Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of widely recognized authorities on endocarditis, but rather as a reluctance to accept as authoritative the materials in their entirety and to accept one particular source as the exclusive authority on endocarditis. A trial judge’s decision to admit expert testimony will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. E.g., Shipp v. General Motors Corp., 750 F.2d 418 (5th Cir.1985). In this case, the trial judge did not abuse his wide discretion in allowing Dr. Bennett to testify as an expert in the field of cardiology. Moreover, the plaintiff does not allege that Dr. Bennett relied on a particularly objectionable or unconventional scientific theory or methodology. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2796-97, 126 L.Ed.2d 469, 485 (1993). . Because the district court did not abuse its
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that causation cannot be proved based on speculation
B. holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge
C. holding that recusal is not required on the basis of unsupported irrational or highly tenuous speculation
D. holding expert testimony remedies speculation by the court
E. holding that expert scientific testimony must be grounded in the methods and procedures of science and based on more than a subjective belief or unsupported speculation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.