procedure.’ ”). The briefs develop the limited role which should be accorded to anecdotal reports in legitimate scientific methodology, on account of the possibility of false associations. See generally David H. Kaye & David A. Freedman, Reference Guide on Statistics, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 217-19 (3rd ed.2011); cf. Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947 F.Supp. 1387, 1411 (D.Or.1996) (“[C]ase reports and case studies are universally regarded as an insufficient basis for a conclusion regarding causation because case reports lack controls.”). As to Dr. Maddox’s reliance on animal studies, Appellants point out the need to demonstrate reasonable similarity in effect. See, e.g., General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 143-45, 118 S.Ct. 512, 518, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) (<HOLDING>). With regard to regulatory standards and
holding that animal studies can be a proper foundation for an experts opinion but that those opinions must be sufficiently supported by the animal studies on which they purport to rely holding that a reliable differential diagnosis alone may provide a valid foundation for a causation opinion even when no epidemiological studies peerreviewed published studies animal studies or laboratory data are offered in support of the opinion holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding an opinion relying in part on extrapolation from highdose animal studies to lowdose human disease scenarios where there was no attempt to explain how the animal subjects and humans have similar physiological makeup and rate of chemical absorption holding that an rld manufacturer was unlikely to succeed on its challenge to the fdas reliance on animal studies to establish the bioequivalency of a proposed generic because courts are bound to show deference to the agencys factfinding in this area of its technical expertise