Sorry – couldn’t resist. Y’know, people in glass houses, etc.

At any rate, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I have a difficult time understanding how you arrived at your conclusion. I’ve written literally thousands of words on this page, and arranged them in generally detailed, well-constructed arguments (considering the time constraints I’m under, this is no mean feat, either). If that doesn’t demonstrate how much I care – then I’m afraid that we’re just going to have to (respectfully) agree to disagree on this point.

Personally, I find poor, unscientific reasoning on the part of professionals far more offensive than the random expletive used to describe it. If you think that I’ve been unkind, I suggest you avoid the various med/research/skeptical blogs over at Scienceblogs.com. The blogosphere is no place for the easily offended, I’m afraid.

I certainly have a large amount of respect for good empirical research, and Elissa makes some great points regarding gold standard studies and what makes “good evidence”, after all. I appreciated the dialogue in general, but wonder did it have to be, particularly on the part of the “consumer advocates”, interspersed throughout with such a tone of sarcasm, lack of good grammer, (however intentional), and downright bad language. It would have read much better had there been a tone of respect throughout, it being a given that you can’t control what gets sent in from those with an ax to grind.

If you’re advocating for the general public,the use of offensive language and grammatically incorrect writing simply doesn’t show that you care as much as you claim you do. That’s my feedback for the day.

“The word of an MD carries a lot of weight with the general public, so the flaws in his argument(s) need to be addressed in more detail than Paul was able to provide in the hCG comment thread.”

And there was plenty to critique. As I explained to Dr. G in the comments, it was nothing personal, nor is it now.

I also made the following point:

“Yes, I’ll be the first to admit, putting together a serious, competitive grant proposal is one hell of a lot of work. It’s work that has to be done by SOMEONE, however, if Dr. Gonzalez is truly committed to establishing hCG therapy as a credible treatment for obesity. And, to be honest, it’s probably a better use of his time than duking it out with consumer advocates in the comments sections of public supplement review sites.”

I made a very similar point to you, in our previous exchange.

So it’s good to see you’re striking a more reasonable tone – and I’m happy to respond in kind – but it’s apparent that you still don’t “get” above point… which is about the need for professional credibility and respect. Your response is riddled with yet more unsourced claims (i.e., speculation about RFO mortality rates; how hCG hastens the onset of ketosis; the results of a “handful” of body comp scans). This is the heart of the problem: there is no good science on display here. Yet THAT is what it will take to convince me.

Despite what you (or Dr. Gonzalez) may believe, neither Paul nor I are dogmatically opposed to hCG as a therapy for weight loss – in principle. All we are asking for is some decent, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Needless to state, this is not synonymous with, “cobble some circumstantial evidence, speculation and anecdotes together.” To repeat: when it comes to science, there is a process involved. The people you need to convince are your PEERS.

You want my respect and a “worth a try” recommendation for hCG from this site? Then you – and your other accredited colleagues – need to a) collect your data in a systematic, organized fashion; and b) submit your findings as case reports to peer-reviewed journals (as well as make use of other professional channels of communication, such as conference presentations). You can “let me know” of your results ad infinitum if you like, but until those results are VALIDATED via the approval of at least a significant minority of your non-hCG-believing peers, it’s basically hot air. When they concede perhaps there’s something to it, I’ll be delighted to concede with them… but not before. “Playing to the gallery” is futile: your job is to convince a jury.

To put it another way, these guys: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/04/is_injecting_yourself_with_a_h.php are representative of the folks you need to make a rational, methodical effort to convince… your fellow M.D.s. This isn’t the place for it.

I hate to repeat myself ad nauseam, but I guess that’s what it takes: if you wish to have hCG/the hCG protocol viewed as a legitimate therapeutic and – above all, scientific – option for weight loss, then you cannot neglect this process. It’s a painful and often messy one, to be sure, but that is the path you must take, if you want professional approval. You cannot – as you did in your original post – demand legitimacy up front. This is putting the cart in front of the horse.

This is important, since – just because a procedure “works” – it does not follow that the explanation advanced for it is valid. A perfect example of this is another controversial, popular diet: Peter J. D’Adamo’s “Eat Right 4 Your Type.” The underlying rationale for his program is sheer pseudoscience, yet people often report great results! But it’s not difficult to see why: every one of the proposed diets is balanced and based on whole, nutrient-dense foods. Thus, it stands to reason that someone moving from your typical, high-processed food American diet to one of d’Adamo’s diets would experience substantial improvements to his/her health and body composition. And – needless to state – there is nothing unique or radical about the beneficial effects of eating a balanced diet of whole or minimally-processed foods.

This example is also a good illustration of how “Occam’s Razor” works: when there are two competing explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest one (or the one that requires the fewest assumptions) is the one most likely to be correct. We need not accept d’Adamo’s re-writing of human evolution and physiology as an explanation, when a simpler one – which agrees with what we know about how the world works – is at hand.

We can apply the exact same reasoning to hCG and the hCG protocol. For all the anecdotes, speculation on mechanisms and critiques of the flaws inherent in various studies, you have little in the way of direct and acceptable evidence in support of your proposition that the metabolic effects of hCG have a substantial effect on fat loss or body composition above and beyond the results obtainable with a medically-supervised VLCD. On the flip side, there IS published evidence to the contrary, not to mention a simpler explanation to explain how weight loss is achieved. Thus, you have a bar to clear before you can make your claims stick.

There are two obvious counters to the “even if just placebo” argument – and both lie in the long vs. the short term view. As is evident from the above, the protocol can work… no one is disputing this. So – why not recommend it, gaps and all?

1. Because a belief in placebo treatments makes people that much more credulous and willing to believe in other unproven treatments. The world of health and fitness is rife with pseudoscience… some relatively benign, and others not so much. In some cases, it only costs people time and money. In other cases, it can cost them their lives. The fact that hCG therapy is (apparently) benign, doesn’t justify your evident disdain for the process needed to validate your claims for it.

2. There are a number of unscrupulous operators out there (this will be discussed more below).

3. There are other ways to lose excess weight/fat that produce as good – if not better – results. As also noted in response to another commenter:

“Apart from UltimateFatBurner.com, I do extensive nutrition/supplementation counseling, and thus, know a fair number of people – including my own husband – who’ve lost as much, and even more weight/fat, than you have… without resorting to hCG either, I might add.”

I do not pretend to special knowledge, nor am I selling a system… I and the others I work with are simply mentors, passing on what we know, so that many of the people we guide end up with six-packs, vs. being smaller versions of their former selves.

Yes, it takes longer. However, I favor conservative, “tried-and-true” approaches known to work by established mechanisms, vs. those that – at best – are firmly mired in a “gray area.” The activity of a particular therapy in one milieu does not preclude it from acting as a placebo in others. Aspirin, for example, is a physiologically active ingredient that likely provides very little support towards the efficacy of the well-known “ECA stack.” Despite the theoretical justification, EC (without the A) appears to work just as well (this is not – btw – to be construed as a recommendation for EC – it is simply an example of an active ingredient with a known mechanism that does not appear to provide any direct benefit within a particular context). That the ECA stack works does not “prove” the “A” part is essential to the process. This still remains to be established.

As far as your comment about “family physicians” go – yes, I am aware of the maxim (specifically, “primum non nocere”). I am also uncomfortably aware that there are M.D.s who – in all sincerity – jump down the rabbit hole into “Alternative Wonderland.” The differences between them, and those who employ unapproved, experimental therapies aren’t so easy to distinguish – particularly if both simultaneously a) demand legitimacy; and b) reject (implicitly or explicitly) the process by which legitimacy is conferred. And people looking for weight loss solutions are not necessarily going to look at the credentials of the supervising clinician before signing on the dotted line. I can appreciate the fact that you and Dr. Gonzalez possess the appropriate credentials and have criteria in place for accepting patients… but once again, where are these principles being articulated? In the comments section of a relatively obscure blog!

Words fail. Why aren’t you guys screaming long and loud in the media about the unethical operators and cautioning the general public about credentials, gouging, qualifications about who/who isn’t a good candidate for the therapy, and potential negative side effects? Once again, this is behavior I would expect to see from dedicated professionals who live by strong ethical standards, regardless of the merits of hCG as an active therapeutic or placebo. The disclaimer on Dr. Gonzalez’s site (about not being affiliated with Kevin Trudeau) is hardly sufficient.

In other words, you and Dr. G. may be caring professionals, but you are NOT behaving in a professional manner. You may be awesome one-on-one with your patients, but you cannot demand the respect of those of us outside the walls of your clinic(s), without displaying at least some of the standards needed to get it.

