

Umm, weren't you the one objecting to someone who is a "licensed
physician" being called a quack?  Or is it just that being a licensed
physician is a good defense against charges of quackery when the
physician agrees with your system of beliefs?


Actually, I almost never use the term quack.  When I discuss
"systemic yeast syndrome", however, I always point out that
mainstream medicine views this as a quack diagnosis (and I agree
with that characterization).


Really?  I bet virtually everyone reading these posts understands what
Steve Dyer, Gordon Banks, and I am implying when we have talked about
systemic yeast syndrome as a quack diagnosis.  Would you prefer the
word "charlatan"?  (I don't happen to think that all quacks are
charlatans since I suspect that some believe in the "diseases" they
are diagnosing.)


Why?  Is there some reason why you feel that it shouldn't be pointed out
in SCI.med that there is no convincing empirical evidence to support the 
existence of systemic yeast syndrome?