I would say there are also significant numbers of unscrupulous doctors (of
the squeaky-clean, traditional crew-cut, talk to the AMA before starting
any treatment, kind) who recommend treatments that, though "accepted", may
not be necessary for the patient at the time.  And all for making a quick
buck.  I would not be surprised if the cost of medical services in the U.S. is
significantly inflated by these "quacks of a different color".  In fact, I'd
say these doctors are the most dangerous since they call into question the
true focus of the medical profession.  The AMA and the Boards should focus
on these "quacks" instead of devoting unbelievable energy on 'search-and-
destroy-missions' to pull the licenses of those doctors who are trying non-
traditional or not fully accepted treatments for their desperate patients
that traditional/accepted medicine cannot help.

***************************************************
Now to make a general comment on many recent posts:
***************************************************

Lately I've seen the word "quack" bandied about recklessly.  When a doctor or
doctor-wanna-be has decided to quit discussing any controversial medical
subject in a civilized manner, all he/she has to do is say "quack-quack" and
somehow they magically expect the readership of this newsgroup to roll over
on their backs and pee-pee on themselves in obedience.  What do they teach
you in medical school - how to throw your authority around?

Let me put it another way to make my point clear:  "quack" is a nebulous word
lacking in any precision.  Its sole use is to obfuscate the issues at hand.
The indiscriminate use of this word is a sure sign of incompetency;  and coming
from any medical doctor (or wanna-be), where competency is expected, is real
scary.

But what do I know, I've already been diagnosed by the sci.med.gods in this
newsgroup as being '{*filter*}retentive', and 'psychotic'.  I look forward to more
net.diagnoses.  Hey, they're free.

Jon "Quacks 'R Us" Noring

(p.s., may I suggest - seriously - that if the doctors and wanna-be-doctors on
the net who refuse to have an open mind on alternative treatments and
theories, such as the "yeast theory", should create your own moderated group.
You can call it sci.med.traditional.moderated or sci.med.AMA-approved, so you
can keep anal-retentives like me out of it.)

--

Charter Member --->>>  INFJ Club.

If you're dying to know what INFJ means, be brave, e-mail me, I'll send info.
=============================================================================

| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | FRED'S GOURMET CHOCOLATE |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | CHIPS - World's Best!    |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |                          |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.

Umm, weren't you the one objecting to someone who is a "licensed
physician" being called a quack?  Or is it just that being a licensed
physician is a good defense against charges of quackery when the
physician agrees with your system of beliefs?

Actually, I almost never use the term quack.  When I discuss
"systemic yeast syndrome", however, I always point out that
mainstream medicine views this as a quack diagnosis (and I agree
with that characterization).

Really?  I bet virtually everyone reading these posts understands what
Steve Dyer, Gordon Banks, and I am implying when we have talked about
systemic yeast syndrome as a quack diagnosis.  Would you prefer the
word "charlatan"?  (I don't happen to think that all quacks are
charlatans since I suspect that some believe in the "diseases" they
are diagnosing.)

Why?  Is there some reason why you feel that it shouldn't be pointed out
in SCI.med that there is no convincing empirical evidence to support the
existence of systemic yeast syndrome?
--
David Rind

I don't know the first thing about yeast infections but I am a scientist.
No scientist would take your statement --- "no convincing empirical evidence
to support the existence of systemic yeast syndrome" --- to tell you
anything except an absence of data on the question.  Noring has pointed out
the catch-22 that if the "crazy" theory were true, you probably couldn't
find any direct evidence of it --- that you couldn't observe those yeastie
beasties with present methods even if they were there.  Noring and the
fellow from Oklahoma (sorry, forgot your name) have also suggested one set
of anecdotal evidence in favor based on their personal experiences ---
namely, that when people with certain conditions are given anti-fungals,
many of them appear to get better.  

So, if you have any evidence *against* the hypothesis --- for example,
controlled double-blind studies showing that the anti-fungals don't do any
better than sugar water --- then let's hear it.  If you don't, then what we
have is anecdotal and uncontrolled evidence on one side, and abject
disbelief on the other.  In which case, please, there is no point in yelling
back and forth at each other any longer since neither side has any
convincing evidence either positive or negative.  

And I understand that your abject disbelief is based on the existence of
people who may get famous or make money applying the diagnosis to everything
in sight, making wild claims with no evidence, and always refusing to do
controlled studies.  But that has absolutely no bearing on the apparently
sincere experiences of the people on the net observing anti-fungals working
on themselves and other people in certain specific cases.  There are also
quacks who sell {*filter*}superoxide di{*filter*}ase, in spite of the fact that it's
completely broken down in the guts, but this doesn't change the genuine
scientific knowledge about the role of superoxide di{*filter*}ase in fighting
oxidative damage.  Same thing.  Just cause there are candida quacks, that
doesn't establish evidence against the candida hypothesis.  If there's some
other reason (besides the quacks), if only anecdotal, to think it could be
true, then that is what has to be considered, that is what the net people
have been talking about.

But again, there is no point in arguing about it.  There is anecdotal
evidence, and there is no convincing evidence, and there are also some
candida quacks out there, I hope everyone can agree on all of that.  Thus,
it appears to me the main question now is whether the proponents can
marshall enough anecdotal evidence in a convincing and documented enough
manner to make a good case for carrying out a good controlled double-blind
study of antifungals (or else, forget convincing anybody else to carry out
the test, just carry it out themselves!) --- and also, whether they can
adequately define the patient population or symptoms on which such a study
should be carried out to provide a fair test of the hypothesis.

Ken
--

The burden of proof rests upon those who claim the existence
of this "syndrome".  To date, these claims are unsubstantiated
by any available data.  Hopefully, as a scientist, you would
take issue with anyone overstating their conclusions based
upon their data.

Gee, I have many interesting and enlightening anecdotes about
myself, my friends, and my family, but in the practice of
medicine I expect and demand more rigorous rationales for
basing therapy than "Aunt Susie's brother-in-law ...".

Anecdotal evidence may provide inspiration for a hypothesis,
but rarely proves anything in a positive sense.  And unlike
mathematics, boolean logic rarely applies directly to medical
issues, and so evidence of 'exceptions' does not usually
disprove but rather modifies current concepts of disease.

I would characterize it not as 'abject disbelief' but rather
'scientific outrage over vastly overstated conclusions'.

I have no problem with such an approach; but this is NOT what
is happening in the 'trenches' of this diagnosis.

Bob Schmieg

I don't have any evidence against water from Lourdes curing MS --
I'm sure there is anecdotal evidence that it does.  Do you really think
that in the absence of a double-blind study I should be indifferent
to the hypothesis that water from Lourdes cures MS?

For what it's worth, I know of only one double blind study of Nystatin
for "candida hypersensitivity syndrome."  It was published in the
New England Journal (I think 1990) and showed no benefit on systemic
symptoms (though I think it reduced {*filter*}l yeast infections, not
surprisingly).  As I recall, the yeast crowd had some major objections
to the study, though I don't remember what they were.

--
David Rind