Is there any doctor who specifically treats systemic candida
infections? Is there a test for candida infections? How do
you know you have candida?
yours
steve
sc…@poe.acc.virginia.edu
Is there any doctor who specifically treats systemic candida
infections? Is there a test for candida infections? How do
you know you have candida?
yours
steve
sc…@poe.acc.virginia.edu
In a previous article, sc…@Virginia.EDU" wrote:
->Is there any doctor who specifically treats systemic candida
->infections? Is there a test for candida infections? How do
->you know you have candida?
->
->yours
->steve
->sc…@poe.acc.virginia.edu
Some years ago when I had oral candida my doctor did a blood test for candida
antibodies. It was done by some place in Califonia so I assume it’s not a
common or standard test. If you really have the problem, any normal doctor
could treat it, but there are a lot of grey areas when it comes to the
problem. Holistic doctors might be more willing to do so. The books on
yeast problems have listings of doctors and organizations so you might start
there to try and get a referral for a doctor in your area.
Mark London
M…@PFC.MIT.EDU
In article <1994May19.205928.9…@virginia.edu>,
Stephen C. Nojek <sc…@Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>Is there any doctor who specifically treats systemic candida infections?
>Is there a test for candida infections? How do you know you have candida?
First, let’s get something straight. Nystatin is a topical antifungal
antibiotic. There is no way it can treat a "systemic" candida
infection, because it isn’t absorbed when you take it orally; it acts
locally in the gut. You are actually lucky that this is the case,
because it’s violently toxic when it gets into the bloodstream. So
toxic that it isn’t used except topically. Its closest relative,
amphotericin B, is used preferentially when systemic therapy with a
this class of antifungal is necessary, and amphotericin B itself has a
nasty reputation for being extremely toxic when used parenterally. It’s just
less nasty than nystatin.
EVERYONE is colonized with candida, in the mouth, oropharynx, the gut,
and in the anogenital area. It’s part of one’s normal flora. That’s
why a "test" for candida infection is useless–everyone has antibodies
to candida–you’d have something wrong with you if you didn’t.
People who truly have overgrowth of candida include women with occasional
or recurrent vaginal infections, and immunocompromised individuals, who
might exhibit "thrush" (overgrowth in the mouth and esophagus), or other
forms of infection on the skin and mucous membranes. True "systemic"
candidiasis, when candida spreads unchecked via the bloodstream to
disseminated sites in the body, is quite uncommon except in people
with impaired immune systems, and is usually associated with a source
of (re)infection such as an indwelling catheter. Such a "systemic" infection
is life-threatening.
People who post to groups like m.h.a who talk about "systemic candida
infections" are not referring to this, because they’d be too sick to
type if they had such a condition. They’re talking about a pseudo-
condition popularized by Crook and related crooks, who take advantage
of the hypochondria and neuroses of otherwise physically healthy
individuals and propose bogus mechanisms for this normal flora to
cause diffuse, undifferentiated symptoms (symptoms so vague that
they are indistinguishable from those of ordinary daily stress),
all of which "make sense" to people whose training in biology
stopped at the 8th grade.
Some people make a big deal about "candidal overgrowth" in response
to taking antibiotics. This can occur, but nowhere near the
frequency that these popularizers indicate. And when it does
occur, it presents itself as a medically recognized syndrome
(e.g, increased vaginal yeast infections), not as a form of
"nerves" or diffuse malaise.
–
Steve Dyer
d…@ursa-major.spdcc.com
In article <Cq7yxt….@spdcc.com>, d…@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) wrote:
> People who post to groups like m.h.a who talk about "systemic candida
> infections" are not referring to this, because they’d be too sick to
> type if they had such a condition. They’re talking about a pseudo-
> condition popularized by Crook and related crooks, who take advantage
> of the hypochondria and neuroses of otherwise physically healthy
> individuals and propose bogus mechanisms for this normal flora to
> cause diffuse, undifferentiated symptoms (symptoms so vague that
> they are indistinguishable from those of ordinary daily stress),
> all of which "make sense" to people whose training in biology
> stopped at the 8th grade.
How much do you really know about what Dr. Crook teaches? The bottom line
is that he, and other doctors like him, have helped MANY people who are
truly ill, NOT HYPOCHONDRIACS, and have seen countless conventional
doctors and been put on countless prescription drugs that are very severe
and only make them feel worse. I know, because I am one of those people.
How dare you accuse those of us who have actually been victimized by the
conventional health care system (by doctors who DON’T STUDY NUTRITION in
medical school and frankly know NOTHING about it and who only have enough
time to write a presription and a bill, instead of truly investigating the
cause of ailment) hypochondriacs or attribute out ailments to neuroses? I
may not have a degree in biology, but I have worked in the health care
field. Bottom line is that if it works, you must be doing something right.
The goal is to help the patient, not to belittle them and tell them their
symptoms do not really exist-all they need is a vacation. I certainly hope
you’re not a care giver of any kind, because you don’t seem to care about
the very real experiences of those of us who have illnesses that elude
modern day doctors.
