And once again Aimless you miss the forest for the trees. My entire point in bringing in another doctor was to showcase how any doctor can put something down. And the standard of proof on this board seems to be 'a doc said it was necessary.' Frankly based on your own admission more research should be done... meaning it would be foolish to expect tax payers to pay for shit that we don't fully understand. (Note - I still think most of it is still quackery in the first place. It's like expecting the government to pay for homeopathy cures.

And for the record that doc isn't the only one a simple search will find you more such as: http://arpacanada.ca/attachments/art...0re%20c279.pdf

None of that matters however since, again, you state that there are a number of problems with researching the issue. Until it is far more settled I don't think tax payers should pay for it.

I'd also like to see when you would consider the difference between a 'want' and a 'need' and how medical experts would be able to tell the difference with someone who has every incentive to say whatever it takes to get a free ride.