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".

Cancer is a complicated disease often described by those who know it well in confusing medical, technical, and scientific terms. There's a way to understand it in simple terms, though. And a recent CBS news story features a great run-down on the disease, its causes, how it grows, and more.

Think about this:

• Cancer refers to any one of a large number of diseases characterized by the uncontrollable growth of abnormal cells. These cells have the ability to infiltrate and destroy normal tissue and can spread -- metastasize -- throughout the body.

• Cancer is caused by damage in the DNA. DNA is like a set of instructions for cells and tells cells how to grow and divide. Normal cells can develop mutations in their DNA but can repair most of them. If they cannot make a repair, the cells often die. But certain mutated cells don't repair and don't die. They instead grow and become cancerous.

• Normal, healthy cells grow in an orderly, well-controlled way. They live for a set period of time and then die on schedule. Dead cells are replaced by new normal cells. Cancer cells, in contrast, grow in an uncontrolled manner. They don't die. They accumulate. One malignant cell becomes two, two become four, four become eight, and so on, until a mass of cells -- a tumor -- is created. Tumors remain small until they're able to attract their own blood supply, which allows them to obtain the oxygen and nutrients they need to grow larger.

• Not all cancers form tumors. Leukemia, for example, is a cancer of the blood, bone marrow, lymphatic system, and spleen.
  
  
• Cancer can take decades to develop. By the time a cancerous mass is detected, it's likely that 100 million to one billion cancer cells are present, and the original cancer may have been dividing for five years or more.

• Lung cancer is the top cancer killer among men and women and will kill 160,390 people in 2007.

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."

Calorie counting may be a bit tedious for some -- like me -- but for others, it may be just the ticket for the management of weight and overall health.

Charles Stuart Platkin, author of the new book The Diet Detective's Count Down, takes calorie counting one step further and offers the exercise equivalent of a nutritional label.

His 341-page book offers charts that detail the number of calories, fats, and carbohydrates in more than 7,500 foods and drinks and then translates these details into what it takes, in terms of minutes, to burn the calories with walking, running, biking, swimming, yoga, or dance.

Platkin, a syndicated nutrition and fitness columnist, says he is not trying to encourage people to count every calorie consumed in a day and to exercise until each calorie melts away. His goal is to help those who exceed their daily calorie budget -- the number of calories they can eat each day without gaining weight.

The Count Down goes like this -- you consume one martini at your New Year's celebration, pushing you beyond your allotted calories for the day. All you have to do is walk it off the next day in a mere 71 minutes. Or you can run it off in just 39 minutes. If a single cracker with one slice of Genoa salami and cheese tempts your palate, go for it -- then plunge into a 55-minute yoga class.

Before taking a stab at the diet detective's approach, there are several considerations to take into account. First, the book is based on a 155-pound person. A person carrying more weight would burn more calories per minute, and a person carrying less weight would burn less. Second, a person's basal metabolic rate (BMR) must be calculated -- Platkin offers formulas for this task -- so it's clear how much activity output is required by each person. And third, the exercise equivalents are based on scientifically researched metabolic equivalent tables that try to measure what is being burned versus a person's resting metabolic rate. So this is not just a crazy gimmick. It's science -- with a touch of personal perspective too.

Platkin, clinically obese for most of his life, lost 50 pounds a few years ago and came to realize that people just don't know what a calorie is. He wishes the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) would include exercise recommendations on food labels and says, "I think that we are so confused in general as a population as to what's healthy and what's not, we confuse the term healthy with low-calorie. Sometimes they don't mesh. There's so much confusion out there that I think that it needs to be more defined. We need to have some sort of reference points so that people can make decisions before they consume."

Until the FDA delivers on Platkin's wish, he is taking matters into his own hands for those who choose to borrow from his wisdom.

Some of his wisdom includes eating calorie bargains (air-popped popcorn) instead of calorie rip-offs (potato chips) and substituting mustard for mayonnaise on a burger -- it will save 2,000 calories per month for someone who eats fast food three times per week.