If what you’re saying is true about systemic candidiasis being when candida
spreads to other sites via the bloodstream then that would imply that a
blood test for candida would be effective. I’ve been told by my doctor,
who projects my actual blood cell sample on a screen connected to his
microscope so I can see what he sees, that the fungal (candida) cells
should not be present in the blood. Period.
I’d like to know what your qualifications are. Anyone else?
Casey
In article <Cq7yxt….@spdcc.com>, d…@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
|> In article <1994May19.205928.9…@virginia.edu>,
|> Stephen C. Nojek <sc…@Virginia.EDU> wrote:
|> >Is there any doctor who specifically treats systemic candida infections?
|> >Is there a test for candida infections? How do you know you have candida?
|>
|> First, let’s get something straight. Nystatin is a topical antifungal
|> antibiotic. There is no way it can treat a "systemic" candida
|> infection, because it isn’t absorbed when you take it orally; it acts
|> locally in the gut. You are actually lucky that this is the case,
|> because it’s violently toxic when it gets into the bloodstream. So
|> toxic that it isn’t used except topically. Its closest relative,
|> amphotericin B, is used preferentially when systemic therapy with a
|> this class of antifungal is necessary, and amphotericin B itself has a
|> nasty reputation for being extremely toxic when used parenterally. It’s just
|> less nasty than nystatin.
|>
|> EVERYONE is colonized with candida, in the mouth, oropharynx, the gut,
|> and in the anogenital area. It’s part of one’s normal flora. That’s
|> why a "test" for candida infection is useless–everyone has antibodies
|> to candida–you’d have something wrong with you if you didn’t.
|>
|> People who truly have overgrowth of candida include women with occasional
|> or recurrent vaginal infections, and immunocompromised individuals, who
|> might exhibit "thrush" (overgrowth in the mouth and esophagus), or other
|> forms of infection on the skin and mucous membranes. True "systemic"
|> candidiasis, when candida spreads unchecked via the bloodstream to
|> disseminated sites in the body, is quite uncommon except in people
|> with impaired immune systems, and is usually associated with a source
|> of (re)infection such as an indwelling catheter. Such a "systemic" infection
|> is life-threatening.
|>
|> People who post to groups like m.h.a who talk about "systemic candida
|> infections" are not referring to this, because they’d be too sick to
|> type if they had such a condition. They’re talking about a pseudo-
|> condition popularized by Crook and related crooks, who take advantage
|> of the hypochondria and neuroses of otherwise physically healthy
|> individuals and propose bogus mechanisms for this normal flora to
|> cause diffuse, undifferentiated symptoms (symptoms so vague that
|> they are indistinguishable from those of ordinary daily stress),
|> all of which "make sense" to people whose training in biology
|> stopped at the 8th grade.
|>
|> Some people make a big deal about "candidal overgrowth" in response
|> to taking antibiotics. This can occur, but nowhere near the
|> frequency that these popularizers indicate. And when it does
|> occur, it presents itself as a medically recognized syndrome
|> (e.g, increased vaginal yeast infections), not as a form of
|> "nerves" or diffuse malaise.
|>
|> —
|> Steve Dyer
|> d…@ursa-major.spdcc.com
In article <tiplab-240594111…@tipmac.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
<tip…@gsfcmail.nasa.gov> wrote:
>How much do you really know about what Dr. Crook teaches?
"Teaches"? I’ve read his book, and it’s patent nonsense.
>The bottom line
>is that he, and other doctors like him, have helped MANY people who are
>truly ill, NOT HYPOCHONDRIACS,
What’s the matter with being a hypochondriac?
>and have seen countless conventional
>doctors and been put on countless prescription drugs that are very severe
>and only make them feel worse. I know, because I am one of those people.
Sometimes doing nothing is the best therapy. Giving someone who
suspects they have "systemic candidiasis" nystatin is essentially doing
nothing. However it costs a bit more.
>How dare you accuse those of us who have actually been victimized by the
>conventional health care system (by doctors who DON’T STUDY NUTRITION in
>medical school and frankly know NOTHING about it and who only have enough
>time to write a presription and a bill, instead of truly investigating the
>cause of ailment) hypochondriacs or attribute out ailments to neuroses? I
You don’t have the faintest idea what doctors know except from
the claptrap propaganda which you’ll regurgitate on cue.
>may not have a degree in biology, but I have worked in the health care
>field. Bottom line is that if it works, you must be doing something right.
> The goal is to help the patient, not to belittle them and tell them their
>symptoms do not really exist-all they need is a vacation.
Your symptoms are real, by definition. Ascribing them to some sort of
yeast voodoo which has no basis in reality is a different matter.
>I certainly hope
>you’re not a care giver of any kind, because you don’t seem to care about
>the very real experiences of those of us who have illnesses that elude
>modern day doctors.
I care that people don’t waste their money on useless and potentially
harmful therapies and remedies.
>If what you’re saying is true about systemic candidiasis being when candida
>spreads to other sites via the bloodstream then that would imply that a
>blood test for candida would be effective.
Tests which look at antibodies to candida wouldn’t be useful because
everyone has antibodies to candida.
>I’ve been told by my doctor,
>who projects my actual blood cell sample on a screen connected to his
>microscope so I can see what he sees, that the fungal (candida) cells
>should not be present in the blood. Period.
