It is important to question your physician about the prescriptions you are given. Most doctors will talk to you about the medication prescribed, but it is still important that you know what you're taking and ask appropriate questions.

• Know the name of the drug. This will enable you to look up information about the drug on your own. It will also enable you to discuss the drug with your doctor or another doctor for a second opinion.
• What is the purpose of the drug? This information will help you to know and understand what this drug is supposed to do and will let you know if the treatment is actually working.
• What are the side effects? It is helpful to be aware of the most common side effects. All drugs have some side effects. Information about side effects can be obtained by asking your doctor or pharmacist or consulting a reliable reference.

Oh no. I think I 'm headed for melanoma. At the very least, I seem to have a very high risk for developing the disease, thanks to my once-stubborn pursuit of a silly tan.

Think about this:

A review of seven different studies concludes that using a tanning bed under the age of 35 -- I'm so guilty -- can increase the risk of melanoma by 75 percent. Even those who have ever used indoor tanning were 15 percent more likely to develop the disease.

We're talking the deadliest form of skin cancer here. So deadly some experts are recommending strong measures to restrict the use of tanning beds by young people. Adults should be discouraged from tanning, some say, but access should be limited for those under the age of 18.

New Jersey already has regulations in place -- those under 14 are banned from tanning salons and anyone between 14 and 18 must have parental consent.

If I could turn back time, I would listen to my grandma. She told me the sun -- and tanning beds too -- were no good. But I was young. And I didn't care.

Now I'm older. And I care. But it may be too late. It seems this could be one lesson I learn the hard way.

On December 8, 2006, I wrote about a Danish study investigating the possible link between cell phone use and cancer. This largest-ever study of it's kind put fears to rest. Cell phones do not cause cancer, said researchers who announced that cell phone users -- even long-term users -- are at no more risk of developing cancer than their non-cell phone using counterparts.

There's just no biological basis for concern about radio waves, reported the lead investigator of this study. But another newer study reports something entirely different.

Long-term mobile phone users are more likely to develop cancer -- brain cancer, on the side of the head where the phone is held -- according to the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland. It will all be detailed later this year in the International Journal of Cancer, but the general gist of the study is already circulating.

The study -- the second one to suggest an increased risk of cancer due to emissions from cell phones -- found that people who regularly used cell phones for more than 10 years were 40 percent more likely to develop nervous system tumors called gliomas. Comparisons were made between 1,521 people with gliomas and 3,301 people without the tumors. While no connections were initially made between the phones and cancer, a link was found when researchers specifically focused on those who had used their phones for more than 10 years.

Short-term use of cell phones has never been linked to cancer. That's good. But I tend to believe cell phones are going to become even more a staple of our technologically-driven lives than they are now. And so 10 years may actually be considered short-term one day -- which means we all may soon be at risk.

For now, until research becomes more conclusive, we get to pick and choose which study to stand behind. So take your pick -- and stay tuned for future scientific revelations.

The National Cancer institute reports that about two to five percent of all malignancies diagnosed in the United States are head and neck cancers. About 39,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. In a long term study aspirin use taken over a long duration cut the risk of head and neck cancer by 30 percent. It wasn't so much the amount of aspirin that was taken but the length of time that people were on the drug that mattered.

Aspirin is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDS). Experts believe that aspirin could be a cancer preventing medication but more studies need to be conducted to see if the rewards outweigh the risks of taking aspirin on a daily basis. There is a chance of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with daily use and it is not recommended that anyone start on an aspirin regime without discussing it with his or her physician first.

In September of 1998, the FDA approved Herceptin to treat breast cancer after it had become metastatic. Yesterday the FDA approved Herceptin's use for women diagnosed with breast cancer just after surgery. The drug is already widely prescribed for adjuvant therapy even without the FDA's approval, a practice called off-label use. Off-label use means that a prescription drug is being prescribed for a purpose not listed on the product's label. This is a common and acceptable practice by doctors and the Food and Drug Administration.

Clinical trials were conducted that showed women who received Herceptin (trastuzumab) given along with chemotherapy had fewer relapses than those who only received chemotherapy. Twenty to thirty percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer have this genetic alteration of the HER2 gene and could benefit by being treated with Herceptin.

Sometimes drinking alcohol is healthy. And sometimes drinking alcohol is harmful. Studies show that one drink per day -- compared with no drinking at all -- can reduce a woman's risk for heart disease and stroke by 50 percent. And other research indicates that older women who drink moderately have better cognitive skills. But there are also downsides for women who drink even moderate amounts of alcohol.

Even as little as one-half drink per day increases the risk of breast cancer -- possibly because alcohol raises estrogen blood levels which can promote growth of breast tumors. Women are also more likely than men to become dependent on alcohol and to experience other consequences too -- including damage to the brain and other organs. One in 13 adults in the United States has a serious alcohol problem -- and at least six million of these adults are women. And because the risk for alcohol-related health issues increase with age, older women should be especially careful of their alcohol intake for the purpose of maintaining health and limiting the odds of a breast cancer diagnosis.

In the interest of balancing the healthful and harmful effects of alcohol, The Harvard Women's Health Watch suggests that women over the age of 65 limit themselves to one drink per day. Or less.

I feel fortunate to have received every cancer drug I needed to fight my breast cancer -- Adriamycin, Cytoxan, Herceptin, and every nausea pill, pain capsule, and anti-anxiety formula on the market. I got exactly what doctors thought I needed -- without worry about availability or funding or politics. I am lucky. Some in the UK are not so lucky.

Two targeted therapies for bowel cancer will not be used in Britain's state-run health system, according to NICE -- the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE, the country's financial watchdog, determined the high cost of the medicines meant their use was not compatible with the best use of resources. Patients are angry because these same two drugs -- Avastin and Erbitux -- are used widely in the United States and in much of Europe. And while neither drug offers a cure for bowel cancer, both treatments have been shown in clinical trials to extend life expectancy by four or five months in some patients.

Based on doses given during the trials, it is estimated that the average cost of treating one patient with Avastin would be around 16,800 pounds and with Erbitux -- about 11,700 pounds. Apparently, this is too much. But according to Hilary Whittaker of the charity Beating Bowel Cancer, the decision to deprive patients of this medication is a scandal. I agree. And for these patients, I am sad.

NIRScanner is a battery-operated hand-held infrared-based optical scanning device that the developers claim is both affordable and safe and could be used by women as an at-home personal health care solution to the early detection of breast cancer.

However, Drexel University and the University of Pennsylvania scientists state the device is not designed to replace mammography, ultrasound, or other methods of screening for breast cancer, only that it offers an additional method of detection, much the same as monthly self-exams, only far more accurate at early detection. The simple device surpasses self-exam by touch in that it can detect changes in the breast that traditional self-exam could not, and the developers state that it would alert women to seek medical attention should the device detect a problem in the breast.

The NIRScanner makes steady low beeps as it moves over the breast. Using a type of near-infrared light that travels deep into breast tissue, if the hand-held device detects a tumor the beep tone gets higher. A microchip stores the information on the size and location of the tumor as the patient performs the self-examination and the information can be taken to be analyzed on a computer by a physician.

Although the researchers state that the device proved to be accurate over 90 percent of the time, it is still being tested, and needs funding to be brought to market. To read more about the NIRScanner, they have made an illustrated brochure available as a PDF document.

Double the hormone, double the risk. Or so says one study of older women who take hormone pills. When estrogen and testosterone are combined, women face twice the chance of getting breast cancer, according to a study of more than 70,000 nurses. This type of combination therapy may help with mood, libido, and bone density -- but the possible risk of breast cancer may just outweigh these benefits. These findings, published in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine, add to the evidence that certain types of hormone supplements -- like estrogen-progestin pills -- increase risk of breast cancer, strokes, and heart attacks in women. Other research points to a link between breast cancer and high natural levels of testosterone.

Women's natural levels of estrogen and testosterone decrease with menopause. Use of supplements has climbed over the past 24 years, perhaps putting more women at more risk. Estrogen-testosterone pills are sold under the brand names Estratest and Estratest H.S. and appear on a Washington-based advocacy group's "Worst Pills" list because of breast cancer risk.

Right here in Gainesville, Florida -- at the University of Florida to be exact -- the vaccine for cervical cancer is now available for college students. This vaccine -- called Gardasil -- could prevent women from contracting the human papillomavirus (HPV) which can cause cervical cancer and genital warts. Almost 30 of the more than 100 different strains of HPV are sexually transmitted -- and sometime in their lives, 50 percent of sexually active men and women will contract genital HPV infection. Many will not know they have it and will spread it unknowingly to sexual partners. Protection can come in the form of Gardasil which is approved for use in women between the ages of 9 and 26.

Women who are not sexually active are the best candidates for this vaccine because it is clear that they have not yet been infected. The vaccine is not effective for women who already are infected with HPV. And those who don't know if they are infected can determine if they have HPV through a routine Pap smear. If they do not have HPV, the vaccine is indicated. Once the vaccine is indicated, it is delivered in three separate doses over a six-month period of time. Each dose costs $120 -- which may discourage students from this option.

About 9,700 women in the United States will develop cervical cancer in 2006 and this cancer will kill 3,700 of these women. This vaccine -- if received well by young women who can afford it -- should prove a breakthrough in cancer research and prevention.

Drugs appear to be quite a slippery slope for bodybuilders, taking a second drug to offset the unwanted side effects of the first drug. According to University of Glamorgan researchers, 22 percent of bodybuilders use Tamoxifen because steroid use causes breast growth.

Tamoxifen has a few potentially serious life-threatening side-effects such as deep vein blood clotting and the increased risk for the development of new tumors.

Women breast cancer survivors often struggle over whether the benefit of taking Tamoxifen overweigh the risks. In the case of breast cancer prevention, most women go ahead and take the drug, but not without hesitation. That anyone would chose to take such a powerful drug without an absolute need is beyond logic and reason. My suggestion? Stop using steroids. Don't take the first drug -- won't need the second one.

In November 2004, my husband I and decided to try to have a third child. But instead of getting pregnant, I got breast cancer. And with the aggressive treatment I would receive -- surgery, dose-dense chemotherapy, radiation, and Herceptin therapy -- becoming pregnant was not an option. Birth control became my only option -- an option that has many limits for premenopausal women surviving breast cancer.

Despite a threatened lawsuit, The National Enquirer is refusing to back down from its exclusive cover story that Whitney Houston has a brain tumor and states they are standing by the story 100 percent. Meanwhile, multiple-Grammy winning singer Whitney Houston, and her representatives, are denying there is any truth to the rumor and are threatening the tabloid with legal action. Houston has suffered turbulent challenges both professionally and personally over the years, and has been the focus of more than one tabloid story concerning her alleged drug use, career and marriage. It would be sad if she indeed has a brain tumor, but considering the source of the news announcing such a diagnosis, it is difficult to know at this time how much truth there is to the story. Hopefully -- none.

"On the night of my first round of chemotherapy, exactly six hours after I left the oncologist's office wondering what all the fuss was about, my stomach tumbled into my knees, my knees refused to work altogether, and I crumpled to the floor in a clammy, shivering heap.
   
I lay there until dawn, at one point vomiting on myself, at another crying that I'd rather die of cancer than undergo chemo again."

Breast cancer made me a criminal is a Boston Globe opinion piece written by Lynda Gorov -- a breast cancer patient who shares a personal account of the misery she suffered from the side effects of chemotherapy treatment and her choice to turn to the possible use of marijuana for relief. She pulls no punches and makes a good point, by way of using herself as an example, for the benefits of medical marijuana use and the ludicrous stand the government has taken to the legalities of marijuana for medical purposes. If you are sitting on the fence on this issue, or have never gone through chemotherapy and might not appreciate the grueling life-debilitating experience, her editorial is a fair one to read.

Are we talking science -- or are we talking politics? On Thursday, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, came out and officially made its stand on medical marijuana use, by saying it opposes the use of marijuana for medical use as there are no sound animal or human scientific studies supporting the safety or efficacy for medical use. The FDA goes on to say there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful. However, the FDA statement contradicts a 1999 finding from the Institute of Medicine, which reported that marijuana's active components are potentially effective in treating pain and nausea, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials.

In response to the FDA statement, Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, countered with, "There is abundant evidence that marijuana can help cancer patients, multiple sclerosis patients and AIDS patients. There is no scientific doubt that marijuana relieves nausea, vomiting, certain kinds of pain and other symptoms that don't respond well to conventional drugs, and does it more safely than other drugs. This isn't a scientific statement -- it's a political statement."

Let me go on the record as saying that while I did not use marijuana when I underwent chemotherapy, I do support its medical use. Having said that, let me add that chemotherapy is a gruesome experience that defies description. If marijuana can relieve any of the side-effects of chemotherapy, or reduce the physical pain of cancer sufferers, this continued stand against marijuana use in any form is absurd -- and cruel. There is something malevolent about manipulating science for a political stand.