The internet was an incredible invention. On a personal note, I rank it right up there with the Keurig machine and three-on-three overtime ice hockey as innovations that have made our lives more fun, more interesting and more meaningful. The major issue with the online behemoth that has captured the unbridled interest and imagination of just about everyone under the age of 90 is that sometimes you read something on the net that just doesn’t seem right, possible or within the bounds of reality.
Let me provide you with an example of my more-than-occa- sional mistrust of misinformation floating around out there in the deep, dark crevices of cyberspace. Actually, I heard what I first thought was a strange and misguided rumor related to sexual relations – do I have your undivided attention? – at a recent HealthLinks editorial meeting. I won’t divulge which member of our editorial entourage proposed the subject I am about to discuss as a possible article idea for our July/August issue. Anyway, I know you are just dying to hear what we might have written about if the idea hadn’t been shot down by “you know who” with the speed of a Zdeno Chara slapshot, so I’ll bypass the appetizer and salad and get right to the main course.
I have been in this business for more than half a century, and, believe it or don’t, I have never written about or even uttered the word superfecundation – mostly because, until a few weeks ago, I had no idea what it meant or that it even existed. Now, thanks to “you know who,” I have a deeper and more meaningful understanding of superfecundation, and, someday, I intend to write about it or at least carry on a conversation about it in public, probably with a person I will never see again.
I guess you’re just waiting for me to explain why the term superfecundation has anything at all to do with the health care environment in the South Carolina Lowcountry so you won’t have to find this valuable and life-changing information on your own by typing a 16-letter word into your web browser. Here goes: Were you aware that a female dog can have two studs during her mating period and produce a litter with the characteristics of one or both of the lucky dudes? I had no idea. Does this also mean that an especially nymphomaniacal female dog can have kids with three or four guys in the same litter? Don’t ask me.
But here’s the real kicker. Superfecundation isn’t only for dogs. I’m not sure about cats, alligators, rabbits or horses, but, according to Wikipedia, my go-to source of indisputable infor- mation on just about nothing other than box scores and driving instructions to the nearest Braum’s Ice Cream & Dairy Store, “Superfecundation is the fertilization of two or more ova from the same menstrual cycle by sperm from the same or different
males, whether through separate acts of intercourse or during a single encounter with multiple males. This can potentially result in twin babies that have different biological fathers.”
In case you missed it, they’re talking about humans here. OK. So I did learn from my foray into the supernatural depths of Wikipedia that “Homopaternal superfecundation is a form of twinning where fertilization of two separate ova occurs as a result of two or more distinct instances of intercourse or insemination with the same male partner or donor, leading to fraternal twins.” That doesn’t seem so out of the ordinary to me. But this tidbit of information appears to be a little off the wall: “Heteropaternal superfecundation, on the other hand, is an atypical form of twinning that results in twins that are genetically half siblings – sharing the same biological mother but with different biological fathers.”
Well there you go. You can judge for yourself whether an article on this subject would have bordered on “gross,” the description provided so eloquently by “you know who.” I, for one, will continue to cast doubt on just about everything I read on the internet – except box scores, and I’ll always access two sources.
Glad we had this talk,
Brian
