Few of us here are doctors, and even fewer are board-certified neurologists. For the vast majority of us, we have little choice but to sort among the conflicting testimony of the experts, and determine which ones most closely reflect the current state of knowledge in the field. Not an easy task, I might add, particularly for non-experts - I do not envy the judges in this case.
Does one have to be an art expert to recognize that a Rembrandt landscape which features telephone poles in the background is a fake? Or to know that an art expert who takes five minutes "authenticating" a painting is himself fake?