They most certainly should not. I can only imagine what your doctor
is looking at, because I would be very surprised if your blood sample
had any candida in it. Furthermore, oral nystatin would not be expected
to have any effect on such a life-threatening condition, because
nystatin is not absorbed from the gut.
I’m sorry to tell you this, but something smells fishy, and it’s
not fair to you or to anyone else to skirt this issue. What kind
of "doctor" is this? What kind of training does s/he have?
–
Steve Dyer
d…@ursa-major.spdcc.com
In article <CqDBnI….@spdcc.com>, d…@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) wrote:
> You don’t have the faintest idea what doctors know except from
> the claptrap propaganda which you’ll regurgitate on cue.
I speak from my personal experience; I do not regurgitate propaganda. I
have known many people in medical school, whose curriculae do not include
nutrition. It is not propaganda that many conventional doctors these days
only have time to write a prescription and a bill. I have had that
experience with several doctors, which is what drove me away from
conventional medicine. Your opinion of my doctors’ "qualifications" means
nothing to me. What are your "qualifications?"
Contrary to what appears to be your belief, you are not the only one out
there with a brain. Lay people who are ill do not always take doctors’
words as gospel. There is plenty of published research out there on these
issues. Just because you do not agree with something, does not mean that
the person you conflict with "regurgitates propaganda." It sounds to me
like you are a lobbyist for the American Medical Association or something.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> —
> Steve Dyer
> d…@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Steve:
Is there any doctor who specifically treats systemic candida
infections? Is there a test for candida infections?
Steve asks in another post:
I’m looking for publishers of radionics books, and makers of
radionics products.
You know, Steve, that those proficient at radionics can diagnose and
treat over the telephone.
JB.
In article <tiplab-260594112…@tipmac.gsfc.nasa.gov> tip…@gsfcmail.nasa.gov () writes:
>In article <CqDBnI….@spdcc.com>, d…@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) wrote:
>> You don’t have the faintest idea what doctors know except from
>> the claptrap propaganda which you’ll regurgitate on cue.
>Contrary to what appears to be your belief, you are not the only one out
>there with a brain. Lay people who are ill do not always take doctors’
>words as gospel. There is plenty of published research out there on these
>issues. Just because you do not agree with something, does not mean that
>the person you conflict with "regurgitates propaganda." It sounds to me
>like you are a lobbyist for the American Medical Association or something.
Why do people produce something like that last sentence above and then
act as if they’ve scored some sort of point? Apparently, they’re
asking us all to assume that the AMA is the Root of All Evil, or
something of the sort. Therefore, the AMA is brush with which one’s
opponents can be tarred.
[Reminds me of that inspirational moment during the 1988 US
presidential race when Ronald Reagan, referring to Michael Dukakis,
gave forth with his "liberal, liberal, liberal" chant, as though IT
proved anything.]
Taking this a little further, since many (though far from all) MDs
belong to the AMA, and you’ve decided that the AMA is Evil, then the
MDs are too. Including the ones that don’t belong; why discriminate?
Steve Dyer doesn’t need any defending by me; he’s more than able to
take care of himself. On the other hand, I think it’s worth pointing
out that he knows the literature and can back up his points. Can you
back up yours with anything other than your personal experience (whose
value is at best unknown)?
— David Wright, Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Waltham, MA
wri…@hi.com :: These are my opinions, not necessarily Hitachi’s,
but you’re free to disagree, you poor deluded creature
In article <2s3bm4$…@clam.hi.com>, wri…@clam.hi.com (David Wright)
wrote:
> Why do people produce something like that last sentence above and then
> act as if they’ve scored some sort of point?
It’s encouraging to see that you’ve focused on only that one line from an
entire posting. Since that was the LAST line of the posting, how would you
know how the person’s acting afterwards? I presume the statement, although
a generalization based on emotion, comes from the frustration that many of
us have experienced when seeking medical help to solve a mysterious health
problem.
> Taking this a little further, since many (though far from all) MDs
> belong to the AMA, and you’ve decided that the AMA is Evil, then the
> MDs are too. Including the ones that don’t belong; why discriminate?
Who ever said the AMA was evil?
> Steve Dyer doesn’t need any defending by me; he’s more than able to
> take care of himself. On the other hand, I think it’s worth pointing
> out that he knows the literature and can back up his points. Can you
> back up yours with anything other than your personal experience (whose
> value is at best unknown)?
To you, someone’s personal experience may not be of value, and it may not
prove anything to you. However, when it comes to one’s health and what has
worked to help it, one’s own experience, and methods that have worked for
others with similar conditions are all that really matter. You can prove
something scientifically all you want, but if the method doesn’t help the
health problem, what good is it?
In article <tiplab-260594112…@tipmac.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
<tip…@gsfcmail.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> You don’t have the faintest idea what doctors know except from
>> the claptrap propaganda which you’ll regurgitate on cue.
>>
>I speak from my personal experience; I do not regurgitate propaganda. I
>have known many people in medical school, whose curriculae do not include
>nutrition.
