Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be cured!

April 5, 2002

Thursday, April 04, 2002 9:30 PM

- http://www.drclark.net/cancer/canc_frame.htm -

The Cause

For many years we have all believed that cancer is different from other

diseases. We believed that cancer behaves like a fire, in that you can't stop it

once it has started. Therefore, you have to cut it out or radiate it to death or

chemically destroy every cancerous cell in the body since it can never become

normal again. NOTHING COULD BE MORE WRONG! And we have believed that cancers of

different types such as leukemia or breast cancer have different causes. wrong

again!

In this book you will see that all cancers are alike. They are all caused by a

parasite. A single parasite! It is the human intestinal fluke. And if you kill

this parasite, the cancer stops immediately. The tissue becomes normal again. In

order to get cancer, you must have this parasite.

How can the human intestinal fluke cause cancer? This parasite typically lives

in the intestine where it might do little harm, causing only colitis, Crohn's

disease, or irritable bowel syndrome, or perhaps nothing at all. But if it

invades a different organ, like the uterus or the kidneys or liver, it does a

great deal of harm. If it establishes itself in the liver, it causes cancer! It

only establishes itself in the liver in some people. These people have isopropyl

alcohol in their bodies.

All cancer patients have both isopropyl alcohol and the intestinal fluke in

their livers. The solvent, isopropyl alcohol, is responsible for letting the

fluke establish itself in the liver. In order to get cancer, you must have both

the parasite and isopropyl alcohol in your body.

( " The Cure for all Cancers " , p.1f.; copyright notice)

To learn more about the group, please visit

To to this group, simply send a blank e-mail message to:

-

To change status to digest: -digest

To change status to normal: -normal

You are receiving this email because you elected to .

To Post:

April 5, 2002

Gettingwell, " Elaine " <mem121@u...> wrote:

> Thursday, April 04, 2002 9:30 PM

> Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be

cured!

>

Dear Elaine,

I appreciate your postings (some are truley great) and God knows I am

on the side of natural healing but Hulda Clark is the epitome of the

fake, money grubbing, charlatan who preys upon the most vulnerable of

all.

She is exactly the type of person who the established

pharmacuetical/medical machine hold up to discredit all the good and

true benifits from alternative health care.

Please everyone run from this " type " of " alternative " approach.

This is pretty much acknowledged by all except the unknowing and

hulda's money making minions.

Frank

April 5, 2002

Frank,

Would like to know why you feel the way you do

about Dr. Clark...are you saying none of her

cleanses, etc are effective either?

Lor

April 5, 2002

You should have kep the zappers. The first few times I

used mine I felt horrible but now I feel like im 16

again. I assume you are doing something for detox?

Drinking distilled water?

Ed

> Frank,

>

> Would like to know why you feel the way you do

> about Dr. Clark...are you saying none of her

> cleanses, etc are effective either?

>

> Lor

>

> Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health

> and well being.

>

> To learn more about the Gettingwell group,

> Subscription and list archives are at:

> Gettingwell

>

> To receive NO EMAIL from group, but stay a member, which will allow you to

read

> all of the posts at group site. Send message: " No Mail " To:

> Gettingwell-owner

>

April 5, 2002

Hi there! Claims such as yours may be founded, but how are we to know?

The same can be said of mainstream medical professionals, who do make a

very good living. People do deserve to live well, if making a

significant contribution. Let people know your evidence, and we can

then pay attention to your concern. Steve

califpacific wrote:

> Gettingwell, " Elaine " <mem121@u...> wrote:

> > Thursday, April 04, 2002 9:30 PM

> > Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be

> cured!

> >

> Dear Elaine,

>

> I appreciate your postings (some are truley great) and God knows I am

> on the side of natural healing but Hulda Clark is the epitome of the

> fake, money grubbing, charlatan who preys upon the most vulnerable of

> all.

>

> She is exactly the type of person who the established

> pharmacuetical/medical machine hold up to discredit all the good and

> true benifits from alternative health care.

>

> Please everyone run from this " type " of " alternative " approach.

> This is pretty much acknowledged by all except the unknowing and

> hulda's money making minions.

>

> Frank

>

April 6, 2002

Gettingwell, Shiree4000@a... wrote:

> Frank,

>

> Would like to know why you feel the way you do

> about Dr. Clark...are you saying none of her

> cleanses, etc are effective either?

>

> Lor

Dear Lor,

I think most people wh read Clarke's theories would conclude they are

false just by common sense. She basically says all disease has the

same cause .Use her zappers and you will get well.

If that were only remotely true, no one could hide the fact. It would

spread like wildfire. no advertising needed,and everyone would get

well by simply word of mouth knowledge.

The established medical/naturopathic interests couldn't hold

something that simple from being well known if it was the cause of

ALL cancers, Aids, diabetis, etc..

I don't see that it is my place to disprove hulda clarkes cures. I

think it would be her, or her spokepeole's place to prove that they

do work. If something this simple worked it could be easily proven by

virtually anyone including most laypeople.

Clarke and her operation have all the earmarks to me of fraud,

although that is my personal opinion. When I read one of her books,

my impression of it was that this person doesn't have a clue about

what she is talking about. If fact if it were not for the sad state

of who she were exploiting she would be laughable.

attached below is just one opinion on her, given by the founder of

Bayster university (completely naturopathic).

I don't know of one any serious name in natural healing who would

consider her or her claims seriously.

And yes, I do think that natural methods have great promise to help

cure cancer and many other diseases, but claims like her's just make

all seriouse attempts to bring natural methods to the fore look bad

by association and end up being lumped with these type claims by the

public at large.

Below is a statment filed in court. There have been others, but here

is one. It is by one of the top spokemen FOR natural nutritional

methods.

respectfully,

Frank

Evaluation by Dr. Joseph E. Pizzorno, N.D.

May 8,2001

Introduction

Michael Milgrom and Brinley Williams of the Federal Trade Commission

have requested I review the validity of claims made by Western Herb &

Dietary Products, Inc. (WHD) of Blaine, Washington. Following are my

qualifications, description of my process and review of the claims

made by WHD.

My Qualifications

I am widely recognized as one of the world's leading authorities on

science-based natural medicine. My formal education includes a B.S.

in Chemistry in 1969 from Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, CA and an

N.D. (Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine) degree in 1975 from National

College of Naturopathic Medicine, now located in Portland, OR. I have

been licensed (#NT00000369) as a naturopathic physician, with

prescriptive authority, in Washington State since 1975.

As the founding president, now president emeritus, of Bastyr

University, the first fully accredited, multidisciplinary university

of natural medicine in the United States, I have been very active in

the academic and research advancement of natural medicine. As senior

editor of the Textbook of Natural Medicine (Churchill-Livingstone

1999) the most authoritative textbook on natural medicine currently

available, I have helped set the standard for alternative medicine

education. Over the years, I have taught naturopathic philosophy,

clinical diagnosis, nutrition, environmental medicine, and

integrative therapeutics, and supervised students in the Bastyr

University teaching clinic.

I have significant experience in public health and health care

policy. I have been a member of the Seattle/King County Board of

Health since 1996 (as far as I know, I am the first natural medicine

practitioner ever to have received such an appointment), chair of the

special primary interest group in alternative medicine of the

American Public Health Association since 1999, and appointed in

December 2000 by the President to the White House Commission on

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy. In October 2000, 1 was

an invited participant in the Josiah Macy, Jr., Foundation Conference

on Education of Health Professionals on Complementary and Alternative

Medicine. The conference generated a consensus recommendation on

complementary and alternative medicine education in conventional

medical schools. I have provided expert consultation on natural

medicine education and research to governmental agencies

internationally, including Argentina, Canada, China, Great Britain,

Japan, and Taiwan.

Scope of Work/Process

Over the past several weeks, I have performed the following:

Reviewed the WHD website

Reviewed the WHD claims and theories

Reviewed documentation of claims and theories

Reviewed the four Hulda Clark books:

The Cure for All Cancers

The Cure for All Advanced Cancers

The Cure for All Diseases

The Cure for HIV and AIDS

Consulted several credible conventional and alternative medicine

textbooks

Consulted cancer and HIV/AIDS experts

Conducted several MedLine and other database searches.

I believe this process has resulted in my undertanding the WHD

claims, the quality and validity of the substantiation they provided

and the current standards of evidence required for the claims they

made.

To substantiate a cure, I utilized the following criteria:

The condition must first be accurately demonstrated to exist, using

objective reproducible diagnostic standards. The methodologies

utilized to make the diagnosis must be documented.

The therapeutic approach should have a sound theoretical basis,

validated by supportive research published in the peer-reviewed

scientific literature. If no theoretical basis, then it must have at

least proven clinical efficacy or a long history of traditional use.

The identification and quality of the therapies must be demonstrated.

The patient must be objectively demonstrated to be free of the

disease. The methodologies utilized to demonstrate cure must be

documented.

The process must be repeatable in different patients, preferably by

several different practitioners.

Claims

As requested by the FTC, I have evaluated the following claims found

on the WHD website:

a. WHD's herbal formulas, cure packages and herbal cure packages are

effective in treating and curing cancer;

b. WHD's herbal formulas, cure packages, herbal cure packages and the

Zapper Electrical Unit are effective in treating and curing

Alzheimer's Disease;

c. WHD's herbal formulas, cure packages and herbal cure packages are

effective in treating and curing diabetes;

d.WHD's herbal formulas, cure packages and herbal cure packages are

effective in treating and curing arthritis;

e. WHD's herbal formulas, cure packages, herbal cure packages and the

Zapper Electrical Unit are effective in treating and curing AIDS and

HIV infection;

f. WHD's herbal formulas, cure packages and herbal cure packages,

when used by persons with cancer, make surgery and chemotherapy

unnecessary.

Evaluation of the Substantiation for the Western Herb & Dietary

Products' Claims

The Clark books contain numerous unevaluated theories,

unsubstantiated clinical observations, invalid diagnostic procedures

and unproven therapies. As detailed below, no reasonable health care

professional would consider her books to provide substantiation of

the WHD claims.

Hulda Clark's Credentials

Clark is apparently a graduate in naturopathy from Clayton College, a

correspondence school located in Alabama. As far as I know, the

naturopathy decree issued by Clayton College is not considered a

valid credential by any state licensing naturopathic doctors. It is

also not considered a sufficient credential to sit for the national

naturopathic licensing examination (NPLX). The standard of education

in the United States for N.D. degree licensure is an accredited four-

year, residential graduate program. I am unaware of any state

licensing body that would consider a distance-learning program of a

few hundred hours adequate for clinical practice.

Claim A. WHD's herbal formulas, cure packages and herbal cure

packages are effective in treating and curing cancer.

There is no competent and reliable evidence that the WHD formulas and

packages effectively treat or cure cancer.

The curecancer.com website makes explicit claims to cure not only

every type of cancer, but also AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, arthritis,

back problems, diabetes and heart diseases. The claims are explicitly

to cure, not prevent mitigate or treat disease. The WHD rationale for

these claims is the works of Hulda Clark. In fact, the curecancer.com

web pages appear to be directly transcribed from the Hulda Clark

books. On its first page, [1] the website provides a quote from Clark

[2] which asserts:

Cancer is caused by a certain parasite, for which evidence has been

found in every form of cancer. So lung cancer is NOT caused by

smoking, Colon cancer is NOT caused by a low roughage diet, Breast

Cancer is NOT caused by a fatty diet, Retinal Blastoma is NOT caused

by a rare gene, and Pancreatic cancer is NOT caused by alcohol

consumption. Although these are all CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, they are

not THE cause.

Clark's books make a very large number of unfounded assertions and

claims. In general, Clark claims a parasite, the fluke Fasciolopsis

buskii [3] is the cause of many chronic diseases. She asserts to have

found it in every case of cancer, HIV infection, Alzheimer's disease,

Crohn's disease, Kaposi's sarcoma, endometriosis, and in many people

without these diseases. Clark asserts that the high level of toxins

in the human body allows the parasite to complete its full life cycle

without requiring the intermediate snail host. This in-human life

cycle process then causes, according to Clark the production of

a " mitotic stimulant " She also asserts several other parasites am

endemic in the U.S. as well, but F. buski is her primary culprit The

following appear to be the core elements that comprise her theories:

All cancers and most diseases due to Fasciolopsis buski infection

Fasciolopsis buski is commonly found in humans in the U.S.

Solvent buildup in the body prevents the body from eliminating this

and other parasites

Humans have high levels of isopropyl alcohol, both from exposure and

by generation in the intestines by a bacterium called Clostridium

The presence of aflatoxin B prevents the detoxification of isopropyl

alcohol

The coincidence of aflatoxin B and isopropyl alcohol in the liver

results in the production of human chorionic gonadotropin

Human chorionic gonadotropin causes distant cells to produce

the " mitotic stimulant " ortho-phospho-tyrosine

Killing the parasites and removing toxins and carcinogens from the

body and diet result in cure in a short time

The parasites can be killed with an herbal formula

A device she calls a " Syncrometer " can be used to diagnose the

presence of parasites, disease and toxins

A device she calls a " Zapper " can be used to kill the parasites.

Following is my evaluation of these theories and therapies.

Fasciolopsis buski and human disease

Parasite infections in humans have long been associated with specific

types of cancers. For example, Schistosoma hematobium is a known

inducer of urinary bladder cancer, Helicobacter pylori is a gastric

carcinogen, and hepatitis B virus is a causative agent of liver cell

cancers. However, the claim that all cancers (let alone all AIDS,

etc.) are caused by Fasciolopsis buski is unsubstantiated and

extremely unlikely.

Fasciolopsis buski is a recognized snail-transmitted, intestinal,

food-borne human intestinal fluke [4]. It is found in many parts of

Asia and principally parasitizes the intestines of pigs. The

prevalence of infection in children ranges from 57% in mainland China

to 25% in Taiwan and from 50% in Bangladesh and 60% in India to 10%

in Thailand [5]. Human infection, fasciolopsiasis, is acquired by

ingesting water plants such as water chestnuts, which bear

metacercariae of the parasite. Light infection is asymptomatic, while

heavy infection is associated with abdominal pain, ulceration,

hemorrhage, intestinal obstruction and facial and generalized edema.

Diagnosis is made by finding adult flukes or, more commonly, by

finding F. buski eggs in the feces. In light infections, even without

treatment, spontaneous cure normally occurs within one year. Current

conventional treatment is with praziquantel. There is no research

documenting the association of F. buski with cancer or any disease

other than fasciolopsiasis. Considering the well-documented level of

infestation in these other countries, if the Clark theory was true

we'd see an equally high level of cancer, which we don't.

Isopropyl alcohol, role in disease, body burden, and sources

Isopropyl alcohol exposure is common: rubbing alcohol, window cleaner

solution, cosmetics, hair tonics, etc. It is considered to be about

twice as toxic as ethanol. Isopropyl alcohol is readily absorbed from

the intestines. The main problems are acute toxicity, typically from.

ingestion, and potentiation of the toxicity of some other chemicals,

such as carbon tetrachloride. The half time for the elimination of

isopropyl alcohol by the dog and rat is 4 and 2 hours, respectively.

There is no research support for its persistence in the body,

association with any parasitic infections, nor any association with

cancer or any other disease. According to the National Library of

Medicine's ToxNet, isopropyl alcohol is not classified as a

carcinogen in either animals or humans.

Aflatoxin B and isopropyl alcohol

There is no research demonstrating any relationship between aflatoxin

and isopropyl alcohol. Nor is there any research showing a

relationship between these chemicals and chorionic gonadotropin.

Chorionic gonadotropin

Human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) is a chemical secreted in large

amounts by pregnant women and by some cancers. I was unable to find

any research that HCG induces cancer.

Ortho-phospho-tyrosine

While tyrosine kinases are involved in some carcinogenic processes, I

was unable to document the significance (i.e., cancer growth

stimulant and measure of cancer) attributed by Clark to " ortho-

phospho-tyrosine. " Tyrosine phosphorylation is one of the key

covalent modifications that occur in multicellular organisms as a

result of intercellular communication during embryogenesis and

maintenance of adult tissues. The enzymes that carry out this

modification are the protein tyrosine kinases (PTKs), which catalyze

the transfer of the phosphate of AIP to tyrosine residues on protein

substrates. Phosphorylation of tyrosine residues modulates enzymatic

activity and creates binding sites for the recruitment of downstream

signaling proteins. Because PTKs are critical components of cellular

signaling pathways, their catalytic activity is strictly regulated.

Many growth factor receptors and retroviral transforming proteins

share the property of phosphorylating proteins on tyrosine. Protein

tyrosine kinase also plays an important role in the viability of

several parasites. None of this appears to provide support for the

Clark theories.

Herbal eradication of parasites

The herbs recommended by Clark for eliminating parasites have some

tradition of use as anthelmintics (worm-killing agents). [7-10]

Black walnut hulls (Juglans nigra): Peripherally mentioned in King's

American Dispensatory, recommended in

Indian Herbology of North America. A recent study evaluated a

kerosene milky-stage walnut (Juglans spp.) extract, a Russia folk

medication, in an animal model. A dose of 75 mg/kg in albino mice

provided 100% efficiency against ascariasis [11].

Wormwood (Artemesia absinthium): Contains absinthian, a well

documented anthelmintic with a long history of use, though primarily

for round worms, not flukes.

Cloves (Syzygium aromaticum): Mentioned in Green Pharmacy. No current

research found.

The only botanical medicine for which I found research demonstrating

efficacy against Fasciolopsis buski is the alcohol extract of the

root-tuber of Flemingia vestita (not recommended by Clark). [12]

Although the dosages recommended by Clark are unclear and the

research has only assessed their efficacy in round worms, the

recommended herbs may be effective in the treatment of Fasciolopsis

buski. There is no evidence they have any efficacy in patients with

cancer or other diseases.

Syncrometer

No research is presented demonstrating that the Syncrometer is a

valid diagnostic device or that it correlates with any accepted

cancer or other disease diagnostic procedure.

Zapper

No research is presented demonstrating that the Zapper has any

physiological effects, let alone ability to kill parasites or cure

cancer. The claim that mild electrical shocks to the skin can

eliminate intestinal parasites is, frankly, preposterous.

Case histories

The Clark book The Cure for All Cancers presents about a hundred

cases, some numbered and some not Since most of the cancer cases are

diagnosed with the Synchrometer, not a standard or accepted

diagnostic procedure, they do not provide substantiation of the

validity of the theories or efficacy of the treatments. Those with

accurate diagnoses appear to have either been successfully treated

with conventional interventions or fared uniformly poorly. The

patients that appeared to respond had no documentation of cancer

other than the Syncrometer. Clark intermixes what appear to be

accurately conventionally diagnosed cancer patients with patients

diagnosed only with the Syncrometer. It gives the superficial

appearance of cancer treatment efficacy, but close reading reveals a

very clear distinction in outcomes: proper diagnosis -- no results,

Syncrometer diagnosis -- results. Peppered throughout the case

discussions are such outrageous diagnoses as a patient being " full of

fiberglass because she was coughing a lot " and that an elevated

alkaline phosphatase level was due to the presence of a dye (DAB)

when this is a well known sign of bone cancer metastases!

