White House press secretary Tony Snow says his resignation has nothing to do with cancer and everything to do with money. According to sources from the Bush administration, he will step down from his position. Snow, however, is not making an announcement at this time.

"I'm not going to be able to go the distance, but that's primarily for financial reasons." Snow said. "I've told people when my money runs out, then I've got to go."

Canadian researcher Evangelos Michelakis, associate professor of medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, has stumbled upon something quite remarkable -- a potentially new anti-cancer agent called dichloroacetate, or DCA.

DCA is nothing new -- it's long been used for treatment of rare metabolic disorders -- but using it to fight cancer puts an entirely new spin on the potential of this drug.

"This is one of the most exciting results I've ever had," Michelakis said. "But I can't be overenthusiastic until it works on a human."

Michelakis and his colleagues have successfully used DCA to shrink human lung, breast, and brain tumors in both lab rats and test tubes. And while this type of research may not ordinarily generate a lot of excitement, this specific study is creating a buzz because DCA has been safely used in humans for decades, without adverse side effects.

"One of the big concerns about drugs is that they can harm people but we already know this drug is safe," Michelakis says. "It doesn't even affect normal cells."

One of the fundamental premises of cancer biology is that mitochondria -- the energy producing units of cells -- are permanently damaged by cancer. What DCA does is revive the mitochondrial function, encouraging the death of cancer cells.

The overwhelming hope is that DCA will move right to human testing. But the overwhelming fear is that it will not -- because of economic reasons. There is no longer a patent on DCA so it is not owned by any one company. With little chance of one group making a large profit, there may be no incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in research.

Sadly, this drug -- that appears to work remarkably well -- may never benefit cancer patients. All because no one stands to make billions of dollars from it.

If we made no further progress in breast cancer research from this day on, the number of women dying from breast cancer five years from now would still drop substantially because we've progressed so much over the past few years, says MD Eric Winer in the October 2006 issue of Oprah magazine. Winer, director of the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, is right. There has been a lot of progress. Breast cancer research is on a roll. And here are seven reasons why.

Researchers are beginning to tell us that being overweight increases cancer risks for a number of cancers. But then being overweight increases our chances of developing a number of diseases. While there are all kinds of diets, and gurus who claim they know the way, the remedy for long-term weight loss isn't going to change -- it's all about moving more, and eating less.

But what if you are moving more and eating less and the pounds stubbornly refuse to fall away? Amy Paturel, an expert in nutrition and public health, recently reviewed the top ten reasons why when you do all the right things, you aren't getting the expected results. The ten reasons Paturel discusses that can prevent weight loss are lack of sleep, synthetic chemicals in the environment, weather effects in temperatures being too hot or too cold, not smoking, prescription medications, giving birth at an older age, natural selection and overweight parents having overweight children.

Of course, this doesn't mean you are doomed to weight gain or being overweight but it might mean that you will need to take a look at some of the possible causes of why you are experiencing weight gain and not experiencing weight loss.

Paturel goes into an explanation of each of these causes in Ten More Fat Factors: It's Not Just the Cupcakes.

Just before my treatment for breast cancer began and during a consultation about what chemotherapy drugs I was about to receive, my oncologist stepped away from my exam room to check on something. When she returned to the room, she told me that she was determining whether or not I qualified for a clinical trial. I had no idea what this meant at the time. All I knew was what she told me -- that my prognosis was too good at that moment to qualify for anything currently under study. I did not fit a profile for anything. I was not a candidate for a clinical trial.

I now know that clinical trials are a critical component of research -- they validate a drug's success or weakness and they provide hope for many who may be at the end of their treatment rope and need something new to consider. A clinical trial is a comparison of standard treatments to newer treatments in an effort to discover better methods for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Doctors, scientists, and other health professionals conduct these tests according to strict guidelines set by the Food and Drug Administration -- which establishes mandatory guidelines to ensure the maximum safety of the patient.

Clinical trials rely on volunteers -- and sadly, there is a current shortage of patients willing to participate in trials. Experts say that, for the past few decades, just five to 10 percent of all cancer patients in the United States have joined a clinical trial. There is an urgent need -- because the demand for willing, eligible participants far exceeds the supply. Some experts are even recommending that the small pool of candidates that does exist be rationed to only the most important cancer studies -- leaving other studies with no hope for completion. There is no good solution in sight. But the reasons for the shortage are becoming apparent. It's not that patients are unwilling to join. It's that they are unaware, uninformed, not even sure this opportunity is possible -- because doctors are not suggesting trials to their patients. Treatment on a protocol is more demanding for doctors than routine medical care. And it costs doctors to submit to a trial. And trials burden doctors with regulations and paperwork. And some doctors worry about litigation if something experimental goes wrong. So they often don't approach the topic -- and the result is that a wonder drug may sit in a dark freezer because there are not enough people to test it. This potential wonder drug may never show promise, may never save a life, may never see the light of day.

So I guess my oncologist was ahead of the game in this matter -- she compared my diagnosis and prognosis with the needs of all available clinical trials and found that there was not match. Had she not done this, I would have never thought to ask about the possibility -- which is exactly what patients should do instead of waiting for a doctor to make the suggestion. Because it may never happen.

For more information on clinical trials, please visit the Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups.