You Can Sue 31 January 2019
Chapter 3: 3 INDEPENDENT ABC RISKS
(ABC = Abortion-Breast-Cancer)
Brent Rooney (MSc, email: youcansue@gmail.com)
Chapter 3 address: http://www.top-sue.org/chapter-3
Summary
BIG BREAST CANCER ‘Secret’ (hidden from the general
public): Undeniable ABC risk: women made older rookie (first
time) moms increase their lifetime breast cancer risk. A woman
who postpones her first delivery of a baby (full-term) via
abortion by 5 years increases her relative breast cancer risk by
19% and a 10 year delay increases relative B.C. (Breast Cancer)
risk by 41%. As a general rule abortion consent forms do not
address warnings to childless women for any adverse abortion risk
(including breast cancer). Even if a pregnant woman delivers her
first baby (full-term), there is very strong evidence that an abortion
of a later pregnancy increases her B.C. risk. There is a third
independent way IA (Induced Abortion) history raises B.C. risk.
IA history raises a woman’s risk of delivering a baby VERY
PREMATURELY (under 32 weeks’ gestation) and such short
pregnancies double her breast cancer risk. Do not pursue a legal
breast cancer claim against an abortion doctor or clinic, unless
your trusted lawyer agrees that such a law suit has a very good
chance of success.
.....----------------------------------------------------------------------...
Introduction
Harvard University professor Nancy Krieger (PhD),
being very ‘pro-choice’, can not be accused of pro-life bias.
In a highly regarded medical journal dedicated to breast
cancer risks a peer-reviewed study by Harvard professor
Nancy Krieger (PhD) included this quote about breast cancer:
“Conversely, early age at FFTP [First Full-Term
Pregnancy] has emerged as the strongest protective
factor [citing 8 published studies].”[1, Krieger]
One very obvious implication of professor Krieger’s statement
of fact is that any medical intervention that makes a young
woman older at her first delivery of a baby (full-term) increases
her lifetime breast cancer risk. Dr. Brian MacMahon, Harvard
University’s Dean of the Department of Epidemiology for 19
years, is considered one of the great B.C. (Breast Cancer)
researchers of the 20th century. Dr. MacMahon is a co-author
of a study with fellow Harvard University researchers that
quantified the boost in B.C. risk for each one year delay in FFTP.
[2, Trichopoulos] Each year a young woman [in an advanced
country] postpones delivery of her first baby (full-term) boosts
her relative B.C. risk by 3.5% (compounded). 3.5% appears
to be a small raised risk, but here is how 3.5% compounds by
the number of years delayed first delivery of a baby (full-term):
Delay Boost in Relative
in FFTP Breast Cancer risk
1 year +3.5%
5 years +19% [3.5% compounded 5 times]
10 years +41% [3.5% compounded 10 times]
15 years +68%
20 years +99% [Almost doubled breast cancer risk]
.....________________________________________________...
As a general rule (rarely violated) abortion consent forms do
not have the phrase “breast cancer” in them. Obviously,
abortion consent forms should at least include a warning along
the following lines for the undeniable ABC risk:
“If you are a childless pregnant woman, a delivery of your
baby currently (full-term) will result in lower lifetime breast
cancer risk compared to waiting to deliver your first baby
(full-term) in a subsequent pregnancy when you are older.”
About 1/2 of Canadian and U.S. women undergoing elective
abortions are childless women.
Non-Denial Denial
Have not well known cancer ‘authorities’, such as the
National Cancer Institute (NCI), ‘assured’ the public that
IA (Induced Abortion) history poses no raised breast cancer
risk? Read the ‘fine print’ in these ‘assurances’. Nowhere
does the NCI assure CHILDLESS women made older rookie
(first time) moms via IA history that they face no raised B.C.
risk compared to having carried their first pregnancy to full-term
(i.e. well into their third trimester). Why no such assurance?
