Day 256 - 04 Jun 96 - Page 52
1 age at menarche, number of full term pregnancies, duration
2 of nursing in years, first user or contraceptives of age 15
3 plus had benign heart disease. Female first degree
4 relative had breast cancer and level of opium use".
5
6 Can you, Professor, while we are at it, because we had this
7 the other day, explain why one sees so frequently in these
8 studies that adjustment is made or control is made for
9 level of education?
10 A. Usually that is a surrogate indicator of various other
11 things that go on in one's social life of course, and it is
12 rather non-descript. A term is stuck in there to try to
13 capture some of the things that might go on as a result of
14 the social conditions. But often times it is usually not
15 explained and I am not sure why people would want to do
16 that as often as they do.
17
18 Q. It is a risk factor in most of these studies, is it not?
19 The college education seems to figure. Whether it is
20 because it delays first parity or what one does not know,
21 but it does appear as a risk factor, does it not?
22 A. Yes. But it is rather odd because sometimes it is up
23 and sometimes it us down for a particular country, so
24 I really would not want to generalise about that term.
25
26 Q. I am going to ask to you look at one other table in a
27 moment, but can I ask you to look at the penultimate page
28 of this study. It is under the general heading
29 "Discussion". I think the page number is 1357.
30 A. Yes, I have that.
31
32 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am not sure I understand Professor
33 Campbell's conclusion in relation to the fats.
34
35 MR. RAMPTON: I am sorry.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Because you put the relative risk, you said,
38 ends up at between 1.2 and 1.3.
39
40 MR. RAMPTON: That is right.
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You suggest that that is not significant.
43
44 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, I do.
45
46 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What do you say about that? I mean, it is
47 true that you have higher figures. I find it very
48 difficult to relate the adjusted relative risk in the total
49 to?
50 A. This is ----
51
52 Q. The adjusted relative risk in the total to the adjusted
53 relative risk in the Shanghai and Tianjin columns. It may
54 be if I read it more carefully I would understand it but,
55 for instance, I could understand that it might be the total
56 adjusted relative risk might be higher in one city or lower
57 in another because it might depend upon the numbers and the
58 incidents varying in the cities. But what I appear to have
59 there is an adjusted relative risk in Shanghai of 2 for
60 total fat and 2.5 or 3. ----
