As a resource of medical information, take into account that there are over 25,000 medical journals published worldwide. For most of us, it is an overwhelming volume of information.

Doctor Evidence is an independent user-friendly fee-based medical search service connecting patients and doctors to the latest in relevant information which can then lead to the formulation of informed decisions about medical treatments -- and avoid potentially deadly mistakes in misdiagnosis, treatment or surgery.

In 2000, Dr. Todd Feinman founded Doctor Evidence after undergoing unnecessary surgery for intestinal cancer. After surgery he was told that the test that led to surgery had been a false-positive. He did not have cancer.

According to Dr. Feinman, "Every year, hundreds of new therapies and diagnostic tests are introduced to treat the thousands of diseases that are afflicting millions of adults and children. Finding evidence about the most accurate diagnostic tests and effective treatments requires the proper resources. This includes specialized information technologies, subscriptions to medical databases, medical librarians, and much more that is not readily available to most doctors and patients."

Yesterday, Extra aired a feature about Dr. Feinman and the Doctor Evidence service. During the report, a patient who had been told he might have pancreatic cancer turned to the Doctor Evidence website only to find out that one of the high-niacin level medications he was taking was mimicking symptoms of pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer. You can view the video of the segment online here.

Doctor Evidence staff is comprised of doctors with expertise in evidence-based medicine, medical librarians with masters in library science, other professionals with expertise in healthcare, and information technology experts. To learn more, visit the Doctor Evidence website.

A report has been released by Breast Cancer Action (BCA), a grassroots education and advocacy organization, on the side effects of aromatase inhibitors (AIs). The report is called "Side Effects Revealed: Women's Experiences with Aromatase Inhibitors". The study analyzed 612 women's responses to an online survey of AIs and their side effects. You can find the report online at http://www.bcaction.org/AIreport.

The results showed that 92 percent reported at least one side effect. Nearly 30 percent reporting stopping the use of AIs--84 percent of those that stopped taking the drug reported that it was because of the intolerable side effects. Almost fifty percent of those that stopped taking the drug because of side effects complained of joint-related problems. Other side effects included stroke, cough, swelling of extremities, flu-like symptoms, and anxiety. Many women said they had joint related issues, vaginal atrophy and dryness and general pain.

Many of the women said they did not receive information about short or long term side effects from their physicians. Executive Director of BCA, Barbara Brenner, said "Patients know about the side effects before their doctors do--they experience them firsthand. Now that hundreds of women taking aromatase inhibitors have spoken, it's time for the medical research community to respond with additional research on the side effects of these drugs."

A previous post related to this topic:

Breast cancer survivors reject chemoprevention drugs

Minnesota tops state health rankings for the fourth straight year, according to the annual United Health Foundation report -- which also shows Americans are 0.3 percent healthier in 2006 than they were in 2005.

The United Health Foundation survey has been around for 17 years -- and for 11 of these years, Minnesota has been at the top of the healthy list.

Rankings are based on factors such as access to health care, incidence of preventable disease, smoking rates, child poverty rates, and motor vehicle deaths. Minnesota boasts a low rate of uninsured (8.4 percent), a low rate of child poverty (10 percent), and a low infant mortality rate (5.1 deaths per 1,000 live births).

The other states in the top five are Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii, and Connecticut. Louisiana was rated the least-healthy state and shares this spotlight with Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas.

A few states -- New Mexico, Idaho and West Virginia -- show declines in overall health. And others -- Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Kansas -- show the most improvement.

The evidence is stacking up. And it seems almost everyone will soon agree that exercising can help prevent a return of cancer for those who have already done battle with the disease.

The American Cancer Society just issued a report updating nutrition and physical activity recommendations for cancer survivors. Exercise tops the list of recommendations.

For some types of cancers, exercising for just one to three hours per week can lower the risk of cancer recurrence and death, as well as death from all causes. Exercise has also been shown to improve fitness, diminish fatigue, and boost quality of life for survivors.

The report also states that while a vegetarian diet may be healthful in some ways, there is no direct proof that the diet can prevent cancer recurrence. Survivors who do choose a vegetarian lifestyle should ensure they are receiving an adequate intake of nutrients.

A standard multivitamin and mineral supplement equivalent to 100 percent of the Daily Value can help survivors meet their nutrient needs when it's difficult to eat a healthy diet. Some supplements -- such as those high in folic acid or antioxidants -- may be harmful during cancer treatment.

According to the American Cancer Society, food safety is especially important for cancer survivors, especially during treatment that causes immunosuppression.

And then there's alcohol. Alcohol can affect the risk for new primary cancers and should be used sparingly -- or not at all.

