reference but it's a dangerous proposition because where do you end the words if you're going to infer that you can infer anything and so i just don't think that that argument has any legs in this kind of a ridiculous proposition and again this is the judge same judge who wrote the board opinion if you look in the middle of a large paragraph it goes this is the judge today let me just explain medical evidence that consists of treatises or medical techs can support a claim as far as the nexus to the extent that it applies specifically to your case so if there is an opinion he's referring to in the treated that let's look at page twenty two and twenty three of the record but must be combined with the opinion of a medical professional and be reflective of the specific facts of the case as to as opposed to a discussion of generic relationships here or the internet research medical evidence  by the veterans is in its general nature does not specifically discuss his underline his kidney and urinary tract disorders and it's not accompanied by a medical condition that special i really just can't see how you can read any other way i mean the emphasis is just this idea of there somewhere but it isn't for finding of so the lot of imagination on the government's part but it just isn't supported by the record and i want to point out something else which i didn't in brief and i think it's important so i want to emphasize that that three to seven is what was appropriate for two reasons and those reasons are one and let me let me back up and and  progress for this case here's the doctor page one hundred six the last bottom of the last full paragraph type and i'm gonna read it hopefully evolve in review of all the documents available to this back he does not recall ever using nonstarters steroidal anti inflammatories or and sense but after that that when what i referred and said it's an acronym for non steroid record in front of us but on this we're getting close to crossing the line as you know because we have a strict and tighten jurisdictional barrier and so if we're talking about the board use the rate standard but you don't like the way was applied because you think the facts in the  if they're using the wrong analytical tools will evaluate the property value of the evidence whether they reject it or give a little weight it's still wrong  on to reject it outright because i don't see any word about your case that's got to be wrong what about the all the secondary point that the board made is that not only do you i understand and i guess what i'm trying to find out is whether these internet are when you can qualify as a tradition for instance and whether that's good question but that was an article of what wasn't a basis in other words we have to look down below and say well is this something that the community within doors i mean that's a factual question as to whether or not it's a submissive interesting question i would tend to say that based on the claim of friendly system that it's a very generous definition because the whole point if you look at the regulatory system there say that you can find a lot of articles online trying to make it easy for veterans to try to prove their case because they get independent medical opinion because somewhere between a thousand and fifteen hundred dollars which they don't have so again the point is that the system you contemplate that everybody's going to go on the internet you're going to download fifty thousand articles written by who knows who and then the board is probably going you lose sight of the boxes that the truth is no matter how good it is i mean what they're saying here is that suppose you had an expert several experts on this that put all their names down beautifully written opinion and the facts are very analogous to this case received expressly for the purpose of determining whether there was a nexus between his prior service connected disability and these kidney conditions then after that it went into the discussion of this these internet articles i would leave them to do with that with the fact considered you need a separate medical professional endorsing the treating i mean i know that's how we're trying to be but that's not what does that term friendly system set yes sure and i i think that  in order for it to be considered by the board or can the veteran just simply supply a medical treatise an article that it believes is reflective of his personal i think the other side has an argument that the board dismissed the medical article the internet part of the method soley because it wasn't combined with a doctorate in all but i do think it's important in this case it would be an illegitimate grounds to dismiss the so if it was solely on that basis if there was a per se rule that because this was not accompanied by contemporaneous positions opinion along no your honor because i think and i think it's very important to look at what what the board is actually saying here and what the veterans for saying this but there was a it was too general in nature and it was not specific to factual in that mental treatise would have to mention melvin o'hara by me no or no to no and i don't understand ok i i think it's very helpful to look at a few of the cases where again it was in the context of whether there was a well grounded claim such as whether a duty to assist have been triggered but i think it's very illustrative to look at prior cases where the federal circuit in the veterans court had said no there was error here this this needed to have been this treatise evidence or secondary medical literature evidence needed to have been considered because it was specific enough to do a serious matter the judge o'malley's question i mean the answer i assume is no they didn't have to name him or name his specifics but what the board actually said was it's described as the  general does not specifically discuss his kidney and you're near a traffic disorders so i assume you would embrace that you're saying we're not talking about his him in particular but you can but in it i was  the property value was weighed but what we have here is a tooth to two page internet printouts one of which said that there was a condition called analgesics prophecy that could have been linked to taking certain medications that's not i don't believe that the condition that he was specifically even diagnosed with the second two patients internet printout was entitled toxicity common acetaminophen which is the generic name for time and that doesn't mention any kidney or ren he had what he had purported to produce as produce value to his claim with a specific be a report on certain medical conditions that veterans who had been at present at that site and who had been subjected to that kind of testing work were ha argued he had he has been getting disability but i'm not my understanding is that he was not specifically wagner's with analgesic property and so what we're talking about here is a very high level of generality because we're talking about that somebody  diagnosed with i don't believe and so so that's the basis for the for the board's decision and undermining the work is specifically saying you know we're not even talking about those with a condition he has been specifically diagnosed with and it hasn't tied into this we're talking in a very high level generality of tylenol can lead to this kidney condition that's very different in cases in the past like in slate like one versus west where where the the actual medical literature was last three to seven that was produced by the better was very shoes i do think they may have been looking at the case of factors as well as which did which was talking about the program value to be assigned is not an absolute matter but did say this is not say that medical article introduce evidence are irrelevant and then important they can provide important support when combined with an opinion of the medical professionals but but i think it's very work for this court to know that the opinion on appeal is the beginning of the veterans court which affirmed the basis of the board's decision not on the basis of same judge and by the veterans during the years and again i have to repeat it says let me just explain the medical evidence that consists of a treatise for medical tax can support a claim that as far as nexis to the extent that applies specifically to your case so there isn't any opinion that says in your case even if aspirin is known to cause in some cases kidding it sees we'd have to have a medical opinion that said basically said so so thirteen although there is a condition referred to as analgesic no property where pain medication can be injurious to renal function this is almost exclusively secondary of the use of and said such as because i think affectively by saying that by making argue the argument is essentially a harmless error argument is saying ok given that the the analytical tool that used to say that it had to be probative like it