Professor Richard Dawkins, writer and biologist, says that "we live in dangerous times when superstition is gaining ground and rational science is under attack."

We have all heard the conspiracy theories about how the scientific community and our health care professionals want to hide the cure for cancer in order to make money. They don't want a cure, they say. Isn't that just a bit ridiculous when all of the people in those industries most certainly knows or loves someone who has gone through a cancer diagnosis. Does that make any sense?

The professor also says that "There are two ways of looking at the world - through faith and superstition, or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence, through reason".

This article can be found at Quackwatch.com. It is important to me to get out information on what constitutes as alternative medicine and why it can be fraudulent. Consumers need to be aware. You will inevitably come across those that promote cures for cancer and other ailments.

In the article Steven Barrett, MD classifies Alternative medicine in three different ways:

1. Genuine -- these alternatives have met science based criteria for safety and effectiveness
2. Experimental -- these alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation.
3. Questionable -- these alternatives are groundless and lack a scientifically plausible rationale.

Another way Dr. Barrett describes the different alternatives methods are:

1. Those that work
2. Those that don't work
3. Those we are not sure about

Most of the alternatives fall into the --Those we are not sure about category.

.

The career path in scientific and medical research is a long, hard road. Four years of undergraduate work in a science, including laboratory research. Four to six years of graduate work or medical school. Postdoctoral fellowships for a few more years after that. I truly believe that pursuing a career in research science is a calling, a vocation.

From their website, The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation's main goal is "identifying and encouraging extraordinary young scientists to commit themselves to arresting cancer's devastating legacy. The Foundation is dedicated to identifying generations of truly innovative investigators in cancer research - scientists that approach questions from totally new directions, challenge existing dogma, and think outside the box."

The Foundation has recently awarded 18 postdoctoral awards in their 2007 Postdoctoral Fellows program. Congratulations to all the winners and thanks to all researchers who dedicate their lives to furthering our understanding of the cell in the ultimate quest for more and better approaches to cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment.

Danielle S.W. Benoit, PhD, Maya Capelson, PhD, Lea A. Goentoro, PhD, Michael D. Gordon, PhD, Ryan C. Heller, PhD, Thomas M. Huckaba, PhD, Melissa R. Junttila, PhD, L'szl' K'rti, PhD, David S. Matus, PhD, Yunsun Nam, PhD, Cara T. Pager, PhD, Katharina Schlacher, PhD, Heather M. Scobie, PhD, Sarah E. Siegrist, PhD, Karsten H. Siller, PhD, Tao Wang, PhD, Kathryn E. Wellen, PhD, Yu Wong, MD, PhD

For more information on these researchers and their work, please see here.

"If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster." - Isaac Asimov

Famous quotations can provoke powerful messages and thought. As individuals, we can read the same quotes but give to it totally unique meanings. This quote means to me -- that if I was to find out that my cancer recurred, I would still need to carry on, hold my head up and keep going. Live life to the fullest.

I started to think about what the author of this quote was saying about himself. I wondered what it meant in his own life. Issac was a science fiction writer who died in 1992. I think that maybe since he was a writer, upon learning of his death, would want to tell more stories, finish ones he already started or just get all of him that he could into this life as a legacy for him to leave behind. I couldn't know what was really in Issac's mind and I can't know whats in yours but many times we can read these messages and connect with them.

I do know that sometimes reading quotes -- is like poetry to me.

Cancer on my mind is an article written by Dr. Albert Lim Kok Hooi, a consultant oncologist. He opens his article by saying:

As a doctor, I am interested in how the human mind works. As an oncologist, I am interested in the lure of alternative medicine. And so I have tried to understand why, in spite of all the scientific evidence at hand, there are many amongst us who do not want to undergo conventional cancer treatment – surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and targeted therapy – but instead risk being treated by unproven and potentially dangerous alternative therapies.

He goes on to say that this happens because sometimes science is not very well understood. He talks about confirmed bias, a phenomenon in cognitive science, the science of how the mind works. He describes it as a person that -- notices the hits and ignores the misses in support of his own beliefs. So, basically someone might have a strong bias against chemotherapy, for no other reason than what they have seen on television, without really knowing the true facts.

Don Herbert, also known as television's science teacher Mr.Wizard, died at his home Tuesday of bone cancer. He was 89.

Mr. Wizard's target audience was kids (baby boomers: you may already know this) and his lessons taught youngsters to use the thinking skills of scientists through workshop experiments using simple household items. His 1950s series Watch Mr. Wizard was so good it won a Peabody Award in 1954, and Herbert was one of David Letterman' first guests when the show Late Night With David Letterman debuted in 1982. Herbert's show made it to Nickelodeon too and ran from 1983 to 1991. Reruns were shown until 2000. Nickelodeon's Mr. Wizard episodes are available here.

A native of Waconia, Minnesota, Herbert graduated from LaCrosse State Teachers College in 1940; served as a U.S. Army Air Corps pilot during World War II; and worked as an actor, model, and radio writer before reaching fame on Mr. Wizard in Chicago -- and then New York -- on NBC.

