Why Doesn’t My Doctor Know This?

* Dr. Kent Holtorf, founder of the non-profit National Academy of Hypothyroidism, directs the Holtorf Medical Group with clinics in California, Kansas City and Minneapolis. He specializes in "innovative evidence-based therapies for hard-to-treat and poorly understood illnesses: hypothyroidism, complex endocrine dysfunction, ME/CFS, FM, and chronic infectious diseases including Lyme and chronic viral illness." Though this article was written several years ago, patients with these conditions are reminded constantly that the problem persists.


A question that is often raised by patients is “Why doesn’t my doctor know all of this?

The reason is that the overwhelming majority (all but a few percent) of physicians (endocrinologists, internists, family practitioners, rheumatologists, etc.) do not read medical journals. When asked, most doctors will claim that they routinely read medical journals, but this has been shown not to be the case.

The reason is multi-factorial, but it comes down to the fact that the doctors do not have the time.

They are too busy running their practices. The overwhelming majority of physicians rely on what they learned in medical school and on pharmaceutical sales representatives to keep them “up-to-date” on new drug information. Obviously, the studies brought to physicians for “educational purposes” are highly filtered to support their product.

There has been significant concern by health care organizations and experts that physicians are failing to learn of new information presented in medical journals and lack the ability to translate that information into treatments for their patients.

The concern is essentially that doctors erroneously rely on what they have previously been taught and don’t change treatment philosophies as new information becomes available. This is especially true for endocrinological conditions, where physicians are very resistant to changing old concepts of diagnosis and treatment despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because it is not what they were taught in medical school and residency.

This concern is particularly clear in an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled "Clinical Research to Clinical Practice – Lost in Translation."(1) The article was written by Claude Lenfant, MD, Director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, and is well supported. He states there is great concern that doctors continue to rely on what they learned 20 years before and are uninformed about scientific findings.

The article states that medical researchers, public officials, and political leaders are increasingly concerned about physicians’ inability to translate research findings in their medical practice to benefit their patients, and states that very few physicians learn about new discoveries [via] scientific conferences and medical journals and translate this knowledge into enhanced treatments for their patients.

He states that a review of past medical discoveries reveals how excruciatingly slow the medical establishment is to adopt novel concepts. Even simple methods to improve medical quality are often met with fierce resistance.

The article states, “Given the ever-growing sophistication of our scientific knowledge and the additional new discoveries that are likely in the future, many of us harbor an uneasy, but quite realistic, suspicion that this gap between what we know about diseases and what we do to prevent and treat them will become even wider. And it is not just recent research results that are not finding their way into clinical practice; there is plenty of evidence that ‘old’ research outcomes have been lost in translation as well."

Dr. Lenfant discusses the fact that the proper practice of medicine involves “the combination of medical knowledge, intuition and judgment” and that physicians’ knowledge is lacking because they don’t keep up with the medical literature. He states that there is often a difference of opinion among physicians and reviewing entities, but that judgment and knowledge of the research pertaining to the patient’s condition is central to the responsible practice of medicine. He states, “Enormous amounts of new knowledge are barreling down the information highway, but they are not arriving at the doorsteps of our patients.”

These thoughts are echoed by physicians who have researched this issue as well, such as William Shankle, MD, Professor, University of California, Irvine. He states, “Most doctors are practicing 10 to 20 years behind the available medical literature and continue to practice what they learned in medical school…There is a breakdown in the transfer of information from the research to the overwhelming majority of practicing physicians. Doctors do not seek to implement new treatments that are supported in the literature or change treatments that are not."(2)

The Dean of Stanford University School of Medicine understands that there is a problem of doctors not seeking out and translating new information to benefit their patients. He states that in the absence of translational medicine, “the delivery of medical care would remain stagnant and uninformed by the tremendous progress taking place in biomedical science."(3)

This concern has also received significant publicity in the mainstream media.

In an article published in a 2003 Wall Street Journal article entitled "Too Many Patients Never Reap the Benefits of Great Research," Sidney Smith, MD, former President of the American Heart Association, is very critical of physicians for not seeking out available information and applying that information to their patients. He states that doctors feel the best medicine is what they’ve been doing and thinking for years – because that is what they’ve been doing. They discount new research because it is not what they have been taught or what they practice, and refuse to admit that what they have been doing or thinking for many years is not the best medicine. He writes, “A large part of the problem is the real resistance of physicians…many of these independent-minded souls don’t like being told that science knows best, and the way they’ve always done things is second-rate."(4)

The National Center for Policy Analysis also reiterates concern for the lack of ability of physicians to translate medical therapies into practice.(5) A review published in The Annals of Internal Medicine found that there is clearly a problem of physicians not seeking to advance their knowledge by reviewing the current literature, believing proper care is what they learned in medical school or residency and not basing their treatments on the most current research.

