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