Day 035 - 12 Oct 94 - Page 27


     
     1
     2   Q.   "Results from animal and human studies of obesity and
     3        cancer are not wholly consistent, perhaps because of the
     4        difficulty of separating the effects of calories, fat, and
     5        body weight.  Furthermore, the level of caloric
     6        restriction that seems effective in preventing cancer in
     7        most animal studies is at a food intake level not
     8        advisable for most humans".  That is to say, Dr. Barnard,
     9        I take it, that if you did the same with humans they would
    10        all starve to death?
    11        A.  He is referring here to a body of evidence where
    12        animals are nearly starved, and they do show dramatically
    13        lower cancer rates.  But obviously that is not what we are
    14        talking about here.
    15
    16   Q.   The work done by (such as) Alvarez and Kritchevsky; that
    17        is the sort of thing he is talking about, is he not?
    18        A.  Presumably, yes.
    19
    20   Q.   "Consistent with other health recommendations, maintenance
    21        of desirable weight is recommended and may potentially
    22        decrease the risk of breast, colon, prostate, and
    23        endometrial cancers."   Dr. Barnard, if it were accepted
    24        by respectable general medical opinion in America in the
    25        1980s the Surgeon General would write, would he not:  "It
    26        is accepted by all respectable scientists that a diet
    27        which is high-in-fat and may cause obesity is a cause of
    28        breast cancer, cancer of the colon, prostate, and
    29        endometrium", would he not?
    30        A.  Neither he nor I -- no, I do not think that neither he
    31        nor I would suggest all responsible scientists hold that
    32        view; there is still room for some disagreement.
    33
    34   Q.   He would have written "the consensus of reputable medical
    35        opinion is that diet causes cancer", would he not?
    36        A.  No, I do not think that is what one is calling on him
    37        to say.  What was clear in the early 1980s is that there
    38        were links between dietary factors and cancer, that those
    39        links were of a causal nature, and this was widely
    40        accepted.  That is quite different from saying that the
    41        research is wholly consistent and clearly proved beyond
    42        doubt, the causality.
    43
    44   Q.   He does not say that though, does he?  He does not say
    45        either of those things?  If he was satisfied that the
    46        evidence pointed in one direction, as it does with
    47        smoking, tobacco and lung cancer, he would say not that it
    48        may potentially decrease the risk of breast and colon
    49        cancer, he would say that it is bound to decrease the risk
    50        of colon cancer, would he not? 
    51        A.  If by "bound" means "certain", I would say, no, if 
    52        I understand your question correctly. 
    53
    54   Q.   In a sense there is not much use you and me arguing about
    55        the meaning of plain English words, Dr. Barnard, but do
    56        you see a difference between "may potentially" and
    57        "probably will", for example?
    58        A.  Yes, I do see that.
    59
    60   Q.   He does not ----?

Prev Next Index