Clarks's The Cure for All Advanced Cancers is a more sophisticated

book. It provides about a hundred citations for various aspects of

her theories and the " cured " cancer cases are provided in far more

detail. Many of the individual statements she makes are consistent

with the current scientific knowledge. For example, many

environmental toxins (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) do

cause cancer, heavy metals do damage immune function, iron deficiency

does decrease cytochrome P450 activity, mycotoxins do increase the

risk of certain cancers, etc. However, such statements of common

knowledge, while seeming to provide science, do not provide

substantiation of her theories.

For analysis of the validity of the " cured cancer cases, I consulted

an oncologist, Dr. Aron Primack. At my request, he reviewed The Cure

for All Advanced Cancers. He makes several observations:

A biopsy proof is required to diagnose cancer and the same is true

for the fast evidence of metastases.

Infammatory lesions of all organs occur, and these can mimic cancer

in every respect. These lesions then heal with time and credit is

often given to intervening " therapies " such as those described in

this book

Even in bona fide cases of malignancy, chemotherapy and radiation

therapy, as well as surgery, can make people feel worse after

treatment and this can mimic ongoing disease, requiring a period of

time of healing before one can assess the treatment.

The cases in this book are all of an extreme nature. They all have

more widespread disease and odder distribution of metastases than one

sees in oncology practice. The pattern of spread of disease in these

patients is different from that normally seen in comparable patients.

There are clearly stated " causes " for findings that do not stand up

to scrutiny. E.g. Case 25 (Hodgkin's Disease) in which she states:

night sweats are caused by Mycobacterium Avium brought in by ascaris.

There is NO indication of this. Hodgkin's Disease patients have had

numerous biopsies of these nodes and there has never been a

correlation with tuberculosis or ascaris.

Blood tests are not a substitute for biopsies. They may improve, such

as in prostate cancer, but the cells may be more undifferentiated and

the cancer actually worse.

Finally, spontaneous improvements do occur.

He assessed the diagnostic procedures and outcomes in many of the

cases. In summary, he did not find adequate diagnostic evidence

indicative of cures. In particular, he found many examples where

changes in radiological or other reports were either misinterpreted,

or not the appropriate diagnostic tool for the interpretations

presented. For example, changes in bone scans or x-rays were often

cited as documentation of the presence and remission of cancer.

However, without proper biopsies, the lesions described could

indicate a tumor, metastasis, infection, inflammtion, or simply a

developmental abnormality.

As can be see from the above analysis, there is no significant

substantiation for the Clark theories, diagnostic procedures,

therapies or claimed clinical successes.

Claim B. WHD's herbal formulas, care packages, herbal care packages

and the Zapper Electrical Unit are effective in treating and curing

Alzheimer's Disease.

There is no competent and reliable evidence that the WHD formulas and

packages effectively treat or cure Alzheimer's disease.

Claim C. WHD's herbal formulas, care packages and herbal cure

packages are effective in treating and curing diabetes.

There is no competent and reliable evidence that the WED formulas and

packages effectively treat or cure diabetes.

Claim D. WHD's herbal formulas, cure packages and herbal care

packages are effective in treating and curing arthritis.

There is no competent and reliable evidence that the WHD formulas and

packages effectively treat or cure arthritis.

The rationales for my evaluation of Claims B, C, and D are considered

together as they are all supposedly substantiated by one source,

Clark's book The Cure for All Diseases.

Clark's theory of the causes and treatment of all diseases is

essentially the same as for cancer. It suffers from the deficiencies

noted above. Her claims of cure also suffer from the same problems of

invalid diagnostic and evaluative procedures which provide no

substantiation for either the presence of the disease or its

eradication and therapies with no reliable documentation of efficacy.

On the front page of this book Clark sets the stage with the

assertion: " Electricity can now be used to kill bacteria, viruses,

and parasites in minutes, not days or weeks as antibiotics require. "

Other than describing her " discovery process " , she provides no

substantiation for this assertion. If her electrical device could

indeed kill these microorganisms, it would be simple to perform and

reproduce this effect in any microbiology laboratory or biology

classroom.

This is followed by the equally undocumented assertion of cause on

page 2: " No matter how long or confusing is the list of symptoms a

person has, from chronic fatigue to infertility to mental problems, I

am sure to find only two things wrong: they have in them pollutants

and/or parasites. I never find lack of exercise, vitamin

deficiencies, hormone levels or anything else to be a primary

causative factor. " This statement appears to simply ignore hundreds

of thousands of studies published in the peer-reviewed research

literature to the contrary.

For Alzheimer's disease, Clark adds to the basic theory the assertion

that xylene and toluene, from decaffeinated powders and carbonated

drinks, are " brain-seeking " toxins, as are aluminum, mercury, freon,

thallium, and cadmium and the bacterium Shigella. While these

solvents and heavy metals are indeed toxic to the brain, there is no

substantiation of their presence, other than the Syncrometer. The

therapies recommended are unlikely to be toxic (except the

excessively high dosage of vitamin B2); they are also unlikely to

have an effect unless the patient was deficient in one or more of

them, not uncommon in an elderly population. The four case histories

given are not at all compelling, with only one showing possible

improvement Considering the variability of Alzheimer's disease, such

cases need to be followed objectively for months before efficacy can

be assessed.

For diabetes, Clark adds infestation of the pancreas with Eurytrema

pancreatum, a cattle fluke, as a cause. She also asserts that

methanol is a toxin found in all patients with diabetes. There is no

research to support either of these claims. However, several of the

therapies recommended may help some patients with adult onset (NIDDM)

diabetes. Specifically, fenugreek seeds and the trace mineral

chromium may be beneficial in improving blood sugar levels and

bilberry extract may decrease the vascular damage seen in patients

with diabetes. The case results presented suggest possible

improvement in several, and could be the result of improved diet and

supplementation with these natural therapies. However, longer term

monitoring would be required to assess actual outcomes. The WHD

diabetes formula (black walnut, wormwood, cloves, l-arginine, l-

ornithine, african bird cayenne, burdock root, and marshmallow root)

does not contain any of the herbs or nutrients known to improve

diabetes.

For rheumatoid arthritis, Clark asserts that the worms actually live

in the joints. For osteoarthritis, she asserts that chronic,

undetected staph and strep infections are responsible. She also

believes that excessive phosphates (from meat, soft drinks and grams)

are a problem in this condition. There is no substantiation for these

theories. The case histories presented were diagnosed based only on

symptoms, not standard diagnostic procedures. Without an accurate

diagnosis, it is impossible to determine if there is any significance

to the very modest clinical improvements in a few of the cases. There

was no apparent pattern in the therapies, so I am unable to determine

if they've any valid theoretical basis. However, one therapy,

recommending the avoidance of nightshade family foods, does have some

research support for patients with osteoarthritis.

Claim E. WHD's herbal formulas, cure packages, herbal care packages

and the Zapper Electrical Unit are effective in treating and curing

AIDS and HIV infection.

There is no competent and reliable evidence that the WHD formulas and

packages effectively treat or cure HIV/AIDS. In addition, I believe

the WHD claim and the Clark book pose a serious public health hazard.

The risk of contagion of the deadly HIV virus is well documented.

Clark's theory for the cause of HIV/AIDS is essentially the same as

for other diseases. For HIV/AIDS, she adds the assertion that the HIV

virus is found in the snail stage of the Fasciolopsis lifecycle and

develops into the human version due to accumulation of benzene in the

thymus. She further asserts the fluke is necessary for the HIV virus

to maintain its presence in the body and that " benzene is the cause

of AIDS [13].

Clark's theory has no validity. There is no research documenting the

presence of the any type of HIV virus in snails, no research

supporting the unusual prevalence of a fluke such as Fasciolopsis

buski in HIV positive patients, no evidence of benzene contamination

in HIV positive patient, no evidence that benzene preferentially

accumulates in the thymus, no evidence that a parasitic infection is

necessary for the maintenance of an HIV infection and no evidence

that benzene has any relationship to HIV.

Clark asserts to have cured HIV/AIDS based on 58 numbered and

approximately 30 unnumbered patients in her book The Cure for HIV and

AIDS. Virtually all were " diagnosed " as HIV positive based on her

Syncrometer, not standard blood tests. There is no substantiation of

the validity of the Syncrometer as an accurate measure of HIV virus,

let alone being able to determine in which organs it resides. Of

these 88 reported cases, only 14 actually had blood tests. The test

results were typically reported by the patient and not confirmed by

Clark and most of them were not reported in enough detail to

determine their validity. Of the 14 with a blood test, three were

actually negative, even though reported positive by the Syncrometer.

One of these apparently became IHV positive during therapy. Of the 11

with possibly accurate diagnoses, only 3 reported the type of test

performed. Of those reported to have become HIV negative according

to " clinical tests, " the type of blood test was only stated in 4.

While PCR has validity in tracking the viral load of an HIV positive

patient, to be valid it needs to be performed serially by the same

laboratory using the same methodologies, due to the highly variable

genetics of the virus. Of particular significance, however, is that

during the early 90s when these tests were run, PCR was a new

procedure with low reliability.

The clinical results of the 11 with a possibly accurate diagnosis are

highly variable, ranging from continued progression of the disease,

to patient-reported subjective improvements to those who left before

completion of therapy. The information provided does not document

actual improvement, let alone cure, and the concomitant use of

conventional therapy was not reported.

The therapies recommended have no research supporting their efficacy

in the eradication of the HIV virus. The " Zapper " does not appear to

have been subjected to any objective research evaluation and the idea

that an electrical current will selectively destroy specific viruses

has no credibility. As discussed above, the " deworming " therapies may

be effective in eliminating some parasites, but have no research

supporting elimination of the HIV virus.

To diagnose a person as HIV positive based on an unproven device

without a confirmatory blood test is unconscionable. The needless

worry and suffering this causes is appalling, as is the anguish of

the spouses who thought they were in a monogamous relationship and

parents with no understanding of how their young children could have

become infected. Asserting cure because this device no longer reports

the disease is not in anyway credible.

