>>In other words the Candida has spread beyond the areas it is naturally found in such as the gut.
Example(s) of where it is not naturally found?
The bloodstream and the stomach to name a few.
My understanding from what I have read has always been that it exists on every living thing, as a yeast (non-mycelial).
I don't know about every living thing. For that matter Candida is a living thing. As far as humans go Candida is normally found in the same areas of the body where our beneficial flora grow to keep the Candida in check. The intestines, the vaginal cavity, the skin, etc. It is the flora that generate the acids that keep the Candida in its yeast form instead of the pathogenic fungal form.
With respect to all those who have self-diagnosed an infection - is it your belief that it is unlikely an overgrowth situation or unlikely a systemic one?
There is a big difference between overgrowth and systemic infection. This is like the difference between an infection in the finger and sepsis.
Candida overgrowth can occur for a number of reasons including antibiotic use, including some natural antibiotics, which is relatively common. But overgrowth does not automatically make it systemic. I think this is where the confusion comes from. These Candida sites are using a lot of these terms loosely and the average person has no clue what the difference is between Candida, Candidiasis and systemic Candida.
So to clear this up everyone has Candida, which is the yeast/fungus. Sometimes it will overgrow when the areas it is normally found in becomes too alkaline. This is known as Candidiasis. When the Candida becomes fungal it develops hyphae that can cause tissue damage and allow the fungal Candida to spread to the bloodstream, which is systemic Candida. But Candida RARELY goes systemic, and just because Candida overgrows this does not automatically mean it will go systemic. Hopefully that will clear up some of the confusion.
How uncommon do you consider localized infections, eg. intestinal Candida?
Again we have to clarify the difference between the presence of a microbe and infection. As I pointed out everyone has Candida, it is naturally occurring in the body. But this does not make it an infection. If the Candida overgrows (Candidiasis) or goes systemic then it can be classified as an infection.
That being said yes Candida infections are relatively common, especially due to the overuse of antibiotics. But systemic Candida is not common at all.
And if you feel even localized infections are indeed uncommon, why do you appear to maintain such interest in discussing the acid/alkaline confusion surrounding its cause - and remedy?
The idea behind forming this forum was to expose the myths in medicine, both conventional and alternative. Regardless of how common or rare Candida infections are there is still a lot of misinformation being floated around about Candida. One of the myths surrounding Candida is that Candida thrives in an acidic environment. The fact is that Candida is controlled by acids and thrives in an alkaline environment. I have posted proof of this enough times on these forums that I am not going back in to that right now. But I am sure you have seen the people trying to argue against this fact, especially on the Candida forum. One of the women arguing against me said she has been battling Candida for 15 years. So she believes that the key to controlling Candida is to fight it with antifungals and to alkalinize the terrain. Yet in 15 years she has been unsuccessful. I would think that at some point within that 15 years that she would realize that what she is doing is not working and that her alkaline hypothesis is wrong. Regardless it is her choice if she wants to keep going down the wrong path and wants to continue fighting the Candida the rest of her life. But she has no right to make this decision for everyone else who comes here to find a method of healing. So I am merely posting facts about Candidiasis and other conditions and it is up to people to follow my advice if they wish or to research and verify the facts I post first. Equally they have the right to follow the unsubstantiated information being disseminated on CZ if they wish. It is their choice, but they should not only be presented with one side, especially when there is no real evidence to substantiate that one side.
This brings up another one of my big pet peeves with CZ. There are too many people on the PUBLIC forums that seem to think that they have the right to control who posts and what information can be posted. i have been been told that I have no right to post on many of these forums because the facts I post contradict what the forum moderators or the self appointed monarchies on the forums believe is the truth. I have also been told I have no right to post on many forums because they are support forums and I am not sick with anything. I have two points to make there. First of all lets say you have cancer. Would you only allow your doctor and family members to support you ONLY if they all had cancer as well? Of course not. Support comes in many forms including beneficial information. So a person DOES NOT have to be sick in order to support those who are. Secondly, if I don't know what I am talking about why have I not had any "chronic" conditions since I was 5 years old when I outgrew my allergies? Apparently I know enough about how the body really works and how to keep it healthy that I am not having to deal with Candidiasis or any other conditions. So who would you rather take advice from? Someone who has managed to stay healthy nearly all of his life or someone who has been battling health issues for the last 15 years with things that obviously do not work?