ORDER

STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge.

Arnold moves (Doc. 75) to exclude evidence from Novartis about supposed benefits of Zometa and Aredia that were not FDA-acknowledged when Mrs. Arnold received her treatment. Novartis responds (Doc. 80) in opposition.

Evidence of unproven and speculative benefits of a drug are equally as inadmissible as evidence of unproven and speculative detriments of a drug. Some shorthand or common phrases, such as "cancer drug," meaning a drug administered to those with cancer, if the phrase is honestly and fairly employed, are easily explained, easily understood, and harmless. On the other hand, terms such as "miracle drug" or "wonder drug" (or "killer drug" or the like) are meaningless or inflammatory or both. Terms such as "cures cancer" are untrue and misleading. The attorneys must not use at any time, and must not purposefully elicit or evoke in a witness's answer, such unscientific, incendiary, tendentious, and counter-factual terms.

However, as understood during the pertinent time, the reason for a course of treatment, the prospective and professionally acknowledged benefit of a treatment, the prospective and professionally recognized detriment of a treatment, and the pattern and purpose of a treatment — again, if established by a qualified witness — are admissible.

All evidence should aim to usefully inform, not to mischievously inflame, distract, or deceive, the jury. With that standard foremost, Arnold's motion is granted-in-part and denied-in-part in accord with this order.

ORDERED.