They found the longer a physician is in practice, the more inappropriate and substandard the care.(6)

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association reviewed by The National Institute of Medicine reports that there is an unacceptable lag between the discovery of new treatment modalities and their acceptance into routine care. They state, “The lag between the discovery of more effective forms of treatment and their incorporation into routine patient care averages 17 years."(7,8)

In response to this unacceptable lag, an amendment to the Business and Professions Code, relating to healing arts, was passed. This amendment, CA Assembly Bill 592; An act to amend Section 2234.1 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to healing arts, states, “Since the National Institute of Medicine has reported that it can take up to 17 years for a new best practice to reach the average physician and surgeon, it is prudent to give attention to new developments not only in general medical care but in the actual treatment of specific diseases, particularly those that are not yet broadly recognized [such as the concept of tissue hypothyroidism, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, chronic Lyme and Fibromyalgia]…"(9)

The Principals of Medical Ethics adopted by the American Medical Association in 1980 states, “A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public."(10) This has unfortunately been replaced with an apathetical goal to merely provide so-called adequate care.

The current reimbursement system in America fosters this thinking, as the worst physicians are financially rewarded by insurance companies.

The best physicians are continually fighting to provide cutting edge treatments and superior care that the insurance companies deem not medically necessary. Even the best physicians eventually get worn down and are forced to capitulate to the current substandard care.

This was clearly demonstrated in a study published in the March 2006 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine, entitled "Who is at Greater Risk for Receiving Poor-Quality Health Care?" This study found that the majority of individuals received substandard, poor-quality care. There was no significant difference between different income levels, or between individuals who have insurance and those who do not. It used to be the case that only those in low socioeconomic classes without insurance received poor-quality care. Insurance company restrictions of treatments and diagnostic procedures have caused the same poor care afforded to those of low socioeconomic status without insurance to become the new standard-of-care.(11)

Most physicians will satisfy their required amount of continuing medical education (CME) by going to a conference a year, usually at a highly desirable location that has skiing, golf, boating, etc. A physician is rarely monitored as to whether he or she actually showed up for the lectures.

One must also understand that the majority of conferences [organized] by medical societies are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

These payments are called 'unrestricted grants', in that the society has free rein to do what it wants with the money and can thus claim there is no influence on lecture content by the pharmaceutical company. The problem is that if the society wants to continue getting these unrestricted grants from the particular company, they had better provide content that is of benefit to the pharmaceutical company that paid for the grant.

Consequently, ground breaking research that goes against the status quo and does not support the drug industry receives little attention. The doctor must actively search for these studies, which only a few percent are willing to do on a consistent basis.

There is clear evidence and concern that published research is clearly tainted by whomever is the financial sponsor of the study.

• A study published in the Journal of Psychiatry (and later discussed in the May 2006 edition of Forbes magazine) states that the most important determinant of the outcome of the study is who paid for it.

• An analysis in the Archives of Internal Medicine reviewed 56 studies of painkillers – and not once was the sponsor’s drug deemed inferior. In addition to reading the conclusion of the study, a physician must read the entire study and review the data with a critical eye, which is rarely done.

1. Lenfant C, New England Journal of Medicine. "Clinical Research to Clinical Practice – Lost in Translation" 2003;349:868-874.
2. William Shankle, MD. Key Note Presentation. International Conference on the Integrative Medical approach to the Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease. Oct 11, 2003.
3. Phillip Pizzo, MD. Stanford Medical Magazine. Stanford University School of Medicine.
4. Begley S. "Too Many Patients Never Reap the Benefits of Great Research." Wall Street Journal. September 26, 2003.
5. "Science Knows Best." Daily Policy Digest. National Center for Policy Analysis. Sept 26, 2003.
6. Niteesh. C, et al. "Systematic Review: The relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care." Annals of Internal Medicine. February 15, 2005.
7. Balas, E.A. "Information Systems Can Prevent Errors and Improve Quality. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2001; 8(4):398-9.
8. National Institute of Medicine Report, 2003b
9. California Assembly Bill Number: AB 592 Amended Bill Text; Amended in Assemby April 4, 2005, Introduced by Assembly Member Yee February 17 2005. An act to amend Section 2234.1 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to healing arts.
10. The Principals of Medical Ethics adopted by the American Medical Association in 1980.
11. Asch SM, et al. "Who is at Greater Risk for Receiving Poor-Quality Health Care?" New England Journal of Medicine. 2006;354:1147-1155.

