A 22-year-old leukemia patient with a talent for video has turned the fight against cancer into an online anthem celebrating strength -- and recovery.

Chris Rumble of Kent, Wash., spent Saturday filming fellow patients, doctors and nurses on the hematology/oncology unit at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Dancing, singing and holding signs that read “Hope” and “Fighter,” they put together a moving makeshift video set to the tune “Stronger” by Kelly Clarkson.

“It was kind of like a party,” said Rumble, who filmed the video during the day, stayed up late Saturday night and posted it on YouTube early Sunday.“It wasn’t a typical day at all.”

He was hoping to make a video to repay his teammates on the Wenatchee Wild hockey team, who had sent him a video when they learned of his illness. He appears in the video bald, singing and wearing an orange T-shirt.

Rumble spent 35 days on the pediatric and adolescent cancer ward because he was 21 when he was admitted, just on the line between adolescent and adult care. During his treatment, he says he became kind of big brother and role model to children coping with cancer.

“For me, personally, I try not to let anyone see my pain,” he said. “A lot of the kids are much younger and don’t understand what they’re going through.”

Simply making the video lifted the spirits of many of the children on the floor, said Brittany Skinner, 26, a pediatric hematology oncology nurse who is shown dancing and singing.

"It gave them something to shine through, I guess," she said. "Like the song said, 'What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.'"

Rumble’s video surprised the public relations staff at the hospital, who woke up Sunday morning to a viral sensation. By early today, the video already had more than 64,000 hits.

“It’s pretty amazing,” said Alyse Bernal, spokeswoman for Seattle Children’s. “It’s just taken off.”

Singer Kelly Clarkson got word of the Seattle Children's video and tweeted her approval: "Oh my goodness y'all have to see this! It's beautiful! I can't wait to visit these kids and nurses!" read a post on her account @Kelly_Clarkson. It wasn't immediately clear whether Clarkson actually plans to visit the hospital. 

As for Rumble, he was back at the hospital this morning for an appointment. On Friday, he'll learn whether his cancer is in remission.

Do you find this video inspiring? Tell us about it on Facebook.

More on TODAY Health

• Ask Jenna: How can I lift weights without bulking up?
• Oversharing on Facebook as satisfying as sex?
• Teen gets lung transplant in time to attend her prom

By Robert Bazell
NBC News

It is far from a shocking revelation that red meat is not health food. But a new study from the highly respected researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health offers some of the best and most detailed evidence yet that a daily serving of meat can increase risk of heart disease or cancer.

The Harvard scientists followed almost 84,000 women and 38,000 men in the Nurse’s Health Study and Health Professional’s Follow-Up Study for 28 years. It found those eating a daily serving of red meat were 13 percent more likely to die in the study period, and approximately 14 percent more likely to develop heart disease or cancer. Those numbers go up to 20 percent more deaths and an estimated 18 percent more heart problems and cancer for those who reported eating a daily serving of processed meats such as hot dogs, salami and bacon.

In the realm of health risks, these are not huge numbers.  Daily cigarette smoking adds risk of some 2,000 to 4000 percent for these hazards. But across the U.S. population, Americans love of meat likely accounts for about 1.5 million excess deaths every decade, according to research from the National Institutes of Health.

According to the American Meat Institute, Americans consume on average 65 pounds of pork and a similar amount of beef per person every year. Those numbers have changed little over the past two decades. At the same time, chicken consumption has climbed sharply to around 80 pounds a year, while turkey logs in at 15 pounds a year. We’re eating more birds, but no fewer mammals.

The Harvard research is very credible, even though it is a so-called “observational” study. The highest level of proof is a “controlled trial” where half the people would eat meat and the other would not. That’s obviously not practical for multi-decade dietary study.  The Harvard researchers have a long track record with their observations of nurses, doctors, and other health professionals. Blood tests confirm that what people report as their diet tends to be accurate -- as are their health records.

In addition, these results neatly coincide with a decade long study published in 2009 of more than 500,000 people from the National Cancer Institute. That confirmation strengthens the argument enormously.

In an editorial in the same issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine with the Harvard study, Dr. Dean Ornish, the preventive medicine guru of the San Francisco Bay area, points out that red meat is harmful not just to our bodies, but also to the planet. It takes enormous amounts of plants, requiring energy-intensive fertilizers, to fatten cattle and pigs. Ornish cites a study finding that the amount of energy required to produce a Quarter Pounder with Cheese equals burning 7 pounds of coal.

