A recent study from medical journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention says that having more than two sodas a week may double your risk to develop pancreatic cancer, one of the most deadly cancers in our society.

Mark Pereira, senior author of the study and associate professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota, said this could be because  high sugar levels in soft drinks may increase the body’s insulin level; however, fruit juices had no effect in this study, which often contain a plethora of sugar.

It is fairly common knowledge that many juices contain just as much sugar as a Coca-Cola if not more. For example, one chart shows that 12 ounces of a Coca-Cola contains as much sugar as apple juice (10 tsp), and less sugar than grape juice (15 tsp).

So, if sugar is the reason, why don’t fruit juices increase the risk of cancer as well? It seems as if there are some variables that may have affected this study besides soft drinks.

Susan Mayne,  associate director of the Yale Cancer Center and professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, agrees that research on this issue may not be over yet.

“Although this study found a risk, it remains unclear whether it is a causal association or not. Soft drink consumption in Singapore was associated with several other adverse health behaviors such as smoking and red meat intake, which we can’t accurately control for,” she said.

Still, we all know sodas aren’t good for us, and it wouldn’t kill any of us to try to cut back a bit. Whether smoking or anything else affected the results, the truth remains that those who drank two or more soft drinks per week (averaging 5 per week) during the study had an 87 percent increased risk compared with those who did not.

And with pancreatic cancer, the risks are even greater. Although cancer of the pancreas is barely within the top 10 most common cancers in the U.S., it is the fourth deadliest since it has the ability to spread quietly. Most are not diagnosed until the cancer has already spread, making it nearly impossible to fully treat, according to WebMD.

So whether you’re convinced or not, it may be a good idea to keep this study in mind next time you pop open a Coke.

Obviously, there is no clear answer to this, and the argument has been around forever: Is science getting too close to “playing God?”

The technology for parents to choose the sex of their child is not necessarily new, but the process is becoming much more mainstream, causing a lot of red flags to go off over the ethical issues involved in the science.

PGD | Courtesy of Obgyn.net

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a broad term that refers to procedures that are often performed on embryos before implantation, and has been around since the 1980s.  Usually used to help couples who have a high risk for passing on genetic diseases, the embryos with disorders are identified before implantation.  Then, other samples that are free of the disorder can be implanted via in vitro fertilization, assuring the new family a healthier baby.

Another use of PGD though, is for parents to be able to choose the sex of their future child, although most countries ban this (the U.S. does not).

This is not just like any other doctor’s appointment obviously, since the procedure has a price tag of around $18,000 in the U.S., but doctors claim many have come from around the world to choose if they will be proud parents of a boy or a girl.

A CNN article on the issue shows that even doctors are split on the ethics of these procedures. Even the doctor who pioneered PGD, Dr. Mark Hughes, questions if using the process for gender selection is even “medicine.”

The other doctor in the article, Los Angeles fertility expert Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg, argued against Hughes, saying the last thing anyone wants to do is put “handcuffs on science.”

Still, I  have to admit there is something about this that makes me stop to think. It all seems very future-esque and similar to the movie, “Gattaca,” to me.  It is great that we have discovered this technology to help future parents to have children without genetic mishaps, but the gender selection may be pushing it.

After all, if we can choose the sex of a child, what else can we choose?  Though I am usually a very pro-technology person, I am still on the fence about this one.

What about you?

• For more: View this profile on a couple who used PGD to have a baby without a genetic disorder.

Cell phone radiation graphic

It seems like this question has been around forever: Will my cell phone give me a brain tumor? Unfortunately, the jury still seems to be out.

A 30-year study released on Thursday by the Danish Cancer Society states that there does not seem to be a link between cell phone usage and brain tumors, but another study by the World Health Organization (WHO) will apparently come out soon stating that there is a link, according to a CNN article.

The Danish Cancer Society study conducted in Scandinavia included almost the entire region.  It found that even though there was an extreme increase in cell phone usage during the 1990s, the rate of brain tumor cases during this time remained constant.

The study analyzed incidence rates of two types of brain cancer among adults from 1974 to 2003 in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, according to Reuters. There was no significant pattern between tumors and cell phone usage; however, the research team did acknowledge that this may be because tumors take longer than ten years to show up.

While this may seem like the debate could at least be put to rest for now, that doesn’t seem to be the case.  This other WHO study is supposed to be released within the month (key word is supposed), and is said to show a “significantly increased risk” of tumors “related to use of mobile phones for a period of 10 years or more,” according to CNN.

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how this pans out, but for now, be positive. The latest research shows that there doesn’t seem to be a link … for now.

It seems like the number of swine flu infections has finally hit its peak. According to the Associated Press, the number of states with widespread infection of H1N1 has dropped from 43 to 32 (Yes, Arizona is still one of the 32). But hold on, there’s a catch.

There were also 27 newly-reported deaths among children with H1N1 under 18 last week, the highest number in a week since the pandemic started, according to the CDC’s H1N1 update.

