Sir: My meager edits were factual, direct authors' quotes and in context. Doc's edits were and remain out of context and reflect that he never read the articles he is mentioning, which puts the procedure in a negative light. I am sorry to ask but have you read the information to see the actual facts? Vandalism by the Wiki definition speaks to the repetitive introduction of inaccurate information for no constructive purpose. Please review my posts and show me what was inaccurate or out of context. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. I have had a number of physicians and lay people review the history and they were also amazed and dismayed, as I was. You need to stop making this personal and focus on the published facts, otherwise Wiki as a resource is doomed.   Finally, I am the just the last in a long line of contributors, both individuals and corporations, that have questioned his motives and accuracy. Questions make many feel uncomfortable. I have also privately shared my exact written comments to Doc with some colleagues both in the US, the EU and Canada, and I was told by everyone that I was spot on.  Sorry again for all the trouble.