And if you're truly in belief that it should be patient choice of indicated treatments, stop getting upset that (insert internet drug) isn't being "up to the patient". The patient doesn't have a license on the line. The patient isn't responsible for malpractice.
I am absolutely of the opinion that it is ultimately the choice of the patient as to which indicated treatments he or she thinks would be best for them.
Both of these statements are true. We have government promoting and in fact mandating a certain treatment protocol that enriches its donors. There is substantial documentation that other treatments work as well or better with less severe side effects. Doctors are caught in the middle and their license is on the line. It should not be this way. Vaccinated or not, the patient should be informed of the efficacy and side effects of all the treatments and given the opportunity to decide what he wants to do. The same applies to any medical condition.
I'm not so sure there is substantial documentation that other treatments work, in fact many of the articles professing as such have been debunked. I am not opposed to studying further, in fact it should be but if the results continue to be that many of these drugs do more harm than good, there is a certain segment of the public (and the readership here) wouldn't believe it as they have their mind made up. It is a sad predicament physicians are placed in, I agree. There is even another level: who will pay for it? Insurance companies do not pay for treatments without solid evidence and indication--and sometimes not even then. I wholeheartedly believe part of the flaw is our system is the lack of fee-for-service in which the patient pays directly for services that he or she and their physician believe is the best treatment protocol. All insurance has done is muddy the water and make certain more expensive treatments out of the question.