Not only is there no substantiation for these diagnostic and

therapeutic claims, I believe this website and the Clark books pose a

serious public health hazard. HIV is a deadly communicate virus whose

incidence of infection is again increasing. Convincing an HIV

positive patient that he or she is HIV negative after a few weeks of

ineffective therapy, implying he or she no longer needs to practice

safe sex is outrageous. This is likely to increase the spread of the

disease and undermine the efforts of public health departments across

the country to contain it.

Claim F. WHD's herbal formulas, cure packages and herbal cure

packages, when used by persons with cancer, make surgery and

chemotherapy unnecessary.

As discussed above, there is no competent and reliable evidence that

the WHD formulas and packages effectively treat or cure cancer.

Therefore the recommendation that these interventions make surgery or

chemotherapy unnecessary is equally inappropriate and may deter a

patient from obtaining an accurate diagnosis and potentially life-

saving therapy.

Conclusion

Not only is there is no competent and reliable evidence that the WHD

formulas and packages effectively treat or cure cancer, AIDS or other

serious diseases, I believe their claims pose a substantive public

health danger. This ranges from: allowing serious disease to progress

untreated to the increased risk of the spread of the deadly virus due

to HIV-infected individuals mistakenly believing their virus is

eradicated.

Foonotes

http://www.curecancer.com

Clark HR. The Cure for All Cancers. New Century Press, Chula Vista,

CA, 1993, first page.

Clark consistently misspells Fasciolopsis buski as Fasciolopsis

buskii. The correct scientific spelling is used in this declaration.

Weller PF. Helminthic Infections. In Dale DC and Federman DD.

Scientific American Medicine. Scientific American, New York, New

York, 1998, p7:XXV-13.

Graczyk TK, Gilman RH, Fried B. Fasciolopsiasis: is it a controllable

food-borne disease? Parasitol Res 2001 Jan;87(l):80-3.

Hubbard SR, Till, JH. Protein tyrosine kinase structure and fimction.

Amu Rev Biochem 20W;69:373-98.

Kuts-Cheraux AW. Naturae Medicina and Naturopathic Dispensatory.

Antioch Press, Yellow Springs, OH, 1953.

Felter HW and Lloyd JU. King's American Dispensatory. 1898. Reprinted

Eclectic Medical Publications, Portland, OR, 1983

Duke JA. The Green Pharmacy. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA, 1997.

Hutchens AR. Indian Herbalogy of North America. Homeo House Press,

Kumbakonam, S. India, 1969.

Samylina IA, et al. A trial of the preparation Cheblin-SK-1 in models

of nematodiases. Med Parazitol (Mosk) 2000 Jul-Sep;(3):43-6.

Roy B, Tandon V. Effect of root-tuber extract of Flemingia vestita, a

leguminous, on Artyfechinostomum sufrartyfex and Fasciolopsis buski:

a scanning electron microscopy study. Parasitol Res 1996;82(3):248-

52.

The Cure for HIV and AIDS, page 5.

April 7, 2002

Ed,

How long did you use the Zapper? I did the cleanse

with the zapper about 3-4wks and I felt more energy

and some weight loss. I am thinking about starting

to zap again. What did you mean that you felt worse

using it at first?

Lorene

April 7, 2002

Frank,

I do appreciate the article you sent. Some of

her claims make sense to me to some degree but

certainly not all of them. My pets and I have

benefitted tangibly from her parasite cleanse

program. I do think her theory that toxins

and parasites are two huge areas that are never

addressed in traditional medicine are not

only interesting but sound to me quite credible

as a possible basis for the formation of chronic

disease or diseases of deficinecy. Where she

goes from there gets a bit murkier and unclear

as far as outstanding claims, I will admit.

I found much bias in the article. For one thing,

as far as Clark's education, he only mentioned

the Clayton extension course instead of her degrees

from University of Saskatchewan, Canada, Bachelor

of Arts, Master of Arts, 2 yrs McGill University,

and studying biophysics and cell physiology at

the University of Minnesota where she received

her Doctorate. She was in government funded

research. You'd think if this guy truly researched

her education and had to make this one of his

strikes against her, that he would have been fair

by mentioning the rest of her educational credentials.

There were other ommissions or statements that

he took out of context. He points out that lung

cancer is caused by smoking, well..sure it is,

and that is a toxin and her theory if you've

read even one of her books, is that toxins

and parasites are the start of disease. Smoking

is a toxin. She doesn't just discuss the treatment

of roundworms, ascarii, she has various treatments

that cover all parasites from the 100 most common

to the others which she recommends treatments

beyond one specific parasite cleanse. He said

she doesn't address nutrition or supplements

and their deficiencies. I sure didn't find that,

what I did find in my reading was that taking

supplements alone without addressing the underlying

cause of deficiencies which can be lack of

enzymes and parasites leaching off the body's

nutrional reserves has to be the start of the

body " healing itself " . His tone was that if

something wasn't generally held to be proven

true, then there you go..

I, for one, would like to see more private

research into the cause of disease and not just

the status quo. If Dr. Clark is a quack and

has harmed patients or had negative

reports from clients or families, I'm sure

the FDA would be happy to pounce on her and

she would have been stopped to this point.

Don't take what I say out of context, I do

not promote her, the products she sells, I

have nothing vested in her in any way, but

I have had positive results following one of

her treatment regimens in my experience.

Lor

April 8, 2002

Gettingwell, Shiree4000@a... wrote:

Dear Lor,

I believe that everything the guy said was the truth. It was not an

article, but a deposition for court discussing exactly what hulda

clarke says in her books and her web site.

Hulda Clarke isn't saying do these things for general health, but to

CURE specific disease (Cancer, diabetis, AIDS, etc.) There is a big

difference.

Every one in health care knows that toxins cause illness, this isn't

some discovery she happened to make. The same with parasites. The

others just didn't decide to stoop to hucksterism and fake claims to

swindle people.

As for her CV, I read her web site also. I would not believe anything

this woman says, unless it were proven to me. ie. " she was in govt.

research " ......what govt.? what research? I don't think so.

At this point I would have to hear from the universities to even

believe they are real.

> Frank,

>

> I do appreciate the article you sent. Some of

> her claims make sense to me to some degree but

> certainly not all of them. My pets and I have

> benefitted tangibly from her parasite cleanse

> program. I do think her theory that toxins

> and parasites are two huge areas that are never

> addressed in traditional medicine are not

> only interesting but sound to me quite credible

> as a possible basis for the formation of chronic

> disease or diseases of deficinecy. Where she

> goes from there gets a bit murkier and unclear

> as far as outstanding claims, I will admit.

>

> I found much bias in the article. For one thing,

> as far as Clark's education, he only mentioned

> the Clayton extension course instead of her degrees

> from University of Saskatchewan, Canada, Bachelor

> of Arts, Master of Arts, 2 yrs McGill University,

> and studying biophysics and cell physiology at

> the University of Minnesota where she received

> her Doctorate. She was in government funded

> research. You'd think if this guy truly researched

> her education and had to make this one of his

> strikes against her, that he would have been fair

> by mentioning the rest of her educational credentials.

>

There were other ommissions or statements that

> he took out of context. He points out that lung

> cancer is caused by smoking, well..sure it is,

> and that is a toxin and her theory if you've

>

Sorry you are the one twisting the info here. He is stating that lung

cancer can be the cause of lung cancer. Hulda says that it is NOT the

cause, but her FLuke causes it.

read even one of her books, is that toxins

> and parasites are the start of disease. Smoking

> is a toxin. She doesn't just discuss the treatment

> of roundworms, ascarii, she has various treatments

> that cover all parasites from the 100 most common

> to the others which she recommends treatments

Yes, she says NOW that other parasite now can cause problems but the

majority of her writings said they were caused by one. Even she

finally saw how riduculas that was so she explanded to include some

others

That is why you need her new more expensive machine. There is almost

NO real information in her web site except buy MY book, machine,

purgatives, clinic in Tijuana, etc. I have read her book, it makes me

sick what she is trying to do.

> beyond one specific parasite cleanse. He said

> she doesn't address nutrition or supplements

> and their deficiencies. I sure didn't find that,

> what I did find in my reading was that taking

> supplements alone without addressing the underlying

> cause of deficiencies which can be lack of

> enzymes and parasites leaching off the body's

> nutrional reserves has to be the start of the

> body " healing itself " . His tone was that if

> something wasn't generally held to be proven

> true, then there you go..

>

> I, for one, would like to see more private

> research into the cause of disease and not just

> the status quo.

Are you implying her that she has discovered parasits or " cleanses " ??

Purgatives (her cleanses have been used for thousands of years and

were one of the main treatments by alopathic medicineup intill the

1930's along with bloodletting.

If Dr. Clark is a quack and

> has harmed patients or had negative

> reports from clients or families, I'm sure

> the FDA would be happy to pounce on her and

She was a fugitive from Indiana just exactly for that reason. I don't

believe all of the cases prosecuted for practicing illegal medcine

are justified but in her case I am of the opinion she is a true

charlatan, swindling people.

> she would have been stopped to this point.

> Don't take what I say out of context, I do

> not promote her, the products she sells, I

> have nothing vested in her in any way, but

> I have had positive results following one of

> her treatment regimens in my experience.

>

> Lor

What the whole point of hulda clarke, her books, this discussion,

etc. is not about her CV, her lack or not lack of prosecution, her

attitudes on general health.etc. Those are all smokescreen issues. It

is about her stated purpose of her books, products, clinic etc.

She says she can cure cancer in 5 days. If she can do that it would

be easy to prove. (and a miracle). All of the rest is BS and huckster

marketing.

This group was started to give a forum to real non commercial

discussions of nutritional solutions to illness. Not to this shody

brand of snake oil, because that is what she really is, the traveling

snake oil salesman. " Step right up this miracle exiler will cure

cancer, lumago, arthritus, balding and the vapors, etc. "

Frank

April 9, 2002

-

" califpacific " <califpacific

Friday, April 05, 2002 8:27 PM

Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be cured!

