Curing Systemic Candida without GP help - questions

[Humph]

Curing Systemic Candida without GP help - questions

I have some questions about treating Candida.

To cut a long story short, I have found out that I have
Systemic Candida/Candedemia. I have had a yeast culture done
on a stool sample and it came back with a "+3 Candida Albicans
Significant Overgrowth". The reason I did the test is because
I had many symptoms consistent with Candida. (Psoriasis of the
nail (pitted index fingernail), Sensitivity to cigarette smoke
and other inhalants, Dark rings and puffiness under eyes,
Unmanageable weight gain, Diagnosed food sensitivities (yeast,
mushroom, sugar, milk, cheese, tomato, lemon), Root canal
abscess, Periodontal gum disease, Post nasal drip, Acne,
Increased night-time urination, Anxiety.)

Of course the idiot NHS UK doctors said Candida of the
intestine 'isn't officially recognised by the NHS' so they
can't treat me. In fact all they treated me... was like a
hypochondriac. So I got the test done privately, and proved
them wrong. Maybe they'll cotton on in another 10 years when
thousands of people have been through unnecessary pain. Great.

Now I'm on my own. I have ordered all the relevant healthy
supplements and am following the great sounding plan at
http://www.a-better-way.com/systems/candida.html. However
someone else told me that I should also cut out products
containing yeast?? This is not mentioned in the above plan. So
my questions are:

1. Can I eat products containing yeasts or fungi, such as
Marmite, mushrooms, (wheat-free) yeasted bread, etc.?
2. If I buy over the counter Diflucan tablets, what dosage
should I take and for how long? I've heard 200mg per day
until symptoms recede, then for 3 months after that?
3. Can I eat vegetables that contain natural sugars such as
tomatoes during the 3 week sugar fast?
4. Should I take Bifidophilus AT THE SAME TIME AS Diflucan?

Thanks in advance for your help.

HS

[Craig Heal]

ALLOWED FOOD.

FOOD COMMENT filtered water The only drink that is always
recommended. Drinking increased quantities of filtered water
helps the liver to detoxify the body and can help curing many
diseases including Candida overgrowth.. Stevia Recommended
sweetener. vegetables broccoli, cauliflower, parsley, sprouts,
spinach, celery, cucumbers green pepper, peas, tomatoes,
beans, yellow, cabbage, onion, radishes, kale, lettuce,
spinach and turnip. Avoid vegetables containing simple carbs,
like potatoes. Meat beef, duck, eggs, quail, chicken, fish,
oyster, rabbit, clam, tuna, turkey, crab, shrimp, goose,
pheasant, lobster, hen, lamb, pork, veal

EAT IN MODERATION OR AVOID COMPLETELY.

FOOD COMMENT eggs Raw eggs contain substance called avidin
that interferes with absorption of biotin. Boiled eggs do not
have this problem. Eggs are common allergen. yogurt Sometimes
contains additional sugar Fruits Avoid on strict diet, eat
maximum of 1 or 2 pieces of fruit a day, preferably less sweet
ones. wheat: Hard to digest, feeds the yeast nuts: usually
contain mold, which feeds Candida. If roasted some of the mold
will be eliminated and roasted nuts can be used in less strict
anti-Candida diets

AVOID COMPLETELY.

FOOD COMMENT Artificial sweeteners Avoid completely artificial
sweeteners, like Aspartame (NutraSweet), saccharin, .... . Use
Stevia instead.

Fruit Juices Usually contain lots of sugar. Exception: Freshly
prepared juice Caffeine Avoid any kind of coffee, tea and soft
drinks including decaffeinated coffee. Sugar Feeds the yeasts
big time. Elimination of all sugars: white sugar, brown sugar,
honey, dextrin, maple sugar, beet sugar, ... Use Stevia
instead. left-overs, yeast, mold It is highly likely if you
have Candida overgrowth that you are allergic to mold. Also,
food that mold can grow on, can feed Candida. Avoid anything
containing yeast : brewer's yeast, baker's yeast, vitamins
derived from yeast. Mold tends to grow on left-overs.
Refrigerate your food or better freeze it and try to eat it in
24 hours after preparation. Alcohol All alcohol is made by
fermentation, and is forbidden in strict Candida diet. Melons
Too sweet Vinegar: Avoid vinegar and all foods containing
vinegar: mayonnaise, mustard. Fresh lemon juice can be used
instead vinegar. fermented products such as soy sauce, soda
bread, cheese, yogurt, sauerkraut, green olives and pickled
vegetables. Bread Contains yeast and refined flour. It is best
to avoid bread completely. You could also be allergic to
grains. diary: All kinds of milk and milk products (cheese,
buttermilk, ... ) should be avoided if you have problems
digesting it. It is very common allergen. tap water the
chlorine found in most tap water is killing good bacteria
living in your intestines.

edible fungi like mushrooms, truffles, ... they can feed
Candida or/and you can be allergic to them processed food like
bacon, hot dogs, sausages, meat loafs, ... Processed foods
usually contain yeast, refined sugar, chemicals starch Starch
transfers into carbohydrates, Avoid food containing high
levels of starch like corn and potatoes. dried/candied fruits
contain mold, sugar and other toxins. animal fat toxins are
stored in fat and eating animal fat increases toxic overload

Lactobacillus acidophilus. The main and most important
inhabitant of small intestines in humans. Also present in the
mouth and vagina. This bacteria produces lactase = an enzyme
that digests milk sugar and produces lactic acid which
suppresses undesirable bacteria and yeasts. Some strains
produce natural antibiotics, such as acidophilin and some
produce hydrogen peroxide, a byproduct that attacks yeasts and
"bad" bacteria. It also can lower cholesterol levels.

Bifidobacterium bifidum. The main and most important
inhabitant of large intestines in humans. Bifidum is also
found in the vagina and the lower part of the small intestine.
It produce a number of specialized acids that prevent
colonization of the large intestine by invading bacteria,
yeasts and some viruses. Can produce B vitamins.

"Humph" <me@mine.com> wrote in message
news:PzQJ8.6826$jH5.49772713@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Curing Systemic Candida without GP help - questions
>
> I have some questions about treating Candida.
>
> To cut a long story short, I have found out that I have
> Systemic Candida/Candedemia. I have had a yeast culture done
> on a stool sample and it came back with a "+3 Candida
> Albicans Significant Overgrowth". The reason I did the test
> is because I had many symptoms consistent with Candida.
> (Psoriasis of the nail (pitted index fingernail),
> Sensitivity to cigarette smoke and other inhalants, Dark
> rings and puffiness under eyes, Unmanageable weight gain,
> Diagnosed food sensitivities (yeast, mushroom, sugar, milk,
> cheese, tomato, lemon), Root canal abscess, Periodontal gum
> disease, Post nasal drip, Acne, Increased night-time
> urination, Anxiety.)
>
> Of course the idiot NHS UK doctors said Candida of the
> intestine 'isn't officially recognised by the NHS' so they
> can't treat me. In fact all
they
> treated me... was like a hypochondriac. So I got the test
> done privately, and proved them wrong. Maybe they'll cotton
> on in another 10 years when thousands of people have been
> through unnecessary pain. Great.
>
> Now I'm on my own. I have ordered all the relevant healthy
> supplements
and
> am following the great sounding plan at
> http://www.a-better-way.com/systems/candida.html. However
> someone else
told
> me that I should also cut out products containing
> yeast?? This is not mentioned in the above plan. So my
> questions are:
>
> 1. Can I eat products containing yeasts or fungi, such as
> Marmite, mushrooms, (wheat-free) yeasted bread, etc.?
> 2. If I buy over the counter Diflucan tablets, what
> dosage should I
take
> and for how long? I've heard 200mg per day until symptoms
> recede, then
for
> 3 months after that?
> 3. Can I eat vegetables that contain natural sugars such
> as tomatoes during the 3 week sugar fast?
> 4. Should I take Bifidophilus AT THE SAME TIME AS
> Diflucan?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> HS
>
>

[Humph]

Brilliant, thanks.

HS

"Craig Health" <CRAIG@noscape.net> wrote in message
news:KQTJ8.1638$Ii5.80245957@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> ALLOWED FOOD.
>
> FOOD COMMENT

[Jedilworth]

Just because you have Candida in your stool doesn't not mean
you have SYSTEMIC Candidiasis. Are you another one that is
getting stool cultures done by Great Smokies Diagnostic
Laboratory or its UK equivalent? Please see my extensive
posting under the ongoing thread labelled "Candida."

A systemic Candidiasis means that you have yeasts in your
BLOOD, and probably also your urine, respiratory tract -
everywhere. You would be in the hospital if this were true.
Many people that are immunocompromised with HIV, cancer,
kidney disease, diabetes, end up with Candida overgrowth that
sometimes goes into their blood. They are SICK and not well
enough to be typing newsgroup messages.

I really don't think the docs in the NHS UK are idiots. You
are probably making a huge mountain out of the molehill this
one culture result provides. Yeasts are normal in feces. If
you also have enteric flora in your stools I wouldn't be too
concerned. Have you been on antibiotics? Sometimes they can
wipe out your aerobic gram negative flora and allow the yeasts
to present in larger amounts in your stool. Yogurt might be a
cheaper alternative here than Diflucan.

Yeasts are everywhere in the environment. It is very hard to
avoid them. You are going to drive yourself nuts worrying
about them. Also, Diflucan is not an over-the-counter drug, at
least not here in the US and I doubt in the UK. It is a very
expensive anti-fungal. Where are you going to get it?

Sounds like you need some anti-anxiety medication - you're
worrying about this way too much.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology 28 years

Humph wrote:
>
> I have some questions about treating Candida.
>
> To cut a long story short, I have found out that I have
> Systemic Candida/Candedemia. I have had a yeast culture done
> on a stool sample and it came back with a "+3 Candida
> Albicans Significant Overgrowth".

[Craig Heal]

Published proof that C. albicans treatment with specific
antifungal agents benefits the Candida syndrome is furnished
by two articles presented in prestigious medical journals.
Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, William
Rosenberg, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Division of
Dermatology, University of Tennessee Center for the Health
Sciences in Memphis, said: "We have become aware..... of
improvement of both psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease
in patients treated with oral nystatin, an agent that was
expected to work only on yeast in the gut lumen....... We
suspect the gut yeast may have some role in some instances of
psoriasis."
Dr. Rosenberg and Sidney M. Baker, M.D., a member of the
clinical faculty at Yale University School of Medicine and
Medical Director of the Gisell Institute of Human
Development, New Haven, Connecticut, in the April 1984
Archives of Dermatology, they and their colleagues
describe the response of four patients with longstanding
psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease to oral nystatin
therapy. All four patients showed remarkable recovery from
psoriasis when C. albicans was treated.

Candida takes time to colonize . Before a person is so sick
that they have to be hospitalized, Candida can proliferate
progressively. It is probably not systemic, but intestinal
colonization of Candida has been shown to have various
symptoms. Systemic antibacterial, corticosteroid, and
immunosuppressive therapy; pregnancy; obesity; diabetes
mellitus and other endocrinopathies; debilitating diseases;
blood dyscrasias; and immunologic defects increase
susceptibility to candidiasis.

"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CF861A5.E58B98C3@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> Just because you have Candida in your stool doesn't not mean
> you have SYSTEMIC Candidiasis. A systemic Candidiasis means
> that you have yeasts
in your BLOOD, and
> probably also your urine, respiratory tract - everywhere.
> You would be in the hospital if this were true. Many people
> that are immunocompromised with HIV, cancer, kidney disease,
> diabetes, end up with Candida overgrowth that sometimes goes
> into their blood. They are SICK and not well enough to be
> typing newsgroup messages.

[Humph]

Hi Judy, I read your post with great interest. I have
replied here to keep it relevant to my problems rather than
the other guy's:

"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CF4229C.76F16E04@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> What kind of doctor ordered these panels? What is GSDL? Is
> that Great Smokies Diagnostic Laboratory? Did you order this
> stuff or did your doctor?

I ordered it from GSDL because I had no choice. I suspected
Candida (Systemic or not) due to my symptoms. I took a home
spit test described at
http://www.a-better-way.com/systems/candida.html and it showed
positive for an OVERGROWTH. I took 2 separate online health
assessments, one at
http://www.cmtomlinson.freeuk.com/symptoms.htm and they showed
positive for an OVERGROWTH. I then thoroughly researched all
my symptoms in full, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them was
consistent with an OVERGROWTH of Candida, and many of them
were consistent with mild Candidemia.

Only then did I order the GSDL, because the NHS doctors do not
officially recognise Candida as being a problem. They also do
not recognise Permeable Gut (Leaky Gut) as being a problem.

However for me it is the only thing that fits. It is the only
thing that explains why I'm allergic to so many foods, and how
I have managed to get yeast infections in my fingernail, and a
tooth abscess, and dark circles under my eyes, not to mention
the others.

I am not anxious about dentists (I actually enjoy the
procedure of having my mouth improved) and I have never heard
of anxiety causing a diagnosed blood histamine allergy (blood
test done by NHS approved York Laboratories in the UK) to
yeast (yeast!!), mushroom (a fungi like yeast!!), sugar (feeds
yeast!!) and other things that antagonise an abnormal yeast
infection.

Doesn't it rather point towards a yeast problem? So I did the
GSDL stool test because my doctor wouldn't, and because it's
the only home stool test I could find. Do you know of a better
one? I'd love to use it for a second opinion.

And it confirmed my suspicion and the results of the home test
and the results of the web-site self-diagnostics.

Could all these tests really be wrong and the people on this
group who have no knowledge whatsoever of my body be right?
If so, why have I developed the symptoms I have over the
past 2 years? I'm only 29. And I repeat, anxiety doesn't
cause psoriasis of the fingernail etc., which my GP has told
me I have.

> Also, please note that GSDL's methods for doing antibiotic
> sensitivities to yeasts are "not cleared or approved by the
> FDA [their disclaimer]" and is a test devised by them.
> That's ANOTHER big red flag to me.

Doesn't mean they don't work, it's just a disclaimer they have
to put by law. We don't know the reason they haven't applied
for/can't afford/don't want/don't need/etc. FDA approval.

>
http://www.quackwatch.com/cgi-bin/mfs/24/home/sbinfo/public_h-
tml/11Ind/sinai ko.html?682#mfs

This is a lawsuit against ROBERT SINAIKO, M.D. not GSDL. The
GSDL test was done before treatment began. The GSDL test
showed abnormal levels of Candida. The patient was then given
anti-fungal drugs. A follow-up test was done. A normal level
of Candida was shown. To me, this says that the anti-fungal
treatment (the first course) worked. Sure, from then on, the
Doctor was to blame and totally overdid the treatment. But I
don't see how this implicates the GSDL test as being
inaccurate.

> I have never performed these panels you describe, so without
> posting normal ranges, your numbers mean nothing to me.
> Normal ranges are lab and kit dependent.

My level shows a +3 significant overgrowth. If it was +1 I
wouldn't be worried, but even +1 is considered abnormal. +3
means I have 3/4 Candida in my cut, but only 1/4 friendly
flora. This is not normal.

This is explainable by long courses of antibiotics I had a few
years ago. Everything is consistent.

> Your "strain" of Candida (albicans? there are other species
> of Candida) was cultured from.....where? Your stool? Another
> body source? Are you

I have Candida Albicans cultured from my stool. The
diagnosis said that if systemic symptoms are suspected
(which I do have) then a test for gut permeability should be
performed. I have not done this but GSDL do offer one, my GP
won't, and it is the next logical step. Do you know of a
better home test for this?

> diabetic? Diabetics have a lot of problems with overgrowth
> of Candida albicans in various body sources. Perhaps you
> need your glucose checked before undergoing all this
> expensive antifungal treatment.

Good point. I am not diabetic and did have tests for glucose
done first. I showed a normal oral glucose tolerance level of
5.4mmol/l at 2 hours.

> I've never been a big fan of the Candida scare theory. I
> think it's

Me neither! But I can't be ignorant to it just because I don't
like it. It is the only thing that ties in all my symptoms,
and my GP has not been able to find any cause for them.

I have had a Liver Function Test - normal I have had a Thyroid
TSH test - normal I have had a glucose test - normal I have
had an adrenal fatigue test - normal

What is known is that I have dark rings under my eyes, facial
pallor (probably adrenal), an inflated level of allergies,
puffiness under my eyes, unexplained weight gain that 2 mile
cycle workouts 3 times a week in the gym won't shift (I am
also vegetarian and eat really well, little fat), post nasal
drip, joint pains, loose and infrequent bowl movements,
sensitivity to cigarette smoke (my throat closes up),
increased night-time urination,
psoriasis of the fingernal, cold clammy hands/feet
(thought to by thyroid related), dental abscess,
periodontal gum disease.