Platkin's hope is simple -- he wants people to ask themselves whether certain foods are worth the cost. Is it worth a 54-minute run to burn the 510 calories in a McDonald's Quarter Pounder with Cheese? How about a 144-minute walk to rid yourself of a Subway six-inch Meatball Marinara sandwich?

It's a worthy hope, I think -- although this method is still a bit tedious for me. I think I will stick with my own formula -- eating moderate portions of what I enjoy and intensely exercising several times per week. I don't need to know how many calories I am consuming. I don't even need to know how much I weigh. As long as my clothes fit and my fitness routine keeps me sweating, I'll be a happy girl.

Bubbling from the earth in Balmoral, Scotland is a mineral water that appears to slow the growth of cancerous cells -- so say scientists who tested the mineral water against tap water. In laboratory testing, the mineral water slowed colon cancer cells 62 percent better than tap water; slowed liver cancer by 35 percent, and slowed cervical cancer by 21 percent better than tap water.

Deeside Mineral Water first came to be known as offering health benefit in 1760, when a local woman is reported to have been cured of Scrofula by drinking and bathing in the Balmoral waters. Back then, the waters were thought of as an agent in miraculous effect. Lord Byron, Sir Walter Scott and Queen Victoria are said to have been attracted to the area for this reason.

A Deeside Mineral Water spokesman is adamant in insisting that they do not believe that the bottled water holds out any promise of a miracle cure -- only that it might be considered a complementary therapy in conjunction with conventional medical treatments. We are certainly glad they made that clear.

From our understanding of the online literature published by the Deeside Mineral Water company, the bottled water needs to be consumed on a daily basis for a number of weeks to show benefit, and one would have to continue drinking the bottled water to maintain health benefits the mineral water is reported to offer. For more information, visit the Deeside Mineral Water website.

Chloe is a little girl conceived through in vitro fertilization -- not because her parents could not conceive in the traditional manner but because they wanted to make sure Chloe had no predisposition to cancer in her genetic makeup. And in vitro fertilization is one method of almost ensuring this. There is still a three percent chance of failure but Chloe's parents felt confident in the elective process that would mostly prevent her from inheriting a genetic mutation for colon cancer that has devastated her family -- Chloe's father carries this mutation, and his mother, grandfather, and two uncles have all died from colon cancer.

A growing number of couples are using preimplantation genetic makeup to detect a predisposition to cancers that may or may not develop later in life. Using this procedure, parents subject their tiny embryos to genetic tests to determine whether or not they harbor defective genes. Essentially, parents get to pick and choose from embryos in a petri dish which one they want. Since the embryo that became Chloe did not test positive for any defective genes, she was the chosen one. And she is now a healthy two-year-old girl.

It's an ethical minefield -- this scientific creation of human life and the picking and choosing of which embryos will survive and which ones will not. One expert says the issue centers around what is considered serious enough to warrant such testing -- and who gets to make this decision. Ethical dilemmas surrounding this issue will only continue to grow as more and more options become available. Already embryos are tested for predisposition for obesity and deafness and a mild skin condition. Some clinics even screen for gender. Some fear this practice may lead to a genetic class divide where the wealthy will become more genetically pure than the poor -- because this process is difficult and expensive, costing tens of thousands of dollars without insurance coverage.

Chloe's parents are happy they made the choice they did. Her father says he doesn't know if he could handle being told his daughter has cancer -- especially with the knowledge that he could have prevented it.

It may be possible to learn happiness -- like we might learn to cook or learn to dance -- by merely taking a class. Some refute this idea and believe you can't actually pursue happiness. You either have it or you don't. But some psychologists are embracing a whole new approach to psychology -- they call it positive psychology -- and they say it focuses on training the mind to focus on the past as very positive. It's completely different from traditional psychology where time is spent trying to determine why someone is so horribly sad. This movement, invented by University of Pennsylvania psychologist Martin Seligman in 1998 when he was president of the American Psychological Association, provides a scientific validated set of exercises -- known as interventions -- that lead happiness seekers to their ultimate destination.

