not scientific methodology”)- • Human Dechallenge/Rechallenge Reports. While these reports have more control than the ordinary case reports do, there is still a lack of control in these reports and they do not contain a testable and systematic inquiry into the mechanism of causation. Here, the adverse events involve events other than ICH. Furthermore, the number of dechallenge/rechallenge reports is too scant — especially given the lack of adequate controls employed — to reliably screen out other causes or con-founders to show that Parlodel causes ICH or would operate as a vasocon-strictor under Mrs. Caraker’s circumstances. This Court rejects the plaintiffs’ experts opinions inasmuch as they rely on these human dechal-lenge/rechallenge reports. Accord Glastetter, 252 F.3d at 990-91 (<HOLDING>); Hollander v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 95
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion rejecting these human dechallengerechallenge reports holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting police reports in civil case under publicrecords exception holding that court was within its discretion to refuse to consider reports that did not meet the supreme courts standards for admitting reports into evidence holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the incomplete and late submission of expert reports was not harmless holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action