Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278 (requiring that a petitioner show “a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury”); see also Pafford v. Health & Human Servs., 451 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2006) (asking, under the first Althen element, “can [the] vaccine(s) at issue cause the type of injury alleged?” (internal quotation omitted)). Even if Dr. Shoenfeld’s testimony satisfied the first prong of Althen, under the very deferential standard of review afforded the decision of the special master, it was not arbitrary and capricious for him to find Dr. Maclaren’s testimony more credible than that of Dr. Shoenfeld, and thereby give substantial weight to Dr. Maelaren’s rejection of a causal link between the MMR vaccine and Petitioner’s Type 1 diabetes. See Lampe, 219 F.3d at 1360 ; see also Crutchfield, 2014 WL 1665227, at *10
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute
B. holding that the united states court of federal claims may not reweigh the factual evidence quoting munn 970 f2d at 871
C. holding that the united states court of federal claims lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort including fraud
D. recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states
E. holding that plaintiffs negligence claims sounded in tort and thus could not be transferred to the united states court of federal claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.