Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Candida is back

They say that having candida in your intestinal tract is normal. It's the percentage of candida to other bacteria that you want to control. I've had a running battle with candida for forever. And what's causing it? Anti-candida diets go on and on with rules, non of which are followed by people that have never had candida overrun. Following the rules may help, but that doesn't cure the problem. Is the problem metals toxicity? Diverticulitis? Trapped undigested food? If it were any of those, would eating by the rules help? Candida definitely likes sugar. Do those existing conditions provide hiding places for the candida until sugar comes? But, they aren't even necessary. So, do they even matter? Probably not.

So, what does matter? What keeps candida from invading a person's entire system? A strong immune system? Because the rules, tho they say otherwise, aren't going to help with that. They are a panacea. Metals toxicity may cause immune breakdown allowing candida overthrow. My candida feeds off of progesterone. That's it's favorite eticket to the entire body. How is this connected to iodine receptor sites?

From my current Google search:
"We are suggesting that candida is a side-effect of an endocrine disorder (hormonal imbalance). It is a continuum with thrush at one end and the APICH syndrome at the other - most severe - end. The primary mechanism may be the blocking of oestrogen receptors, although there will be others too. This hypothesis provides an explanation for the male-female imbalance. Blocked oestrogen receptors can lead to a relative dominance of progesterone, a hormone candida loves. Once candida has taken hold, it can further disrupt the endocrine system by inactivating circulating hormones. The immune system attacks the candida and the candida retaliates weakening it, but the disruption is primarily in the endocrine system."
http://www.candida-society.org/ncs/digestv1i3.htm

The above says some intregueing? things, by doesn't fit me where progesterone is NEVER dominant.

No comments: