Day 031 - 05 Oct 94 - Page 26
1 for what it is that you are trying to communicate. It
2 seemed to me that in this particular situation one of the
3 difficulties was that there was no rational explanation
4 for the astonishing commonality of the evidence between
5 cardiovascular disease in relation to the diet with the
6 evidence in relation to these cancers and diet. Because
7 there is a parallel with the experimental evidence. There
8 is a parallel with the epidemiology. There is a parallel
9 with the migration studies.
10
11 We know what is happening in cardiovascular disease, and
12 that one of the primary sources of the cause of death is
13 the thrombus, and the thrombus involves disruption of the
14 endothelium and thrombus, which is a sticking of cells to
15 the wall of the blood vessels. The same process has to
16 happen in the migration of cancer. You have to have the
17 sticking of these cells, attaching themselves to the
18 lining, either of the lymphatic system or the lining of
19 the blood vessels.
20
21 That is the problem with cancer, because it is not the
22 primary tumour that is the problem -- that could be cut
23 out if it was the only problem -- the problem is the
24 spread of the tumour; that is really what kills people.
25 So when you look at what causes mortality, what kills the
26 people, the spread of the tumour and the thrombus. I just
27 felt it might have been quite wrong of me to do so; that
28 one should offer the court some plausible explanation as
29 to how there might be in biology a common denominator. I
30 felt it was my duty to do this, because it is the sort of
31 thing one does when you are teaching; one has to cover the
32 facts by saying, "This is an idea that has occurred to me
33 previously". I felt it, perhaps, had some merit in this
34 case, purely to show that there are potential
35 explanations. It may be wrong, but you can, with the
36 evidence we have, consider a biological explanation for
37 the common cause of cancer promotion in death and
38 mortality from heart disease.
39
40 MS. STEEL: You are putting this forward as a plausible
41 biological mechanism?
42 A. As an hypothesis, yes. I feel that if somebody were
43 to say, "There is absolutely no possibility that these two
44 diseases are related biologically with a common cause",
45 that would be a very serious argument. I just put this
46 forward, that you can construct a plausible explanation
47 based on what we already know. I am not trying to suggest
48 that it is right, but I am saying that it is simply a
49 plausible argument.
50
51 Q. Is that generally how science moves forward? People put
52 forward plausible mechanisms, then they are investigated
53 and-----
54 A. Yes, absolutely right. This is one of the main tools
55 that we have as scientists is to try to look at gaps in
56 our knowledge and see how we can put the evidence that we
57 have together to fill these gaps. This seemed to be a gap
58 to me.
59
60 Q. Going on towards line 14: "If lines are drawn laterally
