By Dr. Sanjay Gupta
Chief Medical Correspondent

As I have traveled around the country, it seems everyone is concerned about health care. More people than not think the system needs a major overhaul. An estimated 47 million Americans have no insurance. For others, it's an enormous financial burden. Families USA, a non-profit focused on affordable health care, predicts 18 million Americans under 65 will spend more than a quarter of their family income on health care this year -- and that's before taxes. And for some, the costs of medical care are catastrophic. It's the Number One cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States.

So what are the candidates proposing to do about health care?

Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each promise they'll provide access to health care for everyone. They would do this by expanding coverage for children and Medicaid for the poor. Also, they'd require most companies to offer insurance to their workers.

The big difference: Clinton would require everyone who wasn't covered by work or the government to buy their own insurance. Obama says that's unfair because buying your own insurance is so expensive. As a result, Clinton claims Obama's plan would leave out 15 million Americans. Both agree: they do not want a government run system like Canada or several European countries.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was a White House Fellow, a non-partisan appointment, in Hillary Clinton's office in 1997 and 1998 - three to four years after her health care initiative had been defeated.

Republican candidates (Watch Video) say the Clinton and Obama plans are too expensive and would add red tape to already-large bureaucracies. They're proposing a different approach. They want to increase competition among insurance companies to bring down the price of health care insurance. They also want to give individuals who buy their own health insurance tax breaks. In short, they want to use the power of the marketplace to make health care more affordable.

The challenge for the Republicans, of course, is what to do with people who still aren't covered?

So, which do you think will work? Using the free market and enterprise or expanding existing programs to cover everyone?

Programming note: Watch "Broken Government: Health Care - Critical Condition" tonight at 11 ET on CNN. The hour also airs at 11 p.m. Sunday

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

The Zeiglers hold baby Brooke

By Dr. Sanjay Gupta
Chief Medical Correspondent

The Number 1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is unpaid medical bills. As we found, it is not just the uninsured, but also the underinsured. It is also people who think they have excellent health insurance, but it is simply not enough.

Dawn and William Zeigler were living the American dream with a nice house, cars and plenty of money. When their daughter Brooke was born too early and required multiple surgeries, they never considered the cost because they thought they were covered. And, they were, at least for a while. They were amazed at how quickly the bills piled up, though. Tens of thousands of dollars a day, and soon their policy no longer provided any money. (Watch Video)

Brooke Zeigler died when she was 18 months old. Her father told me that he had to tell the doctors to stop working on her. It was the hardest thing he ever had to do in his life. The bills that arrived for nearly a million dollars may pale in comparison to losing one's child, but the Zeiglers are now at real risk of losing their dreams.

The health care debate is complicated. Again, the Zeiglers were covered, but not enough to cover little Brooke's millions of dollars of expenses. This is the reality of our broken health-care system and continues to be one of the biggest domestic issues on the minds of voters. Any thoughts on how to address this specific issue within of our health-care system?


Programming note: Watch "Broken Government: Health Care - Critical Condition" on Thursday and Sunday at 11 p.m. ET

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By Dr. Sanjay Gupta
Chief Medical Correspondent

For the past several months, we have been investigating our broken health care system. Everywhere we go, people agree it is in critical condition. As part of our research, I met Mark Windsor and I profiled him for the documentary, which airs Thursday at 11 p.m. ET. Mark tells us a very important story. He reminds us that being uninsured in this country not only means the loss of a safety net, incredible anxiety and possible bankruptcy. It could literally cost you your life.

When Mark was 27, he learned he had cancer and doctors operated on a large tumor in his neck. At that time, he had insurance and was able to get the operation. Thinking he was cured, Mark pursued a passion of his, photography. In the process, he lost the insurance he had through his job. And, the cancer came back. (Watch Video)

Now uninsured, Mark was slowly dying. At first he found doctors who would do his operations for free, but that lasted only so long. He was not eligible for potential life saving treatment because of the expense - hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now his doctors are convinced he will most likely have an abbreviated life. In a desperate measure, Mark married a woman, who was simply a good friend, at least partly so he could get insured. It may be too late. His cancer has spread to his lungs.

