Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[lettruthringout]

Misinterpreting Daubert

Daubert criteria were:

1) whether the theories or techniques upon which the testimony relies are based on a testable hypothesis;

2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review;

3) whether there is a known or potential rate of error associated with the method; and

4) whether the method is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.

You repeatedly refer to the court's gatekeeper function. I agree with that concept. But it does not typically refer to testimony per se but rather testimony about techniques or methods. Hence, under Daubert courts may exclude testimony about repressed memories, revelations under hypnosis, lie detector results, or testimony about only one test more than 50 years ago performed on whether the Kent cigarette filter in question released asbestos fibers. The junk science is the underlying techniques or theories. Not the testimony. Of course if the science is worthless than the testimony can have no value.

So, in invoking Daubert you appear to be claiming Mori and Kurabayashi are junk science. That the Court should have slammed the gate, keeping utterances of their very names from being made in court. Really. The analyses undertaken by Mori and Kurabayashi seem pretty reasonably undertaken to me, and not junk science. Daubert is about keeping bad science out of court. So, until expert testimony was allowed in which misrepresented that perfectly good science there was nothing to bar under Daubert principles. Just saying.