Well, holy heck, there's a lot of information there.
I find this particularly chilling: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/LORD.KENNEDY050812.pdf
"Confusion may occur where, as here, the Secretary’s main response to a petitioner’s case is to suggest an unrelated causative factor. As discussed below in regard to Doe 11, proving alternative causation is only one of the ways the Secretary can defeat a vaccine injury claim. Another way is to challenge the validity of the evidence presented in the petitioner’s case-in-chief. The Secretary hardly undertook the effort of challenging Petitioner’s factual presentation here. The evidence she did present, including evidence of possible alternative causation, was not sufficient to persuade me that viral causation was more likely than vaccine causation.
If the Secretary had identified a specific virus that she alleged caused Petitioner’s ADEM, it might have increased the weight of the evidence in rebuttal of Petitioner’s showing. That would have been a different case. But it was not necessary for the Secretary to present evidence of a specific infectious agent in order to rebut Petitioner’s case. If Petitioner had presented weaker evidence of vaccine causation, or the Secretary had presented stronger evidence of non-vaccine causation, the Secretarymight well have prevailed without identifying any alternative causative factor, and certainly without needing to specify the suspected viral agent."
Well, THAT certainly proves previous claims by the pro-vaxxers that you only need to prove that it was POSSIBLE for vaccines to cause your injury to win your case. In fact, here the Special Master is giving the Secretary instructions on how they could have avoided losing this cases, and saying all she needed to do was to identify a specific virus that MIGHT have caused the petitioner's ADEM in order to throw the case out. No need to present evidence that he actually had it, just identify one!
The Special Master clearly believes that the Secretary's job here is to challenge the Petitioner's factual presentation, and to "prevail." His words.
Yes, "Vaccine Court" is an extremely adversarial process. And this has been stated time after time after time by petitioners who actually WON their cases. And here, we can see why.