The United States is at a crossroads with its health care system. While men with cancer are more likely to live longer in the United States as compared with any country in the world, that provides little solace to Mark Windsor. (source: OECD)

All week long, we are going to be discussing this topic and I will break down the various health plans from the presidential candidates. The question I would pose today to get the discussion rolling is how do we take care of people like Mark Windsor, pay for their care and make sure the United States continues to have the best outcomes in the world?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By Caleb Hellerman
Senior Medical Producer

Last summer, when he was defending his veto of expanded federal health insurance for children, President Bush said something interesting. Sounding exasperated, he said critics were wrong to say that access to health care is a big problem. "People have access to health care in America. After all, just go to an emergency room."

It was awkward at best, jaw-dropping at worst. But in fairness, most people I know have the same general sense: that as much as we gripe about medical bills or the cost of insurance, if something were to go wrong - really wrong - someone will be there to take care of us.

But for me, the past few months have been eye-opening. We've been digging into the issue of health care, for a documentary that airs Thursday night (Broken Government: Health Care - Critical Condition, which airs Thursday at 11 p.m. ET, after the Democrats' debate). We found cancer patients dying because they couldn't afford radiation treatment and well-off, well-insured couples who went bankrupt after medical emergencies.

It's true that many people like their doctor, even the health care system in general. A CNN poll in November found 79 percent are happy with the health care they receive, and 69 percent are satisfied with their insurance coverage. And yet in that very same poll, 62 percent said they believe the system needs a great deal of reform. Clearly, something is wrong.

I think that people sense that the safety net is getting smaller. In just the past eight years, thousands of companies have dropped health insurance for their workers, and companies who still offer it are asking workers to pay more. On the private market, the cost of insurance is frightening -- an average of $12,106 per year for a family of four, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. And for too many, the emergency room is the only answer. A Harvard study this month found that ER wait times got 40 percent longer between 1997 and 2004, and the lead researcher blamed "Americans' poor access to primary and preventive care which could address medical issues before they become emergencies."

President Bush didn't use that emergency room line more than once, as far as I can tell. Someone may have told him it just didn't sound right. Tonight is the State of the Union address, when the president lists what he hopes to accomplish this year. Members of Congress and the assembled guests either leap up to clap, or sit on their hands, depending what they think of each suggestion. I'm eager to see what health care issues come up - and whether there's anything which gets a standing ovation from both sides of the aisle.

What do you think needs to be done to improve health care in the United States?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

Michelle Dowtin is battling type-2 diabetes

by Val Willingham
Medical Producer

21 million. I usually try not to start a blog with a number. But in this case, I'll make an exception, because the figure is jaw dropping.

21 million Americans have some form of diabetes. That's more than the entire population of the state of New York! And of those 21 million, around 90 percent have type 2 diabetes, which is usually brought on by obesity and genetics. So if you're overweight and have diabetes in your family, you're a prime candidate. But you don't have to be.

Diabetes 2 can be prevented; it just takes a few lifestyle changes. Studies have shown that even people who have Type 2 diabetes can turn the disease around, if they change their diets, lose weight and get exercise. Sounds so simple, but why is it that millions of Americans don't do it? Because changing the way you live, isn't always easy. Just ask Michelle Dowtin of Philadelphia.

Since she was a teen, Michelle has struggled with her weight. A mother of four, she developed gestational diabetes with each pregnancy. After giving birth it went away. But once her youngest twins were born, she was told she had type 2 diabetes. "The doctor tried to control it with changing my diet," she said. "That didn't work, so I had to go on medication." Michelle admits it's tough to keep to a weight-loss program. And being in her late 30s makes it even tougher.

As we age, and get into our 40s, the chance of contracting type 2 diabetes almost doubles, especially if you have a family history. Doctors say you should be thinking about diabetes when you're younger, in your 20s and 30s. Check if anyone in your family has diabetes -- parents, grandparents, siblings. Watch your weight. In some women, like Michelle, pregnancy can bring on gestational diabetes, a condition that if not taken care of, has a 20 to 50 percent chance of leading to diabetes later in life. As you get older, maintain a healthy weight. According to Dr. Guenther Boden, director of endocrinology at Temple University School of Medicine, staying slim and physically active "cuts your chances of becoming a type 2 diabetic by 60 percent."

