file.newsgroup.med.59304 Maven / Gradle / Ivy
The newest version!
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Candida(yeast) Bloom, Fact or Fiction
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (David Rind) writes:
> In article <[email protected]>
> [email protected] writes:
>>I don't like the term "quack" being applied to a licensed physician David.
>>Questionable conduct is more appropriately called unethical(in my opinion).
>
>> 3. Using laetril to treat cancer patients when such treatment has
>> been shown to be ineffective and dangerous(cyanide release) by
>> the NCI.
>
> Hmm. This is certainly among the things I would refer to as quack
> therapy and would tend to refer to any practitioner who prescribed
> laetrile (whether licensed or not) as a quack. There are unethical
> behaviors (such as ordering unneccessary tests to increase fees)
> which I would not lable as quackish, but prescribing known ineffective
> therapies seems to me to be one of the hallmarks of a quack.
> --
> David Rind
One of the responsibilities of a licensed physician is to read the medical
literature to keep up with changes in medical practice. All the clamor
over laetril resulted in the NCI spending quite a bit of money on clinical
trials which proved(to me anyway) that laetril was ineffective against
cancer. A physician who continued to use it, when better, more effective,
treatments are available, may deserve to be called a quack. Anti-fungals
are in a different class. The big question seems to be is it reasonable to
use them in patients with GI distress or sinus problems that *could* be due
to candida blooms following the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics? Gorden
Rubenfeld, through e-mail, has assured me that most physicians recognize
the chance of candida blooms occuring after broad-spectrum antibiotic use
and they therefore reinnoculate their patients with *good* bacteria to
restore competetion for candida in the body. I do not believe that this is
yet a standard part of medical practice. He deals with critical care
patients where fungal infection(systemic) is a real problem and just
because he tries to keep *good* bacteria in his patients does not mean that
all physicians do this. I think that aspergillis is more likely to be
found in the sinus mucus membranes than is candida. Women have been known
for a very long time to suffer from candida blooms in the vagina and a
women is lucky to find a physician who is willing to treat the cause and
not give give her advise to use the OTC anti-fungal creams. Since candida
colonizes primarily in the ano-rectal area, GI symptoms should be more common
than vaginal problems after broad-spectrum antibiotic use.
The problem we have here David is proof that GI discomfort can be caused by
a candida bloom. The arguement is that without proof, no action is
warrented.
Medicine has not, and probalby never will be, practiced this way. There
has always been the use of conventional wisdom. A very good example is
kidney stones. Conventional wisdom(because clinical trails have not been
done to come up with an effective prevention), was that restricitng the
intake of calcium and oxalates was the best way to prevent kidney stones
from forming. Clinical trials focused on drugs or ultrasonic blasts to
breakdown the stone once it formed. Through the recent New England J of
Medicine article, we now know that conventional wisdom was wrong,
increasing calcium intake is better at preventing stone formation than is
restricting calcium intake.
The conventional wisdom in animal husbandry has been that animals need to
be reinnoculated with *good* bacteria after coming off antibiotic therapy.
If it makes sense for livestock, why doesn't it make sense for humans
David? We are not talking about a dangerous treatment(unless you consider
yogurt dangerous). If this were a standard part of medical practice, as
Gordon R. says it is, then the incidence of GI distress and vaginal yeast
infections should decline.
Marty B.
© 2015 - 2025 Weber Informatics LLC | Privacy Policy