Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 50
1 into causation. So, it was just to find out how much was
2 about causation, rather than just treatment.
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not want to take a point unfairly
5 against you, but you see then at 5, line 34: "Right. What
6 percentage of all those things..." the question I have just
7 read, and then he says about a third. "Right. In your
8 opinion what are the risk factors for, say, breast and
9 colon cancer?" "Well, I would have thought risk factors
10 meant what are the sort of the things which might end up
11 causing cancer".
12
13 MS. STEEL: "What are considered to be risk factors".
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: "What, in your opinion, are the risk factors
16 for, say, breast and colon cancer?" What I am saying is
17 I have interpreted that as another way of saying: "What
18 are the various factors which might cause or play a part in
19 the causation of cancer?" Then you go into the G's. Then
20 page 6, line 23: "But that could be attributed to some
21 other factors, for example, environmental, dietary,
22 whatever; what other factors apart from genetic?" He talks
23 about parity and things like that.
24
25 MS. STEEL: The thing is that the initial risk factors are
26 determined by reference to statistical associations, for
27 example.
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The bottom of page 6: "Has cause and effect
30 been shown for these?" "No." "In your opinion, are there
31 any dietary factors to be taken into account?"
32
33 MS. STEEL: Yes. "Has cause and effect been shown for
34 genetics", that is about. The point I was making there was
35 that he was asserting that there was a link for genetics,
36 but he appeared to me to be denying that there was a link
37 for diet. So, what I am asking is: "Has cause and effect
38 been shown for genetics?" "No". "Therefore, why do you
39 assume that there is a link between genetics and cancer,
40 when you do not accept the same for diet just on the
41 basis" -----
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Would I be wrong if I interpreted your
44 question at the bottom of page 6 as asking whether there
45 are any dietary factors which you see as risk factors for
46 cancer? That seems the most obvious interpretation. A
47 risk factor for cancer must mean, must it not, something
48 which may lead to cancer?
49
50 MS. STEEL: But whether something is a risk factor is initially
51 determined by reference to things such as statistical
52 associations. So, that question is not specifically
53 related to whether cause and effect has been shown.
54
55 I touched on this this morning when I mentioned about
56 I think there is a difference as well between cause and
57 effect and causal, because, as I say with smoking and lung
58 cancer, the witnesses have agreed that cause and effect has
59 not been shown with smoking and lung cancer, but that it is
60 considered to be a causal relationship.
