It’s easy to say that we should have found a cure by now. We have little bits of crucial information that could be pushing us closer to a cure. Still, we’re left without certainty that this awful monster will ever be curbed.

This is precisely why you want to be a…naked mole rat.

Sure, that doesn’t really make sense but, in terms of cancer, naked mole rats are the creatures to be.

Scientists at the University of Rochester have been studying these ugly little rodents for about 30 years. They’ve been manipulating their cells in an attempt to give them cancer. (Nice, huh?) The interesting point is this: they don’t get cancer.

According to the research that was published in Monday’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, these animals have a specific gene that will not allow cells to over-reproduce. This gene is called p16 and it makes cells “claustrophobic” so that when the cells begin to reproduce at alarming rates, they just stop when they get too close. In this way, the tumors never even become tumors because they can’t grow.

Because this is at the beginning stages, it’s hard to tell where this discovery will lead us. Obviously, we would all love a way for this to be harvested in humans. It sure would be weird though to know that your life saved by something as ugly as this.

As American health authorities are bracing for what they believe could be one of the worst pandemics in many years, most Americans aren’t giving it the time of day.

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll from Aug. 19, more than 60 percent of Americans are “not too” or “not at all” worried about the swine flu. The poll also suggests that three-quarters of Americans have faith that the government will handle this flu situation appropriately and will take care of U.S. residents.

We’ve seen evidence of authorities preparing to deal with this. Many state public school systems have decided to make an H1N1 shot mandatory for all students, and many universities are planning ahead for many students to be missing school during flu season.

The University of South Florida has mandated that each teacher must have a plan for continuing education if a health or natural emergency occurs. Along with that plan, each classroom has a large bottle of hand sanitizer and a laminated poster with tips for educating students know what to do in order to minimize the spread of the H1N1 virus.

Authorities are taking necessary precautions to keep the swine flu under control. Now, if only the rest of the country would take the necessary precautions to keep it under control, maybe this flu season won’t be a detrimental as the professionals are expecting.

According to Newsday, about three million students will be offered the flu vaccine on their very own campus. All of this is an attempt to keep the swine flu at bay.

Apparently, no one is interested in having an swine flu outbreak among the children of our nation. What a big surprise.

The Federal government is planning on shipping out the H1N1 vaccines in mid-October, and many school boards are planning on snapping as many up as possible.

Some school boards have even begun preparation for dealing with what may be the most widespread school vaccinations since the polio outbreak.

While the government continues to wait for the results of the tests on these new vaccines, online seminars have already started to train schools on how to run school vaccinations.

People are definitely planning ahead.

As for the possibility of your child getting vaccinated in his or her school, it’s still under debate.

Children are at the top of the list for the shots and the shot will be available to all children in a timely manner.

There are an equally large amount of school districts and states that have decided to try alternatives instead of directly giving all of their vaccines to their public school students.

Among the leading states interested in offering in-school vaccines is South Carolina. The hope there is to have at least one vaccination center in each of the state’s 85 school districts.

Another great idea school districts have come up with is mandating hand washing. I’m wondering if maybe we could make that a federal law. That would definitely help keep the swine flu under control.

The gene is known as TOMM40 and could predict the age of a person when Alzheimer’s begins to set in within a five-to-seven-year window, but only among people over 60, as the Duke University Medical Center research team reported.

At first thought, this sounds like wonderful news, right? I actually lost my great-grandmother five years ago to Alzheimer’s, and watched my grandmother, her daughter, experience the loss that comes with a loved one getting the disease. It was painful for me to watch as the days would pass, my great-grandmother forgetting her daughter’s name, her daughter’s face, and eventually, the whole family.

Any new information on this disease would be helpful. At least a family could prepare for it, if this gene does prove to be what researchers believe.

But what about the down sides to the discovery of this gene and its potential abilities?

If people are able to be tested for developing Alzheimer’s, essentially, and say a person is tested and is found to have potential for developing Alzheimer’s at some point, won’t his or her insurance skyrocket? Of course. Is this fair? I think not.

What if the test produces false results and a person who would never actually develop the disease is told he or she will at some point. That’s some pretty serious information to take to heart, not to mention the affect on the person’s family, and all based on probability, even as high as that number may be in the case of this gene, which they say would provide a “highly accurate prediction of the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.”

As with much new information and technological advancement, this could be both a gift and a curse.

Acetaminophen has long been understood as a double-edged sword in the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) category.  It is one of the most effective pain relieving medications by dosage, but also one for the greatest potential for overdose.  Liver problems have been documented throughout Tylenol’s (acetaminophen is the active ingredient) history, but in late June, the FDA recommended to lay down greater restrictions on acceptable intake.  Using the guise of public safety, the FDA is not only limiting Tylenol, but looking to pull some of the most popular prescription narcotics from production, such as Dr. Gregory House’s candy (Vicodin).  

As with ephedra years ago, Hydroxycut in the spring, and now acetaminophen products, one has to wonder why now?  

Ephedra in its various forms has been used for a long time, and it is still widely used around the world and seen as a safe energizer.  Hydroxycut had been on the market with its formula for years without incident, until recently, as our society has become more impatient with diet and exercise and wanting the easy way out (gastric bypass surgery becoming extremely popular) to another “public safety” banner slapped on a narc op to try and stop production of prescription drugs that have the greatest chance of winding up being sold on the street.  Most people buying off the street won’t care about the potential liver damage, but at the same time, those who have legitimate uses for the drug will be left with fewer options.

It boils down to a simple choice: “Protecting consumers,” or improving quality of life.  Chronic pain sufferers will almost always choose quality of life over “possible” health consequences.

But all the idolizing and searching may soon be at an end.

Brooke Greenberg is a 16-year-old-girl, still lives at home and gets all the attention any teenager would love.  Sounds normal right?  It does up until you take into consideration that she is the size of a toddler, has baby teeth, the bone development of a 10-year-old and the intellectual capacity of a rugrat.  What baffles scientists is that she has no genetic defects known to interrupt the growth process, and that her body is completely out of sync with what little growth has actually occurred.

Geneticists now wonder if little Brooke holds the key to finding what causes us to age, and if possible, how to play God and open the door to mankind dictating its own lifespan.  It is an interesting scientific ethical dilemma, one that has presented itself in other endeavors, such as cloning.  What stands out as the key difference between cloning and immortality, and where public opinion may differ on the topic, is simply fear:

People fear death.

Unfortunately, the ER turned out to be a fiasco where one person’s ignorance (or just plain laziness) lead to a series of events that looked like an episode of House when it was over.

There was never a mention on her paperwork of the kidney stone she came in complaining about. Instead, the woman ended up with unnecessary surgery for a gall bladder condition, which only deteriorated her system further, until it was discovered (finally) that she did, in fact, have a kidney stone. That stone lead to a septic infection, which then lead to necrosis in her fingers and toes.

After getting her arms amputated at the elbow and her legs below the knee, she sued the hospital for negligence.

But the jury sided with the hospital.

The verdict came as a real surprise due to the sheer amount of substantiated evidence against the hospital. The judge overruled the jury, calling for a retrial. (Let me not forget to mention that judges do this in fewer than 1 percent of all cases, and only in the most absurd cases.)

There’s no doubt that accidents happen, and when permanent disability comes into play, someone needs to take responsibility. Charging a woman $850,000 in medical bills for unnecessarily lost limbs just isn’t that.

Well, parents Colleen and Anthony Hauser are having to deal with those feelings right now. You may be familiar with this Minnesota family who has been in the news about refusing their 13-year-old son cancer treatment. Of course, at first glance this seems like a terrible, TERRIBLE thing to do, but I think there’s more to the story here.

The Hauser’s are part of a religious group that believes in treating health problems with only herbal remedies. (Freedom of religion, anyone?)

As far as refusing to provide their son cancer treatment, the Hauser’s truly believe they are doing the right thing, as does their son.

As Americans, they have the right to do so. Still, the question of where that puts their son, Daniel, remains. If he were of legal age would he be able to decide whether he wanted to go with traditional or alternative medicine? It would be his right. Yet, he doesn’t have a choice now.

So who should get to choose for him? The government or his parents? Who gets to say what is right and what is wrong here?

According to Minnessota courts, it is the government’s responsibility to make the decision.The AP reported that Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg said “the state’s interest in protecting the child override the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression and a parent’s right to direct a child’s upbringing.”

With many complications and arguments of First Amendment right infringements, who’s right in a case like this?