consider and weigh the evidence what to do what he did he just looked at the evidence on both sides and came to a conclusion that comes to the odds a little ways i think  i mean he's got to weigh all the evidence that he says ok well they've got a study that says it weighs against you so you've got a guy who's got a theory but his theory is undermined by some of his own articles as well as limitations in homage to an and then did the special master found against you hadn't successfully proven causation under those circumstances i don't see how that's what acquiring you to produce an epidemiological study i don't see how you can read the opinion that way us well but that's well had there had there not been any evidence on the government's side you would have had a stronger case right i mean he's waiting a giant pot of evidence so there's evidence against you and evidence in favor of you and he's got to and i set out to try to prove that narcolepsy was in fact linked to the flu mist which is what your causation theory is the flu mist caused your client's narcolepsy so suppose i set out to do a study now i'm an honest scientists right so even though my hope is i'm going to find some sort of correlation in the data between people who get the flu mist and then have narcolepsy suppose that i find zero incidence and i report it i've done a study of  hundred thousand people with narcolepsy none of them were given the flu mist i've done a study of one hundred thousand people with the flu took the flu mist and none of them contracted narcolepsy and so i scientifically report that i'm able to find no correlation between the two you know here are here's all the data i analyzed i did the study over several years i was very careful you're telling me that that can't be evidence that the special master even considers in assessing whether there is a finds there's no statistically significant increase in narcolepsy by virtue of people taking the flu mist you can undermine the study by challenging the methodology employed the number of subjects but i don't see how you can say that isn't evidence that the government can present to oppose your theory of causation i don't see how that evidence is irrelevant or deemed improper for the special master to use or rely upon in his decision it's certainly relevan failed to satisfy your burden of a causation theory in light of all of the evidence i don't believe they used it to disprove any kind of correlation so much as to say in light of the evidence you failed to meet is simply evidence that should be fancied her overall and the sports president particularly under the heinz decision the court has found that consideration of the relevant evidence and drawing a plausible and francis and providing a rational basis for his decision  our experts indicated in their reports that there was no identified correlation and that although there is does appear to be some poor elation and some of the evidence between pandemics which is not the facts in addition here what's the difference contrary epidemiological study and that shouldn't be his for what's wrong with his argument here the special master is permitted to consider the dimia logic evidence epidemiological evidence submitted by one side doesn't that will replace a burden on the other side to match or meet that evidence with contrary evidence perhaps with contrary evidence but not with epidemiological  and that's the issue here is that petitioner should not be required to submit epidemiologic that specifically and to that point on page thirty two of the appendix a special master indicates that additional evidence could  submitted but it is not identified of the dimia logic evidence as something that should be offered to rebut the evidence provided by responded and again this really comes down to a burden issue and under the act it's the burden of its petitioners burden to demonstrate entitlement they found sation and here the special master found that evidence was simply inadequate do that in your view is there something besides and counter and epidemiological study that would have been enough for the claimant to satisfy its burden perhaps and this i would draw the court's attention it's thirty two the appendix where the special master indicates that a study identifying what antibodies are present and individuals  second yes so that really is within the purview particularly of the specialist well and don't we well we have several cases saying epidemiological studies are probative and relevant seems it does seem like the special master sure did talk about the duffy article for an awfully long time but whether it seems to have carried a lot of weight in the decision at least as demonstrated by the number of pages spent on it in the causation analysis should we be concerned that a study that didn't show a correlation is is being given such weight and maybe we can be concerned but it doesn't rise to the level of arbitrary and capricious means even if we are i don't know but but i mean what are your thoughts about the amount of weight this special master seem to appear given this study it was certainly considered and i do agree that it's difficult to identify exactly how much weight is given to the particular study here what he said   of a correlation that is found in something not the same but somewhat related so is this a case where this epidemiological evidence is even more relevant because it's robust in something a correlation being asserted by the petitioner for a different drug that's correct i do agree with that and that's something the special master addresses thirty thirty thirty two of us as well ok do you have anything and that principle applies equally to the well you can't get this kind of almost and conclusive way to the single study that in fact studying the question of whether li fact published on this question and one of the critical point in the special master decision was that they felt that somehow the