Ta Application Orange & Demo.Pdf - Child Care Services: Fill & Download for Free

Firstly, being an international student, Congratulations on being admitted to Georgia Tech. In undergrad, there’s not too many of us here.Step 1: Pick Georgia Tech over NYU and BU. There’s no comparison. You’re comparing apples to oranges here.I am an international student here and this is all I can tell you, most of which others have already told you. Financing school can be very difficult given that we spend 40–70 times the amount in dollars, in our currency for every single thing here. However, it really depends on your situation. Based on yours, I have some alternatives and answers below.Case 1: You can somehow arrange the resources but will graduate with heavy debt(Which is perfectly fine).Case 2: simply cannot afford to pay for college and can’t even get a loan.If you are in Case 1, here’s a way out to reduce costs:You can get a job here during the semesters to pay for everyday expenses, an RA job from your sophomore year to pay your rent and summer internships to help pay some amount of your tuition. Moreover, you can do 2 semesters abroad and save on costs there too. It’s very common for students to do Co-Ops, work for a semester, study for a semester, and so on, to pay for college. It takes longer to graduate but it’s so worth it. You will have incredible experience, an amazing resume and will be able to study in peace.If you still find it to be too expensive, come to GT first, get a high GPA for the first year and try to transfer out to one of the need blind IVY league schools. Georgia Tech is hard school and this is something all the other schools know. A high GPA here holds value, and so will your story of not being able to afford it. This could be one way out.My father studied at Georgia Tech too and came in here with almost no resources. His father ran a small cloth store in India. He would do odd jobs and work as a TA, while maintaining a high GPA and got through college that way. I know it will be hard but you can make it happen. It’ll be worth it.If you’re in Case 2:I initially studied in a state board school in India, then home schooled, then went to an IB school, then went to UMass Amherst and later transferred to Georgia Tech. From my experience, one thing I can tell you is, science does not change across schools. If you’re passionate about what you’re doing, you will do work which is as good as someone of your caliber even at MIT. So if due to financial reasons now, you can’t come here. It is OK. The fact that you got admitted to GT speaks volumes about you. So if you have to be home and study there and come here for Grad. school, no big deal. Most good grad schools offer full scholarships to international students so you should be set.Try to make things work out. If they don’t, accept it with an open mind and approach college in your home country with the same enthusiasm as you would here. Work hard and keep slaying.

Yes, but it is MUCH less effective in growing hair than using an approved hair loss drug (Minoxidil, Finasteride), it is many times more costly and bothersome.Let me elaborate.Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous product “produced” via the process of patients’ plasma so that platelets will release growth factors from alpha granules.The first publications on the field of autologous Platelet rich plasma growth factors appeared in 1970 with the publication of Matras 1 and Stiles et al. 2 and carried on during the next decade with the classic papers of Pierce et al. 3,4Main indications of PRP in surgery were initially hemostasis, healing and tissue adhesion, via the fibrin glue produced by PRP products. Subsequent studies in Orthopedics and Dentistry proved the role of PRPs in bone5 and dental healing. 6Man et al. 7 (2001) and Bhanot et al. 8 (2002) published their findings on PRPs aesthetic applications, changing the field and overall Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery for ever.BUT,the fact that PRP has been proven useful in some fields of Medicine but that does not automatically mean they may be used “for all kinds of diseases or illness”. 9Apart from theories and ... hopes, the exact mechanisms of action via which PRP could promote the growth of hair follicles have not been studied. Most publications on the potential action of PRP in hair growth refer to in vitro conditions or applications in lab animals.Data on the PRP action on hair follicles are very limited and important elements are missing regarding their realistic clinical implementation on the scalp:‣ We do not know the “optimum range” of PRP for hair growth. Although all PRP products are based on centrifugation and separation of platelets from other cellular components of the blood, each system uses different PRP centrifugation and isolation parameters, which dramatically affect the final product.10‣ We do not know other necessary parameters, such as which anticoagulant must be used and which is the necessary activator, in order to produce the proteins we want and, moat importantly, not to produce some that we do not want. We may know the above details for PRPs in other applications11 (tissue regeneration, healing, osteosynthesis), but this does not automatically mean that these parameters may also be used on hair follicles.