The Honorable Judge D. Chasdai: No, no, the general thesis of the opinion, not specific here. He argues that the omission of the same passage that begins with the authors of the report contradicts the thesis that you present your opinion at all. That's the question.
A: There is nothing intentional there, it could be in good faith and without a seamlessness, that's all.
(In detail, pp. 219-222).
- It was also presented to Dr. Shlita that what was said by the report's authors in the aforementioned article, which was brought from the Equiwiki website and which was "omitted" from his opinion, contradicts the thesis presented in his opinion. After reading what is stated there (see page 223 of the transcript in the middle), he was asked and answered with respect to the "missing" section of his opinion as follows:
Q: The question is Is it that they say The data do not scientifically indicate a link between known and clear sources of contaminants and cancer morbidity, is it in accordance with what you ask in your review or does it contradict what you claim in your review?
A: No, there's nothing intentional here. I don't know.
The Honorable Judge D. Chasdai: No, he doesn't ask if it's intentional or not, he assumes it's not intentional.
A: It can happen.
The Honorable Judge D. Hasdai: But he says is the hallucinatory line? We accept, he accepts that this is an accidental omission But now that he's taking you back to the text, he wants to ask you if that line Although the data do not scientifically indicate a link between known and clear sources of contaminants and cancer morbidity, Does not match your thesis in your review? The overall thesis. Because you say the opposite After all. That's what he's asking you.
A: I don't know how to say about it.
Q: You don't know if it contradicts or contradicts the thesis of your opinion?
A: This should be the opposite, but I don't submit any theses. I took the report and submitted it.