table claim didn't rely on the pre that scene portion of the analysis but only on the post vaccine portion and said that that q a i does apply vaccine injury table structure of the table makes statute three hundred and eighty eight dash fourteen subsection a this is that him you're reading from the statute there i think you are from both the statute and the regulation an injury table condition yes but you have to have st have had the vaccine injury table complication in order to have a significant innervation of it right how can you sorry there's a question yes there was a special master was a special measures supposed to have a look back to the condition of the child before receiving the vaccine and then looking at the condition of the child after that they received the be the expected outcome of the pretties the same condition can be the source of the feds for the secretary of health and human services if the secretary that if i understand it right one of your arguments is that these special masters act findings across the board were erroneous in part because they were pervaded by this view that somehow you had to disprove that the mutation is why she is the way she is today it's almost like he didn't sort of look right before the vaccine and right after and say what's going on he's looking at how she is today and saying well the evidence of record shows it's possible someone for this to end up as bad as she is therefore you haven't met your burden of proving significant aggravation and that seems to me to possibly be an error of law that pervades x i i degrees because he's putting the burden on you to if she'd establishes causation if she needs her burden and the burden flips to the government to disprove causations your kind of hinge and footnote forty seven where he says oh yeah and even eth the government that this alternative version of theirs is that government's evidence in determining whether the petitioner has made a prime official case and an off the table thing and that is what the special master did here he he acknowledged that the petitioner provided some evidence to support their claim that master did and that's not what we are we're arguing i think that the petitioner's experts in this case are allied primarily on the location of the mutation on the gene for this is primarily from their geneticist soccer balls who argued that exceptions exact role so if there's a bell curve there's no doubt that l is among the worst impacted in terms of her cognitive disability and her gross motor skill disability based on did in the motor portion of the gene it's much more likely to cause a severe at impact in the expression of the protein and the impact on cognitive and am i saying this all right yes this is according to doctors this cart in the medical literature that depends on whose birth is right if it's there to prove that it couldn't have been the gene that caused it then her testimony might be enough well it's normally not the case that somebody with  location she has it is this of the year but it does it in an exceptional case happen but if it's your burden to have to establish that this was more likely the cause then the vaccine and i'm not sure her testimony that in an exceptional case somebody with it at this location could be this bad could ever satisfy your burden and or stand i do brother but she had the added evidence of an individual with the exact same position  with didn't know the expressions of this mutation are more likely at the severe and of the disabilities chain so isn't that a real problem your expert relied on a fact that she understood to be true  that's not actually true proven in this case the st of all i'm not sure that that finally has been challenged on appeal but nd of all that was not the only piece of information that the expert relied on she lied on the fact that there is an exact person  so we don't know whether ellen's expression was to know though that the special master treated it as though it was in their expert did as well and that was part of what she wrapped into her for her conclusion and his  being so i don't know what to do with that so all i can tell you your honor is that it's not the sole piece of information that was relied upon there was also that testimony of our pediatric neurologist who testified theater which is the result of the vaccine could have caused the seizure she says as it was possible and then she also testified that once you have seizures you're more prone to having more seizures i don't recall that being her testimony i believe that was the seizures sort of each new seizure causes an increase in damage and therefore makes you more susceptible to more seizures how do we i mean i guess i'm i'm really struggling with the act then let's move away from its the problem three and talk about the other problems of often because the other issue with petitioners often will case is the special master correctly parent that they did not offer a medical theory explaining how vaccines actually special master exam and all of their evidence dr bolter geneticist said he had no idea which vaccine even was the cause of the back scene but he wasn't really focusing on that he was more focused on the t read the m r i is did not even identify and he was trying to somehow bring the m r i abnormalities she knew interacting with x and but he never really explained the theory either so setting aside whether the vaccine caused the initial seizure and that somehow not offered a theory to explain how that happens which is part of their burden so i guess i get it i don't i'm confused because part of what's bothering me about this are after she has what is a full blown undoubtably describe seizure and she proceeds in the hospital have a bunch more seizures while she's in the hospital it's hard for me to imagine a circumstance  and she has never returned by the way to the child that she was before the vaccination so it's hard for me to imagine how we wouldn't say there's a proven aggravation that's why i'm struggling well because  holdings say that in determining whether there is a significant aggravation a significant change for the worse you look at what the known natural course of the disease is and as doctors  spasms common that they are they arise between six and twelve months of age which is age of which children are receiving vaccines on almost a monthly basis and so the just by chance alone that this is going to  but the medical records vaccination include report from the parents saying oh we're now looking that we noticed that there were these times when she was space out and this stuff last year found it on the example system only that that those very cases well i couldn't was a table case and i can address the table thing if you like but the there is no evidence in this case that would support that l m suffered seizures induced neural implementation which in turn fosters further seizures do you see that to be the government's expert's opinion again your i see that her stating that in a general sense i do not see her stating that that is actually what happened in this case i mean st her exact opinion was that the vaccines did not alter her outcome so i kind of hearts to see how her making i think i also found it hard to see how she got conclusion he was relying on them in his assessment and i thought that it seems wrong for him to rely on cases involving an entirely different genetic mutation and as part of his analysis of concluding whether she  timing of the change for the worse was consistent with the gene mutation causing the problem and the awful showed a laboratory animals there was a shift from the  special minister after discussing the material focused on the genetic mutation and where on this very large molecule this one occurred did not persuasively explain how the vaccines interacted with the mutation to worsen he anticipated phenotype or even how they could do so what is seeming to recognize that the fevers cause seizures and once once you have seizures it causes lingering effects on the brain that could cause more what is