* Reproduced with the generous permission of the author, Dr. Kent Holtorf, MD. All rights reserved.

Note: This information has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not intended to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure any illness, condition, or disease. It is very important that you make no change in your healthcare plan or health support regimen without researching and discussing it in collaboration with your professional healthcare team.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2,555 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5)

17 thoughts on “Why Doesn’t My Doctor Know This?”

  1. shartau says:

    In a time when one is lucky to have a family Doctor and demand for time is so high
    they don’t have to know this.
    They have lives out side there practices. They are under valued by the government
    agencies that set their rates. And they are like all of us aging.
    My perspective is not just as a PWC, but as someone who was a para-medic.
    Living in Canada is not all a bed of roses.

    • Dear J.R.
    Sorry but I am getting to the point where I can’t keep the train of thought on
    track anymore.

    I totally agree. The State of Science is deplorable. After over twenty years
    sick, I have seen everything. You know something is wrong when an
    M.D. says “I don’t know enough about CFS to be of help. The outcome
    for you and for me is not good, so I will not see you”.
    And you are relieved to at last get some honesty !.
    If this has been around since biblical times as I suspect. ( see Job )
    then we are on the cusp of greatness.
    One has to look at ME / CFIDS from the perspective of the problem.
    Physicians are trained in one line of logic. If the available tools show
    no problem, then to their minds there is no problem.
    See Dr. Sarah Myhill – CFS Psychological or Physical? This site.
    She is more critical than I. Most if not all of the tests she uses are
    considered experimental or unheard of in Alberta. And we have as
    much oil as the Saudi’s.
    There was a time when one could tell a surgeon by the gore on his
    frock coat. The thought that some invisible entity was at work was
    foreign to them. If you can not see it it does not exist.
    And we still can’t get them to wash their hands.
    Then along comes PCR.
    Allows us to see things never before seen. However even this
    amplification does not shew the problem(s).
    As I see it we have to forget common logic to resolve ME / CFIDS.
    Forget every thing they were taught. Not likely.
    We keep trying to correct imbalances, when the imbalances are what may
    be keeping us alive. If the body is shutting down 2,3DPG, thyroid, and other hormones production/ function and MD’s are trying to correct they may be
    doing more harm than good..
    If the CDC had paid attention to Dr.s Cheney and Peterson in Incline
    Village NV. and put in a travel advisory I might not be sick. See Living Hell video.
    In their print form PSA’s the CDC claims 1 Million Americans, in the made for
    TV PSA. QuickTime vs. it states 4 Million. So even today they are so far
    behind they think they are ahead.
    So while I am critical of current SOS, It does no good to work against the system.
    Rather, If you can find a compassionate G.P. try to educate. We mat beat this yet.
    Thank goodness for Dr. Myhill and Dr. Cheney, and the few other like minded.
    Our system is not perfect but it’s better than most.
    Mr. Shartau

    1. jrlambert says:

      It might be different outside of the US, but here this is a major problem. It is one thing to be operating under obsolete, and many times erroneous medical information; it is another thing to insist that this level of knowledge is irreproachable. I am a retired PA-C and after working with MANY different physicians, I had all but completely stopped utilizing their services, due to this now obsolete reservoir of necessary tools to diagnose and treat many conditions. When I became ill and completely incapacitated with CFS, my continued experience as a consumer only etched in stone what I had witnessed as a professional.

      My point? It is one thing to BE incapable of providing appropriate diagnosis and treatment; but it seems almost criminal to obstinately refuse to acknowledge this complete impotence. The common practice of denying that there is pathology simply because of blatant personal ignorance seems to be acceptable within the medical community. It seems that the narrowness of physicians is more of a result of this pride and arrogance that insists that there is no problem with the level of proficiency, only a problem with the patients PERCEPTION of their own need for help.

      There is good news, there are groups of physicians, like the Fibromyalgia and Fatigue Centers, who ARE state of the art, AND who believe that learning and applying the latest research is the normal scope of good medical treatment.

    2. georgianewyork says:

      As a PCW, I have had to move away from the NYC Metro area to live with a friend who is looking after me and covering my living expenses while I await SSI. While living on Long Island I was blessed with many doctors, both traditional and alternative who empowered me with much knowledge on how to manage my illness. Their protocols, while I was still able to work, did drain my resources without regret.

      This article truly stirred me to the core. I understand that most physicians have little knowledge for the many reasons mentioned in the article. What has my eyes wide open and glazed over is I have formulas for compounded medications, tried and true for my personal needs as well as other modalities that have helped me. Upon seeing my new physician who herself had CFS for nine years. She relied on traditional medicine and admitted there was and still is no cure. I came fully prepared with all the specifics from my former doctors. No leg work was required by them. I had done it all. Even my compounding pharmacist, a brilliant man, was willing to give them the requirements for my particular blood tests and offered to help them write the prescriptions necessary.

      It was handed over on a silver platter and they turned me down.
      Not only am I shocked at the unwillingness to take a spare moment to help me with continued treatment, I am terrified to think of the downward spiral my health could take with a change in my care.

      The illness itself takes away so much of our lives. The piracy continues when we are fully disabled, without means to support ourselves and then medical care takes a giant step backwards.

      1. r47mb says:

        I agree 100% but I feel a bit more lucky! I am in my Sixth year of my disability fight! I am a 48 year old man with a wife and a five year old son (Kindergardener) to support. I am lucky enough to get welfare, bacause of my Dr., who also happens to have FM/CFS he lists my wife as my 24-hour caretaker, as my condition worsens monthly. My SSI app. is only in it’s first year (July) and I am at the civil level of my disability case! This latest letter about the 17 year problem scares the hell out of me, but it feels so true, because the Dr. that was treating me before this one dropped me because he needed to cut back on Medicaid patients. (I know this because he left me standing in the hallway while he took a phone call telling him he was losing some of his perks from the drug companies) I overheard the entire conversation, but he did not realalize that I was less than ten feet away. You are correct that M.D.’s that specialize in our condition will not accept Medicaid , because Dr. Lucinda Bateman herself (known as the GURU of FM)s’ office happened to be directly above my Dr. who dropped me. He did try to refer me to her but she would not accept my bottom of the line (non-traditional) medicaid, but would take $500.00 cash for first consult and $50.00 perweek afterwards! So the bottom line is do not get this disease unless you are born into money! I may have been in better shape if my sister had not stolen my $80,000.00 inheritance, including the house I grew up in! But the bottom line is we are all in big trouble unless the system changes, or Dr.’s make up their minds that they want to do what the oath says or worry about the nineteenth hole! I’m sorry to ramble but this article has really shaken me!

      2. georgianewyork says:

        Yes, we all have to fight the good fight here. Together, I pray we can win. I had only mentioned the new doctor being unwilling to look beyond conventional medicine.
        There was another situation with a doctor I had to see in March for my SSI examination. The day of my exam, I was hardly able to move, so very, very ill. Upon entering the exam room the doctor was quite indifferent, like an assemblyline worker.
        He asked what my illness was while looking at my paperwork.
        As I explained CFS/ME and asked if he was familiar. With complete indifference he said casually “yeah, I have heard of it”. His unprofessional behavior turned to that of what I consider patient abuse. He yawned, snickered and said “yeah, I have CFS too”. I inqired “you do?. Laughlingly he replied “no”. I told him no one with this illness would be laughing with the suffering we endure daily.

        I have filed a complaint with the Social Security Administration and took it one step more. The American Medical Association told me to contact the NYS Dept. of Health. I just received the forms today. The complaint form will now be filed and copies of it with letters are going to all offices in NYS Government.

        I plan on becoming a familiar name in the offices of local congress, council and up.

        We have worked hard, payed our taxes which are their salaries. They must assist us in our time of need.

        I do wish you all the best. You and your family are in my prayers.

      3. r47mb says:

        I just want to thank you so much! It is so hard to deal with this knowing that most people think that you are ” melingering” (that’s mentioned in my disability file). The real scary thing is that, as my atty. told me, is that most cases depend on which judge you get! I have seen that in action, my last judge dismissed my personal doctor before the hearing even started! I have been going through my congressman but since my doc was dismissed they told them that I did not present him as a witness! The system is crooked and scares me to death! But I just want to thank you for listening and replying. You made me feel like a real person again. If you ever want to talk, I don’t know if this is in the rules but feel free to email me at r47mb@msn.com sometimes it just feels good to talk to real people who know what is going on. Sincerely, Rick…Take care!

      4. disabledanddone says:

        I can relate to everything you all have said. I have gone to my doctor with info found on the internet about RSD type II, which I have, and been stonewalled. Now this isn’t info from others living with RSD, these are abstracts, info from other docs, RSD Foundation, and the like. So all the stuff I bring to him is reputable, he still balks at it and says he will look it over and never does. I know this because when the next appt comes and I bring it up he tells me not to dwell on that, just to think positive and look toward healing. Yeah, sure, positive thinking helps, but so does up to date therapies, meds, and the such. Why is he so adament about reading the info I bring to him? Is his ego threatened? Does he feel as though I think I know more than he does about this? I have told him that I understand he is super busy and all I have is time, and I chose to research my disorder to find the most current treatments, meds and so on. Still no positive feedback. Why? I don’t get it. Thanks for bringing up this topic.

