Is there a link between breast cancer and abortion? This is the first of I've heard of it -- and I consider myself fairly well-versed in the topic of breast cancer. Maybe I missed a beat somewhere along the line.

Think about this:

There is a Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer out there and Karen Malec, head of the group, says there would be far fewer breast cancer cases and deaths if women had been told the truth in the 1980s when conclusive evidence linked abortion with the disease.

Malec reports that government scientists wrote a letter in 1986 to the British journal Lancet, acknowledging that abortion causes breast cancer. She says as of 2006, eight medical organizations had recognized abortion as one cause of the disease.

Now this has nothing to do with delaying pregnancy until later in life -- also a known risk factor. Abortion stands on its own and is problematic because carrying a pregnancy to term is what protects against breast cancer, says Malec.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not agree and stands behind several studies backed by strong data concluding induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.

Malec says such studies are seriously flawed.

"We call on the Society and other cancer businesses to put their priorities in order," she says. "Women's lives and cancer prevention are more important than making money, doing cancer walks, and protecting the abortion and pharmaceutical industries."

Malec also condemns Susan G. Komen For the Cure for donating money to Planned Parenthood -- a group she calls the nation's leading abortion business.

"It's unthinkable that groups that claim to want to eradicate the disease would help fund a cancer-causing organization, especially when the funds could be directed to legitimate health organizations."

Unthinkable? I'm not sure.

I need to think about it.

When Dr. Jian-Wei Gu went to Mississippi to study the cardiovascular system and the process of blood vessel growth, he had no idea he'd make national headlines about his research into the world of cancer.

Gu, assistant professor of physiology and biophysics at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, says his discovery of the mechanism by which alcohol consumption causes tumor growth was purely accidental.

And extremely significant.

Scientists have known for a hundred years about the link between alcohol consumption and cancer. A study from Paris in 1910 showed that 80 percent of patients with cancer of the esophagus or gastric track were alcoholics. More recently, scientists have found correlations between alcohol consumption and cancer of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, liver, large bowel, and even the breasts. Yet lab experiments have always failed to show the effects in animals that investigators knew to be true in humans.

Until now.

It seems past studies used too much alcohol -- in concentrations of 20 percent -- and the animals just wasted away while showing no tumor growth. But when Gu used concentrations of one percent -- about one to two drinks per day in humans -- to study blood vessel growth, he detected stimulated tumor growth in both chick embryos and mice. Thus, his cancer discovery was born.

Gu has further concluded that melanoma cancers in mice grew significantly faster and larger in the mice who consumed the equivalent of one or two alcoholic drinks a day than the mice receiving no alcohol.

Gu's findings, now confirmed by other scientists, are evidence of what many have long suspected -- alcohol, even in moderation, increases cancer risk.

Secondhand smoke rears its ugly head once again -- this time in the form of study results revealing high levels of secondhand smoke in the workplace can double the risk of lung cancer for non-smokers.

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago looked at results from 22 studies conducted in the United States, Canada, Europe, India, Japan, and China. What they found -- and published in the American Journal of Public Health -- is a lung cancer risk 50 percent higher than normal for non-smokers exposed to smoke on the job for more than 30 years. They also found risk increases with level of exposure.

"We believe that our study provides the strongest evidence to date that smoking in the workplace does present a substantial risk to workers -- and particularly to workers who are working in highly exposed areas such as bar workers or restaurant workers," lead researcher Leslie Stayner said.

Previous evidence for increased lung cancer risk caused by secondhand smoke comes from studies of non-smokers married to smokers.

Secondhand smoke -- also known as passive smoke and environmental tobacco smoke -- is smoke from a cigarette, pipe, or cigar as well as smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers and inhaled by non-smokers. It can cause cancer, respiratory problems, and asthma in non-smokers and is leading to increased efforts by communities to ban or limit smoking in the workplace.

This week in France, bans begin in offices, stores, schools, and hospitals. Come January 2008, cafes and restaurants must also comply with bans. For now, smoking in these areas is permitted in hermetically sealed rooms without any services.

The world's largest drug maker -- Pfizer Inc. -- announced Monday it will cut 10,000 jobs and close at least five facilities due to fierce competition from generic drug makers. The goal, says Pfizer spokespeople, is to whittle away annual costs by $2 billion by the end of the year -- to combat the prediction that the company will lose 41 percent of its sales to generic drugs between 2010 and 2012.

Pfizer's other obstacles include expiring drug patents -- costing Pfizer about $14 billion in revenues between 2005 and 2007 -- as well as demands for lower prices by insurers and large purchasers, and repeated requests for evidence of products' worth.

The 10,000 layoffs amount to 10 percent of the company's global workforce and will take jobs from 2,200 United States employees. The company will cut 20 percent of its European sales force, will close three research sites in Michigan and two manufacturing plants in New York and Nebraska, and is considering selling a manufacturing site in Germany and closing two research sites in Japan and France. In the midst of all of this, the company will focus its efforts on transforming the way they do business.

