Day 034 - 11 Oct 94 - Page 10
1 means (f), because it just comes before (g) in the next
2 study and (f) is fried potatoes.
3 A. I would presume that is correct since (f) was not
4 referred to in the chart, yes.
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But if it is fried potatoes and it is in the
7 vegetable fat column, is it fair to assume it means fried
8 in vegetable fat?
9 A. That would be my conclusion, yes.
10
11 MR. MORRIS: So we have one up on the Surgeon General in that
12 we have spotted a mistake!
13 A. In the final of these four categories, the cohort
14 studies, in which individuals are identified -----
15
16 Q. Sorry, just before we move on from case-control, I count
17 seven studies out of 11 that showed a positive
18 association.
19 A. In the case-control studies?
20
21 Q. Of fats of some kind, mostly animal fats; is that correct?
22 A. I find nine studies.
23
24 Q. Well, some find two; the same study finds two
25 correlations?
26 A. I see. Yes, I am sorry. I am referring to nine
27 specific comparisons; you are quite correct.
28
29 Q. The rest found basically no association but not negative?
30 A. Yes. It is important again to understand what "no
31 association" means. That does not disprove the
32 hypothesis. It is, in the best of times, difficult to
33 establish links between dietary factors and a disease such
34 as cancer, which takes a long time to form. It is also
35 difficult to assess diets accurately.
36
37 When the studies show a statistical relationship, that is
38 quite important. When they fail to do so, it quite often
39 is an error in method rather than meaning that there is
40 simply no relationship between those two. To draw on my
41 analogy yesterday, it is rather like if 20 search parties
42 go off in the woods and 15 of them are unable to find any
43 evidence of a culprit or other individual there. That
44 does not mean there was no individual in the woods. But
45 if five do find evidence of a person's passage, the 15
46 search parties that found nothing do not outweigh those
47 five that did find clear evidence of it.
48
49 Q. Perhaps in this situation it is a bit reverse because it
50 is 15 that are finding it and five are not, in your
51 analogy?
52 A. Yes. When one looks at the evidence that we have
53 looked at so far, the overwhelming weight of the evidence
54 is that there is a clear association of a direct nature --
55 by "direct" I mean the higher the fat intake, the higher
56 the risk of cancer. It is found not in one research
57 methodology but in three.
58
59 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just pause a moment. If what you have said
60 about "no association" as against where there is a