Such a NCI statement would expose the authors of such an
‘assurance’ of no raised B.C. risk for woman made older
rookie moms due to abortion history as medical ignoramuses.
‘Score’ for the three (3) INDEPENDENT ABC risks
‘Score’
Older Rookie Mom Effect Undeniable B.C. Risk (‘R-ABC’)
Moms with a later abortion Very Probable B.C. Risk (‘M-ABC’)
Very Preterm Birth Due to A Likely B.C. Risk (P-ABC)
IA history
Joel Brind (PhD) and Dr. Angela Lanfranchi
Virtually the entire ABC controversy over the last 30+ years
has been about the second independent ABC risk (call it M-ABC).
The top researchers revealing this independent ABC risk are
professor Joel Brind (PhD) and highly regarded breast cancer
surgeon Dr. Angela Lanfranchi. Those truly interested in the
independent M-ABC risk must explore this via the Breast Cancer
Prevention Institute (BCPI) website: http://www.bcpinstitute.org/ .
Joel Brind (PhD) is a professor of endocrinology at Baruch College
(City University of New York). ProfessorJoel Brind (PhD) is the
lead author of 2 SRMAs (Systematic Reviews with Meta-Analysis)
of the ABC risk, one in 1996 [3] and the latest in March 2018 [4].
(Brent Rooney is a co-author of the 2018 SRMA). A SRMA
(assuming it is competently & honestly performed) provides the
strongest evidence, pro or con, about a suspected adverse medical
risk factor. In addition to the two (2) Joel Brind SRMAs supporting
ABC risk a third SRMA, with women in China as study subjects,
supporting ABC risk was published in 2013.[5, Huang] In
addition to the 3 ABC SRMAs there are 3 META-ANALYSES
that support significant ABC risk.[6-8]
Successful ABC Lawsuit In Oregon
A young woman, one “F.S.” (so identified in her law suit against
a Portland, Oregon abortion clinic), sued for being put at increased
breast cancer risk without informed consent. As of late January
2005 “F.S.” (then a 19 year-old woman) had never been diagnosed
as having breast cancer. Cancer normally takes decades to manifest,
so U.S. & Canadian courts can not and do not demand that patients
wait decades for cancer to be diagnosed before a legal claim can be
made and adjudicated. “F.S.” filed many legal claims (including a
~~‘put at increased breast cancer risk’ claim) and the Portland clinic
legally contested zero of her many claims. “F.S.” thus won on all
her claims on 24 January 2005; prior to that date “F.S.” reached a
private monetary settlement with the Portland, Oregon abortion
clinic. Judge Dale R. Koch in his legal decision (“Stipulated General
Judgment”) granting a complete victory to “F.S.” set the interest rate
(9% per annum) to be paid on the unpaid balance owed to “F.S.”.
(“F.S.’s” lawyer was Jonathan Clark; case # for “F.S.”’s statement
of claims case: 0307-07422 in Multnomah County, Oregon).
Why was her (“F.S.”) ABC claim very credible?
Since zero of her legal claims were contested by the Portland,
Oregon abortion clinic, there was no need for testimony, for or
against, any of her legal claims, including her ABC claim. If the
clinic had contested her ABC claim, Joel Brind (PhD) stood ready
to testify in support of her ABC claim. Yes, first time pregnant
“F.S.” had her lifetime B.C. risk raised by assuring that she would
be an older rookie mom (compared to carrying her first pregnancy
to full-term). But what made her ABC claim especially strong
was a combination of 2 B.C. risk factors:
Abortion under age 18 AND having a family history of B.C.
A 1994 peer-reviewed study with lead author Dr. Janet Daling
found that these two (2) factors when combined put a woman at
very high risk of breast cancer under age 45 years.[9, Daling]
Dr. Daling, a researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center (Seattle, Washington), is self-described as ‘pro-choice’.
In the 1994 ‘Daling’ study there were twelve (12) women with
this deadly B.C. combination and 100% of the 12 were in the
case group (ie. diagnosed with breast cancer) and zero of the
12 were ‘controls’ (no B.C. diagnosis before age 45 years).
