Right, his presentation is morally bankrupt, the "treatments" nothing revolutionary.. I always understood that the whole basis (weak) that he clung to was the "index" or "profile" from the algorithm(s) run on panel results, and creating cocktails that (according to him) would address those..

and as weak and flimsy as that is, without any real look at what's being accomplished clinically, it just occurred to me that there could be some who think he's some kind of wunderkind that developed an actual, novel diagnostic.. somewhat disturbing.