With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". master’s overall holding that the petitioner’s evidence had not met the preponderance of the evidence standard for Althen prong three); Hodges v. Sec’y of Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 962 & n. 4 (Fed.Cir.1993) (noting the special master’s consideration of all of the petitioner's evidence, and affirming his finding that the evidence fell short of meeting the preponderance of the evidence burden for the petitioner to establish causation). 39 . The court notes, however, that a balance must be struck between the Daubert analysis, as it used in Vaccine Act cases, and the guiding principle that petitioners' “experts’ ultimate conclusions [are not required to] be generally accepted in the scientific community.” Cedillo, 617 F.3d at 1339; see also Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1325 (<HOLDING>). 40 . The special master's finding was "most

A: holding that the defendant must provide facts to establish what the conflict was
B: holding that the fda did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in refusing to require that a requested warning be placed on a drug label because the fdas determination of what labeling best reflects current scientific information regarding the risks and benefits of the drug involves a high degree of expert scientific analysis
C: holding that the frye test of general acceptance in the scientific community was superceded by the federal rules
D: holding that requiring  general acceptance in the scientific or medical communities to establish a logical sequence of cause and effect is contrary to what we said in althen
D.