High grade Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) is the most significant risk factor for prostate cancer. PIN is strongly predictive of adenocarcinoma and if its identified in a biopsy specimen then it warrants repeat biopsies to check for cancer. This preinvasive cancer does not seem to have an impact on the levels of PSA scores.

All doctors can do now is the watch and wait method with those diagnosed with PIN. A preliminary study has shown that Toremifene can decrease the incidence of prostate cancer in men diagnosed with this precancerous condition.

A study was done with 514 men who had been diagnosed with PIN and had no evidence of prostate cancer. They were randomized to daily treatment with Toremifene or placebo for twelve months. The researchers concluded that 6.8% of every 100 men had their prostate cancer prevented with Toremifene.

Having a precancerous condition is very stressful. Its like the sword is just hanging over your head waiting to drop. This medication and its use with PIN to prevent prostate cancer is in its early stages but it is hopeful because at the current time there is no treatment for PIN available.

Most current media reports have us believing that incidences of cancer are at epidemic proportions. What isn't making headlines is the fact that for many cancers, incidences of the disease are on the decline. This is what the American Council on Science and Health states as a result of a new report released from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, the American Cancer Society, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If only reports like this were splashed all over our newspapers and television screens -- instead of grim reports of increasing diagnoses and deaths -- then maybe the outlook on cancer would be a bit more hopeful.

Rates of colorectal cancer, uterine cancer, stomach cancer, and cervical cancer have all been declining for two years. Drops in cases are mostly attributed to lower rates of smoking, better screening, and better treatments. For men, lung cancer death rates have also fallen.

So not all incidences of all cancers have dropped -- but some have. And this should at least keep us hoping, dreaming, wishing for a day when cancer is not even loosely associated with the word epidemic. And it should surely be cause for at least some media coverage.

Some campaigns just make me sad. UK's Age Concern, a charity that works to promote the health and welfare of older citizens, has launched a campaign called Hungry To Be Heard because it seems nine of of ten nurses do not have time to make sure elderly patients are getting enough to eat during their stay in the hospital. As a result, over half of the elderly patients are at risk for malnutrition. As hospital patients, if the elderly are malnourished, they simply are not going to recover or heal as quickly; they are at greater risk for post-surgical complications and they suffer a higher rate of death.

When I first looked at my pathology report more than 18 months ago, it made little sense. Terms like Bloom Richardson Score and margins and Her2Neu were as foreign to me as the breast cancer that somehow invaded my body. So I read it over and over again and was eventually able to identify the basic meaning hidden within the four pages that detailed my disease. As it turned out, this report was my map. It led me in various directions for various treatments. It contained some roadblocks. It was sometimes confusing. And sometimes I got lost. There were some good and not-so-good stops along the way. And in the end, I reached my final destination -- in the land survival. And this is where I hope to stay. For a long time.

My map is not necessary anymore -- although I still look back at it. I've found that it makes more sense now that time has passed. I can interpret it more objectively, with more perspective and less emotion and fear. I am still learning about the disease that was removed from my breast. And I am realizing there was a lot I never really knew -- like these seven subjects -- when breast cancer was new and fresh and debilitating.

Summer surf and sand. Planning a day trip or weekend vacation at the beach? You could be putting yourself and your family at short-term and long-term health risk. From bacterial pollution to toxic chemicals, some of our beaches are dirty enough to cause serious concern.

In an effort to combat beach pollution, the Milford Environmental Concerns Coalition in Milford Connecticut, hosts a beachwater quality initiative called the Freedom Lawn Contest, recognizing local residents who show their commitment to protecting water quality by growing beautiful lawns and gardens without the use of chemicals, pesticides or fertilizers.

According to Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), every coastal state has a beach pollution problem. In 2000, the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) was passed by Congress, requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise the current health standards by October 2005. The FDA missed the deadline, and indicates it will not be able to finish updating the standards until 2011. The NRDC announced it is suing the EPA for failing to modernize the standards as ordered by Congress six years ago.

The NRDC has published a 349-page report, Testing the Waters 2006: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches, available as a PDF document.

My breast cancer friend Adriene -- who I wrote about on May 19 -- e-mailed me today about a friend of a friend who was just diagnosed with breast cancer. This friend -- Jen -- is 31 years old and just yesterday had a lumpectomy. Adriene asked if I could be in touch with Jen since, like her, I am young and I am a breast cancer survivor and I had a lumpectomy. So far, we are somewhat alike. And depending on the results of Jen's pathology report, we may be even more alike -- if she follows a path anything like mine that included chemotherapy and radiation therapy and Herceptin therapy -- or our paths might diverge from one another. Regardless, I feel a connection to this woman, much like I do with anyone with cancer whose path I cross, anyone who is sent my way, anyone who finds me for the sole purpose of support.