Also, keep an eye on your numbers. Know your blood pressure and cholesterol. When you have a yearly exam, ask your doctor to take a glucose or blood sugar level. High sugar numbers can indicate you are pre-diabetic. And get off the couch!!! Even walking 30 minutes a day and limiting your calories can keep you from becoming a diabetic.

Since the new year, Michelle Dowtin has made it her goal to lose some weight. She's now on a supervised portion-control program she seems comfortable with. She hopes that by living a healthier life, she can pass on this lifestyle to her kids, so they won't have to deal with diabetes in their futures.

Do you suffer from type 2 Diabetes? Does someone in your family have it?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

Should calories be posted on fast food menus?

By Dr. Sanjay Gupta
Chief Medical Correspondent

Today, the New York City Board of Health will vote on whether calorie information should be included on fast-food chain menus. I am really curious as to what you think about this. It is a fascinating glimpse into human behavior and decision making. Would it make a difference to you if you actually saw the number of calories posted?

The New York City Department of Health says "yes." It points to studies showing that nine out of 10 people grossly underestimate the number of calories in these meals, by around 600 calories. In case you're curious, a typical meal from a fast-food restaurant of a large burger, large fries and medium drink is around 1,300 calories (66 percent of daily caloric requirements for an average person). Dr. Thomas Frieden, who is the city's health commissioner, thinks people will pay more attention by simply seeing calorie information and that will lead to slimmer waist lines in the future.

The National Restaurant Association disagrees with that position. First, it argues that consumers really don't want that information on menus because it will look too "cluttered" and that consumers can already find the information on many company Web sites. It says that other labeling laws haven't made a bit of difference to the obesity epidemic. Foods in the grocery stores have been required to list all sort of health information for years, and yet waistlines keep expanding.

So, how about you? Would you be less likely to order a typical fast-food meal if you saw the calories posted? Should restaurants be forced to do it?

Tuesday afternoon update: The New York City Board of Health voted unanimously to require all city chain restaurants to post calorie data on their menus. Chain restaurants already must make the calorie counts of their menu items publicly available, but beginning March 31 they will have to put the numbers on menu boards and menus. The change will affect restaurants with 15 or more outlets -- roughly 10 percent of all city restaurants, according to a news release from the city's health department.

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By A. Chris Gajilan
Medical News Senior Producer

"I'm ashamed I have to go to the emergency room when I get sick, but there's no way I could afford health insurance…just no way. I'm barely making ends meet."

I met 35-year-old single mother and full-time waitress Troy McCarty on the campaign trail last week. She was our waitress as anchor John Roberts and chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta went live on CNN's "American Morning" from the Lizard's Thicket restaurant in Columbia, South Carolina.

I'm covering my third presidential election at CNN. I have to say that I've always loved the campaign trail. I feared being a medical producer would keep me away from the road, but no such thing. This election is blurring more than party lines. Put quite simply, medical has become political.

But sometimes, it's far too easy to get distracted by live shots, sound bites and stump speeches. Meeting Troy reminded me of one of the greatest things about the campaign trail: actually listening to people's stories.

Troy has lived in South Carolina for two years. Troy takes home between $800 and $1,000 a month from her job at the restaurant. Her expenses for the month total in the neighborhood of $1,200 per month. She decided not to contribute to her employer-sponsored health insurance because she couldn't afford it. About half of the waitresses pay into a plan that costs between $100 and $200 every week. What's worse is that Troy suffers from crippling migraines. When they strike, she turns to the emergency room where one visit ends up costing her more than $1,900. She ends up working out a payment plan for each bill. It doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that she's having a rough time.

Troy is just one of the 45 million uninsured people who are figuring out how to live without insurance. She's still an undecided voter, but she's hoping for a candidate who can give her some real solutions. Tonight, CNN will be airing a political debate with the Democratic presidential hopefuls live from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I can't wait to see whether any of them have anything to offer Troy or the millions of other people who are barely making ends meet.

What do you want to hear from the candidates when it comes to health care?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By Val Willingham
Medical Producer

The Rev. Unnia Pettus is a busy woman. As a domestic violence counselor, a college instructor and a practicing minister, the last thing Pettus needs is a migraine. Unfortunately, she suffers from them all the time, sometimes three or four times a week.

Physicians find migraines are three times more common in women then in men. Many women experience migraines after they start their menstrual cycles. As they age, the pain becomes more intense and more frequent. "Patients sort of run into a chronic daily headache, so that they are having headaches every single day," says Dr. Marc Schlosberg, a neurologist at Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C. "The daily headaches tends not to be as bad as the migraine headache, but they still have migraines on top of the daily headaches."

Pettus is 39 and her migraines have gotten worse. When she was younger, she had only one a month, but now it's more often. She recognizes triggers that set her migraines off - certain smells such as heavy perfume, food cooking and smoking. Even the weather can bring on a migraine. And that's not unusual. In their 30s and 40s, migraine symptoms in some women begin to change. They experience more nausea, vomiting and they're more sensitive to light. Also, as they age, medications for migraines don't work for very long. Pettus has tried them all. Dr. Schlosberg says, "It's not uncommon for people to take these medications more frequently, because they get less and less effective."

For many women relief comes in their 50s, after menopause, as their migraine symptoms go away. Doctors believe that estrogen levels play a huge role. For men, migraines don't go away as they get older. They tend to be more severe. Many males suffer from chronic cluster headaches as they age. These headaches occur in clusters that last a few months each. Then they go away and come back in the next year.

For Pettus, the idea of growing older brings one ray of hope. Her mother, as well as her aunts all suffered from migraines when they were younger. After menopause, all their headaches vanished. It's a small comfort for Pettus, who has a long way to go before she reaches her 50s.

Do you suffer from migraines? What do you do for relief? Let us know.

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

by Tim Langmaid
Medical News Managing Editor

The FDA says it's safe to eat cloned meat and drink milk from cloned cows. What I find interesting is that no matter what the FDA or any other public or private agency says about edibles from cloned animals, ultimately it will be you, the consumer, who determines the success or failure of cloned food in the marketplace.

The FDA has given the green light to sell offspring of certain cloned animals (since it can cost more than $20,000 to clone an animal, clones will likely be used for breeding purposes only). However, the USDA is still asking farmers not to sell offspring of clones voluntarily so the public, retailers and other countries who buy U.S. meat can get used to the idea of consuming food from clones.

But in about three to five years, meat from cloned cattle, pigs and goats (and a few other animals) and milk from cloned cows could begin showing up in supermarkets. These items will be indistinguishable from traditionally produced meat. The FDA says it'll be safe. Some scientists agree. Other groups, like the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Consumer Federation of America, think more studies on cloned food must be done.

Where do you sit on the cloned food debate? Will you buy food from cloned animals when it becomes available? Why or why not?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

by Dr. Sanjay Gupta
Chief Medical Correspondent

Today, I spent the day in snowy Michigan. Truth is I love it here. You see, Michigan is home for me. I grew up here. We lived in several cities around the state, including Dearborn, Livonia, Novi, Ann Arbor and Chelsea. My parents still live in Michigan and my only sibling, a brother who is 10 years younger, lived here till just a couple of years ago. So, my heart is still in Michigan, which is why it is difficult to watch what has happened here over the past several years. Sitting in the National Coney Island diner in Warren, I couldn't believe the number of people who came over to me to just chat. Many had lost their jobs recently. And, it seems, almost all of them were concerned about health insurance.

As things stand now, more than a million people in Michigan aren't covered at all. And, for those who have insurance, the premiums are starting to become prohibitively high. While nearly 70 percent of the people who have insurance get it through their employer, even that is in jeopardy as more and more employers are leaving the state. So, how do you solve this problem? Is the answer to abolish employer-based coverage or to force insurance companies to become more competitive when vying for big corporation's business? In Michigan, this is the most important domestic issue voters say they face (Dr. Gupta discusses the candidate's health care plans - watch video here).

I am committed to making sure you have the knowledge you need about the health care crisis in this country as the presidential election approaches. Make sure to tune in for my special "Broken Government Critical Condition" on Thursday, January 31 at 11 p.m. ET.

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

by A. Chris Gajilan
Medical News Senior Producer

We all know that exercise is good for your heart. In addition, most of you probably already know that drinking moderately is better than no drinking at all when it comes to your health, and more specifically your ticker. But did you know that exercise and drinking alcohol lower your coronary heart disease risk in similar ways?

Exercise and alcohol drinking basically work through the same properties. They both raise your good/HDL cholesterol and lower your bad/LDL cholesterol. According to Dr. Arthur Klatsky, cardiologist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, "They do operate on good cholesterol HDL (high density lipoproteins). It acts like Drano to clean out the pipes. It takes away bad LDL cholesterol where it may be deposited like in blood vessel walls. The higher the level of HDL, the less likely it is that a person has vascular disease. The lower the levels of HDL, vascular disease becomes more likely."

Based on this effect, Danish researchers wanted to find out whether you can swap one for the other when it came to the cardiovascular benefit. "If you don't want to exercise too much, can you trade it for one to two drinks per day and be fine?" asked Dr. Morten Gronbaek, epidemiologist at the National Institute of Public Health in Denmark.

Not surprisingly, his team's study published in the latest issue of the European Heart Journal didn't find that alcohol and exercise were interchangeable, but rather they had a compounded, additional effect together. In an observational study of almost 12,000 people followed for 20 years, this is what researchers found: Moderate drinking exercisers had a 50 percent reduced risk of coronary heart disease compared with abstainers who didn't exercise. Among those who were tee-totaling exercisers, there was a 30 percent decreased risk. A similar 30 percent decreased risk goes for moderately drinking couch potatoes. All in all, those who didn't drink and didn't exercise had double the risk for heart disease as those who did exercise and drink moderately.

But this changes with age. "The new thing about this study is that physical activity and light to moderate alcohol intake in middle-aged and elderly people are both preventive and independent from one another," says Dr. Gronbaek.

I'm sure many of you may be asking - what level is considered moderate? Moderate drinking was considered one to 14 drinks per week in this study. The observational study was based on surveys and did not distinguish between type of drink (wine vs. beer) or serving size (pint vs. shot). Dr. Gronbaek says the optimal level for women at risk of coronary heart disease is one drink per day and one to two drinks per day for men.

But hold on - age is a huge factor. "You wouldn't advise everyone to drink," says Dr. Gronbaek. "You shouldn't even think about doing it until age 45 or 50 because the prevention of coronary heart disease is only relevant until this age for most people. There's absolutely no proof of a preventative and protective effect before age 45."

Have you added a daily drink or two to your diet to keep your heart healthy? Would you consider it?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

by Amy Burkholder
Medical News Producer

Dr. Sanjay Gupta is heading back to his roots -- to his home state of Michigan -- for live coverage of Tuesday's presidential primaries. From growing up, to his years of medical training in Michigan, he's seen the state's economy become decimated, and he believes what's happened has to do with health care:

- health insurance premiums that are too high

- companies that don't want to do business in Michigan because of the cost of covering employees

Health care is weighing on voters' minds this campaign season. But have you heard of a plan that meets your needs?

On Tuesday we'll take an in-depth look at the candidates' health care platforms: What do they propose? What would it cost? And what are you willing to pay to cover you and your family?

Plus, who's seduced by cheesy pizza, who likes turkey sandwiches, who munches on Nicorette and who considers coffee his greatest vice? We're dishing on some the candidates' health habits.

Finally, do you think being president leads to health, wealth and a long life? We're doing the math on life expectancy and the Oval Office.

Dr. Gupta will be live with John Roberts as American Morning spotlights the Michigan primary, putting health care center stage - and we want to hear from you: What health care questions do you have this election season?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

What exactly causes autism? That is a question I get as much as any other. Of course, there is no absolute answer, but a study caught my eye and I was wondering what you thought. The study, in the Archives of General Psychiatry (Full Study) examines cases of autism in California since 1999. In that year, as you may know, manufacturers began removing thimerosal - a mercury based preservative - from vaccines. The researchers reasoned that if mercury exposure was a major cause of autism, the number of children with autism should have dropped after thimerosal was removed. (Read more or Watch Video)

That didn't happen. From 2004 to 2007, when exposure to thimerosal dropped significantly for 3- to 5-year-olds, the autism rates continued to go up from 3 in 1,000 to 4 in 1,000. Small numbers, but they still point to an important trend. In investigating this story, we interviewed independent doctors not affiliated with the study and one said, "This very clearly shows autism did not arrive through a vaccine."

