Day 036 - 13 Oct 94 - Page 38


     
     1        certainly not lactating, one would presume.
     2
     3   Q.   Barring miracles.
     4        A.  That is right.
     5
     6   Q.   Can we read on?  You will see -----
     7        A.  However, that is not obviously the only difference
     8        between a virgin and a non-virgin rat.  There is also the
     9        influence of age and puberty status.
    10
    11   Q.   He goes on to explain how he thinks this fits the human
    12        model "The parous rat model" that is one that has had
    13        ratlets -- whatever they are called.
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What are they called as a matter of
    16        interest?
    17        A.  I beg your pardon?
    18
    19   Q.   What do you call neonatal rats?
    20        A.  They are typically described as pups.  You may call
    21        them what you like.
    22
    23   MR. RAMPTON:  I call them "ratlets".
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That sounds so improbable to me that I asked
    26        what they are actually called. They are pups.
    27        A.  At least on our side of the Atlantic that is what we
    28        say.
    29
    30   MR. RAMPTON:  This is written by an American, so we will use
    31        your language.  "The parous rat model" that is the female
    32        rat that has had pups "is probably more relevant than the
    33        young virgin rat model" --  notice he says "probably" --
    34        "than the young virgin rat model to the experience of
    35        human breast cancer. First of all, breast cancer develops
    36        in both nulliparous and parous women", that is to say, is
    37        it not, Dr. Barnard, those women that have had children
    38        and those women who have not?
    39        A.  Yes, that is correct.
    40
    41   Q.   "Second, early pregnancy in women actually reduces breast
    42        cancer risk".  Do you agree or not with that statement?
    43        A.  Yes.
    44
    45   Q.   "Using rats that have completed one cycle of pregnancy and
    46        lactation, our preliminary studies showed that dietary fat
    47        has no stimulatory effect on mammary tumour induction in
    48        these parous animals.  Our data suggest that the
    49        physiological state of the host or the differentiation
    50        history of the target organ could play  an important role 
    51        in determining the responsiveness to fat intake and that 
    52        dietary fat may not exercise a universal role in the 
    53        promotion of mammary carcinogensis.
    54
    55        That is quite guarded stuff, is it not, Dr. Barnard?  It
    56        is full of "probablys", "mays" and so on and so forth.  He
    57        is not saying it does not. He is not saying that his use
    58        of a new model brings us to a triumph of conclusion about
    59        mammary tumourigenesis at all, is he?  He is extrapolating
    60        a hypothesis from his data; that is all?

Prev Next Index