Dave
I think it's great to have a physician who is not threatened by information that patients bring. I must admit that it must be hell having people bring information from the Internet and that most doctors react negatively to that. My doctor calls it Internet medicine
But if what you bring is well referenced and logical, most open minded doctors are receptive to information that may help treat you better. I have a lot of experience on the subject since I advocated for the use of anabolic steroids and testosterone to try to save my life and that of many people who were wasting away. In the early 90's we had no data on the subject but over 100 physicians opened their arms to the concept. Of course, the risk-benefit ratio that we had in those days made it possible for them to try something that had no published data.
The use of HCG, anastrozole, sermorelin/peptides, and some compounded formulations is currently been adopted by some medical practices while others reject it. Medical practices that are cash based are obviously more willing to use products of this nature in an off label manner since they do not have to deal with rejection from insurance companies.
Only good study data will make TRT+HCG or + anastrozole be something with insurance reimbursement potential. However, these products are all generics that lack pharmaceutical funding for studies. So only studies funded by the US government via the National Institute of Health provide any hope to generate data on generics such as HCG and anastrozole.
What some physicians do not understand is that they can consider prescribing certain options that may not be covered by insurance but which are available cheaply from the compounding industry. That , in my opinion, is an area of advocacy on which we can all concentrate. Of course, if we lose the compounding industry as pharma and some congressmen want, we can lose this option.
Nelson