This has a lot of good information and I can't say that I see any fault in what the doctor is saying (though admittedly some of the more technical aspects are over my head). However, I do get what some are saying about how it is presented. It positions itself as if it is under oath. I could be wrong but I think that without a court proceeding or some other government authority conducting it, it really isn't under oath in the legal sense. It is really more of just an interview (with lots of cuts for some reason) and trying to oversell that will turn off a lot of people to otherwise good information. Also whoever edited the video file had 15 mins of nothing at the end until a shot of another interview. Still glad you posted it though.