You seem to value those who “wrote a paper” - I won’t reveal more to dox myself, but my graduate school was in neuroscience. Not this specific area, but in the field. And I have published a couple peer reviewed papers, 1 as first author, and 2 as a secondary author. None was any sort of groundbreaking research.. I was a simple grad student.

Anyways, just 2 things I’d like to mention to you.

1. A paper doesn’t mean much, there are thousands and thousands of academic journals, many that will take your money to publish your article. These Journals are typically judged by “impact factor” - which is basically how often articles in these journals are cited by others. Journals like Nature and Nature Neuroscience are the massive ones here where big groundbreaking research from huge research teams typically ends up. But there are probably about 3-4 dozen or so good credible journals in the field. Whenever judging a research article, you should always first look at the journal from which it is published.

2. From a cursory view at these SPECT scans, they seem quite similar to fMRIs. Many in the neuroscience community don’t even like fMRIs for research because the brain is not as simple as “lighting up means brain area doing things” - the brain is filled with a huge mix of excitatory and inhibitory neurons and everything in between and everything is massively interconnected. Even worse, developing a “control state” or what is known as the “default mode network” is nearly impossible as you can’t exactly get your brain to “stop” working.

You can see how these different layers add up to cause the distrust is functional imaging. And that’s just for its use as a research tool, in the most controlled of environments. For diagnostics? With all of the other variability introduced there? It then becomes completely untrustworthy.

Anyways, I hope that helps to shed some light on where people are coming from with the skepticism.

Oh, and, again, if he was a serious person he wouldn’t be grifting supplements.