Replies to post #299804 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[MontanaState83]

BB - I have the Kura paper. The only thing cropped in Doc373 are the notes under the original table. The %change at week 48 says 6.9% for EPA group with. P value of 0.001.

So what, of significance, was cropped?

[ziploc_1]

BB...Thank you for posting this cropped table...I almost missed it myself...it clearly states...

-at the bottom of the baseline column...NS
-at the bottom of the week 48 column....NS

[Biobillionair]

What is the significance, if any, regarding cropped Kurabayashi?
The table is cropped, so what... The table cropping provokes thoughts of intent considering:

1) The defendants site incorrect statistical significance, was the table cropped to hide this fact? Kurabayashi concluded page 523*.

The changes in serum levels of apolipoproteins from baseline to week 48 are shown in Table 3. The apoli- poprotein A-II level in the eicosapentaenoic acid group significantly decreased from baseline to week 48, and there were significant differences between the two groups at weeks 12 and 24. The apolipoprotein B level in the eicosapentaenoic acid group was significantly lower at week 48 compared with the baseline level, but there was no significant difference between the groups.

Does the false conclusion arise to perjury?

Is it gaslighting to call this a lie? No. The conclusive facts of Kurabayashi, on page 523 are the complete opposite sited by the defendants Document 273 at 282

In light of the statistically-significant differential effects reported between the EPA and control groups, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have attributed the reduction in Apo B to EPA. Id. at 737:24-738:8 (Heinecke).

2) The defendants falsely state the PTO did not consider Kurabayashi, this statement is an outright lie if in fact the PTO did view Kurabayashi and again the table provokes one to consider the table was cropped to hide the lie.



https://cyber.sci-hub.tw/MTAuMTAxNi9zMDAyOS03ODQ0KDAwKTAwOTg4LTE=/kurabayashi2000.pdf

BB