With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". testimony, see Fair, 885 F.2d at 605 (<HOLDING>); and Dr. Nelson acted as an advocate for

A: holding that treating physicians testimony was properly discounted when it was inconsistent with physicians own treatment reports and the record as a whole and appeared to be based on patients subjective complaints
B: holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance
C: holding that an alj is entitled to make a credibility determination regarding the claimants subjective complaints after specifically addressing these complaints and reviewing the medical evidence in the record
D: holding that a doctors reliance on properly discounted subjective complaints is a specific legitimate reason
D.