I don't think you get my point at all. I am just saying that an outdated theory does not allow you to say that a treatment is rubbish. To my opinion that is foolish. To find 2 researches on PEDRO which are obvious below parr does not even make the point (it does just tell us that research is needed which is upto scratch!).
Furthermore to assume that the way research is done at the moment is the state of art is pure arrogance and does not allow us to reflect and to improve.
As Esterderu points out patient involvement was greater in the PNF group, which will effect the emotional state of mind e.g increase amount of endorfines which will effect the aptients well being and thus promote recovery e.g. effect on the cerebellum.
Scornful of scientific science? No just sceptic which is actualy a scientific way of outlook.
Until several years ago it was assumed recovery after a stroke was lets say 90% first 3 months after a stroke. We know now that actually nerve cells can recover, can be renewed (we still have no clue how I suppose) but unfortunately our healthcare and thus our science is still in the middle age thinking we put an effort in 1st 3 months. So actually the research might outdated...I suppose