‣ Not all PRPs are identical and equally effective!12 Differences in the processing methods lead to different properties and occasionally to opposite biological actions, that is hair loss!‣ We do not know how often we should perform PRP injections on the scalp. Every 3 days? Every week? Every 15 days?‣ We do not know the “density” of the injections, i.e. according to alopecia stage or the size of alopecic surface? One injection/1cm2? One injection/5cm2? Equally “dense” on totally bald and on slightly thin surfaces or otherwise?‣ We do not know for how long should these injection be performed. 6 months? 1 year? For ever?Therefore, there are no substantiated data on the clinical application of PRPs in Androgenetic Alopecia and … guidelines proposed by companies who sell PRP production devices are completely arbitrary!13On the contrary, we know the following:‣ Hair growth effectiveness of PRP is lower of the approved pharmaceutical substances, since use of Minoxidil or Finasteride results in greater hair growth in comparison to the available results of PRPs.‣ We know that the cost for the patient will definitely be higher in comparison to prescribing approved hair loss drugs!‣ We know that that scalp injections injure neighboring hair follicles, create micro-scars and are related to local infections, unless the technique is fully aseptic, which requires shampooing the patient with Betadine solution, which is hardly a pleasant experience and very few doctors will be willing and will find the time to undertake.‣ We know that patients are afraid of needles14, injections are painful, the patient will need to significantly change his/her schedule in order to pay regular visits to the doctor and that the whole process is unpleasant, costly and will result in low patient compliance.‣ We know that low compliance leads to worse results than expected.‣ We know it is unethical to apply non-approved treatments with documented inferior results in comparison to approved treatments and this may even be a cause for legal prosecution of the doctor in case of complications. It is not possible that a patient might even accuse a doctor for causing him/her extra hair loss with … the injections and then the doctor will be unable to prove his/her innocence!So, regardless of how many doctors offer these treatments and the claims they make, the truth is that PRP has NOT proven its value and should not be followed as a first line hair loss treatment, probably only as a 3rd line, if everything else has failed!Κωνσταντίνος Αναστασάκης MD, PhD, Χειρουργός Κεφαλής & Τραχήλου, Ωτορινολαρυγγολόγος, Διδάκτωρ Ιατρικής Σχολής Δημοκρίτειου Παν/μιου Θράκης1. Matras H. Effect of various fibrin preparations on reimplantations in the rat skin. Osterr Z Stomatol. 1970 Sep;67(9):338-592. Stiles CD, Capone GT, Scher CD, Antoniades HN, Van Wyk JJ, Pledger WJ. Dual control of cell growth by somatomedins and platelet-derived growth factor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979 Mar;76(3):1279-833. Pierce GF, Mustoe TA, Lingelbach J, Masakowski VR, Griffin GL, Senior RM, Deuel TF. Platelet-derived growth factor and transforming growth factor-beta enhance tissue repair activities by unique mechanisms. J Cell Biol. 1989 Jul;109(1):429-404. Pierce GF, Mustoe TA, Altrock BW, Deuel TF, Thomason A. Role of platelet-derived growth factor in wound healing. J Cell Biochem. 1991 Apr;45(4):319-265. Marx RE, Carlson ER, Eichstaedt RM, Schimmele SR, Strauss JE, Georgeff KR. Platelet-rich plasma: Growth factor enhancement for bone grafts. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998 Jun;85(6):638-466. Whitman DH, Berry RL, Green DM. Platelet gel: an autologous alternative to fibrin glue with applications in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997 Nov;55(11):1294-97. Man D, Plosker H, Winland-Brown JE. The use of autologous platelet-rich plasma (platelet gel) and autologous platelet-poor plasma (fibrin glue) in cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Jan;107(1):229-378. Bhanot S, Alex JC. Current applications of platelet gels in facial plastic surgery. Facial Plast Surg. 2002 Feb;18(1):27-339. Sánchez-González DJ, Méndez-Bolaina E, Trejo-Bahena NI. Platelet-rich plasma peptides: key for regeneration. Int J Pept. 2012;2012:53251910. Roukis TS, Zgonis T, Tiernan B. Autologous platelet-rich plasma for wound and osseous healing: a review of the literature and commercially available products. Adv Ther. 2006 Mar-Apr;23(2):218-3711. Anitua E, Sánchez M, Orive G, Andía I. The potential impact of the preparation rich in growth factors (PRGF) in different medical fields. Biomaterials. 2007 Nov;28(31):4551-6012. Αnitua E, Sánchez M. We cannot take oranges for apples in the field of platelet-rich plasma products. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012 Apr;22(2):147-813. Rogers N. Commentary on Autologous platelet-rich plasma: a potential therapeutic tool for promoting hair growth. Dermatol Surg. 2012 Jul;38(7 Pt 1):1047-814. Sokolowski CJ, Giovannitti JA Jr, Boynes SG. Needle phobia: etiology, adverse consequences, and patient management. Dent Clin North Am. 2010 Oct;54(4):731-

