If there are in fact "clinical studies" why wouldn't they be cited? On ANY of the ThreeLac sites?? Just doesn't make any sense. I italicized and bolded for emphasis...
http://www.healthandage.com/PHome/gm=2!gid2=2458
Comment
This review of evidence from clinical studies shows that oropharyngeal candidiasis can be treated quite effectively with oral or systemic azole derivatives, although clotrimazole is less effective than the others (fluconazole, ketoconazole, miconazole, and itraconazole). Of the polyenes, amphotericin B was superior to nystatin when used systemically.
Perhaps more importantly, these drugs can be used to prevent the occurrence of symptomatic candidiasis in patients at high risk. Daily or once-weekly fluconazole were almost equally effective, but itraconazole was less so. Locally, chlorhexidine or nystatin oral rinses may be used.
The review contains little information on drug doses, which should be obtained from prescription manual or the manufacturers' approved labeling.
It also contains no reference to alternative therapies (such as ThreeLac, Hydroxygen Plus, and Paracan) that are widely advertised. Apart from a pilot study of melaleuca solution, there are no adequate clinical trials showing efficacy of such substances reported in the medical literature.
Source
* Oropharyngeal candidiasis C.~Pankhurst, Clin Evid, 2002, vol.~7, pp.~1248--1262
I would LOVE for this stuff to work, and if they DIDN'T make claims about clinical studies with no references, I would be more inclined to try it - plenty of things are great and have never been clinically tested. That sort of stuff just makes me mad, though.
If y'all find any of these supposed studies, I will buy the stuff IMMEDIATELY - I'm always for the EASY way out