There are others, though, who say, "Not so fast." And, there are a couple of important points to make. First off, if you really trace the vaccine, you will find thimerosal wasn't completely off the shelves until 2002 or 2003 according to the National Vaccine Information Center. Also, this particular study doesn't include children under the age of 3, which is obviously an important age group, when it comes to the diagnosis of autism.

We do know that the signs of autism may include no pointing or babbling by the age of 12 months. Not a single word by 16 months and no brief phrases by 24 months. Also, loss of language or social skills may be an indicator. None of these are absolute by any means and are just flags to look for. Still, though, where do you come down on the cause of autism? Still worried about mercury? Any thoughts on whether the causes are environmental, genetic or both?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

I went to three funerals in 2007. Two were for cancer patients.

The first was back in June. Eight-year-old Tony Nata lost his battle with leukemia. I first met him when we were doing a story on the smallest cancer patients searching for treatment after Hurricane Katrina shut down Children's Hospital in New Orleans, where Tony was undergoing chemotherapy. I'll never forget the tears rolling down his face as he bravely and quietly underwent yet another medical exam. His family thought he had beaten cancer already, but it came back. And even though his sister Ali donated bone marrow, which put his cancer in remission for the second time, his reprieve didn't last. The cancer came back yet again, and this time little Tony couldn't fight it off.

The last funeral I went to in 2007 was just a few weeks ago, when everyone in CNN's Medical Unit said goodbye to a beloved colleague, Rhonda Grayson. She had beaten blood cancer almost two decades ago but then learned she had bladder cancer last January. She fought a good fight and never lost her optimistic outlook, but this was a battle she couldn't win. We're left with the memory of a wonderful friend with a gorgeous smile.

I've been covering medical news for eight years and counting and followed many cancer stories. I can't tell you how often I've produced segments on ways to lower the risk of getting cancer (lose weight, exercise, eat more fruits & vegetables). But like some of you, I don't necessarily follow the advice.

Tony's passing and Rhonda's declining health certainly had an impact on me. Cancer was on my mind all year long. Then in the fall, the World Cancer Research Fund released a report on cancer prevention. It reiterated a lot of what we already knew, but also had some new information. I don't know why it had more impact on me than previous reports but it did.

Some of the recommendations:
- reducing your salt intake (I'm a salt-a-holic)
- eating less than 18 ounces of red meat a week (that includes beef, pork, lamb & processed meats that have been cured or smoked or have chemicals preservatives)
- avoid gaining weight throughout adulthood (this may be one of the most important ways to protect against cancer, and something I haven't been able to do)
- exercise (60 minutes of moderate or 30 minutes of vigorous exercise daily)

Despite having a family history of several cancers, I've been lucky so far. And there's probably very little Rhonda or Tony could have done to prevent getting cancer - sometimes it's just in your genes. But I think knowing how these two people lost the cancer battle and the World Cancer Research Fund report once again spelling out what one can do reduce the risk of this dreaded disease finally made a light bulb turn on in my head.

So in 2008, I don't have any resolutions - instead, I'm going to try to practice what I preach. I'm going to stick to two to three servings of red meat per week. I will reach for the salt shaker as little as possible. I'll avoid some of my favorite "processed" salami and bacon, as best I can. I will try to finally start exercising on a regular basis and maybe even shed a few of the way too many pounds I've accumulated over the years. If I succeed, I'll have the added benefit of reducing my risk of heart disease and stroke (cardiovascular disease is the No. 1 cause of death in men and women in the U.S.).

Will you be changing any health habits to reduce your chance of getting cancer? Is cancer something that factors into your New Year's resolutions?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

As an embedded reporter in Iraq, I had a chance to see firsthand some of the strengths and shortfalls of the gear being used to protect our military. As a neurosurgeon I was particularly interested in the helmets worn by U.S. armed forces. In the spring of 2003, I was asked to operate a few times in Iraq on soldiers and civilians with catastrophic head injuries, which gave me a unique look at the pattern of injuries being suffered. Truth is, it seemed for the vast majority of people, the helmets did a good job, given the constraints. Keep in mind, they had to be lightweight, not too warm given the climate, and still durable enough to protect against shrapnel wounds.

