I think there are relatively few neurologists who trust their clinical skills enough to manage a patient's illness without " objective" evidence.

Those neurologists are "scattered" in various places. Many of them are not in power positions and just quietly do their work.

But, as Annie says the " state of the art" is that you need " objective" evidence. This is based on the fact that those objective tests are seen as the gold standard and much more sensitive than they truly are.

I use the term " objective" because I can't understand why using your eyes and looking at a droopy eyelid is less objective, than using your eyes and looking at some graph showing the electrical activity of a muscle.

In fact, I trust what I see in front of my eyes more than "objective" tests.
If I have a lab result showing a Hgb of 8.0, but the patient looks pink and rosy, I don't give her a blood transfusion, but repeat the blood test.

Many people confuse "objective" with measurable. But, as Einstein said not everything can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts.

I am emotionally gradually putting behind the bad (and at times horrible) experiences I had, But not intellectually/academically.
I am no longer angry or overwhelmed by them. I now look at them in the eyes of a physician trying to understand the reason for those mistakes and more importantly (hopefully) finding the way to correct them.

I don't think neurologists want to treat their patients badly. I think they are trapped in their misconceptions and in that they are no different from many groups of people. I may be overtly optimistic, but I do believe that if we try to correct this in a positive way, based on facts-which can be objective and subjective, it will eventually change.

We have to find the way to show the true picture, both by meticulously learning the misconceptions in the understanding of the biological process and by improving the understanding of the way those translate into simple everyday activities, social interactions and adaptation.

When I read in 2013 in a peer-reviewed journal, a paper on MG that still talks about seropositive (=AchR positive) and seronegative MG and still bases the diagnosis of seronegative on a diagnostic EMG. Or stratifies the severity of MG according the MGFA scoring system (which has been shown to be very inaccurate for bulbar and respiratory symptoms) I realize that the "state of the art" of MG is at least 10 years behind what it should be.