been very much narrowed from the opinion that was offered by this report this case and the sexual issue was whether or not the so called acceleration injury cl progression injuries that is those injuries that the brain patients would have suffered anyway in the normal course the natural course of their disease the second was acceleration injuries that is injuries that allegations that supported the natural progression actually question the same allegations that were made in support of the excel aerated injury case claims so  only difference between those two is that this report found that the natural progression of injuries were were not cut ties or in other words we have a case culture or we have a case called back not of this as very clearly there is no allegations in support of this natural progression claims are the same ones as the accelerated injury claims in the sense that the district court found that the natural progression claims are are because of this yes to the extent that the plaintiffs have alleged an injury that is separate apart from the natural progression of this disease as a result taking to reduce those  harm as a result i read that sentence and what it seems to say is that because of their inability to provide full doses because of all the production problems they had the best they could do was we provide diluted doses and then those diluted those cause will cause the harm that you describe but that strikes me just where you formulate it as an assertion that the this problem and let's assume that they only have thirty percent of you fail in the thirty percent of feel about population in the united states putting aside the european population which they believe goes talk about that later but assuming they only have thirty percent of the required amount for united states patients they had a decision they could either a give everyone thirty percent of the prescribe out of the amount that is actually approved by the f d a which  s us they could withhold the drug altogether until there are some point in the future when they had enough to fully dose everyone or they could choose to perhaps now in other words identify those members of the population that were most in need of this drug and give them all those if they had done anything other than number one they'd be insulated from liability schumer because there is no duty to supply drugs generally that any course if they had with simply withdrawn any any manufacturer any distribution a strike whatsoever they could arguing that by giving people thirty percent doses that john's i had no choice and therefore they've acted appropriately yours so you're saying that by choosing option one by providing a deluded those they were presenting to those patients who took that do does those that you least will be better off by taking this ludo's than you would be if you did anything creature s and it turned out i guess your allegation that those two doses had the effect of accelerating the disease is that sort of the theory of your claim that is exactly the a report says that you know in certain situations we have seen some for brave patients suffer a symptoms that are akin to accelerated natural and so what happened is that the court you know constructed an ambiguity by saying wait till you have a report only talks about some patients you talk about all of them in the complaint but you don't can pose a derogatory is do whatever it wants to do is part of discovery and can then through that process find out which of the plaintiffs in fact begin to subject that's normal th juxtaposition wasn't in the area because they said that we observe in some of the patients and so that would be is that evidence evidentiary issues to create an ambiguity that wasn't there in fact we would be better off had we not stable that  report to the complaint and in fact if that if that report were not a part of the complaint there would have been no basis for the district or to distinguish between the pleading of the accelerated injury alleging that all of the plaintiffs suffered from contamination in the complaint we allege certain contamination issues a question about it when we went to identify the arms that were associated with the various claims we talked about acceleration of the natural progression talked about actual injury as a result of the diluted dose those contamination claims are not within those paragraphs i see no so so that's why i'm before this really you know all spend fifteen seconds on the first is this movie play right so we made a big point of grief about the movie having something special about his and something special about his leaving is that you experienced this severe allergic actual specific injury and we agree with that nowhere in the district court opinion is there any reference to this moony distinction whatsoever and the reason for that i would submit is that if you if you  represent i'm i'm struggling with the notion of why his point should be dismissed or with everybody else well if you understand the gist of this the movie's claim to be that he has has now been exposed to the natural progression of progression he forced them into into that second category and even allowing that he gets passed in a way that may be different than all of the other lives maybe he gets to the starting line because there's a little bit more concreteness in the allocation of nature of the theory that proceeding on because with respect to each of those there is an answer there is a failure to be there is a way to get at that case and in the event that you it rests all of those questions you then also have to wonder whether in the case of the your client indicated to patients who will be this dependent on the straw that they would be better off taking this to those rather than no doz at all because they reduce supply and having no experience to doze they are experiencing an acceleration of their disease and mr movies experiences is a subset of that phenomenon that he in fact because of natural progression is here is one we know there are plaintiffs in this case never took this phylogeny during that short period one that never took it at all until the short period with it was after so good order to really credible allegation every claim that was subjected to a dive and those there were some something that will describe now as sellery symptoms it has to be that is something other than all which is it and in order to understand which state laws apply theirs it's that that's the fundamental failing you know that the failing that the district court identified with this category of allegations really didn't depend on this quibbling about what they were really just it's really just address the fact play in the complaint itself nor do the plaintiffs take the time who will lead which plaintiffs actually are say that the symptoms that they experience as a result of shortage all are in some in some way fairly described as plausibility or whether there is a cause back that actually ledge and in order to understand why there's no possibility here with respect you or pled these with respect to accelerate progression you need to know a little bit about how this therapy actually work is an enzyme replacement therapy that dresses the lack of that enzyme in the human body the absence of that human enzyme in the body prevents the body from breaking down in g l three living human cells and the use of the replacement enzyme allows the body then in writing down those that is so you have a geisha of celery that heart is not just that a reduced frequency of those allows the body to build up those with busy in the way that it normally would absence of there but by some mechanism that is undescribed in science that i'm aware of and certainly not described in plain would actually cause the body to create more of that living than it otherwise would have that's a version of possibility that suggests the new discovery i mean you really understand the claim that they're making you say that that is duty to supply well i would suggest that improper it's really not improper to have seen eerie respect it's a shortage theory and so the idea that they had a choice not position your client was in but i think the point is that your client would have with the intentions might have been made a bad judgment that in deciding to void this reduced dosage they actually created a set of problems or perhaps they gun manufacturer obviously you liable for any harm that flows from the difference between thirty percent one hundred percent that's you know because that's part of