Debunking the Debunkers of the hCG Diet Protocol
“The effect of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in the treatment of
obesity by means of the Simeons therapy: a criteria-based meta-
Meta-Analysis Authors: SABINE LIJESEN, THEEUWEN, ASSENDELFT, VAN DER WAL
Author of this analysis: J. Greg Johnson
Websites: http://hCGDietDallas.us http://AnyLabTestNorthDallas.com http://InShapeMD.com
1) The focus of the meta-analysis is to analyze previous clinical trials to determine if hCG is an
effective method for treating obesity.
2) The meta-analysis was compiled using 8 uncontrolled and 16 controlled clinical trials.
3) Scores were based on 4 criteria: study population, interventions, measurement of effect, data
presentation and analysis.
4) Final scores ranged from 16 to 73 points (100 possible points). This suggests that most studies
were of poor methodological quality. The 12 studies with more than 50 points were controlled,
and only one suggested hCG was a useful adjunct.
Keywords: HCG Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Simeon weight-loss fat distribution appetite
obesity diet meta-analysis
Dr. Simeons published his protocol in 1954. Since this time the claims of hCG success have led to
controversy. Doctors worldwide have been using hCG to treat obese patients. As long as there is no
proof that hCG has a beneficial effect other doctors are unwilling to recommend the therapy.
Medline was used in correlation with keyword searches to find clinical studies between 1966 and 1993.
Ultimate care was taken to ensure this meta-analysis did not have a preconceived bias in scoring the
clinical trials. Criteria and weighting factors were scientifically designed and implemented.
The conclusion of this study was based solely on the clinical trials receiving scores over 50 points.
Twenty-four clinical trials satisfied inclusion requirements; however, only twelve clinical trials achieved
over 50 points. Nine of the twenty-four trials resulted in a conclusion that hCG was effective. Only 42%
of the twelve clinical trials scoring over 50 points actually followed Simeons hCG protocol and only
28.5% included all of the following in their research (weight-loss, fat-redistribution, hunger, feeling of
This meta-analysis is flawless if the ultimate goal is to determine whether scientific method of a clinical
trial was followed and results are verifiable. However, the answer achieved simply indicates the success
of correctly performing a clinical trial, not whether hCG is effective. In simple terms A+B does not equal
X. In a previous analysis I completely destroyed the clinical trial by B. Bosch based on five fatal flaws.
However, this meta-analysis ranked Bosch’s clinical study #6 with a score of 62 points. This indicates
similar scoring clinical trials deviated from the hCG protocol as well. hCG therapy is a medical protocol
more than it is a diet. In a diet a patient can occasionally cheat or deviate from the regimen and still
achieve partial results. In a medical protocol 100% of the key elements must be adhered to for accurate,
successful results. My point is this; it makes no sense to use flawed clinical studies to base a conclusion
because they were performed and recorded adhering closely to scientific method.
I think it is also important to note that according to their own scoring method the creator of the hCG
protocol did not follow his own protocol accurately. Seems ironic doesn’t it?
The authors of this meta-analysis initially come across as non-biased researchers eagerly seeking for
truth. However, the discussion portion of their paper gives insight to their actual intentions.
“…particularly because hCG is obtained from the urine of pregnant women who donate their urine
idealistically in belief that it will be used to treat an entirely different condition, namely infertility.”
What does this have to do with scientific method, the goal of the meta-analysis or whether hCG is
Using the same logic these authors, hCG is effective since I showed their research to be flawed, skewed
and twisted. However, this is not reality. I have yet to find one negative clinical study that did not
contain at least one fatal flaw in design. Although the protocol is precise, it is not impossible to follow.
All this meta-analysis proves is that between 1966 and 1993 they were not able to find an authoritative
clinical trial, one that followed the protocol exactly and according to scientific method. Any conclusion
beyond this whether for or against the effectiveness of hCG as a method to treat obesity is twisting