Ornish -- who once opposed most fat in the diet -- now agrees with the Harvard group that there are “good fats,” such as fish oil and vegetable oils and “bad fats,” including the saturated fats found in meat and the industrially created trans fats. Ornish concludes there is an emerging consensus of what constitutes a healthy diet: little or no red meat; more “good carbs,” such as those in fruits vegetables and whole grains; fewer “bad carbs,” such as refined sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and white flour; more good fats and fewer bad fats. And to the extent possible, we should eat less of everything, especially junk food.

Those conclusions, the product of decades of many big research projects, will likely stand for a long time. So, we know what a healthy diet is. The question is: Will our taste buds and will power allow us to stay with it?

Bon appétit.

Robert Bazell is NBC's chief science and medical correspondent. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter @RobertBazellNBC

Related story:

Enjoy your daily burger without killing yourself

By Elisa Zied, R.D.

A new study from researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health suggests consuming a higher amount of red meat can increase death risk from all causes and from cardiovascular disease and cancer.

This study adds to a growing body of research that suggests red meat consumption may be associated with health risks. It’s particularly significant because it’s long-term and includes so many people – 120,000 men and women. Yet if you eat meat daily, don’t panic. Simply reduce your daily red meat consumption while increasing the amount of fish and beans you eat. That’s the kind of protein and nutrients – omega-3 fatty acids and fiber -- we’re not getting enough of.

This kind of swap could save calories by reducing total fat and saturated fat intake. That’s not only protective for our health, it can be good news to our waistlines.

Compared to non-meat eaters, subjects who ate only a half-serving (about 1.5 ounces) of red meat daily had a 6 percent increased risk of death. And the more meat that was consumed, the more the risk increased.

But if the participants replaced one daily serving (3 ounces) of red meat with one serving of fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, or whole grains, they had a lower risk of death, heart disease or cancer.

If you enjoy meat, you don’t need to give it up. There are way you can enjoy its nutritional perks -- high-quality protein, selenium, zinc, B vitamins -- while minimizing potential health risks.

Opt for lean meats such as round steaks and roasts (eye of round, top round, bottom round, and round tip), top loin or sirloin, and chuck shoulder and arm roasts. Lean pork options include pork loin, tenderloin, center loin and ham.

Emphasize unprocessed meats (including beef, pork and lamb) over processed meats (including hot dogs, salami, bologna or sausage).

Instead of frying meats (high cooking temperatures can create cancer-causing compounds), broil, boil, bake, grill, steam or lightly sauté them.

Aim for five to six 1-ounce equivalents each day of a variety of protein foods --  the current recommendation for most adults.

A one ounce-equivalent of protein equals:

• 1-ounce cooked lean beef, pork or ham; 1-ounce cooked chicken or turkey (skinless)
• 1 egg
• 1-ounce fish or seafood
• ½ ounce nuts (12 almonds, 24 pistachios, 7 walnut halves)
• ½ ounce seeds (pumpkin, sunflower or squash seeds, hulled, roasted)
• 1 Tablespoon peanut butter or almond butter
• ¼ cup cooked beans (such as black, kidney, pinto, or white beans) or peas (such as chickpeas, cowpeas, lentils, or split peas)
• ¼ cup baked or refried beans
• ¼ cup (about 2 ounces) tofu
• 1 ounce cooked tempeh
• ¼ cup roasted soybeans
• 2 Tablespoons hummus

 Source: choosemyplate.gov

Elisa Zied is a New York registered dietitian and contributor to msnbc.com. Follow her on Twitter @elisazied and Facebook

Related story:

That daily serving of red meat may be harming your health

"Healthy Happy Meal" doesn't have to be an oxymoron

5 great reasons to kick your soda habit

George Marks / Getty Images file

The health hazards of drinking soda are actually nothing to smile about.

By Emily Main
Rodale.com

If you've been reading health magazines and websites for any length of time, you've read a litany of reasons why soda is bad for you. It's nothing but sugar water. It's devoid of any nutritional value. It leads to obesity and diabetes. But we've dug up several other disturbing facts about what soda does to your body, besides packing on the pounds, that don't get much attention in broader discussions about soda and its impact on your health.

Accelerated aging
Diet or regular, all colas contain phosphates, or phosphoric acid, a weak acid that gives colas their tangy flavor and improves their shelf life. Although it exists in many whole foods, such as meat, dairy, and nuts, too much phosphoric acid can lead to heart and kidney problems, muscle loss, and osteoporosis, and one study suggests it could trigger accelerated aging. The study, published in a 2010 issue of the FASEB Journal, found that the excessive phosphate levels found in sodas caused lab rats to die a full five weeks earlier than the rats whose diets had more normal phosphate levels—a disturbing trend considering that soda manufacturers have been increasing the levels of phosphoric acid in their products over the past few decades.

Caramel cancer-causers
In 2011, the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to ban the artificial caramel coloring used to make Coke, Pepsi, and other colas brown. The reason: Two contaminants in the coloring, 2-methylimidazole and 4-methylimidazole, have been found to cause cancer in animals, a threat the group says is unnecessary, considering that the coloring is purely cosmetic. According to California's strict Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, just 16 micrograms per person per day of 4-methylimidazole is enough to pose a cancer threat, and most popular brown colas, both diet and regular, contain 200 micrograms per 20-ounce bottle.

The Hidden Cancer Threat in Soda

Mountain Dew mind
Dentists have a name for the condition they see in a lot of kids who drink too much Mountain Dew. They wind up with a "Mountain Dew Mouth," full of cavities caused by the drink's excessive sugar levels. "Mountain Dew Mind" may be the next medical condition that gets named after the stuff. An ingredient called brominated vegetable oil, or BVO, added to prevent the flavoring from separating from the drink, is an industrial chemical used as a flame retardant in plastics. Also found in other citrus-based soft drinks and sports drinks, the chemical has been known to cause memory loss and nerve disorders when consumed in large quantities. Researchers also suspect that, like brominated flame retardants used in furniture foam, the chemical builds up in body fat, possibly causing behavioral problems, infertility, and lesions on heart muscles over time.

Toxic cans
It's not just the soda that's causing all the problems. Nearly all aluminum soda cans are lined with an epoxy resin called bisphenol A (BPA), used to keep the acids in soda from reacting with the metal. BPA is known to interfere with hormones, and has been linked to everything from infertility to obesity to some forms of reproductive cancers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have pegged soda cans, along with restaurant, school, and fast-food meals, as a major source of exposure to the chemical. And while Pepsi and Coke are currently locked in a battle to see which company can be the first to develop a 100 percent plant-based-plastic bottle—which they're touting as "BPA free"—neither company is willing to switch to BPA-free aluminum cans.

19 Foods That Will Quench Your Thirst

Water pollution 
The artificial sweeteners used in diet sodas don't break down in our bodies, nor do wastewater-treatment plants catch them before they enter waterways, researchers have found. In 2009, Swiss scientists tested water samples from wastewater-treatment plants, rivers and lakes in Switzerland and detected levels of acesulfame K, sucralose, and saccharin, all of which are, or have been, used in diet sodas. A recent test of 19 municipal water supplies in the U.S. revealed the presence of sucralose in every one. It's not clear yet what these low levels are doing to people, but past research has found that sucralose in rivers and lakes interferes with some organisms' feeding habits.

Diet Soda = Diabetes Soda

Related links:

What Food Companies are Hiding with Food Dye

Toxic Flame Retardant Detected in Popular Soda

The 4 Best, and 3 Worst, Sweeteners to Have in Your Kitchen

High-Fructose Corn Syrup Puts Hearts in Danger

Courtesy: Beckie Sypin

Beckie Sypin and her daughter Kin Inich

Her figure may not exist in nature, but Barbie's status as a role model for young girls is undeniable.

Now a movement is afoot on Facebook to create a "Bald Barbie" as a role model for young girls going through chemotherapy or suffering from hair loss conditions such as alopecia.

"We would like to see a Beautiful and Bald Barbie made to help young girls who suffer from hair loss due to cancer treatments, Alopecia or Trichotillomania," reads the introduction to the Facebook page, Beautiful and Bald Barbie! Let's see if we can get it made.

The Facebook page, created by a group of women who either had children dealing with baldness or were dealing with it themselves due to chemotherapy, went up a few days before Christmas.  As of Friday, it has more than 86,000 "likes."

"My daughter is battling leukemia right now and she's been going through chemotherapy for the last two years," says Beckie Sypin, a 32-year-old special-education teacher's aid from Lancaster, Calif., and one of the mothers responsible for the Facebook campaign.

"She was bald for about seven months and we would go to the store and people would stare or kids would ask her why she's bald. It's not something they're used to seeing. We think [a bald Barbie] would be therapeutic and I think it would help baldness become more quote unquote normal. It would be seen. It wouldn't be this odd thing that people don't have hair."

As the lobbying for a bald Barbie gained momentum, Mattel issued a statement Thursday: "We are honored that Jane Bingham and Beckie Sypin believe that Barbie could be the face of such an important cause.  Mattel appreciates and respects the passion that has been built up for the request for a bald Barbie doll. As you might imagine, we receive hundreds of passionate requests for various dolls to be added to our collection.  We take all of them seriously and are constantly exploring new and different dolls to be added to our line."

The statement noted that the toy company and the Mattel Children’s Foundation have donated close to $30 million and more than half a million toys to children's hospitals across the country.

Deanna Pledge, a psychologist working with children in Columbia, Mo., says a bald Barbie might indeed be helpful.

"I think having an image of a bald child or bald adult -- whether it's Barbie or not -- does promote a positive message in the mainstream," she says. "And Barbie is clearly in the mainstream."

Pledge says that even having a bald Barbie on the toy store shelves could create educational opportunities for parents and children.

"Parents might be forced to have discussions with their children as to why Barbie is bald, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing," she says. "There would be more people talking about it and discussing it instead of just looking at the children as different. They may feel that it's more normal and I think that could be helpful."

Sypin hopes Mattel -- or another toymaker -- will take note, though, since she feels there's a definite need for such a doll.

"I know with a lot of the girls that we've met through treatment, the cancer part isn't the part that scares them, it's the fact that they're bald," she says. "The girls cry over losing their hair."

Sypin's 12-year-old daughter, Kin Inich, wasn't one of them, however.

"She's been very good about the whole bald thing," says Sypin. "She rocks it. She has silly wigs and hats and headbands and scarves. During the summer, she was even writing on her head and putting on temporary tattoos. She didn't care that she lost her hair. But she did care that people stared at it."

Pledge, the psychologist, says she played with Barbie as a child and recalls that Mattel used to make a version of the doll with molded plastic hair and a series of fashion wigs.

"Perhaps this could be an option, too," she says. "She could wear different hats. She could wear wigs. Or she could go bald. I think that kind of role modeling -- just from her head -- would be positive. Although I think real life role models are the best options."

Courtesy of Sherry Wittenberg

Sherry Wittenberg, who's 58 and lives in Cement City, Mich., was diagnosed with laryngeal cancer, a disease often treated by removing the patient's voicebox. But a unique surgery technique saved her speech.

When Sherry Wittenberg learned a cancerous tumor was taking over her larynx, her doctor told her something frightening: to save her life, he'd need to remove her voicebox. The procedure would rob the 58-year-old Michigan woman of her ability to speak normally, and she'd have to use a hole in her neck to breathe for the rest of her life.

Wittenberg nodded along during the appointment, too shocked and scared to be able to fully grasp the doctor's words. When she got home, she did what Internet-era cancer patients do: she hopped online to learn more about her form of cancer and the laryngectomy her doctor had recommended -- a common procedure for laryngeal cancers. That's when it hit her: "I thought, Oh, god. I wouldn’t be able to talk."

If she couldn't talk, she couldn't keep her job. Wittenberg, who lives with her husband on a dairy farm in Cement City, Mich., is a sales representative for a steel company, so she's on the phone constantly during the day, chatting with clients all over the country. She loves her job, and she's great at it. No voice, no job, she feared.

Terrified of what that would mean for her life and her family, Wittenberg sought a second opinion, which led her to Dr. Douglas Chepeha, director of microvascular surgery in the Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, at the University of Michigan Medical School. He offered her another option: a never-before-done reconstructive surgery that would remove the cancerous tumor from her larynx, while allowing her to keep her voice.

With this procedure, surgeons would remove the cancerous tumor, which was in the larynx's cricoid, a circular cartilage that helps to hold the windpipe open, Chepeha explains.  To remove the tumor, surgeons would have to partially remove the cricoid cartilage, so they'd use the tip of Wittenberg's shoulder blade to rebuild it; this would help keep the larynx together, while still allowing enough room for Wittenberg to breathe through the airway. Surgeons would also use a graft of tissue from inside Wittenberg's mouth to reconstruct the larynx's lining. (The novel procedure is described online in the journal The Laryngoscope.)

"My biggest concern was making sure Sherry wouldn’t suffer just because I was trying this technique," says Chepeha. Because like any major surgery, this one came with risks: She could die on the operating table. Or, once she was under, Chepeha could discover the cancer had spread more than he'd realized, and he'd have to remove her voicebox, anyway.

Wittenberg decided to go for it, scheduling the procedure for January 2010 -- but a few weeks before the surgery, the thought of all she could lose made her briefly lose her nerve. "I couldn’t even talk, I was just so upset," says Wittenberg, who was diagnosed in October 2009. In January of that year, her adult son had died. Her family -- consisting of herself, her husband, and her adult daughter, who lives in a nearby Michigan town -- were already missing one member; she worried what would happen to her husband and daughter if she were to die, too.

"I think I just needed extra time," she says. They pushed the surgery back to March. This time, she was ready. The procedure went as well as they'd hoped: Wittenberg was able to go home 13 days later, and she returned to work that June. 

"I knew I was never going to talk the same. And I definitely can’t sing now, I’m as flat as can be. But, you know, who cares," Wittenberg says. She describes her voice as lower than it used to be -- but it's not noticeable to anyone who didn't know her before the surgery. "I still can remember what I used to sound like," she says. "It's different. But it’s not bad. I'm just so thankful."

Related:

• Blind adventurer regains some sight with experimental drug
• Once bent in half, she now stands tall
• Meet the boy with the backward leg

Just a few months ago the future seemed impossibly bleak for Elisa and Nathan Bond, the Brooklyn wife and husband who had both been diagnosed with late stage cancers earlier this year.

But in what seems like the ultimate holiday gift, just this week the couple got the news that Elisa’s cancer had finally responded to therapy and disappeared.

“It’s as surreal as when I was told I had cancer,” Elisa told TODAY’s Carl Quintanilla “It’s wonderful.”

The couple decided to share their news with the world the same way they had told everyone they had been diagnosed: on the TODAY show.

“They got the brain tumors ,” Elisa told Janet Shamlian. “They’re all gone. Beyond that, I had a new PET scan and all my active cancer is gone.”

Before their diagnoses, Elisa and Nathan Bonds’ life seemed picture perfect. Not long after their fairy tale wedding they’d conceived a beautiful baby girl who was growing into a happy, well-adjusted toddler named Sadie.

But then, on Valentine’s Day of this year, the fabric of their existence started to unravel. Nathan, 38, was told he had Stage 3 colon cancer with a 65 percent chance of surviving five years.

Just nine days later, 36-year-old Elisa learned she had breast cancer that had already started to spread through her body. Her chances of surviving the next five years with a cancer caught this late were just 16 percent.

For months there was only bad news. Elisa’s condition worsened over the summer. Tumors were popping up everywhere, including her liver and her brain.

“The liver was the worst place,“  Elisa told Shamlian. “It had the most cancer. And then the brain tumors emerged.”

For Elisa, the lowest point came when she was told she could no longer drive.

“It was almost like finding out about the cancer because it was a real loss of independence for me,” she told Quintanilla. “I am a driver. I love to drive. The minute I got my license I was out the door. I felt so hamstrung. And it was almost worse, in my everyday life than the cancer was.”

Doctors treated Elisa’s cancer aggressively with chemotherapy and a breast cancer drug called Herceptin.

And then, just a few days ago, the doctors told the couple they couldn’t find even a trace of Elisa’s cancer.

Even in the liver? Shamlian asked.

“The liver!” Elisa said. “That’s exactly what I said. The liver.”

“Breast?” Shamlian prompted.

“Breast.”

“ Brain?”

“Brain!”

 “I am what they call N.E.D.,” Elisa said. “No evidence of disease. It’s the best news I can get.”

Elisa is one of a select few, said Dr. Adam Brufsky, a professor of medicine and director of the breast cancer center at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

“In my practice this has happened in about 3 to 5 percent of [comparable] patients,” Brufsky said. “But I think we’re going to see this more and more. Herceptin has really changed the natural history of the disease.”

What’s surprising is the disappearance of Elisa’s brain tumors, Brufsky said. Scientists didn’t think that Herceptin was able to enter the brain, he added.

The really good news, Brufsky said, is that patients who respond to Herceptin seem to be staying healthy for years.

The 5-year survival used to be of the order of 5-10 percent, Brufsky said. “Now it’s upwards of 25 to 30 percent if not higher,” he added. “There are a lot of new things coming out that have us all very excited.”

It certainly wasn’t how Nathan expected things to go.

“I’ve kind of always been waiting to get over my treatments so I could be there to support her more,” he said looking at his wife with a big grin. “And [this] definitely makes it a much more happy time to go into surgery.“

The Bonds posted their wonderful news on the family blog that has touched so many others around the world. Over the past year, strangers have posted back encouraging the Bonds to keep going and not to give up.

“I think without not only the family and friends, but also the strangers that wrote to us, it would definitely not have been as easy to do,” Nathan said.

Although the family isn’t completely out of the woods – Nathan still has a surgery scheduled for his rectal cancer – the future looks a lot brighter today.

“It looks like a sandy beach now, as opposed to a rocky hill,” Elisa said.