If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Fight Over Vaccine-Autism Link Hits Court
The problem is that vaccines *don't* cause autism.
Because pharma paid science said so?? Did you know mercury poisoning can cause microcephaly, Children with autism have macrocephaly. But.... If the mercury causes partial damage to genes it would result in an overexrpession and this would cause macrocephaly. I know you care about children, I never said you didnt. PS, the word is spelled "****." Thanks for the spell check, I didnt know that! lol Donna On Jun 12, 8:19 am, Jeff wrote: Kevysmom wrote: I would be delighted if the cases were all rejected. That is justice. Spoken like a true Pharma Shill! Phuck the kids as long as Pharma prevails! You are sad Mark. Donna The problem is that vaccines *don't* cause autism. As sad as I am for the kids and their families, the vaccine makers had nothing to do with causing autism. Jeff PS, the word is spelled "****." |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Fight Over Vaccine-Autism Link Hits Court
Kevysmom wrote:
Science is not decided by a judge. It is decided by evidence and data. What do you think evidence is?? It is scientific proof, not what the media and pharma paid data use. Donna Evidence in science and evidence in a court room are two very different things. That is why there are science schools and law schools. The evidence in the courtroom is presented to make a case. And if you think evidence is proof of anything, you're wrong. In science, you can support a hypothesis or theory, but you really can't prove it. You can disprove it, however. The point is that courts bring closure to legal matters, not scientific matters. Science is the least of the concerns in just about any court battles, including this one. Jeff |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Fight Over Vaccine-Autism Link Hits Court
And if you think evidence is proof of anything, you're wrong. In
science, you can support a hypothesis or theory, but you really can't prove it. The tobacco companies had many scientific studies proving smoking doesnt cause cancer, They denied any link until they lost in court. Like I said REAL science prevails when there is justice. I just hope the special masters in this case hasnt been bought. Are you really a pediatrician Jeff? Donna On Jun 12, 8:29 am, Jeff wrote: Kevysmom wrote: Science is not decided by a judge. It is decided by evidence and data. What do you think evidence is?? It is scientific proof, not what the media and pharma paid data use. Donna Evidence in science and evidence in a court room are two very different things. That is why there are science schools and law schools. The evidence in the courtroom is presented to make a case. And if you think evidence is proof of anything, you're wrong. In science, you can support a hypothesis or theory, but you really can't prove it. You can disprove it, however. The point is that courts bring closure to legal matters, not scientific matters. Science is the least of the concerns in just about any court battles, including this one. Jeff |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Fight Over Vaccine-Autism Link Hits Court
Kevysmom wrote:
And if you think evidence is proof of anything, you're wrong. In science, you can support a hypothesis or theory, but you really can't prove it. The tobacco companies had many scientific studies proving smoking doesnt cause cancer, They denied any link until they lost in court. Yet, had the tobacco companies not been in court, we would still believe that smoking causes cancer. Like I said REAL science prevails when there is justice. Wrong. A legal team will prevail. I just hope the special masters in this case hasnt been bought. Actually, the scientists on both sides have been bought. Are you really a pediatrician Jeff? I did a couple of years of pediatric residency, but I decided that it wasn't the career for me. Donna On Jun 12, 8:29 am, Jeff wrote: Kevysmom wrote: Science is not decided by a judge. It is decided by evidence and data. What do you think evidence is?? It is scientific proof, not what the media and pharma paid data use. Donna Evidence in science and evidence in a court room are two very different things. That is why there are science schools and law schools. The evidence in the courtroom is presented to make a case. And if you think evidence is proof of anything, you're wrong. In science, you can support a hypothesis or theory, but you really can't prove it. You can disprove it, however. The point is that courts bring closure to legal matters, not scientific matters. Science is the least of the concerns in just about any court battles, including this one. Jeff |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Fight Over Vaccine-Autism Link Hits Court
Wrong. A legal team will prevail.
