qualifications in fight of these factors. A very significant Daubert factor is whether the proffered scientific theory has been subjected to the scientific method. Bradley, 42 F.3d at 438. It is undisputed that Petry did not conduct any scientific tests or experiments in order to arrive at his conclusions. Petry never produced any studies, tests or experiments to justify or verify his conclusions, despite his representations to the court that such test results would be forthcoming. In our opinion, the absence of any testing indicates that Petry’s proffered opinions cannot fairly be characterized as scientific knowledge. Personal observation is not a substitute for scientific methodology and is insufficient to satisfy Daubert’s most significant guidepost. O’Conner, 13 F.3d at 1107 (<HOLDING>). Petry’s opinions amount to nothing more than
holding that a jurors personal knowledge or experience constitutes extrinsic evidence where the juror interjects his or her past personal experiences into deliberations in the absence of any record evidence on a given fact holding that a physician who relied only on personal observation without any personal study or experiment to justify his conclusions did not meet the daubert standard holding that plaintiff did not meet his burden to establish workproduct protection because he relied on bare conclusions unsupported by affidavit or other specific explanation holding that witnesss opinion of a persons reaction to hearing a statement was admissible lay testimony based on personal observation holding corroboration is not a necessity where confidential informants reliability was well established and his tip was based on direct personal observation of criminal activity