Thus, it is not nearly so “cut and dried” as you would have it. Until the larger pool of potential consumers is provided with a framework for choosing a provider, then many of them will be babes in the woods.

For the record, you may enjoy getting into brawls over the protocol, but I do not. I have a life and other responsibilities… time is – quite literally – money. You have had your (unedited) say, and have presented no new information – so it really is time to call it a day. You are welcome, of course, to return and post links to any data you – or your colleagues – publish in respectable venues (and no, I don’t mean “Medical Hypotheses” or “The International Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine”). At that point, I believe both Paul and I would be happy to take official note of it, and update our material accordingly. But until then, I bid you adieu.

The RFO program was the second program in the world to use a VLCD, what was the 1st?
Simeons hCG protocol. Looking at the RFO, have to think it has a mortality rate involved whether they admit it or not. Previously providing Fen-Phen and Meridia.

Do you know if they’re still prescribing Meridia in conjuction with the RFO ? 1997-2003, the FDA received reports of 30 Meridia users who died of cardiovascular problems and 224 other reports of nonfatal strokes, heart attacks and other cardiovascular ailments.

Simeons Protocol – around since 1954 – 0 confirmed kills.

RFO maintains that at least 80% of the weight loss will be from fat? That’s a possible boatload of muscle loss. Only aware of a handful who did body comp scans or hydro testing post protocol – no one reported a loss of more than 5% lean muscle mass. Then again the protocol achieves the loss in much less time, the hCG hastens the onset of ketosis, and there’s adequate carb intake to maintain positive nitrogen balance.

As far as your comment about me just throwing a claim out there – use the negative Stein study mean loss of 9.5% if it makes you feel better. Assuming you being in the field and having some stats on percentage weight loss between men and women would expect the mean loss somewhere in the 9.5-14% range I previously mentioned if the Stein DB study had a co-ed even split of participants.

The initial visit cost for the RFO is more than a complete 30 day round of the protocol. By comparison (using the Stein 9.5% mass loss) the RFO at it’s quoted 1% mass loss per week – would cost over $1600 for the same loss.

I don’t doubt RFOs results – but will submit that some are in such dire shape that time is of the essence and they might not have the amount of time needed to lose 1% per week if in imminent risk of a cardiac event. Simeons stated 60-70% able to maintain loss, inline with the RFO.

As far as the “unrelated uses” – if the effect of those uses influences metabolism regardless of a VLCD, would that not cast doubts on “just placebo” claim ?

QoL should have financial considerations though most doctors and clinics neglect to include it. Even if just placebo the same loss in a month at a cost of $225 online, or better still through your own doc for the office visit and $50 for the hCG through a compounding pharmacy vs. RFO at twice the time frame and 700% more expensive.

There’s a very good reason I mentioned the Bradley letter to the editor, and I think you know it. Presuming he was being honest as he had no incentive not to be & applying similar longer term stats he provided to the existing data, if ANY of the DB studies had included follow up, longer term stats in their summations – we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now as the majority would reflect extremely positive results vs. placebo. It’s never been denied the huge, quick, dramatic losses, only how those compare with placebo that has been the issue.

I DID come with ‘tude – in no small part because I respect Dr Gonzalez a great deal and thought he’d been beaten up pretty badly without cause.

I’ll admit I’m a strange bird – get into brawls over the protocol quite a bit – most of the time with the clinics who paint an unrealistic positive picture. Most claim it’s a “cure” when that’s not the case, 100% effective – when it isn’t, many gloss over the negative side effects or claim there are NO side effects. Pounds and Inches mentions several including gallstones, gout attack, thinning hair, headaches… additionally there’s either insomnia or lethargy, possible hot flashes or chills, metallic taste in mouth, skin (detox) rash, extremely rare hypersensitivity, for women changes in menses, and all the annoyances of being in benign dietary ketosis. (bad breath, pungent sweat and urine)

Go ahead, take your swings. (just not the face!) And yes, I will commend you for posting as written – and for tempering your comment about the protocol to “virtually zilch”, at least that’s a move in the right direction.

