relatively little disagreement between the parties the parties agree that an m o is a n t body mediated type injury as opposed to t cell which is a cellular mediation he indicated that it is well accepted that antibody into gene reactions can deposit in the blood vessels and cause an immune cascade to occur which leads indicated that the flu vaccine the try flu vaccine lead to this a hole in the end of the in them and that the requirement of objective literature was specifically rejected medical clause ability the either scientific testimony or scientific literature and then take the action but also indicate that it was also error to require proof of injury arguing that a heightened standard was was applied in the valuating all the wrong one fans can't it seems to me that the the this issue was answered already court has just described is a literal mechanist an approach of when the facts nation approach and when the injury occur there is no analysis about whether it is appropriate from a medical and scientific standpoint and in this case there because i am in fact responding appropriately to a question presented by the court and if the court raises it then i believe that the oral argument would permit me to address it and it hasn't been wave so to continue your honor as we indicated in our in the there was very little dispute by the parties as to the underlying mechanism and in out and those hot that scientific evidence of how these injuries occur that we have primitive use circumstantial evidence and the circumstantial evidence is based upon what is known and accepted in biology and medicine from which reasonable inf es can be drawn and that is what our expert did and this quote further recognize that because there are no fine lines medicine when it comes to diagnosis and when it comes to assigning that if one prong strongly supports another cond then it can be utilized to meet its burden of proof every place to answer any questions at the court we have in this matter is given some deference as being more important than expert testimony the second point that is different between the coolies case and this case the davis case is the fact that several other treating physicians from the school east also indicated that but it is part of the decision they are it is part of the decision that was filed with the court so i think i can discuss that the special master decision in this case was filed as an addition by the petitioner dr steele admitted that his testimony in the davis case was speculative and was conjectural but a year had passed since the testimony he said he had done some additional research into the community happens and felt more comfortable in terms of giving his opinions which is a big difference between this case and the  the government's position and the government's reaction to the evidence was quite different in both cases they actually the government used the exact same expert witness cases as well so in terms of the correct ron and i didn't get into the facts specifically please because i was more focused on this but i did know read police to the extent that i tried to note the differences between the two cases and i think i've said the differences between the two  there's often tests and so that certainly that there is a medical aspect covered as well it's not just a time period but there's a medical aspect of it obviously evidence evidence that you committed one element can command on all elements but the factors the special master did not require medical literature on the precise mechanism of injury as stated in the petitioners argument but he wanted something reliable something more than mere guesswork something mere more than mere speculation or conjecture as testified to that or just to take that testimony on the record if you take that testimony out of record there are certainly plenty of other factors and points that the special master raise looking at everything including the fact that there was no treating physician support for the theory including looking at the downward factors the fact that it's not a theory that's generally discussed among the rolla just peers and the treating physician factor most significant it's certainly a factor it's not the most significant and talking and support looked at many other things as well in terms of including looking at doctors bills methodology conclusions looking at whether there was any information from japan were and most prevalent the flu vaccine is prevalent this issue of studies typically and and the special master did not require a heightened burden of proof i did not require any direct proof did not require any specific medical literature support or any specific scientific evidence it was not the kind of evidence presented by the petition that concerned him it was the quality of it cool east the special master there applied to out the trunks she looked at whether there was a theory which was medically plausible and whether there was a logical sequence of cause and effect and whether the temple relationship was appropriate and steele did indicate with that yes he had an additional year or two to study it but his testimony didn't change it just substantiate it in his mind what the mechanism of injury was