Dr. Lisa Melton of the London-based registered charity Novartis Foundation, has written The antioxidant myth: a medical fairy tale, published in the New Scientist, that takes a look at the benefit of whole foods versus antioxidant supplements -- and concludes that something is lost in the extraction from whole foods making supplements essentially useless to health benefit. She even suggests, based on research, that some antioxidant supplements have been shown to create health problems.

Cancer Nutrition Info was created by Suzanne Dixon -- who has worked as a cancer nutrition specialist and epidemiologist at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Josephine Ford Cancer Center -- as a way to provide comprehensive resources and information regarding the role of nutrition during cancer treatments and life beyond as a cancer survivor.

At one time, Cancer Nutrition Info was a subscriber service, but with the collaboration and support of Caring 4 Cancer, the information on the website is now free to all visitors. Areas within Cancer Nutrition Info include Complementary and Alternative Medicine; Nutrition Related Clinical Trials; Recipes, Tips, and Hints; Conventional Cancer Treatments and Common Cancer Nutrition Questions.

As a scientist and cancer nutrition expert, Dixon interprets the research in providing up-to-date information on the connection between nutrition and cancer. It does state on the website it is free at this time so if you are interested in nutrition, this might be the time to visit.

Parents may want to save their kids' baby teeth for more than just nostalgic reasons -- they may want to save them because they are rich in stem cells and the pulp tissue could provide the means to treatment for injuries and disease. BioEden Inc. is a new company out of Austin, Texas pioneering this effort that is so new some doubt science will ever catch up with the expectations of this firm. But President Jeff Johnson says all evidence indicates that baby teeth are a wonderful source of stem cells -- cells that doctors and researchers pursue for their capability of replicating and morphing into specialized cells that can be used to repair the body. Experts think baby teeth stem cells might one day be used for bone, teeth, and even nerve cell regeneration which could hold potential for spinal cord injuries and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.

Parents may find brochures in their dentist offices featuring the benefits of banking their children's teeth once they fall out. And pursuing tooth banking is no different than pursuing any other dental procedure. There are fees involved, of course -- banking fees and perhaps referral fees from dental offices -- and other considerations that each parent must weigh. Dr. Phil Hunke, president of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry and pediatric dentist for 32 years, says the idea of removing cells and freezing them holds true promise -- and he may want to bank the tooth of a child or grandchild once he learns more. Dr. Kevin Donly, a professor of pediatric dentistry, says he sees some potential but will not be banking teeth for his three little boys. He just doesn't think he's at the point where it's necessary. Another pediatric dentist -- Dr. John Updyke -- believes that if money were not an issue, all parents should bank their kids' teeth. But many young families can't afford the initial $595 and the $89 annual storage cost it requires. And without a solid scientific backing, tooth banking might not come up as a priority for many when it may take 10 years or more to even determine how useful these specific stem cells will be.

We just had a family water balloon toss -- me, my husband, and our two little boys. Little hands helped fill tiny balloons that were tossed and fumbled and rolled all over our sidewalk and driveway. Our game resulted in wet clothing and wet hair and lots of laughs. And when we walked inside to prepare for dinner, Joey -- five years old -- said, fun is good for the body. I told him that he is so right -- fun is good for the body, And this one fact really needs no scientific proof or validation -- although I'm sure research is out there to support this simple truth. Fun is simply good for the body. And anyone who has felt the aftermath of fun knows what I mean. It sends good vibes through the body, it relieves stress, it refreshes and recharges, it lightens the load.

So try to incorporate some fun into your weekend -- organize your own water balloon toss, fly a kite, take a bike ride, go rock climbing or sailing or swimming. Whatever you choose, consider it a gift to your body. Celebrate yourself. Celebrate life. Celebrate Independence Day. Set yourself free and enjoy all the moments you have at your disposal. And if you like what you feel, try having fun every day.

I think obesity will always carry with it a risk for health problems. And according to a new study released on Monday, men with prostate cancer who are overweight have a higher risk of tumor recurrence after radiation treatment than thinner men do. Specifically, moderately and severely overweight men had a 70 percent higher risk of recurrence than men who were not overweight -- as indicated by rising levels of PSA, a blood protein that can signal prostate cancer. It is not clear how exactly obesity affects the success of radiation treatment -- perhaps it's the fat tissue that secretes certain hormones that helps the cancer progress at a later time. Regardless, the study suggests that men who are overweight do not fare as well as those who are at an average weight -- and this gives men a definite reason to trim down.