This is an incredible misleading and ignorant statement which has no
basis in fact, because the science of nutrition isn’t just an isolated
discipline, but ties in with many different areas of physiology, all of
which are covered thoroughly in medical school.
>It is not propaganda that many conventional doctors these days
>only have time to write a prescription and a bill. I have had that
>experience with several doctors, which is what drove me away from
>conventional medicine.
When a conventional doctor is an asshole or doesn’t have time for you,
the proper response is not to go to a quack who’s a nice guy or who does
have time for you. Ideally, you’d like to have a qualified doctor who
takes you seriously, but who won’t be giving you the diagnosis you
insist on in the absence of any evidence to support it.
>Your opinion of my doctors’ "qualifications" means nothing to me.
I guess that means that they really aren’t qualified (as I’d suspect
from their "look, here’s candida in your blood" test.)
>What are your "qualifications?"
I’m qualified to recognize bogosity when I read it.
>Contrary to what appears to be your belief, you are not the only one out
>there with a brain. Lay people who are ill do not always take doctors’
>words as gospel. There is plenty of published research out there on these
>issues.
There is absolutely no high-quality peer-reviewed published research
out there on the pseudo-diagnosis of "chronic candidiasis". If there
were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
>Just because you do not agree with something, does not mean that
>the person you conflict with "regurgitates propaganda." It sounds to me
>like you are a lobbyist for the American Medical Association or something.
This juxtaposition is priceless–if I’d put them together by means of
eliding some intervening sentences, I’d have been accused of playing
dirty.
–
Steve Dyer
d…@ursa-major.spdcc.com
If what you’re saying is true about systemic candidiasis being when
candida spreads to other sites via the bloodstream then that would
imply that a blood test for candida would be effective.
Those who have made the "Yeast Connection" are legends in their own mind.
These "connections" with The Great Immeasurable World of The Subclinical
are in part, what enables the Diagnosis and Treatment of these non-physical
"Disease" entities. So yes…real systemic candida *would* be verified and
and diagnosed with a blood test…but The One That Accounts For All
Dis-ease is indeed not measurable in the blood… or anywhere else for that
matter…except of course, by the dollars and cents spent by patients
who have "bought into" this pseudo-medical notion.
JB.
In article <mmcmullen-270594150…@taygeta.gsfc.nasa.gov> mmcmul…@gsfcmail.nasa.gov () writes:
>In article <2s3bm4$…@clam.hi.com>, wri…@clam.hi.com (David Wright)
>wrote:
>> Why do people produce something like that last sentence above and then
>> act as if they’ve scored some sort of point?
>It’s encouraging to see that you’ve focused on only that one line from an
>entire posting.
However, it’s discouraging to see that you’ve stupidly failed to
include the line to which I was responding, thus baffling any
latecomers as to what is being discussed.
> Since that was the LAST line of the posting, how would you
>know how the person’s acting afterwards? I presume the statement, although
>a generalization based on emotion, comes from the frustration that many of
>us have experienced when seeking medical help to solve a mysterious health
>problem.
Quite probably. It does happen. However, your sentence about "how
the person’s acting afterwards" is kind of silly. Would it make you
happier if I rephrased it to say "…last sentence above as if they
were actually scoring a point?"?
>> Taking this a little further, since many (though far from all) MDs
>> belong to the AMA, and you’ve decided that the AMA is Evil, then the
>> MDs are too. Including the ones that don’t belong; why discriminate?
>Who ever said the AMA was evil?
The original poster implied it. As I pointed out, and you thoughtfully
deleted, accusing someone of being a mouthpiece for the AMA implies that
the AMA is Very Bad.
>> Steve Dyer doesn’t need any defending by me; he’s more than able to
>> take care of himself. On the other hand, I think it’s worth pointing
>> out that he knows the literature and can back up his points. Can you
>> back up yours with anything other than your personal experience (whose
>> value is at best unknown)?
>To you, someone’s personal experience may not be of value, and it may not
>prove anything to you. However, when it comes to one’s health and what has
>worked to help it, one’s own experience, and methods that have worked for
>others with similar conditions are all that really matter. You can prove
>something scientifically all you want, but if the method doesn’t help the
>health problem, what good is it?
That’s rather circular — if I can prove that it works, then it works,
and thus helps the problem. If I can prove that something fails, then
it doesn’t work and won’t help the problem, but I said it first.
Personal experience is not valueless. It often provides a starting
point for useful research. However, it’s limited. If Joe User posts
that taking Vitamin B cured his cancer, what do we really know? Maybe
it did, or maybe it had no effect, or maybe it made things worse but
something else cured his cancer anyway. Anecdotes may tell us something,
but they don’t tell us much.
I’m sorry the original poster was so angry, but flaming MDs and the
AMA is not going to make the world a better place. If he wants to
blow off steam, let him go punch a pillow.
