Irrespective of the views of anyone here (and clinical studies, such as the one I linked to earlier), surely what this all comes down is simply a "suck it and see" approach, isn't it?
As an analogy, when my prostate cancer lead to severe oedema in the 'most intimate areas of my anatomy', the locum GP I saw suggested trying furosemide, which is a diuretic most commonly associated with heart conditions. She freely admitted that she didn't know if would make the slightest bit of difference but thought that it might be worth a try anyway. My cancer consultant clearly thought the idea was totally bonkers, expostulating "But that's for heart problems!" However the GP's suggestion to give it a try anyway resulted in a fantastic improvement in my condition.
So, if your GP suggests trying something (even if he/she doesn't have total confidence that it will work), I think that it ought to be worth a try. You seem to have little to lose anyway.