You will be waiting a long time then. Also you are weighing towards what sounds like the concept of "evidence based" versus "clinical experience "which was one of the thing that NICE began to acknowledge was missing in their deliberations. If you consider your alternatives in a purely rational way (i.e. without giving extra weight to scientific evidence) then you'll see that an a patient with a disease that doesn't come with an easy textbook explaining the reasons for your symptoms and how to treat them, your choices are stark. When you say that you are "skeptical" about Dr KDM I am wondering if you really mean that you don't know the sound scientific basis for his treatment of patients and even if there is any? I am also hearing that you disregard his clinical expertise in treating patients because he hasn't been able to fund studies as he would wish. It's a chicken and egg situation, what comes first the "sound scientific evidence" or the "clincial treating experience" and in the absence of one (caused by the lack of funding into the disease and not that the scientific evidence couldn't exist) which do you chose?