He is survived by six children and stepchildren and by his second wife, Norma.

Remember that old saying -- An apple a day keeps the doctor away? Well, it seems that an apple peel a day might keep cancer at bay, according to a new study.

A dozen compounds have been found called triterpenoids. These compounds found in the peel of an apple either inhibit or kill cancer cells in lab cultures.

"We found that several compounds have potent anti-proliferative activities against human liver, colon and breast cancer cells and may be partially responsible for the anti-cancer activities of whole apples," says Rui Hai Liu, Cornell associate professor of food science.

Previous studies have shown that apples not only fight cancer cells in the laboratory but they also have shown to reduce the number and size of mammary tumors in rats.

So, don't peel those apples. Eat the whole thing!

Along the pike comes a new product designed to send us an alert when we've had too much sun.

Think about this:

There are some fun and fancy bracelets on the market that change color when it's time to seek shade.

UV Sol Beads, made with UV-detective pony beads and a removable fashion bead, feature off-white beads that remain off-white whenever there is an absence of UV light. When exposed to UV light, the intensity of the beads' color increases as the amount of exposure increases.

Daniel Sieberg, science and technology correspondent for CBS News and blogger for Tech Talk recently went searching for online sites offering help and hope for those seeking insight into the world of cancer.

Sieberg went about his search by typing into Google the word cancer. Thrown back at him were more than 250 million results. Overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information and misinformation, Sieberg sifted and sorted through everything that faced him -- and he narrowed down the results to his favorite five.

Sieberg is right on with his picks, and while I personally would have included The Cancer Blog as a source loaded with accurate, reliable, and inspiring information, I still commend Sieberg for so effectively hunting down some very good cancer resources. For what it's worth, I happen to highly recommend them myself.

American Cancer Society
National Cancer Institute
WebMD
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Leroy Sievers Blog

Today I offer you not so much a Thought for the Day but a Question for the Day. Before I ask my pressing question, though, I want you to consider this story.

Diagnosed with a rare malignant melanoma on her retina in 2001, Ann Guthrie, a South Carolina wife and mother of two grown sons, endured radiation and chemotherapy. The treatments shrunk Guthrie's tumor, but another mass appeared two years later, forcing the removal of her right eye.

At about the same time Guthrie lost her eye, cancer was discovered in her lungs. It was inoperable. Then cancer landed in her brain. And now, without any approved treatment avenues, Guthrie is out of options.

Like many people with terminal illnesses, this woman is willing to try just about anything -- a clinical trial, experimental drugs, risky treatments -- to extend her life. If she's going to die anyway, why not? She just might live longer. And if she doesn't, she could at least help advance science by offering herself up as a sort of guinea pig.

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed changes that would make it easier for patients to access options like these, it's just not that simple right now.

There are ethical issues -- like weighing the needs of people who think anything is better than death against the need of society to prove drugs and treatments work safely. The only way to ensure a sort of balance is through clinical trials -- and letting anyone participate in clinical trials, for example, would make the results harder to interpret.

And there are medical and legal risks. What if terminally ill patients end up in worse shape after a treatment with an experimental drug, for example? What if the FDA or a physician is considered responsible for adverse drug reactions?

Denying terminal patients their last bits of hope is difficult. "It's a hard discussion to have with a patient and his family," says one doctor. "There's a lot of tears. We all would love to be able to get them access to some form of therapy."

And now for my question:

What do you think about terminally ill cancer patients and their access to anything that might extend -- or save -- their lives?

Researchers have found that when cells become cancerous, they become 100 times more likely to genetically mutate than non-cancerous cells. This explains why tumor cells have so many mutations. Good news on the research front. But bad news on the treatment front -- because therapies that target a certain gene may be largely ineffective in controlling cancer.

"This is very bad news, because it means that cancer cells in a tumor will have mutations that protect them from therapeutics," says lead researcher Dr. Lawrence Loeb, professor of pathology and biochemistry at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, who presented his findings February 18 at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco.

Loeb says chemotherapy drugs target specific oncogenes -- genes that affect the malignancy of a cell -- but if cancer cells are mutator cells, then a single tumor may have cells with all sorts of oncogenes. And while chemotherapy may kill some cancerous cells, millions of others will live on.

It's not all bad news, though, says Loeb who believes this research may help doctors determine the stage and malignancy of tumors by testing the number of mutations. It may also help researchers understand what makes a cancer cell a mutator and how to slow the rate of mutation.

"The idea is that if you might normally get exposed to something in the environment at 20 years old that would give you cancer by age 55, then if we cut the mutation rate in half, you might not get cancer until age 90, and you may even die of something else before that," Loeb explained.

The American Cancer Society has happily announced that cancer deaths have declined for the second straight year. This is big news -- mostly because our population is growing and aging and it's entirely possible this could have led to an increase in cancer deaths. Not only is this not true, but the drop in deaths for this second year is eight times greater than the drop during the first year. Amazing.

