He Was Reported to NYU and Suspended Indefinitely.DON’T just use the brakes to slow down a little with a stuck accelerator. That means more, likely than not, there is a cause of the NHL in the plaintiff’s case.Was there a theory under which the judge was doing this right?On Monday, a California jury ruled against Monsanto in a case alleged that the herbicide Roundup caused a couple's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. If it’s not idiopathic, tell us what caused it and prove it.https://phys.org/news/2019-04-monsanto-appeal-french-farmer-poisoning.htmlJuries are terrible at evaluating complex causation evidence, one doesn’t need any great explanation, juries have found, wrongly, that spermicides caused birth defects, that brief exposure to a chemical suppressed people’s immune system, that breast implants caused cancer, that breast implants caused immune system disease, that Bendectin cause birth defects, in some of these example multiple times, and in the Bendectin litigation, in the face of dozens of negative epidemiological studies. Your line of logic is plausible, but in no way does it meet the simple requirement of “balance of evidence”. The studies have been done. It is a racket.Derek Chauvin Blames His Former Colleagues for George Floyd's DeathA similar instance of juries unable to comprending matters of far less complexity is the unintended acceleration of the toyota camry in the Minneapolis trial.i’ve seen multiple meltdowns from people defending the McDonald’s coffee verdict by people apparently convinced by the plaintiff’s lawyer lying about coffee being normally no hotter than 135 degrees, despite the fact that everyone involved in the thread is familiar with coffee and essentially everyone drinks it much hotter than thatJust saying “the court ignored” a rule isn’t specific enough. It might cause cancer.The method, which can detect drug metabolites for up to a year, does not measure impairment or recent use.So we can’t necessarily blame the jury for not being competent at something that there is no reason to expect a jury to be competent at, but we can blame the trial judges for admitting expert evidence that is barred by a proper application of state and federal evidentiary rules, for not granting summary judgment to the defendant, and for not granting jnovs after the verdict.
Several councils across Melbourne and Sydney are also considering a ban on Roundup and other products that include the chemical.The US Department of Health and Human Services recently found it could not conclusively prove or dismiss a link between exposure to the herbicide and cancer, but the US Environmental Protection Agency has ruled glyphosate is not carcinogenic will not cause illness when used according to labelled instructions. The LD50 for glyphosate is 5.6 g/kg).Apparently the judge, after seeing evidence that there was a dispute, decided it was a genuine dispute, with enough evidence on both sides to put it before the jury as a matter of fact to be decided by them. The jury decided the case by taking the side of the dispute Bernstein wants dismissed from their consideration—after it wasn’t dismissed from their consideration. Since the causal evidence for those two risk factors is stronger than for the plaintiff’s exposure to GBH, that should be the end of the discussion.They were bad because emotionalism trumps a lack of causation established from epidemiologic evidence. Or they have certain philosophies that make them prone to avoid dismissing cases or excluding evidence. Then the jury gets to weigh that argument.Gormadoc, it was apparently reasoning you don’t agree with that led the jury to conclude it wasn’t idiopathic, but it wasn’t an assumption. At least 4. The plaintiff is young, hence not likely subject to idiopathic NHL.”Yeah, arch1, I considered that. If he did, I think he perjured himself; he did not say that it possibly caused cancer, but that it did. It’s ridiculous to decide the cause based on the assumption that it’s not idiopathic.That has nothing to do with cancer. Seems like to do that you need to specify which of the many you are talking about. In his opinion, the worst jury verdict he had ever seen was for the defense in a case where a defective clothes dryer burned down the house. 2. Not to mention that if the throttle is wide open you won’t get much vacuum assist on the brakes.I never claimed absolute proof.