Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 27


     
     1        causal relationship?  You see, as I have heard -- you may
     2        well be right but when I read "linked with" I thought that
     3        meant "causally linked with", but it has occurred to me
     4        since last November that there may be another reason for
     5        the use of the words "linked with", "associated with", that
     6        those are words used by scientists very often in papers
     7        which are to do with population studies.
     8
     9   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, positive association.
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Population studies, it might be argued,
    12        cannot actually show that a certain kind of diet causes a
    13        person a certain kind of degenerative disease because
    14        population studies are not apt to do that, it might be
    15        said.  The very most they can do is show that if a
    16        population's diet is such and such there is a higher
    17        incidence of a certain kind of degenerative disease.  So,
    18        words like "linked with" or "associated with", one might
    19        think of rather bland words, are used because the
    20        scientists are actually stopping short of saying:  "It does
    21        actually cause it".  Is that a tenable argument or not?
    22
    23   MR. RAMPTON:  It depends in what context the argument is
    24        placed.  As a proposition, it is plainly right that
    25        scientists use those words when they do not mean "caused"
    26        or "causal association".  That is perfectly right.  But if
    27        it is placed in the context of the question:  What does
    28        this leaflet mean or is capable of meaning?  Second, if it
    29        means "causation", what is the evidence required to prove
    30        that to be true?  Well, then, really the fact that some
    31        scientists may believe or may see in epidemiological
    32        evidence of the population studies an association which
    33        suggests the need for further research, perhaps in the
    34        laboratory and perhaps in the hospital, is quite
    35        irrelevant.  It takes your Lordship nowhere.
    36
    37        All I am concerned about at the moment, having made my
    38        submissions about the meaning of the leaflet, is this, that
    39        having now asked your Lordship to allow us to state with
    40        complete clarity what we say is the meaning of the leaflet,
    41        that the Defendants should not seek to persuade your
    42        Lordship, or should not succeed in persuading your
    43        Lordship, that they are in any sense prejudiced by that.
    44        The reason I mentioned the passage about heart disease just
    45        now is this:  I noticed -- I have only read it briefly --
    46        in the Defendants' skeleton argument there is something to
    47        the effect:  "Oh, well, we, the Plaintiffs, never made it
    48        clear that we had conceded that the relationship between
    49        diet and heart disease was a causal one".
    50 
    51        I pose two questions about that; first, is it credible? 
    52        But, second, even if it were, would it matter?  Even if 
    53        I conceded now -- in fact, I have conceded it earlier in
    54        the case, I think, possibly when Professor Wheelock was
    55        giving evidence, possibly when Dr. Arnott was, I cannot
    56        remember -- even if I were to concede it in those terms
    57        now, which I am quite willing to do, it leads nowhere; it
    58        has no consequence.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, that may be another matter.  What I am

Prev Next Index