It's hard to imagine in light of this great news that there are still less hopeful statistics out there on the cancer front. But there are so many dimensions to this disease -- prevention, detection, diagnosis, treatment, survival -- that the numbers can vary tremendously depending on perspective.

From the perspective of diagnosis, one in two men and one in three women in America today will develop cancer during their lifetimes. These staggering statistics, based on data collected during 2001 through 2003, are detailed in a pivotal paper appearing in The Oncologist -- a monthly peer-reviewed journal for doctors devoted to cancer patient care.

Dr. Matthew Hayat and colleagues, who worked on this paper for the National Cancer Institute, reveal other worrisome numbers and facts.

It seems the number of new cancer patients is expected to more than double from the current 1.36 million in 2000 to almost 3 million in 2050. Five-year survival for all cancer stages combined ranges from as low as 16 percent for lung cancer patients to 100 percent for prostate cancer patients. And black Americans are reported to have the highest cancer incidence and mortality rates for men and women for all cancers combined.

So while less people are dying from cancer, diagnosis of the disease seems to be on the rise. Not exactly a perfect scenario -- but if science and research can keep up, perhaps those diagnosed with cancer will need to prepare not for death, but for the management of a chronic condition.

Four weight loss pill marketers were fined millions of dollars by The Federal Trade Commission for making false advertising claims. The claims ranged from rapid weight loss to reducing the risk of cancer.

The weight loss pills can still be sold on the market but the companies will have to stop making the false claims that they have no scientific evidence to back up. The fines were against four products, Xenadrine EFX, One A Day Weight Smart, Cortaslim and Trimspa.

FTC Commissioner Deborah Platt Majoras said on the Today Show that the FTC investigation found that the marketers of Xenadrine did have a study that said those who took a placebo actually lost more weight than those taking Xenadrine. They not only did not have a study to support their claims but had a study that went the other way!

"Testimonials from individuals are not a substitute for science," Majoras said. "And that's what Americans need to understand."

I drove by the farm-like land for years and years, watching horses from my car window on my way to class, to the university hospital, to other parts of town. I was first a college student, merely noting the vast property. And then I was a mom with two little boys and a definite interest in this acreage. I acquired a passion for this corner lot -- across from the Cancer Center that ten years later became a typical haunt -- and I often found myself driving, pointing, gesturing, shouting, "horses, horses, look at the horses."

There are not many horses left on this land. There is, however, one very large building with a very important sign announcing its presence on the University of Florida campus. The sign reads, Cancer and Genetics Research Complex -- and what a complex it is.

On November 15, officials dedicated this $84.5 million, 280,000 square-foot facility, promising the University of Florida will be at the forefront at cutting-edge cancer research.

A five-story cancer research wing and a six-story genetics research wing are just two of the multidisciplinary entities housed in this new complex, designed to maximize collaborations among researchers and to convert science into innovative cancer therapies and technologies.

"This building is bricks and mortar, but it's much more than that, because it really provides hope for cancer patients, who know that we're going to do the research, we're going to find the answers, we're going to help them," says the director of the UF Shands Cancer Center.

I am one of those cancer patients. And while I'm sad for the horses who lost their homes and my boys who can no longer admire these creatures, I am happy for the beacon of hope that sits prominently on the farm-like land I've been watching for years and years.

Flowers can lift spirits, brighten days, and heal hurting souls. They can actually make us healthier too. And while there is not a lot of science backing this fact just yet, it's long been understood that flowers really do help us Get Well Soon.

In ancient Egypt, physicians ordered walks in gardens for patients with psychological problems. Currently, horticultural therapy is a well-established method of rehabilitation for patients with physical and mental difficulties. Medical institutions all over have created flowering spaces intended as therapeutic gardens. One study determined that 100 percent of women presented with a flower bouquet reacted with a genuine smile that involves the eyes and the mouth and indicates changes in the brain. There was no such common happiness reaction among women presented with other gifts. Further studies found that men also reacted positively to flowers. A study of cardiac patients found flower therapy improved mood and lowered heart rates, possibly reducing stress that contributes to heart disease. It seems some patients seem to forget about their pain when strolling through gardens. They forget about their pain medication too. One flower expert's research brightened her own world at a time when chemotherapy and surgery for breast cancer had her feeling pretty low. Studying flowers gave her a whole new, brighter look at the world.

Flower therapy includes almost any contact with plants. Color, texture, and scent all play a part in the relaxation and healing that results from a little flower time. Why it works is a mystery -- it could be that we associate flowers with pleasure, that flowers fulfill emotional needs, that they are the pets of the horticultural world. We breed them for traits that please us and then capitalize on how they lighten the load and enhance our moods.

The bottom line is this -- we just don't know exactly why or exactly how flowers do what they do. We just know intuitively that they work, that they spread hope and renewal and peace like nothing else.

For more information on the healing power of flowers, pick up a copy of the November 2006 issue of The Oprah Magazine.