ozarkcanoer wrote:It is a good, balanced article. Of course the neurologists are cautious. They are right about continued research. But patients who are activists have been the torchbearers. We haven't been cautious... rather we have been bold.
Now they are cautions, but when everything was first presented in the 80's they just ignored the investigation. I wouldn't call that to be cautious, but to be irresponsible instead.
In the 80's most of them didn't even bothered to critizise the theory. No trial ever appeared to confirm or discard the hypothesis. Probably the difference now is only internet and the patient-activists.