From: aldridge@netcom.com (Jacquelin Aldridge)
Subject: Re: Good Grief! (was Re: Candida Albicans: what is it?)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 121

dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

>In article <noringC5snsx.KMo@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>>>There is no convincing evidence that such a disease exists.
>>There's a lot of evidence, it just hasn't been adequately gathered and
>>published in a way that will convince the die-hard melancholic skeptics
>>who quiver everytime the word 'anecdote' or 'empirical' is used.

>Snort.  Ah, there go my sinuses again.

>>For example, Dr. Ivker, who wrote the book "Sinus Survival", always gives,

>Oh, wow.  A classic textbook.  Hey, they laughed at Einstein, too!

>>before any other treatment, a systemic anti-fungal (such as Nizoral) to his
>>new patients IF they've been on braod-spectrum anti-biotics 4 or more times
>>in the last two years.  He's kept a record of the results, and for over 
>>2000 patients found that over 90% of his patients get significant relief
>>of allergic/sinus symptoms.  Of course, this is only the beginning for his
>>program.

>Yeah, I'll bet.  Tomorrow, the world.

>Listen, uncontrolled studies like this are worthless.

>>In my case, as I reported a few weeks ago, I was developing the classic
>>symptoms outlined in 'The Yeast Connection' (I agree it is a poorly 
>>written book):  e.g., extreme sensitivity to plastics, vapors, etc. which
>>I never had before (started in November).  Within one week of full dosage
>>of Sporanox, the sensitivity to chemicals has fully disappeared - I can
>>now sit on my couch at home without dying after two minutes.  I'm also
>>*greatly* improved in other areas as well.

>I'm sure you are.  You sound like the typical hysteric/hypochondriac who
>responds to "miracle cures."

>>Of course, I have allergy symptoms, etc.  I am especially allergic to
>>molds, yeasts, etc.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that
>>if one has excessive colonization of yeast in the body, and you have a
>>natural allergy to yeasts, that a threshold would be reached where you
>>would have perceptible symptoms.

>Yeah, "it makes sense to me", so of course it should be taken seriously.
>Snort.

>>Also, yeast do produce toxins of various
>>sorts, and again, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that
>>such toxins can cause problems in some people.

>Yeah, "it sounds reasonable to me".

>>Of course, the $60,000
>>question is whether a person who is immune compromised (as tests showed I was
>>from over 5 years of antibiotics, nutritionally-deficiencies because of the
>>stress of infections and allergies, etc.),

>Oh, really?  _What_ tests?  Immune-compromised, my ass.
>More like credulous malingerer.  This is a psychiatric syndrome.

>>can develop excessive yeast
>>colonization somewhere in the body.  It is a tough question to answer since
>>testing for excessive yeast colonization is not easy.  One almost has to
>>take an empirical approach to diagnosis.  Fortunately, Sporanox is relatively
>>safe unlike past anti-fungals (still have to be careful, however) so there's
>>no reason any longer to withhold Sporanox treatment for empirical reasons.

>You know, it's a shame that a drug like itraconazole is being misused
>in this way.  It's ridiculously expensive, and potentially toxic.
>The trouble is that it isn't toxic enough, so it gets abused by quacks.

>>BTW, some would say to try Nystatin.  Unfortunately, most yeast grows hyphae
>>too deep into tissue for Nystatin to have any permanent affect.  You'll find
>>a lot of people who are on Nystatin all the time.

>The only good thing about nystatin is that it's (relatively) cheap
>and when taken orally, non-toxic.  But oral nystatin is without any
>systemic effect, so unless it were given IV, it would be without
>any effect on your sinuses.  I wish these quacks would first use
>IV nystatin or amphotericin B on people like you.  That would solve
>the "yeast" problem once and for all.

>>In summary, I appreciate all of the attempts by those who desire to keep
>>medicine on the right road.  But methinks that some who hold too firmly
>>to the party line are academics who haven't been in the trenches long enough
>>actually treating patients.  If anybody, doctors included, said to me to my
>>face that there is no evidence of the 'yeast connection', I cannot guarantee
>>their safety.  For their incompetence, ripping off their lips is justified as
>>far as I am concerned.

>Perhaps a little Haldol would go a long way towards ameliorating
>your symptoms.

>Are you paying for this treatment out of your own pocket?  I'd hate
>to think my insurance premiums are going towards this.

>Steve Dyer

Dyer, you're rude. Medicine is not a totallly scientific endevour. It's
often practiced in a disorganized manner. Most early treatment of
non-life threatening illness is done on a guess, hazarded after anecdotal
evidence given by the patient. It's an educated guess, by a trained person,
but it's still no more than a guess.
It's cheaper and simpler to medicate first and only deal further with those
people who don't respond.

There are diseases that haven't been described yet and the root cause of many
diseases now described aren't known. (Read a book on gastroenterology
sometime if you want to see a lot of them.) After scientific methods have
run out then it's the patient's freedom of choice to try any experimental
method they choose. And it's well recognized by many doctors that medicine
doesn't have all the answers.

This person said that they had relief by taking the medicine. Maybe it's a
miracle cure, maybe it's valid. How do you know?  

You might argue with the reasoning, the conclusions. But your disparaging
attack is unwarranted. Why don't you present an convincing argument for you
r beliefs, instead of wasting our time in an ad hominem attack.

-Jackie-
 