What else explains these? I quote from relevant web articles:

The Yeast-Free Page

http://www.nidlink.com/~mastent/yeastfre.html

"SYMPTOMS OF YEAST OVERGROWTH . joint pains, digestive
problems . being bothered by odours [cigarette smoke] . toxins
travel via the circulating blood, to do their mischief in
every system in the body. The circulating toxins cause such a
great variety of symptoms that some doctors jump to the
conclusion that such patients . must be hypochondriacs . Often
patients have developed food . pollen allergies, or thyroid or
adrenal hormonal imbalances and dysfunction . diagnosis may
include "Leaky Gut" . causing food allergies . too much to
sort out without professional help."

Leaky Gut Syndrome

http://www.health-n-energy.com/ronagut.htm

". bacteria, fungi, parasites and their toxins, undigested
protein, fat and waste normally not absorbed into the
bloodstream in the healthy state, pass through a damaged,
hyperpermeable, porous or "leaky" gut . This can be verified
by special gut permeability urine tests . as well as the
bloodstream with phase contrast or darkfield microscopy of
living whole blood . with leaky gut problems we become less
resistant to viruses, bacteria, parasites and Candida. These
microbes are then able to invade the bloodstream and colonize
almost any body tissue or organ. When this occurs in the gums,
periodontal disease results. If it happens in the jaw . root
canals might be necessary to cure infection"

So you'd see why I'd think I have leaky gut & Candida,
especially as the lab test then confirmed the latter.

> Perhaps taking some Acidophilus supplements would be far
> cheaper and easier than Diflucan? They certainly can't hurt
> you. Acidophilus = Lactobacilli in the GSDL reports.

I am certainly doing this and I plan a follow-up test in a few
months to see if the Candida level has reduced, but what about
the possible mild systemic Candida I have?

Will Acidophilus help this?

How can I do a gut permeability test without going
through GSDL?

Do you have any proof or can you assure me 100% that the GSDL
tests are not accurate?

Thanks for your support.

HS

> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CF861A5.E58B98C3@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> Just because you have Candida in your stool doesn't not mean
> you have SYSTEMIC Candidiasis. Are you another one that is
> getting stool cultures done by Great Smokies Diagnostic
> Laboratory or its UK equivalent? Please see my extensive
> posting under the ongoing thread labelled "Candida."
>
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology 28 years

[Jedilworth]

I have worked in microbiology at mainstream clinical
microbiology laboratories for over 20 years. I also spent
about three years of my career either in general laboratory
(non-microbiology areas) and two years in marketing laboratory
services to physicians. At no time have I ever come across
testing as you describe. I have never ever heard of leaky gut
in any medical reading I've ever come across and I do quite a
lot of micro-related reading, as I am moderator of a
continuing education micro group.

Obviously you have some symptoms that I cannot explain nor can
your doctors. To self diagnose, and then pay money to a
questionable laboratory using questionable methodology that
appeals to desperate patients like you are just seems sad to
me, as they are taking your considerable amount of money
without blinking an eye. GSDL seems to appeal to the desperate
and they are willing to take money and give results that,
while probably "accurate" in their own sense, i.e. their
microbiologists and directors are also out of the mainstream,
hence they produce non-mainstream results, which are rather
weird from mainstream micro point of view. Also, these results
are going to non-technically plugged in patients such as
yourself who don't know the difference.

If you are in the UK and sent your specimen overseas to GSDL
there is also a real problem with specimen integrity. Do you
think your bugs will stop growing in shipment? The fresher the
specimen the better. Did you ship it in some sort of
preservative?

Did it not occur to you that GSDL may have submitted this
testing to the FDA and they rejected it as not making sense? I
am surprised they are even able to offer testing that is not
FDA approved, as our laboratory is not allowed. How are they
skirting this issue? Apparently their disclaimer is legal? Who
knows? Perhaps they can get away with it because it is a cash
business and they don't depend on insurance reimbursements,
who knows (I am just guessing here).

As you can tell, I am very skeptical. The reason I am
skeptical is because, I will admit, I am prejudiced towards
mainstream medicine. I also have read thousands of cultures
over the course of the many years I have been a micro
technologist. Patients with yeasts everywhere in their bodies
(i.e. overgrowth on multiple body sites) are usually
hospitalized.

Psoriasis of the nail, if it indeed is psoriasis, is a totally
different deal than yeast infection. Psoriasis is an
auto-immune disease. Candida can infect the nail, especially
if your hands are in water and don't dry out. My mother is a
diabetic and has it in her toenails.

I am going to post an inquiry on sci.med.laboratory regarding
GSDL and see if I can get any comments.

I wish you luck.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

Humph wrote:

> I ordered it from GSDL because I had no choice. I suspected
> Candida (Systemic or not) due to my symptoms. I took a home
> spit test described at
> http://www.a-better-way.com/systems/candida.html and it
> showed positive for an OVERGROWTH. I took 2 separate online
> health assessments, one at
> http://www.cmtomlinson.freeuk.com/symptoms.htm and they
> showed positive for an OVERGROWTH. I then thoroughly
> researched all my symptoms in full, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of
> them was consistent with an OVERGROWTH of Candida, and many
> of them were consistent with mild Candidemia.

[post snipped for brevity]

[Craig Heal]

Leaky Gut Syndrome Scott Rigden, M.D. Leaky Gut Syndrome, or
increased intestinal permeability, occurs when the wall of the
small intestine is damaged. This permeability allows toxins
made by bacteria, yeast and/or parasites to leak out of the
gut into the systemic circulation, where they can cause
symptoms of inflammation, compromise the immune system, and
impair liver detoxification. In addition, large molecules of
partially digested foods can escape from a permeable gut. The
symptoms produced by excessive intestinal permeability may be
limited to the GI tract or may involve the entire body. They
can include fatigue and malaise, irritable bowel syndrome,
joint and muscle pain, headache and skin eruptions. Common
causes of damage to the cells lining the gut leading to this
increased permeability are many. They include harmful
bacteria, unhealthy balance of good vs. bad bacteria, yeast,
parasites, and chronic inflammation from food allergens,
medications, and alcohol. To better understand Leaky Gut
Syndrome, let's discuss GALT, tennis courts and bricks. GALT
When I attended medical school we observed large patches of
lymphoid tissue in and around the gut. At that time, no
physiological function was attributed to this tissue. We now
know that over 60% of the body's immune response comes from
GALT, an acronym for Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue.
Therefore, if we are dealing with health problems in which the
immune system is compromised, it is logical to work on
restoration and improvement of gut functioning. Tennis Courts
Imagine that somehow you could remove the intestines from your
body and spread their absorptive surface on the ground.
Astonishingly, this would cover the area of a tennis court!
Inhabiting this tennis court are two to three pounds of
bacterial flora, hopefully in a ratio favoring the healthy
microbes. One can also imagine the effort it takes to cleanse
a corner or quarter of a tennis court of inappropriate
microbial inhabitants. Bricks Observe how the bricks in a
well-constructed new brick house have a tightly compacted
junction with mortar. Even a severe rainstorm cannot leak
through! Now compare this to a very old neglected brick home.
The bricks are crumbling and the mortar is frayed. Notice how
a rainstorm readily causes leakage. Similarly, those with
Leaky Gut Syndrome can have cells lining the gut that are not
tightly connected, allowing leakage of toxins out of the gut
into the body. Treatment of the Leaky Gut Syndrome Treatment
of Leaky Gut Syndrome must be individualized. In general the
4R Approach* is very effective. The 4R's stand for Remove,
Replace, Re-inoculate and Repair. The patient needs to remove
toxins and dietary provocateurs. Pathogenic bacteria, yeast
and parasites are eradicated or reduced. Foods that may
trigger an inflammatory response are eliminated. Replace, the
second R, often includes digestive enzymes, fiber, and
hydrochloric acid to restore homeostasis to the GI tract.
Re-inoculate implies the restoration of a healthy balance of
flora in the gut. Lactobacillus and Bifidus bacteria are often
needed; fructooligosaccharides provide a nurturing environment
for the healthy bacteria. Repairing the damaged mucosal lining
requires a number of nutrients including L-Glutamine,
pantothenic acid, zinc and essential fatty acids.

*4R was coined by Dr. J. Bland and associates at Institute of
Functional Medicine, Gig Harbor, WA.

"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CF8F910.FBFF3610@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> I have worked in microbiology at mainstream clinical
> microbiology laboratories for over 20 years. I also spent
> about three years of my career either in general laboratory
> (non-microbiology areas) and two years in marketing
> laboratory services to physicians. At no time have I ever
> come across testing as you describe. I have never ever heard
> of leaky gut in any medical reading I've ever come across
> and I do quite a lot of micro-related reading, as I am
> moderator of a continuing education micro group.

[Craig Heal]

Recent Leaky Gut Syndrome (increased intestinal
permeability) Research:

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/lymecfs/lgs.htm

"Craig Health" <CRAIG@noscape.net> wrote in message
news:ZT7K8.2053$Av2.99819786@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> Leaky Gut Syndrome Scott Rigden, M.D. Leaky Gut Syndrome,
> or increased intestinal permeability, occurs when the wall
> of the small intestine is damaged. This permeability
> allows toxins
made
> by bacteria, yeast and/or parasites to leak out of the gut
> into the
systemic
> circulation, where they can cause symptoms of inflammation,
> compromise the immune system, and impair liver
> detoxification. In addition, large
molecules
> of partially digested foods can escape from a permeable gut.
> The symptoms produced by excessive intestinal permeability
> may be limited to the GI
tract
> or may involve the entire body. They can include fatigue and
> malaise, irritable bowel syndrome, joint and muscle pain,
> headache and skin eruptions. Common causes of damage to the
> cells lining the gut leading to this increased permeability
> are many. They include harmful bacteria, unhealthy balance
> of good vs. bad bacteria, yeast, parasites, and chronic
> inflammation from food allergens, medications, and alcohol.
> To better understand Leaky Gut Syndrome, let's discuss GALT,
> tennis courts and
bricks.
> GALT When I attended medical school we observed large
> patches of lymphoid
tissue
> in and around the gut. At that time, no physiological
> function was attributed to this tissue. We now know that
> over 60% of the body's immune response comes from GALT, an
> acronym for Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue. Therefore, if we
> are dealing with health problems in which the immune
system
> is compromised, it is logical to work on restoration and
> improvement of
gut
> functioning. Tennis Courts Imagine that somehow you could
> remove the intestines from your body and spread their
> absorptive surface on the ground. Astonishingly, this would
> cover the area of a tennis court! Inhabiting this tennis
> court are two to three pounds of bacterial flora, hopefully
> in a ratio favoring the healthy microbes. One can also
> imagine the effort it takes to cleanse a corner or quarter
> of a tennis court of inappropriate microbial inhabitants.
> Bricks Observe how the bricks in a well-constructed new
> brick house have a
tightly
> compacted junction with mortar. Even a severe rainstorm
> cannot leak
through!
> Now compare this to a very old neglected brick home. The
> bricks are crumbling and the mortar is frayed. Notice how a
> rainstorm readily causes leakage. Similarly, those with
> Leaky Gut Syndrome can have cells lining
the
> gut that are not tightly connected, allowing leakage of
> toxins out of the gut into the body. Treatment of the Leaky
> Gut Syndrome Treatment of Leaky Gut Syndrome must be
> individualized. In general the 4R Approach* is very
> effective. The 4R's stand for Remove, Replace, Re-inoculate
> and Repair. The patient needs to remove toxins and dietary
> provocateurs. Pathogenic bacteria, yeast and parasites are
> eradicated or reduced. Foods that may trigger an
> inflammatory response are eliminated. Replace, the second R,
> often includes digestive enzymes, fiber, and hydrochloric
> acid to restore homeostasis to the GI tract. Re-inoculate
> implies the restoration of a healthy balance of flora in the
> gut. Lactobacillus and Bifidus bacteria are often needed;
fructooligosaccharides
> provide a nurturing environment for the healthy bacteria.
> Repairing the damaged mucosal lining requires a number of
> nutrients including
L-Glutamine,
> pantothenic acid, zinc and essential fatty acids.
>
> *4R was coined by Dr. J. Bland and associates at Institute
> of Functional Medicine, Gig Harbor, WA.
>
> "JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in
> message news:3CF8F910.FBFF3610@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> > I have worked in microbiology at mainstream clinical
> > microbiology laboratories for over 20 years. I also spent
> > about three years of my career either in general
> > laboratory (non-microbiology areas) and two years in
> > marketing laboratory services to physicians. At no time
> > have I ever come across testing as you describe. I have
> > never ever heard of leaky gut in any medical reading I've
> > ever come across and I do quite a lot of micro-related
> > reading, as I am moderator of a continuing education micro
> > group.

[Jedilworth]

I went to google and did a search on "leaky gut." My search
did not come up with ONE link to any mainstream medical
source. It did come up with lots of links to Great Smokies
Diagnostic Laboratory and lots of alternative medical sites.

Sorry Craig, I don't buy it. I searched www.medscape.com,
www.webmd.com and the online Merck manual and found no mention
of this syndrome. I also looked on another alphabetical list I
have of syndromes and found no mention. When I search google
under "intestinal permeability" the same type of
non-mainstream medical links show up, including, amazingly (!)
linkes to Great Smokies Diagnostic Laboratory!!

I really think stuff like this falls into a sort of religious
belief. If you believe in the syndrome, then things
miraculously fall into place,
i.e. you can make the symptoms fit. If you don't believe, then
you don't have the faith.

I guess I'm going to hell.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

Craig Health wrote:
>
> Leaky Gut Syndrome Scott Rigden, M.D. Leaky Gut Syndrome, or
> increased intestinal permeability, occurs when the wall of
> the small intestine is damaged.

[Craig Heal]

Judy, You are definitely not going to hell. You post excellent
information. I have personally experienced results with
alternative approaches with diseases that were "incurable", as
have many others. I respect your belief in only mainstream
medicine. If everyone using alternative medicine are
experiencing a placebo effect or spontaneous remission, that's
fine with me. I know many doctors that use allopathic and
complimentary medicine. I do respect your opinion. What do you
think of these studies on gastrointestinal permeability:
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/lymecfs/lgs.htm Craig

"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CF92EE5.6C1AB1EA@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> I really think stuff like this falls into a sort of
> religious belief. If you believe in the syndrome, then
> things miraculously fall into place,
> i.e. you can make the symptoms fit. If you don't believe,
> then you don't have the faith.
>
> I guess I'm going to hell.
>
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology
>
> Craig Health wrote:
> >
> > Leaky Gut Syndrome Scott Rigden, M.D. Leaky Gut Syndrome,
> > or increased intestinal permeability, occurs when
the
> > wall of the small intestine is damaged.

[Jedilworth]

As it's 2:45 a.m. I just cursorily looked over the articles. I
read them as studies of various aspects of fluconazole and
other antifungals in very ill patients who are highly at risk
for fungal infections. These are the types of patients I
alluded to in previous posts (transplant, HIV, etc.), and
these are the ones that we see cultures off and that
infectious disease docs follow closely.

These patients are FAR different than patients who are up
walking around and writing about some yeast in their feces.
These are patients that can die from systemic fungal
infections. Candida albicans is just one of many yeasts that
can infect these patients. We see Candida glabrata, Candida
parapsilosis, other species of Candida, and very rarely
Cryptococcus neoformans in transplant patients. I will admit
to much ignorance regarding pediatric fungal infections as
my present place of employment is the only one I've ever
worked for that deals with children as a large amount of our
workload. The other hospitals I worked for did not have a
lot of peds patients so I can't comment on the neonate
article per se.

These are mainstream studies being ascribed to this nebulous
topic of gastrointestinal permeability. I don't see how these
relate at all to the original poster's various maladies.

Thanks for the vote of confidence about my information. I very
much appreciate the positive feedback. Goodness knows, there
hasn't been that much of that in here lately.

I do realize that some treatments work without any known
reasons behind them. I also realize that placebo effect is
very well documented in many patients. I saw this demonstrated
in my own family with my husband many years ago (when docs
could order what they wanted to order without a lot of guff
from insurance companies). My husband, who worries a lot about
his health (sometimes too much) had an intractable headache
that lasted for a couple of weeks. It would wax and wane but
never go away, and sometimes got to the point of migraine
intensity. He went to the doctor who didn't do much at the
time (memory is clouded here so bear with me) and the headache
still went on. He was totally convinced he had a brain tumor
(he's highly suggestible). Finally, the doctor ordered a CAT
scan (new technology at the time) of his brain. It was
negative. Guess what? The headache was gone the next day. Now,
what cured his headache? I doubt whether it was the CAT
scanner. I'm sure what started out to be a simple headache
magnified into a tremendous two week long migraine. Once he
KNEW he didn't have a brain tumor, the stress was gone and so
was the headache.