— David Wright, Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Waltham, MA
wri…@hi.com :: These are my opinions, not necessarily Hitachi’s,
but you’re free to disagree, you poor deluded creature
rom…@uclink.berkeley.edu (John Badanes) wrote:
>Those who have made the "Yeast Connection" are legends
>in their own mind. These "connections" with The Great
>Immeasurable World of The Subclinical are in part,
>what enables the Diagnosis and Treatment of these
>non-physical "Disease" entities. So yes…real
>systemic candida *would* be verified and and diagnosed
>with a blood test…but The One That Accounts For All
>Dis-ease is indeed not measurable in the blood… or
>anywhere else for that matter…except of course, by
>the dollars and cents spent by patients who have
>"bought into" this pseudo-medical notion.
>JB.
Dear JB,
I am one of those patients you so condescendingly refer to. It
was suggested to me by a chiropractor that I may want to read
"The Yeast Connection" and to follow the diet since I was
experiencing many of the nearly debilitating symptoms which are
considered by Dr. Crook to be indicative of systemic or chronic
yeast infection. As far as "dollars and cents" are concerned,
I spent $30.00 on the chiropractic, $10.00 on the book, and
have spent about $100 on supplements over the past four years.
After a few weeks on the diet, my numerous symptoms began to
fade and disappear. Contrast this to many thousands of dollars
spent on conventional medical doctors who were completely
unable to help me or to discover the cause of my health
problems, and to hundreds of dollars spent on prescribed drugs,
which did nothing but make me sicker and poorer. I have not
been following your discussion from the beginning, but I am
curious to know why you are so hostile towards those who are
willing to entertain that candida may be a cause of many
otherwise inexplicable health problems. Even though a reliable
test has not yet been established, if one can improve their
health by following the recommended regimen when nothing else
has been successful, then it makes sense to give this route a
try. If I had not, I would probably not be here today.
Cindi Sullens
richard sullens
inter…@pipeline.com
compuserve 71732,463
In article <2se6ln$…@pipeline.com> inter…@pipeline.com (Richard Sullens) writes:
>I am one of those patients you so condescendingly refer to. It
>was suggested to me by a chiropractor that I may want to read
>"The Yeast Connection" and to follow the diet since I was
>experiencing many of the nearly debilitating symptoms which are
>considered by Dr. Crook to be indicative of systemic or chronic
>yeast infection.
Chiropractors like to give nutritional advice. It helps to compensate
for the fact that they’re not allowed to prescribe drugs.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> As far as "dollars and cents" are concerned,
>I spent $30.00 on the chiropractic, $10.00 on the book, and
>have spent about $100 on supplements over the past four years.
> After a few weeks on the diet, my numerous symptoms began to
>fade and disappear. Contrast this to many thousands of dollars
>spent on conventional medical doctors who were completely
>unable to help me or to discover the cause of my health
>problems, and to hundreds of dollars spent on prescribed drugs,
>which did nothing but make me sicker and poorer. I have not
>been following your discussion from the beginning, but I am
>curious to know why you are so hostile towards those who are
>willing to entertain that candida may be a cause of many
>otherwise inexplicable health problems. Even though a reliable
>test has not yet been established, if one can improve their
>health by following the recommended regimen when nothing else
>has been successful, then it makes sense to give this route a
>try. If I had not, I would probably not be here today.
Nobody here is sorry that your health improved. At least I think not.
However, let’s look at the facts, as supplied by you.
1) You had health problems. You don’t say what they were.
2) Various prescription drugs did not help.
3) Dr. Crook’s book seemed to describe your symptoms.
4) You decided to follow the recommendations in the book.
5) Your health improved.
So far, this is ALL we know.
* we don’t know that you had candida
* we don’t know that your dietary changes affected your candida
status
* and, in fact, we don’t know why you got better.
Now, if the changes suggested by Crook’s book work for you, fine. But
all we know is that they worked for you. We don’t know why, and we
don’t know that they’d work for anyone else.
— David Wright, Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Waltham, MA
wri…@hi.com :: These are my opinions, not necessarily Hitachi’s,
but you’re free to disagree, you poor deluded creature
In article <2sfnuo$…@news.iastate.edu>
ms <mstoh…@iastate.edu> writes:
> So, those of you out there who think you know
> it all, you don’t. Have a little more empathy for those of us who are
> willing to try safe, albeit unproven, alternatives to the often times
> very drastic solutions the conventional medical world has to offer. And
> don’t be so quick to knit-pick and find fault with those of us who share
> our stories.
Well said. I have also had experiences with medical conditions which
the Candida program has helped greatly. I am glad that there are
maverick MD around who are willing to question the conventional
"wisdom".
Jay.C…@Dartmouth.edu
Jay.A.C…@dartmouth.edu
Subject: Re: Candida & Nystatin
From: David Wright, wri…@clam.hi.com
Date: 31 May 1994 10:49:29 -0400
In article <2sfipp$…@clam.hi.com> David Wright, wri…@clam.hi.com
writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>In article <2se6ln$…@pipeline.com> inter…@pipeline.com (Richard
Sullens) writes:
>>I am one of those patients you so condescendingly refer to. It
>>was suggested to me by a chiropractor that I may want to read
>>"The Yeast Connection" and to follow the diet since I was
>>experiencing many of the nearly debilitating symptoms which are
>>considered by Dr. Crook to be indicative of systemic or chronic
>>yeast infection.
>Chiropractors like to give nutritional advice. It helps to compensate
>for the fact that they’re not allowed to prescribe drugs.
