Replies to post #331887 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[cruyff22]

HK , don't waste your pen on LTRO, the guy just doesn't get it.

[Jasbg]

HK@ I hadn't followed you and LTRO's posts close enough to understand 'the hidden offence'. I do like the term 'simpler is better' thats all I commented on.
------------------

Given my comment I have to emphasize that I hold you and Marjac in the highest of respect - for your heroic effort fighting for Justice - and both of you always aiming to answer everybody - in a polite and respectful manor :)

All the best

Jasbg

[ralphey]

HK - and legal experts

I have to believe that a judge must consult neutral experts in statistical analysis before making decisions in a matter such as this. IS this compiled anywhere? Seems to me that this a fairly vital piece of information to understand how a decision was made.

In my untutored common man approach what I see occurring is a judge making decisions based on legal jurisprudence without necessarily proving they understand the science behind it - Judge Du etc talk a lot about the prima facie evidence etc etc but little about the statistical analysis that gives the evidence - of course it makes sense that their focus is on the legality but the legality is based upon the science and I am not so certain that they understand that - so we see a default to "MY judgement" rather than to science - because science can be questioned but "my judgement " cannot - this eerily reminds me of the authoritarian responses " because I said so" when people cannot understand an issue at hand .....

[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.