This finding of raised B.C. was statistically significant (lower
confidence interval: 1.8; any time the lower ‘confidence
interval’ exceeds 1.0, the finding has achieved statistical
significance for increased risk). “F.S.” (born 19 January 1986)
was 15 years old when she had her induced abortion in May
2001 and she did have a family history of breast cancer before
her IA performed by All Women’s Health Services (Portland,
Oregon) in May 2001. The wording of the “F.S.” ABC claim
was: “The abortion procedure defendants provided caused
plaintiff to suffer an increased risk of breast cancer, severe and
debilitating emotional injury, pain and suffering, physical and
emotional trauma, and permanent psychological damage.”
Third INDEPENDENT ABC Risk: Very Premature Delivery
If a woman deliveries a baby VERY prematurely (under 32
weeks’ gestation), she doubles her breast cancer risk.[10, 11]
Thus, those ‘authorities’ that imply that a pregnancy of any
length reduces mom’s breast cancer risk had better find SRMA
studies (both honest & competent) that support their position.
Zero such SRMAs exist as of January 2019. In January 1973
the great breast cancer researcher Dr. Brian MacMahon (along
with his co-authors) in a published peer-reviewed study alerted
the medical community that only pregnancies that are full-term
reduce breast cancer risk [12, MacMahon]:
“[Breast Cancer] Protection is exerted only by a full-term
pregnancy. Abortion and breast cancer were not associated
in all study areas; where a relationship was observed,
abortion was associated with increased, not decreased risk...”
As of December 2018 there has been a grand total of four (4)
SRMAs for the preterm birth risk of induced abortion history.
[13-16] All 4 of these SRMAs found that IA history
significantly increases a woman’s risk of a premature delivery
of a baby. Two of the 4 SRMAs provided risk estimates for the
very premature delivery risk due to IA history.[14, 15] Both the
‘Swingle’ SRMA (14) and the ‘Lemmers’ SRMA reported that
IA history significantly raises a woman’s risk of a very
premature delivery of a baby. Thus, prior induced abortion history,
via its significantly raised odds of a very preterm delivery, is a
likely or very likely third independent way abortion history boosts
a woman’s breast cancer risk.
What is “full-term”?
From a newborn baby’s health perspective full-term
delivery is at least 37 weeks’ gestation; those newborn under
37 weeks’ gestation face raised risk for cerebral palsy, autism,
epilepsy, mental retardation, etc. But from a mom’s breast
cancer perspective what is full-term? When Dr. Brian
MacMahon and colleagues in 1973 referred to full-term,
certainly they meant well into the third trimester (over 26
weeks’ gestation), but what exact number did they attach to
“full-term” (34, 35, 36, or 37 weeks’ gestation)? The January
1973 Dr. MacMahon et al. study did not provide an exact
number. In October 2018, Danish researchers with a study
population of 2.3 million Danish women, provided the gestation
length that provides statistically significant reduced risk of
breast cancer: 34 weeks’ gestation.[17, Husby] From the
abstract of this study: “Using a cohort of 2.3 million Danish
women, we found the reduction in breast cancer risk was not
observed for pregnancies lasting 33 weeks or less, but restricted
to pregnancies lasting 34 weeks or longer.” At least 99% of
elective abortions occur in the first or second trimester (upper
limit of 26 weeks’ gestation). 100% of first and second trimester
abortions fall at least 8 weeks short of 34 weeks’ gestation (34
minus 26 = 8). Thus, ‘34 Opens the Door to Lower Breast
Cancer Risk’. If the defendant doctor and clinic want to argue
that 26 = 34, they are welcome to try. Only a (competent)
SRMA (‘study of studies’) can trump the medical fact that
only pregnancies that are at least very near full-term for
women under age 30 years reduce breast cancer risk.
? ‘Only’ 3 Independent ABC Risks ?
