this came up in the in the hearing and it actually the doctor can point was test fine and and the special master and it's quoted in our both our priest asked him a specific question she said she'd seen this before now we have to understand yours this is a special master who was sitting on that court at twenty eight years of this time and she's talking to a pediatric neurologist who'd been doing this work for sixty years and had been as an expert and this court since it started and was also involved  in specific research involving d p eighty long ago at any rate she asked him he said she understands that some people say you cannot use a study of d p t in order to determine whether d p very good question ok well maybe you can find it and tell me on rebuttal but but did you introduce any evidence that that was the case that that may be safer it may be safer but it's not safe is there was there any other effort and evidence that at the time we had not introduced evidence on that point we had in our in our complaint i should say our petition we had cited the case law the reactions to all three of these vaccines d p t and d t d p eighty were treated equally so the government saw no difference case law so no difference and decisions that we did put into the record showed that the show it can happen to you but this is a special master said she'd seen it before so she was essentially taking judicial notice of the fact that she believed that just because it's safer doesn't mean it doesn't do the same thing therefore she could within within ten hours and then it kept happening and it was diagnosed a few days later by boston children's as being as as being a the if house passed and it was treated with moderate success by the use of this drug a c t h and that becomes quite critical later on this a c t h is a steroid produced by the brain in response to any stress where the brain response to any stimuli and that could be a vaccine or an infection or anything else to tubes to dampen the stress response that requires that the causes excitability in the brain because of the of the presence of of the attempted under the federal evidence to ask him to take judicial notice of the fact of the what the special national of and had had stated that it was safer but not safe and therefore you could and so and this vaccines that day every one of them would cause an immune reaction which would set off this this is a chain reaction of the brain which causes a secretary hormone to be produced and then that he held that because there was no fever in this child at the time of the st seizure that obviously there was no autonomy in reaction i mean i mean reaction the doctor can spawn was talking about to set off this chain of events well unfortunately this is a vaccine that's changed cause and i mean reaction period across the board without exception and the press for is irrelevant some people everybody all of us probably got vaccines recently how many of us got fever you  do not need a fever to have a man reaction that fits if it happens without fever with it and so that as far as we're concerned that is arbitrary and capricious especially in a vaccine court which is dealing with this stuff all so know he did he sustain special master millman on the issue that was before him which was whether she had sufficient evidence before her to reach the conclusion that the male that the bellman study was relevant and so he didn't do that so that was all you said when you said reversed and now we're getting to the point where for me the rubber meets the road you have one special master who is reviewing the decision of another special master right at the  federal police clearly has the jurisdiction in the store to be the obligation to review property appeal decisions of a special master but here it seems to me that special mr horner was reviewing acting as  a federal claims to do reviewing special masters milner's opinion well you're actually right pete he did do that and that is not his job and so basically she had reached this conclusion he determined initially that her she was correct because the that the vaccine could do it and therefore her conclusion that he can do it to become a study is relevant is just sustain to some extent he he then goes further and says in the evidence under the correct legal standard and this is not a close case is that is that what the court of claims actually said or to the court of claims to say that knutson didn't stand for the proposition that she thought it did and so because that infected her legal analysis that it had to go back well i think it had to go back for that reason and i think it also had to go back because she did not  actually make those findings with respect to the rest of the factual record i thought that it pretty much based its decision on the fact that the notes and didn't say what they believe knew didn't say what she thought it and i think this might go to the question that judgment was asking i mean they they did not do an analysis of the rest of the findings or the rest of the factual record just that they they did not take any testimony he was not he did not and really the facts of this case are largely and assert i mean he didn't really really weigh the evidence this is this case involved a on the record of the st time around didn't special master moments specifically ask the expert about the the ability to up basically to apply just real imitations with that evidence and in my preparing brief which is a job and i guess what i'm trying to understand is that the the st time around special master millman specifically asked the expert if the bellman study could apply to d t a p and that expert said yes she excepted that testimony found it to be credible and reliable and the nd time around special master horner just said bellman's completely irrelevant because he weighed the testimony differently i guess what i'm trying to understand is how he could make that determination when he didn't hear the experts testify well actually he did not he he actually accepted down then with as having limited relevance it's now sure that he rejected because it was a miller's decision to determine whether the the the accurate legal standard was applied or not and that's a yes or no answer instead the special master not only reviewed the record a new but made new findings reached a different conclusion on the application of the of the of the of the legal standard and then denied petitioner the opportunity to submit the it was the special master was asked to make a decision on the basis of the record or just to make a new decision on the basis of the correct legal standard correct what the special master thought was the correct legal standard ok so did he make a new i think it gave him the authority to evaluate the facts under the correct legal standard i don't think he really weighed the evidence i think he applied the legal standard to the fact know i don't have an answer my fingers i don't have an answer my fingertips i apologize petitioner should admit what they considered to be evidence on the break question that was under review and i say that in view of the fact that the vaccine that is remediate is nature our court has said the number that injury early childhood that we don't know in the majority of cases how they are caught and the evidence that is putting forth the articles that he was putting forth and has put forth in the appendix actually speak to several seizures which are not at issue here on line i guess line nine and goes down to line nineteen it's basically she basically says these are the two sides of the story some people say you can't use d p a t p t to deal with the p she says she disagrees and believes it's relevant because safer is not safe and therefore what is been found in the balance study applies now the bellman study is unique because it was dealing with in specifically and so it found that infants how spasms were triggered not caused triggered by them acting within seven days so essentially professional master millman and special master naaman xplained that the bellman study had been very careful in what it was doing it and i slighted that the twenty three vaccines it was dealing with and separated all the classes out and they had basically done a very good job of making sure they didn't merge results but the development study found that precisely as to the what a special master order did he did re weigh the evidence he refused to allow us to put in evidence that was directly on point and especially the canadian study which determined not only that it was safer but it was seventy six percent safer when they came down to an actual number and other studies to say even though it's safer we're seeing the same value the same injuries in the same ratio to each other in other words if you have and it's reduced but it's reduce it looks and the effect of act a whatever that is act on dampening that reaction and the fact that that isn't actually produced up a product of the brain and so if act works it indicates that the missing the  lack of active is the cause of the condition that makes this kid an eggshell plant she is susceptible to anything that sets off her our immune reaction and vaccine is going to do it  lot better than the base of the flu but here she had four vaccines dr kids one was not focused exclusively on d p a t was focused on the fact that she got four vaccines that morning and had a reaction look at the split hours and that is intractable in fatah spasms also tend to disappear as the child grows this one didn't it didn't go down and after actor became drug resistant right now this child is essentially just a lot and she's in several times a day at the here and she was seizing continuously so it's this is a tragic case and this is this is supposed to be a magri this is remedial program and we shouldn't be playing gotcha ok ok your time is up i think you are thank you very much all right the case will be submitted