    3. shartau says:

      What do those initials stand for J.R. ?
      Google does not help.
      Alberta had a conservative government.
      In an atempt to cut spending Hospitals
      were closed and the medical profossionals
      alienated. Now we have to start from scratch.
      So the shortage continues.
      And the band played on again.

    4. jrlambert says:

      Dear Shartau: Do you want to know what J. R. means??? As in jr lambert?? Or are you asking for the initials PA-C? It doesn’t seem that interesting, but oh well, if you want to know: Jim and Roberta and PA-C is the American term for Physician Assistant-Certified, a mid-level practitioner like Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, Mid Wives, etc.

      If you didn’t want to know this, well I am sorry to take up the space. I am the Roberta part of jr.

    5. shartau says:

      Thanks for clearing that up. So close (49 th parallell) yet
      so far. I can get impedance cardiography done in Montana.
      But have to pay for it. Not covered. What did you think of
      Dr. Myhills article ?
      Thanks for return.

    6. readhed says:


      It’s shameful. No excuse. Boo hoo; the doctors who take insurance make a lot of money. They see me and 2 other patients simultaneously. What, then, is their billable? $300 or more for 21 minutes? They could take the time to keep current. Information Technology project managers or SLS vocal coaches spend more time and money on annual re-certification than those doctors. They deserve the money; but we merit good treatment in return.

      Thx for reading.

    7. r47mb says:

      My doc is semi-retired and has CFS/FM but also works for the health dept. of Utah. I am so lucky for this, getting inside info! But when you go to a HMO here in the states the M.D.’s are allowed seven minutes per patient! Two years ago it was twelve so just beware and go prepared! notes in hand! I wish you well! Take care…..Rick.

    8. BRIDGEMAN3669 says:

      i was wondering what dr you see in alberta? i am seeing dr in Lethbridge treating for spinal instabilities, degenerative issues, osteoarthritis, disc disease, osteophytes. sacroiliac joint instability, for 14 yrs severe chronic pain.
      and last 4 yrs severe cfs and fibro and cognitive decline. would love to get in touch and exchange knowledge for treatments in alberta and canada

  2. shartau says:

    You are close to the clinic of Dr. Paul Cheney.
    Can he not help.
    In Alberta if you are on Assured Income for
    Severly Handicaped – AISH you cannot expect
    with the cost of living to get better than one
    thousand calories per day. This may be a recipe
    for longevity but the lack of support is inhumane.
    I am gratfull to have a roof over my head but
    have little hope of getting better.
    If you have health you have hope. ?
    In our economy if you have a pulse there is work.
    I can no longer work. PWC 20 + years.
    Hang in

  3. georgianewyork says:

    Thanks for your comment. Agreed, it is inhumane what we are expected to survive on. US is no better. Been waiting for over six months for Social Security Supplemental Income, Dept. of Social Services give you $100.00 per month plus food stamp benefits.
    Will look into Dr. Paul Cheney, but resources are at a negative. Most doctors don’t take Medicaid… at leat not the ones that can help.
    Please keep up hope. There are things we can do to help ourselves including diet. Any questions, feel free to ask.

  4. r47mb says:

    I let another person know this but thought I should pass it along to you. My doc is semi-retired and also works for the health dept. of Utah and let me know that if you belong to an HMO the doc’s are allowed seven minutes per patient! Two years ago it was twelve, so just be ready and have all notes and paperwork, and best of luck! Sincerely and take care….. Rick!

  5. readhed says:

    Hi, Rick.

    Thanks. Yes, I know about the 7-minute concept; that’s why I made the reference to me plus 2 other patients equalling 21 minutes. Your copay may be $30 but the bill is $100 or more for 7 minutes. HMO’s cannot control a doctor’s actions. They wouldn’t know if a doctor spent 30 minutes with me, or took a 45-minute fitness break in the middle of the day. The doctors’ motions aren’t tracked.

    What your doctor is talking about is a *reimbursement* concept called “capitation”. The doctor gets a paid a specified amount for each patient enrolled under him/her whether s/he sees the patient or not. The 7 minutes is a formula for them to enroll as many patients as they can. Again, the doctors are entitled to make money, but not by doing harm to me.

    The medical license renewal and continuing education processes should be stricter.

    This is not a rant on *you* so please don’t take it as such. The healthcare system is corrupt and some of the doctors willing to participate in it are greedy.

    Thanks for reading.

Leave a Reply