TORTINI

For your delectation and delight, desultory dicta on the law of delicts.

Creators of ToxicDocs Show Off Their Biases

June 7th, 2019

Columbia Magazine’s most recent issue includes a laudatory story about David Rosner, a professor of history in Columbia University.1 The “story” focuses on Rosner’s website, ToxicDocs, which has become his and Gerald Markowitz’s clearing house for what they assert are industry’s misdeeds in the realm of public health.

What the magazine’s story chooses not to discuss is the provenance of the ToxicDocs website in Rosner and Markowitz’s long collaboration with the lawsuit industry in a variety of litigation endeavors. And what you will not find on ToxicDocs are documents of the many misdeeds of the sponsoring lawsuit industry’s misdeeds, such as unlawful and unethical screenings, evidentiary frauds, specious claiming, and misleading and incompetent medical advice to its clients. Nor will you find much in the way of context for the manufacturing industry’s documents.

Media coverage of ToxicDocs from last year provides some further insight into the provenance of the website.2 According one account, Rosner and Markowitz (collectively Rosnowitz) bristled when they were attacked for their litigation work by historian Philip Scranton, a professor in Rutgers University. Scranton showed that Rosnowitz were guilty of a variety of professional sins, from “overgeneralization and failure to corroborate” to “selectively appropriat[ing] information.” Although the radical left came to Rosnowitz’s defense by labeling Scranton a “hired gun,” that charge range rather hollow when Scranton was a well-regarded historian, and Rosnowitz were long-term hired guns for the lawsuit industry.3

And so these leftist historians felt the need to defend their long-term collaboration with the lawsuit industry by putting what they believed were incriminating documents on line at their website, ToxicDocs.4 The problem, however, with Rosnowitz’s response to the Scranton critique is that their website suffers from all the undue selectivity, lack of context, and bias, which afflict their courtroom work, and which validated Scranton’s report. Most important, the reader will not find anything on ToxicDocs that challenges the misdeeds of the lawsuit industry, which has employed them for so many years.

In February 2018, the Journal of Public Health Policy (vol. 39, no. 1) published a series of editorials lauding ToxicDocs.5 Remarkably, not a single paper by Rosnowitz, and their associates, Robert Proctor, David Wegman, or Anthony Robbins mentioned their service to the lawsuit industry or the extent of their income from that service. Sheldon Whitehouse wrote an editorial, in which he disclosed his having served as Rhode Island’s Attorney General, but failed to disclose that he had worked in lockstep with the plaintiffs’ firm, Motley Rice, and that he had hired Rosnowitz, in Rhode Island’s lawsuit against major paint manufacturers. For those observers who are in a moral panic over “industry” conflicts of interest, please note the conflicts of lawsuit industrial complex.


1 Carla Cantor, “ToxicDocs Exposes Industry MisdeedsColumbia Magazine (Summer 2019).

2 Tik Root, “In ToxicDocs.org, a Treasure Trove of Industry Secrets,” Undark (Jan. 10, 2018).

3 See, e.g., Jon Wiener, “Cancer, Chemicals and History: Companies try to discredit the experts,” The Nation (Jan. 20, 2005).

4 SeeToxicHistorians Sponsor ToxicDocs” (Feb. 1, 2018); “David Rosner’s Document Repository” (July 23, 2017).

5 Anthony Robbins & Phyllis Freeman, “ToxicDocs (www.ToxicDocs.org) goes live: A giant step toward leveling the playing field for efforts to combat toxic exposures,” 39 J. Pub. Health Policy 1 (2018); David Rosner, Gerald Markowitz, and Merlin Chowkwanyun, “ToxicDocs (www.ToxicDocs.org): from history buried in stacks of paper to open, searchable archives online,” 39 J. Pub. Health Policy 4 (2018); Stéphane Horel, “Browsing a corporation’s mind,” 39 J. Pub. Health Policy 12 (2018); Christer Hogstedt & David H. Wegman, “ToxicDocs and the fight against biased public health science worldwide,” 39 J. Pub. Health Policy 15 (2018); Joch McCulloch, “Archival sources on asbestos and silicosis in Southern Africa and Australia,” 39 J. Pub. Health Policy 18 (2018); Sheldon Whitehouse, “ToxicDocs: using the US legal system to confront industries’ systematic counterattacks against public health,” 39 J. Pub. Health Policy 22 (2018); Robert N. Proctor, “God is watching: history in the age of near-infinite digital archives,” 39 J. Pub. Health Policy 24 (2018); Elena N. Naumova, “The value of not being lost in our digital world,” 39 J. Pub. Health Policy 27 (2018); Nicholas Freudenberg, “ToxicDocs: a new resource for assessing the impact of corporate practices on health,” 39 J. Pub. Health Policy 30 (2018).

Litigation Science – In re Zambelli-Weiner

April 8th, 2019

Back in 2001, in the aftermath of the silicone gel breast implant litigation, I participated in a Federal Judicial Center (FJC) television production of “Science in the Courtroom, program 6” (2001). Program six was a round-table discussion among the directors (past, present, and future) of the FJC, all of whom were sitting federal judges, with two lawyers in private practice, Elizabeth Cabraser and me.1 One of the more exasperating moments in our conversation came when Ms. Cabraser, who represented plaintiffs in the silicone litigation, complained that Daubert was unfair because corporate defendants were able to order up supporting scientific studies, whereas poor plaintiffs counsel did not have the means to gin up studies that confirmed what they knew to be true.2 Refraining from talking over her required all the self-restraint I could muster, but I did eventually respond by denying her glib generalization and offering the silicone litigation as one in which plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ counsel, and plaintiffs’ support groups were all involved in funding and directing some of the sketchiest studies, most of which managed to find homes in so-called peer-reviewed journals of some sort, even if not the best.

The litigation connections of the plaintiff-sponsored studies in the silicone litigation were not apparent on the face of the published articles. The partisan funding and provenance of the studies were mostly undisclosed and required persistent discovery and subpoenas. Cabraser’s propaganda reinforced the recognition of what so-called mass tort litigation had taught me about all scientific studies: “trust but verify.” Verification is especially important for studies that are sponsored by litigation-industry actors who have no reputation at stake in the world of healthcare.

