What i'm sharing is from a local doctor. I happened to get my hands on this newsletter because my Pastor and his Wife are both on a HCG diet apparently under this doctor's supervision (with amazing results if I might add!) and my husband noticed how much weight they'd lost and wanted to know more. Pastor's wife gave it to me so that I could find out more information on this diet, but there was more that I found interesting that was shared and I wanted to pass on. Feel free to copy and paste this post if you'd like. It reads as follows:
My patients often ask me why other medical doctors and the public media never discuss the same advances in medicine that I talk about. Here are some examples of their questions: "I feel so much better treating my PMS with bioidentical progesterone cream. Why don't other doctors prescribe it?"
"Why don't we hear about the increased risks of developing breast cancer or infertility from synthetic hormones and birth control pills?"
"The HCG diet you recommended was terrific in helping me to lose weight quickly and easily. Why don't we hear about this program in the media?"
"If fish oil is so great, why doesn't my psychiatrist or my husband's cardiologist recommend it to us?"
"Why doesn't my OB doctor ask me about my prenatal nutrition?"
"If your cesarean section rate was only 6%, why is the national rate over 30%?"
The answers to these questions are based on economics. Many of the treatments that I recommend are based upon substances that occur in nature such as progesterone, HCG, or fish oil. A substance that occurs in nature cannot be patented. In order to receive a patent, pharmaceutical company chemists must make some change to the chemical structure. The new substance, then protected by a patent, can be manufactured and sold at a higher price.
A simple example is progesterone. Progesterone not only relieves PMS symptoms in premenopausal women, it also improves bone strength, protects against breast cancer, and is essential for supporting the normal development of a pregnancy. A synthetic equivalent, Provera, has two minor additional chemical groups tacked on to the progesterone molecule. It is promoted as a synthetic progestin with some similar effects to progesterone, but unfortunately it also has many adverse effects. The synthetic version has the following adverse effects: instead of protecting an embryo, it will kill an embryo; instead of protecting against breast caner it will cause breast cancer; instead of protecting against heart disease, it can cause abnormal blood clots. Thus, even a minor change in chemical structure of a human hormone can result in significant changes in its physiological effects.
Drug companies are not economically motivated to promote natural remedies that do not generate significant profits. Also doctors become entrenched in recommending treatments that they have used for many years. As a physician it is difficult to change what you have been recommending, or what you were taught in the past. Changes in a doctor's practice may be perceived as an admission that previously he has not done the best for his patients. For example, breast thermography is a promising technology that detects heat differentials in the breast without exposing the patient to any harmful radiation. Breast cancers stimulate new blood vessel growth, which results in greater warmth in the surrounding tissue. If thermography were to be found superior to mammography for detecting breast cancer, it would be difficult to change the habits of primary care physicians, gynecologists, radiologists and oncologists who all have been avidly promoting mammograms for many years. Furthermore the hospitals that have made significant investments in mammography technology would be hesitant to spend additional money to replace their existing units with thermography machines.
Economic entrenchment in the enormous inert structure of the medical care system makes it difficult to change the status quo. Positive changes need to emerge from the patients who have experienced success with alternative treatments and who have spread the word directly to their friends and relatives and to a wider audience through online social networking.
During my lifetime, La Leche League instituted the greatest revolution in medicine that I have ever seen. In 1958, a group of seven mothers in Franklin Park, Illinois, got together in their homes to educate themselves about breast-feeding. issues, because their doctors knew painfully little about the subject. Doctors at that time were extolling the virtues of feeding infants formula. This mother-based network eventually spread nationally, and then internationally. A modest grassroots movement expanded and forced the pediatricians and infant formula manufacturers worldwide to change their advice and outdated positions about feeding babies. This example shows how powerful your voice can be. I encourage you to speak up about your positive results with alternative medical treatments. By spreading the word, you can stand up against the medical and pharmaceutical industries that make billions of dollars promoting their own interests, whether or not they are in the best interest of the consumers.