> Gettingwell, Shiree4000@a... wrote:

> > Frank,

> >

> > Would like to know why you feel the way you do

> > about Dr. Clark...are you saying none of her

> > cleanses, etc are effective either?

> >

> > Lor

>

> Dear Lor,

> I think most people wh read Clarke's theories would conclude they are

> false just by common sense. She basically says all disease has the

> same cause .Use her zappers and you will get well.

>

> If that were only remotely true, no one could hide the fact. It would

> spread like wildfire. no advertising needed,and everyone would get

> well by simply word of mouth knowledge.

>

> The established medical/naturopathic interests couldn't hold

> something that simple from being well known if it was the cause of

> ALL cancers, Aids, diabetis, etc..

>

> I don't see that it is my place to disprove hulda clarkes cures. I

> think it would be her, or her spokepeole's place to prove that they

> do work. If something this simple worked it could be easily proven by

> virtually anyone including most laypeople.

>

> Clarke and her operation have all the earmarks to me of fraud,

> although that is my personal opinion. When I read one of her books,

> my impression of it was that this person doesn't have a clue about

> what she is talking about. If fact if it were not for the sad state

> of who she were exploiting she would be laughable.

>

> attached below is just one opinion on her, given by the founder of

> Bayster university (completely naturopathic).

>

> I don't know of one any serious name in natural healing who would

> consider her or her claims seriously.

>

> And yes, I do think that natural methods have great promise to help

> cure cancer and many other diseases, but claims like her's just make

> all seriouse attempts to bring natural methods to the fore look bad

> by association and end up being lumped with these type claims by the

> public at large.

>

> Below is a statment filed in court. There have been others, but here

> is one. It is by one of the top spokemen FOR natural nutritional

> methods.

>

> respectfully,

> Frank

>

While I do ternd to suspect that Dr. Hulda Clarke's methods &

theories are probably not much more than hot air, the 2 court depositions

you posted, Frank, have left me scrathing my head. Unless I missed

something, neither of the depositions actually talked about any reputable

scientist actually testing Dr.Clarke's zapper in any way. I am very

suspicious of " science " which dismisses anything without applying scientific

experimentation. I suspecther theories about flukes causing cancer are far

fetched, but without scientists testing her zapper, I am left wondering if

her methods might have some merit even though her theoretical beliefs might

be full of hooey.

Likewise criticizing Dr. Clarke's latin as a way of discrediting her

paristological investigations is pretty bogus. It is quite possible to be

ignorant of the niceties in any field of endeavor & still have something

worthwhile to contribute. Criticizing Dr.Clarke's latin comes very close

(IMO) to an Ad Hominin Attack - Stating that an argument of the opposing

person is invalid because of that person's poor character.

When I was in high school I was told that Hall --who extracted

Aluminum from fused (molten) bauxite -- was able to run his experiments

because the proferssor was away for term break & Hall had the run of the

lab. Had the professor been there, he would have forbidden the experiments

(according to my Chemistry teacher) because the prof was convinced they

would have been futile & expensive to run.

Again, not saying Dr. Clarke is necessarily correct in her

assertions. Just saying I would rest easier if her tools were tested

instead of being dismissed because here credentials are lacking or she makes

claims which are over-statements (at best).

Alobar

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

" My dear Kepler, what do you say of the leading philosophers here

to whom I have offered a thousand times of my own accord to

show my studies, but who, with the lazy obstinacy of a serpent

who has eaten his fill, have never consented to look at the planets,

or moon, or telescope? "

--Galileo Galilei in a letter to Johannes Kepler

April 10, 2002

Gettingwell, " Alobar " <alobar@b...> wrote:

Dear Alobar,

Yes, your points are valid. Her work should not be judged on her use

of latin or her credentials which are probably valid. But on her work

and assertions. In fact that was my whole point of all my posts.

The only thing that matters is what she is stating and does it work.

The main theme of all her work is very simple. SHE states quite

emphatically that she can cure cancer, aids, etc. by killing internal

flukes with her zappers. She also states that she can diagnose with

another machine.

Don't you think the burden of proof should be upon the one making an

assertion of truth and not eveyone elses to prove them wrong with NO

foundation or studies done or available to anyone else. Just to buy

her book and NO other detailed work study available to anyone else.

How could they do an indepth study on her work when as far as I know,

there is NO indepth study of her work by her, just her book and her

web site, which they did evaluate to their opinions.If you have read

her book, you will see there is not much there in to grab ahold of

either.

I personally don't care if someone wants to use her methods, But If

they are very sick I would like if they were fully cognizant of what

they are buying and spending their time on. If one has cancer time is

a very precious commodity. This is no time to trying to bamboozle

people, to rob them of thier money but stealing something more

important, their time to do something valid in the hopes of saving

their own lives.

The point of all I have said about this " cure " is if it is a cure, is

it would be very easy for her to really show everyone. Something

like......Here is a person who everyone agrees has cancer , here are

the xrays, hospital test results etc. Now watch, with my methods I

will effect a cure. And in an open manner we can see if yes it works

or no it didnt work.

I didnt say she had the answer to " cure " cancer, she did to the tune

of about a million book and many other sales of machines etc.

I don't see any other issue at all. Everyone wants to comment on her

and what I said, but NOT one person has addressed this main and

almost only issue. My god If I had the cure for cancer, I would be

world famous in no time and no one would care less about my

credentials or anything else.

Why all the nit picking when the only thing that matters is does it

work and if so why no examples or proof from her camp.

I am all for promoting possible valid therapies whether any

established interests like it or not. In my opinion all I see here is

hucksterish marketing and outlandish claims with NO back up data and

a good spin pr campaing to fleece to sick and desperate.

But this is just my opinion, you certainly are welcome to yours. just

give me the same right. and give everyone else the same right with

all available information not some sales spiel.

That is exactly what I see has been happening. There are two points

in her approach but she mixes the two and uses one as an excuse for

the other.

One is her " discovery " a scientific/medcal claim. the second is her

business to sell cures, a business.

Nothing wrong with either of those endeavers. But instead of showing

the efficacy of one she moves to the second and then says buy this

because I claim the first (discovery).

If the first part is not true then the motive for the second part is

highly suspect. We are not dealing here with rocket science, we're

talking about killing parasites in the body with a machine and curing

extremely serios secondary diseases.

This should be very easy if it works. It is a very simple premise and

a very simple protocol.

There should be very litte controvery in an open environment to see

if it works or not. If it did work, I don't think there would be any

controversy. Lots of people would be lining up to buy her machine and

for treatment and also to administer treatments to others. She does

admit to a 5% failure rate but I think we would still consider it a

near miracle in comparison to whats available now from established

medicine.

respectfully,

Frank

PS. I didn't want to get into her expanded theories. Mental problems

are caused by parasites in the brain, heart trouble is caused by

parasites in the heart. ditto for the liver, arthritus, diabetes,

aids, etc. Please jst cure a couple of cancer patients before you

expect me to swallow any more bug theories.

>

> -

> " califpacific " <califpacific>

> <Gettingwell>

> Friday, April 05, 2002 8:27 PM

> Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be

cured!

>

> > Gettingwell, Shiree4000@a... wrote:

> > > Frank,

> > >

> > > Would like to know why you feel the way you do

> > > about Dr. Clark...are you saying none of her

> > > cleanses, etc are effective either?

> > >

> > > Lor

> >

> > Dear Lor,

> > I think most people wh read Clarke's theories would conclude they

are

> > false just by common sense. She basically says all disease has the

> > same cause .Use her zappers and you will get well.

> >

> > If that were only remotely true, no one could hide the fact. It

would

> > spread like wildfire. no advertising needed,and everyone would get

> > well by simply word of mouth knowledge.

> >

> > The established medical/naturopathic interests couldn't hold

> > something that simple from being well known if it was the cause of

> > ALL cancers, Aids, diabetis, etc..

> >

> > I don't see that it is my place to disprove hulda clarkes cures. I

> > think it would be her, or her spokepeole's place to prove that

they

> > do work. If something this simple worked it could be easily

proven by

> > virtually anyone including most laypeople.

> >

> > Clarke and her operation have all the earmarks to me of fraud,

> > although that is my personal opinion. When I read one of her

books,

> > my impression of it was that this person doesn't have a clue about

> > what she is talking about. If fact if it were not for the sad

state

> > of who she were exploiting she would be laughable.

> >

> > attached below is just one opinion on her, given by the founder of

> > Bayster university (completely naturopathic).

> >

> > I don't know of one any serious name in natural healing who would

> > consider her or her claims seriously.

> >

> > And yes, I do think that natural methods have great promise to

help

> > cure cancer and many other diseases, but claims like her's just

make

> > all seriouse attempts to bring natural methods to the fore look

bad

> > by association and end up being lumped with these type claims by

the

> > public at large.

> >

> > Below is a statment filed in court. There have been others, but

here

> > is one. It is by one of the top spokemen FOR natural nutritional

> > methods.

> >

> > respectfully,

> > Frank

> >

>

> While I do ternd to suspect that Dr. Hulda Clarke's methods

&

> theories are probably not much more than hot air, the 2 court

depositions

> you posted, Frank, have left me scrathing my head. Unless I missed

> something, neither of the depositions actually talked about any

reputable

> scientist actually testing Dr.Clarke's zapper in any way. I am

very

> suspicious of " science " which dismisses anything without applying

scientific

> experimentation. I suspecther theories about flukes causing cancer

are far

> fetched, but without scientists testing her zapper, I am left

wondering if

> her methods might have some merit even though her theoretical

beliefs might

> be full of hooey.