Verification is not a straightforward task, however. Peer-review publication usually provides some basic information about “methods and materials,” but rarely if ever do published articles provide sufficient data and detail about methodology to replicate the reported analysis. In legal proceedings, verification of studies conducted and relied upon by testifying expert witnesses is facilitated by the rules of expert witness discovery. In federal court, expert witnesses must specify all opinions and all bases for their opinions. When such witnesses rely upon their own studies, and thus have had privileged access to the complete data and all analyses, courts have generally permitted full inquiry into the underlying materials of relied-upon studies. On the other, when the author of a relied-upon study is a “stranger to the litigation,” neither a party nor a retained expert witness, courts have permitted generally more limited discovery of the study’s full data set and analyses. Regardless of the author’s status, the question remains how litigants are to challenge an adversary’s expert witness’s trusted reliance upon a study, which cannot be “verified.”

Most lawyers would prefer, of course, to call an expert witness who has actually conducted studies pertinent to the issues in the case. The price, however, of allowing the other side to discover the underlying data and materials of the author expert witness’s studies may be too high. The relied-upon studies may well end up discredited, as well as the professional reputation of the expert witness. The litigation industry has adapted to these rules of discovery by avoiding, in most instances, calling testifying expert witnesses who have published studies that might be vulnerable.3

One work-around to the discovery rules lies in the use of “consulting, non-testifying expert witnesses.” The law permits the use of such expert witnesses to some extent to facilitate candid consultations with expert witnesses, usually without concerns that communications will be shared with the adversary party and witnesses. The hope is that such candid communications will permit realistic assessment of partisan positions, as well as allowing scientists and scholars to participate in an advisory capacity without the burden of depositions, formal report writing, and appearances at judicial hearings and trials. The confidentiality of consulting expert witnesses is open to abuse by counsel who would engage the consultants to conduct and publish studies, which can then be relied upon by the testifying expert witnesses. The upshot is that legal counsel can manipulate the published literature in a favorable way, without having to disclose their financial sponsorship or influence of the published studies used by their testifying expert witnesses.

This game of hiding study data and sponsorship through the litigation industry’s use of confidential consulting expert witnesses pervades so-called mass tort litigation, which provides ample financial incentives for study sponsorship and control. Defendants will almost always be unable to play the game, without detection. A simple interrogatory or other discovery request about funding of studies will reveal the attempt to pass off a party-sponsored study as having been conducted by disinterested scientists. Furthermore, most scientists will feel obligated to reveal corporate funding as a potential conflict of interest, in their submission of manuscripts for publication.

Revealing litigation-industry (plaintiffs’) funding of studies is more complicated. First, the funding may be through one firm, which is not the legal counsel in the case for which discovery is being conducted. In such instances, the plaintiff’s lawyers can truthfully declare that they lack personal knowledge of any financial support for studies relied upon by their testifying expert witnesses. Second, the plaintiffs’ lawyer firm is not a party is not itself subject to discovery. Even if the plaintiffs’ lawyers funded a study, they can claim, with plausible deniability, that they funded the study in connection with another client’s case, not the client who is plaintiff in the case in which discovery is sought. Third, the plaintiffs’ firm may take the position, however dubious it might be, that the funding of the relied-upon study was simply a confidential consultation with the authors of that study, and not subject to discovery.

The now pending litigation against ondansetron (Zofran) provides the most recent example of the dubious use of consulting expert witnesses to hide party sponsorship of an epidemiologic study. The plaintiffs, who are claiming that Zofran causes birth defects in this multi-district litigation assigned to Judge F. Dennis Saylor, have designated Dr. Carol Luik as their sole testifying expert witness on epidemiology. Dr. Luik, in turn, has relied substantially upon a study conducted by Dr. April Zambelli-Weiner.4

According to motion papers filed by defendants,5 the plaintiffs’ counsel initially claimed that they had no knowledge of any financial support or conflicts for Dr Zambelli-Weiner. The conflict-of-interest disclosure in Zambelli-Weiner’s paper was, to say the least, suspicious:

The authors declare that there was no outside involvement in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”

As an organization TTi reports receiving funds from plaintiff law firms involved in ondansetron litigation and a manufacturer of ondansetron.”

According to its website, TTi

is an economically disadvantaged woman-owned small business headquartered in Westminster, Maryland. We are focused on the development, evaluation, and implementation of technologies and solutions that advance the transformation of data into actionable knowledge. TTi serves a diverse clientele, including all stakeholders in the health space (governments, payors, providers, pharmaceutical and device companies, and foundations) who have a vested interest in advancing research to improve patient outcomes, population health, and access to care while reducing costs and eliminating health disparities.”

According to defendants’ briefing, and contrary to plaintiffs’ initial claims and Zambelli-Weiner’s anemic conflicts disclosure, plaintiffs’ counsel eventually admitted that “Plaintiffs’ Leadership Attorneys paid $210,000 as financial support relating to” Zambelli-Weiner’s epidemiologic study. The women at TTi are apparently less economically disadvantaged than advertised.

The Zofran defendants served subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum on two of the study authors, Drs. April Zambelli-Weiner and Russell Kirby. Curiously, the plaintiffs (who would seem to have no interest in defending the third-party subpoenas) sought a protective order by arguing that defendants were harassing “third-party scientists.” Their motion for protection conveniently and disingenuously omitted, that Zambelli-Weiner had been a paid consultant to the Zofran plaintiffs.

Judge Saylor refused to quash the subpoenas, and Zambelli-Weiner appeared herself, through counsel, to seek a protective order. Her supporting affidavit averred that she had not been retained as an expert witness, and that she had no documents “concerning any data analyses or results that were not reported in the [published study].” Zambelli-Weiner’s attempt to evade discovery was embarrassed by her having presented a “Zofran Litigation Update” with Plaintiffs’ counsel Robert Jenner and Elizabeth Graham at a national conference for plaintiffs’ attorneys. Judge Saylor was not persuaded, and the MDL court refused Dr. Zambelli-Weiner’s motion. The law and the public has a right to every man’s, and every woman’s, (even if economically disadvantaged) evidence.6

Tellingly, in the aftermath of the motions to quash, Zambelli-Weiner’s counsel, Scott Marder, abandoned his client by filing an emergency motion to withdraw, because “certain of the factual assertions in Dr. Zambelli-Weiner’s Motion for Protective Order and Affidavit were inaccurate.” Mr. Marder also honorably notified defense counsel that he could no longer represent that Zambelli-Weiner’s document production was complete.

