you're out of the mine is not applicable to the situation because there was additional evidence that was presented in this case that was not present in beaumont specifically there was an article filed by respondent which indicate at the i'm not sure that answers judge larry question are you saying that that they can cross the blood brain barrier even with an abnormal she reviewed it i mean she did say having considered the record as a whole and in its entirety did she not except that she did say that your honor however this is undisputed evidence from both parties studies that were discussed at hearing and the humans the animal studies that the special master found that the animal studies did not actually show what you claim they did based on expert testimony and the animal studies indicate that indicated a normal brain is necessary for the cytokines act and in the manner in which it is expected to act so in a child with the sack it won't respond normally and that is the crux of the entire trip over its model is that these children have an intrinsic defect which will not allow them to arouse when they're placed under and extrinsic stress and of course it only occurs during  nobody agreed with no other physician had indicated that i'm thinking about the history of the tabling through his which in circumstances where it is easy difficult to tie scientifically the in the volume of literature regarding sudden infant deaths that ties vaccination with said and comparing this off the table case to an art table case is with respect  highest in the two to four month period and that is the exact period when they are receiving and since are receiving their two months and their performance vaccines that despite all those studies there is no correlation no injuries which in fact they have in the past and they taken them away as well counsel what is your what is your response to the friend on the other side who says that this case is different from both men because there is stem based on statistical information and there wasn't any direct information in the case for a fact finder to make that finding that that play a role in supporting dr miller's self described theory here so you're correct that both minds didn't directly address this but they did that the as one of the panel noted the researchers were measuring sounded kind and peripheral blood money nucular cells after stimulation with vaccine components as well as reducing the risk of that and they called it a healthy vaccine effect however later in time cleaner another author article that was discussed that pages thirty eight and thirty nine  decision re now re analyze the venom and data and while they found that there was no association between vaccination and said that they disagreed with causation are you saying that that rule doesn't really apply where there has been so much study of a particular condition like says i know i guess  damaging the arousal mechanism of an infant with a defective five h t system and evaluating that theory the special master's observation that increased cytokine levels in that this theory fails because it cannot work as articulated and it wasn't consistent it is not consistent with what is now about cytokine expression i mean even with respect to the