There are at least 2 other independent ways that IA history
boosts the odds of raised lifetime risk of breast cancer. I will
simply mention them here, but with little elaboration:
- reduced total duration of breast feeding
(an obvious example is a woman who has one pregnancy
in her life, which was ended via an IA and thus her lifetime
duration of breast feeding = zero months + zero weeks +
zero days).
- raised risk of substance abuse
(e.g. IA history boosts a woman’s odds of being a cigarette
smoker and cigarette smoking is a credible breast cancer
risk factor).
Expert Witnesses Working with Lawyers
If a young woman postpones her first delivery of a baby, does it
really boost her lifetime breast cancer risk? In 1999 this was indeed
conceded by an expert witness testifying for a ‘pro-choice’ group,
North Florida Women (NFW). NFW was the plaintiff in a law
suite against the state of Florida and one technical point NFW
wanted to make in their court presentation was that induced abortion
does NOT increase a woman’s lifetime breast cancer risk. NFW’s
witness for this contention was epidemiologist Lynn Rosenberg
(ScD). The ABC questions put to Rosenberg in cross examination
were provided to him by the top ABC expert Professor Joel Brind
(PhD, Baruch College (City University of New York)). Here is an
exact excerpt from cross examination of Lynn Rosenberg (ScD) in
1999:
“Q. And a woman who had her first pregnancy, say, at age 15
but aborted it, but then had her first child at age 35, would have
a risk of breast cancer no lower, all other things being equal,
than a woman whose first pregnancy carried to term was at age
35?
A. Yes
Q. So, in other words, a woman who finds herself pregnant at
age 15 will have higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort
that pregnancy than if she carries to term, correct?
A. Probably, yes.
Q. Looking at that another way, let's compare two women.
Let's say both got pregnant at age 15 – one terminates the
pregnancy, but the other carries the pregnancy to term. And
both women go on to get married and have two children,
say, at age 30 and age 35. Is the risk of breast cancer higher
for the woman who had an abortion at age 15 or the woman
who had a baby at age 15, all other things being equal?
A. It's probably higher for the one who had an abortion at age 15”
[End of testimony extract; text provided by CondenseIT]
Conclusion: An exact repeat of the beginning Summary
BIG BREAST CANCER ‘Secret’ (hidden from the general
public): Undeniable ABC risk: women made older rookie (first
time) moms increase their lifetime breast cancer risk. A woman
who postpones her first delivery of a baby (full-term) via
abortion by 5 years increases her relative breast cancer risk by
19% and a 10 year delay increases relative B.C. (Breast Cancer)
risk by 41%. As a general rule abortion consent forms do not
address warnings to childless women for any adverse abortion risk
(including breast cancer). Even if a pregnant woman delivers her
first baby (full-term), there is very strong evidence that an abortion
of a later pregnancy increases her B.C. risk. There is a third
independent way IA (Induced Abortion) history raises B.C. risk.
IA history raises a woman’s risk of delivering a baby VERY
PREMATURELY (under 32 weeks’ gestation) and such short
pregnancies double her breast cancer risk. Do not pursue a legal
breast cancer claim against an abortion doctor or clinic, unless
your trusted lawyer agrees that such a law suit has a very good
chance of success.
..._______________________________________________________...
Chapter 3 address: http://www.top-sue.org/chapter-3
Brent Rooney (MSc)
Research Director, Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition
3456 Dunbar St. (Suite 146)
Vancouver, Canada V6S 2C2
email: youcansue@gmail.com
References
1 Krieger N. Exposure, susceptibility, and breast cancer risk: A
hypothesis regarding exogenous carcinogens, breast tissue
development and social gradients, including black/white
differences in breast cancer incidence. Breast Cancer Research
& Treatment 1989;13:205-223
[URL: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02106571#page-1 ]
2 Trichopoulos D, Hsien D-C, MacMahon B, Lin T-M, Lowe RC,
et al. Age at any birth and breast cancer risk. Intl J Cancer
1983;31:701-704 [ Abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910310604/abstract ]