For the record – I do have baseline blood test on 4 patients and will have interim and post results in the next few months. Really sad we’ve been dickering around for more than 55 years over IF it works when I believe a few hundred dollars of blood tests will prove beyond doubt why it does. If my hypothesis is correct, it is HRT therapy, introducing a small amount of hCG that brings equilibrium to a hormone imbalance when combined with a VLCD. Will let you know if T is elevated even with restrictive diet, if you’re interested. The cake is in the oven so to speak, so I’ve got time to kill waiting for the timer to go off.

When it comes to your “riddle me this” question – it’s pretty cut and dry. FAMILY PHYSICIANS are charged with “do no harm” and the well being of their patients – and the protocol aint exactly rocket science. (no offense Ben) It’s much safer than any bariatric surgery, and has fewer possible serious adverse effects. Patients can play hard ball with their doc and demand it – if that happens enough things will change.

“Clinical/anecdotal/empiracal evidence: Average loss in 30 days of 9.5-14% of starting body weight for over 85% of participants, 600 people and 18,000 lbs lost. That IS evidence. It ISN’T “scientific proof” via DB study.”

No, it isn’t “evidence” – it is YOUR completely unsourced assertion. It is NOT “evidence” if the “anecdotal” and “empiracal” [sic] data cannot be independently checked and verified. I could claim to have “evidence” that my maternal grandmother was the Grand Duchess Anastasia, but until that claim is independently and objectively tested, it remains exactly that: a claim.

And this is precisely your problem: you’re so obsessed with the alleged motes in our eyes that you can’t see the beam in your own. Your inability to see clearly is reflected in the overall hostile tone of your posts. You don’t hesitate to impute bad faith and/or malign motives to us, all the while taking full advantage of the fact that we’re providing you with a forum for your “feedback.”

For the record, ALL comments to this site are held in a moderation queue. The fact that your condescending, attitude-laden screeds are even seeing the light of day (unedited!) is de facto proof that we’re committed to providing our readers with as much information as we possibly can. Even when it comes from people like you, who like to turn every disagreement into a pissing contest.

So you can take your snarky comments like “(but I don’t expect a legit response)” and stick ‘em where the sun don’t shine. YOU DON’T DESERVE A LEGIT RESPONSE. In internet parlance, you’re a troll.

After all, if you were a legit practitioner interested in establishing the legitimacy of hCG as a weight loss therapy, you wouldn’t be pitching hissy fits on independent consumer advocacy sites: you would be putting together case reports and/or making some attempt to impose genuine controls on your “experiments.” But it’s quite obvious you don’t understand the concept – for example:

“Placebo effect? I personally substituted normal saline for hCG for 3 days in protocol participants (all with prior consent of exploratory treatment) and all of them had hunger complaints and less weight loss than they did previously or after. hCG JUST a placebo – not at all.”

This was hardly a blind experiment – YOU knew what you were doing (experimenter bias), and – since your patients gave consent – at the very least, they understood something was up. And did you try this on a sufficient number of patients to actually test if the effect was significant? I seriously doubt this. Yet you have the cojones to proffer this anecdote – which amply demonstrates you don’t have a clue about how/why DB, placebo-controlled tests are performed, as proof that hCG is not a placebo.

Even someone as irony-impaired as you obviously are, should be able to see the irony in that.

Here’s another example:

“So, I’ll ask (though don’t expect a legit response) factually hCG has andro effects & is used to increase natural testosterone production – fallacy to then totally decouple that FACT from hCG when used in weight loss. (and it should be fairly obvious to even you all THIS would be one of the reasons it WOULD in fact be more effective than placebo – they ARE giving lose dose hCG therapy to men with low testosterone – are you aware of placebo increasing testosterone?)”

I work in bodybuilding, Bucko, so yes I am very much aware that hCG has “andro” effects. But I am also very much aware that DOSE and other external factors dictate how individuals respond. NONE of your examples involve people in severe negative calorie balance. Underfeeding is a T and muscle-killer.

I hate to point this out, but the shoe is on the other foot, once again. Instead of charging in here, screeching like a wounded banshee about the andro effects of hCG and how it facilitates the claimed effects, how about some direct proof? Y’know, case reports and such. If you’re sticking needles into people, then you’re also in a position to perform blood tests (or send samples to a clinical lab for analysis).

And it goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that if this is the mechanism by which hCG supposedly “works”, then HRT would be a far more reliable way to go about it. This is, of course, yet another testable hypothesis that, alas, people like you will never test. Why bother? Making noise is much more satisfying.

I love posts like yours because there’s so much low-hanging fruit to pick. Here’s another ripe one:

“As far as stand alone VLCD’s “working”…

Did you even bother to click the link I posted above about the UCLA RFO program? Here’s the money quote (again):

“Research results from the RFO program have been published in the medical literature and have documented weight loss ranging from 50 to 250 pounds, depending upon the patients’ initial weight. Eighty five percent of patients successfully achieved their weight loss goals, and three years later sixty percent of them had maintained all or most of their lost weight. Accompanying this weight loss, there were marked reductions in blood pressure, improvement of diabetes control, improvement of serum cholesterol and lipid levels, and greater psychological well-being.”

There’s a REASON I posted this link: it has all the features of a (supposedly) “good” hCG program… except for the hCG part.

If you don’t agree with their data or conclusions, feel free to take it up with them – they’re ostensibly responsible members of the community of researchers and medical practitioners, after all. And THAT is where scientific debates are supposed to take place.

Let’s go one more round:

“There are plenty of hCG mills claiming they’re physician supervised, charging $1900, while the customer never sees a physician. In my opinion they’re predatory, unethical, and give the profession a bad name. Anyone paying more than $250 for a basic round of the protocol is being gouged. It’s only expensive because people don’t know better. The cost could be slightly higher if real services were provided such as nutritional counciling, body analysis, etc.

You might be trying to help – but as things stand as they are now, you either have people being taken advantage of, or you have people taking the use of hCG into their own hands… neither is exactly an ideal situation. I sincerely think that isn’t your intent to prolong the current options.”

If you process nothing else in this message, get a grip on this: WE ARE NOT PROLONGING CURRENT OPTIONS. We are conveying the evidence that exists (such as it is) and the scientific consensus, as best we can. But we do not and CANNOT actively influence what is – or is not – considered to be the standard of care.

That’s YOUR job, whether you understand it or not.

I’ve spent a good chunk of my adult life in science, and I have a pretty good understanding of how it works. Sometimes it’s tough to change the consensus, but inevitably, it does shift when enough data piles up. That’s data – NOT anecdotes. Only objective data can provide a rationale for larger scale controlled studies.

You yourself have pointed out the obvious: there are “plenty of hCG mills” that are “predatory, unethical, and give the profession a bad name.” Ok, riddle me this, Batman: how on earth are prospective patients supposed to weed out the allegedly legitimate practitioners (such as Dr. Gonzalez and – presumably – yourself) from the scammers?

Assuming you’re capable of doing so, look at the situation from our POV. Paul and I are – first and foremost – consumer advocates. As such, IT IS OUR JOB TO BE SKEPTICAL and put claims to the test. Thus, we are NOT going to spend time cherry-picking studies, searching for reasons to discard their conclusions in favor of… what, exactly? A therapeutic option that – as you affirm – is plagued with predatory operators and has virtually zilch going for it w/respect to positive, (reasonably) objective, published data?

Get real.

This takes us right back to a point I made above… as noted, you’re not the least bit interested in actually “legitimizing the protocol.” If you were, your tactics would be quite different. In fact, the structure of your argument is right out of the “Creation Science”/”Intelligent Design,” playbook:

1. You’re attempting to make a case for your pet cause negatively rather than positively (i.e., shooting holes in existing studies and standards of practice, vs. actually making a sincere attempt to collect acceptable evidence and presenting it in a professional manner).

2. You’re trying to make your case in the public sphere – where it does not belong – vs. in the medical/scientific one – where it does. And yes, I’m sure you’re quite prepared with various Creationist/I.D.-style comebacks: “hCG has been prejudged… the establishment won’t listen to us… there’s no money in it for Big Pharma…” yadda, yadda, yadda. In reality, you guys haven’t even tried to make a good case. It’s been scattershot at best.

Well, here’s the deal, delmem: since you’re evidently a doc, you damn well know that NO experimental therapy is legitimized this way. Passion isn’t an argument. The plural of anecdote is NOT data. If you want hCG to be accepted as a legit alternative, then there’s a process involved. If you’re serious about this, I suggest you stop wasting time duking it out with perceived enemies in the comments sections of public web sites and apply some self-discipline, rational thought and some good old fashioned “elbow grease” to the issue.

You wanna convince me and Paul? Fine: get off your high horse, and start publishing some case reports that can be treated with respect by your peers. Citing 30+ year old letters to journal editors and unrelated, experimental therapeutic uses of hCG ain’t good enough.

Please explain how you can use the meta as your “proof” when it included a study that simply added hCG to a diet and was in no other way following Simeons protocol ?

Evidence – noun: that which tends to prove or disprove something.

There’s your scientific evidence: they’re clearly mixed, several showing no benefit (other than the weight loss) two showing significantly better results over placebo. If you want to use a term such as “overwhelmingly negative” at least that’d be honest but to continually throw out superlatives which are factually incorrect is wrong.

Clinical/anecdotal/empiracal evidence: Average loss in 30 days of 9.5-14% of starting body weight for over 85% of participants, 600 people and 18,000 lbs lost. That IS evidence. It ISN’T “scientific proof” via DB study.

Going from the abstract of the meta anyone would have a negative view on hCG but I’d expect better from someone with experience at UC Davis.

How about questioning the negative studies? (and yes, I will tell you why) Explain how DH in the Frank study could possibly only lose 4 lbs with a caloric deficit of approx 75,000 cals… while someone half DH’s starting weight lost 3 times as much in the Stein study.

If you bother to dig into the negative studies and read the data quiet a bit of it doesn’t add up… and some is actually quite positive if taking the changes in weight alone.

Placebo effect? I personally substituted normal saline for hCG for 3 days in protocol participants (all with prior consent of exploratory treatment) and all of them had hunger complaints and less weight loss than they did previously or after. hCG JUST a placebo – not at all.

For a moment imagine there’s PROOF hCG does in fact effect fat metabolism, would it be so hard to surmise that the effect could be either adipogenic or adipolylic, depending on caloric intake?

http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/content/abstract/194/2/313

As far as stand alone VLCD’s “working” –

“… (those) who had used a VLCD regained significantly more weight than the other two groups and by six months, there were no significant differences in overall percent weight loss…”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2666007/?tool=pubmed

A Dr Gusman took the time to write a rebuttal letter to one of the negative studies citing the studies were poorly designed as they gave no long term follow up stats. An Australian doctor’s (Bradley AJCN May ‘77) letter in which he DID track patients after a study – 6 months post: the HCG Group: 14% gained some weight while 86% lost on average 12.5 lbs more. Placebo group: 57% regained weight, 75% of those became heavier than prior to the VLCD.

If you consider the time frame (no internet, no commercial value) these were physicians reaching out to their peers with real life results. No WWW to put cash in their pockets, at that time very few except other physicians would be reading the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. They actually took the time to write and mail responses, and due respect should be given to their observations.

As far as Harper running an hCG clinic… so what ? If anything proving it effective would be presumably detrimental to his business, as he wouldn’t be able to charge high prices, would lose clients if their primary care physicians became aware and were administering it. Dr Asher on the other hand, was Executive Director of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians Research Council. Sure wouldn’t do his reputation any good to falsify a study, and would reflect badly on the Council.

If this site really was about disclosing all data available matter of factly I wouldn’t have an issue with it, it’s that you don’t simply state the available data but still interject opinion, factually incorrect and negatively slanted comments.

I don’t recommend the protocol to anyone less than 30 lbs overweight or who hasn’t unsuccessfully tried less invasive methods, but for someone clinically obese (especially with physical limitations) it can provide incredible weight loss.

So, as far as your “educational mission and philosophy” – exactly how deep into the data from the “negative” studies did you bother to go? And please do explain for me how a 300 lb person with a 75,000 calorie deficit over a 6 week period could possibly lose just 4 lbs. (and if Franks had actually USED Simeons diet restriction the deficit would be more than double that) You’ve repeatedly stated VLCDs work regardless of hCG – if that’s true, even if in the placebo group he should have lost over 20 lbs.

ALL studies and ALL data isn’t negative – and the Stein study, albeit called negative, is actually quite positive – the losses achieved in 28 doses make 3 “diet drugs” in phase 3 trials currently look like candy… one of them containing phentermine, and I think you all remember how well that worked out the last time it was used in a combitnation drug for weight loss.

