States Must Close the Junk Science Loophole
States Must Close the Junk Science Loophole Gerard Scimeca | 10:22 PM on July 28, 2026 AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, File For a plaintiff’s attorney searching for a windfall payday, highly credible and fact-based expert testimony is always a plus, but it is hardly a necessity. Thanks to lax judges who fail to properly scrutinize expert testimony and allow pure nonsense to reach the ears of a jury, big jury awards can just as easily be handed down when lawyers put highly dubious testimony on the stand. Advertisement googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display("div-gpt-300x250_3"); //googletag.pubads().refresh([gptAdSlot["div-gpt-300x250_3"]]) }); Infamous examples, such as the judge who allowed an “expert” to testify that breast implants were responsible for drunk driving, may give readers a laugh.
- ▪States Must Close the Junk Science Loophole Gerard Scimeca | 10:22 PM on July 28, 2026 AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, File For a plaintiff’s attorney searching for a windfall payday, highly credible and fact-based expert testimony is always a pl
- ▪Thanks to lax judges who fail to properly scrutinize expert testimony and allow pure nonsense to reach the ears of a jury, big jury awards can just as easily be handed down when lawyers put highly dubious testimony on the stand.
- ▪Advertisement googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display("div-gpt-300x250_3"); //googletag.pubads().refresh([gptAdSlot["div-gpt-300x250_3"]]) }); Infamous examples, such as the judge who allowed an “expert” to testify that breast im
PJ Media files mainly under politics. We currently carry 612 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | PJ Media |
| Canonical URL | https://pjmedia.com/gerard-scimeca/2026/07/28/states-must-close-the-junk-science-loophole-n4955556 |
| Publication time | Tue, 28 Jul 2026 22:22:00 -0400 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-07-29T02:48:30.245Z |
| Last seen | 2026-07-29T02:48:30.245Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | 36fjqF_HpVEl |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
States Must Close the Junk Science Loophole Gerard Scimeca | 10:22 PM on July 28, 2026 AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, File For a plaintiff’s attorney searching for a windfall payday, highly credible and fact-based expert testimony is always a plus, but it is hardly a necessity. Thanks to lax judges who fail to properly scrutinize expert testimony and allow pure nonsense to reach the ears of a jury, big jury awards can just as easily be handed down when lawyers put highly dubious testimony on the stand.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at PJ Media.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from PJ Media