"I believe we must transform the way we've done business in the past in order to be more successful in the future," said Jeffrey Kindler, CEO and chairman of Pfizer. " Incremental evolution is not enough. Fundamental change is imperative -- and it must happen now."

Pfizer's Monday announcement is the second declaration of budget cuts. A previous announcement has the company -- the maker of cancer drugs Aromasin, Ellence, Camptosar, and Sutent -- slashing costs by $4 billion a year until 2008.

Four weight loss pill marketers were fined millions of dollars by The Federal Trade Commission for making false advertising claims. The claims ranged from rapid weight loss to reducing the risk of cancer.

The weight loss pills can still be sold on the market but the companies will have to stop making the false claims that they have no scientific evidence to back up. The fines were against four products, Xenadrine EFX, One A Day Weight Smart, Cortaslim and Trimspa.

FTC Commissioner Deborah Platt Majoras said on the Today Show that the FTC investigation found that the marketers of Xenadrine did have a study that said those who took a placebo actually lost more weight than those taking Xenadrine. They not only did not have a study to support their claims but had a study that went the other way!

"Testimonials from individuals are not a substitute for science," Majoras said. "And that's what Americans need to understand."

As a resource of medical information, take into account that there are over 25,000 medical journals published worldwide. For most of us, it is an overwhelming volume of information.

Doctor Evidence is an independent user-friendly fee-based medical search service connecting patients and doctors to the latest in relevant information which can then lead to the formulation of informed decisions about medical treatments -- and avoid potentially deadly mistakes in misdiagnosis, treatment or surgery.

In 2000, Dr. Todd Feinman founded Doctor Evidence after undergoing unnecessary surgery for intestinal cancer. After surgery he was told that the test that led to surgery had been a false-positive. He did not have cancer.

According to Dr. Feinman, "Every year, hundreds of new therapies and diagnostic tests are introduced to treat the thousands of diseases that are afflicting millions of adults and children. Finding evidence about the most accurate diagnostic tests and effective treatments requires the proper resources. This includes specialized information technologies, subscriptions to medical databases, medical librarians, and much more that is not readily available to most doctors and patients."

Yesterday, Extra aired a feature about Dr. Feinman and the Doctor Evidence service. During the report, a patient who had been told he might have pancreatic cancer turned to the Doctor Evidence website only to find out that one of the high-niacin level medications he was taking was mimicking symptoms of pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer. You can view the video of the segment online here.

Doctor Evidence staff is comprised of doctors with expertise in evidence-based medicine, medical librarians with masters in library science, other professionals with expertise in healthcare, and information technology experts. To learn more, visit the Doctor Evidence website.

An ABC news team in Australia abandoned its Brisbane radio studio yesterday after an investigation revealed there is something about the workplace causing breast cancer.

It's not clear what the cause may be, but the five-month-long investigation concluded a breast cancer cluster is related to the office environment.

Twelve women who worked at the Brisbane Toowong office had been diagnosed with breast cancer over the past 11 years. Eight of these women worked in the newsroom. Most had been there for more than five years.

ABC managing editor Mark Scott would not move his staff earlier this year when 100 staff members walked off the job in July, demanding relocation. He said it would take evidence -- not just suspicion -- of a breast cancer cluster for him to agree to relocation. Now he has evidence.

The investigation report shows women who worked at this office reported breast cancer at a rate 11 times higher than the general working community.

In addition to the relocation, all female staff at Toowong office were offered free mammograms and free counseling services during the investigation. Yesterday, Scott extended the offer to women at other ABC sites in Australia.

Cell phones don't cause cancer, according to a major study from Denmark that tracked 420,000 Danish cell phone users -- many of them users for more than 10 years and some for more than 20 years.

In the largest ever study to yield good news about the safety of cell phones, scientists matched phone records to the Danish Cancer Registry -- a listing that records every citizen who gets the disease -- and on Tuesday, the study results were revealed.

Cell-phone users are no more likely than anyone else to develop cancer.

But the lead researcher of this massive investigation says doubts will surely linger. There is really no biological basis for concern about radio waves, he says. But people still worry.

Cell phones beam radiofrequency energy that can penetrate the outer edge of the brain, causing suspicion about the origin of various cancers. Most research has found no link between cell phones and cancer, but the phones have never been given a definite clean bill of health either.

"As the body of evidence accumulates, people can become reassured that these devices are safe," says one cell phone researcher.

The evidence is stacking up. And it seems almost everyone will soon agree that exercising can help prevent a return of cancer for those who have already done battle with the disease.

The American Cancer Society just issued a report updating nutrition and physical activity recommendations for cancer survivors. Exercise tops the list of recommendations.

For some types of cancers, exercising for just one to three hours per week can lower the risk of cancer recurrence and death, as well as death from all causes. Exercise has also been shown to improve fitness, diminish fatigue, and boost quality of life for survivors.

The report also states that while a vegetarian diet may be healthful in some ways, there is no direct proof that the diet can prevent cancer recurrence. Survivors who do choose a vegetarian lifestyle should ensure they are receiving an adequate intake of nutrients.