Obesity in this study was characterized by body mass index -- BMI -- a statistic that takes into account height and weight. A man five feet, 10 inches tall would be considered normal weight at or below 184 pounds. He would be overweight at 185 to 209 pounds, mildly obese at 210 to 244 pounds, and moderately to severely obese at above 244 pounds. Moderately to severely obese men had almost twice the risk of developing elevated PSA levels, according to an epidemiologist who led research in the study -- which will be published in the August 1 issue of the scientific journal Cancer.

In the phenomenal bestseller Foods That Fight Cancer: Preventing Cancer Through Diet, written by Montreal biochemist Richard Beliveau with fellow scientist Denis Gingras, the authors refer to fruits and vegetables as a preventative non-toxic version of chemotherapy.

Originally published in French, the book has recently been translated into English. Based on scientific studies in food chemistry, the book's two main goals are to educate people about what cancer is -- and how to eat for cancer prevention.

Beliveau explains in layman's terms how cancer develops, how it takes years for cancer to develop, how tumors form spontaneously, and how most cancers remain insignificant. He says, "Preventing cancer is destroying these microtumors and blocking them from reaching a stage where they become clinically relevant." There are foods with the biochemical capacity to block some cancers. He wants the reader to realize that we cannot eat as badly as we do and expect medicine to come up with a miracle pill when something goes wrong.

Following is an excerpt of some of the information the reader will find in Foods That Fight Cancer: Preventing Cancer Through Diet:

How do you measure the ethereal? In an earlier post, I quoted Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, who I believe summed it up best when he stated, "The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion."

It doesn't seem to keep those intent on attempting to measuring the immeasurable and attempting to prove in physical world scientific terms that spirituality can play a powerful role in health and healing. Of course it can. Spirituality is a path to profound healing for those who are spiritual in nature. But it does not exclude healing from those who do not follow a spiritual path. The truest power rests in the power of belief itself on an internal landscape of the mind and body.

The John Templeton Foundation announced it is funding a new study at Michigan State University exploring the role spirituality plays in the recovery from breast cancer. I think that it will not matter the results of the study -- if it is positive it will reaffirm what the spiritual believe to be true and challenged by those who do not put much weight in the spiritual dimension of being. If it does not reveal a significant link between spirituality and healing, then the reverse dismissive rejection of the findings will be made.

Do I believe in the power of spirituality to heal? Yes. Do I believe it gives me an advantage to healing over those who do not share my beliefs? No. There are many paths leading to the same destination. The wisdom would be in acknowledging all paths as real and powerful. If we did that, we wouldn't need a study sure to bring nothing but more controversial debate with little possibility in the blending of hearts and minds between spirituality and science. 

Here's why you should never believe everything you read -- and why you should always ask who is behind the research study. In 1997, an article was published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine that claimed chromium-contaminated water was not causing high rates of cancer in China. The study reversed an earlier finding by the same Chinese researchers that linked hexavalent chromium to cancer. Nine years later, the medical journal is planning a retraction of the article. Nine years is a long time for erroneous information to be sitting there as research-based fact. It's not a case of OOPS! this is what we knew then but here is what we know now, and what we know now is different than what we knew then -- no no NO -- it's more potentially sinister than that. You be the judge. I quote from The Wall Street Journal, "The article in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine was conceived, drafted and edited by consultants for PG&E Corporation. The PG&E consultants submitted the article for publication without letting on they or PG&E were involved."

Why, isn't this the same chromium that contaminated the groundwater of Hinkley, that led to the fearless and determined investigator Erin Brockovich to uncovering a cover-up by PG&E that led to the widely-publicized lawsuit against PG&E during the same period in time, the 1990s, that the above scientific article was published. And just so we are all on the same page of thank goodness for the good guys, it was the Environmental Working Group and The Wall Street Journal who lodged an objection to the published research in the medical journal.