A: Yes.
Q: Why didn't you refer the court to this?
A: Only you don't read those that they are SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER. You read the low ones.
Q: I'm talking about cardio.
[....]
A: I say, I say there is, the majority is caused by oxidative damage to DNA in.
Q: Don't have an answer to my question? My question was Why didn't you refer the court?
A: I didn't refer, I don't know why.
Q: You don't know why.
A: I do not know.
(In detail on pages 149-152).
- In relation to page 1203 of Cook's article on "Carcinogenesis and Cancer", the expert was asked and answered as follows:
- Confirm to me, please, confirm to me that what they are saying here, one of the things they are saying here, that the presence of the 8HO DNA is not sufficient or necessary, is not a sufficient cause or a necessary cause to cause the formation of tumors. Aren't they saying that?
A: Maybe, yes.
[....]
Q: Now, they also refer in this section to your table number two that you copied.
A: Yes.
Q: And they explicitly say that there are all kinds of pathological conditions with high levels of radicals None Evidence of a Cancerous Process. Right?
A: Right, right, right.
Q: Right?
A: True.
Q: That's what they say, too.
A: Yes.
Q: And even though they write it explicitly, you still referred to this table that you knew and knew what they were saying and you told the court that because there are high levels of radicals there, it means that cancer is caused by it.
A: Yes.
(pp. 153-155).
- Shlita was also referred to what was said in the article presented in Exhibit M/6, in relation to oxidative DNA, and he was asked and answered as follows:
Q: oxidative dna damage may be an happy (?) phenomenon to an ongoing pathological process and elevated levels do not have a role in carcinogenesis
A: It could be.
Q: Maybe. I mean, it could be.
A: In medicine, there can be many things.
Q: That is to say, they say that the increase in the damage of the oxidative dna, It's a secondary phenomenon of cancer, it's not the cause of cancer.