Talk:Candida (fungus)

message: The genus Candida comprises around 150 species:    
Harmless Candida species	use
Candida robusta         	bakers' yeast
Candida kefyr           	
Candida antartica       	Biocatalysis
12 subdivisions are infective.
Pathogenic Candida species
Candida albicans
Candida krusei
Candida parapsilosis
Candida tropicalis
Candida lusitaniae
Candida glabrata
:I think this table is probably meaningless or at best an uninformative simplification. It has one obvious error: baker's yeast is not Candida robusta, but Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Anyway, it needs a source. —Keenan Pepper 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The class is Ascomycetes but according to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=4891&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
it is Saccharomycetes which is quite logical because S. cerevisiae is the same phylum, order and family as Candida and so it can not be different class. 
—Alash 12:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article's tone is somewhat biased toward allopathy - a practice of medicine which has not figured out how to treat Candida infections effectively, and also has a vested interest in people NOT being cured of this disease (sales of all types of antifungal pills, creams, ointments, sprays, powders, etc.)  
Allopathic treatments often require increasing doses of anti-fungal medications each visit just to keep fungal overgrowth symptoms from getting worse.  A result of these treatments are new strains of "-azole resistant Candida" you've been reading about on Google Scholar. 
Staying open to ideas about nutrition and alternative medicine is important for treating this condition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.203.96 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is Currently Biased toward Allopathy 

message: There is too much of a focus on alternative medicine in this article. Can someone look into the balance of this and investigate any possible spamming?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NASSAfellow (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is too much. If you do a search on google, apart from this article pretty much everything else refers to the quacky alternative health theory of candida, so we should be covering it to debunk it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I'll rename the 'Other' Section as Alternative Medicine Therapies to tidy it up then.  Thanks. NASSAfellow (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that makes sense, thanks. I just moved the summary of alternative medicine back into the lede - it was meant to be there, as it is a summary of the alternative medicine section. You should be able to read the introduction and get all the information without having to read the rest of the article WP:Lead. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

text: No, that isn't presented as quackery - we actually mention this in the lede. Although I notice we don't mention it anywhere in the main article itself, which is a problem. The lede should always summarise the main article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Medicine 

message: There is not enough detail; there is a lot of bias and use of "weasel words", poor sources (for example a blog by a doctor is assumed to stand for the opinion of all/most doctors, or an alternative medicine website is assumed to stand for the belief of all/most alternative practitioners); some sources are poorly paraphrased (a statement will say something different than the source says, be incomplete when summarizing the source, or make O.R. conclusions); and there are many vague/unclear statements. I'll try to work on it more when I have time, but it would be great if anyone else wants to help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.194.152 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of bias and self-contradicting "science dogma" indeed.  Though I cannot cite any sources beyond personal experiences, there is actually far more overlapping agreement between what the science shows, and what alternative therapy practitioners tend to say about candida and candidiasis, than what this article suggests.  I don't recall ever seeing such a biased and poorly written wiki article.  It boggles my mind, the cognitive dissonance that must be required to point out some of the characteristics of candida and conditions candida can cause (even linking to them), then claim "No studies have proven that having intestinal candidiasis causes any symptoms of illness".  It should be apparent that studies have done so, even without a websearch, or maybe that was an attempt at a "guns don't kill people, people do" type statement, like "intestinal candidiasis doesn't cause any symptoms of illness, the disseminated infections from the lesions caused by intestinal candidiasis do" (sorry, that perhaps comes across a bit facetious).  classic case of "science dogma", rather than real science.  please don't give science a bad name by making such highfalutin inflated implausible statements (at the very least re-word).  it strongly suggests several fallacies at play, perhaps most prominently "I have not seen it, it must not exist".  "science dogma" != science.  A big "Thankyou very much" to anyone who helps clean up this article.  I dare not actually touch it myself just now, fearing I'd inadvertently spout personal outrage (like I have here in talk) in some kind of retaliatory over-correction.  Does anyone else think this article should be marked at the top as needing some work?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.138.152 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are studies, please add them to the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a lot of work 

message: I just added the undue weight tag to the "alternative therapies" section as the amount of pseudoscientific claims it makes isn't balanced by any findings and treatments of conventional medicine. ThemFromSpace 20:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I also started a topic on Wikiproject Medicine to discuss this issue.  See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Candida (fungus). ThemFromSpace 20:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alternative therapies" section = [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] 

message: There have been a lot of ads about candida, dubbed "The American Parasite" aimed at scaring people into buying a particular brand of probiotic dietary supplement.  The ads imply that candida overgrowth in the gut causes serious health problems for hundreds of millions of Americans, and that measures to combat it have been suppressed by the establishment.  The prevalence of such ads, and the fact that money can be made by scaring people this way, is noteworthy, but it may belong more in the articles on advertising or dietary supplements or drug regulation than in this article.CharlesHBennett (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible section on use of candida to scare people into buying probiotic dietary supplements