From: kohli@aslmr.med (Jim Kohli)
Subject: RE: Information needed on Candida albicans
Followup-To: sci.med.nutrition
Reply-To: kohli@aslmr.med.ge.com (Jim Kohli)
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Applied Sciences Lab
	<25SEP92.02024121@nerus.pfc.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 03:22:00 GMT


In article <25SEP92.02024121@nerus.pfc.mit.edu>, mrl@nerus.pfc.mit.edu () writes:
>>I don't have my references with me, but about 1 1/2 yrs ago,
<>I posted (in sci.med) what constituted a reasonable set of references
>>position papers, etc, which, if I may summarize, strongly suggest
<>that:
>>
<	Let's be fair.  If we critize people for not showing references
>	before making statements, then how can you do so?
<
Well, let's see.  If we're going to be fair, recognize that everyone
is entitled to their own opinions.  References are strictly necessary
as a matter of maintaining credibility.  I believe that the information
which I presented was (a) NOT incredible and (b) common knowledge to
the medical community.  Furthermore, the aforementioned references are
as follows:

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Vol. 67, Number 5 (1981),
pp. 333-338 is a set of position statements from the American Academy of
Allergy on "controversial techniques".  Among other things, they conclude
that sublingual provocative testing, which is commonly used in the so-called
candida albicans hypersensitivity syndrome, has no controlled clinical studies
indicating a diagnostic or therapeutic effect.

The American Academy of Allergy also issued a position statement in
J A and C I, Vol. 78 pp 271- in which "candidiasis hypersensitivity
syndrome" is debunked.

<> 
>>2. The success of such publications is due to people buying the book
<>and following the recommended dietary regimen.  The diet usually
>>consists of eliminating all processed cane and corn sugar, yeast,
<>fungus, etc. from your diet.  This leaves fruit, vegetables, and fresh
>>meat.
< 	You might want to reread the books.  Fruit is not allowed until
>	Phase 3 of the 4 Phase diet, except melons in Phase 2 (hey,
<	there go those melons again!).
>
Yes?  Do you have a point?  Why should fruit every be allowed again?
If you've just gone through all the trouble of eliminating all those
sources of sugar and yeast, why would you want to re-introduce them?
If you're going to have a consistent theory with respect to the modus
operandi of the yeast, you should probably avoid anything which has
any sort of sugar (heh!  Just try it!) and avoid anything which may
introduce cultures of yeast into your alimentary canal.

I like how the diet is "Phased".  GARSH!  IT MUST BE REEEL SCIENCE!!!

<	I agree that one should be wary of books. However, I have met
>	several reputable MDs who believe in this diagnosis. They are not
Are we talking about the same diagnosis?  I don't think so.  Give me
a name and number.  Several, if possible.  I'll call them up and ask
them.  Quite frankly, I don't believe there are any reputable MDs
who believe such nonsense (see below concerning details of the diagnosis
in question).

<	making any extra money by making this diagnosis.  Just because
>	the symptoms can vary from person to person, does that mean it's 
<	bogus?  I recently read about a woman who had a baby which had 
>	many health problems.  The woman spent tens of thousands of dollars
<	on medical bills.  Finally, someone suggested testing for gluten
>	intolerance, and that was the problem.  No one had done that before
<	because the baby did not exhibit the classic diarrhea symptom, so
>	every one discounted that diagnosis.  Many diseases have varied symptoms
<	for people.  Does that automatically make the diagnosis bogus?
How does this have any bearing on the discussion?  What we're talking about
here is a non-condition which is diagnosed using BOGUS procedures.  We are
NOT talking about missing a correct procedure.  The BOGUS procedures are
the PREFERRED ones by the quacks who routinely make this diagnosis on a
disproportionately large percentage of their clientele.

No doctor ANYWHERE routinely does blood and stool samples when this diagnosis
is routinely made.  It seems to me that the cost is certainly small enough
that a reasonable confirmation test could be performed.  Take a guess as
to why this doesn't happen.

