and whether the allegations are sufficient support that what i don't understand is the to have been to a b and to the district court analysis on this representation supreme court has identified what allow the period to be actually population ran to several trials they determined at the trials fail they determined that the drug did not show a biological effect and part of the reason for that was because there was a  money for those trials discuss the trials that will run by the other companies where instead of acknowledging what the other company to whom which we think you're wired to do under the example given by the supreme court on the c certain activities that part of that is a part of the company that one would normally expect to be able to generate opinion of that sort and yet those activities are not accurately are not you know are is to understand that fundamental difference i would ask the court please turn to jane a fifty three and fifty four and you know i'd like to discuss because that is the heart of their t the prior studies are all over the map the control arm in our tests ranges from four point one letter improvement to around five three letter and now the do and they said well we need to compare this unscientific back of the envelope average of these can pick seventeen studies to the placebo arm of the actual trials that were run i think if you were on or  placebo arm and some of them are significantly better now to lead back to ignorance and the statement there was all many of your studies and i think what the court was concerned about was that that just wasn't true here you have studies that are all over the map it would be as if the company in abramson had said that it's consistent with some major studies but not others and then there was a range of results but in any event even if your honor is concerned fact they had access to all the prior slaloming studying which one would expect because for two hundred thousand dollars they got everything from from from today or if they had all that all that information m was consistent with the broad range of those things and we are here on a motion to dismiss and your honor to look at the broader range of those studies that they themselves selected on j a fifty three dollars fifty four cents and i would urge your honour's to take a look at that because you will see there that that statement is incredibly accurate and not even clause would be misleading because the higher studies all over the map some of them are significantly better than the placebo arm some of them are s you need more than four letter agreement to be clinically meaningful the only support they have there is a statement by a single doctor you don't have any f d a source or any other source that says that  the ranges all over the map that's all great they went out and said that their number was consistent with the number is something smaller thirty one was consistent with that when they just admitted that it was the number who were all over the map in the are many factors that go into this but under the conscious this behavior recklessness prong that was set forth in no better case we cite the admission by the parties that they had access to this information and knew about it the site the fact that they were talking about this very to them as well so they can now to not only what they had access to this information which we cl