Day 035 - 12 Oct 94 - Page 62
1
2 Q. The Commission on Live Sciences and the National Research
3 Council as well?
4 A. Yes.
5
6 Q. Are they well-funded, the National Academy of Sciences?
7 A. Do they have plenty of money?
8
9 Q. Yes?
10 A. I have no idea.
11
12 Q. I only ask that because if you are going to do significant
13 research you do need plenty of money, do you not?
14 A. Denis Burkitt would not agree with you.
15
16 Q. I know he would not.
17 A. Although he has since passed on, regrettably.
18
19 Q. There are, of course, flashes of inspiration from time to
20 time which would cost nothing at all, but the validation
21 of hypothetical inspirations require money, does it not?
22 A. In some cases it may.
23
24 Q. You see that it is published in 1989 (which is the same
25 year as the piece of work by Dr. Willett we were looking
26 at a moment ago). I would ask you to turn to page 595 --
27 it must be a jolly fat book -- there is a heading
28 "Colorectal Cancer", I will not read it out but a review
29 of the evidence, down to 596 the first column, the first
30 part of the second column, and then this at the end above
31 the heading "Liver Cancer":
32
33 "In summary, the data on diet and colorectal cancer are
34 inconsistent, perhaps because of differences in the
35 population studied or in the dietary and methodology used
36 to assess intake. In general, increased risk of
37 colorectal cancer appears to be associated with a dietary
38 pattern consisting of a high-fat intake, particularly
39 saturated fats and low vegetable intake. It is not clear
40 that a dietary fibre per se is protective or whether the
41 apparent protective effects in some studies are due to
42 other food constituents, such as vitamin C or calcium.
43 Colorectal cancer may be increased by the consumption of
44 alcohol and beverages, especially beer".
45
46 Perhaps you would agree, Dr. Barnard, that that statement
47 of a summary of the evidence existing in 1989 in relation
48 to diet and colorectal cancer is in the same non-committal
49 or somewhat cautious terms as those of the Surgeon General
50 in 1992, and whatever the other body was I read out in
51 1991; is that right?
52 A. Well, the word "inconsistent" alone does not mean a
53 non-committal, nor does it mean there is not a
54 relationship. It may mean that the mechanisms have not
55 been clearly elaborated; or it could mean something else.
56 I would not want to draw that conclusion from simply that
57 paragraph.
58
59 Q. But, you see, what I am driving at is this: What I have
60 been concerned about all along is your statement in