>

> Likewise criticizing Dr. Clarke's latin as a way of

discrediting her

> paristological investigations is pretty bogus. It is quite

possible to be

> ignorant of the niceties in any field of endeavor & still have

something

> worthwhile to contribute. Criticizing Dr.Clarke's latin comes

very close

> (IMO) to an Ad Hominin Attack - Stating that an argument of the

opposing

> person is invalid because of that person's poor character.

>

> When I was in high school I was told that Hall --who

extracted

> Aluminum from fused (molten) bauxite -- was able to run his

experiments

> because the proferssor was away for term break & Hall had the run

of the

> lab. Had the professor been there, he would have forbidden the

experiments

> (according to my Chemistry teacher) because the prof was convinced

they

> would have been futile & expensive to run.

>

> Again, not saying Dr. Clarke is necessarily correct in her

> assertions. Just saying I would rest easier if her tools were

tested

> instead of being dismissed because here credentials are lacking or

she makes

> claims which are over-statements (at best).

>

> Alobar

>

> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> " My dear Kepler, what do you say of the leading philosophers here

> to whom I have offered a thousand times of my own accord to

> show my studies, but who, with the lazy obstinacy of a serpent

> who has eaten his fill, have never consented to look at the planets,

> or moon, or telescope? "

>

> --Galileo Galilei in a letter to Johannes Kepler

April 11, 2002

That sound as though it should be true, but let's face it. There are many

ways to cure and if it's natural (knowledge to pass along) the path is beaten

by folks like us on the list. Big company's don't get involved unless

there's a profit.

BonnieB

In a message dated 4/11/2002 10:32:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

mortonmb writes:

<<

If someone does really have a valid, reputable cure for something, then that

person should have enough confidence and concern and pride to bring it to the

establishment, to allow it

to proven by unbiased testing, double-blind tests, or whatever. If it is

truly valid, then no amount of testing will prove it to be false and it will

be written up in the esteemed

medical journals of the world. The world will beat a path to her door. Do

you want me to go on, or do you get the idea?

Morton

>>

April 12, 2002

You know??? It's really not sarcasm or opinion here. Think of the

businesses you have worked with. Employees cannot spend their time on

unprofitable issues. Marketing is paid very very well " if " they can make

more money for the company. The natural things of the world are free. Why

on earth would a large company even entertain the idea of a free natural

breakthrough?

Frankly, now that we have a decade of internet discussion lists, I'll bet you

see alot more " breakthroughs " - not necessarily advertised on tv and radio,

but on the " health watch " segments and through lists like this. People are

beginning to learn what/who to trust and not to trust through their online

friendships and researches.

BonnieB

In a message dated 4/11/2002 11:07:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

alobar writes:

<<

I am not defending Dr. Clark. But what ever happened to using mega

doses of vitamin C with proline & lysine to prevent almost all heart

disease? The research was done. Papers were presented to reputable

scientific bodies. The pharmaceutical companies make more money from

selling expensive drugs to treat heart disease than they can ever make from

selling vitamin C or amino acids.

http://www.petition450.org/english/tenyears.pdf

10 grams of vitamin C per day doubles the life of cancer patients

http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/mega_1_1.html yet I have *never* known

anyone with cancer whose doctor had them taking vitamin C in any dosage.

I could go on. Let us just say I do not trust either the

pharmaceutical companies or the scientific establishment to be fair or

unbiased. Both doctors & pharmaceutical companies are in the business of

making lots of money from sick people. Even when they are not deliberately

& maliciously giving out harmful information, they are blinded by belief in

their particular paradigm.

As I say, Dr. Clarke may be a kook of the first order, but the lack

of positive response for her work by the medical establishment sure does not

prove anything to me.

Alobar

-

" Morton Bodanis " <mortonmb

Thursday, April 11, 2002 9:31 PM

Re: Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be cured!

> If someone does really have a valid, reputable cure for something, then

that person should have enough confidence and concern and pride to bring it

to the establishment, to allow it

> to proven by unbiased testing, double-blind tests, or whatever. If it is

truly valid, then no amount of testing will prove it to be false and it will

be written up in the esteemed

> medical journals of the world. The world will beat a path to her door. Do

you want me to go on, or do you get the idea?

> Morton

>>

April 12, 2002

If someone does really have a valid, reputable cure for something, then that

person should have enough confidence and concern and pride to bring it to the

establishment, to allow it

to proven by unbiased testing, double-blind tests, or whatever. If it is truly

valid, then no amount of testing will prove it to be false and it will be

written up in the esteemed

medical journals of the world. The world will beat a path to her door. Do you

want me to go on, or do you get the idea?

Morton

califpacific wrote:

> Gettingwell, " Alobar " <alobar@b...> wrote:

> Dear Alobar,

>

> Yes, your points are valid. Her work should not be judged on her use

> of latin or her credentials which are probably valid. But on her work

> and assertions. In fact that was my whole point of all my posts.

>

> The only thing that matters is what she is stating and does it work.

>

> The main theme of all her work is very simple. SHE states quite

> emphatically that she can cure cancer, aids, etc. by killing internal

> flukes with her zappers. She also states that she can diagnose with

> another machine.

>

> Don't you think the burden of proof should be upon the one making an

> assertion of truth and not eveyone elses to prove them wrong with NO

> foundation or studies done or available to anyone else. Just to buy

> her book and NO other detailed work study available to anyone else.

>

> How could they do an indepth study on her work when as far as I know,

> there is NO indepth study of her work by her, just her book and her

> web site, which they did evaluate to their opinions.If you have read

> her book, you will see there is not much there in to grab ahold of

> either.

>

> I personally don't care if someone wants to use her methods, But If

> they are very sick I would like if they were fully cognizant of what

> they are buying and spending their time on. If one has cancer time is

> a very precious commodity. This is no time to trying to bamboozle

> people, to rob them of thier money but stealing something more

> important, their time to do something valid in the hopes of saving

> their own lives.

>

> The point of all I have said about this " cure " is if it is a cure, is

> it would be very easy for her to really show everyone. Something

> like......Here is a person who everyone agrees has cancer , here are

> the xrays, hospital test results etc. Now watch, with my methods I

> will effect a cure. And in an open manner we can see if yes it works

> or no it didnt work.

>

> I didnt say she had the answer to " cure " cancer, she did to the tune

> of about a million book and many other sales of machines etc.

> I don't see any other issue at all. Everyone wants to comment on her

> and what I said, but NOT one person has addressed this main and

> almost only issue. My god If I had the cure for cancer, I would be

> world famous in no time and no one would care less about my

> credentials or anything else.

>

> Why all the nit picking when the only thing that matters is does it

> work and if so why no examples or proof from her camp.

>

> I am all for promoting possible valid therapies whether any

> established interests like it or not. In my opinion all I see here is

> hucksterish marketing and outlandish claims with NO back up data and

> a good spin pr campaing to fleece to sick and desperate.

> But this is just my opinion, you certainly are welcome to yours. just

> give me the same right. and give everyone else the same right with

> all available information not some sales spiel.

>

> That is exactly what I see has been happening. There are two points

> in her approach but she mixes the two and uses one as an excuse for

> the other.

>

> One is her " discovery " a scientific/medcal claim. the second is her

> business to sell cures, a business.

>

> Nothing wrong with either of those endeavers. But instead of showing

> the efficacy of one she moves to the second and then says buy this

> because I claim the first (discovery).

>

> If the first part is not true then the motive for the second part is

> highly suspect. We are not dealing here with rocket science, we're

> talking about killing parasites in the body with a machine and curing

> extremely serios secondary diseases.

>

> This should be very easy if it works. It is a very simple premise and

> a very simple protocol.

>

> There should be very litte controvery in an open environment to see

> if it works or not. If it did work, I don't think there would be any

> controversy. Lots of people would be lining up to buy her machine and

> for treatment and also to administer treatments to others. She does

> admit to a 5% failure rate but I think we would still consider it a

> near miracle in comparison to whats available now from established

> medicine.

>

> respectfully,

>

> Frank

>

> PS. I didn't want to get into her expanded theories. Mental problems

> are caused by parasites in the brain, heart trouble is caused by

> parasites in the heart. ditto for the liver, arthritus, diabetes,

> aids, etc. Please jst cure a couple of cancer patients before you

> expect me to swallow any more bug theories.

>

> >

> > -

> > " califpacific " <califpacific>

> > <Gettingwell>

> > Friday, April 05, 2002 8:27 PM

> > Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be

> cured!

> >

> > > Gettingwell, Shiree4000@a... wrote:

> > > > Frank,

> > > >

> > > > Would like to know why you feel the way you do

> > > > about Dr. Clark...are you saying none of her

> > > > cleanses, etc are effective either?

> > > >

> > > > Lor

> > >

> > > Dear Lor,

> > > I think most people wh read Clarke's theories would conclude they

> are

> > > false just by common sense. She basically says all disease has the

> > > same cause .Use her zappers and you will get well.

> > >

> > > If that were only remotely true, no one could hide the fact. It

> would

> > > spread like wildfire. no advertising needed,and everyone would get

> > > well by simply word of mouth knowledge.

> > >

> > > The established medical/naturopathic interests couldn't hold

> > > something that simple from being well known if it was the cause of

> > > ALL cancers, Aids, diabetis, etc..

> > >

> > > I don't see that it is my place to disprove hulda clarkes cures. I

> > > think it would be her, or her spokepeole's place to prove that

> they

> > > do work. If something this simple worked it could be easily

> proven by

> > > virtually anyone including most laypeople.

> > >

> > > Clarke and her operation have all the earmarks to me of fraud,

> > > although that is my personal opinion. When I read one of her

> books,

> > > my impression of it was that this person doesn't have a clue about

> > > what she is talking about. If fact if it were not for the sad

> state

> > > of who she were exploiting she would be laughable.

> > >

> > > attached below is just one opinion on her, given by the founder of

> > > Bayster university (completely naturopathic).