Early this year, on January 29, 2019, Zambelli-Weiner submitted, through new counsel, a “Supplemental Affidavit,” wherein she admitted she had been a “consulting expert” witness for the law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer on the claimed teratogenicity of Zofran.7 Zambelli-Weiner also produced a few extensively redacted documents. On February 1, 2019, Zambelli-Weiner testified at deposition that the moneys she received from Grant & Eisenhofer were not to fund her Zofran study, but for other, “unrelated work.” Her testimony was at odds with the plaintiffs’ counsel’s confession that the $210,000 related to her Zofran study.

Zambelli-Weiner’s etiolated document production was confounded by the several hundred of pages of documents produced by fellow author, Dr. Russell Kirby. When confronted with documents from Kirby’s production, Zambelli-Weiner’s lawyer unilaterally suspended the deposition.

Deja Vu All Over Again

Federal courts have seen the Zambelli maneuver before. In litigation over claimed welding fume health effects, plaintiffs’ counsel Richard (Dickie) Scruggs and colleagues funded some neurological researchers to travel to Alabama and Mississippi to “screen” plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs in litigation for over claims of neurological injury and disease from welding fume exposure, with a novel videotaping methodology. The plaintiffs’ lawyers rounded up the research subjects (a.k.a. clients and potential clients), talked to them before the medical evaluations, and administered the study questionnaires. The study subjects were clearly aware of Mr. Scruggs’ “research” hypothesis, and had already promised him 40% of any recovery.8

After their sojourn, at Scruggs’ expense to Alabama and Mississippi, the researchers wrote up their results, with little or no detail of the circumstances of how they had acquired their research “participants,” or those participants’ motives to give accurate or inaccurate medical and employment history information.9

Defense counsel served subpoenas upon both Dr. Racette and his institution, Washington University St. Louis, for the study protocol, underlying data, data codes, and all statistical analyses. Racette and Washington University resisted sharing their data and materials with every page in the Directory of Non-Transparent Research. They claimed that the subpoenas sought production of testimony, information and documents in violation of:

(1) the Federal Regulations set forth in the Department of Health and Human Services Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects,

(2) the Federal regulations set forth in the HIPPA Regulations,

(3) the physician/patient privilege,

(4) the research scholar’s privilege,

(5) the trade secret/confidential research privilege and

(6) the scope of discovery as codified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure.”

After a long discovery fight, the MDL court largely enforced the subpoenas.10 The welding MDL court ordered Racette to produce

a ‘limited data set’ which links the specific categories requested by defendants: diagnosis, occupation, and age. This information may be produced as a ‘deidentified’ data set, such that the categories would be linked to each particular patient, without using any individual patient identifiers. This data set should: (1) allow matching of each study participant’s occupational status and age with his or her neurological condition, as diagnosed by the study’s researchers; and (2) to the greatest extent possible (except for necessary de-identification), show original coding and any code-keys.”

After the defense had the opportunity to obtain and analyze the underlying data in the Scruggs-Racette study, the welding plaintiffs retreated from their epidemiologic case. Various defense expert witnesses analyzed the underlying data produced by Racette, and prepared devastating rebuttal reports. These reports were served upon plaintiffs’ counsel, whose expert witnesses never attempted any response. Reliance upon Racette’s study was withdrawn or abandoned. After the underlying data were shared with the parties to MDL 1535, no scientist appeared to defend the results in the published papers.11 The Racette Alabama study faded into the background of the subsequent welding-fume cases and trials.

The motion battle in the welding MDL revealed interesting contradictions, similar to those seen in the Zambelli-Weiner affair. For example, Racette claimed he had no relationship whatsoever with plaintiffs’ counsel, other than showing up by happenstance in Alabama at places where Scruggs’ clients also just happened to show up. Racette claimed that the men and women he screened were his patients, but he had no license to practice in Alabama, where the screenings took place. Plaintiffs’ counsel disclaimed that Racette was a treating physician, which acknowledgment would have made the individual’s screening results discoverable in their individual cases. And more interestingly, plaintiffs’ counsel claimed that both Dr. Racette and Washington University were “non-testifying, consulting experts utilized to advise and assist Plaintiffs’ counsel with respect to evaluating and assessing each of their client’s potential lawsuit or claim (or not).”12

Over the last decade or so, best practices and codes of conduct for the relationship between pharmacoepidemiologists and study funders have been published.13 These standards apply with equal force to public agencies, private industry, and regulatory authories. Perhaps it is time for them to specify that the apply to the litigation industry as well.


1 See Smith v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., 278 F. Supp. 2d 684, 710 & n. 56 (W.D.N.C. 2003).

2 Ironically, Ms. Cabraser has published her opinion that failure to disclose conflicts of interest and study funding should result in evidentiary exclusions, a view which would have simplified and greatly shortened the silicone gel breast implant litigation. See Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Fabrice Vincent & Alexandra Foote, “Ethics and Admissibility: Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest in and/or Funding of Scientific Studies and/or Data May Warrant Evidentiary Exclusions,” Mealey’s Emerging Drugs Reporter (Dec. 2002).

3 Litigation concerning Viagra is one notable example where plaintiffs’ counsel called an expert witness who was the author of the very study that supposedly supported their causal claim. It did not go well for the plaintiffs or the expert witness. See Lori B. Leskin & Bert L. Slonim, “A Primer on Challenging Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature in Mass Tort and Product Liability Actions,” 25 Toxics L. Rptr. 651 (Jul. 1, 2010).

4 April Zambelli‐Weiner, Christina Via, Matt Yuen, Daniel Weiner, and Russell S. Kirby, “First Trimester Pregnancy Exposure to Ondansetron and Risk of Structural Birth Defects,” 83 Reproductive Toxicology 14 (2019).

5 Nate Raymond, “GSK accuses Zofran plaintiffs’ law firms of funding academic study,” Reuters (Mar. 5, 2019).

6 See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 674 (1972).

7 Affidavit of April Zambelli-Weiner, dated January 9, 2019 (Doc. No. 1272).

8 The plaintiffs’ lawyers’ motive and opportunity to poison the study by coaching their “clients” was palpable. See David B. Resnik & David J. McCann, “Deception by Research Participants,” 373 New Engl. J. Med. 1192 (2015).

9 See Brad A. Racette, S.D. Tabbal, D. Jennings, L. Good, J.S. Perlmutter, and Brad Evanoff, “Prevalence of parkinsonism and relationship to exposure in a large sample of Alabama welders,” 64 Neurology 230 (2005); Brad A. Racette, et al., “A rapid method for mass screening for parkinsonism,” 27 Neurotoxicology 357 (2006) (a largely duplicative report of the Alabama welders study).

