixed. Media coverage often sensationalizes cases, prompting intense discussions on social media and academic forums. Critics argue that such procedures perpetuate racial hierarchies and cultural appropriation, while supporters emphasize personal freedom and identity exploration. These surgeries provoke broader societal questions about race, representation, and acceptance.

Looking ahead, advances in cosmetic and reconstructive surgery may make transracial modifications more accessible, raising new ethical and cultural considerations. Policymakers, medical professionals, and society at large will need frameworks to balance technological possibilities, individual autonomy, and the potential social consequences of racial modification.

Transracial surgeries sit at the intersection of medicine, identity, and society, presenting both opportunities and challenges. While they reflect individual autonomy and advances in surgical capability, they also force a careful examination of cultural norms, ethical responsibilities, and social impact. As the conversation continues, it remains essential to approach the topic with sensitivity, nuance, and respect for both patients and the communities they navigate.

Works Cited: 

Tuvel, Rebecca. “Changing Identities: Are Race and Gender Analogous?” Blog of the American Philosophical Association, 6 July 2021, https://blog.apaonline.org/2021/07/06/changing-identities-are-race-and-gender-analogous/ . Accessed 20 Jan. 2026.

Wolf, Jessica. “Sociology Professor Examines the Pairing of the Terms Transracial and Transgender.” UCLA Newsroom, 9 Nov. 2016, https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/sociology-professor-examines-the-pairing-of-the-terms-transracial-and-transgender . Accessed 20 Jan. 2026.

Dembroff, Robin, and Dee Payton. “Breaking the Analogy Between Race and Gender.” Boston Review, https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/ . Accessed 20 Jan. 2026.

(Image: The New York Times)

Marijuana has become one of the most debated substances in the United States. In some states it is treated like a routine consumer product, while in others it remains tightly restricted. This split reflects confusion over whether marijuana should be seen as medicine, a harmless recreational drug, or a public health concern. While marijuana can play an important role in medical treatment, recreational use is not something society should encourage. Recreational marijuana harms the body, and the logic used to ban other dangerous substances/chemicals should apply here as well.

Recreational marijuana is legal in roughly half the states, while medical marijuana is legal in most of the rest. A small number of states still prohibit it entirely. This lack of consistency sends mixed messages, especially to teens and young adults. When something is legal in one state and illegal in another, it can seem like the risks are exaggerated or negotiable. In reality, the effects of marijuana on the body do not change based on geography.

Medical marijuana exists for a clear reason. It is used to help patients manage chronic pain, control seizures, reduce nausea from chemotherapy, and treat serious neurological conditions. In these cases, marijuana is not used casually. It is recommended by a doctor, monitored carefully, and taken with the goal of improving or saving a life. Medical use is about necessity, not convenience or entertainment. That distinction matters.

Recreational marijuana does not serve the same purpose. Using marijuana for pleasure exposes the body to unnecessary harm. Regular use can affect memory, attention, and learning. It can increase anxiety and worsen mental health conditions, particularly in people already vulnerable to them. Smoking marijuana can damage the lungs, and even non smoked forms still impact the brain and cardiovascular system. These effects are not rare or hypothetical. They are plainly documented and measurable.

Young adults and teenagers face the highest risk. The brain continues developing well into the mid twenties, especially areas responsible for decision making and impulse control. Recreational marijuana interferes with this development, which can lead to long term cognitive and emotional effects. Legal age thresholds do little to solve this problem. Setting the purchase age at 21 does not make recreational marijuana safe. It simply assumes that turning a certain age reduces biological risk, which is not true. Harm does not disappear at a legal cutoff.

Public health policy often focuses on prevention. The United States bans or restricts many chemicals once they are shown to cause harm. One clear example is DDT, a pesticide that was once widely used. After evidence linked it to cancer risks and environmental damage that affected human health, it was banned for the protection of the public. The same reasoning applies to recreational marijuana. When a substance causes measurable harm, limiting or banning its use is not extreme. It is responsible and just.

The argument that marijuana is natural does not make it harmless. Many natural substances are toxic or dangerous. Public health decisions are based on impact, not origin. Recreational marijuana use increases health risks without providing medical benefit. That makes it fundamentally different from medical marijuana, which is used when benefits outweigh risks.

Medical marijuana should remain available to patients who need it. Recreational marijuana, however, sends the message that harming the body for entertainment is acceptable. Society already recognizes the importance of protecting public health by regulating dangerous substances. Applying that same logic to recreational marijuana is not inconsistent and is rather logical.

In the end, this is not about demonizing a plant or its’ victims. It is about recognizing the difference between treatment and indulgence. Medical marijuana saves lives. Recreational marijuana puts them at risk. If public health truly matters, that distinction should guide the law.

Works Cited: 

Cannabis and Public Health Division. Cannabis Health Effects. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 Feb. 2024, https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/health-effects/index.html. Accessed 5 Mar. 2026. 

Cannabis FAQs. Cannabis and Public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/faq/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2026.

Cannabis Facts and Stats. Cannabis and Public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/data-research/facts-stats/index.html. Accessed 5 Mar. 2026.

State Medical Cannabis Laws. Cannabis and Public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 Feb. 2024, https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/about/state-medical-cannabis-laws.html. Accessed 5 Mar. 2026.

The Federal Status of Marijuana and the Policy Gap with States. Congress.gov, Library of Congress, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12270. Accessed 5 Mar. 2026. 

Association of State Cannabis Legalization With Cannabis Use Disorder and Cannabis Poisoning. JAMA Psychiatry, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2828352. Accessed 5 Mar. 2026

DDT: A Brief History and Status. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status. Accessed 5 Mar. 2026.

Marijuana Laws by State. Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/marijuana-legality-by-state-4844504. Accessed 5 Mar. 2026.

(Image: LinkedIn)

AI is becoming an increasingly important part of modern healthcare, and as its usage becomes more commonplace and reliable, it is expected not only to influence how medicine is practiced but also to change the industry as a whole. Many people have anxieties about whether AI can be trusted in healthcare or if it is entirely safe to use in clinical settings. However, healthcare professionals who trust and actively use AI emphasize that its goal in medicine is to support future doctors, not replace them.

AI, whether the public supports it or not, is already widespread in healthcare. Hospitals and clinics are using AI to analyze medical images, review patient records, and diagnose illnesses by identifying patterns in data. The growing use of AI is driven by the healthcare industry’s demand for faster, more accurate, and more efficient decision-making. Many professionals who support AI argue that it allows time-consuming and tedious tasks to be completed more efficiently, leaving doctors with more time to focus on patient care and human interaction rather than paperwork. This benefits not only patients but also doctors, whose already taxing and stressful jobs can be made easier through the use of AI, helping to reduce physical and mental burnout.

Despite these benefits and the strong support for AI among many professionals, one major concern is the risk of over-reliance on AI systems. In colleges and universities, the use of AI in assignments and learning has been shown to be potentially harmful. While not as extreme as portrayed on social media, AI can lower the writing and critical thinking skills of students who rely on it too heavily. Fortunately, most medical students tend to view AI as an administrative tool rather than a crucial clinical one. Future doctors are generally cautious about trusting AI outputs and rely more on their own critical observations than on AI systems. Many are also aware that AI can be biased and that improper use may leave patient data unprotected, increasing the risk of security breaches or misuse of sensitive medical information.

As technology continues to advance, healthcare will advance alongside it. These industries work closely together, and as AI becomes more integrated into healthcare, the role of the doctor will continue to evolve. Future doctors will need to consider which aspects of their work benefit from the support of artificial intelligence and which require independent human judgment. Above all, it is vital for future doctors to remember that human judgment, empathy, and communication can only come from another human. In their practice, they must value their own intelligence and decision-making above any technological tools while developing the skills needed to use AI responsibly and ethically.

Works Cited

Al-Antari, Mugahed A. "Artificial Intelligence for Medical Diagnostics-Existing and Future AI Technology!." Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) vol. 13,4 688. 12 Feb. 2023, doi:10.3390/diagnostics13040688 

"Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Health Care." Congress.gov, Library of Congress, 26 December 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48319 .

Dmulford. "AI in Higher Education: A Meta Summary of Recent Surveys of Students and Faculty." Campbell Academic Technology Services, 6 Mar. 2025, sites.campbell.edu/academictechnology/2025/03/06/ai-in-higher-education-a-summary-of-recent-surveys-of-students-and-faculty/ . Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Pearl, Robert. "In the AI Revolution, Medical Schools Are Falling behind U.S. Colleges." Forbes, 7 July 2025, www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2025/07/07/in-the-ai-revolution-medical-schools-are-falling-behind-us-colleges/ . Accessed 22 Dec. 2025.

Ukwuoma, Chiagoziem C et al. "A hybrid explainable ensemble transformer encoder for pneumonia identification from chest X-ray images." Journal of advanced research vol. 48 (2023): 191-211. doi:10.1016/j.jare.2022.08.021