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

First of all, thank you for your response. For the record, I did not take your comment about “narrow mindedness” personally. Rather, I highlighted this because it’s a trope often used to (mis)characterize people with “traditional” training – as a way of deflecting criticism and creating a rosy glow about unscientific beliefs and claims. Since you made use of it in your original comments, I took advantage of the opportunity you created to debunk it. This is part of the site’s mission, after all: to reveal and explain various rhetorical (and visual) maneuvers that “tug on the heartstrings” (so to speak) and influence purchasing decisions.

I certainly accept the possibility that you feel you were “narrow-minded” in your initial rejection of the hCG Protocol. And, perhaps, you were, if your initial arguments against it were as dogmatic as you characterized them. But – as a former staff researcher in a university medical school (Dept. of Medical Pathology, University of California at Davis), I see that as something intrinsic to YOU, not medical/scientific training. I’ve brainstormed over brewskis with too many Ph.D.s, MDs and DVMs to believe otherwise.

So, no apologies necessary for this. Likewise, nothing personal on this end, either: my response to this portion of your comments was triggered by the ubiquity of this characterization; I make no particular judgement w/respect to your intent.

As far as my selectivity is concerned: I chose to leave that portion of your comment out of my post as I felt there was no need to include it – I would simply have been repeating myself in the discussion. Nonetheless, I will address it here.

To make a short story long: you and I have somewhat different perspectives, and I suspect I understand yours better than you understand mine. I’d like to explore this first, to make sure we’re not talking past each other.

I’ve been a lab geek, so I’m quite familiar with “protocols” – used ‘em all the time to do Western blots, CAT assays, protein purifications and the like. Most of these were “borrowed” from other authors, as they worked well, and there was no need to reinvent the wheel with larger objectives at stake. Perhaps there were superfluous reagents…perhaps there were redundant steps…perhaps there were even better ways to perform each technique. Doesn’t matter, though…there are LOTS of ways to skin a cat, after all, but there’s no need to search for others when the one you have at hand will do.

This is how I understand your defense of the hCG Protocol: you accept it whole, as it works for you and your clients. You’re dealing with individuals.

But in the world of the consumer advocate – my frame of reference – the issues are far more nuanced. We’re dealing with populations – not individuals – and a vast array of products advertised as the bestest ways to skin cats ever invented! And it’s true that:

1. Some don’t really work at all.
2. Some may work better than others
3. Some may work, but are not cost-effective, relative to others

As you can see from points 2 and 3, “does it work?” can’t be the sole arbiter of whether something gets a “thumbs up” verdict. To take a somewhat crass example, a cream marketed as “100% proven to facilitate erections…all you have to do is rub it in slowly, using long, firm strokes over a 5 minute period” is likely to work amazingly well. Nonetheless, it ain’t worth paying $39.95 for when a less expensive bottle of Vaseline Intensive Care lotion will yield the exact same results.

With this in mind, let’s return to hCG and the hCG Protocol. As has now been established, this is a complicated bit of business as,

1. there are unscrupulous operators preying on people
2. even in the hands of scrupulous professionals (which presumably includes you), it’s an unproven and unapproved therapy.

Now, Paul’s review was tilted towards the first proposition, since the wide distribution of the Trudeau book put the issue front and center with the general public, and it’s not so easy to discern who’s a scammer and who isn’t.

But this is where the second proposition entered in, since hCG is alleged to be critical to the success of the program – regardless of who’s administering it. Since the most reliable evidence we have states it has no special weight loss properties, that’s how Paul reported it. This served two purposes: 1) to demystify hCG, and 2) inoculate readers against the scammers.

Now, neither Paul nor I are claiming that the entire hCG protocol, closely supervised by a competent medical professional in a supportive and caring environment cannot “work” to help people lose weight. I have no reason to doubt your claims that your patients have been helped.

BUT…what I am contending (and I believe Paul would agree with me), is that their success is based on:

1. the VLCD part of the Protocol
2. daily (or near daily) contact with supportive, caring professionals, thanks to all those shots.
3. a strong belief that hCG is facilitating their weight loss, above and beyond 1 & 2.

Where you and I disagree is on point 3. You may believe hCG possesses special properties, but the evidence we have shows it’s basically an expensive placebo; and there is nothing in any of your observations that is inconsistent with the latter explanation.

Now, we could have an interesting philosophical discussion sometime on the value of placebos…and believe it or not, I’m not unsympathetic to their use on a very basic level. My favorite analogy is Dumbo’s Magic Feather: Dumbo didn’t need it to fly, but he never would have left the ground without it. As noted in this NYT article, placebos often work for individuals – which is why some doctors actually prescribe them. This is precisely why placebo-controlled trials are MANDATORY when assessing the efficacy of a drug or nutraceutical.

Nonetheless, it is against professional ethics to prescribe or – in our case – recommend placebos, which is why our verdict against hCG, and – by extension – the hCG protocol, stands. The fact that some providers are also caring, responsible practitioners isn’t a factor in this decision, as we have no basis for helping readers decide who is, and who isn’t one – especially since a “responsible” provider is less likely to be marketing a placebo treatment in the first place.

To be blunt: since hCG is the “bait” used by the responsible and irresponsible alike; and since the evidence – to date – demonstrates it doesn’t work…

Then, case closed…at least until better evidence emerges.

This is why I passed the issue of “it’s not for the general public” by…it’s irrelevant. The larger issue is “hCG = expensive placebo”; not “does the Protocol work for selected patients under close medical supervision.” IMHO, any highly restricted diet is – by definition – not for the general public. This is why programs like the one offered at UCLA offer a range of plans and have selection criteria.

I hope this makes sense to you. And believe me: none of this is meant as a personal attack either. I have nothing against you personally – and if I lived in the DC area, and wanted some body sculpting or other anatomical tweaks, I’d probably look you up. But I also stand by the point I made in my post…the word of an MD carries a lot of weight with the general public. When that word runs counter to our educational mission and philosophy, then a thorough critique and analysis is called for.

Your selectiveness in this last response only highlights why I began (what I thought) was going to be a productive exchange. I invite you to contact me personally through my clinic. I think you will see my response in a different and more positive light.

You (selectively?) left out an important final conclusion that I repeatedly made: I DO NOT recommend hCG protocol for the general public for weight loss. I stand by that conclusion. I am wondering if you will publish this response. Interesting.

Sincerely and without personal attack,

DrG