10 See, e.g., In re Welding Fume Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL 1535, 2005 WL 5417815 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 18, 2005) (upholding defendants’ subpoena for protocol, data, data codes, statistical analyses, and other things from Dr. Racette’s Alabama study on welding and parkinsonism).

11 Racette sought and obtained a protective order for the data produced, and thus I still cannot share the materials he provided asking that any reviewer sign the court-mandated protective order. Revealingly, Racette was concerned about who had seen his underlying data, and he obtained a requirement in the court’s non-disclosure affidavit that any one who reviews the underlying data will not sit on peer review of his publications or his grant applications. See Motion to Compel List of Defendants’ Reviewers of Data Produced by Brad A. Racette, M.D., and Washington University Pursuant to Protective Order, in In re Welding Fume Products Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1535, Case 1:03-cv-17000-KMO, Document 1642-1 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006). Curiously, Racette never moved to compel a list of Plaintiffs’ Reviewers!

12 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order, Motion to Reconsider Order Requiring Disclovery from Dr. Racette, and Request for In Camera Inspection as to Any Responses or Information Provided by Dr. Racette, filed in Solis v. Lincoln Elec. Co., case No. 1:03-CV-17000, MDL 1535 (N.D. Ohio May 8, 2006).

13 See, e.g., Xavier Kurz, Susana Perez‐Gutthann, and the ENCePP Steering Group, “Strengthening standards, transparency, and collaboration to support medicine evaluation: Ten years of the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP),” 27 Pharmacoepidem. & Drug Safety 245 (2018).

Passing Hypotheses Off as Causal Conclusions – Allen v. Martin Surfacing

November 11th, 2018

The November 2018 issue of the American Bar Association Journal (ABAJ) featured an exposé-style article on the hazards of our chemical environment, worthy of Mother Jones, or the International Journal of Health Nostrums, by a lawyer, Alan Bell.1 Alan Bell, according to his website, is a self-described “environmental health warrior.” Channeling Chuck McGill, Bell also describes himself as a:

[v]ictim, survivor, advocate and avenger. This former organized crime prosecutor almost died from an environmentally linked illness. He now devotes his life to giving a voice for those too weak or sick to fight for themselves.”

Bell apparently is not so ill that he cannot also serve as “a fierce advocate” for victims of chemicals. Here is how Mr. Bell described his own “environmentally linked illness” (emphasis added):

Over the following months, Alan developed high fevers, sore throats, swollen glands and impaired breathing. Eventually, he experienced seizures and could barely walk. His health continued to worsen until he became so ill he was forced to stop working. Despite being examined and tested by numerous world-renowned doctors, none of them could help. Finally, a doctor diagnosed him with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, a devastating illness caused by exposure to environmental toxins. The medical profession had no treatment to offer Alan: no cure, and no hope. Doctors could only advise him to avoid all synthetic chemicals and live in complete isolation within a totally organic environment.”

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS)? Does anyone still remember “clinical ecology”? Despite the strident advocacy of support groups and self-proclaimed victims, MCS is not recognized as a chemically caused illness by the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology, and the American College of Physicians.2 Double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials have shown that putative MCS patients respond to placebo as strongly as they react to chemicals.3

Still, Bell’s claims must be true; Bell has written a book, Poisoned, about his ordeal and that of others.4 After recounting his bizarre medical symptoms, he describes his miraculous cure in a sterile bubble in the Arizona desert. From safe within his bubble, Bell has managed to create the “Environmental Health Foundation,” which is difficult if not impossible to find on the internet, although there are some cheesy endorsements to be found on YouTube.

According to Bell’s narrative, Daniel Allen, the football coach of the College of the Holy Cross was experiencing neurological signs and symptoms that could not be explained by physicians in the Boston area, home to some of the greatest teaching hospitals in the world. Allen and his wife, Laura, reached out Bell through his Foundation. Bell describes how he put the Allens in touch with Marcia Ratner, who sits on the Scientific Advisory Board of his Environmental Health Foundation. Bell sent the Allens to see “the world renown” Marcia Ratner, who diagnosed Mr. Allen with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Bell’s story may strike some as odd, considering that Ratner is not a physician. Ratner could not provide a cure for Mr. Allen’s tragic disease, but she could help provide the Allens with a lawsuit.

According to Bell:

Testimony from a sympathetic widow, combined with powerful evidence that the chemicals Dan was exposed to caused him to die long before his time, would smash their case to bits. The defense opted to seek a settlement. The case settled in 2009.5

The ABAJ article on the Allen case is a reprise of chapter 15 of Bell’s book “Chemicals Take Down a Football Coach.” Shame on the A.B.A. for not marking the article as unpaid advertising. More shame on the A.B.A. for not fact checking the glib causal claims made in the article, some of which have been the subject of a recently published “case report” in the red journal, the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, by Dr. Ratner and some, but not all, of the other expert witnesses for Mr. Allen’s litigation team.6 Had the editors of the ABAJ compared Mr. Bell’s statements and claims about the Allen case, they would have seen that Dr. Ratner, et al., ten years after beating back the defendants’ Daubert motion in the Allen case, described their literature review and assessment of Mr. Allen’s case, as merely “hypothesis generating”:

This literature review and clinical case report about a 45-year-old man with no family history of motor neuron disease who developed overt symptoms of a neuromuscular disorder in close temporal association with his unwitting occupational exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) puts forth the hypothesis that exposure to VOCs such as toluene, which disrupt motor function and increase oxidative stress, can unmask latent ALS type neuromuscular disorder in susceptible individuals.”7

         * * * * * * *

In conclusion, this hypothesis generating case report provides additional support for the suggestion that exposure to chemicals that share common mechanisms of action with those implicated in the pathogenesis of ALS type neuromuscular disorders can unmask latent disease in susceptible persons. Further research is needed to elucidate these relationships.”8

So in 2018, the Allen case was merely a “hypothesis generating” case report. Ten years earlier, however, in 2008, when Ratner, Abou-Donia, Oliver, Ewing, and Clapp gave solemn oaths and testified under penalty of perjury to a federal district judge, the facts of the same case warranted a claim to scientific knowledge, under Rule 702. Judges, lawyers, and legal reformers should take note of how expert witnesses will characterize facile opinions as causal conclusions when speaking as paid witnesses, and as mere hypotheses in need of evidentiary support when speaking in professional journals to scientists. You’re shocked; eh?

