Day 017 - 25 Jul 94 - Page 27
1 A. Yes, that is right. I think, undoubtedly, diet is
difficult to recall, I think, at the best of times. I
2 mean, if one tries to think of one's own diet, even what
did you eat last week, I mean, it is not necessarily that
3 straightforward. People who develop cancer undoubtedly do
modify their diet either subconsciously or consciously.
4 That, in itself, can actually influence their recall about
what they ate before. It can, for example, have an
5 adverse effect; they may thought that their diet was
terribly bad beforehand because there are all sorts of
6 emotions engendered by the development of cancer and the
knowledge that you have cancer. It may be that they have,
7 for example, said: "Oh, the diet I had before was
terrible" and it can, therefore, influence the way in
8 which they respond to these questions.
9 MR. RAMPTON: "Hirayama (1978) provided the first relevant data
of this type from two studies in Japan, both started in
10 the mid-1960s. In a large mortality study covering
different parts of Japan, women who ate meat daily had a
11 60% greater mortality from breast cancer (based on 14
deaths) than those who seldom ate meat (no details were
12 presented about women in intermediate categories of meat
consumption). The other Japanese study concerned breast
13 cancer incidence in Hiroshima, in which an increased
relative risk of 3.8 was found for 'almost daily' meat
14 consumption, though the confidence limits were wide.
15 I do not know if you have explained confidence limits, but
there again perhaps we ought to know precisely what that
16 phrase means?
A. Well, it basically in, sort of, simple language it
17 means that when you are measuring a result there is always
the possibility that it may have arisen by chance, and if
18 you have wide confidence limits, that means that there is
a very wide range of possibility that the finding that you
19 have arose purely by chance.
20 When the confidence limits are narrow, that means your
data are much harder; that there is only a relatively
21 small risk of that event that you are measuring having
arisen by chance. It is a sort of concise way of just
22 defining whether the thing could have arisen by chance or
whether it is more likely or not to have arisen by chance.
23
Q. Thank you. Dr. Kinlen goes on: "Since then three other
24 studies have been reported - one from Britain and two from
the USA - and in contrast, their findings have all been
25 negative". We will look at table 2 which is over the
page in a moment, Dr. Arnott. " A study of members of
26 religious orders who ate no meat and relatively little fat
from other sources yielded 31 deaths from breast cancer,
27 compared with an expected number of 35.8 based on the
mortality of single women in the general population of
28 Britain". That is a piece of work apparently done by
Dr. Kinlen himself in 1982.
29
"Similarly, in California, no significant differences
30 were found in breast cancer mortality among Adventists who
seldom ate meat (81 deaths) compared with those who ate