There are many ailments like this. If the patient is freed
from anxiety, he gets better. Who knows why? Possibly
ascribing these symptoms to yeast infestation and curing the
"infection" makes these symptoms go away. Who knows? All I
know is what the culture plates tell me, and what they tell me
is there isn't as much yeast out there as many people want to
think that there is.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

Craig Health wrote:
>
> Judy, You are definitely not going to hell. You post
> excellent information. I have personally experienced results
> with alternative approaches with diseases that were
> "incurable", as have many others. I respect your belief in
> only mainstream medicine. If everyone using alternative
> medicine are experiencing a placebo effect or spontaneous
> remission, that's fine with me. I know many doctors that use
> allopathic and complimentary medicine. I do respect your
> opinion. What do you think of these studies on
> gastrointestinal permeability:
> http://web.tampabay.rr.com/lymecfs/lgs.htm Craig

[Gym Bob]

Many of these symptoms may not directly caused by systemic
yeast infestation but when the yeast problem is solved most of
the "so-called" sysmptoms are relieved or cured. Pehaps these
yeast related symptoms are "cured" by parallel immune system
functions just not being overloaded by the yeast problems?

The end result would be the same but perhaps the mechanism or
medium is just different. Seems the medical and
natural/alternative professions have disagreed vehemently on
these points since the beginning of time.

"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CF9C275.305B9120@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> As it's 2:45 a.m. I just cursorily looked over the articles.
> I read them as studies of various aspects of fluconazole and
> other antifungals in very ill patients who are highly at
> risk for fungal infections. These are the types of patients
> I alluded to in previous posts (transplant, HIV, etc.), and
> these are the ones that we see cultures off and that
> infectious disease docs follow closely.
>
> These patients are FAR different than patients who are up
> walking around and writing about some yeast in their feces.
> These are patients that can die from systemic fungal
> infections. Candida albicans is just one of many yeasts that
> can infect these patients. We see Candida glabrata, Candida
> parapsilosis, other species of Candida, and very rarely
> Cryptococcus neoformans in transplant patients. I will admit
> to much ignorance regarding pediatric fungal infections as
> my present place of employment is the only one I've ever
> worked for that deals with children as a large amount of our
> workload. The other hospitals I worked for did not have a
> lot of peds patients so I can't comment on the neonate
> article per se.
>
> These are mainstream studies being ascribed to this nebulous
> topic of gastrointestinal permeability. I don't see how
> these relate at all to the original poster's various
> maladies.
>
> Thanks for the vote of confidence about my information. I
> very much appreciate the positive feedback. Goodness knows,
> there hasn't been that much of that in here lately.
>
> I do realize that some treatments work without any known
> reasons behind them. I also realize that placebo effect is
> very well documented in many patients. I saw this
> demonstrated in my own family with my husband many years ago
> (when docs could order what they wanted to order without a
> lot of guff from insurance companies). My husband, who
> worries a lot about his health (sometimes too much) had an
> intractable headache that lasted for a couple of weeks. It
> would wax and wane but never go away, and sometimes got to
> the point of migraine intensity. He went to the doctor who
> didn't do much at the time (memory is clouded here so bear
> with me) and the headache still went on. He was totally
> convinced he had a brain tumor (he's highly suggestible).
> Finally, the doctor ordered a CAT scan (new technology at
> the time) of his brain. It was negative. Guess what? The
> headache was gone the next day. Now, what cured his
> headache? I doubt whether it was the CAT scanner. I'm sure
> what started out to be a simple headache magnified into a
> tremendous two week long migraine. Once he KNEW he didn't
> have a brain tumor, the stress was gone and so was the
> headache.
>
> There are many ailments like this. If the patient is freed
> from anxiety, he gets better. Who knows why? Possibly
> ascribing these symptoms to yeast infestation and curing the
> "infection" makes these symptoms go away. Who knows? All I
> know is what the culture plates tell me, and what they tell
> me is there isn't as much yeast out there as many people
> want to think that there is.
>
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology
>
> Craig Health wrote:
> >
> > Judy, You are definitely not going to hell. You post
> > excellent information. I
have
> > personally experienced results with alternative approaches
> > with diseases that were "incurable", as have many others.
> > I respect your belief in
only
> > mainstream medicine. If everyone using alternative
> > medicine are
experiencing
> > a placebo effect or spontaneous remission, that's fine
> > with me. I know
many
> > doctors that use allopathic and complimentary medicine. I
> > do respect
your
> > opinion. What do you think of these studies on
> > gastrointestinal permeability:
> > http://web.tampabay.rr.com/lymecfs/lgs.htm Craig

[me]

Re: Curing Systemic Candida without GP help - questions

Judy, I've held back from replying until now, but I feel I
have to for continuity of this thread for any others who may
read it in the future.

You seem to think that if the Merck manual doesn't mention
something, it doesn't exist. We're all intelligent people
here, and I think I can speak for most people when I say that
putting something in a text book doesn't suddenly make it
real when it wasn't before. It has to be real before, in
order for it to appear in the text book. :) Judy, there are
many many very real conditions that exist in the complex
human body that are not in a text book yet. If that were not
true, text books would not need yearly revisions. I would put
money on what we are talking about becoming 'real' in the
eyes of the medical profession in the coming years. Remember
me when it does, yeah?

We must be clear that we are talking about the same
things however.

First, my doctor has told me that intestinal (not systemic)
Candida ("IC") 'is NOT recognised by the NHS'. This is why I
called doctors idiots. I apologise for offending, however I do
not feel any less bitter towards them. They sit there looking
at a human being with real problems that are only explained by
one thing, and yet they say I do not have it because it's not
"officially recognised yet". To me that is the definition of
idiocy. Let's forget Systemic Candida for now. Even if I just
have intestinal, which I pray is all I have at most, I still
cannot get treatment here because it is not recognised in the
UK. Does this mean Candida of the intestine does not affect
people who step foot inside the UK?! I know, it's a laughable
situation, but it's the fact that I have to live with. It is
not even recognised here scientifically that acidophilus can
be helpful! However, thanks to the Net there is a wealth of
info on IC from foreign web sites, where it is medically
recognised. Thank God.

Second, I also have a few symptoms that are consistent with
what I have read in many many many many articles also occur in
Systemic Candida ("SC"). E.g.
Psoriasis of the nail (pitted index fingernail), Sensitivity
to cigarette smoke and other inhalants, Dark rings and
puffiness under eyes, Unmanageable weight gain, Diagnosed
food sensitivities, Root canal abscess, Periodontal gum
disease, Post nasal drip, Acne, Increased night-time
urination, etc. SC is recognised in the UK, however my
doctor laughed at me (always a nice reaction) when I
enquired whether it could be causing my systemic symptoms
and said that people with SC would be in hospital. My
symptoms ARE systemic, in that they affect all parts of my
body. What I do not know is the correct clinical term, so
forgive me. Is it not possible to have a MILD case of SC? Or
is someone perfectly free of SC one minute, and the next
minute totally riddled with SC and taken to hospital? My
concern is that I am on the way there if I don't treat this
now and nip it in the bud before it gets worse. It has been
getting slowly worse since teenage.

I had a revelation today. I found what has caused it in my
teenage. Now I know antibiotics can cause it, but I took one
antibiotic regularly as a teenager - Oxytetracycline for acne.
It didn't work, and it discoloured my teeth. Another great
idea by my doctor there. Then today I stumbled across an
article that states it is the main cause of Candida! Finally
the missing link. I quote: "Tetracycline, an antibiotic which
often promotes Candida growth". (Do a text search for
Tetracycline in http://www.nutramed.com/allergy/candida.htm
for more info.)

Third, the many articles on the Net seem clear that Leaky Gut
is one thing that allows IC to become SC. The fungi leak
through a leaky gut lining, thus entering the bloodstream, and
causing problems as it travels around and lodges somewhere.
Again, just because you can't find this in your book, doesn't
make it non-existant. 'No smoke without fire' and there is
certainly a lot of fire on the Net about it. Also I believe
the technical term is 'intestinal permeability' so put that in
your mainstream medical search engine and see what pops up.

But really that's my point. I came onto this group for advice
on how to cure my symptoms without the help from the
'mainstream medical profession', who quite frankly are behind
the times when it comes to newly emerging condtions. So the
reason your reply is not particularly helpful is because you
are on their side. In other words, I WOULDN'T EXPECT YOU TO
SAY ANYTHING DIFFERENT. Why would you? Anyone who is part of
conventional medicine and uses the Merck manual or similar as
their Bible, must follow it and nothing else. This is why
every GP in the UK will give me the same answer - because the
book says so. Therefore I have to turn my back on conventional
medicine because I do not agree with taking such an answer
from a profession that is so set in its ways, incapable of
change, and behind the times. I need to take a pro-active
approach because I know my body better than your book does.

I am not 100% sure I have SC but I am 100% sure I have IC. The
reasons for is are that I have tested positive for IC using at
least 4 separate testing methods, in the following order:

1. HealthScreening Ltd. food sensitivity test (see
http://www.healthscreeningltd.co.uk)
2. Candida Spittle Test (see
http://www.a-better-way.com/systems/candida.html)
3. Lifestyle Analysis (see http://www.naturessunshine.com/-
ProductArea/la/index.asp)
4. Yeast Sensitivity Panel Stool Culture (see
http://www.gsdl.com/assessments/cdsa/)

The reason I did the first test was because I knew something
was wrong with me, but didn't know what. They discovered I was
sensitive to all foods associated with Candida, namely
mushroom (a fungi), tomato, melon, lemon, pineapple, yeast
(!), sugar, chocolate, beer/lager, wine, brandy. They only had
to look at these sensitivities, then look at my symptoms, to
diagnose me with Candida and put me on a diet.

As I didn't trust them 100% I did the spit test. Interestingly
the result was positive for Candida overgrowth.

I didn't know whether to trust these 2 tests totally so I did
an online self-diagnosis test, and the result said 'you have
Candida'. Now I was nearly convinced, but didn't want to
believe it. I need a lot of convincing.

But that wasn't scientific enough so I did the Yeast Culture
lab test, and the result came back '+3 substantial
overgrowth'.

NOW do you see why I think I have Candida? Now do you see why
doctors frustrate me with their text books saying that they
don't even recognise it as a condition? I recommend you read
http://www.rehabmall.com/healthyliving/slagle/vol19.htm for
another account of how the conventional medical profession
infuriates people with their scoffing attitude.

To answer your previous question about the test, yes the
stool sample was sent in a preservative liquid which I
believe stops or suspends any further growth. I'm sure those
people know what they are doing! If you have concerns, please
e-mail them not me.

My question here was about treatment, and I hope you can now
see slightly better from my perspective why I need to treat
myself and see if my symptoms improve. Can I ask you, could it
just be that your text book is not the oracle, and maybe the
above 4 methods that all gave a totally consistent result are
actually right? Or is it just coincidence that they all said I
have Candida?

HS

"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CF861A5.E58B98C3@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> Just because you have Candida in your stool doesn't not mean
> you have SYSTEMIC Candidiasis. Are you another one that is
> getting stool cultures done by Great Smokies Diagnostic
> Laboratory or its UK equivalent? Please see my extensive
> posting under the ongoing thread labelled "Candida."
>
> A systemic Candidiasis means that you have yeasts in your
> BLOOD, and probably also your urine, respiratory tract -
> everywhere. You would be in the hospital if this were true.
> Many people that are immunocompromised with HIV, cancer,
> kidney disease, diabetes, end up with Candida overgrowth
> that sometimes goes into their blood. They are SICK and not
> well enough to be typing newsgroup messages.
>
> I really don't think the docs in the NHS UK are idiots. You
> are probably making a huge mountain out of the molehill this
> one culture result provides. Yeasts are normal in feces. If
> you also have enteric flora in your stools I wouldn't be too
> concerned. Have you been on antibiotics? Sometimes they can
> wipe out your aerobic gram negative flora and allow the
> yeasts to present in larger amounts in your stool. Yogurt
> might be a cheaper alternative here than Diflucan.
>
> Yeasts are everywhere in the environment. It is very hard to
> avoid them. You are going to drive yourself nuts worrying
> about them. Also, Diflucan is not an over-the-counter drug,
> at least not here in the US and I doubt in the UK. It is a
> very expensive anti-fungal. Where are you going to get it?
>
> Sounds like you need some anti-anxiety medication - you're
> worrying about this way too much.
>
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology 28 years
>
> Humph wrote:
> >
> > I have some questions about treating Candida.
> >
> > To cut a long story short, I have found out that I have
> > Systemic Candida/Candedemia. I have had a yeast culture
> > done on a stool sample
and
> > it came back with a "+3 Candida Albicans Significant
> > Overgrowth".

"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CF8F910.FBFF3610@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> I have worked in microbiology at mainstream clinical
> microbiology laboratories for over 20 years. I also spent
> about three years of my career either in general laboratory
> (non-microbiology areas) and two years in marketing
> laboratory services to physicians. At no time have I ever
> come across testing as you describe. I have never ever heard
> of leaky gut in any medical reading I've ever come across
> and I do quite a lot of micro-related reading, as I am
> moderator of a continuing education micro group.
>
> Obviously you have some symptoms that I cannot explain nor
> can your doctors. To self diagnose, and then pay money to a
> questionable laboratory using questionable methodology that
> appeals to desperate patients like you are just seems sad to
> me, as they are taking your considerable amount of money
> without blinking an eye. GSDL seems to appeal to the
> desperate and they are willing to take money and give
> results that, while probably "accurate" in their own sense,
> i.e. their microbiologists and directors are also out of the
> mainstream, hence they produce non-mainstream results, which
> are rather weird from mainstream micro point of view. Also,
> these results are going to non-technically plugged in
> patients such as yourself who don't know the difference.
>
> If you are in the UK and sent your specimen overseas to GSDL
> there is also a real problem with specimen integrity. Do you
> think your bugs will stop growing in shipment? The fresher
> the specimen the better. Did you ship it in some sort of
> preservative?
>
> Did it not occur to you that GSDL may have submitted this
> testing to the FDA and they rejected it as not making sense?
> I am surprised they are even able to offer testing that is
> not FDA approved, as our laboratory is not allowed. How are
> they skirting this issue? Apparently their disclaimer is
> legal? Who knows? Perhaps they can get away with it because
> it is a cash business and they don't depend on insurance
> reimbursements, who knows (I am just guessing here).
>
> As you can tell, I am very skeptical. The reason I am
> skeptical is because, I will admit, I am prejudiced towards
> mainstream medicine. I also have read thousands of cultures
> over the course of the many years I have been a micro
> technologist. Patients with yeasts everywhere in their
> bodies (i.e. overgrowth on multiple body sites) are usually
> hospitalized.
>
> Psoriasis of the nail, if it indeed is psoriasis, is a
> totally different deal than yeast infection. Psoriasis is
> an auto-immune disease. Candida can infect the nail,
> especially if your hands are in water and don't dry out.
> My mother is a diabetic and has it in her toenails.
>
> I am going to post an inquiry on sci.med.laboratory
> regarding GSDL and see if I can get any comments.
>
> I wish you luck.
>
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

>
> Humph wrote:
>
> > I ordered it from GSDL because I had no choice. I
> > suspected Candida (Systemic or not) due to my symptoms. I
> > took a home spit test described
at
> > http://www.a-better-way.com/systems/candida.html and it
> > showed positive
for
> > an OVERGROWTH. I took 2 separate online health
> > assessments, one at
> > http://www.cmtomlinson.freeuk.com/symptoms.htm and they
> > showed positive
for
> > an OVERGROWTH. I then thoroughly researched all my
> > symptoms in full,
and
> > EVERY SINGLE ONE of them was consistent with an OVERGROWTH
> > of Candida,
and
> > many of them were consistent with mild Candidemia.
>
> [post snipped for brevity]
"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CF92EE5.6C1AB1EA@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> I went to google and did a search on "leaky gut." My search
> did not come up with ONE link to any mainstream medical
> source. It did come up with lots of links to Great Smokies
> Diagnostic Laboratory and lots of alternative medical sites.
>
> Sorry Craig, I don't buy it. I searched www.medscape.com,
> www.webmd.com and the online Merck manual and found no
> mention of this syndrome. I also looked on another
> alphabetical list I have of syndromes and found no mention.
> When I search google under "intestinal permeability" the
> same type of non-mainstream medical links show up,
> including, amazingly (!) linkes to Great Smokies Diagnostic
> Laboratory!!
>
> I really think stuff like this falls into a sort of
> religious belief. If you believe in the syndrome, then
> things miraculously fall into place,
> i.e. you can make the symptoms fit. If you don't believe,
> then you don't have the faith.
>
> I guess I'm going to hell.
>
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

[Gym Bob]

A l.ittle long but point well made. This is why most cronic
problem people have given up on the orthodox medical field and
gone to alternative practices only to find relief or a simple
cure. Orthodox medicine is slowly getting a very bad name and
will some day be looked upon as "quackery" etc...

[Lawrence F]

In article <WEUK8.24912$rK2.154297365@radon.golden.net>, Gym
Bob <noney@spam.com> wrote:
>A l.ittle long but point well made. This is why most cronic
>problem people have given up on the orthodox medical field
>and gone to alternative practices only to find relief or a
>simple cure. Orthodox medicine is slowly getting a very bad
>name and will some day be looked upon as "quackery" etc...

Whats needed is science based imperical medicine. Look at the
alternative treatments, don't ask why, don't dismiss because
its weird, just start looking at results. The body is complex,
just because something doesn't have an obvious relationship
doesn't mean its not there. Meanwhile be willing to discard
the stuff that shows no result, don't hold homeopathy
medicines containing 'magic enchanted' water on the same plain
as a supplement which appears to help some people for an
unknown reason.

--
Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts
of kindness Rave: Immanentization of the Eschaton in a
Temporary Autonomous Zone. I'm looking for computer
hardware donations for charities, E-mail me. Available
for contracting
http://www.farviolet.com/~entropy/resume.txt

[Jedilworth]

Obviously you will believe what you want to believe. Belief in
Candida causation of virtually every symptom known to man
seems to me to have become somewhat of a religion to you. One
can either believe, or not. You do, I don't.

I go by what I see every day on the plates at work. I find it
hard to believe that all of the diverse symptoms you are
having are caused by yeasts, but again, I'm not a physician.
I'm a microbiologist.

Good luck to you in your quest for symptom relief and/or cure
of your illness. BTW, I did do a google search using
intestinal permeability and I got the same non-mainstream
sources that I did when I searched under "leaky gut."

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

me@mine.com wrote:
>
> Re: Curing Systemic Candida without GP help - questions
>
> Judy, I've held back from replying until now, but I feel I
> have to for continuity of this thread for any others who may
> read it in the future.
>
> You seem to think that if the Merck manual doesn't mention
> something, it doesn't exist. We're all intelligent people
> here, and I think I can speak for most people when I say
> that putting something in a text book doesn't suddenly make
> it real when it wasn't before.

[Bryher]

What an excellent post - wish I could forward it to my GP!

<me@mine.com> wrote in message
news:ybUK8.10767$aC4.85388388@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Re: Curing Systemic Candida without GP help - questions
>
> Judy, I've held back from replying until now, but I feel I
> have to for continuity of this thread for any others who may
> read it in the future.
>
> You seem to think that if the Merck manual doesn't mention
> something, it doesn't exist. We're all intelligent people
> here, and I think I can speak for most people when I say
> that putting something in a text book doesn't suddenly make
> it real when it wasn't before. It has to be real before, in
> order for it to appear in the text book. :) Judy, there are
> many many
very
> real conditions that exist in the complex human body that
> are not in a
text
> book yet. If that were not true, text books would not need
> yearly revisions. I would put money on what we are talking
> about becoming 'real' in the eyes of the medical profession
> in the coming years. Remember me
when
> it does, yeah?
>
> We must be clear that we are talking about the same things
> however.
>
> First, my doctor has told me that intestinal (not systemic)
> Candida ("IC") 'is NOT recognised by the NHS'. This is why I
> called doctors idiots. I apologise for offending, however I
> do not feel any less bitter towards
them.
> They sit there looking at a human being with real problems
> that are only explained by one thing, and yet they say I do
> not have it because it's not "officially recognised yet". To
> me that is the definition of idiocy.
Let's
> forget Systemic Candida for now. Even if I just have
> intestinal, which I pray is all I have at most, I still
> cannot get treatment here because it
is
> not recognised in the UK. Does this mean Candida of the
> intestine does
not
> affect people who step foot inside the UK?! I know, it's a
> laughable situation, but it's the fact that I have to live
> with. It is not even recognised here scientifically that
> acidophilus can be helpful! However, thanks to the Net there
> is a wealth of info on IC from foreign web sites, where it
> is medically recognised. Thank God.
>
> Second, I also have a few symptoms that are consistent with
> what I have
read
> in many many many many articles also occur in Systemic
> Candida ("SC").
E.g.
> Psoriasis of the nail (pitted index fingernail), Sensitivity
> to cigarette smoke and other inhalants, Dark rings and
> puffiness under eyes, Unmanageable weight gain, Diagnosed
> food sensitivities, Root canal
abscess,
> Periodontal gum disease, Post nasal drip, Acne, Increased
> night-time urination, etc. SC is recognised in the UK,
> however my doctor laughed at
me
> (always a nice reaction) when I enquired whether it could be
> causing my systemic symptoms and said that people with SC
> would be in hospital. My symptoms ARE systemic, in that they
> affect all parts of my body. What I
do
> not know is the correct clinical term, so forgive me. Is it
> not possible
to
> have a MILD case of SC? Or is someone perfectly free of SC
> one minute,
and
> the next minute totally riddled with SC and taken to
> hospital? My concern is that I am on the way there if I
> don't treat this now and nip it in the bud before it gets
> worse. It has been getting slowly worse since teenage.
>
> I had a revelation today. I found what has caused it in my
> teenage. Now
I
> know antibiotics can cause it, but I took one antibiotic
> regularly as a teenager - Oxytetracycline for acne. It
> didn't work, and it discoloured
my
> teeth. Another great idea by my doctor there. Then today I
> stumbled
across
> an article that states it is the main cause of Candida!
> Finally the
missing
> link. I quote: "Tetracycline, an antibiotic which often
> promotes Candida growth". (Do a text search for
> Tetracycline in http://www.nutramed.com/allergy/candida.htm
> for more info.)
>
> Third, the many articles on the Net seem clear that Leaky
> Gut is one thing that allows IC to become SC. The fungi leak
> through a leaky gut lining, thus entering the bloodstream,
> and causing problems as it travels around
and
> lodges somewhere. Again, just because you can't find this in
> your book, doesn't make it non-existant. 'No smoke without
> fire' and there is certainly a lot of fire on the Net about
> it. Also I believe the technical term is 'intestinal
> permeability' so put that in your mainstream medical search
> engine and see what pops up.
>
> But really that's my point. I came onto this group for
> advice on how to cure my symptoms without the help from the
> 'mainstream medical
profession',
> who quite frankly are behind the times when it comes to
> newly emerging condtions. So the reason your reply is not
> particularly helpful is
because
> you are on their side. In other words, I WOULDN'T EXPECT YOU
> TO SAY ANYTHING DIFFERENT. Why would you? Anyone who is part
> of conventional medicine and uses the Merck manual or
> similar as their Bible, must follow
it
> and nothing else. This is why every GP in the UK will give
> me the same answer - because the book says so. Therefore I
> have to turn my back on conventional medicine because I do
> not agree with taking such an answer
from
> a profession that is so set in its ways, incapable of
> change, and behind
the
> times. I need to take a pro-active approach because I know
> my body better than your book does.
>
> I am not 100% sure I have SC but I am 100% sure I have IC.
> The reasons
for
> is are that I have tested positive for IC using at least 4
> separate
testing
> methods, in the following order:
>
> 1. HealthScreening Ltd. food sensitivity test (see
> http://www.healthscreeningltd.co.uk)
> 2. Candida Spittle Test (see
> http://www.a-better-way.com/systems/candida.html)
> 3. Lifestyle Analysis (see http://www.naturessunshine.co-
> m/ProductArea/la/index.asp)
> 4. Yeast Sensitivity Panel Stool Culture (see
> http://www.gsdl.com/assessments/cdsa/)
>
> The reason I did the first test was because I knew something
> was wrong
with
> me, but didn't know what. They discovered I was sensitive to
> all foods associated with Candida, namely mushroom (a
> fungi), tomato, melon, lemon, pineapple, yeast (!), sugar,
> chocolate, beer/lager, wine, brandy. They
only
> had to look at these sensitivities, then look at my
> symptoms, to diagnose
me
> with Candida and put me on a diet.
>
> As I didn't trust them 100% I did the spit test.
> Interestingly the result was positive for Candida
> overgrowth.
>
> I didn't know whether to trust these 2 tests totally so I
> did an online self-diagnosis test, and the result said 'you
> have Candida'. Now I was nearly convinced, but didn't want
> to believe it. I need a lot of convincing.
>
> But that wasn't scientific enough so I did the Yeast Culture
> lab test, and the result came back '+3 substantial
> overgrowth'.
>
> NOW do you see why I think I have Candida? Now do you see
> why doctors frustrate me with their text books saying that
> they don't even recognise
it
> as a condition? I recommend you read
> http://www.rehabmall.com/healthyliving/slagle/vol19.htm
> for another
account
> of how the conventional medical profession infuriates people
> with their scoffing attitude.
>
> To answer your previous question about the test, yes the
> stool sample was sent in a preservative liquid which I
> believe stops or suspends any
further
> growth. I'm sure those people know what they are doing! If
> you have concerns, please e-mail them not me.
>
> My question here was about treatment, and I hope you can now
> see slightly better from my perspective why I need to treat
> myself and see if my
symptoms
> improve. Can I ask you, could it just be that your text book
> is not the oracle, and maybe the above 4 methods that all
> gave a totally consistent result are actually right? Or is
> it just coincidence that they all said I have Candida?
>
> HS

[Jedilworth]

You can print it out and show it to your GP, and expect them
to change their mind based on one series of posts? I doubt it.
Docs go to school for many many years. To change their minds
on something like this without double blind studies by
researchers, and relying on labs that are listed in Quackwatch
for data to support their conversion is asking a lot, in my
opinion. Obviously there are lots of believers out there in
the Church of Candida, but I doubt whether your GP will
convert and plunk down his tithe any time soon.

Sorry to be so cynical. Perhaps over years of research the
Candida tie-in will prove to be something to worry about,
perhaps not. In the meantime, the mainstream medical
establishment will proceed cautiously, as it does with
anything new. If doctors move too quickly and embrace new
medications/ideas and then have the meds/ideas blow up in
their faces, patients are very quick to sue.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

bryher wrote:
>
> What an excellent post - wish I could forward it to my GP!

[Humph]

Thanks! :D Feel free to forward it to your GP.

HS

"bryher" <bryher_m@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EK0L8.610$Z67.41534@news8-gui.server.ntli.net...
> What an excellent post - wish I could forward it to my GP!
>
>
> <me@mine.com> wrote in message
> news:ybUK8.10767$aC4.85388388@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > Re: Curing Systemic Candida without GP help - questions
> >
> > Judy, I've held back from replying until now, but I feel I
> > have to for continuity of this thread for any others who
> > may read it in the future.
> >
> > You seem to think that if the Merck manual doesn't mention
> > something, it doesn't exist. We're all intelligent people
> > here, and I think I can
speak
> > for most people when I say that putting something in a
> > text book doesn't suddenly make it real when it wasn't
> > before. It has to be real before,
in
> > order for it to appear in the text book. :) Judy, there
> > are many many
> very
> > real conditions that exist in the complex human body that
> > are not in a
> text
> > book yet. If that were not true, text books would not need
> > yearly revisions. I would put money on what we are talking
> > about becoming
'real'
> > in the eyes of the medical profession in the coming years.
> > Remember me
> when
> > it does, yeah?
> >
> > We must be clear that we are talking about the same things
> > however.
> >
> > First, my doctor has told me that intestinal (not
> > systemic) Candida
("IC")
> > 'is NOT recognised by the NHS'. This is why I called
> > doctors idiots. I apologise for offending, however I do
> > not feel any less bitter towards
> them.
> > They sit there looking at a human being with real problems
> > that are only explained by one thing, and yet they say I
> > do not have it because it's
not
> > "officially recognised yet". To me that is the definition
> > of idiocy.
> Let's
> > forget Systemic Candida for now. Even if I just have
> > intestinal, which
I
> > pray is all I have at most, I still cannot get treatment
> > here because it
> is
> > not recognised in the UK. Does this mean Candida of the
> > intestine does
> not
> > affect people who step foot inside the UK?! I know, it's a
> > laughable situation, but it's the fact that I have to live
> > with. It is not even recognised here scientifically that
> > acidophilus can be helpful!
However,
> > thanks to the Net there is a wealth of info on IC from
> > foreign web
sites,
> > where it is medically recognised. Thank God.
> >
> > Second, I also have a few symptoms that are consistent
> > with what I have
> read
> > in many many many many articles also occur in Systemic
> > Candida ("SC").
> E.g.
> > Psoriasis of the nail (pitted index fingernail),
> > Sensitivity to cigarette smoke and other inhalants, Dark
> > rings and puffiness under
eyes,
> > Unmanageable weight gain, Diagnosed food sensitivities,
> > Root canal
> abscess,
> > Periodontal gum disease, Post nasal drip, Acne, Increased
> > night-time urination, etc. SC is recognised in the UK,
> > however my doctor laughed
at
> me
> > (always a nice reaction) when I enquired whether it could
> > be causing my systemic symptoms and said that people with
> > SC would be in hospital. My symptoms ARE systemic, in that
> > they affect all parts of my body. What I
> do
> > not know is the correct clinical term, so forgive me. Is
> > it not
possible
> to
> > have a MILD case of SC? Or is someone perfectly free of SC
> > one minute,
> and
> > the next minute totally riddled with SC and taken to
> > hospital? My
concern
> > is that I am on the way there if I don't treat this now
> > and nip it in
the
> > bud before it gets worse. It has been getting slowly
> > worse since
teenage.
> >
> > I had a revelation today. I found what has caused it in my
> > teenage.
Now
> I
> > know antibiotics can cause it, but I took one antibiotic
> > regularly as a teenager - Oxytetracycline for acne. It
> > didn't work, and it discoloured
> my
> > teeth. Another great idea by my doctor there. Then today I
> > stumbled
> across
> > an article that states it is the main cause of Candida!
> > Finally the
> missing
> > link. I quote: "Tetracycline, an antibiotic which often
> > promotes
Candida
> > growth". (Do a text search for Tetracycline in
> > http://www.nutramed.com/allergy/candida.htm for more
> > info.)
> >
> > Third, the many articles on the Net seem clear that Leaky
> > Gut is one
thing
> > that allows IC to become SC. The fungi leak through a
> > leaky gut lining, thus entering the bloodstream, and
> > causing problems as it travels around
> and
> > lodges somewhere. Again, just because you can't find this
> > in your book, doesn't make it non-existant. 'No smoke
> > without fire' and there is certainly a lot of fire on the
> > Net about it. Also I believe the
technical
> > term is 'intestinal permeability' so put that in your
> > mainstream medical search engine and see what pops up.
> >
> > But really that's my point. I came onto this group for
> > advice on how to cure my symptoms without the help from
> > the 'mainstream medical
> profession',
> > who quite frankly are behind the times when it comes to
> > newly emerging condtions. So the reason your reply is not
> > particularly helpful is
> because
> > you are on their side. In other words, I WOULDN'T EXPECT
> > YOU TO SAY ANYTHING DIFFERENT. Why would you? Anyone who
> > is part of conventional medicine and uses the Merck manual
> > or similar as their Bible, must
follow
> it
> > and nothing else. This is why every GP in the UK will give
> > me the same answer - because the book says so. Therefore I
> > have to turn my back on conventional medicine because I do
> > not agree with taking such an answer
> from
> > a profession that is so set in its ways, incapable of
> > change, and behind
> the
> > times. I need to take a pro-active approach because I know
> > my body
better
> > than your book does.
> >
> > I am not 100% sure I have SC but I am 100% sure I have IC.
> > The reasons
> for
> > is are that I have tested positive for IC using at least 4
> > separate
> testing
> > methods, in the following order:
> >
> > 1. HealthScreening Ltd. food sensitivity test (see
> > http://www.healthscreeningltd.co.uk)
> > 2. Candida Spittle Test (see
> > http://www.a-better-way.com/systems/candida.html)
> > 3. Lifestyle Analysis (see http://www.naturessunshine.-
> > com/ProductArea/la/index.asp)
> > 4. Yeast Sensitivity Panel Stool Culture (see
> > http://www.gsdl.com/assessments/cdsa/)
> >
> > The reason I did the first test was because I knew
> > something was wrong
> with
> > me, but didn't know what. They discovered I was sensitive
> > to all foods associated with Candida, namely mushroom (a
> > fungi), tomato, melon,
lemon,
> > pineapple, yeast (!), sugar, chocolate, beer/lager, wine,
> > brandy. They
> only
> > had to look at these sensitivities, then look at my
> > symptoms, to
diagnose
> me
> > with Candida and put me on a diet.
> >
> > As I didn't trust them 100% I did the spit test.
> > Interestingly the
result
> > was positive for Candida overgrowth.
> >
> > I didn't know whether to trust these 2 tests totally so I
> > did an online self-diagnosis test, and the result said
> > 'you have Candida'. Now I was nearly convinced, but didn't
> > want to believe it. I need a lot of convincing.
> >
> > But that wasn't scientific enough so I did the Yeast
> > Culture lab test,
and
> > the result came back '+3 substantial overgrowth'.
> >
> > NOW do you see why I think I have Candida? Now do you see
> > why doctors frustrate me with their text books saying that
> > they don't even recognise
> it
> > as a condition? I recommend you read
> > http://www.rehabmall.com/healthyliving/slagle/vol19.htm
> > for another
> account
> > of how the conventional medical profession infuriates
> > people with their scoffing attitude.
> >
> > To answer your previous question about the test, yes the
> > stool sample
was
> > sent in a preservative liquid which I believe stops or
> > suspends any
> further
> > growth. I'm sure those people know what they are doing! If
> > you have concerns, please e-mail them not me.
> >
> > My question here was about treatment, and I hope you can
> > now see
slightly
> > better from my perspective why I need to treat myself and
> > see if my
> symptoms
> > improve. Can I ask you, could it just be that your text
> > book is not the oracle, and maybe the above 4 methods that
> > all gave a totally consistent result are actually right?
> > Or is it just coincidence that they all said
I
> > have Candida?
> >
> > HS
> >
>

[Humph]

That's the point though Judy, we don't need GPs. We can make
these sort of points to them as we leave the room for the
last time.

What gives you the impression churches are bad by the way? You
seem to use them in that context.

GPs have never helped me. When I think back to them putting me
on Roaccutane for 3 years to cure my acne, then me realising
it was actually an allergy to milk! If only my doc had said,
"let's do some allergy tests first before I risk damaging your
liver", followed by, "oh, you're allergic to milk, give it up
for a week and your skin will be clear", then I might have
more respect for what you people (think you) know.

In my experience, true 'knowledge' is gained through living
and wisdom, not "going to school for many many years" and
relying on text books for all your answers.

HS

"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CFCCDD0.77D6EA30@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> You can print it out and show it to your GP, and expect them
> to change their mind based on one series of posts? I doubt
> it. Docs go to school for many many years. To change their
> minds on something like this without double blind studies by
> researchers, and relying on labs that are listed in
> Quackwatch for data to support their conversion is asking a
> lot, in my opinion. Obviously there are lots of believers
> out there in the Church of Candida, but I doubt whether your
> GP will convert and plunk down his tithe any time soon.
>
> Sorry to be so cynical. Perhaps over years of research the
> Candida tie-in will prove to be something to worry about,
> perhaps not. In the meantime, the mainstream medical
> establishment will proceed cautiously, as it does with
> anything new. If doctors move too quickly and embrace new
> medications/ideas and then have the meds/ideas blow up in
> their faces, patients are very quick to sue.
>
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology
>
> bryher wrote:
> >
> > What an excellent post - wish I could forward it to my GP!

[Gym Bob]

Sorry...but MOST of the homeopathics i have taken have
worked well.

"Lawrence Foard" <entropy@farviolet.com> wrote in message
news:adh88g$jua$1@farviolet.com...

> Whats needed is science based imperical medicine. Look at
> the alternative treatments, don't ask why, don't dismiss
> because its weird, just start looking at results. The body
> is complex, just because something doesn't have an obvious
> relationship doesn't mean its not there. Meanwhile be
> willing to discard the stuff that shows no result, don't
> hold homeopathy medicines containing 'magic enchanted' water
> on the same plain as a supplement which appears to help some
> people for an unknown reason.

[John 'The]

I'll take that as a NO Vote for Dilworth!!! :-)

>In my experience, true 'knowledge' is gained through living
>and wisdom, not "going to school for many many years" and
>relying on text books for all your answers.
>
>HS
>
>"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in
>message news:3CFCCDD0.77D6EA30@nospamhortonsbay.com...
>> You can print it out and show it to your GP, and expect
>> them to change their mind based on one series of posts? I
>> doubt it. Docs go to school for many many years. To change
>> their minds on something like this without double blind
>> studies by researchers, and relying on labs that are listed
>> in Quackwatch for data to support their conversion is
>> asking a lot, in my opinion. Obviously there are lots of
>> believers out there in the Church of Candida, but I doubt
>> whether your GP will convert and plunk down his tithe any
>> time soon.
>>
>> Sorry to be so cynical. Perhaps over years of res

[Gym Bob]

No we need BETTER GP's. GP's that are trained in
multi-disciplines and can properly discpatch you to the most
needed practicianer without prejudice (sp?) or malice. On
that can what is best for the patient and not his
organisation or wallet.

"Humph" <me@mine.com> wrote in message
news:jg8L8.607$f13.17257700@news-text.cableinet.net...
> That's the point though Judy, we don't need GPs. We can make
> these sort
of
> points to them as we leave the room for the last time.
>
> What gives you the impression churches are bad by the way?
> You seem to
use
> them in that context.
>
> GPs have never helped me. When I think back to them putting
> me on Roaccutane for 3 years to cure my acne, then me
> realising it was actually
an
> allergy to milk! If only my doc had said, "let's do some
> allergy tests first before I risk damaging your liver",
> followed by, "oh, you're
allergic
> to milk, give it up for a week and your skin will be clear",
> then I might have more respect for what you people (think
> you) know.
>
> In my experience, true 'knowledge' is gained through living
> and wisdom,
not
> "going to school for many many years" and relying on text
> books for all
your
> answers.
>
> HS
>
> "JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in
> message news:3CFCCDD0.77D6EA30@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> > You can print it out and show it to your GP, and expect
> > them to change their mind based on one series of posts? I
> > doubt it. Docs go to school for many many years. To change
> > their minds on something like this without double blind
> > studies by researchers, and relying on labs that are
> > listed in Quackwatch for data to support their conversion
> > is asking a lot, in my opinion. Obviously there are lots
> > of believers out there in the Church of Candida, but I
> > doubt whether your GP will convert and plunk down his
> > tithe any time soon.
> >
> > Sorry to be so cynical. Perhaps over years of research the
> > Candida tie-in will prove to be something to worry about,
> > perhaps not. In the meantime, the mainstream medical
> > establishment will proceed cautiously, as it does with
> > anything new. If doctors move too quickly and embrace new
> > medications/ideas and then have the meds/ideas blow up in
> > their faces, patients are very quick to sue.
> >
> > Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology
> >
> > bryher wrote:
> > >
> > > What an excellent post - wish I could forward it to
> > > my GP!

[Jedilworth]

More wars have been fought in the name of religion than for
any other reason.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

Humph wrote:

> What gives you the impression churches are bad by the way?
> You seem to use them in that context.

[Humph]

"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CFD2E32.1B1AD997@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> More wars have been fought in the name of religion than for
> any other reason.

And this means I don't have Canidiasis? Sorry, I don't see the
link. What was your point?

Coming from someone who preaches what is and isn't in their
Merck 'Bible', I think it's a bit hypocritical of you to make
out that people who do not believe everything doctors say are
somehow part of a cult or religion of their own! You are
equally guilty of that. We are just from opposing churches.

Given the history of religion, I doubt we'll ever agree, so
it's best to agree to disagree.

Personally I'm not here to answer your criticisms, I'm here to
resolve my symptoms. All I can tell you is so far many
patients say that alternative medical treatments have helped
them with Candida, whereas my conventional GP has failed to
help my symptoms whatsoever and refuses to acknowledge it even
exists. If you really think that makes your closed-minded
bible-bashing religion better, then so be it. ;)

HS

> Humph wrote:
>
> > What gives you the impression churches are bad by the way?
> > You seem to
use
> > them in that context.

[Jedilworth]

Personally I am not here to rubber stamp your beliefs in
rampant Candidiasis, either. I have 28 years of experience in
microbiology to back me up. Again, if you wish to believe, I
can't dissuade you.

Where have I bashed the Bible by saying that more wars have
been fought in the name of religion than for any other reason?
The Bible has nothing to do with this statement. It's a
statement of fact. Look what is going on in the Middle East,
which goes back to the time of the Crusades, for heavens sake.
Look what has gone on forever in Northern Ireland.

If you wish to attack me because I don't believe in leaky gut
and rampant Candidiasis causing every symptom known to man,
that makes no sense. If you want to believe, fine; it's no
skin off my nose.

Just remember, when you get REALLY sick, you will show up in
an emergency room and expect treatment from doctors who have
gone to medical school. If you have a rampant infection you
will expect and receive treatment with antibiotics to cure
that infection. When you have a surgical emergency like a
bowel obstruction, or an aneurysm, or appendicitis, etc. you
will expect and receive help from a medically trained surgeon.
When you have renal insufficiency, or electrolyte imbalance
severe enough for you to end up in an ICU unit, you will
expect and receive help from a specialist in internal medicine
to figure out those electrolytes, order lab work in order to
figure out what IV's to give you and you will hope that all of
this will enable you to keep on living. You will get lab
support from medically trained technologists like me. You can
choose what you want to do in the meantime.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

Humph wrote:
>
> And this means I don't have Canidiasis? Sorry, I don't see
> the link. What was your point?
>
> Coming from someone who preaches what is and isn't in their
> Merck 'Bible', I think it's a bit hypocritical of you to
> make out that people who do not believe everything doctors
> say are somehow part of a cult or religion of their own! You
> are equally guilty of that. We are just from opposing
> churches.
>
> Given the history of religion, I doubt we'll ever agree, so
> it's best to agree to disagree.
>
> Personally I'm not here to answer your criticisms, I'm here
> to resolve my symptoms. All I can tell you is so far many
> patients say that alternative medical treatments have
> helped them with Candida, whereas my conventional GP has
> failed to help my symptoms whatsoever and refuses to
> acknowledge it even exists. If you really think that makes
> your closed-minded bible-bashing religion better, then so
> be it. ;)

[Humph]

No, I cannot choose what I want to do in the meantime. UK
doctors (for the umpteenth time) do not officially recognise
Candida so I have no choice but to turn my back on the
conventional medical profession, whom you represent.

HS

"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CFD6A8B.7B4D50F0@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> Personally I am not here to rubber stamp your beliefs in
> rampant Candidiasis, either. I have 28 years of experience
> in microbiology to back me up. Again, if you wish to
> believe, I can't dissuade you.
>
> Where have I bashed the Bible by saying that more wars have
> been fought in the name of religion than for any other
> reason? The Bible has nothing to do with this statement.
> It's a statement of fact. Look what is going on in the
> Middle East, which goes back to the time of the Crusades,
> for heavens sake. Look what has gone on forever in Northern
> Ireland.
>
> If you wish to attack me because I don't believe in leaky
> gut and rampant Candidiasis causing every symptom known to
> man, that makes no sense. If you want to believe, fine; it's
> no skin off my nose.
>
> Just remember, when you get REALLY sick, you will show up in
> an emergency room and expect treatment from doctors who have
> gone to medical school. If you have a rampant infection you
> will expect and receive treatment with antibiotics to cure
> that infection. When you have a surgical emergency like a
> bowel obstruction, or an aneurysm, or appendicitis, etc. you
> will expect and receive help from a medically trained
> surgeon. When you have renal insufficiency, or electrolyte
> imbalance severe enough for you to end up in an ICU unit,
> you will expect and receive help from a specialist in
> internal medicine to figure out those electrolytes, order
> lab work in order to figure out what IV's to give you and
> you will hope that all of this will enable you to keep on
> living. You will get lab support from medically trained
> technologists like me. You can choose what you want to do in
> the meantime.
>
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology
>
> Humph wrote:
> >
> > And this means I don't have Canidiasis? Sorry, I don't see
> > the link.
What
> > was your point?
> >
> > Coming from someone who preaches what is and isn't in
> > their Merck
'Bible', I
> > think it's a bit hypocritical of you to make out that
> > people who do not believe everything doctors say are
> > somehow part of a cult or religion of their own! You are
> > equally guilty of that. We are just from opposing
> > churches.
> >
> > Given the history of religion, I doubt we'll ever agree,
> > so it's best to agree to disagree.
> >
> > Personally I'm not here to answer your criticisms, I'm
> > here to resolve
my
> > symptoms. All I can tell you is so far many patients
> > say that
alternative
> > medical treatments have helped them with Candida,
> > whereas my
conventional GP
> > has failed to help my symptoms whatsoever and refuses to
> > acknowledge it
even
> > exists. If you really think that makes your closed-minded
> > bible-bashing religion better, then so be it. ;)

[Jedilworth]

Duh, that's what I meant. As I said, you will turn your back
on the conventional medical profession until you need them for
an emergency at some future date in time.

We get the point.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

Humph wrote:
>
> No, I cannot choose what I want to do in the meantime. UK
> doctors (for the umpteenth time) do not officially recognise
> Candida so I have no choice but to turn my back on the
> conventional medical profession, whom you represent.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Judy Dilworth, M.T. rambled on
about "Re: Curing Systemic Candida without GP help -
questions." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
retorts, thusly ...

>> I have 28 years of experience in microbiology to back me
>> up.

When ALL you got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
:-(

>> It's a statement of fact. Look what is going on in the
>> Middle East, which goes back to the time of the Crusades,
>> for heavens sake. Look what has gone on forever in Northern
>> Ireland.

Excuse me! But, the subject of this ng is nutrition.

Just thought that you might want to know!!!

>> Just remember, when you get REALLY sick, you will show up
>> in an emergency room and expect treatment from doctors who
>> have gone to medical school. If you have a rampant
>> infection you will expect and receive treatment with
>> antibiotics to cure that infection. When you have a
>> surgical emergency like a bowel obstruction, or an
>> aneurysm, or appendicitis, etc. you will expect and receive
>> help from a medically trained surgeon. When you have renal
>> insufficiency, or electrolyte imbalance severe enough for
>> you to end up in an ICU unit, you will expect and receive
>> help from a specialist in internal medicine to figure out
>> those electrolytes, order lab work in order to figure out
>> what IV's to give you and you will hope that all of this
>> will enable you to keep on living. You will get lab support
>> from medically trained technologists like me.

ONLY if you have been a total failure at Prevention and Living
a Healthy Lifestyle.

>>You can choose what you want to do in the meantime.

I will take that as a admission that Dilworth is a total
health FRAUD!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, being overweight,
or about smoking!

[Humph]

For the record, in an earlier post I said "GPs are idiots".
GPs are not the people who will treat me at hospital in an
emergency. I have no problem with such professionals, and was
not referring to them when I spoke of turning my back on
conventional medicine - I was still referring to GPs and some
people who side with GPs. Sorry, thought that was obvious.

HS

"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:3CFE0F79.51C16B6B@nospamhortonsbay.com...
> Duh, that's what I meant. As I said, you will turn your back
> on the conventional medical profession until you need them
> for an emergency at some future date in time.
>
> We get the point.
>
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology
>
> Humph wrote:
> >
> > No, I cannot choose what I want to do in the meantime. UK
> > doctors (for
the
> > umpteenth time) do not officially recognise Candida so I
> > have no choice
but
> > to turn my back on the conventional medical profession,
> > whom you
represent.

[Stuart Mar]

JEDilworth <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:<3CF861A5.E58B98C3@nospamhortonsbay.com>...
> Just because you have Candida in your stool doesn't not mean
> you have SYSTEMIC Candidiasis. Are you another one that is
> getting stool cultures done by Great Smokies Diagnostic
> Laboratory or its UK equivalent? Please see my extensive
> posting under the ongoing thread labelled "Candida."
>
> A systemic Candidiasis means that you have yeasts in your
> BLOOD, and probably also your urine, respiratory tract -
> everywhere. You would be in the hospital if this were true.
> Many people that are immunocompromised with HIV, cancer,
> kidney disease, diabetes, end up with Candida overgrowth
> that sometimes goes into their blood. They are SICK and not
> well enough to be typing newsgroup messages.
>
> I really don't think the docs in the NHS UK are idiots. You
> are probably making a huge mountain out of the molehill

No they are fucking idiots! Im in exactly the same situation
as this guy. His story scarily parallels mine. In fact im
now seeing a
psychiatrist. They think i have dismorphophobia! I too went to
a private healthcare practictioner(Holistic) and they
confirmed what i had. If the original poster of this thread
is reading get in touch, i know what youre going through

this one culture result
> provides. Yeasts are normal in feces. If you also have
> enteric flora in your stools I wouldn't be too concerned.
> Have you been on antibiotics? Sometimes they can wipe out
> your aerobic gram negative flora and allow the yeasts to
> present in larger amounts in your stool. Yogurt might be a
> cheaper alternative here than Diflucan.
>
> Yeasts are everywhere in the environment. It is very hard to
> avoid them. You are going to drive yourself nuts worrying
> about them. Also, Diflucan is not an over-the-counter drug,
> at least not here in the US and I doubt in the UK. It is a
> very expensive anti-fungal. Where are you going to get it?
>
> Sounds like you need some anti-anxiety medication - you're
> worrying about this way too much.

What?! Youre kidding arent you. Ive been on 60mgs of Prozac
for the last five years and its made my condition worse. You
know what they treated my acne with?! Tetracyclines which
contain mold, theyve made a bad situation worse and your
comment proves the total ignorance of the NHS. Anyone who
suffers from Candida in the UK save yourself the mental stress
and DONT go see your GP.
>
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology 28 years
>
> Humph wrote:
> >
> > I have some questions about treating Candida.
> >
> > To cut a long story short, I have found out that I have
> > Systemic Candida/Candedemia. I have had a yeast culture
> > done on a stool sample and it came back with a "+3 Candida
> > Albicans Significant Overgrowth".

[suave]

hi everyone

Ive just come across this website and i agree with what was said on the initial thread - im 26 yrs old and i have had dry eyes since i can remember (since childhood) - when i was younger i thought it was normal, i used to wake up with sticky and puffy eyes.

When i was a teenager i was very hyperactive (esp after i had sweet things) , but thought nothing of it. About 3 years ago, i moved away from home and realised that my eyes had become more itchy and puffy and were almost puffy to the extent that i could barely open them, i had also joint pain in my right hand ( i am right handed) and really bad stomach pain, bloatingness and constipation. I was also extremely tired and found it very difficult to get up to go to lectures ( i was a student then). When i saw my new GP he put me on ibuprofen for my swollen joint and gave me eye drops for my eyes - neither of them worked , mnth after mnth he kept prescribing me alternative eye drops to very limited benefit, i had to use them like 20 times a day!! and they still didnt work!. I had severe pain in my stomach one day and was rushed to A&E the doc took ages to see me and by then the pain was less i was told there was nothing wrong with me and was sent back home.

I lost hope in recieiving professional help and went to see an allergist as i had realised that my symtoms were worse with some foods like sugury foods. I went to see a private allergist which cost me an arm and a leg but i did not see a way out. He did some electronic pulse tests and said that i had an allergy to quite a few things, i was rather sceptical because he had asked me if i had experienced problems wioth foods beforehand, so i went away thinking that was a waste of money.

I suffered the symptoms for another two years with the occasional visits to the doc & A &E because my eyes had been infected with blepahritus and conjuctivitus etc time and time again.

I moved back home and saw my old Gp who did swab tests of my eyes and sent me to an opticians - and apparently there was nothing wrong with me!. I told them (various docs) that i was pretty sure i had an allergy problem as i had gone on elimination diets but they all re-iterated that there was no such thing as an allergy!!

Eventually i went to a hydro colonic irrigation clinic and a therapist asked me questions for 10 mins and then suggested i might have candida. I did not really take this on board as she was after all a therapist and not a qualified doctor.

I made several private appointments which also cost me over £100's to see private docs for chemical allergy testing they all came out with the same thing , i had anb allergy to nickel but thats all - which i knew since i was little - apart from that i was fine!.

On chance i found an opthamologist and as a last resort begged my GP to transfer me (as he would not see me without a referral letter - privately yet again as i could not wait for another 4 mnths!), which she did. The opthamologist spent 30 mins with me and did some tests which proved i had extreemly severe dry eyes which is very unsual in ppl in my age group, he suggested i might have sjogrens. After seeing a sjogrens specialist 3 mnths later and udergoing a lip biopsy they realised i did not have all the symptoms and i was not diagnosed with it.

I then started getting chest tightness in the mornings and when i lied down and i had problems breathing. I then did some more research on candida and realised the similiarity between the symptoms in candida and my own.

I asked my GPS to prescribe nystatin or anti fungal medication but they refused to do so as there was not sufficient proof - i was beginning to think i had to die to be taken seriously !.

Finally i came across kolorex an antifungal which had excellent testimonials on the web. I went for it and the NEXT day i did not wake up with sticky eyes - INFACT i thought there was something wrong with them!!!!, it was such an excellent feeling to wake up without sticky eyes! it was then that i realised waking up with sticky /watery eyes wasnt normal. Some of my other symtomps had dissapeard like chest tightness and fatigue, i also tried to eliminate some sugary foods, but i have trouble sticking to it.

I told my sjogrens specialist who said it was up to my GP as he had nothing to do with it anymore, i begged him to write to my GP (so they would take me seruiously), he did so but one of the GPs at the surgery advised that the NHS dont support these unconventional condistions and refused to do anything. I saw anotehr GOP in the same clinic and she reluctantly has booked me an appointment with a gut specialist, I am still waiting for the appointment to come through.

I dont really have much hope in GPS anymore - but i am currently looking to change docs - if i can find one that is willing to help me.
After all why should i pay my taxes to docs who really dont do anything for me and treat me like a mad woman? they kept telling me to relax that i was too stressed out - what the hell???. I would rather pay that therapist at the health clinic who diagnosed me in 10 MINS!!. This was a 10 min analysis and i now know that she was more help to me than any other doc (apart from the opthamologist ) that i have seen in my past 100 so visits!!!!.

I so hate GP'S.

[suave]

hey,

i forgot to mention.....i am on oxytetracycline as i have just had some bad acne (recently) - and my symptoms (watery eyes/ fatugue etc) have started returning, i was then put on another antibiotic beginning with en/em......... but that gave me severe stomach cramps and headaches. Can anyone suggest anything else pls, when i do come of oxytetra i am fine again ..... but i have to take the full course otherwise my acne will come back agian......any suggestions pls???



Thanks.
Saima.

[me]

Only 1 thing worked for me in the end - giving up dairy
produce. www.notmilk.com

HS

"suave" <member@lowcarber.org> wrote in message
news:afmrlq$fkb7k$2@ID-100244.news.dfncis.de...
> hey,
>
> i forgot to mention.....i am on oxytetracycline as i have
> just had some bad acne (recently) - and my symptoms (watery
> eyes/ fatugue etc) have started returning, i was then put
> on another antibiotic beginning with en/em......... but
> that gave me severe stomach cramps and headaches. Can
> anyone suggest anything else pls, when i do come of
> oxytetra i am fine again ..... but i have to take the full
> course otherwise my acne will come back agian......any
> suggestions pls???
>
>
>
> Thanks. Saima.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via Active Low-Carber Forums, for Low-Carb & Atkins
> Diet Support http://forum.lowcarber.org &
> http://www.lowcarb.ca

[Gym Bob]

wheat, dairy, gluten allergies?

The antibiotics kill your digestive enzymes and can cause acne
outbreaks.

Lot's of fibre and possibly digestive enzymes or if dairy
is not a big problem....real live bacteria yogourt
everyday for ever.

"suave" <member@lowcarber.org> wrote in message
news:afmrlq$fkb7k$2@ID-100244.news.dfncis.de...
> hey,
>
> i forgot to mention.....i am on oxytetracycline as i have
> just had some bad acne (recently) - and my symptoms (watery
> eyes/ fatugue etc) have started returning, i was then put
> on another antibiotic beginning with en/em......... but
> that gave me severe stomach cramps and headaches. Can
> anyone suggest anything else pls, when i do come of
> oxytetra i am fine again ..... but i have to take the full
> course otherwise my acne will come back agian......any
> suggestions pls???
>
>
>
> Thanks. Saima.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via Active Low-Carber Forums, for Low-Carb & Atkins
> Diet Support http://forum.lowcarber.org &
> http://www.lowcarb.ca

[Debra Will]

The regimen at this website & lowering the junk he ate
helped my son.

http://www.acne.org/regimen.html

--
Debby W.
172/157/135
172/158/142 15 lb Challenge Challenge start date 7/1/02
Thanks Carol Ann

" Time wounds all heels."
- Groucho Marx (The real one) LOL

"Flames should only be use to cook trolls here." Debra
Williams

Never assume. Because it always makes an ass out of u & me.
The odd couple ASS/U/ME "suave" <member@lowcarber.org> wrote
in message news:afmrlq$fkb7k$2@ID-100244.news.dfncis.de...
> hey,
>
> i forgot to mention.....i am on oxytetracycline as i have
> just had some bad acne (recently) - and my symptoms (watery
> eyes/ fatugue etc) have started returning, i was then put
> on another antibiotic beginning with en/em......... but
> that gave me severe stomach cramps and headaches. Can
> anyone suggest anything else pls, when i do come of
> oxytetra i am fine again ..... but i have to take the full
> course otherwise my acne will come back agian......any
> suggestions pls???
>
>
>
> Thanks. Saima.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via Active Low-Carber Forums, for Low-Carb & Atkins
> Diet Support http://forum.lowcarber.org &
> http://www.lowcarb.ca

[suave]

Thanks for the info guys, i'm thinking of going for a blood test but i'd like to know if they really work and if theyve diagnosed anyone incorrectly.

Saima.

[J]

I haven't followed this thread and past messages aren't
accessible, so I am replying only to what is in this one.

Great Smokey Mountains Diagnostic Labs at gsdl.com has some
very good tests for yeast (they mail your doctor a kit, you
use it to collect the sample and send it in so you don't have
to live in the area.

They are lighters ahead of most labs. For example, they test
the sample for sensitivity to antibiotics so you can be
prescribed the antibiotics that will be best for YOUR
infection. Much more effective than being treated for the
statistically most common infection!

(Please note: I have no financial connection whatsoever with
GSDL (or any other medical product/service providers).

JB

suave wrote:

> Thanks for the info guys, i'm thinking of going for a blood
> test but i'd like to know if they really work and if theyve
> diagnosed anyone incorrectly.
>
> Saima.
>
> --
> Posted via Active Low-Carber Forums, for Low-Carb & Atkins
> Diet Support http://forum.lowcarber.org &
> http://www.lowcarb.ca

[Jedilworth]

You can access all archives for this newsgroup in google. Go
to www.google.com and click on Groups. Then go to sci., then
sci.med., then sci.med.nutrition. You can also post from
google archives, but I think they have to be newer posts. I
don't think you can post from messages that are real old.

If you go to the archives, you will see that I disagree
somewhat with what GSDL does. I am not arguing with their
microbiology techniques so much as to exactly WHY they do what
they do. They seem to identify a lot of normal flora from a
stool and somehow hint that it is bad for you to have certain
species of what the majority of the laboratories IN THE WORLD
consider to be normal enteric flora. I can say this because I
have worked in hospital clinical laboratories for 28 years and
microbiology laboratories for 23 of those years, performing
stool cultures and producing results for physicians during
that time.

Also, please do NOT imply that laboratories do not test
organisms for antibiotic susceptibility patterns. This is an
integral part of what I do on a daily basis in the laboratory.
We report sensitivities, as do clinical laboratories ALL OVER
THE WORLD every day, to physicians for them to be able to
treat their patients.

What GSDL seems to do is perform some sort of in-house
methodology for determining yeast susceptibilities. They even
offer some sort of disclaimer on their web site that this is
not an FDA approved methodology for determining yeast
sensitivities. Most laboratories I know do not perform these
sensitivities as they are complicated. We get very few
requests for them and send them to a reference laboratory if
the physician needs this information. I have never performed
them so I don't know what methodology is used. I assume it's
some sort of micro-titer or tube dilution method.

GSDL markets their services to chiropractors and alternative
health care providers. There is nothing wrong with this. If
people want to believe that those few yeast colonies that grow
up on the plate along with all the other normal flora is
really causing all their maladies, and this gives a talisman
for them to believe in, who am I to call them wrong? GSDL
seemingly will give their clients this information in their
culture reports. Most hospital laboratories WORLDWIDE only
culture stools for enteric pathogens, i.e. Campylobacter,
Shigella, Salmonella, E. coli
O157:H7, Yersinia, and a few other rarely found pathogens like
Vibrios, Aeromonas, and a couple of others.

I just do NOT buy into the yeast theory of disease. The people
I see cultures on that grow yeast in blood cultures, sterile
body fluid and similar type specimens are critically ill for
the most part. These are patients that have chronic illnesses
or injuries, i.e. huge burns, that cause them to have been on
antibiotics for life threatening bacterial infections. These
people would die without these antibiotics. Some of them then
have to fight off overgrowth by yeasts of various types,
Candida albicans being the most common, but there are others.

Please don't tell me that these people could live without the
antibiotics because they can't. These are not outpatients -
they are very sick inpatients.

Yeast can be part of the normal stool flora. To imply that
small numbers of yeasts are pathogenic for the body in these
types of cultures is misleading. To further imply that people
are septic with yeast (one of the posters in this thread or a
similar one said this) in their blood stream because a few
colonies grow up in their stool culture is grossly
misrepresenting a clinical picture, I believe, for monetary
gain. Positive blood cultures with yeast are usually from
having indwelling catheters that become infected, or body wide
overgrowth with yeasts due to overwhelming infections from
cancer, HIV, or similar such circumstances.

Vaginal yeast infections are very common and are not included
in the above discussion.

Certain labs cater to certain clients. Obviously GSDL's
clients, the alternative medicine community, send their poop
to them because GSDL will do what they want - identify all the
bacteria in them for a price, and use this data to create a
market for their anti-Candida diets, supplements, and other
items for monetary gain by the practitioners. I used to market
laboratory services (not GSDL) to physicians, so I know that
certain profiles can be worked up to cater to certain client's
wants and needs. It's what's done with this culture data on
the receiving end that I object to.

I now will receive a blizzard of postings from the people on
anti-Candida diets, with all kinds of scenarios how these
little yeasts are making their lives miserable. Until you
have been one of these terribly ill patients for whom yeasts
really DO cause morbidity and sometimes mortality, please
don't waste my time.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

J wrote:
>
> I haven't followed this thread and past messages aren't
> accessible, so I am replying only to what is in this one.
>
> Great Smokey Mountains Diagnostic Labs at gsdl.com has some
> very good tests for yeast (they mail your doctor a kit, you
> use it to collect the sample and send it in so you don't
> have to live in the area.
>
> They are lighters ahead of most labs. For example, they test
> the sample for sensitivity to antibiotics so you can be
> prescribed the antibiotics that will be best for YOUR
> infection. Much more effective than being treated for the
> statistically most common infection!
>
> (Please note: I have no financial connection whatsoever with
> GSDL (or any other medical product/service providers).

[J]

JEDilworth wrote:

> You can access all archives for this newsgroup in google. Go
> to www.google.com and click on Groups. Then go to sci., then
> sci.med., then sci.med.nutrition. You can also post from
> google archives, but I think they have to be newer posts. I
> don't think you can post from messages that are real old.
>
> If you go to the archives, you will see that I disagree
> somewhat with what GSDL does. I am not arguing with their
> microbiology techniques so much as to exactly WHY they do
> what they do. They seem to identify a lot of normal flora
> from a stool and somehow hint that it is bad for you to have
> certain species of what the majority of the laboratories IN
> THE WORLD consider to be normal enteric flora. I can say
> this because I have worked in hospital clinical laboratories
> for 28 years and microbiology laboratories for 23 of those
> years, performing stool cultures and producing results for
> physicians during that time.

When they did my tests over five years ago, the tests were not
merely qualitative, but highly quantitative: they gave the
concentration that you test for and then charted that on a
curve that showed very clearly what the normal range of
concentrations was and where yours compared to that. I found
that to be a very useful tool as the doctor that had always
dismissed positive tests in the past with "everyone has some
present" had a completely different attitude to a test showing
quantities vastly greater than normal.

Flora that are normally present in small numbers are entirely
capable of causing significant problems when their populations
explode and reach numbers high enough to seriously affect
normal balances. (A related point: it is also possible for
flora that cause little problem under normal conditions to
cause serious problems when conditions change (diphtheria is a
relatively benign infection .... UNLESS your iron levels are
low. But if iron levels are low, it puts out a chemical that
has deadly effects in an attempt to acquire enough iron. (an
early effective treatment was to coat the throat with iron
salts. That did not kill the diphtheria, it just stopped it
from producing the siderophore that could make it deadly.))

The key (as always) is to use an adequate level of complexity.
In the case of intestinal flora that means determining the
complete profile of flora (i.e.: the relative concentrations
and not merely the presence or absence.)

>
>
> Also, please do NOT imply that laboratories do not test
> organisms for antibiotic susceptibility patterns. This is an
> integral part of what I do on a daily basis in the
> laboratory. We report sensitivities, as do clinical
> laboratories ALL OVER THE WORLD every day, to physicians for
> them to be able to treat their patients.

That was not at all what I meant to state. It is very clear
that not all laboratories test for antibiotic
susceptibility. (Maybe the ones in my area are particularly
poor, but, other than the samples I sent out to be tested at
GSDL, none of mine were EVER tested for susceptibility!) PS:
I am a fan of GSDL because it was their test (with
quantitative information and antibiotic susceptibility) that
both finally got me the treatment I needed and that selected
the appropriate antibiotic when several previous attempts
had had little success!)

> What GSDL seems to do is perform some sort of in-house
> methodology for determining yeast susceptibilities. They
> even offer some sort of disclaimer on their web site that
> this is not an FDA approved methodology for determining
> yeast sensitivities. Most laboratories I know do not perform
> these sensitivities as they are complicated. We get very few
> requests for them and send them to a reference laboratory if
> the physician needs this information. I have never performed
> them so I don't know what methodology is used. I assume it's
> some sort of micro-titer or tube dilution method.

All I know is that in my case GDSL's tests led to the use of
an antibiotic that worked very well indeed when previous
courses of other antibiotics (when sensitivity was not tested)
had had little effect.

I would humbly suggest that you try to get a few more details
of exactly what they do before judging them!

> GSDL markets their services to chiropractors and alternative
> health care providers. There is nothing wrong with this.

I suspect that they do this because the mainstream medical
establishment is, frankly, more than a bit pig headed and
close minded (not to mention devout practitioners of the 80-20
rule: just treat the easy 80% that takes 20% of the effort and
just write off the difficult 20%): "you CAN'T have a yeast
infection, males don't get yeast infections" (BS! They may be
more unusual in males but males with predisposing conditions
(malabsorption, etc. etc.) certainly can and DO get them. Then
they not only have to deal with the yeast but with the much
more difficult problem of the pig headed professional
("80-20"s) who insist that males don't get such infections!
(Same breed as the idiots that insist that females don't get
iron overloads!)

> If people want to believe that those few yeast colonies that
> grow up on the plate along with all the other normal flora
> is really causing all their maladies, and this gives a
> talisman for them to believe in, who am I to call them
> wrong? GSDL seemingly will give their clients this
> information in their culture reports. Most hospital
> laboratories WORLDWIDE only culture stools for enteric
> pathogens, i.e. Campylobacter, Shigella, Salmonella, E. coli
> O157:H7, Yersinia, and a few other rarely found pathogens
> like Vibrios, Aeromonas, and a couple of others.

Which is exactly what I meant when I said that GSDL is LIGHT
YEARS ahead of most labs! It doesn't take a rare or even
unusual pathogen's presence to cause serious problems! A
serious imbalance in just the normal flora is entirely
sufficient, thank you!

(Medicine is conveniently ducking responsibility for a lot of
iatrogenic problems here! Long courses of antibiotics are the
primary cause of a great deal of the serious imbalances that
exist. Most antibiotics are relatively unselective and kill
off a lot of the "friendlies" (microbial version of "friendly
fire"!) - enough in many cases to cause imbalances great
enough to become self perpetuating long after the course of
antibiotics is over.

Only when we begin to treat the intestinal tract as a highly
complex ecosystem (which it certainly is!) and ***pay
attention to the balance of species*** etc. will the practice
gasteroenterology cease to become as highly ineffective as it
is and achieve a reasonable degree of utility. Many of the
normal flora act strongly to maintain normal conditions and
keep out pathogens etc. Destroying them has about the same
effects on the intestinal ecology as destroying a broad range
of "top predators" would have on ANY ecological system!

Medicine has always been very quick to take credit for (often
assumed!) benefits of its technologies and very very slow to
take responsibility for adverse (however unintended) effects.
That's been going on for as long as medicine was a science
(remember those free X-ray machines in the shoe stores where
you could look at the bones in your feet while the radiation
shot straight up into your genetic material? Same attitude
exactly with intestinal overgrowths from antibiotics.

> I just do NOT buy into the yeast theory of disease. The
> people I see cultures on that grow yeast in blood cultures,
> sterile body fluid and similar type specimens are critically
> ill for the most part. These are patients that have chronic
> illnesses or injuries, i.e. huge burns, that cause them to
> have been on antibiotics for life threatening bacterial
> infections. These people would die without these
> antibiotics. Some of them then have to fight off overgrowth
> by yeasts of various types, Candida albicans being the most
> common, but there are others.
>

If what you are saying is that since the supposed yeast
infection patients don't have the symptoms that SYSTEMICALLY
INFECTED patients so they therefore don't have yeast
infections: Virtually ANY disease is far more serious when it
becomes systemic. That is no reason whatsoever for claiming
that because a case of infection is not SYSTEMIC that it is
therefor not causing problems.

>
> Please don't tell me that these people could live without
> the antibiotics because they can't. These are not
> outpatients - they are very sick inpatients.
>

Surely you aren't claiming that the ONLY courses of
antibiotics prescribed are for such patients!!!! Antibiotics
are frequently prescribed for trivial reasons and even for
reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with medicine!: ("I
know it's almost certainly a viral infection but this patient
is going to be very very unhappy if he/she doesn't get an
antibiotic...")

And I wasn't at all implying that antibiotics are wrong. What
I AM saying is that we need to ACKNOWLEDGE the problems they
can cause and start learning to DEAL with them (as the GSDL
is, for one!)

>
> Yeast can be part of the normal stool flora. To imply that
> small numbers of yeasts are pathogenic for the body in these
> types of cultures is misleading

I would humbly suggest that you STOP drawing "implications"!
You appear to have a real talent for reading implications
where there ARE none (i.e.: mistaking your own incorrect
inferences for "implications"). I never said, nor in any way
whatsoever implied that SMALL NUMBERS of yeasts are
pathogenic. That is a straw dog that you created out of thin
air, whether consciously or not.

In fact, the numbers are everything! It's balance balance
balance! And numbers are what make the balance!

> . To further imply that people are septic with yeast (one of
> the posters in this thread or a similar one said this) in
> their blood stream because a few colonies grow up in their
> stool culture is grossly misrepresenting a clinical
> picture, I believe, for monetary gain.

Excuse me, please, but I accept no responsibility whatsoever
for what anyone else says.

>
> Positive blood cultures with yeast are usually from having
> indwelling catheters that become infected, or body wide
> overgrowth with yeasts due to overwhelming infections from
> cancer, HIV, or similar such circumstances.

Just how would you KNOW if positive blood cultures arose from
anything else since you give every appearance of firmly
denying that blood cultures taken in other circumstances could
be positive? (If you have stated that you will not believe
evidence for something then your opinion that it does not
exist loses credibility, comprendre?

> Vaginal yeast infections are very common and are not
> included in the above discussion.
>
> Certain labs cater to certain clients. Obviously GSDL's
> clients, the alternative medicine community, send their poop
> to them because GSDL will do what they want - identify all
> the bacteria in them for a price, and use this data to
> create a market for their anti-Candida diets, supplements,
> and other items for monetary gain by the practitioners. I
> used to market laboratory services (not GSDL) to physicians,
> so I know that certain profiles can be worked up to cater to
> certain client's wants and needs.

That is an exceedingly subjective and biased characterization
of what GSDL does!

The OBJECTIVE and scientific description of what they do (you
DO understand objective and scientific?) is that they QUANTIFY
the microflora populations. Something which the other labs
clearly SHOULD be doing but are not. What is happening is that
the GSDL is very actively advancing the application of science
in the area and thereby "threatening" the status quo (making
their tests and panels obsolete (as well they should be!) and
incidentally elucidating some of the problems that
conventional therapies are causing (hence the appeal to
alternative medicine!

But your outright slander that GSDL is "working up" their
profiles to cater to needs is totally unsubstantiated and
shows just how biased you are! How does the entirely OBJECTIVE
act of quantifying populations of microflora amount to
"working up to cater to client's wants"? Unless, of course
what you mean is client's desire for GOOD SCIENCE tailored to
their genuine medical needs which is exactly what it is and
exactly what the client needs and exactly what traditional
medicine is doing such a poor job of providing (much of the
science in mainstream medicine is far more slanted to the
needs of the professionals (more assembly line medicine, more
convenience for the professionals (even at the expense of the
patients), more profits, etc. etc.)

> It's what's done with this culture data on the receiving end
> that I object to.
>
> I now will receive a blizzard of postings from the people on
> anti-Candida diets, with all kinds of scenarios how these
> little yeasts are making their lives miserable. Until you
> have been one of these terribly ill patients for whom yeasts
> really DO cause morbidity and sometimes mortality, please
> don't waste my time.
>

If you are suggesting that just because someone is not
suffering from a SYSTEMIC infection they are therefor not
suffering, may I humbly suggest that your talents might be
better applied in some other profession than medicine!

Many of us have the rebellious notion that we would like our
conditions properly diagnosed and treated while they are still
relatively mild and not only when they have become so serious
as to be life threatening! (The old "fence at the top of the
cliff vs. the ambulance at the bottom" thing!) Been both
places, done both and frankly, the former is vastly
overwhelmingly superior! (ask any patient!)

Maybe the reason you get "blizzards of postings" is because of
the extremism of your attitudes!

J

>
> Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology
>
> J wrote:
> >
> > I haven't followed this thread and past messages aren't
> > accessible, so I am replying only to what is in this one.
> >
> > Great Smokey Mountains Diagnostic Labs at gsdl.com has
> > some very good tests for yeast (they mail your doctor a
> > kit, you use it to collect the sample and send it in so
> > you don't have to live in the area.
> >
> > They are lighters ahead of most labs. For example, they
> > test the sample for sensitivity to antibiotics so you can
> > be prescribed the antibiotics that will be best for YOUR
> > infection. Much more effective than being treated for the
> > statistically most common infection!
> >
> > (Please note: I have no financial connection whatsoever
> > with GSDL (or any other medical product/service
> > providers).

[Jedilworth]

Are ya' done ranting yet?

I don't apologize for practicing mainstream culture
technology. I don't think my views are extreme. On the
contrary, you are one of the supplicants at the alternative
altar and your religious conversion to GSDL's methods are
complete. You sound like you're preaching to the unconverted.
Again, they are working up the stools in the way they do
because their clients want them to do this. Their clients then
use this data to convince their patients that a 2+ level of
Citrobacter vs. a 1+ level is somehow abnormal, or that
Klebsiella in a stool is somehow abnormal, etc. etc. I just
don't buy it, that's all.

The head of GSDL acknowledged a skeptical post by me in the
newsgroup sci.med.laboratory with far more calmness and sense
than you have exhibited in your blasts at me. I suggest you go
and read what he had to say in the google archives of that
newsgroup. He mentioned in his post that they utilize NINE
Vitek machines to perform all of these identifications. We use
three and we're a huge clinical micro laboratory, performing
the micro work for four hospitals in our metro area. No
hospital clinical laboratory that I know of would invest in
nine Vitek machines unless they got paid for all of those
identifications. No insurance company that I know of would
reimburse for all those identifications without clinical
indication to do so. I would guess that GSDL operates outside
the realm of reimbursement or insurance (but I will admit that
I do not know this for sure; be that as it may, they're paying
for all this identification somehow), so they can essentially
work up the culture how they want and the patients pay for all
those identifications. Each Vitek card costs around $2.50
minimum (depending on volume of sales) for an ID card, and
probably more for a sensitivity panel. Believe me, I doubt
that GSDL does countless ID's on normal stool flora without
charging for them. We, as clinical hospital laboratories,
cannot charge for an ID on a stool that does not turn out to
be a pathogen. We have to do a lot of ID's on non-lactose
fermenters that turn out to be normal flora. We cannot charge
these back to the patient. So, J, you are not comparing apples
to oranges here. The two types of laboratories, GSDL and your
independent/hospital clinical laboratory are operating in two
separate spheres.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

J wrote:

[snipped]

[Jorge]

J wrote:

> JEDilworth wrote:
>
> > You can access all archives for this newsgroup in google.
> > Go to www.google.com and click on Groups. Then go to sci.,
> > then sci.med., then sci.med.nutrition. You can also post
> > from google archives, but I think they have to be newer
> > posts. I don't think you can post from messages that are
> > real old.
> >
> > If you go to the archives, you will see that I disagree
> > somewhat with what GSDL does. I am not arguing with
> > their microbiology techniques so much as to exactly WHY
> > they do what they do. They seem to identify a lot of
> > normal flora from a stool and somehow hint that it is
> > bad for you to have certain species of what the majority
> > of the laboratories IN THE WORLD consider to be normal
> > enteric flora. I can say this because I have worked in
> > hospital clinical laboratories for 28 years and
> > microbiology laboratories for 23 of those years,
> > performing stool cultures and producing results for
> > physicians during that time.
>
> When they did my tests over five years ago, the tests were
> not merely qualitative, but highly quantitative: they gave
> the concentration that you test for and then charted that on
> a curve that showed very clearly what the normal range of
> concentrations was and where yours compared to that. I found
> that to be a very useful tool as the doctor that had always
> dismissed positive tests in the past with "everyone has some
> present" had a completely different attitude to a test
> showing quantities vastly greater than normal.
>
> Flora that are normally present in small numbers are
> entirely capable of causing significant problems when their
> populations explode and reach numbers high enough to
> seriously affect normal balances. (A related point: it is
> also possible for flora that cause little problem under
> normal conditions to cause serious problems when conditions
> change (diphtheria is a relatively benign infection ....
> UNLESS your iron levels are low. But if iron levels are low,
> it puts out a chemical that has deadly effects in an attempt
> to acquire enough iron. (an early effective treatment was to
> coat the throat with iron salts. That did not kill the
> diphtheria, it just stopped it from producing the
> siderophore that could make it deadly.))

That iron thing again right. I guess phage induced toxicity
has nothing to do with it right.

>
>
> The key (as always) is to use an adequate level of
> complexity. In the case of intestinal flora that means
> determining the complete profile of flora (i.e.: the
> relative concentrations and not merely the presence or
> absence.)

And then treat for every imbalance with antibiotics? So what
do you do next?

>
>
> >
> >
> > Also, please do NOT imply that laboratories do not test
> > organisms for antibiotic susceptibility patterns. This is
> > an integral part of what I do on a daily basis in the
> > laboratory. We report sensitivities, as do clinical
> > laboratories ALL OVER THE WORLD every day, to physicians
> > for them to be able to treat their patients.
>
> That was not at all what I meant to state. It is very clear
> that not all laboratories test for antibiotic
> susceptibility. (Maybe the ones in my area are particularly
> poor, but, other than the samples I sent out to be tested at
> GSDL, none of mine were EVER tested for susceptibility!) PS:
> I am a fan of GSDL because it was their test (with
> quantitative information and antibiotic susceptibility) that
> both finally got me the treatment I needed and that selected
> the appropriate antibiotic when several previous attempts
> had had little success!)

And you were cured?

>
>
> > What GSDL seems to do is perform some sort of in-house
> > methodology for determining yeast susceptibilities. They
> > even offer some sort of disclaimer on their web site that
> > this is not an FDA approved methodology for determining
> > yeast sensitivities. Most laboratories I know do not
> > perform these sensitivities as they are complicated. We
> > get very few requests for them and send them to a
> > reference laboratory if the physician needs this
> > information. I have never performed them so I don't know
> > what methodology is used. I assume it's some sort of
> > micro-titer or tube dilution method.
>
> All I know is that in my case GDSL's tests led to the use of
> an antibiotic that worked very well indeed when previous
> courses of other antibiotics (when sensitivity was not
> tested) had had little effect.

There you go Judy just treat everything including normal
flora.

>
>
> I would humbly suggest that you try to get a few more
> details of exactly what they do before judging them!
>
> > GSDL markets their services to chiropractors and
> > alternative health care providers. There is nothing wrong
> > with this.

Absolutely not when regular doctors don't want to listen to
you after they have checked out all your body. Did
chiropractors and alternate health care providers diagnose
your hemachromatosis problem earlier?

>
>
> I suspect that they do this because the mainstream medical
> establishment is, frankly, more than a bit pig headed and
> close minded (not to mention devout practitioners of the
> 80-20 rule: just treat the easy 80% that takes 20% of the
> effort and just write off the difficult 20%): "you CAN'T
> have a yeast infection, males don't get yeast infections"
> (BS! They may be more unusual in males but males with
> predisposing conditions (malabsorption, etc. etc.) certainly
> can and DO get them. Then they not only have to deal with
> the yeast but with the much more difficult problem of the
> pig headed professional ("80-20"s) who insist that males
> don't get such infections! (Same breed as the idiots that
> insist that females don't get iron overloads!)

Females have monthly bleeding episodes and when you say that
the body has no way to rid itself of iron you are wrong. It is
called bleeding and it is the same bleeding that is done in
the treatment of it. Chiropractors and alternate health care
providers are not pig headed or close minded are they?

>
>
> > If people want to believe that those few yeast colonies
> > that grow up on the plate along with all the other
> > normal flora is really causing all their maladies, and
> > this gives a talisman for them to believe in, who am I
> > to call them wrong? GSDL seemingly will give their
> > clients this information in their culture reports. Most
> > hospital laboratories WORLDWIDE only culture stools for
> > enteric pathogens, i.e. Campylobacter, Shigella,
> > Salmonella, E. coli
> > O157:H7, Yersinia, and a few other rarely found pathogens
> > like Vibrios, Aeromonas, and a couple of others.
>
> Which is exactly what I meant when I said that GSDL is LIGHT
> YEARS ahead of most labs! It doesn't take a rare or even
> unusual pathogen's presence to cause serious problems! A
> serious imbalance in just the normal flora is entirely
> sufficient, thank you!

Judy you are being pig headed and you have to listen to people
and agree with them when they say something is wrong with
them. Chiropractors and alternate health care providers never
argue with them.

>
>
> (Medicine is conveniently ducking responsibility for a lot
> of iatrogenic problems here! Long courses of antibiotics are
> the primary cause of a great deal of the serious imbalances
> that exist. Most antibiotics are relatively unselective and
> kill off a lot of the "friendlies" (microbial version of
> "friendly fire"!) - enough in many cases to cause imbalances
> great enough to become self perpetuating long after the
> course of antibiotics is over.

Sorry, I thought you wanted treatment for your condition.

>
>
> Only when we begin to treat the intestinal tract as a highly
> complex ecosystem (which it certainly is!) and ***pay
> attention to the balance of species*** etc. will the
> practice gasteroenterology cease to become as highly
> ineffective as it is and achieve a reasonable degree of
> utility. Many of the normal flora act strongly to maintain
> normal conditions and keep out pathogens etc. Destroying
> them has about the same effects on the intestinal ecology as
> destroying a broad range of "top predators" would have on
> ANY ecological system!

If they didn't treat you with antibiotics then why is it
important to have a sensitivity test done? I'm sorry but I
really have trouble following your logic.

>
>
> Medicine has always been very quick to take credit for
> (often assumed!) benefits of its technologies and very very
> slow to take responsibility for adverse (however unintended)
> effects. That's been going on for as long as medicine was a
> science (remember those free X-ray machines in the shoe
> stores where you could look at the bones in your feet while
> the radiation shot straight up into your genetic material?
> Same attitude exactly with intestinal overgrowths from
> antibiotics.

Chiropractors and alternate health care providers always do
so?

>
>
> > I just do NOT buy into the yeast theory of disease. The
> > people I see cultures on that grow yeast in blood
> > cultures, sterile body fluid and similar type specimens
> > are critically ill for the most part. These are patients
> > that have chronic illnesses or injuries, i.e. huge burns,
> > that cause them to have been on antibiotics for life
> > threatening bacterial infections. These people would die
> > without these antibiotics. Some of them then have to fight
> > off overgrowth by yeasts of various types, Candida
> > albicans being the most common, but there are others.
> >
>
> If what you are saying is that since the supposed yeast
> infection patients don't have the symptoms that SYSTEMICALLY
> INFECTED patients so they therefore don't have yeast
> infections: Virtually ANY disease is far more serious when
> it becomes systemic. That is no reason whatsoever for
> claiming that because a case of infection is not SYSTEMIC
> that it is therefor not causing problems.
>
> >
> > Please don't tell me that these people could live without
> > the antibiotics because they can't. These are not
> > outpatients - they are very sick inpatients.
> >
>
> Surely you aren't claiming that the ONLY courses of
> antibiotics prescribed are for such patients!!!! Antibiotics
> are frequently prescribed for trivial reasons and even for
> reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with medicine!:
> ("I know it's almost certainly a viral infection but this
> patient is going to be very very unhappy if he/she doesn't
> get an antibiotic...")
>
> And I wasn't at all implying that antibiotics are wrong.
> What I AM saying is that we need to ACKNOWLEDGE the problems
> they can cause and start learning to DEAL with them (as the
> GSDL is, for one!)
>
> >
> > Yeast can be part of the normal stool flora. To imply that
> > small numbers of yeasts are pathogenic for the body in
> > these types of cultures is misleading
>
> I would humbly suggest that you STOP drawing "implications"!
> You appear to have a real talent for reading implications
> where there ARE none (i.e.: mistaking your own incorrect
> inferences for "implications"). I never said, nor in any way
> whatsoever implied that SMALL NUMBERS of yeasts are
> pathogenic. That is a straw dog that you created out of thin
> air, whether consciously or not.
>
> In fact, the numbers are everything! It's balance balance
> balance! And numbers are what make the balance!

I'm sorry but I can't follow you.

>
>
> > . To further imply that people are septic with yeast (one
> > of the posters in this thread or a similar one said
> > this) in their blood stream because a few colonies grow
> > up in their stool culture is grossly misrepresenting a
> > clinical picture, I believe, for monetary gain.
>
> Excuse me, please, but I accept no responsibility whatsoever
> for what anyone else says.
>
> >
> > Positive blood cultures with yeast are usually from having
> > indwelling catheters that become infected, or body wide
> > overgrowth with yeasts due to overwhelming infections from
> > cancer, HIV, or similar such circumstances.
>
> Just how would you KNOW if positive blood cultures arose
> from anything else since you give every appearance of firmly
> denying that blood cultures taken in other circumstances
> could be positive? (If you have stated that you will not
> believe evidence for something then your opinion that it
> does not exist loses credibility, comprendre?
>
> > Vaginal yeast infections are very common and are not
> > included in the above discussion.
> >
> > Certain labs cater to certain clients. Obviously GSDL's
> > clients, the alternative medicine community, send their
> > poop to them because GSDL will do what they want -
> > identify all the bacteria in them for a price, and use
> > this data to create a market for their anti-Candida diets,
> > supplements, and other items for monetary gain by the
> > practitioners. I used to market laboratory services (not
> > GSDL) to physicians, so I know that certain profiles can
> > be worked up to cater to certain client's wants and needs.
>
> That is an exceedingly subjective and biased
> characterization of what GSDL does!
>
> The OBJECTIVE and scientific description of what they do
> (you DO understand objective and scientific?) is that they
> QUANTIFY the microflora populations. Something which the
> other labs clearly SHOULD be doing but are not. What is
> happening is that the GSDL is very actively advancing the
> application of science in the area and thereby "threatening"
> the status quo (making their tests and panels obsolete (as
> well they should be!) and incidentally elucidating some of
> the problems that conventional therapies are causing (hence
> the appeal to alternative medicine!
>
> But your outright slander that GSDL is "working up" their
> profiles to cater to needs is totally unsubstantiated and
> shows just how biased you are! How does the entirely
> OBJECTIVE act of quantifying populations of microflora
> amount to "working up to cater to client's wants"? Unless,
> of course what you mean is client's desire for GOOD SCIENCE
> tailored to their genuine medical needs which is exactly
> what it is and exactly what the client needs and exactly
> what traditional medicine is doing such a poor job of
> providing (much of the science in mainstream medicine is far
> more slanted to the needs of the professionals (more
> assembly line medicine, more convenience for the
> professionals (even at the expense of the patients), more
> profits, etc. etc.)
>
> > It's what's done with this culture data on the receiving
> > end that I object to.
> >
> > I now will receive a blizzard of postings from the people
> > on anti-Candida diets, with all kinds of scenarios how
> > these little yeasts are making their lives miserable.
> > Until you have been one of these terribly ill patients for
> > whom yeasts really DO cause morbidity and sometimes
> > mortality, please don't waste my time.
> >
>
> If you are suggesting that just because someone is not
> suffering from a SYSTEMIC infection they are therefor not
> suffering, may I humbly suggest that your talents might be
> better applied in some other profession than medicine!
>
> Many of us have the rebellious notion that we would like our
> conditions properly diagnosed and treated while they are
> still relatively mild and not only when they have become so
> serious as to be life threatening! (The old "fence at the
> top of the cliff vs. the ambulance at the bottom" thing!)
> Been both places, done both and frankly, the former is
> vastly overwhelmingly superior! (ask any patient!)

Continue with chiropractors and alternate health care
providers as nobody is forcing you to go to regular
doctors. The problem you have is telling the difference
between the two.

>
>
> Maybe the reason you get "blizzards of postings" is because
> of the extremism of your attitudes!

Mainstream is not extremism. LOL

>
>
> J
>
> >
> > Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology
> >
> > J wrote:
> > >
> > > I haven't followed this thread and past messages aren't
> > > accessible, so I am replying only to what is in this
> > > one.
> > >
> > > Great Smokey Mountains Diagnostic Labs at gsdl.com has
> > > some very good tests for yeast (they mail your doctor a
> > > kit, you use it to collect the sample and send it in so
> > > you don't have to live in the area.
> > >
> > > They are lighters ahead of most labs. For example, they
> > > test the sample for sensitivity to antibiotics so you
> > > can be prescribed the antibiotics that will be best for
> > > YOUR infection. Much more effective than being treated
> > > for the statistically most common infection!
> > >
> > > (Please note: I have no financial connection whatsoever
> > > with GSDL (or any other medical product/service
> > > providers).

[suave]

Just to let everyone know i had my allergy test (it was extremely expensive and i could not wait any longer due to my symptoms) and the results were negative. I am not allergic to anything, except that my igE count was relatively high (im now thinking of having a food intolerance test, as soon as ive saved up!!), i should have had this 4 years ago, why didnt any of my (5) GPs inform me of this b4.....im seriously doubting the competence of our GPs on the NHS....and then they complain about how buissy they always are!.

[suave]

Hi
I've just had a food intolerance test a few weeks ago, and im intolerant to wheat , yeast, eggs and gluten!!.....at first i was quite sceptical, because these were the main foods i ate, since ive been on the diet my acne hasnt returned, but i break out when i give in and opt for an intolerant food....the only thing i wish i never listened to the countless GP'S, hence i couldve avoided the severe acne scarring and the rubbish antibiotics (oxytetraclines, and all the others) i was prescribed!!, thanks to everyone who suggested i try an intolerance test. I'll never look at conventional medication as an only option.....infact i think ive pretty much lost a lot of respect for it.

saima.

[Jedilworth]

What type of test would this be? Skin test? Blood test? Who
administered this test? Allergist? Alternative medical
practitioner? Do they stand to financially gain from your test
results by selling you supplements?

Glad your acne is under better control, but just as your are
skeptical of conventional medicine, I am extremely skeptical
of the alternatives. Hold tight to your wallet.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP) Microbiology

suave wrote:
>
> Hi I've just had a food intolerance test a few weeks ago,
> and im intolerant to wheat , yeast, eggs and gluten!!.....at
> first i was quite sceptical, because these were the main
> foods i ate, since ive been on the diet my acne hasnt
> returned, but i break out when i give in and opt for an
> intolerant food....the only thing i wish i never listened to
> the countless GP'S, hence i couldve avoided the severe acne
> scarring and the rubbish antibiotics (oxytetraclines, and
> all the others) i was prescribed!!, thanks to everyone who
> suggested i try an intolerance test. I'll never look at
> conventional medication as an only option.....infact i think
> ive pretty much lost a lot of respect for it.
>
> saima.

[Bogus Addr]

>> Hi I've just had a food intolerance test a few weeks ago,
>> and im intolerant to wheat , yeast, eggs and
>> gluten!!.....at first i was quite sceptical, because these
>> were the main foods i ate, since ive been on the diet my
>> acne hasnt returned, but i break out when i give in and opt
>> for an intolerant food.
> What type of test would this be? Skin test? Blood test? Who
> administered this test? Allergist? Alternative medical
> practitioner? Do they stand to financially gain from your
> test results by selling you supplements?

It is of absolutely NO importance what kind of test it was.
Food intolerance tests are all wildly inaccurate with loads of
false positives. Their role is to suggest what you might want
to subject to further testing by an elimination diet. That
*is* accurate, and that's what the poster has done.

Nobody treats food intolerances by supplements; no need for
*that* particular suspicion. Chances are the original test
was rather expensive and included an astronomical markup
over the real cost of doing it, i.e. the testing company
wasn't in it for charity. So what? look at the value the
poster got out of it.

It's very common for food intolerances to be to the foods you
eat most of, particularly if you also have an emotional
attachment to them that makes it hard to give them up. Look at
alt.support.food-allergies for a lot more on this, we've
covered it in many threads over the years.

Some food intolerance tests are nonsensical pseudoscience and
still produce great results consistently. The point is to get
the patient started on the elimination process that forms the
real test, and it doesn't matter a damn if the therapist does
it by a white-middle-class equivalent of dressing up in a mask
and screaming in the voice of the Goddess Erzulie with conga
drum accompaniment. (Personally, I'd be inclined to use the I
Ching, it's a good way to get people thinking out of the box
and a bit quieter on the neighbours than voodoo).

========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will
========> bounce. <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22
4PU; 0131 6604760 http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html
food intolerance data and recipes, freeware logic fonts for
the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources

[Jorge]

> Some food intolerance tests are nonsensical pseudoscience
> and still produce great results consistently. The point is
> to get the patient started on the elimination process that
> forms the real test, and it doesn't matter a damn if the
> therapist does it by a white-middle-class equivalent of
> dressing up in a mask and screaming in the voice of the
> Goddess Erzulie with conga drum accompaniment. (Personally,
> I'd be inclined to use the I Ching, it's a good way to get
> people thinking out of the box and a bit quieter on the
> neighbours than voodoo).

I agree with you in many ways and I had fun with I ching but
then again I ching does not cling to science or use pseudo
science. Most of these shadow people blame the person for not
following exactly any instructions given to them and thus they
have a way out. Get this "but i break out when i give in and
opt for an intolerant food. ". My other favorite one is "try
it for 6 months as it took you years to get there". The point
is no cause or relation can be made with things like this and
if it makes him feel better about himself then it's ok. I
would be like to see what happens when he eliminates
everything and he still breaks out.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Jorge rambled on about "Re:
Curing Systemic Candida without GP help - questions." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>I would be like to see what happens when he eliminates
>everything and he still breaks out.

I really don't think that it is any of your business. :-)
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, eating
crispbread, being overweight, or about smoking!

[Jorge]

John 'the Man' wrote:

> Once upon a time, our fellow Jorge rambled on about "Re:
> Curing Systemic Candida without GP help - questions." Our
> champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
> thusly ...
>
> >I would be like to see what happens when he eliminates
> >everything and he still breaks out.
>
> I really don't think that it is any of your business. :-)

Thanks for your opinion as that is why I post to give opinion
and generate opinion. It's called discussing the issues.
You're are welcome to give yours any time.

>
> --
> John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
> http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in
> Health are those who couldn't care less about prevention.
> Beware of anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet,
> eating crispbread, being overweight, or about smoking!

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Jorge rambled on about "Re:
Curing Systemic Candida without GP help - questions." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>It's called discussing the issues. You're are welcome to give
>yours any time.

Sounds like to me that the Dude found the answer. You wont
part of solution, so you resorted to knocking the dude.

Tell us more of the Dark side of Jorge so that we can discuss
more of the issues. :-)
--
John Gohde Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com (((((((((((
Left-Brain Mode ON )))))))))))) Richmond, Virginia, USA,
Planet Earth, The Sun, Milky Way galaxy

[Jorge]

John 'the Man' wrote:

> Once upon a time, our fellow Jorge rambled on about "Re:
> Curing Systemic Candida without GP help - questions." Our
> champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
> thusly ...
>
> >It's called discussing the issues. You're are welcome to
> >give yours any time.
>
> Sounds like to me that the Dude found the answer. You wont
> part of solution, so you resorted to knocking the dude.

I have no problem if the situation was presented that way in
a positive point of view, such as I have found a way that
works for me etc.etc. Instead he smears the entire medical
community and then goes on and gives his opinion that he lost
respect for conventional medication and then states he had a
relapse. He also puts on the subject line Candida without GP
help. They can not take a positive position without knocking
the medical establishment. That preface is always there and
it does not have to be that way. I was on tetracycline for
that very same reason and it worked for me. Does it work for
everybody, maybe not. Does food avoidance work all the time,
from his on lips no. There seems to be a double standard when
it comes to judging conventional medicine and alternate
medicine. It seems conventional medicine is much more harshly
judged and the same standards are never applied to alternate
health practices. A large part of that is because alternate
health practitioners are much more psychologically in tune
with people. That's the good part and the bad part is they
don't have the science in their favor when it really counts.
If you want to post that you will never see a doctor again in
your whole life then great but in reality you will so it is a
silly position to take.

>
>
> Tell us more of the Dark side of Jorge so that we can
> discuss more of the issues. :-)

Not dark enough as I need more of a tan so I can get that
vitamin D working.

>
> --
> John Gohde Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
> ((((((((((( Left-Brain Mode ON )))))))))))) Richmond,
> Virginia, USA, Planet Earth, The Sun, Milky Way galaxy

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Jorge rambled on about "Re:
Curing Systemic Candida without GP help - questions." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

> If you want to post that you will never see a doctor again
> in your whole life then great but in reality you will so it
> is a silly position to take.

Considering the never-end higher cost of conventional medicine
for doing virtually *nothing*, it don't seem so silly to me.
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, eating
crispbread, being overweight, or about smoking!