>> As far as "dollars and cents" are concerned,
>>I spent $30.00 on the chiropractic, $10.00 on the book, and
>>have spent about $100 on supplements over the past four years.
>> After a few weeks on the diet, my numerous symptoms began to
>>fade and disappear. Contrast this to many thousands of dollars
>>spent on conventional medical doctors who were completely
>>unable to help me or to discover the cause of my health
>>problems, and to hundreds of dollars spent on prescribed drugs,
>>which did nothing but make me sicker and poorer. I have not
>>been following your discussion from the beginning, but I am
>>curious to know why you are so hostile towards those who are
>>willing to entertain that candida may be a cause of many
>>otherwise inexplicable health problems. Even though a reliable
>>test has not yet been established, if one can improve their
>>health by following the recommended regimen when nothing else
>>has been successful, then it makes sense to give this route a
>>try. If I had not, I would probably not be here today.
>Nobody here is sorry that your health improved. At least I think not.
>However, let’s look at the facts, as supplied by you.
>1) You had health problems. You don’t say what they were.
>2) Various prescription drugs did not help.
>3) Dr. Crook’s book seemed to describe your symptoms.
>4) You decided to follow the recommendations in the book.
>5) Your health improved.
>So far, this is ALL we know.
> * we don’t know that you had candida
> * we don’t know that your dietary changes affected your candida
> status
> * and, in fact, we don’t know why you got better.
>Now, if the changes suggested by Crook’s book work for you, fine. But
>all we know is that they worked for you. We don’t know why, and we
>don’t know that they’d work for anyone else.
> – David Wright, Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Waltham, MA
> wri…@hi.com :: These are my opinions, not necessarily Hitachi’s,
> but you’re free to disagree, you poor deluded creature
The individual who followed Dr. Crook’s nutritional guidelines has my
applause and support! If more people would take responsibility for their
own health by applying sound nutritional principles there would be a lot
fewer tragic medical nightmares. I won’t tell you my story… it would
take too long. But suffice it to say that if we knew 20 years ago what
we know now about nutrition and natural health remedies, my husband would
not have gone through 20+ years of excruciating suffering with a
devastating chronic illness. There are long-term irreversible
consequences due to medications and surgeries that he has to live with
for the rest of his life. So, those of you out there who think you know
it all, you don’t. Have a little more empathy for those of us who are
willing to try safe, albeit unproven, alternatives to the often times
very drastic solutions the conventional medical world has to offer. And
don’t be so quick to knit-pick and find fault with those of us who share
our stories. Some of us are just common folk and we might not labor over
every word or present our information with such technical precision so
that others can’t find fault with something we say. Have a heart!!
Steve Dyer (d…@spdcc.com) wrote:
: There is absolutely no high-quality peer-reviewed published research
: out there on the pseudo-diagnosis of "chronic candidiasis".
Why isn’t there?
:If there were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
This seems to say you already know the outcome of research that would be done.
The posts against even considering the possibility that the anti-yeast
people are on to something seem far too intensely negative to just be
helpful skepticism. What is the real agenda?
I just read three books on yeast stuff this weekend. I am trying
the diet suggested. What have I lost (aside from squashing a lot
of urges to eat fruit and Oreos) by trying it? My health isn’t bad enough
for me to risk any prescription medicine that they talk about and the
diet hasn’t caused me to shell out any big bucks.
Why shouldn’t I do this?
–
Jay Brown hpgrla!jayb Greeley Hardcopy
In a previous article, d…@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) wrote:
->Tests which look at antibodies to candida wouldn’t be useful because
->everyone has antibodies to candida.
Aren’t there tests which are based on the level of antibodies rather than
whether they exist? I took such a test for candida and it came back claiming
I had a "high" level of antibodies to candida. (Although I did not retake the
test last, which would have been interesting.)
Mark London
M…@PFC.MIT.EDU
In article <CqKwLw….@spdcc.com>, d…@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) wrote:
> When a conventional doctor is an asshole or doesn’t have time for you,
> the proper response is not to go to a quack who’s a nice guy or who does
> have time for you. Ideally, you’d like to have a qualified doctor who
> takes you seriously, but who won’t be giving you the diagnosis you
> insist on in the absence of any evidence to support it.
You’re right; the proper response is not to go to a "quack." However, it
is a very proper response to take responsibility for your own health and
seek help from someone you trust. It makes sense not to trust someone who
does not give you the proper time and sympathy. Just because a health care
professional does have these qualities does not make her/him "quack."
Also, being dissatisfied with conventional doctors and taking an
"alternative" route does not mean that you are insisting on a certain
diagnosis. It means that you are aware that there is expertise your
conventional doctor may not have tapped into yet that may be useful in your
situation.
>: There is absolutely no high-quality peer-reviewed published research
>: out there on the pseudo-diagnosis of "chronic candidiasis".
>Why isn’t there?
Not that the true believers will be persuaded – but THERE IS a nicely
done RCT of oral nystatin for the "candida hypersensitivity" syndrome of
vague systemic complaints.
Yes, it showed no benefit.