Sometimes when federal courts permit dubious causation opinion testimony over Rule 702 objections, the culprit is bad lawyering by the opponent of the proffered testimony. The published case report by Ratner helps demonstrate that Allen v. Martin Surfacing, 263 F.R.D. 47 (D. Mass. 2009), was the result of litigation overreach by plaintiffs’ counsel and their paid expert witnesses, and a failure of organized skepticism by defense counsel and the judiciary.

Marcia H. Ratner, Ph.D.

I first encountered Dr. Ratner as an expert witness for the litigation industry in cases involving manganese-containing welding rods. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Dickie Scruggs, et al., withdrew her before the defense could conduct an examination before trial. When I came across the Daubert decision in the Allen case, I was intrigued because I had read Ratner’s dissertation9 and her welding litigation report, and saw what appeared to be fallacies10 similar to those that plagued the research of Dr. Brad Racette, who also had worked with Scruggs in conducting screenings, from which he extracted “data” for a study, which for a while became the center piece of Scruggs’ claims.11

The Allen case provoked some research on my part, and then a blog post about that case and Dr. Ratner.12 Dr. Ratner took umbrage to my blog post; and in email correspondence, she threatened to sue me for tortious interference with her prospective business opportunities. She also felt that the blog post had put her in a bad light by commenting upon her criminal conviction for unlawful gun possession.13 As a result of our correspondence, and seeing that Dr. Ratner was no stranger to the courtroom,14 I wrote a post-script to add some context and her perspective on my original post.15

One fact Dr Ratner wished me to include in the blog post-script was that plaintiffs’ counsel in the Allen case had pressured her to opine that toluene and isocyanates caused Mr. Allen’s ALS, and that she had refused. Dr. Ratner of course was making a virtue of necessity since there was, and is, a mountain of medical opinion, authoritative and well-supportive, that there is no known cause of sporadic ALS.16 Dr. Ratner was very proud, however, of having devised a work-around, by proffering an opinion that toluene caused the acceleration of Mr. Allen’s ALS. This causal claim about accelerated onset could have been tested with an observational study, but the litigation claim about earlier onset was as lacking in evidential support as the more straightforward claim of causation.

Bell’s article in the ABAJ – or rather his advertisement17 – cited an unpublished write up of the Allen case, by Ratner, The Allen Case: Our Daubert Strategy, Victory, and Its Legal and Medical Landmark Ramifications, in which she kvelled about how the Allen case was cited in the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. The Manual’s citations, however, were about the admissibility of the industrial hygienist’s proffered testimony on exposure, based in turn on Mr. Allen’s account of acute-onset symptoms.18 The Manual does not address the dubious acceleration aspect of Ratner’s causal opinion in the Allen case.

The puff piece in the ABAJ caused me to look again at Dr. Ratner’s activities. According to the Better Business Bureau reports that Dr. Marcia Ratner is a medical consultant in occupational and environmental toxicology. Since early 2016, she has been the sole proprietor of a consulting firm, Neurotoxicants.com, located in Mendon, Vermont. The firm’s website advertises that:

The Principals and Consultants of Neurotoxicants.com provide expert consulting in neurotoxicology and the relationships between neurotoxic chemical exposures and neurodegenerative disease onset and progression.

Only Ratner is identified as working on consulting through the firm. According to the LinkedIn entry for Neurotoxicants.com, Ratner is the also founder and director of Medical-Legal Research at Neurotoxicants.com. Ratner’s website advertises her involvement in occupational exposure litigation as an expert witness for claimants.19 Previously, Ratner was the Vice President and Director of Research at Chemical Safety Net, Inc., another consulting firm that she had founded with the late Robert G. Feldman, MD.

Conflict of Interest

The authors of the published Allen case report gave a curious conflict-of-interest disclosure at the end of their article:

The authors have no current specific competing interests to declare. However, Drs. Ratner, Abou-Donia and Oliver, and Mr. Ewing all served as expert witnesses in this case which settled favorably for the patient over 10 years ago with an outcome that is a fully disclosed matter of public record. Drs. Ratner, Abou-Donia and Oliver and Mr. Ewing are occasionally asked to serve as expert witnesses and/or consultants in occupational and environmental chemical exposure injury cases.”20

The disclosure conveniently omitted that Dr. Ratner owns a business that she set up to provide medico-legal consulting, and that Dr. Oliver testifies with some frequency in asbestos cases. None of the authors was, or is, an expert in the neuroepidemiology of ALS. Dr. Ratner’s conflict-of-interest disclosure in the Allen case report was, however, better than her efforts in previous publications that touched on the subject matter of her commercial consulting practice.21


1 Alan Bell, “Devastated by office chemicals, an attorney helps others fight toxic torts,Am. Bar. Ass’n J. (Nov. 2018).

2 See, e.g., American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, “Idiopathic environmental intolerances,” 103 J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 36 (1999).

3 See Susanne Bornschein, Constanze Hausteiner, Horst Römmelt, Dennis Nowak, Hans Förstl, and Thomas Zilker, “Double-blind placebo-controlled provocation study in patients with subjective Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and matched control subjects,” 46 Clin. Toxicol. 443 (2008); Susanne Bornschein, Hans Förstl, and Thomas Zilker, “Idiopathic environmental intolerances (formerly multiple chemical sensitivity) psychiatric perspectives,” 250 J. Intern. Med. 309 (2001).

4 Poisoned: How a Crime-Busting Prosecutor Turned His Medical Mystery into a Crusade for Environmental Victims (Skyhorse Publishing 2017).

5 Steven H. Foskett Jr., “Late Holy Cross coach’s family, insurers settle lawsuit for $681K,” Telegram & Gazette (Oct. 1, 2009). Obviously, the settlement amount represented a deep compromise over any plaintiff’s verdict.

6 Marcia H. Ratner, Joe F. Jabre, William M. Ewing, Mohamed Abou-Donia, and L. Christine Oliver, “Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis—A case report and mechanistic review of the association with toluene and other volatile organic compounds,” 61 Am. J. Ind. Med. 251 (2018).

7 Id. at 251.

8 Id. at 258 (emphasis added).

9 Marcia Hillary Ratner, Age at Onset of Parkinson’s Disease Among Subjects Occupationally Exposed to Metals and Pesticides; Doctoral Dissertation, UMI Number 3125932, Boston University (2004). Neither Ratner’s dissertation supervisor nor her three readers were epidemiologists.

