IWIK MEGC RMITRA Thank you for the clear wonderful exposition of the truth: Du's judg(e)ment was really the Emperor that had no clothes. There is no intellectually sound way to use Mori to underpin one's entire claim of prima facie obviousness, by stating as Du does,that Mori shows EPA does not increase LDL and DHA does.The analysis that IWK and RMITRA presented showed elegantly in two differing but complementary ways what the Curfman/Bhatt/Rencina paper showed i.e. the statisticl absurdity of Du's claim. Those who point out inconvenient truths are often pilloried, and so we must expect the Feuersteins and other paid lackeys of the world to loudly wail.
iwish -- great summary of the major issues with Mori (and at an early date!)
>Given the post trial finding reported by Megc, can the above be considered in the appeal.
I posted my opinion in the response to Megc. But really this is a question better answered by a lawyer, which I am not. My common sense tells me that since Mori is at the heart of Du's ruling, any argument about the validity of Mori should be entertained in a fair trial. But after reading a number of well-argued posts from lawyers on the board, I think the issue is more subtle than that.