file.newsgroup.med.59252 Maven / Gradle / Ivy
From: [email protected] (Robert E. Schmieg)
Subject: Re: Quack-Quack (was Re: Candida(yeast) Bloom, Fact or Fiction)
[email protected] writes:
> 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.
The burden of proof rests upon those who claim the existence
of this "syndrome". To date, these claims are unsubstantiated
by any available data. Hopefully, as a scientist, you would
take issue with anyone overstating their conclusions based
upon their data.
> 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.
Gee, I have many interesting and enlightening anecdotes about
myself, my friends, and my family, but in the practice of
medicine I expect and demand more rigorous rationales for
basing therapy than "Aunt Susie's brother-in-law ...".
Anecdotal evidence may provide inspiration for a hypothesis,
but rarely proves anything in a positive sense. And unlike
mathematics, boolean logic rarely applies directly to medical
issues, and so evidence of 'exceptions' does not usually
disprove but rather modifies current concepts of disease.
> 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.
I would characterize it not as 'abject disbelief' but rather
'scientific outrage over vastly overstated conclusions'.
> 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.
I have no problem with such an approach; but this is NOT what
is happening in the 'trenches' of this diagnosis.
Bob Schmieg