The first is whether the EPA group lead to a statistical significant reduction in ApoB from baseline. This is true as Dr. Heinecke pointed out and it’s not possible to argue it’s not the case. The cross examination would not need to refute this - it is a certainty.
However, this is irrelevant to determining whether EPA reduces ApoB. That requires a comparison to control.
The second fact is that EPA did not significantly reduce ApoB relative to control. This is true and is not an interpretable fact - it is 100% certain.
The error from judge du is not choosing the wrong expert to believe. It’s not understanding the difference between the two facts. The first fact proves nothing related to how EPA affects ApoB.
The defendants never argued that EPA was reduced relative to control in Kurbayashi. There was never anything for plaintiff to refute. This was a post-trial mistake by Du.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
