Day 036 - 13 Oct 94 - Page 38
1 certainly not lactating, one would presume.
2
3 Q. Barring miracles.
4 A. That is right.
5
6 Q. Can we read on? You will see -----
7 A. However, that is not obviously the only difference
8 between a virgin and a non-virgin rat. There is also the
9 influence of age and puberty status.
10
11 Q. He goes on to explain how he thinks this fits the human
12 model "The parous rat model" that is one that has had
13 ratlets -- whatever they are called.
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What are they called as a matter of
16 interest?
17 A. I beg your pardon?
18
19 Q. What do you call neonatal rats?
20 A. They are typically described as pups. You may call
21 them what you like.
22
23 MR. RAMPTON: I call them "ratlets".
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That sounds so improbable to me that I asked
26 what they are actually called. They are pups.
27 A. At least on our side of the Atlantic that is what we
28 say.
29
30 MR. RAMPTON: This is written by an American, so we will use
31 your language. "The parous rat model" that is the female
32 rat that has had pups "is probably more relevant than the
33 young virgin rat model" -- notice he says "probably" --
34 "than the young virgin rat model to the experience of
35 human breast cancer. First of all, breast cancer develops
36 in both nulliparous and parous women", that is to say, is
37 it not, Dr. Barnard, those women that have had children
38 and those women who have not?
39 A. Yes, that is correct.
40
41 Q. "Second, early pregnancy in women actually reduces breast
42 cancer risk". Do you agree or not with that statement?
43 A. Yes.
44
45 Q. "Using rats that have completed one cycle of pregnancy and
46 lactation, our preliminary studies showed that dietary fat
47 has no stimulatory effect on mammary tumour induction in
48 these parous animals. Our data suggest that the
49 physiological state of the host or the differentiation
50 history of the target organ could play an important role
51 in determining the responsiveness to fat intake and that
52 dietary fat may not exercise a universal role in the
53 promotion of mammary carcinogensis.
54
55 That is quite guarded stuff, is it not, Dr. Barnard? It
56 is full of "probablys", "mays" and so on and so forth. He
57 is not saying it does not. He is not saying that his use
58 of a new model brings us to a triumph of conclusion about
59 mammary tumourigenesis at all, is he? He is extrapolating
60 a hypothesis from his data; that is all?
