The article features opinions from various readers concerning the promotion of a medication purported to aid patients with spinal cord injuries. Joel Pinheiro da Fonseca expresses skepticism about the absence of established scientific research over the past 20 years, indicating that if the medication were genuinely effective, there would be more substantial studies published. He highlights a trend of excitement and self-promotion surrounding the drug, which he believes lacks rigorous scientific methodology.

Roberto Silva counters a comparison made between this medication and fosfoetanolamina, emphasizing that unlike fosfoetanolamina, the new medication has shown clinical results. He also critiques the comparison to chloroquine during the pandemic, suggesting it serves as a false alternative to proven vaccines. Kaluan Boarini Bernardo supports the skepticism, suggesting that claims lacking scientific validation should be taken seriously, as they could contribute to dangerous misconceptions.

Seueli Correa comments on the quality of the arguments presented, remarking that the column's author and several other commenters are not scientifically trained, resulting in opinions based solely on personal beliefs rather than factual evidence. This discussion raises important ethical questions about the promotion of medical treatments and the need for rigorous scientific evaluation before widespread acceptance and marketing of new therapies.