If this is so clear scientifically, why does my doctor not tell about it?
Do not condemn your doctor. Probably he cannot be made responsible.
Lack of information:
Studying medicine he only hears standards of main-stream medicine. This is awful few and in many ways it became obsolete by new scientific results. Later on he has the possibility to qualify in advanced training courses, most of which are presented by pharmaceutical companies and producers of instruments. Normally so called experts act as referents (we will return on them later) but more or less these courses are promotions. Another source of information is pharmaceutical representatives. They give specific information but of course their aim is turn-overs. Due to lack of time only few physicians read good professional journals. Most of them are in English and many doctors cannot, or not sufficiently, read them. Information from the internet is still difficult for many, especially for elder doctors who are not used to it.
To process information should be the task of universities. But how starts the career of a professor. He has to present results from research. Research needs money. 75% of this money is so called third-party funds from companies. This is necessarily not bad, because research becomes more practise-oriented. In medicine these are often clinical tests of new drugs.
A negative result however shows consequences:
|$||The results may not be published and only published papers are useful to become a professor. Sponsors have the right to refuse publication.|
|$||Next time it may be difficult to get third-party funds. Everybody has to find them himself.|
After all also a physician is only human. If patients do not die in quantities he will try to get a positive result. Very often the sponsoring company also do a lot of paper work, statistics, designs graphs and often prepares whole presentation for a lecture at the next conference. In academic circles somebody even may get the nick-name professor Novartis or so, if this relation becomes too close. These experts are not informed by normal pharmaceutical referents but by key-account-managers, later on. These experts decide in expert committees about guidelines for specific diseases. They decide at least what is paid by health insurances.
These experts in the universities shall know all scientific results in their field, which we presented here. If not they are incompetent. But if they know these results, but do not act ……….
Have pity on your doctor:
If he prescribes a therapy not according to the guidelines and does not succeed, he is in jail with one leg. If he treats according to the guidelines and the patient dies nothing happens.
Doctors who use their own mind and read literature can get rid of their accreditation of health assurances. In other cases (we know several examples) they are summoned to the medical chamber to make them clear they can lose their approval. But also physicians and even oncologists are not immune from cancer. Which therapy will they use? Several times this question had been put to them, e.g. by the McGill cancer centre (May 2000). From 118 oncologists being asked 79 answered. 64 (81%) of them said they would never make a therapy with cis-platinum (a standard therapy) and 58 (73%) that they would not make a chemotherapy at all, in case they or a close friend had cancer. The results of other surveys were the same. It sounds schizophrenic, a physician recommends a therapy (or has to recommend a therapy) he would never make himself.