Assumptions ‘incorrect’, says fellow expert

An expert in analysing mathematical models of cancer growth described the process used in the clinical risk assessment as a “huge leap of faith”.

Professor Mark Chaplain, from St Andrews University, was contacted by The Courier after it emerged he was the recipient of the correspondence from Prof Cameron.

He wrote to the review group member to express concern about the validity of the findings. He expressed similar worries to the Scottish Government in April but received no response.

Prof Chaplain said: “I wrote to tell him I was surprised at some of the conclusions in the report. There are very complex systems involved and simple changes to treatment will not result in simple outcomes.

“It’s not a case of change A and get B. “I would say the assumptions made in the report were incorrect. I personally believe it’s very difficult to come to any solid conclusion with the information available and for me there is no evidence any of the patients suffered because of the treatment.

“Even using a quantitative assessment given the small number of individuals was the wrong approach, in my opinion.”

The Courier reported in May how a scathing report by a retired oncologist claimed the suggestion of an increased risk to patients had been “built on sand”.

It described the assessment as having “none of the characteristics associated with dispassionate inquiry” and said it “reads as if it were an exercise in reverse engineering: we know the answer, now let’s show how we can find it”.