Hi,um, This is not correct English composition;  "prohibited in article text, that is, how they were recently used here"
When you use id est or "That is" in that context you are expounding upon and explaining the original sentence, e.g., prohibited in article text, that is", you can't use it. You used an example, thus e.g. or the English equivalent "for example", or the more simplistic, "like", ''prohibited in article text, like, how they were recently used here.
As far as this:WP:ACCESS#Users_with_limited_CSS.2FJavaScript_support, 
"However', consideration for users without CSS or JavaScript should extend mainly to making sure that their reading experience is possible; it is recognised that it will inevitably be inferior".

I may be wrong but your reference to WP:HiddenFunction concerns hiding text not to a collapsible table.
'''As of December 29, 2006, this technique is disabled on this wiki. The class hiddenStructure still exists in the CSS, but now outlines the text in green instead of hiding the text. This is to find any remaining instances of hiddenStructure in templates. Note that this only disables use of the CSS class hiddenStructure. It does not prevent use of similar tags like display: none or visibility: hidden.

The collapsible boxes contain information that serves as an addendum to what is in the article. It adds to the reading experience by making the page neater. The example I used with the "Genes" is a prime example, looking at that abortion is enough to give somebody a headache.

The collapsible boxes I added in the Auschwitz concentration camp and the Mathausen concentration camp articles, among others, makes the pages look neater and more interesting. Nobody has complained about:WP:ACCESS. 

Why do I think It's a shame this article is written like garbage? It occupies the first spot in the search results. People actually do access Wikipedia for medical information.The article is not only poorly written as regards to formatting, syntax, lack of images, etc., it also contains example after useless example of "ADHD is contoversial" nonsense. That does a disservice to people with the disorder. Referencing a 2001 television program about the "ADHD controversy" or including the views of Tom Cruise does nothing except to place doubts, unwarranted ones, in peoples minds.