We now know, though, that traumatic brain injury has become one of the signature injuries of this war and one of the biggest culprits is IEDs or improvised explosive devices. A big question is just how much force does an explosive device generate? How much acceleration and how much pressure is really generated? Well, that is hard to know, but a new technology the Army is using caught my eye.

When we started making calls to the U.S. Army about the helmet, they actually offered to fly a helmet to the CNN Center, complete with a soldier, Major William Schaffer, to demonstrate the technology. It is essentially a smart helmet that carries a microchip that measures impact, from things like an IED or even just from landing on the ground after a jump. A group of soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division will receive the smart helmets when they deploy for Afghanistan in the spring. Now, while it is admittedly difficult to directly correlate the effects of those measured blast forces on the brain, the hope is that one day it could lead to the design of even safer equipment.

A lot of people are thinking about safer and more effective protective gear. Do you have any ideas or thoughts on how to make better gear? We can share some of your thoughts directly with the Army.

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

A headline may catch your eye today. It will read something like "You are more likely to die of a heart attack in a hospital than a casino." (Full Story). No question that sounds pretty scary, but I want to provide a little context to this story (See Study).

First off, what is really happening to your heart during a heart attack or cardiac arrest? It is typically one of two things: Either your heart is beating too fast or it is beating in some sort of abnormal rhythm. The bottom line is the same: Your heart is no longer providing the blood flow required by the rest of your body, including the heart muscle itself, and that muscle begins to die.

We also know that delivering an electric shock to the heart within a couple of minutes can make a difference, sometimes restoring a normal rate and rhythm. The longer the delay, the less likely it will work. That's the background. So what is it about casinos or airports that make you more likely to survive a cardiac arrest than in a hospital?

Well, it has to do with a couple of things. First, there are simply more people around in a casino or an airport or any public building who may actually witness a cardiac arrest and offer up treatment more quickly - in that crucial two-minute window. In a hospital, unless a patient is hooked up to a cardiac monitor or being constantly observed, a cardiac arrest may go unnoticed for more than a few minutes - maybe too long. The other factor is that patients in hospitals are often sicker in the first place, which is why they are in the hospital. They may be less able to recover from a heart attack.

As part of this blog, let me also encourage you to review the new CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) practices for bystanders by clicking here. They have changed recently, and in some situations focus more on doing chest compressions rather than mouth to mouth breathing. There's even a kit available to learn CPR in just one hour at home. (Full story)

It's worth your time and may just save a life.

Have you ever witnessed someone having a heart attack? How did the people around react and what was done?

If you think weight training is only for professional body builders or young athletes, you're wrong. Anyone can benefit from a weight training program, and it's particularly important to pump iron as you age.

Debbie MacLean is an athletic trainer at Coca-Cola's corporate headquarters in Atlanta and trains Coke employees of all ages. She says we lose about five to seven pounds of muscle mass per decade as we get older. "As a result," she says, "your metabolism slows and you start to gain weight."

In your 30s, it's all about metabolism. Your body is changing and you are burning fewer calories. This is a good time to focus on adding more muscle and definition to your body, especially the backs of the arms and the abdominal muscles. This can be accomplished with free weights or weight machines.

In your 40s, it's all about maintaining muscle tone with weight training. Strengthening leg muscles will help alleviate knee problems that become more prevalent at this age. Decades of sitting at a computer may be coming back to haunt you in the form of back pain. Lifting weights that isolate those lower back muscles will help.

In your 50s, it may be time to modify your workout to slow down the effects of arthritis and osteoporosis. Focus on strengthening your upper back and shoulders to avoid a hunched back as you get older. Do it right and you should be able to continue weight training into your 60s and beyond.

Before you start lifting weights, check with an athletic trainer to find the best workout for you and how to prevent injuries. And don't forget cardio exercise like swimming, walking or biking. As MacLean says, "If you don't do something to work your heart and lungs, it doesn't matter what your bicep can do."