What I don't get is that in the medical specialist's report it is stated that 'the consensus was that the patterns of injuries that had so far been noted (referring to 'similar to what might be seen in patients following mild traumatic brain injury or concussion') were most likely related to trauma from a non-natural source.', and yet Petrie, not having examined the patients somehow is convinced its all due to mass hysteria and nocebo effects, his domain of academic interest?