Well, lets look at it. He didn't veto it, just didn't advise it because no studies have been done to prove it is effective. obviously a very cautious, by the book approach. Maybe its a case of professional C.Y.A., or maybe his personal agenda it that he does not offer professional opinion on something w/o sufficient supporting medical evidence to back it up. Who knows? A naturopath, or a nutritionist would most likely be better positioned to advise using it... A less cautious doc might say that, since the jury is out, and there's no evidence of it causing harm, to go ahead and use it.. But, between voracious lawsuit lawyers; and the topsy turvy world of what's in today is out tomorrow, I can understand a doc who prefers to go just by the book. I'd seek a more agressive approach in a doc if my disease was agressive, but if the disease wasn't, then IF the doc suggested a treatment that wasn't backed up by serious studies, then my question would be where he trained
I mean, some very innocent looking things can play havoc with our lives/treatment
St John's Wart, grapefruit juice, milk, orange juice.. those are just some that come to mind as having some pretty nasty consequences when taken with medications.
My background is IT. Over the years, I've seen some hotshots who shoot from the hip AND asked questions later. I've also seen some who opted for the methodical approach, never taking any risks, always knew what the outcome would be before they acted. Totally different approachs, each has it's merit, and its weaknesses. I see a role for each of these approaches in the IT world, neither is a sole 'method'
