means is that the child suffered the condition that was postulated as a possible lasting cause in the medical theory presented step one step one is a medical theory that causally connects the vaccine to the injury step two is the case the cystic facts fit the medical theory presented in case one and step three is that the time frame is proximate or medically appropriate in my prima fascia case the government and the special master of knowledge satisfied one and three the question is did i satisfy too in the original decision in hammond the special master i believe strongly suggested  caused racial stillness he would have a rule for me because the pattern described in stone described in my face and also me regarding simon provided and he uses the word or the discussion abo circumstantial evidence of causation so your question about whether you do need something that could indicate or proof of really quite frankly is of not exactly the right words because men who get around the no brain injury if there's if there would have been this harm caused by the vaccine that would have been evident somewhere wouldn't it in the movie that was she had another are evidence somewhere in her physiology wouldn't there have been some indication in her brain wouldn't they have been able to detect that there had been an alteration caused by the vaccine which they could not they could find  course that she had a genetic mutation which caused the condition but they couldn't find anything in her brain well the fact the matter is that you don't usually only last now we're talking about facts even if that's the logical sequence which followed your theory but then they looked at the facts and there was no brain injury to sustain it but in fact there was a genetic mutation in every cell of her body which produce an important question itself is not always an adequate alter cars in the context of the testimony presented in racial ham unserious or the special master f the question then in the context of a legal standard for causation in that context that what we know happened the vaccine did cause unrelated to vaccines and ministrations he didn't say that that's what he said he said the back seeing caused he was asked a specific question initial seizure which was and this is important when the initial so some of the s m d on racial hamet and well the milieu stone were perfectly healthy they look fine they develop they had a seizure a long siege a seizure that everyone conceded can damage the brain and from that moment on they had a severe seizure  sorder as i mean i know you cannot distinguish the beginning from the illness well that's really the question that we're struggling with in both of these cases can you or can you i mean i suppose i know this isn't the facts of years of these cases of it but let's just to think this through suppose that what had happened to this new child in this case is that there had been a vaccination and a very mild very an observable seizure condition nonetheless and the evidence from the respondents expert credited by the special masters and then that that seizure which just read entirely separate did not trigger did not accelerate and not have any effect on the ultimate development of her seizure condition you wouldn't suggest would do that first understand that's your position with respect to the special masters findings and so forth but first in order for me to understand the baseline for which we're working here i would like you to answer my hypothetical because even though i completely understand that's counterfactual in this case accelerating trickery or any other effect on the development of the condition when you say well nonetheless it's part of the overall condition would you say it has to have some effect what would your position be under th case and that is that we spent a lot in and this is one of those situations where evidence was submitted about the question of whether there was a whether you should consider this the seizures that the special master chose not to consider that it moves forward in time the onset of s m e i order events and and it's apparent to at least some aspergers that the data in there at least raises the question of it makes things worse the equivocal question in this case was did it make a difference and that was never answered it answers the question of whether it made a difference and it should have be impact the child's condition and in fact when dr king's morning was asked about that same issue he admitted that it triggered doesn't have to have a further impact and he could not in fact point to anything in the record the factual record shows that this and dr raymond demonstrated to as a sequence of about six different factors that this was in fact the cause of her condition the evidence shows that children with s n e i eighty to ninety percent of them have a genetic opinion to describe circumstances which suggest causation however that is not their burden their burden is to show a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the back scene was the reason for the injury titian's argument here is akin to the argument they made in overly where they argue for more relaxed standards of cause a sion argument they only had to show that the condition was likely caused by the vaccine but this court has said mere proof a possibility is not sufficient that's not the statutory standard would exhibit seizure disorder if there was an absence of the mutation in the normal population so that supported that doesn't mean that every case every child will that would be a scientific certainty and we don't have that information but more likely than not a person with this new tasting was going to have a family i just to be clear and we've been over this with each of the lawyers but the clear if there were any sect of the initial the effect of accelerating onset not severity of the condition the condition is exactly the same as it would have been but the onset occurred earlier that might otherwise with that be the i think you just said something like more often than not that the condition develops in people that have the mutation which suggests to me at least that in some instances it doesn't unless you mean anyone would this be patient would never have s n e i would always have a semiotics the medical evidence doesn't show that there is someone with this mutation who's living normally with us so in general no one living normally wasn't there is no evidence of that not in the medical issue that was provided in this case if there is there wasn't a case i would see that would have been something that issues were presented to support for their argument that the vaccine altered the child's course but there was no evidence of that in this case and what is known right now to medical science is that if you have this mutation you're going to have seizures to some point whether it's triggered by a vaccine are you suggesting is there for her to come up with some evidence to show that the vaccine had a relation to the condition your honor if they're arguing that the vaccine caused the condition then they want to put forth whatever evidence that suggests that there is a cause between the two and in this case the evidence that they're relying on doesn't show that the evidence in this case that the specialist accepted doesn't show that there was a relationship between the vaccine and this the best out of those four out is  articles which committed on that point that's the best because it addresses a broad spectrum of s c n one a gene mutations what they found was that ten percent of the have the mutation yes now this gets a little bit complex only in the sense that at this hearing in this manner the respondents expert did not make this is on the question of of no known relation that is the language from the statute there is no real interpretation of available from your case law i believe that is probably broader they're not known