3 Brind J, Chinchilli M, Severs WB, Summy-Long J.
Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast
cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal
Epidemiology Community Health 1996;50:481-496
http://jech.bmj.com/content/50/5/481.full.pdf
4 Brind J, Condly SJ, Lanfranchi A, Rooney B. Induced Abortion as
an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
and Meta-analysis of Studies of South Asian Women. Issues in Law
and Medicine Spring 2018
https://www.bcpinstitute.org/uploads/1/1/5/1/115111905/brind_final_corrected_proof__021118.pdf
5 Huang Y, Zhang X, Li W, et al. A meta-analysis of the association
between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese
females. Cancer Causes & Control 24 November 2013
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Huang-2013.pdf
[ Abstract URL:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%28%28meta-analysis[Title]%29%20AND%20abortion[Title]%29%20AND%20Chinese[Title] ]
6 Nan-yan Xiong, Ji-hong Zhou, Xiao-bin Zhou, Jian-Zhang, et al.
Relationship between abortion and breast cancer on the basis
of Meta-analysis. 2009 International Conference on Future
BioMedical Information Engineering (FBIE): pages 210-212;
Print ISBN 978-1-4244-4690-2 [ O.R. 2.04 (1.50-2.76) ]
7 Tao P, Hu YY, Huang Y, Li JY. Risk factors of breast cancer in
Asian women: a meta-analysis. Europe PMC 2011;32(2):164-169
[ > 2 prior induced abortions: O.R. = 3.00 (1.68-5.36) ; URL:
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/21518627
8 LI Ni-no, CHEN Lei, LI Zheng, et al. Meta-analysis on relationship
between induced abortion and breast cancer. Journal Practical
Oncology 2012-04 [ > 1 prior induced abortion:
O.R. = 1.34 ( 1.03-1.75 ) ; URL:
http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-SYZZ201204026.htm ]
9 Daling JR, Maline KE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of
Breast Camcer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced
Abortion. J Nat Cancer Inst 1994;96:1584-1592 [URL:
http://www.aaplog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Daling-Study.pdf ]
10 Innes KE, Byers TE. First pregnancy characteristics and
subsequent breast cancer risk among young women. International
Journal Cancer 2004;112(2):306-311 [ URL:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.20402/full ]
11 Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-MN, Andersen PK. Preterm
delivery and risk of breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer
1999;80(3/4):609-613 [ URL:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2362328/pdf/80-6690399a.pdf ]
12 MacMahon B, Cole P, Brown J. Etiology of Human
Breast Cancer: A Review. Journal National Cancer Institute
1973;50:21-42
13 Shah PS, Zao J. Induced termination of pregnancy and low
birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2009;116:1425-1442. [URL:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02278.x/pdf ]
14 Swingle HM, Colaizy TT, Zimmerman MB, et al Abortion and
the risk of subsequent preterm birth: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. J Reproductive Med 2009;54:95-108.
[ URL: http://johnrodgerssmith.com/MedicalObservations/Swingle/JRM%20Swingle%20paper%202009.pdf ]
15 Lemmers M, Vershoor MA, Hooker AB, Opmeer BC, Limpens J,
Huirne JA, Ankum WM, Mol BW. Does dilation and curettage
(D & C) increase the risk of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies?
A systematic review and meta-analysis. [Abstract URL: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/11/02/humrep.dev274.abstract
16 Saccone G, Perriera L, Berghella V. Prior uterine perforation of
pregnancy as independent risk factor for preterm birth: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Amer J Obstetrics Gynecology
May 2016;214(5):572-591
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(15)02596-X/abstract
17 Husby A, Wohlfahrt J, Oyen N, Melbye M. Pregnancy duration
and breast cancer risk. Nature Communications 9, Article
number: 4255 (2018) URL:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06748-3