Search for: "LUNG v. STATE" Results 241 - 260 of 1,058
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Dec 2018, 4:00 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed at The Hill, Rachel VanLandingham urges the justices to review Larrabee v. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 9:22 am by Schachtman
  Selikoff’s medical practice in Paterson, New Jersey, afforded him the opportunity to observe “the incidence of lung disease among workers at the Union Asbestos and Rubber Company (UNARCO),”24 which operated one of its factories in Paterson. 1951. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 1:48 am
The dust has started to settle following the Supreme Court decision in Warner-Lambert v Actavis [2018] UKSC 56 handed down recently (IPKat post here). [read post]
17 Nov 2018, 12:10 pm by Schachtman
Indeed, their brief in other places states their opinion that significance testing is not necessary at all: “Testing for significance, however, is often mistaken for a sine qua non of scientific inference. [read post]
14 Nov 2018, 3:25 am
A claim to a drug for the use in treating cancer may not be sufficiently disclosed across its entire scope, for example, if the specification only provided examples for which drug is used to treat lung, but not other types, of cancer. [read post]
2 Nov 2018, 7:32 pm by Schachtman
Kabat, “Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer: A Critical Assessment,” in H. [read post]
31 Oct 2018, 10:04 am by Schachtman
In claims that substances such as diesel fume or crystalline silica cause lung cancer, confounding is a huge problem. [read post]