re quack quack was re candida yeast bloom fact or fiction in article noringc yl i qo netcom com noring netcom com jon noring writes in article rind enterprise bih harvard edu david rind writes do you believe that any quacks exist how about quack diagnoses is being a licensed physician enough to guarantee that someone is not a quack or is it just that even if a licensed physician is a quack other people shouldn t say so i would say there are also significant numbers of unscrupulous doctors of the squeaky clean traditional crew cut talk to the ama before starting any treatment kind umm weren t you the one objecting to someone who is a licensed physician being called a quack or is it just that being a licensed physician is a good defense against charges of quackery when the physician agrees with your system of beliefs lately i ve seen the word quack bandied about recklessly actually i almost never use the term quack when i discuss systemic yeast syndrome however i always point out that mainstream medicine views this as a quack diagnosis and i agree with that characterization let me put it another way to make my point clear quack is a nebulous word lacking in any precision really i bet virtually everyone reading these posts understands what steve dyer gordon banks and i am implying when we have talked about systemic yeast syndrome as a quack diagnosis would you prefer the word charlatan i don t happen to think that all quacks are charlatans since i suspect that some believe in the diseases they are diagnosing 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 david rind rind enterprise bih harvard edu
