Ausdoc, you are applying absolutely fallacious logic, as is CASA.
You are attempting to shift the burden of proof here with your "nobody really knows" bull****.
The facts of the matter are that CVD pilots have been flying legally for Forty years.
It is therefore up to you to prove the hypothesis: "CVD pilots are at a statistically significant greater risk of causing an incident or accident as a direct result of their CVD condition".
You do NOT get to take away licences without rigorous statistical data analysis to prove that the above hypothesis is correct, and judging from the comments expressed here there is no industry experience of events or accidents to date that would even remotely support your theory.
To put that another way, you and your pals are attempting to advance a negative hypothesis for which there is only negative evidence : "It cannot be proved that CVD pilots are NOT at greater risk of causing an incident or accident" and then glibly saying that the lack of statistically significant data proves your hypothesis.
This is not logic and you would be howled out of any University experimental design class for suggesting it.
Why the hell is CASA tilting at windmills all the time????????????????