That is a bit much to tackle all at once, so I'll start with the basics. Your edits removed a reliable source dealing directly with the topic (namely, the article from the St. Petersburg Times). Your edit also added material from a source which I believe is unencyclopedic and fails this site's sourcing policies. Both aspects make the article poorer. I will go into more detail once I have time to fully digest your argument, but for now, the Times article is entitled "Doctor's syndrome a sham, board says". Our article reflects the content of that reliable source. I don't see any similarly reliable independent, fact-checked, third-party sources that have appeared in the intervening years to contradict that assessment - certainly the Board left the door open for medical science to corroborate Wilson's claims, but I see no reliably sourced evidence that such corroboration has occurred. Let's start with the best available sources on the topic, and follow where they lead - that's the gist of this site's policies and expectations. '''''' Talk