definite statement but in the record if you go through his deposition that's in the record the deposition a doctor going for you and i give the pages but every time the objection was you excluded under froch was there if you say there are notations contained in the on the transcript the day of the deposition the the transcript of the deposition shows the here this is the most crucial question doctor based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to the last time you saw him based on the history given to you by him as to the condition he encountered and based upon the medical team treatment you provided to do you have an opinion as to whether there's a causal connection between exposures to chemicals that work in the condition provided that the condition you provide a treatment for doctors she answers yes if my conclusion is that the exposure was causation and right next to mr stark's objection rule seven zero two foundation regarding foundation regarding history one after another ok here's on peach thirty three there is sufficient exposure in certain environments whether they're flavoring plants coffee mills or you know this is still under study by the russian and the scientists so it's new science this is the first  he he he gave that history to their doctor doctor but funny doctor because any was told by personality a t m to disregard dad in his history because that was a part of his your time is up and you will have time  have five minutes off i don't think they respond thank you may please the court counsel first of the friday basis for their review was not raised before the full commission and it was not raised in this manner before the opinions and as to the admission there is no specific ruling striking democrats testimony as a whole there is only particularize question and answer we review the  i don't know which questions or answers upon which he relies for his review because he didn't put any of them in his brief a question or rise five six seven times trying to get to causation the side or the back to work every way  or journal that would support it is based upon an odor threshold that is seven thousand times different from any toxicity threshold that has ever been measured for an exposure to  industry where they are dealing with large fats of open fats of heated products with an eight hour shift exposure to the worker compared to an a t m and these are quantitative factors that go right said he had no knowledge oh it doesn't mean the fry stand i mean i'm more than comfortable with acking that in fact they knew her case from the pacific record of washington leave that aside in our brief the smell theory has been tried before the smell theory has been them because they were not the least bit persuasive because in cross examination when you state a conclusion you follow up with questions to test that conclusion it's kind of for we assume a fair review this decision is that he's without any different entities they are not the same diagnosis they manifest themselves in different pathologies and deep long tissue a broad daylight disability range which is the only thing limited case that is still a generally accepted science and i base that on dr gunn press own statement as he refers to an editorial article where he tries say well there is generally accepted standards and i go that editorial is a generally accepted science if you go it's on the way to getting alleged exposure because our exposure is only for one hundred thousand so one percent in two to three percent a product that he can never say he actually handled anyway and it was only a that he concentration when you're in the lab a place you never exposure we get back in industry or company records show the seventy to one over statement and it only has the volatile organic compounds of which diastole may or may not have been included nyos she was in a ledge decrease in p s t which was unchanged during the period of alleged exposure and he doesn't even know whether the baseline against which the ackermann is measure included a competing opinions based upon different methodology both of which are admissible in your frock so now the question becomes what exactly was bumper to methodology that was rejected there that it was non smokers included he did not consider a fifty pack your smoking history commencing with two packs a day at age fifteen his methodology just to compare pulmonary function test all post employment and not comparing the whole energy function test you add immediately before the alleged exposures and immediately after the x had the alleged exposures and they were the same there is no method ology at all he has no baseline he's just saying i've got a fifty to eighty pack your smoker who has c e o he did but there's no methodology that takes any scientific claim and pulls and this was accepted he goes to the price editorial which he says is on its way to general acceptance but they had a gold standard area and that is because of latency which caused me to ask don't read what is the lights from exposure to symptom onset of caused by the passive i don't know but i ask the b one he could even give us within a range of a decade what it would be but the price article says that within a six month period highly water soluble going to hear if a eyes and nose and he never has there been ever had those complaints for twenty years he never reported him to a doctor so again tying ourselves to the science of and we are to identify if he did determine that he was not going to consider certain evidence due to rai we are left to determine which ships of his testimony he did not consider is that correct well i don't believe it's the role of the reviewing court to do that level of work if the record supports a that i can avoid the manifest weight argument and reverse it so in a sense the arguments have taken a little right turn from on what i expect we're gonna hear what you're saying  what he says is that it's scientifically weak and by the white factually when you compare the opinions it's weak as well before but for him to express that for an opinion to be stronger as to be a scientific basis and this has no scientific basis which i continue to concur there is no scientific basis in this record to support a link between  is his his his notes off the record on every causal connection question that he sustained the seven zero two  my question is what if we can't figure out what he did then why would you