So, I’ll ask (though don’t expect a legit response) factually hCG has andro effects & is used to increase natural testosterone production – fallacy to then totally decouple that FACT from hCG when used in weight loss. (and it should be fairly obvious to even you all THIS would be one of the reasons it WOULD in fact be more effective than placebo – they ARE giving lose dose hCG therapy to men with low testosterone – are you aware of placebo increasing testosterone?)

From this month’s issue of Journal of Endo Metabolism: “In addition, hCG stimulated the proliferation of…smooth muscle cells.”

hCG is also used for Prader-Willi syndrome – “During hCG therapy, testosterone levels and lean mass significantly increased”.

hCG has been used in Europe for about a decade to prevent muscle wasting and proliferation of the virus in AIDS patients & is also used in localized treatment of KS lesions.

One more placebo question – does placebo effect release of leptin, and isn’t leptin kind of important when it comes to energy expendeture? Metabolism, hunger… you know, things that might cause someone to lose more weight than a placebo?

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/85/11/4298.pdf

It’s against the AMA’s code of ethics to deny a patient a requested treatment unless doing so would be considered unsafe. That would include off label use of hCG for weight loss.

There are plenty of hCG mills claiming they’re physician supervised, charging $1900, while the customer never sees a physician. In my opinion they’re predatory, unethical, and give the profession a bad name. Anyone paying more than $250 for a basic round of the protocol is being gouged. It’s only expensive because people don’t know better. The cost could be slightly higher if real services were provided such as nutritional counciling, body analysis, etc.

You might be trying to help – but as things stand as they are now, you either have people being taken advantage of, or you have people taking the use of hCG into their own hands… neither is exactly an ideal situation. I sincerely think that isn’t your intent to prolong the current options. The problem is, you think from the double blind studies it’s no better than placebo, and I know from real life experience it is. Obviously talking negative about it isn’t working, with about twice as many high priced hCG centers nation wide as there were a year ago.

To me, the only real option is legitimizing the protocol and having it available for the price of a co-pay, from a family physician who actually cares about the well being of the patient and isn’t just after a payday. And anyone wishing to do the protocol should ask their family doctor to put them on it. Out of pocket for a month’s worth of hCG can be delivered for about $50 from a compounding pharmacy in Florida. Maybe if doctors knew, and prospective patients knew, they wouldn’t be throwing away good money to someone just about money, and work with a doctor they already know.

I am happy that you have helped so many people with their individual health concerns. Frankly, health care professionals work in a field I could not.

Perhaps if I had run into you before my, what seemed to be endless, doctor office visits. (One of which prescribed pills that was Yohimbe on steroids). I would have a different take on the situation.

I remember reading about a situation during World War II where doctors were critically short of pain medicine. The doctors faked giving soldiers medicine telling them that “this stuff was powerful and would knock them out” it did’t work for all the soldiers but it did work for some. The direct science would not uphold the process but the soldiers who were able to sleep will swear to the effective sugar water they were injected with.

Truth is relative. Just look at the wars in human history fought over which God was greater. Or look at modern science 1000 years ago that stated the world was flat and the center of the universe. People will go to what works for them.

In the final analysis. I was the one suffering from doctors with big titles.

I will stick with results. HCG worked for me and that is my truth. Believe it.

First of all – congratulations on your weight loss.

You seem to be assuming, however, that I have no direct experience in helping people lose weight, and that what I know comes strictly from “nice books.” Not quite. Apart from UltimateFatBurner.com, I do extensive nutrition/supplementation counseling, and thus, know a fair number of people – including my own husband – who’ve lost as much, and even more weight/fat, than you have… without resorting to hCG either, I might add.

So yes, I do know more than a bit about what DOES WORK. And a major part of what works is a) structure and b) support – both of which are features of the hCG protocol, yet have nada to do with hCG itself, as my example of the RFO program at UCLA (linked above) demonstrates. It’s basically the hCG protocol, minus the hCG, and is equally, if not more, successful.

That an intensively supportive, structured intervention works better than a half-hour session with a GP + a prescription for silbutramine comes as no surprise to me. Nonetheless, this is not a point in favor of hCG…rather it’s a point against the current, indifferent system of “managed care”. While this may come as a shock to you, I’m no fan of the current system, either, and believe that those “PhD’s and MD’s” could be doing far more to help people than they are.

Be that as it may, the truth is what it is, as much as you do not want to believe it.

Again, keep up the good work on your blog.

DrG