I agree with you on those points, that LL is safe

I agree with you on those points, that LL is safe and and effective and should have no reason to not be used, but

1. if you are looking at alternate treatment options, then probably the standard of care is either not working or working too slowly to be beneficial. If you go into a trial, there is a percent chance that you will receive the standard of care, which in this hypothetical case is not working, or get the therapeutic. At this point, if you enroll in the trial, you are agreeing to forego any other options for a time period. In the diseases we are talking about that is precious time. To enroll in the trial, you are going to have to have an awful lot of faith that therapeutic is the answer.

2. Think it of through the treating physicians eyes. If you are deciding on other options to consider, you are probably going to look at authorized therapeutics first. If there are none, probably going to look at the unauthorized, but stick to something that has a big name attached or alot of data showing it can work that is going to give you confidence it will work. Those criteria alone cover alot of therapeutics out there, but not LL yet. With more public data, it can start to rise above other treatments out there.

Its unfortunately going to come down to marketing and awareness. As CYDY is able to get more data out there they can publish, and frequently, its going to be seen by more doctors willing to look into it.

I wouldn't doubt doctors were briefed on it, but I wonder if its still a leap of faith, going for the therapeutic with smaller sets of data, or sticking with therapeutics that they have heard about for years.

IMO

The fault-finder will find faults even in paradise. -Henry David Thoreau