So, who ever has the better attorney wins? Thats not justice. But this is America. Actually, the scientists on both sides have been bought. Yes, I guess I do have to agree. I did a couple of years of pediatric residency, but I decided that it wasn't the career for me. I was hoping you were a pediatrican, I was going to ask what you would do for the kids when the truth is revealed about how kids became "sick" with mercury poisoning. On Jun 12, 9:04 am, Jeff wrote: Kevysmom wrote: And if you think evidence is proof of anything, you're wrong. In science, you can support a hypothesis or theory, but you really can't prove it. The tobacco companies had many scientific studies proving smoking doesnt cause cancer, They denied any link until they lost in court. Yet, had the tobacco companies not been in court, we would still believe that smoking causes cancer. Like I said REAL science prevails when there is justice. Wrong. A legal team will prevail. I just hope the special masters in this case hasnt been bought. Actually, the scientists on both sides have been bought. Are you really a pediatrician Jeff? I did a couple of years of pediatric residency, but I decided that it wasn't the career for me. Donna On Jun 12, 8:29 am, Jeff wrote: Kevysmom wrote: Science is not decided by a judge. It is decided by evidence and data. What do you think evidence is?? It is scientific proof, not what the media and pharma paid data use. Donna Evidence in science and evidence in a court room are two very different things. That is why there are science schools and law schools. The evidence in the courtroom is presented to make a case. And if you think evidence is proof of anything, you're wrong. In science, you can support a hypothesis or theory, but you really can't prove it. You can disprove it, however. The point is that courts bring closure to legal matters, not scientific matters. Science is the least of the concerns in just about any court battles, including this one. Jeff- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Fight Over Vaccine-Autism Link Hits Court
Kevysmom wrote:
It means they're going to have to use actual science to support their case. Which is going to be hard. Im glad its going to court. Now the REAL science will prevail! Not just pharma "paid" science! Donna I'm afraid you're in for a disappointment. On Jun 12, 6:58 am, JohnDoe wrote: Kevysmom wrote: BTW, the special masters have already ruled that they will apply Daubert standards to evaluate the evidence. Mark, What does that mean? It means they're going to have to use actual science to support their case. Which is going to be hard. Would you be happy if these kids never receive justice? Donna I'd rather see the kids receive effective treatment and their parents paying attention to their kids needs in stead of focussing on this courtcase. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Fight Over Vaccine-Autism Link Hits Court
Jeff wrote:
Kevysmom wrote: It means they're going to have to use actual science to support their case. Which is going to be hard. Im glad its going to court. Now the REAL science will prevail! Not just pharma "paid" science! If you really think that the court case has everything to do with science, you're incorrect. The court case has everything to do with winning the case and little to do with science or finding the truth. Science is not decided by a judge. It is decided by evidence and data. Jeff I figured that is where 'Daubert' comes in. Donna On Jun 12, 6:58 am, JohnDoe wrote: Kevysmom wrote: BTW, the special masters have already ruled that they will apply Daubert standards to evaluate the evidence. Mark, What does that mean? It means they're going to have to use actual science to support their case. Which is going to be hard. Would you be happy if these kids never receive justice? Donna I'd rather see the kids receive effective treatment and their parents paying attention to their kids needs in stead of focussing on this courtcase. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Fight Over Vaccine-Autism Link Hits Court
Kevysmom wrote:
The problem is that vaccines *don't* cause autism. Because pharma paid science said so?? And you of course believe Wakefield - the best research a lawyer's money can buy. Did you know mercury poisoning can cause microcephaly, Well, I'm glad then that vaccines don't cause mercury poisoning. Children with autism have macrocephaly. Well, that seems to prove that mercury and autism are not related. After all, if the kids have the exact opposite condition that mercury causes.... But.... If the mercury causes partial damage to genes it would result in an overexrpession and this would cause macrocephaly. I notice the word 'if'. Does mercury do that? Or do you simply believe it does because you need to believe it does. I know you care about children, I never said you didnt. PS, the word is spelled "****." Thanks for the spell check, I didnt know that! lol Donna On Jun 12, 8:19 am, Jeff wrote: Kevysmom wrote: I would be delighted if the cases were all rejected. That is justice. Spoken like a true Pharma Shill! Phuck the kids as long as Pharma prevails! You are sad Mark. Donna The problem is that vaccines *don't* cause autism. As sad as I am for the kids and their families, the vaccine makers had nothing to do with causing autism. Jeff PS, the word is spelled "****." |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Fight Over Vaccine-Autism Link Hits Court
Kevysmom wrote:
And if you think evidence is proof of anything, you're wrong. In science, you can support a hypothesis or theory, but you really can't prove it. The tobacco companies had many scientific studies proving smoking doesnt cause cancer, They denied any link until they lost in court. Like I said REAL science prevails when there is justice. I just hope the special masters in this case hasnt been bought. I see you're already setting up an excuse in case the case is lost. If you win, real science has prevailed, if you lose, the master has been bought. Whatever the outcome, your belief that vaccines cause autism is bulletproof. Nice. Are you really a pediatrician Jeff? Donna On Jun 12, 8:29 am, Jeff wrote: Kevysmom wrote: Science is not decided by a judge. It is decided by evidence and data. What do you think evidence is?? It is scientific proof, not what the media and pharma paid data use. Donna Evidence in science and evidence in a court room are two very different things. That is why there are science schools and law schools. The evidence in the courtroom is presented to make a case. And if you think evidence is proof of anything, you're wrong. In science, you can support a hypothesis or theory, but you really can't prove it. You can disprove it, however. The point is that courts bring closure to legal matters, not scientific matters. Science is the least of the concerns in just about any court battles, including this one. Jeff |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Fight Over Vaccine-Autism Link Hits Court
fyi: Rule 702. Testimony by Experts If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Notes Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. notes 702 Rule 702 has been amended in response to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and to the many cases applying Daubert, including Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999). In Daubert the Court charged trial judges with the responsibility of acting as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable expert testimony, and the Court in Kumho clarified that this gatekeeper function applies to all expert testimony, not just testimony based in science. See also Kumho, 119 S.Ct. at 1178 (citing the Committee Note to the proposed amendment to Rule 702, which had been released for public comment before the date of the Kumho decision). The amendment affirms the trial court's role as gatekeeper and provides some general standards that the trial court must use to assess the reliability and helpfulness of proffered expert testimony. Consistently with Kumho, the Rule as amended provides that all types of expert testimony present questions of admissibility for the trial court in deciding whether the evidence is reliable and helpful. Consequently, the admissibility of all expert testimony is governed by the principles of Rule 104(a). Under that Rule, the proponent has the burden of establishing that the pertinent admissibility requirements are met by a preponderance of the evidence. See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987). Daubert set forth a non-exclusive checklist for trial courts to use in assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony. The specific factors explicated by the Daubert Court are (1) whether the expert's technique or theory can be or has been tested - that is, whether the expert's theory can be challenged in some objective sense, or whether it is instead simply a subjective, conclusory approach that cannot reasonably be assessed for reliability; (2) whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards and controls; and (5) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community. The Court in Kumho held that these factors might also be applicable in assessing the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony, depending upon ''the particular circumstances of the particular case at issue.'' 119 S.Ct. at 1175. No attempt has been made to ''codify'' these specific factors. Daubert itself emphasized that the factors were neither exclusive nor dispositive. Other cases have recognized that not all of the specific Daubert factors can apply to every type of expert testimony. In addition to Kumho, 119 S.Ct. at 1175, see Tyus v. Urban Search Management, 102 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that the factors mentioned by the Court in Daubert do not neatly apply to expert testimony from a sociologist). See also Kannankeril v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 128 F.3d 802, 809 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that lack of peer review or publication was not dispositive where the expert's opinion was supported by ''widely accepted scientific knowledge''). The standards set forth in the amendment are broad enough to require consideration of any or all of the specific Daubert factors where appropriate. Courts both before and after Daubert have found other factors relevant in determining whether expert testimony is sufficiently reliable to be considered by the trier of fact. These factors include: (1) Whether experts are ''proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying.'' Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995). (2) Whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion. See General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997) (noting that in some cases a trial court ''may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered''). (3) Whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations. See Claar v. Burlington N.R.R., 29 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 1994) (testimony excluded where the expert failed to consider other obvious causes for the plaintiff's condition). Compare Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (the possibility of some uneliminated causes presents a question of weight, so long as the most obvious causes have been considered and reasonably ruled out by the expert). (4) Whether the expert ''is being as careful as he would be in his regular professional work outside his paid litigation consulting.'' Sheehan v. Daily Racing Form, Inc., 104 F.3d 940, 942 (7th Cir. 1997). See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999) (Daubert requires the trial court to assure itself that the expert ''employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field''). (5) Whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1175 (1999) (Daubert's general acceptance factor does not ''help show that an expert's testimony is reliable where the discipline itself lacks reliability, as, for example, do theories grounded in any so-called generally accepted principles of astrology or necromancy.''); Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc., 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (clinical doctor was properly precluded from testifying to the