Day 035 - 12 Oct 94 - Page 60


     
     1        conclusion that Dr. Greenwald and some others have made
     2        regarding that material.
     3
     4   Q.   That is rather different.  Those are comments, I take it,
     5        specifically on the eight-year follow up of the American
     6        Nurses Health Study; is that right?
     7        A.  Dr. Willett has published other reports in that same
     8        area prior to that time.
     9
    10   Q.   His latest report on American nurses was in 1992, was it
    11        not?
    12        A.  The eight-year follow up was the one that has gotten
    13        the most attention.
    14
    15   Q.   It got a lot of publicity because, in effect, it showed no
    16        relationship, in fact, an inverse relationship with the
    17        intake of dietary fat, did it not, can be linked with
    18        breast cancer?
    19        A.  Within the narrow band he looked at, he found no
    20        significant relationship.
    21
    22   Q.   Those who do not like his results say:  "Well, the trouble
    23        is he did not look at people consuming quantities less
    24        than about 24 per cent"?
    25        A.  I do not criticise his study.  I think it was an
    26        interesting study that asked an extremely narrow question
    27        and was, therefore, unable to give a useful answer, but it
    28        certainly asked that question.  The question was: Within a
    29        very narrow band over a short period of time do natural
    30        fluctuations in fat intake have a meaningful effect on
    31        breast cancer?  The answer was:  You could not detect it
    32        using his method.  That is meaningful but it does not
    33        answer our question here.
    34
    35   Q.   Let us leave Dr. Willett whom you regard -- I do not mean
    36        this offensively to Dr. Willett or to you -- as something
    37        of a maverick and move on to a body who I do not know what
    38        status you think it has -- it is the National Academy of
    39        Sciences; this again is an American body, not a British
    40        one.  Again in 1989.  My Lord, this is another document
    41        which, in fact, nobody has got except me.
    42
    43        The reason for that is that it was mentioned by Dr. Cannon
    44        in his evidence.  Dr. Cannon did not have any copies of it
    45        with him.  They were not part of his references.
    46        I managed to persuade Professor Wheelock to find it and to
    47        provide us with copies.  Having said that, the selection
    48        which has been made of the pages is not mine; it is
    49        Professor Wheelock's.
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is this actually on Mr. Geoffrey Cannon's 
    52        list? 
    53
    54   MR. RAMPTON:  No, it is not.
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is it referred to?
    57
    58   MR. RAMPTON:  It was referred to in his evidence-in-chief.  He
    59        mentions one National Academy of Science Report.  This one
    60        is for 1989.  There is one copy each for the Defendants.

Prev Next Index