A randomized, double-blind trial of nystatin therapy for the candidiasis
hypersensitivity syndrome.
New England Journal of Medicine, 1990 Dec 20, 323(25):1717-23.
Finally, the candida "hypothesis" makes no sense. There are a number of
well recognized allergic syndromes to endogenous fungal allergens. These
do NOT respond to antifungal therapy.
Also, how does reducing sugar intake reduce candida colonization????
Oral glucose is completely removed for the alimentary tract around the
jejunum. None of it makes it to the vagina. Diabetics are prone to
candida because of cellular immune defects not because they provide a
sweet growth medium.
As others have observed here, evaluation of subjective complaints
REQUIRES double blinding. Merely sticking to the rigors of a "Crook"
dietary regimen may provide symptom relief to this poorly defined group
of patients.
All great ideas in medicine begin as anecdotes – they just don’t stop there.
>Thank you for posting the citation for this study. Unfortunately,
>this study bears very little resemblence to the suggested treatment
>protocol of the Yeast Syndrome proponents.
[details of NEJM study]
>All that was done for the subjects were to give them nystatin for 32
>weeks.
First of all, congratulations for actually READING one of the references
posted here.
[details of crook-therapy]
>Even the authors of the study were aware of the fact that the study
>design did not resemble Dr. Crook’s recommendations. They decided to
>only include Nystatin and nothing else due to the complexity of the
>study.
Right. As I said in my post – this article will not persuade the "true"
believer and is not a study of the whole Crook theory. There is very
little in medicine that is all-or-nothing. If there is truth to the
notion that oral nystatin reduces systemic "symptoms" of candida, and
this effect is large, then this should be observable. Of course, the
effect may not be large when done in isolation without the other aspects
of crooktherapy.
This is the line defenders will take.
Quoting Crook,
> my experience and that of hundreds of other physicians and thousands
> of patients, the answer is a resounding no. With few exceptions, a
> pateint with a chronic health problem requires multi-modal therapy —
> for example, a patient with coronary heart disease, diabetes,
> arthritis, or the attention-deficit disorder. And as noted by
> Bennett, "None of the proponents have recommended the use of nystatin
> alone."
Exactly Dr. Crook. And in each of these examples each individual "mode"
of therapy can be shown to have an effect on its own. Frequently
interventions are synergistic (NSAIDS are good for arthritis pain, rehab
is good for arthritis pain, together they’re really good).
Nystatin alone is ineffective – of course nystatin + crooktherapy MAY be
effective, but this study makes this hypothesis less plausable unless the
"ingredients" in crooktherapy have persuasive face validity based on
biologic plausability.
So, do they???
Crook continues:
> I would especially urge the
> investigators to look at the important role (and intricacies) of
> diet. A diet low in sugar (and other simple carbohydrates) was an
> essential part of the treatment program first outlines by Truss.
I wonder why this is? Does Crook acknowledge the profound placebo effect
of a rigorous lifestyle regimen on functional symptoms?
>Unfortunately, it is very difficult to "double blind" all of Dr.
>Crook’s recommendations. As a first step, I would suggest a protocol
>where the treatment group followed Dr. Crook’s recommendations as
>closely as possible, while the control group was given the
>traditional treatment (whatever that is for their particular
>condition). At least this way, we can tell if Dr. Crooks
>recommendations have merit over a "traditional" treatment.
Nope. The "correct" way to study Crook is to give one group crooktherapy
and the other group sham crooktherapy. This would not be easy since many
folks seeking crooktherapy are already aware of its details. But one
group could get some arbitrarily defined "lifestyle intervention" (I don’t
know – ask ronroth) and placebo nystatin. There is no "traditional
treatment" for candida hypersensitivity because there is no agreement on
its existence or diagnostic criteria.
Of course, if you REALLY believe, no experiment will convince you.
>From: nim…@u.washington.edu (GDR)
>Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
>Subject: Re: Candida & Nystatin
>Date: 31 May 1994 20:58:57 GMT
>Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
>Not that the true believers will be persuaded – but THERE IS a nicely
>done RCT of oral nystatin for the "candida hypersensitivity" syndrome of
>vague systemic complaints.
>Yes, it showed no benefit.
> A randomized, double-blind trial of nystatin therapy for the candidiasis
> hypersensitivity syndrome.
> New England Journal of Medicine, 1990 Dec 20, 323(25):1717-23.
Thank you for posting the citation for this study. Unfortunately,
this study bears very little resemblence to the suggested treatment
protocol of the Yeast Syndrome proponents.
The "Mehtods" of the above-mentioned trial were summerized as
follows:
To determine the efficacy of nystatin therapy for presumed
candidiasis hypersensitivy syndrome, we conducted a ew-week
randomized, double-blind, cross-over study using four different
combinations of nystatin or placebo given orally orvaginally in 42
premenopausal women who met preset criteria for the syndrome and had
a history of candida vaginitis. The outcomes studied were the
changes from base line in scores for vaginal, systemic and overall
symptoms and in the results of standarized psychological tests.
All that was done for the subjects were to give them nystatin for 32
weeks.
