Funny-but-harmless bodily quirk -- or a sign of something serious? This morning on TODAY, NBC's chief medical editor Dr. Nancy Snyderman discussed some curious symptoms that, in rare cases, can signal a medical condition that needs attention.

Curious Symptom: Unilateral hearing 
You're losing your hearing -- but in only one ear. This can be an early symptom of a benign brain tumor that affects a cranial nerve. This type of tumor, called acoustic neuromas, may be non-cancerous, but they may grow and compress key areas of the brain -- and if the tumor grows so large it begins to press against the brainstem, it can be life-threatening. 

Curious Symptom: Pitted nails
Unhealthy-looking nails is more than a sign you need a manicure -- it's also an often overlooked but important symptom of many diseases. Nails that look like they've been pricked repeatedly with a pin are called "pitted"; this can be the first sign of psoriasis

Curious Symptom: Retina freckles
Retina freckles are black spots with well-defined margins located on the back of the eye. They're usually harmless, but in some cases, they can be a sign of colon cancer.  

Curious Symptom: Bleeding gums
Too-aggressive brushing or flossing can cause bleeding gums -- but in rare cases, bleeding gums can be an early symptom of leukemia, a cancer of the blood in which dysfunctional white blood cells multiply out of control. In children, bleeding gums should be taken especially seriously, because gingivitis usually only occurs in adults.

Curious Symptom: Dry mouth
A persistently dry mouth may not simply mean you're thirsty. Dry mouth coupled with dry eyes is a key combination of symptoms for Sjogren's syndrom, an autoimmune condition where the body's immune system mistakenly attacks the mucus and moisture-secreting glands in the individual's eyes and mouth. 

Kristian Dowling / Getty Images

The trick to not ruining your diet with too much fast food is to balance it with the rest of the meals your kids are eating -- and monitor portion sizes

Are you a terrible parent if you grab a quick bite for the kids at Burger King or McDonald's? San Francisco's "ban" on Happy Meals seems to imply as much.

But on busy nights when there's no time to cook, it can be easy to forget that the nation is in the midst of an obesity epidemic. Can a fast food kids' meal ever be healthy? 

If you talk to parents, they’ll tell you there’s a place in the healthy diet for fast food. But like everything, it’s all about moderation.

“You shouldn’t feel guilty if you sometimes have to grab whatever’s available,” says Elisa Zied, a registered dietitian, author, msnbc.com contributor -- and mother of two. “We have crazy weekends -- between the basketball games, the Bar Mitzvahs and other activities – when we’re eating a little less healthful than we normally do.”

The trick, Zied says, is to achieve a balance through the rest of the meals your kids are eating -- and monitor portion sizes. If you’re going to hit a McDonald’s, for example, have your kid get the smallest burger and maybe even a small fries. Pizza is fine, too, if your kid is limited to a slice or two and then fills up with salad or fruit or something equally healthy, says the 42-year-old New York mom.

Zied also sees these forays into fast food as learning experiences for her sons, a chance to teach them how to order healthy meals outside the home.

That makes a lot of sense to Sharon Strohm, manager of clinical nutrition and diabetes education at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburg. “They have to be able to deal with real food situations,” she says. “They should learn to deal with restaurant meals where good choices may not be available. And ultimately nothing is off the table. It’s all about the portions.”

With a busy schedule, Strohm says her family ends up eating out a lot. She tries to nudge the kids in the direction of the healthiest choices, and to balance out what they consume at the restaurant with what they eat at home. 

“My kids have had Happy Meals,” Strohm says. “As a parent, sometimes you just have to go with the flow.”

And those Happy Meals have recently gotten healthier. Like other fast food restaurants, McDonald’s has tried to come up with a healthier version of its popular kids’ meal. The new Happy Meal includes sliced apples for dessert and a smaller serving of fries, as well as low fat milk or juice instead of a soft drink. The fast food chain just launched a new ad campaign pushing the lighter kids meals. And while a fast food meal is never exactly optimal, it can be a viable, economical option for busy families in a pinch. 

"A working mom can get a burger at McDonald's less expensively than the real products to make it at home," Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC's chief medical editor, said Thursday morning on TODAY. "McDonald's, if they move to milk and apple slices instead of coke and french fries and a burger to fill a child up, I have no problem with it."

Pediatrician Dr. Wendy Slusser of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA suggests parents choose restaurants that offer healthy, low-cal choices -- such as Subway with its 230-calorie Veggie Delite sandwich or Burger King with its 340-calorie Veggie Burger (without the mayo) or Taco Bell with its 170-calorie Ranchero Chicken Soft Taco.

“You want to practice what you do at home,” Slusser says. “So pick items that are steamed, roasted, or poached instead of deep fried.

If you can’t order smaller portions, try sharing with your child, Slusser suggests. “Or take part of it home with you,” she adds.

Slusser underscores the importance of choosing healthy beverages -- either water or milk -- with the meal.

In the end, Zied says, you need to remember, “Food is not the devil.”

How often do you eat fast food? When you do swing through a drive-thru, do you try to stick to the restaurant's healthier options? Share your thoughts and experiences on Facebook.

Related: 

• Mila Kunis, 'Black Swan' and how extreme diets warp your body
• Obese man cries for help on YouTube -- and Joy Bauer responds
• New secret to resisting junk food: Just put it off

Doctors have long assumed that Cesarean sections might be the best choice for babies that will be born preterm.

But a new study shows that C-sections are no safer than vaginal delivery for the most fragile of infants, those who are born early and who are small for their age. In fact, C-sections might actually lead to a greater risk of respiratory problems and other complications in these infants, according to a report presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The new results suggest that doctors need to re-think how they look at C-sections, said the study’s lead author Dr. Erika Werner, an assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. 

“You shouldn’t assume there’s no downside to the baby with a C-section,” Werner said.

This kind of information becomes increasingly important as Cesarean deliveries become more and more common.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that C-section rates rose 33 percent from 2000 to 2007, with women under the age of 25 experiencing the greatest increase at 57 percent.

“The rates of C-section are going up in this country,” said Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC’s chief medical editor. “One reason may be in vitro fertilization and multiple births. One part of it, though is women trying to put delivery on their own schedules. And, you’ve heard this before: ‘too posh to push.’”

The most recent data – from 2009 – show that 45.6 percent of premature babies were delivered by Cesarean section, as compared to 35.1 percent of those born at 37-38 weeks.

Part of the explanation for the especially high rate among preemies may lie in the assumption that vaginal births might be too traumatic – and dangerous - for fragile infants who are underweight and preterm, said Dr. Diane Ashton, deputy director at the national office of the March of Dimes.

“When I was in my obstetric residency training in the late '80s, we were taught that it would be protective to do Cesarean deliveries on preterm babies because vaginal birth might put them at risk for internal hemorrhages and other complications,” Ashton said.

The push for C-sections was especially strong when it came to infants who weren’t growing fast enough in the uterus, Snyderman told TODAY’S Ann Curry Thursday.  “The conventional wisdom has been to get those babies out and we’ll treat them in an ICU,” Snyderman said.

For the new study, Werner and her colleagues scrutinized the medical records of 2,560 babies born preterm between 1995 and 2003 in New York City. More than half -- 54 percent -- of the babies had been delivered through Cesarean section

Babies born vaginally were no more likely to have developed subdural hemorrhages, seizures, or sepsis than those delivered by C-section. Instead, the researchers found that babies born by C-section were 30 percent more likely to develop respiratory distress syndrome.  And this may have long term fallout for the babies, Snyderman said.

“The breathing problems can turn into asthma later in life,” she explained. “In the last few weeks of pregnancy, that’s when the lungs and the brain are developing. So developmental problems, cerebral palsy, learning disability – all those things become compounded if a baby is taken out prematurely.”

One thing the researchers don’t know is why doctors chose to deliver the babies in the study via C-section. It’s possible, Werner allowed, that in some cases C-sections were chosen to speed delivery because the baby’s or the mother’s lives were at risk.

But in cases where there is no imminent danger to the baby or the mom, doctors should lean towards vaginal delivery, both Werner and Ashton said.

And that’s probably true for full-term babies too, Werner said.

“I think there’s a chance that full term infants might also have lower rates of respiratory distress,” Werner said. “That’s speculation at this point. But it’s another reason for doctors to think a lot about the benefits of vaginal delivery.”

Syderman agreed.