Modern color scientists accept that there are four perceptual primaries or unique hues: red, yellow, green, and blue, and that they work in opposing pairs, red/green opposing each other and yellow/blue opposing each other (since there are no yellowish blues and greenish reds). This theory was proposed by Ewald Hering and before him Leonardo da Vinci and has been accepted as dogma based the work of Leo Hurvich and Dorothea Jameson (Lennie 2000 p 579, Sekuler & Blake 2002). Hurvich (1981) cites five lines of evidence as a basis of this theory, but none of them stood up to later scrutiny. Most notably, Hurvich claims that afterimages and simultaneous color contrasts follow this opponency system when in fact, as shown meticulously by Ralph Pridmore (2008), they follow their complementary colors (their opposites on the color circle, producing white when added to each other: red/cyan, green/magenta, yellow/blue).An opposing viewpoint is that green is not a unique primary but composed of yellow and blue. Accordingly, no two primaries are opponents; only the combination of all three primaries can't go together. This three-primary viewpoint has been the widespread color theory in the 17th and 18th century, held by great minds such as Robert Boyle, and is referred to as the "painter's primaries" (MacEvoy 2005). Thomas Young also originally proposed his trichromatic theory based on these three primary colors (Boynton 1979, p 15).Proponents of the accepted dogma say that the notion of green being composed of blue and yellow simply comes from people’s experience with mixing blue and yellow paints (Palmer 1999, pg. 109). However, this does not fully explain it. It is hard to imagine, that a child who grew up mixing lights instead of paints would feel that yellow subjectively has green and red components.In fact, the idea that green is less unique than red, yellow, and blue is universal. In the World Color Survey (WCS, http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/wcs/data.html) 330 colored “Munsell chips” were presented to an average of 24 speakers each of 110 unwritten languages from non-industrialized societies and they were asked to name them and then pick out the one chip that best represents that name. Out of all 110 languages many had words for purple and some for orange, but not a single one had a word for yellow-green or blue-green (Kay 1999). (Similarly in English although Chartreuse and cyan are sometimes used technically to describe these colors they are not popular words). Likewise Isaac Newton categorized the colors of the spectrum into red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. Although he counted orange and violet (and also indigo, but that’s a different discussion) as colors, he did not count yellow-green and blue-green. Thus, green behaves like a secondary color in that yellow-green and blue-green don't get names as don't yellow-orange, red-orange etc.. Furthermore, the WCS found that many languages have a word that covers blue through green and a few have a word that cover yellow through green, but none have a word that covers red, blue and the purples (Kay 1999). This also indicates that green is similar to blue and to yellow. However, there are also a few languages that have a word that covers red through yellow. Interestingly, this indication that yellow and red are similar and thus orange is less unique and less worthy of a name then purple is consistent with the fact that purple is much more common in languages than orange (Kay 1999). Also, the Munsell color system classifies five hues: RYGBP (Kuehni 2004). Likewise Aristotle, according to a very loose translation, classified seven colors: RYGBP, black and white (see Kuehni 2005; pp 133, 150). Even in English the color name orange is much more recent then purple, and before the orange was brought to England the color did not have a unique name but was called geoluhread (yellow-red) (Kenner 2006). However, yellow and red are not as similar to each other as yellow and green, as indicated by the languages (and Newton) that do classify orange as a color. In conclusion, not all unique hues are equally unique. Green is the least unique of the four RGYB, then purple, orange (then blue-green…).ReferencesBoynton RM (1979). Human Color Vision. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Hurvich LM (1981). Color vision. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MAKay P (1999). Asymmetries in the distribution of composite and derived basic color categories. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 , pp 957-958.Kenner TA (2006). Symbols and their hidden meanings. New York: Thunders Mouth. p. 11.Kuehni, RG (2004). Variability in unique hue selection: A surprising phenomenon. Color Research and Application 29, 158–162.Kuehni, RG (2005). Color : an Introduction to Practice and Principles (2nd edn). Wiley-Interscience, New Jersey.Lennie P (2000). Chapter 29. In: Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed. Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessel TM, eds. McGraw Hill, New York, p 579.MacEvoy B (2005). <http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color6.html#painters>Palmer S E (1999) Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.Pridmore RW (2008). Chromatic induction: Opponent color or complementary color process? Color Res Appl 2008;33:77–81.Sekuler R, Blake R (2002). Perception, 4th Ed., McGraw Hill, New York.