OK, women of the world. Grab some paper and a pen and jot down this list of seven check-ups every woman needs. Don't just write them down, though. Make sure you take action on each and every one. They might just save your life.

1. Start with your weight, height, and BMI (body mass index). The scores you get on these simple tests are important because many conditions and diseases are associated with being overweight or underweight.

2. Check your blood pressure, and find out where you stand because hypertension is a disease with no symptoms. High blood pressure puts you at risk for cardiovascular disease -- but there are very effective treatments for this condition.

Can coffee reduce the risk of liver cancer? According to findings published in the medical journal Gastroenterology it can. "Data on potential beneficial effects of coffee on liver function and liver diseases have accrued over the last two decades," states Drs. Susanna C. Larsson and Alicja Wolk, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

11 studies involving 2,260 liver cancer patients and 239,146 individuals without liver cancer showed that for every 2 cups of coffee per day, the investigators observed a 43 percent reduced risk of liver cancer. Coffee contains large amounts of antioxidants, such as chlorogenic acids that have an inhibitory effect on liver cancer.

In an analysis of animal research used to understand and treat human diseases, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine researchers found that using animals, such as mice, had limited value. Only half of the research done using animals translated into the same outcome for humans.

In a BBC News report over the controversy that rages regarding the wisdom of using animals in research, Professor Ian Roberts is quoted as saying, "The debate over this issue is really quite hysterical. At the moment, there is too much emotion and not much science. Anti-vivisectionists say animal testing is of no use at all, and those who do them say we would have no safe and effective treatments if we didn't." Lead researcher Roberts believes animal studies should be used, but not in all cases of research.

The value of animal research was catapulted to front page news headlines earlier this year when six men experienced tragic life-threatening side-effects as they participated in a human clinical trial of the drug TGN1412, which had previously been shown safe and effective during animal studies.

Last March, six healthy young men volunteered at Northwick Park Hospital in London as participants in a clinical trial for a drug called TGN1412, designed to treat leukemia, autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. According to the men, they were told by doctors there would be no serious short-term or long-term side effects. They were each paid £2,000. Within hours, the worst that could happen did, and the men were plunged into a nightmare beyond anything they could have imagined.

The headaches began, followed by convulsions, bloating, organ failure and comas. The men came to be known as the Elephant Men because of the swollen faces and chests they suffered. One of the men suffered gangrene -- all his toes and three of his fingers were amputated. He also suffered heart failure, kidney failure, pneumonia, septicaemia and liver failure. Recently, another participant was told he might be developing cancer as a result of the drug trial. All have been told to expect early death.

Do you feel that animal research used to test drugs and medical procedures meant to treat human ailments and diseases, are credible enough to continue, or do you believe that research using animals should be abandoned?

I'm headed for a Saturday morning workout with my fitness trainer. For one hour, I will physically challenge my body and emotionally charge my spirits. I will sweat and pant and if I am required to do the inner thigh exercise, I will scream. I will also whine -- it's in my nature -- and I will push, pull, bounce, balance, lift, squat, lunge, and run until it's quitting time. I will fall short on some of my exercise expectations. And I will surprise myself and exceed others. In the end, I will feel accomplished, strong, motivated, and ready to tackle the day.

I'm making a comeback. I have come back from the depths of cancer and all of its accompanying treatment, and I have invited this powerhouse of a girl to transform me. She has accepted the challenge -- and she has helped me evolve from a weak, shaky, dizzy cancer patient to a semi-strong, 5K-running breast cancer survivor with biceps that are almost visible at a close distance.

This spunky fitness girl -- also an accomplished kick boxer, wife, and mom of two little ones -- has accepted another one of my challenges. I asked her to share some of her health and fitness expertise so that we all may reap the benefits. And so she kindly extracted some important tidbits from her vast library of knowledge and concisely crafted the responses that follow.

Take it from Fitz Koehler -- exercise and healthy eating habits are key for survival. For all of us. Cancer survivors included.

Why is fitness important for everyone?

100% of the population needs to exercise in some way. For the most part, if you're not working to get stronger, you're going to get weaker. Whether it's tummy time as an infant, gym class as a kid, weight training as an adult, or short walks as a senior, in order to live well and live long, we must eat well and exercise. Plus, a fit lifestyle prevents so many horrible ailments and diseases -- heart disease, some cancers, diabetes, GERD. Who wants any of that?

All cancers are not treated equally. Some attract a frenzy of attention -- breast cancer -- and some receive not much attention at all -- gallbladder cancer. Some are vigorously researched and studied. Others sit by idly, rarely the subject of investigation. Some are feverishly funded. Some never prosper by way of financial support. Yet they all share something very important in common. They are all cancer.

All cancers are marked by an uncontrollable division and spread of abnormal cells. And they are all capable of delivering shock and despair and even death to any one of us. And that makes each one -- brain cancer, cervical cancer, colon cancer, eye cancer, liver cancer, prostate cancer, stomach cancer, you name it -- worthy of equal attention.

And so I bring to you Cancer by the Numbers, a series of posts that will feature the basics about all sorts of cancer, beginning with the numbers -- the statistics -- to help define the prevalence of each cancer, followed by important facts about screening, diagnosis, treatment, survival, and more. I will cover the well-known cancers, the sort-of-known cancers, the barely-known cancers. And while I can only offer what I can track down on each form of cancer, I intend to dish out every piece of data I can dig up -- so we all can become a little more informed, a little more prepared should we have to personally do battle with any one of the 100 possible cancers out there.

The American Cancer Society reports that 1,399,790 new cancer cases will be diagnosed in 2006. This estimate does not include most carcinoma in situ (noninvasive cancer) cases and also does take into account the estimated one million cases of basal and squamous cell skin cancers that will be diagnosed this year. Of these predicted cases, about 564,830 will result in death -- that's more than 1,500 people each day. Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the United States, exceeded only by heart disease, and accounts for one of every four deaths.

These numbers are staggering. But without further explanation, they are broad and all-encompassing and don't say much about how all the individual diseases add up. That's what I plan to do -- break it all down, cancer by cancer, until the numbers make sense. And the cancers do too.

There is a vaccine that Scripps Research Institute in California researchers are working with that shows positive results in slowing down a key hunger hormone that keeps rats from gaining weight regardless of how much the rats ate -- although they caution that just because it works in rats does not mean it will work the same way in humans or that it will be a safe vaccine for humans.

This is all relatively new science, as the hormone, called Ghrelin, the researchers are testing the vaccine on was just discovered about seven years ago. The researchers do know that the hormone controls appetite in animals and humans and the current research might prove valuable in discovering more about the connections between hunger and weight gain; how the body stores fat and how to influence the hunger hormone.

At this point in time, if you are a rat concerned about controlling your weight, it's good news. Long-term, if it does show the same benefit for humans, the researchers speculate a vaccine might be developed that helps people who struggle with weight gain and loss maintain a steady and healthy weight. You know it is only a matter of time before they discover and develop something along this line, as obesity is a major threat to health for a number of diseases including cancer.

The story I am about to tell you is horrific and gathered from various news accounts of the event that have been published over the months since it happened.

Last March, six healthy young men volunteered at Northwick Park Hospital, in London as participants in a clinical trial for a drug called TGN1412, designed to treat leukemia, autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. According to the men, they were told by doctors there would be no serious short-term or long-term side effects. They were each paid £2,000. Within hours, the worst that could happen did, and the men were plunged into a nightmare beyond anything they could have imagined.

Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon calls home DNA kits for cancer and other diseases as nothing more than modern day snake oil and he believes consumers are being misled and exploited.

Smith, chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, released a report from the Government Accountability Office on home DNA test products. He stated he is shocked to learn how little the federal government is doing to protect consumers in awareness and education regarding the uselessness of these products.

According to a Congressional report, home DNA tests or nutrigenetic tests, are not clinically valid and companies selling them are making unproven and ambiguous health-related predictions.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said they were investigating the companies to determine is oversight was needed.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a health warning to consumers that drinking high-strength hydrogen peroxide products sold online are extremely corrosive and can lead to stomach irritation or ulcers; and injecting the solution intravenously could lead to blood vessel inflammation, bubbles in blood vessels and potentially life-threatening allergic reaction.

In addition, the FDA has issued warnings to two Texas-based firms, DFWX and Frad 35 Inc., who are illegally selling 35 percent hydrogen peroxide products to treat AIDS, cancer, emphysema and other serious diseases.

To understand the strength of the hydrogen peroxide the FDA is referring to, high-strength hydrogen peroxide is 35 percent while the strength of hydrogen peroxide solution sold over-the-counter for disinfecting wounds is only 3 percent.

According to the news release, Donald Worden, owner of Frad 35 Inc., said he would continue selling his 35 percent hydrogen peroxide product and that his website provided links to information about potential medical uses but that he was not promoting his products for that purpose.

The FDA has issued a warning about this product. You have been warned.

President George Bush vetoed a bill that would have allowed surplus embryos from fertility clinics to be used in research. This decision will cause slowing of cures for several major diseases including cancer.

If politicians say they support stem cell research then it doesn't necessarily mean that they support embryonic stem cell research which is the one that holds the greatest promise for the most diseases.

It was five years ago that President Bush 'allowed' research on the 60 existing stem cell lines. It didn't sway his decision however that we now know that these lines are not going to help us with human diseases.

I would say more of what I think about President Bush's decision but then people might start going out and burning my music CD's.

Oh .. wait .. I don't have any music CD's!

Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey announced plans to launch a test program where they will be implanting an ID microchip in people who suffer from chronic diseases. The radio frequency identification device (RFID) microchip will include family contact information and medical history. The purpose is to give emergency room medical staff the ability to access a patient's information if they are brought to the emergency room and are unable to speak on their own.

According to the test program team, Horizon will start sending letters to patients with chronic diseases explaining the new program and inviting them to participate. The program will be cost-free and voluntary for those who wish to participate.

RFID implanted microchips in surgical sponges is one thing -- in people? I don't know.

I am taking an informal poll. Would you consent to having a microchip implanted in your right arm for the purpose of information retrieval?

In USA Today, Prices soar for cancer drugs, are some disturbingly stunning and eye-opening facts regarding the current cost of cancer drugs and an examination of where the costs might be headed. For example, Avastin, a newer drug used to treat colorectal cancer, costs about $50,000 dollars a year in treatment. That price is expected to go to $100,000 dollars a year if Avastin is approved to treat breast and lung cancers. It would be an understatement to say cancer patients and insurance companies are concerned. It's an uneasy feeling.

Some cancer drugs can cost $10,000 dollars a month for a single drug. The average monthly cost for a prescription cancer drug is estimated at $1,600 dollars. Without insurance, few could afford to buy life saving drugs and the consumer has to be sitting precariously perched at the mercy of insurance companies to keep funding the medicine. I think it would be safe to say that any cancer patient among the 45 million uninsured Americans is going without much-needed  medications if they have to come up with the money to buy the drugs. At these prices it is not possible.

"These costs are out of control," says Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, which is planning a conference focused on drug costs in the fall. "We can't allow it to continue." Who is going to stop the drug companies from charging what they want?

"It's really exploiting the desperation of people with a life-threatening illness," says Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

I just posted about quacks who exploit the desperation of cancer patients. While I do not equate drug companies with that jailed quack specifically, there seem to be more bad guys than the obvious scoundrels who prey on vulnerability. I don't have the answers but I am pessimistic about how this turns out for the cancer patient. I have yet to see anything in our society fall in price. I don't begrudge a business of profit -- but this is starting to look like a free-for-all and forget who might be hurt along the way.  What do you think?

Parents who know they are at high-risk for passing on genetic defects that can lead to disease for their child, have been relying on genetic testing to screen embryos for inherited diseases. British scientists announced today they have developed a new test that focuses on DNA fingerprinting near the gene. The new test allows more couples to be tested since they are looking at DNA markers opposed to trying to find the gene, which can vary. According to the researchers, this is a more reliable test. The method involves taking a cell from the embryo to detect signs of the DNA marker and discarding it if it does show the likelihood of gene mutation. Only healthy embryos are used during the in-vitro fertilization, ensuring parents a healthy child.

Right now, there are strict ethical controls on this type of medical procedure, but in the years to come, when these types of procedures become more commonplace, and less expensive, will the controls begin to relax? I am not going to argue against choosing a healthy embryo over one that carries a genetic mutation that might one day lead to disease later in life, but I am still hesitant to embrace where the medical field might be going with these new tests and the potential for superficial application such as -- say -- designer babies. Paris Hilton mommies embryonic shopping for a child. I realize that is an extreme example, but it is the one I fear most. In addition, I am not an adherent of scientific worship and see medical science as a very shaky inexact science. The more I learn, the more I realize they do not know. However, here we are, and you can't un-ring a bell. Hopefully the future will prove all my misgivings wrong.

For more thoughts on designer babies, related posts: Woman pregnant with cancer-free baby and Disease-free designer babies embryo selection.

The best solution to any problem is that one that satisfactorily answers everyone's concerns. Stem cell research is currently posing an ethical dilemma for the scientific community -- who realize that advances in stem cell therapy might one day bring the cure for many diseases, including cancer and diabetes. Because of the ethical challenges this type of research presents, rigorous standards have been put into place in order that stem cell research be allowed to continue. Stem cell research is simply to promising to be abandoned. In spite of this, there are opponents who remain uncomfortable with stem cell research.

Institute for Stem Cell Research at the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom may have opened the door to a win-win situation for all sides of the stem cell research debate, as they have discovered Nanog, a molecule with the extraordinary ability that allows them to reprogram an adult cell and turn it into a embryonic stem cell. At this point, it is just a door opening, and the researchers caution there is more research to be done. But this is a significant breakthrough and the race to perfect this process will heat up in the scientific community. The profound potential cures for diseases using embryonic stem cells is the hope and promise of a future not yet real, but very much imagined. The imagination will lead us to the reality.