>	Just because we don't understand the mechanism, again do we throw
<	away a diagnosis?  Plenty of diseases have no known reason.  I have 
<
The quacks who routinely make this diagnosis screen ALL of their patients.
How many people do you know who would not be diagnosed as positive when
the diagnosis is made with the old specious sublingual testing AND a
questionaire consisting almost exclusively of questions which ask
you if you have A or NOT A.  It's a tautology.

Just because we don't have a disease doesn't mean we should respect
being diagnosed as having it.

>	fibromyalgia, and it has no established cause and the symptoms vary
<	completely from person to person.
That's not the point.  There's no established cause (despite any contrary
noise about setting one's self up by prolonged exposure to antibiotics)
for the condition as described by "The Yeast Connection."  I am not,
of course, suggesting that you can't get into trouble by extended jaunts
of antibiotics, what I'm saying is that the candidiasis diagnosis in someone
who occasionally experiences tiredness, gas, bloating, or diarrhea is
made completely without clinical basis.  This alleged condition does
have a measurable output, that being an unusual concentration of
C.A. in the intestinal tract.  So why don't any of these quacks verify
the condition???

>>
<>  You will lose a lot of weight while you hungrily browse the
>>ingredients panels on all of what used to be your favorite foods
<>(before you reshelf that particular item).  Sometimes the diet is
>>supplemented with an oral fungicide to add a necessary medical appeal.
<>The reason this is obviously bogus is that candida albicans is
>>completely ubiquitous.  It will be in and on everything you every
<>consume.  It will thrive on all the simple sugars allowed by the fruit
>>(although perhaps the "fungicide will help strip the population"), and
<>will certainly thrive on any of the non-yeast/fungus based
>>carbohydrates which you are allowed.
<>
>	I think you are leaving out the other theory.  Simple carbohydrates
<	such as sugars will feed the candida in one's systems.  Protein
>	and complex carbohydrates won't.  If nothing else, by eliminating
<	sugar one does have a healthier diet and thus maybe will help one's
>	immune system, so if one is having health problems, the diet might
<	help no matter what, which is not too bad.  Also, some doctors allow
>	whole grains since they are complex carbohydrates.  
<
I suspect the theory is actually a conspiracy.
Sugar is brain food.  Heh.

But seriously.  You won't be very successful in living if you try
to eliminate all sugars and simple carbohydrates from your diet.
They are everywhere.  Either directly, or as products of digestion.
It's a pointless exercise.

<> 
>>3. IF one were truly suffering from the condition, one might expect
<>to have approximately 12-36 hours to live.  Chunks of yeast would be
>>bubbling around in your blood, thriving there as well as everywhere
<>else.
>> 
<	Well, you'll have to explain to me my problem that I had several
>	years ago.  I developed oral candidiasis for no specific reason.
<	I was not on antibiotics (which is a well established reason for
>	candidiasis, which you fail to mention), and was in reasonably in
<	good shape except for a cold around the same time.  I was prescribed
>	oral nystatin by an oral doctor (whatever you call them), but every
<	time I stopped it, it would come back.  This went on for months.
>	Finally a "holistic" doctor recommeded nizoral, and that killed it
<	off completely.  My diet was very good, so imagine what occurs with
>	people who take antibiotics and have poor diets?
<
Oral candidiasis (thrush) has not been questioned as an actual
diagnosis.  Nor do I question the existence of vaginal yeast
infections.  Just what did you think we were talking about here?
There is a very specific, and controversial non-condition 
sometimes referred to as "candida hypersensitivity syndrome" or
"an internal infection of candida albicans", etc. which supposes
that there is an infestation of said yeast in the intestines of
the patient, causing a wide variety of ambiguous, anecdotal, and
very subjective symptoms.  THIS is what I'm talking about.  I
believe that this is what the original poster was requesting
information about.  Of course, I could be wrong.

Jim Kohli

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition