In article <1rag61$1cb@hsdndev.harvard.edu> rind@enterprise.bih.harvard.edu (David Rind) writes: >In article <noringC5yL3I.3qo@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes: >>(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. > >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?  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