11 See Brad A. Racette, S.D. Tabbal, D. Jennings, L. Good, Joel S. Perlmutter, and Brad Evanoff, “Prevalence of parkinsonism and relationship to exposure in a large sample of Alabama welders,” 64 Neurology 230 (2005).

13 See Quincy District Court News,” Patriot Ledger June 09, 2010 (reporting that Ratner pleaded guilty to criminal possession of mace and a firearm).

14 Ratner v. Village Square at Pico Condominium Owners Ass’n, Inc., No. 91-2-11 Rdcv (Teachout, J., Aug. 28, 2012).

17 Bell is a client of the Worthy Marketing Group.

18 RMSE3d at 505-06 n.5, 512-13 n. 26, 540 n.88; see also Allen v. Martin Surfacing, 2009 WL 3461145, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111658, 263 F.R.D. 47 (D. Mass. 2008) (holding that an industrial hygienist was qualified to testify about the concentration and duration of plaintiffs’ exposure to toluene and isocyanates).

20 Id. at 259. One of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Richard W. Clapp, opted out of co-author status on this publication.

21 See Marcia H. Ratner & Edward Fitzgerald, “Understanding of the role of manganese in parkinsonism and Parkinson disease,” 88 Neurology 338 (2017) (claiming no relevant conflicts of interest); Marcia H. Ratner, David H. Farb, Josef Ozer, Robert G. Feldman, and Raymon Durso, “Younger age at onset of sporadic Parkinson’s disease among subjects occupationally exposed to metals and pesticides,” 7 Interdiscip. Toxicol. 123 (2014) (failing to make any disclosure of conflicts of interest). In one short case report written with Dr. Jonathan Rutchik, another expert witness actively participated for the plaintiffs’ litigation industry in welding fume cases, Dr. Ratner let on that she “occasionally” is asked to serve as an expert witness, but she failed to disclose that she has a business enterprise set up to commercialize her expert witness work. Jonathan Rutchik & Marcia H. Ratner, “Is it Possible for Late-Onset Schizophrenia to Masquerade as Manganese Psychosis?” 60 J. Occup. & Envt’l Med. E207 (2018) (“The authors have no current specific competing interests to declare. However, Dr. Rutchik served as expert witnesses [sic] in this case. Drs. Rutchik and Ratner are occasionally asked to serve as expert witnesses and/or consultants in occupational and environmental chemical exposure injury cases.”)

Carl Cranor’s Conflicted Jeremiad Against Daubert

September 23rd, 2018

Carl Cranor’s Conflicted Jeremiad Against Daubert

It seems that authors who have the most intense and refractory conflicts of interest (COI) often fail to see their own conflicts and are the most vociferous critics of others for failing to identify COIs. Consider the spectacle of having anti-tobacco activists and tobacco plaintiffs’ expert witnesses assert that the American Law Institute had an ethical problem because Institute members included some tobacco defense lawyers.1 Somehow these authors overlooked their own positional and financial conflicts, as well as the obvious fact that the Institute’s members included some tobacco plaintiffs’ lawyers as well. Still, the complaint was instructive because it typifies the abuse of ethical asymmetrical standards, as well as ethical blindspots.2

Recently, Raymond Richard Neutra, Carl F. Cranor, and David Gee published a paper on the litigation use of Sir Austin Bradford Hill’s considerations for evaluating whether an association is causal or not.3 See Raymond Richard Neutra, Carl F. Cranor, and David Gee, “The Use and Misuse of Bradford Hill in U.S. Tort Law,” 58 Jurimetrics 127 (2018) [cited here as Cranor]. Their paper provides a startling example of hypocritical and asymmetrical assertions of conflicts of interests.

Neutra is a self-styled public health advocate4 and the Chief of the Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control (DEODC) of the California Department of Health Services (CDHS). David Gee, not to be confused with the English artist or the Australian coin forger, is with the European Environment Agency, in Copenhagen, Denmark. He is perhaps best known for his precautionary principle advocacy and his work with trade unions.5

Carl Cranor is with the Center for Progressive Reform, and he teaches philosophy at one of the University of California campuses. Although he is neither a lawyer nor a scientist, he participates with some frequency as a consultant, and as an expert witness, in lawsuits, on behalf of claimants. Perhaps Cranor’s most notorious appearance as an expert witness resulted in the decision of Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc., 639 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied sub nom., U.S. Steel Corp. v. Milward, 132 S. Ct. 1002 (2012). Probably less generally known is that Cranor was one of the founders of an organization, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT), which recently was the complaining party in a California case in which CERT sought money damages for Starbucks’ failure to label each cup of coffee sold as known to the State of California as causing cancer.6 Having a so-called not-for-profit corporation can also be pretty handy, especially when it holds itself out as a scientific organization and files amicus briefs in support of reversing Daubert exclusions of the founding members of the corporation, as CERT did on behalf of its founding member in the Milward case.7 The conflict of interest, in such an amicus brief, however, is no longer potential or subtle, and violates the duty of candor to the court.

In this recent article on Hill’s considerations for judging causality, Cranor followed CERT’s lead from Milward. Cranor failed to disclose that he has been a party expert witness for plaintiffs, in cases in which he was advocating many of the same positions put forward in the Jurimetrics article, including the Milward case, in which he was excluded from testifying by the trial court. Cranor’s lack of candor with the readers of the Jurimetrics article is all the more remarkable in that Cranor and his co-authors give conflicts of interest outsize importance in substantive interpretations of scholarship:

the desired reliability for evidence evaluation requires that biases that derive from the financial interests and ideological commitments of the investigators and editors that control the gateways to publication be considered in a way that Hill did not address.”

Cranor at 137 & n.59. Well, we could add that Cranor’s financial interests and ideological commitments might well be considered in evaluating the reliability of the opinions and positions advanced in this most recent work by Cranor and colleagues. If you believe that COIs disqualify a speaker from addressing important issues, then you have all the reason you need to avoid reading Cranor’s recent article.

Dubious Scholarship

The more serious problem with Cranor’s article is not his ethically strained pronouncements about financial interests, but the dubious scholarship he and his colleagues advance to thwart judicial gatekeeping of even more dubious expert witness opinion testimony. To begin with, the authors disparage the training and abilities of federal judges to assess the epistemic warrant and reliability of proffered causation opinions:

With their enhanced duties to review scientific and technical testimony federal judges, typically not well prepared by legal education for these tasks, have struggled to assess the scientific support for—and the reliability and relevance of—expert testimony.”

