Errrrmmmm
I haven't made any comments on who I think you are ausdoc, and I don't care who you are.
And I don't know who 004wercras is, and I don't care who s/he is.
You are running a classic 'false dichotomy' interference, ausdoc. We can "debate" the medical issue
or we can research the claimed qualifications and expertise of the people whose opinions have caused the controversy.
In fact, it is perfectly reasonable and appropriate to do
both, because the latter is relevant to the merits of the arguments made during the former. That's why the AAT said this:
“We do not consider this aspect of (the PMO’s) evidence to have been well-supported or well-reasoned and we formed the impression that (it) may well have been influenced by his desire to justify the decision he had made ... We were also troubled by the significant differences between the opinions expressed in the (PMO’s) statement of 8 October 2013 … and his oral evidence.”
Further, and more importantly in the context of this thread and your intervention, there's actually no "debate" going on about the medical issue. The purpose of this thread is to rally support to ensure that scaremongering zealots with other people's money to spend don't prevail over the hard evidence.