With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2011 WL 4537877, at *12. In other words, only certain portions of the influenza virus generated a cross-reactive immune response. Petitioner provided no evidence that the portions of the influenza virus shown by Wucherpfennig to mimic myelin basic protein were present in the influenza vaccine Petitioner received. Special Masters Decision, 2011 WL 4537877, at *12. Petitioner also did not provide evidence that any peptide from the influenza vaccine he received was cross-reactive with myelin basic protein-specific T-cells. Id. The special master reasonably considered the lack of evidence connecting the cross-reactivity observed by Wucherpfennig to the facts of Petitioner’s case to weigh “against finding that Dr. Tornatore’s opinion is persuasive.” Id.; see Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1824 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the special master credited several

A: holding district court did not err in admitting reports that were merely cumulative of evidence already in the record
B: holding special master did not err in rejecting a theory of causation where there was no evidence in the record suggesting that the proposed mechanism was at work in the petitioners case
C: holding that defense of fraud was waived where no special issue was submitted and there was disputed evidence
D: holding that trial court did not err
B.