Day 017 - 25 Jul 94 - Page 23
1 in Norway during the war, 1940 to 1945?
A. Yes.
2
Q. But that after the war they started eating better. Can
3 one draw -- this is an example perhaps of something you
were saying earlier -- from that the certain conclusion
4 that girls at the peripubertal stage of their lives ought
to restrict their intake of calories or of fat?
5 A. I do not think one can draw that particular
conclusion. What this suggests to me is that this is an
6 interesting finding and obviously requires further
investigation. They have made the hypothesis that the
7 change in diet and the better feeding that occurred after
the war led to the development of people with greater
8 height, but that this change occurred at a sensitive time
in their life-span. In other words, when they were
9 changing from pre-pubertal to a post-pubertal woman. But
again it is a theory, and it is something that -- my
10 feeling would be it is an interesting one and it requires
further investigation, without it being conclusive.
11
Q. Can we go back, please, to Dr. Kinlen's study at page 587
12 underneath the table: "Migrant studies. Another series of
observations which has encouraged the view that fat is a
13 cause of breast cancer concerns the Japanese in the United
States, whose fat intake is known to have increased. This
14 group has shown an increasing incidence of the disease
from the very low levels characteristic of Japan, although
15 at older ages the levels are still appreciably below those
in the USA generally. These observations, together with
16 the geographic correlations, reasonably suggest the
hypothesis that fat is a cause of breast cancer. To
17 become compelling, however, evidence from studies of
individual women is needed.
18
Studies of individuals. 1. Case-control studies.
19
At least six case-control studies relevant to fat and
20 breast cancer have been reported, though some of these
have concerned meat, a major source of saturated fat in
21 most Western countries, rather than fat per se".
22 If one turns over the page one can see table 1 and one can
see what these case control studies mentioned actually
23 produced. Miller produced a positive association by only
one of three methods, right?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Lubin did with a population study and the answer is "yes,
but see text", so we will have to go back to that. Graham
26 produced no positive association. Hirohata did not either
in either of his studies, and Lubin in 1986, which was
27 five years after his first study, found it only in
subgroups.
28
Going back to page 587: "The first such study was carried
29 out in four areas of Canada by Miller and his colleagues
(1978), and its findings were reported as supporting the
30 causal hypothesis. The study involved a 24-hour recall
and a four day record of diet about six months after
