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 ----?
