Day 256 - 04 Jun 96 - Page 50


     
     1        A.  It was 507 in one place.  Yes, you are right.
     2
     3   Q.   Altogether and they did have significantly different diets,
     4        did they not?
     5        A.  Somewhat, yes, in terms of the composition of the diet,
     6        not necessarily in term of nutrient composition.
     7
     8   Q.   I understand that, but in terms of the actual items there
     9        were different types of cabbage?
    10        A.  Yes.
    11
    12   Q.   Does it tell us this -- and I will ask you what you think
    13        about this methodology in a moment -- but if it was well
    14        done as a study, does it tell us this:  On the one hand,
    15        that you may be right, plant food is protective.  On the
    16        other hand, that you may well be wrong that animal fat is
    17        generative of these conditions, if it be right?
    18        A.  I do not think I am wrong when I speak about -- you are
    19        leading me into something very specific and that is animal
    20        fat, just animal fat.  Animal fat, primarily saturated
    21        type, certainly has an adverse effect and that is a
    22        consensus view throughout the community. There is no
    23        question about that.  Whether or not it is specifically
    24        involved in each and every kind of adverse effect one can
    25        think about, that is obviously questionable.  But if there
    26        is an effect of animal fat it is always adverse.  But that
    27        in turn depends on the total amount of fat in the diet.
    28        So, we have to take the comments in the proper context.
    29
    30   Q.   What did you think of the methodology of this study?
    31        A.  I really did not see anything particularly wrong with
    32        it.  I do not recall having found anything in particular.
    33
    34   Q.   It is a fairly, I say routine, it has striking features,
    35        but it is a routine sort of study; is it not?
    36        A.  I think so, and these are qualified people.
    37
    38   Q.   Yes, precisely.  Henderson, for example, has done quite a
    39        lot of work in this field and so has Ross, has he not?
    40        A.  Yes except none of them are nutritionists.
    41
    42   Q.   No.  What are their professional qualifications or
    43        backgrounds?
    44        A.  Pathology, molecular biology, clinicians.
    45
    46   Q.   But, as far as you are concerned, have the statistics been
    47        properly done?  That is a very important feature of these
    48        studies?
    49        A.  I have no reason to question the statistics.
    50 
    51   Q.   Can you turn then, please, to the table 3 on -- I am afraid 
    52        the page markings on mine are almost obliterated but 
    53        I think it is probably about page 1356.
    54        A.  There is the large table occupying the entire page.
    55
    56   Q.   Yes, that is the one.  If you can turn it sideways if it is
    57        easier for you where the data are analysed, according to
    58        relative risk, first for each centre and then cumulatively
    59        in the third block.  Do you see that total?
    60        A.  Yes.

Prev Next Index