
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 oral superoxide dismutase, 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 dismutase 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