polyethylene delamination to gamma irradiation in air, nor did he produce or rely upon any studies to verify his conclusions. See Chapman, 297 F.3d at 688 (finding error in the admission of expert testimony unsupported by scientific tests, experiments, and studies). Such insulation of his theory from the dispassionate crucible deeply, if not fatally, compromises his testimony’s reliability. Another indicator of unreliability is the unjustifiable extrapolation from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) (“A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.”); McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 651, 657-58 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note
holding without explanation or citation that rule 6a does not apply to the miller act holding that a bare conclusion offered without explanation or empirical support fails the reliability requirement of rule 702 holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant holding that fre 702 applies to all offers of expert witness testimony requiring that the trial court determine the reliability and relevance of the offered submissions holding that rule 702 admissibility determinations are reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard