re candida yeast bloom fact or fiction in article nodrog hardy u washington edu gordon rubenfeld writes marty you ve also changed the terrain of the discussion from empiric itraconazole for undocumented chronic fungal sinusitis with systemic hypersensitivity symptoms noring syndrome to the yoghurt and vitamin therapy of undocumented candida enteritis elaine palmer syndrome with systemic symptoms there is significant difference between the cost and risk of these two empiric therapeutic trials are we talking about real candida infections the whole yeast connection hypothesis the efficacy of routine bacterial repopulation in humans or the ability of anecdotally effective therapies challenged by a negative randomized trial to confirm an etiologic hypothesis post hoc ergo propter hoc we can t seem to focus in on a disease a therapy or a hypothesis under discussion i m lost point i m beginning to see that part of the disagreements about the whole yeast issue is on differing perceptions and on differing meanings of words medical doctors have a very specific and specialized jargon necessary for precise communication within their field which i m fully cognizant of since i too speak jargonese when with my peers for the situation in sci med many times the words or phrases used by doctors can have a different and more specific meaning than the same word used in the world at large causing significant miscommunication one example word and very relevant to the yeast discussion is the exact meaning of systemic it is now obvious to me that the meaning of this word is very specific much more so than its meaning to a non doctor there is also the observation of this newsgroup that both doctors and non doctors come together on essentially equal terms which when combined with the jargon issue can further fan the flames this is probably the first time that practicing doctors get really beat up by non doctors for their views on medicine which they otherwise don t see much of in their practice except for the occasional difficult patient point i understand the viewpoint among many practicing doctors that they will not prescribe any treatments therapies for their patients unless such treatments have been shown to be effective and the risks understood from well constructed clinical trials usually double blind or that such treatments therapies are part of an approved and funded clinical trial to these doctors to do any differently would in this belief system be unethical practice and it follows that any therapy not on the accepted list is therefore a non therapy it does not even exist nor does the underlying hypothesis or theory have any validity even if it sounds very plausible by extrapolation of what is currently known anecdotal evidence has no value either from a treatment point of view and by and large as a scientist myself i am glad that medical practice science takes such a rigorous approach to medical treatment however as also being a human being last i checked and having been one of those people that has been significantly helped by a currently unaccepted treatment where standard medicine was not able to help me has caused me to sit back and wonder if holding such an extreme and rigid scientific viewpoint is in itself unethical from humanitarian considerations after all the underlying intent of the scientific approach to medicine is to protect the health of the patient by providing the best possible care for the patient so the patient should come first when considering treatment what we need is a slightly modified approach to treatment that satisfies both the scientific and the humanitarian viewpoints in an earlier post i outlined a crazy idea for doing just that the gist of it was to give any physician freedom and encouragement by the medical community to prescribe alternate not yet proven therapies maybe supported by anecdotal evidence for patients who all avenues of accepted therapies have been exhausted and not until then the patient would be fully informed that such therapies treatments are not supported by the proper clinical trials and that there are real potential risks with real possibilities of no benefit derived from them this approach satisfies the need for scientific rigor it also satisfies the humanitarian needs of the patient and the reality is that many patients who have reached a dead end in the treatment of their symptoms using accepted medicine will go outside the orthodox medical community either to the doctors who are brave enough to prescribe such treatments at the risk of losing their license or worse to non doctors who have not had the proper medical training this approach also recognizes this reality and keeps the control more within orthodox medicine with the benefits that the information gleaned could help focus limited resources towards future clinical trials in the most productive way everybody wins in this admittedly rose colored approach i m sure there are real problems with this approach as well it is presented more as a strawman to stimulate discussion hopefully what i write here may give the sci med doctors a better idea as to why i am open to alternative therapies as well as why i have real difficulty read apparent hostility with the coldness of the pure scientific approach to medicine i believe the best approach to medical treatment is one where both the humanitarian aspects are balanced with and by the scientific aspects anything else is just not good medicine imho just my nf leanings i guess comments jon noring charter member infj club if you re dying to know what infj means be brave e mail me i ll send info jon noring noring netcom com jkn international ip fred s gourmet chocolate carlton place phone chips world s best livermore ca v mail who are you read alt psychology personality that s where the action is
