


If I prescribe itraconazole for a patient's sinusitis neither the AMA,
FDA, State Licensing Board, nor ABFP will be knocking on my door to ask
why.  This is a specious argument.


Among other things, how to evaluate new theories and treatments.


Funny, I thought it meant "one who fraudulently misrepresents his
ability and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of disease or
the effects to be achieved by the treatment he offers" (Dorland's
27th).  Certainly more precision than conveyed by "chronic yeast".


The inability to discriminate between fraudulent or erroneous
representations is far more frightening.  It is fraud to promote a
treatment where the evidence for it is either lacking or against it
and the quacksalver knows so, or error if the honest practitioner
doesn't know so.  Failure to speak out against either bespeaks
incompetency.


May I reply - seriously - that if the practitioners and proponents of
non-scientific medicine have left their minds so open that the parts
of their brains that do critical evaluation have fallen out, they should
learn to edit their newsgroup headers to conform to the existing
hierarchy and divisions.
