Day 031 - 05 Oct 94 - Page 27


     
     1        between the parallel evidences of heart disease and
     2        cancer, there is in my view enough evidence to make it
     3        difficult to reject the hypothesis that a high fat and
     4        high meat fat diet is not similarly related to the risks
     5        of breast and colon cancer".  When you are talking about
     6        the evidence there, you were not including your
     7        hypothesis?
     8        A.  No, that is not evidence.
     9
    10   Q.   What was the evidence you were referring to?
    11        A.  I was referring to what I have below somewhat
    12        arbitrarily set out, namely, that I consider that the
    13        epidemiological evidence between heart disease is strong
    14        in relation to dietary fats, and I think the same applies
    15        to the epidemiological evidence for cancer.  I think the
    16        migrant data for heart disease is strong and is a very
    17        close parallel with heart disease and cancer.
    18
    19        Experimental evidence is also strong in relation to heart
    20        disease in terms of, particularly, saturated fats.  And so
    21        far as cancer is concerned, I think most people would
    22        accept it is not as strong as heart disease because there
    23        is less of it, and there are some confounding factors, as
    24        I mentioned lower down, in the experimental evidence on
    25        cancer but, nonetheless, it has led several authors to
    26        conclude that in experimental situations high fat diets
    27        will promote cancer and, importantly, that diets rich in
    28        n-3 fatty acids will protect against it.  That is true
    29        also of heart disease.
    30
    31        The data on individuals is moderate, I think.  There is
    32        some conflicting individual data for heart disease for the
    33        reasons I have tried to explain, and it is -- I think I
    34        may be wrong in making this judgment, but I think it is
    35        much weaker in relation to cancer.  Again there is much
    36        less of it.  The intervention trials in heart disease give
    37        us -- I think if you follow the Richard Peto's group, that
    38        is, Sir Richard Doll's research group in Oxford, I think
    39        they would say that the intervention trials consistently,
    40        if all put together, show that you can get, if you reduce
    41        blood cholesterol level, you can benefit with regard to
    42        mortality from heart disease, particularly in the
    43        Norwegian trial.  But we have not, as yet, had any
    44        intervention studies in cancer.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is going to be difficult to do them, is
    47        it not, because if your intervention studies have shown
    48        that there is a significant risk of cardiovascular
    49        disease, for the reason you gave earlier, you are not
    50        going to be allowed to do them just to discover where it 
    51        affects cancer and take the risk of killing people of 
    52        cardiovascular disease along the way? 
    53        A.  Yes, I think that is correct.  The studies that have
    54        been planned at the moment are not intervention studies
    55        but long term follow up studies of cohort populations.
    56
    57   Q.   You have already chosen their diet, as it were?
    58        A.  Yes, that is correct.
    59
    60   Q.   So you are not urging them to take more of what is bad for

Prev Next Index