So I told Adriene in my return e-mail, "Yes, I will contact Jen." And I have already sent her an e-mail. And I hope when she reads it that she finds a trace of comfort, a hint of encouragement, a glimpse of hope that can somehow transform scared souls into confident spirits. I hope that she emerges from under the rock of breast cancer. Like I did. Like Adriene did.

In the 11th report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), children growing up in an affluent urban environment and children from rural areas are at higher risk for developing many cancers.

Researchers studied cancer clusters where leukemia and other childhood cancers were reported, and have come to the conclusion that affluent children are being raised in an environment that is too clean. Called the dirty hypothesis, children living in too sterile an environment where they are not exposed to infection have weak immune systems.

For rural children, infection brought in to the rural community by people from larger populated urban areas, might be causing genetic damage that leads to cancer.

With the exception of the processing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria, and Dounreay in Scotland, the researchers also state they found no general pattern of increased cancer incidence around nuclear plants.

The researchers feel confident in the reported results of this study. They invite further study into the hypothesis of their findings. The database was constructed from the National Registry of Childhood Tumours by staff of the Childhood Cancer Research Group in Oxford, and included 12,415 cases of childhood leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma and 19,908 cases of children with solid tumors registered under the age of 15 in England, Wales and Scotland from 1969 to 1993. To download the 160 page report, go here.

Michael Fumento is an author, journalist, and attorney specializing in science and health issues. And he has a lot to say about the Surgeon General's recent announcement that the second-hand smoke debate is over -- that second-hand smoke does in fact kill. Fumento believes that the debate is over means if you have your doubts, then keep them to yourself -- that the topic is not up for discussion any longer. But Fumento states that we should definitely have doubts -- about the effects of second-hand smoke and about what the Surgeon General has to say about it.

On July 9, over 40 climbers will ascend Mt. Shasta in northern California as part of the annual Breast Cancer Fund's Climb Against the Odds in support of breast cancer research. Mt. Shasta stands at 14,162 feet making this an impressive attempt by climbers such as Melinda Barnes, leukemia cancer survivor, who has raised  $11,200 dollars for the cancer foundation.

"As a leukemia survivor, I find this climb not only inspirational, but significant in bringing awareness to us all. The Breast Cancer Fund is the leading organization focused on identifying the causes of breast cancer and its connection with environmental cause," states Barnes.

The day before the climb, a Women's Wellness Panel will be held in the town of Mt. Shasta, with topics discussed including safe cosmetics, healthy lifestyle, detoxification, emotional connection, traditional, alternative and complementary healing modalities, practical and easy lifestyle changes.

Earlier this year, The Breast Cancer Fund published 2006 State of the Evidence, a comprehensive report linking chemicals in the environment including pesticides, radiation, hormone therapy agents, fossil fuel by products and ingredients in cosmetics to a significant increase in breast cancer risk.

We wish everyone great weather for the climb.

I'm never quite sure about what foods I should eat and what foods I should not eat. Sometimes I hear that fish is healthy and recommended and then I hear that I should not eat fish at all due to concerns such as mercury levels. It seems that opinion on certain foods -- like fish and carbohydrates and dairy items -- sways and changes, which leaves me uncertain about how I might approach my diet in the best possible way. But opinion on red meat seems to be getting more and more consistent -- as more and more studies indicate that red meat is associated with a variety of health problems. And now red meat appears to raise the risk of developing pancreatic cancer, according to a Swedish report in the International Journal of Cancer.

More than 61,000 women were studied for possible effects of meat, fish, poultry, and egg consumption. After 17 years, 172 of these women were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and researches say it's because of the red meat. I suppose this could have been a coincidence -- and these women were destined for their diagnoses regardless of diet. But researchers conclude that long-term consumption of red meat is associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer -- one of the most deadly cancers that is seldom detected at an early, curable stage.

The good news from this study -- there does not seem to be a connection between pancreatic cancer and the consumption of fish and eggs. And the consumption of poultry may actually cut the risk of pancreatic cancer.

In the continuing battle of the bulge, and realizing that more families eat out more often than ever before, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, commissioned a report to discover ways to stop the growing weight gain epidemic. Based on the Keystone Report, the FDA is recommending that restaurants cut back on portions, serve more fruits and vegetables and provide nutritional and caloric information with the meals they serve.

You can imagine how well this is going over with the 900,000 restaurants and other food establishments in this country. For a restaurant to implement what the government is suggesting they do, the report itself notes that the laboratory work needed to calculate the calorie content of a menu item can cost $100, or anywhere from $11,500 to $46,000 to analyze an entire menu. That is not taking into account any menu changes. But who exactly is making us fat?