Replies to post #262821 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[mc1988]

Minor correction. I stated N=25 and that is incorrect, it should be N=28.

[alm2]

DU RESIGNS-in the face of all the error in her judgements-She will - this is another monumental factual error which she adopts - SEND to Amarin -no judge can be allowed to continue to sit when so many judicial errors with such devastating impact - billions lost -through her failed judgement - we have to attack her continued appointment as a judge - we have to strip every line down of her judgement and critically examine every aspect of it - Brilliant work here. And as to Mori And Kur -the ever growing erroneous findings need to be brought into the public domain - This was no boundary dispute - this was litigation where the cost of judicial error was gigantic
why does not the board pay for the Harvard Professor to write a long and detailed opinion on the erroneous findings of fact and procedure - ??? what publicity that would attract - I will gladly pay my share - it would raise the share price hugely !!!!

[mc1988]

After attempting to manually construct a dataset where N=28 mean=300 and SD=233 and where no data point is >500, I now believe that it is indeed correct to claim that there is at least one subject with triglycerides level >500 mg/dL.

The best I could come up with is this data set:

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
40
180
470
480
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500

where N=28 mean=300 and SD=233.4.

Given that the actual experiment has more "realistic" values rather than values clustered at the extreme ends of 20 and 500, I now believe that the judge is correct in stating

Although Dr. Lavin initially told the PTO that not even one patient in Hayashi would have had triglyceride levels >500mg/dL, Dr. Lavin later testified that he would "rewrite" his declaration on this point, explaining that in Hayashi "you know that there must be at least one subject" with triglycerides levels >500 mg/dL.

I find it rather interesting that the standard deviation for the triglycerides in Hayashi is such a high number. It suggests that the dispersion in TG levels of the experimental subject is very wide, yet that does not seem to fit the distribution of TG levels in Figure 2 of Hayashi.

rmitra, please check my numbers and let me know if my reasoning makes sense? It has been a long while since I last did anything related to statistics. Thank you!

[rmitra]

Hi Mc1988,
This is interesting. I haven't had a chance to read the paper yet, but here are some initial thoughts.

Assuming a normal distribution with a mean of 300 and stdev of 233, the Judge is correct, it is almost certain that at least one individual has triglycerides > 500. I could calculate this formally, but it is essentially a certainty.

Looking at the graphs below, it's curious that none of the 25 individuals have tg > 500 and they seem to be much more tightly distributed than the reported StDv, and the mean seems to be slightly less than 300 in this population. Of course, as you note, there were 28 individuals in the population. My interpretation would be that there were three outliers in the population that had VERY high triglycerides, which shifted the mean to the right and led to the higher st. dev. I would say that is likely the explanation, and supports the conclusion that there is at least one individual with >500 tgs.

[Restingzebra]

Amazing analysis. You found yet another smoking gun. Thank you very, very much for this and all you do.

[IslandOfMisfitToys]

Hey mc1988, can I ask you a quick question?

Why would it be relevant to anyone's analysis that a person with > 500 trigs was technically in a study if no analysis on that person was even available to draw any conclusions?

I mean, if I told you I enrolled 28 patients in a study, and one of them was Asian, and that we didn't end up getting any data on the Asian, and the overall study showed a result of x, would ANYONE (including a POSA) conclude that, "Oh, yes, that result is also relevant for Asians."