I don’t know if I’d say the article is trying to ‘taint’ it. According to the article, even the nine patients who had their swimming ability affected all “pref

I don’t know if I’d say the article is trying to ‘taint’ it. According to the article, even the nine patients who had their swimming ability affected all “preferred to keep their stimulators on, because they provided so much relief from symptoms”. So it’s definitely an effective intervention in this case, just one with a side effect to watch out for. A side effect which is also unusual enough that it makes for an interesting news story. Edit: I guess you might have gotten that impression from the headline, which is a little clickbaity.