Day 256 - 04 Jun 96 - Page 51


     
     1
     2   Q.   Now, they have analysed the data for total protein and they
     3        come out with a relative risk for the whole lot of 0.8; do
     4        you see that?
     5        A.  Yes.
     6
     7   Q.   It does not implicate protein very strongly.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Where -- yes, I see, in the right.
    10
    11   MR. RAMPTON:  I am sorry, my Lord, I should have gone more
    12        slowly.
    13
    14        Shanghai and Tianjin are in total.  Each adjusted, and
    15        I will come to the adjustments in a moment.  Protein does
    16        not come out very strongly as a suspect in the genesis of
    17        breast cancer according to these data; does it?
    18        A.  That is correct.
    19
    20   Q.   If you look at fat, which is the next block down: Soya
    21        protein and soya total protein, whatever the difference may
    22        be, total fat, saturated fat, mono saturated fat, and
    23        polyunsaturated fat all coming out at just over one in the
    24        total column, yes?
    25        A.  Yes.
    26
    27   Q.   Again, statistically quite insignificant; is that right?
    28        A.  Yes.  Those total figures of course are aggregates of
    29        the total two city data and in contrast if you look at the
    30        individual relative risk for each of the cities, you can
    31        see that with Tianjin, for example, those relative risks
    32        were all quite significant.
    33
    34   Q.   Apart from polyunsaturated fat?
    35        A.  Well, even that one is significant.
    36
    37   Q.   It goes the other way?
    38        A.  The PO5.  No it is not, it is 3.5.
    39
    40   Q.   You must have a better copy than me because the adjusted
    41        relative risk look like a 0.5 to me.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  3.5 I think it is.
    44
    45   MR. RAMPTON:  Is it?
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    48
    49   MR. RAMPTON:  I am not following that, I am afraid, under
    50        "Tianjin" it should be the column immediately under the 
    51        word "Tianjin"? 
    52        A.  The order is kind of confusing here.  They have got the 
    53        relative risks and adjusted relative risks in the first and
    54        second columns of each city.  Usually it is the other way
    55        round but, in any case, reading across here ----
    56
    57   Q.   I think if one -- I am sorry, but this is very difficult
    58        because I can hardly read the footnote but "adjusted
    59        relative risk" with a D on it adjusted for energy intake in
    60        northern dietary risk factors in Tianjin, which included

Prev Next Index