While at first the scare about the swine flu seemed unnecessary, the disease does seem to be similar to the seasonal flu except for the targeted age. While the regular flu is usually fatal in the elderly and very young, swine flu is proving to be dangerous for mainly older children and young adults, according to the AP article.

OK, ready for more bad news? Many doctors think that there may be another wave of the virus after Christmas.

“We won’t be surprised if we see another uptick later this year or early next year when kids return to school from Christmas break,” said CDC spokesman Tom Skinner in the article.

CDC H1N1 Hospitalizations and Deaths

Still, we can try to be optimistic with the recent numbers. There have been pretty large drops in numbers of deaths and hospitalizations in the 46th week of the year. Some doctors, like Dr. Richard Besser, think this slow in the outbreak will be a nice break for people to get vaccinated before another possible wave.

So the big question is: should we still be worried about the swine flu? Or do you think the worst is over?

* For weekly updates, check out the CDC’s weekly report.

Mammogram | Courtesy of Courier Times

The media have blown up over the mammogram issue within the last few days. On Nov. 16, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued new guidelines for breast cancer screening, including when women should receive mammograms and breast exams performed by their doctors or even themselves.

According to the USPSTF, women should not receive routine mammogram screening until age 50, not 40 as is the status quo. Also, the force goes on to recommend not practicing self-breast examinations routinely until this age as well.

Naturally, this has caused outrage from a plethora of breast cancer survivors whose lives may have been saved by an early mammogram or self-examination. However, while the world is screaming at the government, it should be said that the task force made this decision to lessen the amount of false positives, which often cause intense anxiety and expensive, painful procedures.

Keith Seinfeld, a health care reporter in Seattle, defended the USPSTF’s decision in his blog, Science and Wonder, and he made some good points. In his post, he stated how many women have suffered from false positives and the “treadmill of testing and worry.” He also compares the test to the full-body CT scans advertised in the 1990s that was condemned by medical professionals since they “did more harm than good.”

Of course, those with breast cancer would very likely say that this is much better than not catching the deadly cancer early. So there is obviously room for argument. Sandhya Pruthi, M.D., director of Mayo Clinic Breast Clinic, for example, stated in a video on the Mayo News Blog that the clinic would continue with their previous recommendations, including annual mammograms after age 40.

While it may seem like it could simply be a personal choice to receive mammograms or not, the issue of health insurance is tossed into the mix. Many women are now concerned that since the task force has stated it does not recommend these exams until age 50, that their health insurance will not cover them until that age as well.

CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen stated in an on-air interview that while the insurance companies have stated that they will continue to cover the exams, many still remain skeptical. It is true that many insurance companies do look to this government task force for ideas as to what they should cover, but Cohen states that many recognize what a “PR nightmare” it would be to end coverage in this area.

Even though it’s been all over the news the last few days, this issue is far from over. Now we have to wait and see the long-term reactions from health care providers and insurance companies, and whether catching cancer for a few outweigh the false positives of many.

Courtesy of NABI Biopharmaceuticals

Back in the old days, people used to have to use old-fashioned will power to quit smoking. Then, thank god, came the Nicorette patch and gum and all of those goodies, but could there be an easier way?

It sure looks like it.

The vaccine, NicVAX, is “an investigational vaccine designed as an aid to smoking cessation, as well as an aid to prevent relapses of a treated smoker,” according to NABI Biopharmaceuticals. This video from AZfamily.com demonstrates just how the shot works.

NicVAX recently received a $10 million grant from the American Recovery and Investment Act which will be used to test phase III testing, according to Robert Langley, a blogger on government info.

The drug has already shown success in helping smokers quit and keeping them from relapsing, according to a press release from the National Institutes of Health, and completion of the third phase will get the vaccine much closer to FDA approval.

Patients in the trial will receive six monthly shots in the arm, which will hopefully help them kick the habit.

Though it may be too soon to be jumping for joy, this vaccine seems like it may very soon be a big help for smokers who can’t seem to quit on their own. There are apps for everything, why can’t we have shots to make our lives easier too?

Apparently, in the rest of the world it has.  The video from azfamily.com piqued my interest, and I did a  little digging around.

Ozone therapy is a form of alternative medicine that helps treat a plethora of illnesses, be it by actively killing bacteria and viruses or boosting one’s immune system, according to Rejuvena, the company in the video above.

The treatment is not yet approved by the FDA, but it has been in use for decades in places like Europe and Asia.  Still, many American physicians who practice alternative medicine, like the ones in the video, use this method to help their patients, most recently with the swine flu.

After googling ozone therapy, I realized that a lot of people think this is a big deal.  Many medical journals have claimed that ozone therapy does work, but somehow it still is not approved in the U.S., and many states even ban the use of ozone generators, making it impossible to perform the treatment, according to a doctor’s personal health blog.

Why is this seemingly great procedure off the radar in America? Well, maybe because of the first thing that came to mind when I watched the video. Doesn’t injecting oxygen or ozone into your blood system kill you?

Well, apparently, when mixed like in the video, it is perfectly safe, although the potential dangers may be a reason why the practice has yet to be approved in the United States. Many claim, however, that America has shown little interest in the practice because neither ozone nor hydrogen peroxide (the ingredients in the mixture) can be patented, thus creating very little profit for the physicians.