toxicological cause of the plaintiff's respiratory problem, where the opinion was not sufficiently grounded in scientific methodology); Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1988) (rejecting testimony based on ''clinical ecology'' as unfounded and unreliable). All of these factors remain relevant to the determination of the reliability of expert testimony under the Rule as amended. Other factors may also be relevant. See Kumho, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (''(W)e conclude that the trial judge must have considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable.''). Yet no single factor is necessarily dispositive of the reliability of a particular expert's testimony. See, e.g., Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc., 167 F.3d 146, 155 (3d Cir. 1999) (''not only must each stage of the expert's testimony be reliable, but each stage must be evaluated practically and flexibly without bright-line exclusionary (or inclusionary) rules.''); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1317, n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that some expert disciplines ''have the courtroom as a principal theatre of operations'' and as to these disciplines ''the fact that the expert has developed an expertise principally for purposes of litigation will obviously not be a substantial consideration.''). A review of the caselaw after Daubert shows that the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule. Daubert did not work a ''seachange over federal evidence law,'' and ''the trial court's role as gatekeeper is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system.'' United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land Situated in Leflore County, Mississippi, 80 F.3d 1074, 1078 (5th Cir. 1996). As the Court in Daubert stated: ''Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.'' 509 U.S. at 595. Likewise, this amendment is not intended to provide an excuse for an automatic challenge to the testimony of every expert. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999) (noting that the trial judge has the discretion ''both to avoid unnecessary 'reliability' proceedings in ordinary cases where the reliability of an expert's methods is properly taken for granted, and to require appropriate proceedings in the less usual or more complex cases where cause for questioning the expert's reliability arises.''). When a trial court, applying this amendment, rules that an expert's testimony is reliable, this does not necessarily mean that contradictory expert testimony is unreliable. The amendment is broad enough to permit testimony that is the product of competing principles or methods in the same field of expertise. See, e.g., Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc., 167 F.3d 146, 160 (3d Cir. 1999) (expert testimony cannot be excluded simply because the expert uses one test rather than another, when both tests are accepted in the field and both reach reliable results). As the court stated in In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717, 744 (3d Cir. 1994), proponents ''do not have to demonstrate to the judge by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessments of their experts are correct, they only have to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that their opinions are reliable. . . . The evidentiary requirement of reliability is lower than the merits standard of correctness.'' See also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1318 (9th Cir. 1995) (scientific experts might be permitted to testify if they could show that the methods they used were also employed by ''a recognized minority of scientists in their field.''); Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola, 161 F.3d 77, 85 (1st Cir. 1998) (''Daubert neither requires nor empowers trial courts to determine which of several competing scientific theories has the best provenance.''). The Court in Daubert declared that the ''focus, of course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate.'' 509 U.S. at 595. Yet as the Court later recognized, ''conclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another.'' General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). Under the amendment, as under Daubert, when an expert purports to apply principles and methods in accordance with professional standards, and yet reaches a conclusion that other experts in the field would not reach, the trial court may fairly suspect that the principles and methods have not been faithfully applied. See Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir. 1996). The amendment specifically provides that the trial court must scrutinize not only the principles and methods used by the expert, but also whether those principles and methods have been properly applied to the facts of the case. As the court noted in In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 745 (3d Cir. 1994), ''any step that renders the analysis unreliable .. . . renders the expert's testimony inadmissible. This is true whether the step completely changes a reliable methodology or merely misapplies that methodology.'' If the expert purports to apply principles and methods to the facts of the case, it is important that this application be conducted reliably. Yet it might also be important in some cases for an expert to educate the factfinder about general principles, without ever attempting to apply these principles to the specific facts of the case. For example, experts might instruct the factfinder on the principles of thermodynamics, or bloodclotting, or on how financial markets respond to corporate reports, without ever knowing about or trying to tie their testimony into the facts of the case. The amendment does not alter the venerable practice of using expert testimony to educate the factfinder on general principles. For this kind of generalized testimony, Rule 702 simply requires that: (1) the expert be qualified; (2) the testimony address a subject matter on which the factfinder can be assisted by an expert; (3) the testimony be reliable; and (4) the testimony ''fit'' the facts of the case. As stated earlier, the amendment does not distinguish between scientific and other forms of expert testimony. The trial court's gatekeeping function applies to testimony by any expert. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1171 (1999) (''We conclude that Daubert's general holding - setting forth the trial judge's general 'gatekeeping' obligation - applies not only to testimony based on 'scientific' knowledge, but also to testimony based on 'technical' and 'other specialized' knowledge.''). While the relevant factors for determining reliability will vary from expertise to expertise, the amendment rejects the premise that an expert's testimony should be treated more permissively simply because it is outside the realm of science. An opinion from an expert who is not a scientist should receive the same degree of scrutiny for reliability as an opinion from an expert who purports to be a scientist. See Watkins v. Telsmith, Inc., 121 F.3d 984, 991 (5th Cir. 1997) (''(I)t seems exactly backwards that experts who purport to rely on general engineering principles and practical experience might escape screening by the district court simply by stating that their conclusions were not reached by any particular method or technique.''). Some types of expert testimony will be more objectively verifiable, and subject to the expectations of falsifiability, peer review, and publication, than others. Some types of expert testimony will not rely on anything like a scientific method, and so will have to be evaluated by reference to other standard principles attendant to the particular area of expertise. The trial judge in all cases of proffered expert testimony must find that it is properly grounded, well-reasoned, and not speculative before it can be admitted. The expert's testimony must be grounded in an accepted body of learning or experience in the expert's field, and the expert must explain how the conclusion is so grounded. See, e.g., American College of Trial Lawyers, Standards and Procedures for Determining the Admissibility of Expert Testimony after Daubert, 157 F.R.D. 571, 579 (1994) (''(W)hether the testimony concerns economic principles, accounting standards, property valuation or other non-scientific subjects, it should be evaluated by reference to the 'knowledge and experience' of that particular field.''). The amendment requires that the testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods that are reliably applied to the facts of the case. While the terms ''principles'' and ''methods'' may convey a certain impression when applied to scientific knowledge, they remain relevant when applied to testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge. For example, when a law enforcement agent testifies regarding the use of code words in a drug transaction, the principle used by the agent is that participants in such transactions regularly use code words to conceal the nature of their activities. The method used by the agent is the application of extensive experience to analyze the meaning of the conversations. So long as the principles and methods are reliable and applied reliably to the facts of the case, this type of testimony should be admitted. Nothing in this amendment is intended to suggest that experience alone - or experience in conjunction with other knowledge, skill, training or education - may not provide a sufficient foundation for expert testimony. To the contrary, the text of Rule 702 expressly contemplates that an expert may be qualified on the basis of experience. In certain fields, experience is the predominant, if not sole, basis for a great deal of reliable expert testimony. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 107 F.3d 1147 (6th Cir. 1997) (no abuse of discretion in admitting the testimony of a handwriting examiner who had years of practical experience and extensive training, and who explained his methodology in detail); Tassin v. Sears Roebuck, 946 F.Supp. 1241, 1248 (M.D.La. 1996) (design engineer's testimony can be admissible when the expert's opinions ''are based on facts, a reasonable investigation, and traditional technical/mechanical expertise, and he provides a reasonable link between the information and procedures he uses and the conclusions he reaches''). See also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1178 (1999) (stating that ''no one denies that an expert might draw a conclusion from a set of observations based on extensive and specialized experience.''). If the witness is relying solely or primarily on experience, then the witness must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts. The trial court's gatekeeping function requires more than simply ''taking the expert's word for it.'' See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1995) (''We've been presented with only the experts' qualifications, their conclusions and their assurances of reliability. Under Daubert, that's not enough.''). The more subjective and controversial the expert's inquiry, the more likely the testimony should be excluded as unreliable. See O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir. 1994) (expert testimony based on a completely subjective methodology held properly excluded). See also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999) (''(I)t will at times be useful to ask even of a witness whose expertise is based purely on experience, say, a perfume tester able to distinguish among 140 odors at a sniff, whether his preparation is of a kind that others in the field would recognize as acceptable.''). j. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cochrane: No MMR Vaccine Autism Link | Mark Probert | Kids Health | 26 | October 24th 05 02:24 PM |
Vaccine / Autism Link Cover Up alleged | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 1 | August 21st 04 12:48 AM |
ARTICLE: Scientists retract study suggesting vaccine, autism link | DeliciousTruffles | General | 0 | March 4th 04 02:59 AM |
Scientists Retract Vaccine-Autism Link | Mark Probert-March 3, 2004 | Kids Health | 0 | March 3rd 04 03:55 PM |
Debate grows on vaccine-autism link | Roger Schlafly | Kids Health | 17 | February 14th 04 07:01 AM |