Cranor at 147. Their assessment is fair but hides the authors’ cynical agenda to remove gatekeeping and leave the assessment to lay juries, who are less well prepared for the task, and whose function ensures no institutional accountability, review, or public evaluation.

Similarly, the authors note the temporal context and limitations of Bradford Hill’s 1965 paper, which date and limit the advice provided over 50 years ago in a discipline that has changed dramatically with the advancement of biological, epidemiologic, and genetic science.8 Even at the time of its original publication in 1965, Bradford Hill’s paper, which was based upon an informal lecture, was not designed or intended to be a definitive treatment of causal inference. Cranor and his colleagues make no effort to review Bradford Hill’s many other publications, both before and after his 1965 dinner speech, for evidence of his views on the factors for causal inference, including the role of statistical testing and inference.

Nonetheless, Bradford Hill’s 1965 paper has become a landmark, even if dated, because of its author’s iconic status in the world of public health, earned for his showing that tobacco smoking causes lung cancer,9 and for advancing the role of double-blind randomized clinical trials.10 Cranor and his colleagues made no serious effort to engage with the large body of Bradford Hill’s writings, including his immensely important textbook, The Principles of Medical Statistics, which started as a series of articles in The Lancet, and went through 12 editions in print.11 Hill’s reputation will no doubt survive Cranor’s bowdlerized version of Sir Austin’s views.

Epidemiology is Dispensable When It Fails to Support Causal Claims

The egregious aspect of Cranor’s article is its bill of particulars against the federal judiciary for allegedly errant gatekeeping, which for these authors translates really into any gatekeeping at all. Cranor at 144-45. Indeed, the authors provide not a single example of what was a “proper” exclusion of an expert witness, who was contending for some doubtful causal claim. Perhaps they have never seen a proper exclusion, but doesn’t that speak volumes about their agenda and their biases?

High on the authors’ list of claimed gatekeeping errors is the requirement that a causal claim be supported with epidemiologic evidence. Although some causal claims may be supported by strong evidence of a biological process with mechanistic evidence, such claims are not common in United States tort litigation.

In support of the claim that epidemiology is dispensable, Cranor suggests that:

Some courts have recognized this, and distinguished scientific committees often do not require epidemiological studies to infer harm to humans. For example, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRAC) [sic], the National Toxicology Program, and California’s Proposition 65 Scientific Advisory Panel, among others, do not require epidemiological data to support findings that a substance is a probable or—in some cases—a known human carcinogen, but it is welcomed if available.”

Cranor at 149. California’s Proposition 65!??? Even IARC is hard to take seriously these days with its capture by consultants for the litigation industry, but if we were to accept IARC as an honest broker of causal inferences, what substance “known” to IARC to cause cancer in humans (Category I) was branded as a “known carcinogen” without the support of epidemiologic studies? Inquiring minds might want to know, but they will not learn the answer from Cranor and his co-authors.

When it comes to adverting to legal decisions that supposedly support the authors’ claim that epidemiology is unnecessary, their scholarship is equally wanting. The paper cites the notorious Wells case, which was so roundly condemned in scientific circles, that it probably helped ensure that a decision such as Daubert would ultimately be handed down by the Supreme Court. The authors seemingly cannot read, understand, and interpret even the most straightforward legal decisions. Here is how they cite Wells as support for their views:

Wells v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 788 F.2d 741, 745 (11th Cir. 1986) (reviewing a district court’s decision deciding not to require the use of epidemiological evidence and instead allowing expert testimony).”

Cranor at 149-50 n.122. The trial judge in Wells never made such a decision; indeed, the case was tried by the bench, before the Supreme Court decided Daubert. There was no gatekeeping involved at all. More important, however, and contrary to Cranor’s explanatory parenthetical, both sides presented epidemiologic evidence in support of their positions.12

Cranor and his co-authors similarly misread and misrepresent the trial court’s decision in the litigation over maternal sertraline use and infant birth defects. Twice they cite the Multi-District Litigation trial court’s decision that excluded plaintiffs’ expert witnesses:

In re Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrochloride) Prods. Liab. Litig., 26 F. Supp. 3d 449, 455 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (expert may not rely on nonstatistically significant studies to which to apply the [Bradford Hill] factors).”

Cranor at 144 n.85; 158 n.179. The MDL judge, Judge Rufe, decidedly never held that an expert witness may not rely upon a statistically non-significant study in a “Bradford Hill” analysis, and the Third Circuit, which affirmed the exclusions of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ testimony, was equally clear in avoiding the making of such a pronouncement.13

Who Needs Statistical Significance

Part of Cranor’s post-science agenda is to intimidate judges into believing that statistical significance is unnecessary and a wrong-headed criterion for judging the validity of relied upon research. In their article, Cranor and friends suggest that Hill agreed with their radical approach, but nothing could be further from the truth. Although these authors parse almost every word of Hill’s 1965 article, they conveniently omit Hill’s views about the necessary predicates for applying his nine considerations for causal inference:

Disregarding then any such problem in semantics we have this situation. Our observations reveal an association between two variables, perfectly clear-cut and beyond what we would care to attribute to the play of chance. What aspects of that association should we especially consider before deciding that the most likely interpretation of it is causation?”

Austin Bradford Hill, “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?” 58 Proc. Royal Soc’y Med. 295, 295 (1965). Cranor’s radicalism leaves no room for assessing whether a putative association is “beyond what we would care to attribute to the play of chance,” and his poor scholarship ignores Hill’s insistence that this statistical analysis be carried out.14

Hill’s work certainly acknowledged the limitations of statistical method, which could not compensate for poorly designed research:

It is a serious mistake to rely upon the statistical method to eliminate disturbing factors at the completion of the work.  No statistical method can compensate for a badly planned experiment.”

Austin Bradford Hill, Principles of Medical Statistics at 4 (4th ed. 1948). Hill was equally clear, however, that the limits on statistical methods did not imply that statistical methods are not needed to interpret a properly planned experiment or study. In the summary section of his textbook’s first chapter, Hill removed any doubt about his view of the importance, and the necessity, of statistical methods:

The statistical method is required in the interpretation of figures which are at the mercy of numerous influences, and its object is to determine whether individual influences can be isolated and their effects measured.”

Id. at 10 (emphasis added).