“When you start to look at 37 maybe 38 weeks, there’s an increased belief now that the longer a baby stays in the womb, up to 40 weeks, the better the outcome is for the baby,” she said.There are women who want a C-section to avoid labor pain, Snyderman said.

”They say ‘I don’t want the pain, please let me just do a C-section,’” she added.  “You have to remember the ultimate outcome should be a healthy baby.”

Related: 

• Too posh to push? C-sections rise with social status
• C-section rates hit all-time high
• C-section rates around globe at 'epidemic' levels

While commenting on the controversy swirling around the alleged rape of a New York City woman by Fox TV newsman Greg Kelly, Dr. Nancy Snyderman surprised TODAY show viewers with a very private disclosure: She herself had been assaulted years ago when she was a college student.

Snyderman was addressing issues surrounding the delayed reporting of the alleged rape by Kelly’s accuser, a woman whose identity remains protected by New York’s rape shield law.

“I think it’s time for some strong women to pierce those rape shield laws, because we have an issue here where there’s a public figure who’s been accused and he’s now becoming almost a societal victim,” Snyderman said. “And I say this with great respect for the women who need to be protected.

“I was attacked in 1970 as a college girl and I did everything wrong. I didn’t come forward. I waited too long. And by the time I would have come forward a [defense attorney] could have skewered me with questions. So I have great sensitivity for young women who have been raped.”

Snyderman said she believed that more good will be done if women face their accusers in public.

“If you are an adult and you want to take the shame off of rape, one of the bravest things you can do as a woman is to come forward and say I accuse you - and I’m going to do it publicly,” Snyderman explained.

Following the show, Dr. Nancy recalled the mistakes she made after the attack and the damaging emotional effects that lasted for years. "I took a shower, never told anyone, never called the police." She treated the depression she suffered by overeating and gaining 50 pounds. "I wanted to disappear," she said.

A drop in grades almost cost cost her entrance to medical school. "To this day the assault affects how I walk down the street and where I sit in a restaurant," she said. "Forty years later I hope I would handle it differently. I hope."

Snyderman continued. "Every woman will deal with this trauma in her own way," she said. "In no way am I telling women what to do. I just wish I had had the courage to come forward. I could have prevented several other women from being raped after me."

While agreeing that attitudes towards rape might change if more women publicly confronted their attackers, experts said that even four decades after Snyderman’s attack it’s still very difficult for women to press charges.

“Part of that is because rape is unique in its interpersonal nature and in its likelihood of producing ongoing traumatic symptoms, especially in the first months following an assault” said David Yusko, clinical director of the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s extremely likely the woman will suffer from anxiety and fear and stress. That emotional upheaval makes it hard to think clearly in the month after the rape.”

Even though police and others are more understanding these days, Yusko said, “In a general sense I don’t believe that it’s much easier for a woman to report it than it was 20 or 30 years ago.”

Alison Hall, executive director of Pittsburgh Action Against Rape, agreed.

“Rape is still the most underreported crime, though it is slowly getting better” she said. “Most victims will go home and shower and try to get on with their lives as if nothing had happened. Then two weeks or a month later they will realize they’re not coping.”

Part the problem is that women know that there will be plenty of people who suggest that the victim of the rape did something that brought on the attack.

“People will say that it wouldn’t have happened if she didn’t put herself in that position,” Hall said. “In a lot of ways people want to rationalize it away so they don’t have to identify with the victim. It won’t happen to me because I don’t walk alone at 2 a.m.”

The victims themselves often subscribe to the same way of thinking.

“Guilt and shame are among the most common emotional reactions to rape,” Yusko said, adding that women often feel that the attack is somehow partly their responsibility.

“They think, ‘I should have done this differently,’ or ‘I should have fought back harder,’ or ‘I shouldn’t have worn this.’”

And ultimately, the whole process often doesn’t turn out well for the accuser because it’s such an uphill battle to show that the normal looking defendant actually did something horrible, Hall said

“Look at even the Sandusky case,” Hall said. “We all think that these people should look like monsters, but they look just like everyone else. And there’s a tendency not to believe the victim because the perpetrator is someone she knew. People would rather believe that rapists are strangers who come jumping out of the bushes, but more often they are someone the victim knew pretty well.”