A standard multivitamin and mineral supplement equivalent to 100 percent of the Daily Value can help survivors meet their nutrient needs when it's difficult to eat a healthy diet. Some supplements -- such as those high in folic acid or antioxidants -- may be harmful during cancer treatment.

According to the American Cancer Society, food safety is especially important for cancer survivors, especially during treatment that causes immunosuppression.

And then there's alcohol. Alcohol can affect the risk for new primary cancers and should be used sparingly -- or not at all.

Studies exist that link acid-reflux conditions to cancer of the larynx -- or voice box -- but authors of a new study say they all suffer shortcomings in methodology.

The new study, published in the American Journal of Medicine, was intended to make up for these shortcomings by comparing 96 men and women with laryngeal cancer to a group of adults without the disease. All participants were matched by age, gender, and ethnicity -- three of the most important risk factors for this cancer. Overall, the study found people with GERD -- gastroesophageal reflux disease -- were twice as likely to develop laryngeal cancer, compared to those without the condition. GERD has long been considered a possible risk factor for this cancer, mostly because GERD is common among people with the cancer. More definitive studies are on the horizon.

GERD, which occurs when the muscle of the bottom of the esophagus fails to close properly, allowing stomach acids to leak into the esophagus, is also linked to esophageal cancer.

Dr. Lisa Melton of the London-based registered charity Novartis Foundation, has written The antioxidant myth: a medical fairy tale, published in the New Scientist, that takes a look at the benefit of whole foods versus antioxidant supplements -- and concludes that something is lost in the extraction from whole foods making supplements essentially useless to health benefit. She even suggests, based on research, that some antioxidant supplements have been shown to create health problems.

Scientists have determined that mouth cancer develops in two different ways which dictates the seriousness of the disease. This finding, revealed on Tuesday, could lead to better prevention and treatment. In laboratory experiments with healthy, early, and advanced cancer cells, researchers were able to pinpoint differences in the cells that determined the aggressiveness of the cancer. They found faults in the p53 gene, which stops damaged cells from dividing, and in the p16 gene, which helps regulate and prevent cancer from developing. Both changes are linked to more aggressive tumors. This is first-time evidence that some mouth cancer tumors are more aggressive than others and are unfortunately linked to poor patient survival.

Oral cancer typically stems from pre-cancerous lesions, changes, or patches in the mouth -- all of which are early signs of cancer. Recognizing which pre-cancerous changes are more likely to develop into aggressive tumors would allow doctors an insight that could help them prescribe the best treatment.

Smoking, use of chewing tobacco, and heavy alcohol consumption are the leading causes of mouth cancer. And smoking and drinking are a very dangerous combination. Like lung cancer, mouth cancer usually develops in people age 50 or older.

Parents may want to save their kids' baby teeth for more than just nostalgic reasons -- they may want to save them because they are rich in stem cells and the pulp tissue could provide the means to treatment for injuries and disease. BioEden Inc. is a new company out of Austin, Texas pioneering this effort that is so new some doubt science will ever catch up with the expectations of this firm. But President Jeff Johnson says all evidence indicates that baby teeth are a wonderful source of stem cells -- cells that doctors and researchers pursue for their capability of replicating and morphing into specialized cells that can be used to repair the body. Experts think baby teeth stem cells might one day be used for bone, teeth, and even nerve cell regeneration which could hold potential for spinal cord injuries and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.

Parents may find brochures in their dentist offices featuring the benefits of banking their children's teeth once they fall out. And pursuing tooth banking is no different than pursuing any other dental procedure. There are fees involved, of course -- banking fees and perhaps referral fees from dental offices -- and other considerations that each parent must weigh. Dr. Phil Hunke, president of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry and pediatric dentist for 32 years, says the idea of removing cells and freezing them holds true promise -- and he may want to bank the tooth of a child or grandchild once he learns more. Dr. Kevin Donly, a professor of pediatric dentistry, says he sees some potential but will not be banking teeth for his three little boys. He just doesn't think he's at the point where it's necessary. Another pediatric dentist -- Dr. John Updyke -- believes that if money were not an issue, all parents should bank their kids' teeth. But many young families can't afford the initial $595 and the $89 annual storage cost it requires. And without a solid scientific backing, tooth banking might not come up as a priority for many when it may take 10 years or more to even determine how useful these specific stem cells will be.

Double the hormone, double the risk. Or so says one study of older women who take hormone pills. When estrogen and testosterone are combined, women face twice the chance of getting breast cancer, according to a study of more than 70,000 nurses. This type of combination therapy may help with mood, libido, and bone density -- but the possible risk of breast cancer may just outweigh these benefits. These findings, published in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine, add to the evidence that certain types of hormone supplements -- like estrogen-progestin pills -- increase risk of breast cancer, strokes, and heart attacks in women. Other research points to a link between breast cancer and high natural levels of testosterone.

Women's natural levels of estrogen and testosterone decrease with menopause. Use of supplements has climbed over the past 24 years, perhaps putting more women at more risk. Estrogen-testosterone pills are sold under the brand names Estratest and Estratest H.S. and appear on a Washington-based advocacy group's "Worst Pills" list because of breast cancer risk.