Dr. William Crook’s recommendation are extensive. A very, very
short, and somewhat incomplete summary of his recommendations would
look something like this:
1. Diet ("To control candida you must change your diet.")
– "Avoid ‘junk’ foods–food which are refined, overly
processed, loaded with sugar, salt…."
– "Especially avoid all sugars, honey…."
– Avoid foods that cause allergic reactions.
– Eat complex carbohydrates (such as brown rice).
– Be sure to eat some protein-rich foods.
– Include limited amounts of essential fatty acids
and *many* other recommendations
2. Environment
– Avoid environmental pollutants in the air and water.
(He goes into more detail on this subject)
– Get rid of mold out of one’s environment.
3. Miscellaneous
- Get adequate sunlight.
- Get fresh air.
- Get pure (unpolluted water).
- Get adequate exercise.
- Get love & affection [psychoneuroimmunology, I suppose]
4. Candida treatment
- Nyastatin
- Garlic (allicin)
- Caprylic Acid
- Lactobacillus acidophilus
Even the authors of the study were aware of the fact that the study
design did not resemble Dr. Crook’s recommendations. They decided to
only include Nystatin and nothing else due to the complexity of the
study. Here is Dr. Crook’s response in NEJM and the authors’
response to Dr. Crook:
Dr William G. Crook (NEJM, Vol. 324, No. 22, pp. 1592)
To the Editor: In his editorial "Searching for the Yeast
Connection’ (Dec. 20 issue), Bennett noted, "The study by Dismukes et
al. [Dec. 20 issue] was carefully designed and the data thoughtfully
analyzed." Yet, Bennett also said that this study "is only a
beginning" and ‘will not end the controversy." As the author of the
controversial and often maligned book "The Yeast Connection", I would
like to shine more light (and less heat) on the candida-related
complex.
First, I would like to commend Dismukes and associates for
carrying out their study. They showed, clearly, that nystatin alone
"does not reduce systemic or psychological symptoms significantly
more than placebo." Does that mean that nystatin is of no value as
part of a comprehensive treatment program for patients with fatigue,
premenstrual tension, gastrointestinal symptoms, and depression? In
my experience and that of hundreds of other physicians and thousands
of patients, the answer is a resounding no. With few exceptions, a
pateint with a chronic health problem requires multi-modal therapy —
for example, a patient with coronary heart disease, diabetes,
arthritis, or the attention-deficit disorder. And as noted by
Bennett, "None of the proponents have recommended the use of nystatin
alone."
Additional scientifically sound studies are desperately needed. I
hope that pharmaceutical companies or the National Institutes of
Health will provide funds for carrying out such studies. I would
also urge interested investigators to do more shoe-leather detective
work, which would include in-depth interviews with proponents of the
syndrome and their patients. I would especially urge the
investigators to look at the important role (and intricacies) of
diet. A diet low in sugar (and other simple carbohydrates) was an
essential part of the treatment program first outlines by Truss.
Dietary modification was also noted to be important by Crook, Zerling
et al., Schinfeld, Kroker, Hallowitz, and Jessop. I would like to
suggest that investigators review other reports that provide support
for the relation between candida and defects and disturbances of the
immune system and the endocrine system.
Dr. William E. Dismukes (reply) (NEJM, Vol. 324, No. 22, pp. 1594)
To the Editor: We appreciate the comments of Dr. Crook and agree
that additional studies are indicated to address other issues
relating to therapy, including diet. Owing to the already complex
design of our study, we purposely avoided dietary management as a
treatment variable, but we acknowledge its potential role.
….
You may want to review several other letters that challenged
different aspects of the study design, some of which the authors
could not "unequivocally refute."
>Also, how does reducing sugar intake reduce candida colonization????
>Oral glucose is completely removed for the alimentary tract around the
>jejunum. None of it makes it to the vagina. Diabetics are prone to
>candida because of cellular immune defects not because they provide a
>sweet growth medium.
Good question. Perhaps you can contact Dr. Crook and ask him
directly. You may also want to contact John W. Rippon, Ph.D. of the
University of Chicago whom he interviewed for his book. Also, Dr.
Crook seems to have gotten some of his information from a British
mycologist, Frank C. Odds, who wrote the book "Candida and Candiosis."
>As others have observed here, evaluation of subjective complaints
>REQUIRES double blinding. Merely sticking to the rigors of a "Crook"
>dietary regimen may provide symptom relief to this poorly defined group
>of patients.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to "double blind" all of Dr.
Crook’s recommendations. As a first step, I would suggest a protocol
where the treatment group followed Dr. Crook’s recommendations as
closely as possible, while the control group was given the
traditional treatment (whatever that is for their particular
condition). At least this way, we can tell if Dr. Crooks
recommendations have merit over a "traditional" treatment.
>All great ideas in medicine begin as anecdotes – they just don’t stop there.
I agree. In addition, I think that the treatments that lead to these
anecdotal successes should, initially, be tested, "as is", and not picked
apart.
– Mark
g…@ilp.mit.edu
P.S. – I personally agree with many of Dr. Crook’s suggestions and
*some* of his ideas. Some of his suggestions, like the use of
nystatin, I do not agree with. (I think it’s too harsh–I prefer
allicin and other treatments.)