Still, it seems that the therapy has some merit; patients in Phoenix seem to think it helped them fight off the H1N1 virus, even when they had been diagnosed with it, and there is even beginning to be some talk about ozone therapy being a cure for HIV and AIDS.

Though it may seem a bit scary at first, doesn’t everything when you’re first introduced to it? Maybe the United States shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss ozone therapy after all.

It seems like everyone knows someone who has gotten it by now, since the routine surgery was introduced to the United States in the early 1990s. And we have all heard the stories and seen the comedy bits about what can go wrong.

But no worries, after almost twenty years of practice, the FDA has made the decision to check up on this surgery and see what the deal is with all the side effects.

Steps of LASIK | Courtesy of Toronto Lasik Eye Surgery

Last week, the FDA announced in a press release that it had launched a study to “examine the potential impact on quality of life from LASIK.”

The study is a three-step process that involves a multi-center clinical trial that will follow LASIK patients and study the impact the procedure had on them, according to the release. The FDA expects the third step to end in 2012.

Now, I know what you may be wondering. Where was this study twenty years ago?

In the FDA’s defense, this study does seem to be aimed at finding those surgical centers who are using defective or unsafe lasers. In the same release, it said that 17 warning letters were issued to ambulatory surgical centers that were being too quiet in reporting if they had device-related serious injuries. Meaning they weren’t saying their lasers were what was causing their patients to go blind, etc. Oops.

Still, it seems a little odd that they this slipped under the radar for so long. Maybe now we will see some answers and find out what the real scoop is on LASIK surgery.

Well, in a few years at least.

Courtesy of MedicineWorld.org

It seems like it happens all the time.  There is a tragic car accident involving a drunk driver and a young teenager or a family. The drunk driver lives, and the others don’t ever seem to make it.

There have been theories as to why this happens. I, for one, used to hear that drunk drivers usually survived more often because they didn’t tense up in a crash since they are impaired as opposed to the sober victims. Whether this myth is true, I can’t say.

However, a study published in the October edition of the American Surgeon states that being intoxicated does indeed lessen your risk of death from head injuries because ethanol, the substance in alcohol, can lessen the swelling of the brain.

According to the research conducted by the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, out of the 7,985 trauma patients of similar age and with similar injuries surveyed, only 1 percent of the patients who had been drinking died. 7 percent of those who were sober didn’t make it.

I know what you may be thinking. We should all start driving drunk right? Research says it’s safer! Wrong.

This research was not conducted so that irresponsible drivers who can’t pick up a phone and call a cab are off the hook. Researchers stressed that this does not encourage alcohol use while driving.

“It is seeking to further explore earlier studies that had found alcohol may improve the body’s response to severe injuries,” said Dr. Christian de Virgilio in the article, LA BioMed’s principal investigator for the study. “If alcohol is proven to improve the body’s response to traumatic injury, it could lead to treatments that help patients survive and recover more quickly.”

A possible solution could be to administer ethanol to patients with brain injuries to increase their chance of survival, but of course, more research would be needed for that.

Still, some are not happy with the message they think this study is portraying. This video from a local Texas news station shows how some health care workers think many will take this as an excuse to drive drunk.

In my opinion, it’s a pretty cool study, and it may end up saving some lives in the future. Who would have thought alcohol could be the thing to save your life?

Courtesy of CareMates

People all over the country are lining up for their flu shot in what some are calling the worst flu season in years.  But with an increased demand for seasonal flu shots because of swine flu fears and slowing production of flu shots to make resources available for H1N1 vaccines, many have to wait for their turn to get pricked.

According to an article by the Arizona Republic, many doctors in Arizona have temporarily run out of vaccines. Of course, officials are very careful to stress the world TEMPORARILY so as not to cause mass panic and have people stealing shots from children or who knows what.

The article explains that this type of shortage or sporadic shipment of vaccines this time of year is normal, but people don’t usually notice as much because they don’t demand as much of the vaccine.

People throughout the Valley are so worried about getting the flu, seasonal or swine, that it is basically all you hear about in daily conversations. At work, on the light rail, at school: everyone wants to get a shot. Who would have thought people would be so excited to get stuck with a needle?

Even more surprising is how concerned people are about getting their flu shots when health officials have stated that the regular flu isn’t even circulating in the state yet, it is mostly the swine flu. H1N1 vaccines will not be in the state until Oct. 15, and one can only imagine the rush to get that nasal spray.

The areas that still do have flu vaccines are not taking any time to give theirs away as quickly as possible either. Mesa schools have set up a “flu shot blitz,” where students and employees walk up to what looks like an assembly line of people giving vaccines. The whole process takes less than a minute, and is shown in this video from AZfamily.com.

If you’re one of the ones who is itching to get the flu shot, you better hurry while supplies last. I, personally, have never gotten a flu shot nor have I ever gotten the flu (knock on wood), and I don’t see why this year should be any different. The general population may have once again overreacted. What a shock.