defendants' interpretation of the type of association needed before using Bradford-Hill appears to be overstated. There is nothing to say that a statistically-significant association must be found before applying the methodology. See In re: Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 174 F.Supp.3d 911, 915, MDL No. 2:14-mn-02502-RMG, 2016 WL 1251828, at *2 (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2016)("Ran-domized, double-blind, clinical trials are the ‘gold standard’ for determining whether an association exists. However, the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence recognizes that observational studies can be sufficient to establish an association. ”)(citation omitted); Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, at 598-99 (3d ed. 2011)(<HOLDING>); id at 217-18 (recognizing the role of
holding that expert report that sufficiently addressed certain claims against doctor employed by professional association was sufficient as to claims against professional association based on doctors negligence because the doctors negligence is imputed to the association under the professional association act recognizing even federal constitutional right of association does not apply to the right of one individual to associate with another holding that dating is a type of association protected by the first amendment recognizing that the determination is an equitable one recognizing that an association is needed first to apply bradfordhill but not a statistically significant one