In his efforts to eliminate judicial gatekeeping of expert witness testimony, Cranor has struggled with understanding of statistical inference and testing.15 In an early writing, a 1993 book, Cranor suggests that we “can think of type I and II error rates as “standards of proof,” which begs the question whether they are appropriately used to assess significance or posterior probabilities.16 Indeed, Cranor goes further, in confusing significance and posterior probabilities, when he described the usual level of alpha (5%) as the “95%” rule, and claimed that regulatory agencies require something akin to proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” when they require two “statistically significant” studies.17

Cranor has persisted in this fallacious analysis in his writings. In a 2006 book, he erroneously equated the 95% coefficient of statistical confidence with 95% certainty of knowledge.18 Later in this same text, Cranor again asserted his nonsense that agency regulations are written when supported by “beyond a reasonable doubt.”19 Given that Cranor has consistently confused significance and posterior probability, he really should not be giving advice to anyone about statistical or scientific inference. Cranor’s persistent misunderstandings of basic statistical concepts do, however, explain his motivation for advocating the elimination of statistical significance testing, even if these misunderstandings make his enterprise intellectually unacceptable.

Cranor and company fall into a similar muddle when they offer advice on post-hoc power calculations, which advice ignores standard statistical learning for interpreting completed studies.20 Another measure of the authors’ failed scholarship is their omission of any discussion of recent efforts by many in the scientific community to lower the threshold for statistical significance, based upon the belief that the customary 5% p-value is an order of magnitude too high.21

 

Relative Risks Greater Than Two

There are other tendentious arguments and treatments in Cranor’s brief against gatekeeping, but I will stop with one last example. The inference of specific causation from study risk ratios has provoked a torrent of verbiage from Sander Greenland (who is cited copiously by Cranor). Cranor, however, does not even scratch the surface of the issue and fails to cite the work of epidemiologists, such as Duncan C. Thomas, who have defended the use of probabilities of (specific) causation. More important, however, Cranor fails to speak out against the abuse of using any relative risk greater than 1.0 to support an inference of specific causation, when the nature of the causal relationship is neither necessary nor sufficient. In this context, Kenneth Rothman has reminded us that someone can be exposed to, or have, a risk, and then develop the related outcome, without there being any specific causation:

An elementary but essential principle to keep in mind is that a person may be exposed to an agent and then develop disease without there being any causal connection between the exposure and the disease. For this reason, we cannot consider the incidence proportion or the incidence rate among exposed people to measure a causal effect.”

Kenneth J. Rothman, Epidemiology: An Introduction at 57 (2d ed. 2012).

The danger in Cranor’s article in Jurimetrics is that some readers will not realize the extreme partisanship in its ipse dixit, and erroneous, pronouncements. Caveat lector


1 Elizabeth Laposata, Richard Barnes & Stanton Glantz, “Tobacco Industry Influence on the American Law Institute’s Restatements of Torts and Implications for Its Conflict of Interest Policies,” 98 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (2012).

2 The American Law Institute responded briefly. See Roberta Cooper Ramo & Lance Liebman, “The ALI’s Response to the Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education,” 98 Iowa L. Rev. Bull. 1 (2013), and the original authors’ self-serving last word. Elizabeth Laposata, Richard Barnes & Stanton Glantz, “The ALI Needs to Implement Modern Conflict of Interest Policies,” 98 Iowa L. Rev. Bull. 17 (2013).

3 Austin Bradford Hill, “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?” 58 Proc. Royal Soc’y Med. 295 (1965).

4 Raymond Richard Neutra, “Epidemiology Differs from Public Health Practice,” 7 Epidemiology 559 (1996).

7From Here to CERT-ainty” (June 28, 2018).

8 Kristen Fedak, Autumn Bernal, Zachary Capshaw, and Sherilyn A Gross, “Applying the Bradford Hill Criteria in the 21st Century: How Data Integration Has Changed Causal Inference in Molecular Epidemiology,” Emerging Themes in Epidemiol. 12:14 (2015); John P. A. Ioannides, “Exposure Wide Epidemiology, Revisiting Bradford Hill,” 35 Stats. Med. 1749 (2016).

9 Richard Doll & Austin Bradford Hill, “Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung,” 2(4682) Brit. Med. J. (1950).

10 Geoffrey Marshall (chairman), “Streptomycin Treatment of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Medical Research Council Investigation,” 2 Brit. Med. J. 769, 769–71 (1948).

11 Vern Farewell & Anthony Johnson,The origins of Austin Bradford Hill’s classic textbook of medical statistics,” 105 J. Royal Soc’y Med. 483 (2012). See also Hilary E. Tillett, “Bradford Hill’s Principles of Medical Statistics,” 108 Epidemiol. Infect. 559 (1992).

13 In re Zoloft Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 16-2247 , __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 2385279, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9832 (3d Cir. June 2, 2017) (affirming exclusion of biostatistician Nichols Jewell’s dodgy opinions, which involved multiple methodological flaws and failures to follow any methodology faithfully).

14 See Bradford Hill on Statistical Methods” (Sept. 24, 2013).

16 Carl F. Cranor, Regulating Toxic Substances: A Philosophy of Science and the Law at 33-34 (1993) (arguing incorrectly that one can think of α, β (the chances of type I and type II errors, respectively and 1- β as measures of the “risk of error” or “standards of proof.”); see also id. at 44, 47, 55, 72-76. At least one astute reviewer called Cranor on his statistical solecisms. Michael D. Green, “Science Is to Law as the Burden of Proof is to Significance Testing: Book Review of Cranor, Regulating Toxic Substances: A Philosophy of Science and the Law,” 37 Jurimetrics J. 205 (1997) (taking Cranor to task for confusing significance and posterior (burden of proof) probabilities).

17 Id. (squaring 0.05 to arrive at “the chances of two such rare events occurring” as 0.0025, which impermissibly assumes independence between the two studies).

18 Carl F. Cranor, Toxic Torts: Science, Law, and the Possibility of Justice 100 (2006) (incorrectly asserting that “[t]he practice of setting α =.05 I call the “95% rule,” for researchers want to be 95% certain that when knowledge is gained [a study shows new results] and the null hypothesis is rejected, it is correctly rejected.”).

19 Id. at 266.

21 See, e.g., John P. A. Ioannidis, “The Proposal to Lower P Value Thresholds to .005,” 319 J. Am. Med. Ass’n 1429 (2018); Daniel J. Benjamin, James O. Berger, Valen E. Johnson, et al., “Redefine statistical significance,” 2 Nature Human Behavior 6 (2018).