Questionable revert 

I have to question a recent revert here: [] for the reason "rv, does not appear to be a medical association". Previously, the following statement was made: "Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should only include statements that have been endorsed by medical associations? Don't you think that would make it a little difficult to express the full range of viewpoints?". This is clearly inconsistent. On one hand, we are clearly stating that we can't express a full range of viewpoints if we limit ourselves to sourced material by medical associations, but on the other hand, we are doing reverts on properly-cited material that is the conclusion of a sovereign government.