Coverage or cover up? In my newsletter a few months ago (May 2004 issue), I wrote to my readers about the likely link between abortion and breast cancer. To summarize, I cited the combined findings of more than 30 studies which point to a 270% increase in breast cancer risk among women who've had one or more abortions. I reported this not to touch off a moral or religious debate, but to keep women informed about the health ramifications of this procedure beyond termination of pregnancy. I also wrote about it because the mainstream has been virtually silent on this frightening correlation, the one notable exception being a 1999 issue of The Lancet, a respected British medical journal. But let's face it - this is hardly USA Today or Time magazine. However, this connection DID make the mainstream news recently, when the Associated Press released a story reporting how the National Cancer Institute is dismissing the abortion/breast cancer connection as fallacious. Specifically cited was a Danish study that compared the computerized medical records of an undisclosed number of women (it could be 200 or 200,000) and found no link between abortion and the later incidence of breast cancer. This AP story has no doubt been picked up by hundreds of newspapers, TV networks, and radio "Health Minutes" nationwide. Odd, isn't it, how the 30 or more studies showing the link make barely a ripple in the mainstream press over the last decade, but one study challenging this correlation makes headlines all over the place? The AP piece also cited a 2004 Lancet article which reviewed 53 studies and found no link between the procedure and the condition. Needless to say, this sharply contrasts with their 1999 article I cited in my May newsletter. To the detriment of their credibility (not to mention potential embarrassment), the more recent Lancet piece claimed that previous studies purporting a link between abortion and breast cancer all suffered from "flawed methodologies." I guess they're pretty certain that all 53 of the contrasting studies they cited have perfect methodologies this time, right? Needless to say, this debate rages on. I'll keep you posted…
Through cutting edge advancements in the miracle that is modern science, we've finally answered one of the age-old questions that has tormented the souls of great stink, er, thinkers through the ages… Why do we smell bad when we're sweaty? According to some recent Swiss research, analysis of the armpit sweat of 30 volunteers has revealed that body odor is caused by at least 8 different varieties of sulfanyl alcohol - a substance that produces intense odors even at extremely low concentrations. How did eight different kinds of primitive, pungent moonshine get in your pits? Bacteria present in the typical armpit feeds on human sweat and secretes these alcohols as a byproduct of their digestion - just like the bacteria feeding on yeast or sugars secret alcohol (albeit a less smelly variety) in the making of beer and wine. Now, you're probably thinking: "Fascinating, but I can't believe anyone actually bothered to take the time and spend the money to study this." My thoughts exactly. Always thinking, but never stinking, William Campbell Douglass MD, II | 
