Well I sure don't understand why this is being suggested NOW. Of all times. I know I've been a few steps behind on following what is going on with Alan, but this one makes no sense to me. I mean, the doctors have already decided that he has an autoimmune or vasculitic neuropathy or they wouldn't be doing IVIG. So I don't see how a sural nerve biopsy (and that's what's generally meant by nerve biopsy) would change his treatment.

When the surgeon says he's "helped" 70 of 100 patients he's biopsied, that, too, makes no sense to me. Is he saying that 70 of them had positive findings and 30 had negative findings? And he counts the 70 as being helped and the 30 as not being helped?

I don't know hwat he means. Does he mean that 70% were positive? And that he helped make the diagnosis by doing the biopsy? Because Alan is already being treated as if there is enough evidence for diagnosis. And for the surgeon to claim there were no untoward side effects in any begs belief. Too many people have lasting pain afterwards. It's painful, and the deficit it leaves is often permanent.

I'd stick with what his primary neuropathy doc suggests and ignore the others. Let them go through the primary, not directly to Alan.