there was an actual dispute as to which injury afflicted the petitioner. See also Hibbard, 698 F.3d at 1370-71 (O’Malley, J., dissenting) (criticizing the majority for extending Broekelschen “well beyond its facts”). This approach also differs markedly from the “general rule” that a special master should avoid selecting among differential diagnoses — the court held that “even assuming the medical plausibility of [petitioner’s] theory of causation — that the vaccine triggered an immune response that damaged her autonomic nerves — her failure to show that she had autonomic neuropathy would be fatal to her case” because “whether [petitioner] suffers from autonomic neuropathy ... was a necessary component to her theory of vaccine-induced injury.” Id. at 1365. C.f Andreu, 569 F.3d at 1378 (<HOLDING>); Kelley, 68 Fed.Cl. at 100-01 (2005) (holding
holding officer had probable cause after detecting an odor associated with cocaine because of officers experience from prior cocaine seizures holding that petitioner was not required to prove whether petitioner had suffered a febrile or afebrile seizure because the parties agreed that toxins in the tbt vaccine can cause seizures even if there was disagreement in the scientific literature as to whether the vaccine could cause afebrile seizures recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest holding that claims against vaccine manufacturers were subject to the vaccine act but claims against thimerosal manufacturers were not therefore the cause was properly removed based on a fraudulent joinder theory holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it