> > >

> > > I don't know of one any serious name in natural healing who would

> > > consider her or her claims seriously.

> > >

> > > And yes, I do think that natural methods have great promise to

> help

> > > cure cancer and many other diseases, but claims like her's just

> make

> > > all seriouse attempts to bring natural methods to the fore look

> bad

> > > by association and end up being lumped with these type claims by

> the

> > > public at large.

> > >

> > > Below is a statment filed in court. There have been others, but

> here

> > > is one. It is by one of the top spokemen FOR natural nutritional

> > > methods.

> > >

> > > respectfully,

> > > Frank

> > >

> >

> > While I do ternd to suspect that Dr. Hulda Clarke's methods

> &

> > theories are probably not much more than hot air, the 2 court

> depositions

> > you posted, Frank, have left me scrathing my head. Unless I missed

> > something, neither of the depositions actually talked about any

> reputable

> > scientist actually testing Dr.Clarke's zapper in any way. I am

> very

> > suspicious of " science " which dismisses anything without applying

> scientific

> > experimentation. I suspecther theories about flukes causing cancer

> are far

> > fetched, but without scientists testing her zapper, I am left

> wondering if

> > her methods might have some merit even though her theoretical

> beliefs might

> > be full of hooey.

> >

> > Likewise criticizing Dr. Clarke's latin as a way of

> discrediting her

> > paristological investigations is pretty bogus. It is quite

> possible to be

> > ignorant of the niceties in any field of endeavor & still have

> something

> > worthwhile to contribute. Criticizing Dr.Clarke's latin comes

> very close

> > (IMO) to an Ad Hominin Attack - Stating that an argument of the

> opposing

> > person is invalid because of that person's poor character.

> >

> > When I was in high school I was told that Hall --who

> extracted

> > Aluminum from fused (molten) bauxite -- was able to run his

> experiments

> > because the proferssor was away for term break & Hall had the run

> of the

> > lab. Had the professor been there, he would have forbidden the

> experiments

> > (according to my Chemistry teacher) because the prof was convinced

> they

> > would have been futile & expensive to run.

> >

> > Again, not saying Dr. Clarke is necessarily correct in her

> > assertions. Just saying I would rest easier if her tools were

> tested

> > instead of being dismissed because here credentials are lacking or

> she makes

> > claims which are over-statements (at best).

> >

> > Alobar

> >

> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > " My dear Kepler, what do you say of the leading philosophers here

> > to whom I have offered a thousand times of my own accord to

> > show my studies, but who, with the lazy obstinacy of a serpent

> > who has eaten his fill, have never consented to look at the planets,

> > or moon, or telescope? "

> >

> > --Galileo Galilei in a letter to Johannes Kepler

>

> Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health

> and well being.

>

> To learn more about the Gettingwell group,

> Subscription and list archives are at:

> Gettingwell

>

> To receive NO EMAIL from group, but stay a member,which will allow you to

still read all of the posts at group site. Send message: " No Mail " . To:

Gettingwell-owner

>

April 12, 2002

I am not defending Dr. Clark. But what ever happened to using mega

doses of vitamin C with proline & lysine to prevent almost all heart

disease? The research was done. Papers were presented to reputable

scientific bodies. The pharmaceutical companies make more money from

selling expensive drugs to treat heart disease than they can ever make from

selling vitamin C or amino acids.

http://www.petition450.org/english/tenyears.pdf

10 grams of vitamin C per day doubles the life of cancer patients

http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/mega_1_1.html yet I have *never* known

anyone with cancer whose doctor had them taking vitamin C in any dosage.

I could go on. Let us just say I do not trust either the

pharmaceutical companies or the scientific establishment to be fair or

unbiased. Both doctors & pharmaceutical companies are in the business of

making lots of money from sick people. Even when they are not deliberately

& maliciously giving out harmful information, they are blinded by belief in

their particular paradigm.

As I say, Dr. Clarke may be a kook of the first order, but the lack

of positive response for her work by the medical establishment sure does not

prove anything to me.

Alobar

-

" Morton Bodanis " <mortonmb

Thursday, April 11, 2002 9:31 PM

Re: Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be cured!

> If someone does really have a valid, reputable cure for something, then

that person should have enough confidence and concern and pride to bring it

to the establishment, to allow it

> to proven by unbiased testing, double-blind tests, or whatever. If it is

truly valid, then no amount of testing will prove it to be false and it will

be written up in the esteemed

> medical journals of the world. The world will beat a path to her door. Do

you want me to go on, or do you get the idea?

> Morton

April 12, 2002

Dear Alobar,

No, I dont accuse you of defending Hulda Clarke. My " rant " is against

her and no one else.

I to would not let the disapproveal of the medical establishment

dissuade me in accepting some other ideas or theory.

In fact in todays invieronment I would be more accepting than if she

arrived full blown on the scene WITH the endorsment of the cancer

people. I do nor jave a lot of faith in most allopathic methods and

the cancer industry in particular.

The established medical industry has done everything in it's power to

subvert, disinform, almost all efforts to show that almost all

healing is done by the body itself and it does when all of the

necessary natural ingredients are present at the time it needs them.

In my opinion, the problem arises because these companies are just

that. Companies with profit driven motives (rather than them doing

research or seeking a cure.) and we confuse that with truth seeking

methods like pure science)

The pharmacuetical companies have their own P.R.spin, huckster

marketing going. Their sales spiel is that they are doing research

and trying to find cures. The only research that I know going on with

them is that it is research with only one aim, to research a product

for the market place.And will the profit outway any financial

liabilities.

To ask these companies to act in what is good for man, mankind,

health or any altruistic reason is in error. That is what the

acedemic sector, medical schools, the elected representatives, and

the government agencies were set up to do. The pharmacuetical

industry has consistently subverted and co-opted them to the point

that there almost is no function there at all except to further the

financial aims of the drug companies.

You are looking at a trillion dollar industry in the US alone. I

don't think I will wait on my health until they decide to admit that

most disease is nutritional and diet in nature and no I don't need

their medicine, I can just take a vitamin and heal myself and that

90% of them can just go home now. We are talking some vested

interests here.

As for Hulda Clarke, I think it would be a very poor state if I chose

to believe in her on the basis that....#1 - I don't believe in most

of allopathic medicine so... ergo I should believe in her. Doesn't

make good sense to me.

I think it is a very sad state of affairs that in our age of

technology, that we need be our own best doctor because the main

alternative we have will probably bankrupt us, damage our health

further, or kill us.

In a profit driven humane system you get profit driven solutions.

That is why the establishment is popular and ALSO why Hulda Clarke

prospers in the face of opposition from the first.

The politicions have done such a good job of snowing the populace in

the US that we are proud of our health care system and made to feel

unpatriotic in we didn't. We have a deplorable system not just in my

opinion, but most every yardstick used. Our death rate from disease

is not good in comparison to other advanced nations. We spend many

times more on health care than most others, etc, etc. Bla, bla, bla.

About the time people start waking up to some of these facts, they

become old and poor (having spent most of their money on profit

driven solutions) so they die and there is always a new crop coming

along to further the system. So, far before the internet there was

absolutely no way for people to gather, compare information, or pass

on much information to the next generation. I doubt very seriously if

the internet is up to the task either. The powers that be OWN the

system, game, and referees.

JMHO

Frank

Gettingwell, " Alobar " <alobar@b...> wrote:

> I am not defending Dr. Clark. But what ever happened to

using mega

> doses of vitamin C with proline & lysine to prevent almost all heart

> disease? The research was done. Papers were presented to

reputable

> scientific bodies. The pharmaceutical companies make more money

from

> selling expensive drugs to treat heart disease than they can ever

make from

> selling vitamin C or amino acids.

> http://www.petition450.org/english/tenyears.pdf

>

> 10 grams of vitamin C per day doubles the life of cancer

patients

> http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/mega_1_1.html yet I have *never*

known

> anyone with cancer whose doctor had them taking vitamin C in any

dosage.

>

> I could go on. Let us just say I do not trust either the

> pharmaceutical companies or the scientific establishment to be fair

or

> unbiased. Both doctors & pharmaceutical companies are in the

business of

> making lots of money from sick people. Even when they are not

deliberately

> & maliciously giving out harmful information, they are blinded by

belief in

> their particular paradigm.

>

> As I say, Dr. Clarke may be a kook of the first order, but

the lack

> of positive response for her work by the medical establishment sure

does not

> prove anything to me.

>

> Alobar

>

> -

> " Morton Bodanis " <mortonmb@c...>

> <Gettingwell>

> Thursday, April 11, 2002 9:31 PM

> Re: Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be

cured!

>

> > If someone does really have a valid, reputable cure for

something, then

> that person should have enough confidence and concern and pride to

bring it

> to the establishment, to allow it

> > to proven by unbiased testing, double-blind tests, or whatever.

If it is

> truly valid, then no amount of testing will prove it to be false

and it will

> be written up in the esteemed

> > medical journals of the world. The world will beat a path to her

door. Do

> you want me to go on, or do you get the idea?

> > Morton

April 12, 2002

Hi there! Sure wish that's the way things worked, but we're naive when

we beleive that scientists are unbiased, that those in scientific

authority welcome new discoveries. Scientists complain about the

difficulty in bringing discoveries forward. The resistance to new

knowledge, and the unbeleivable lengths of personal attacks, are

incomprehensible to the average person. There are few open minds in

this territory! Even funding for research has systems set up to

continue new rounds of old, unproductive research, and discourage novel

research projects. It makes no sense, till we understand that much of

this revolves around an elitist system which preserves hierarchy and

prestige, and has nothing to do with scientific discovery. The whole

system desperately needs a good shake-up. All it would take, is public

awareness, for shame to ripple throughout the whole scientific

community. Mainstream scientists have enough difficulty, and have to

wait for those in authority to retire or die, for progress to move

forward another increment, stalled again till that generation moves out

of positions of power. What chance does a maverick like Hulda Clarke

have with such a system? People lose careers over taking chances, and

so they concentrate on keeping their jobs, and not rocking the boat.

Meanwhile, in medicine, particularly, people continue to die, as

scientists cover their professional asses. It's truly shameful, the

behavior is childish, and the system is horribly corrupt! Very sad.

Steve

Morton Bodanis wrote:

> If someone does really have a valid, reputable cure for something,

> then that person should have enough confidence and concern and pride

> to bring it to the establishment, to allow it

> to proven by unbiased testing, double-blind tests, or whatever. If it

> is truly valid, then no amount of testing will prove it to be false

> and it will be written up in the esteemed

> medical journals of the world. The world will beat a path to her

> door. Do you want me to go on, or do you get the idea?

> Morton

>

> califpacific wrote:

>

> > Gettingwell, " Alobar " <alobar@b...> wrote:

> > Dear Alobar,

> >

> > Yes, your points are valid. Her work should not be judged on her use

>

> > of latin or her credentials which are probably valid. But on her

> work

> > and assertions. In fact that was my whole point of all my posts.

> >

> > The only thing that matters is what she is stating and does it work.

>

> >

> > The main theme of all her work is very simple. SHE states quite

> > emphatically that she can cure cancer, aids, etc. by killing

> internal

> > flukes with her zappers. She also states that she can diagnose with

> > another machine.

> >

> > Don't you think the burden of proof should be upon the one making an

>

> > assertion of truth and not eveyone elses to prove them wrong with NO

>

> > foundation or studies done or available to anyone else. Just to buy

> > her book and NO other detailed work study available to anyone else.

> >

> > How could they do an indepth study on her work when as far as I

> know,

> > there is NO indepth study of her work by her, just her book and her

> > web site, which they did evaluate to their opinions.If you have read

>

> > her book, you will see there is not much there in to grab ahold of

> > either.

> >

> > I personally don't care if someone wants to use her methods, But If

> > they are very sick I would like if they were fully cognizant of what

>

> > they are buying and spending their time on. If one has cancer time

> is

> > a very precious commodity. This is no time to trying to bamboozle

> > people, to rob them of thier money but stealing something more

> > important, their time to do something valid in the hopes of saving

> > their own lives.

> >

> > The point of all I have said about this " cure " is if it is a cure,

> is

> > it would be very easy for her to really show everyone. Something

> > like......Here is a person who everyone agrees has cancer , here are

>

> > the xrays, hospital test results etc. Now watch, with my methods I

> > will effect a cure. And in an open manner we can see if yes it works

>

> > or no it didnt work.

> >

> > I didnt say she had the answer to " cure " cancer, she did to the tune

>

> > of about a million book and many other sales of machines etc.

> > I don't see any other issue at all. Everyone wants to comment on her

>

> > and what I said, but NOT one person has addressed this main and

> > almost only issue. My god If I had the cure for cancer, I would be

> > world famous in no time and no one would care less about my

> > credentials or anything else.

> >

> > Why all the nit picking when the only thing that matters is does it

> > work and if so why no examples or proof from her camp.

> >

> > I am all for promoting possible valid therapies whether any

> > established interests like it or not. In my opinion all I see here

> is

> > hucksterish marketing and outlandish claims with NO back up data and

>

> > a good spin pr campaing to fleece to sick and desperate.

> > But this is just my opinion, you certainly are welcome to yours.

> just

> > give me the same right. and give everyone else the same right with

> > all available information not some sales spiel.

> >

> > That is exactly what I see has been happening. There are two points

> > in her approach but she mixes the two and uses one as an excuse for

> > the other.

> >

> > One is her " discovery " a scientific/medcal claim. the second is her

> > business to sell cures, a business.

> >

> > Nothing wrong with either of those endeavers. But instead of showing

>

> > the efficacy of one she moves to the second and then says buy this

> > because I claim the first (discovery).

> >

> > If the first part is not true then the motive for the second part is

>

> > highly suspect. We are not dealing here with rocket science, we're

> > talking about killing parasites in the body with a machine and

> curing

> > extremely serios secondary diseases.

> >

> > This should be very easy if it works. It is a very simple premise

> and

> > a very simple protocol.

> >

> > There should be very litte controvery in an open environment to see

> > if it works or not. If it did work, I don't think there would be any

>

> > controversy. Lots of people would be lining up to buy her machine

> and

> > for treatment and also to administer treatments to others. She does

> > admit to a 5% failure rate but I think we would still consider it a

> > near miracle in comparison to whats available now from established

> > medicine.

> >

> > respectfully,

> >

> > Frank

> >

> > PS. I didn't want to get into her expanded theories. Mental problems

>

> > are caused by parasites in the brain, heart trouble is caused by

> > parasites in the heart. ditto for the liver, arthritus, diabetes,

> > aids, etc. Please jst cure a couple of cancer patients before you

> > expect me to swallow any more bug theories.

> >

> > >

> > > -

> > > " califpacific " <califpacific>

> > > <Gettingwell>

> > > Friday, April 05, 2002 8:27 PM

> > > Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be

> > cured!

> > >

> > > > Gettingwell, Shiree4000@a... wrote:

> > > > > Frank,

> > > > >

> > > > > Would like to know why you feel the way you do

> > > > > about Dr. Clark...are you saying none of her

> > > > > cleanses, etc are effective either?

> > > > >

> > > > > Lor

> > > >

> > > > Dear Lor,

> > > > I think most people wh read Clarke's theories would conclude

> they

> > are

> > > > false just by common sense. She basically says all disease has

> the

> > > > same cause .Use her zappers and you will get well.

> > > >

> > > > If that were only remotely true, no one could hide the fact. It

> > would

> > > > spread like wildfire. no advertising needed,and everyone would

> get

> > > > well by simply word of mouth knowledge.

> > > >

> > > > The established medical/naturopathic interests couldn't hold

> > > > something that simple from being well known if it was the cause

> of

> > > > ALL cancers, Aids, diabetis, etc..

> > > >

> > > > I don't see that it is my place to disprove hulda clarkes cures.

> I

> > > > think it would be her, or her spokepeole's place to prove that

> > they

> > > > do work. If something this simple worked it could be easily

> > proven by

> > > > virtually anyone including most laypeople.

> > > >

> > > > Clarke and her operation have all the earmarks to me of fraud,

> > > > although that is my personal opinion. When I read one of her

> > books,

> > > > my impression of it was that this person doesn't have a clue

> about

> > > > what she is talking about. If fact if it were not for the sad

> > state

> > > > of who she were exploiting she would be laughable.

> > > >

> > > > attached below is just one opinion on her, given by the founder

> of

> > > > Bayster university (completely naturopathic).

> > > >

> > > > I don't know of one any serious name in natural healing who

> would

> > > > consider her or her claims seriously.

> > > >

> > > > And yes, I do think that natural methods have great promise to

> > help

> > > > cure cancer and many other diseases, but claims like her's just

> > make

> > > > all seriouse attempts to bring natural methods to the fore look

> > bad

> > > > by association and end up being lumped with these type claims

> by

> > the

> > > > public at large.

> > > >

> > > > Below is a statment filed in court. There have been others, but

> > here

> > > > is one. It is by one of the top spokemen FOR natural nutritional

>

> > > > methods.

> > > >

> > > > respectfully,

> > > > Frank

> > > >

> > >

> > > While I do ternd to suspect that Dr. Hulda Clarke's

> methods

> > &

> > > theories are probably not much more than hot air, the 2 court

> > depositions

> > > you posted, Frank, have left me scrathing my head. Unless I

> missed

> > > something, neither of the depositions actually talked about any

> > reputable

> > > scientist actually testing Dr.Clarke's zapper in any way. I am

> > very

> > > suspicious of " science " which dismisses anything without applying

> > scientific

> > > experimentation. I suspecther theories about flukes causing

> cancer

> > are far

> > > fetched, but without scientists testing her zapper, I am left

> > wondering if

> > > her methods might have some merit even though her theoretical

> > beliefs might

> > > be full of hooey.

> > >

> > > Likewise criticizing Dr. Clarke's latin as a way of

> > discrediting her

> > > paristological investigations is pretty bogus. It is quite

> > possible to be

> > > ignorant of the niceties in any field of endeavor & still have

> > something

> > > worthwhile to contribute. Criticizing Dr.Clarke's latin comes

> > very close

> > > (IMO) to an Ad Hominin Attack - Stating that an argument of the

> > opposing

> > > person is invalid because of that person's poor character.

> > >

> > > When I was in high school I was told that Hall --who

> > extracted

> > > Aluminum from fused (molten) bauxite -- was able to run his

> > experiments

> > > because the proferssor was away for term break & Hall had the run

> > of the

> > > lab. Had the professor been there, he would have forbidden the

> > experiments

> > > (according to my Chemistry teacher) because the prof was convinced

>

> > they

> > > would have been futile & expensive to run.

> > >

> > > Again, not saying Dr. Clarke is necessarily correct in her

>

> > > assertions. Just saying I would rest easier if her tools were

> > tested

> > > instead of being dismissed because here credentials are lacking or

>

> > she makes

> > > claims which are over-statements (at best).

> > >

> > > Alobar

> > >

> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > > " My dear Kepler, what do you say of the leading philosophers here

> > > to whom I have offered a thousand times of my own accord to

> > > show my studies, but who, with the lazy obstinacy of a serpent

> > > who has eaten his fill, have never consented to look at the

> planets,

> > > or moon, or telescope? "

> > >

> > > --Galileo Galilei in a letter to Johannes Kepler

> >

> > Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health

>

> > and well being.

> >

> > To learn more about the Gettingwell group,

> > Subscription and list archives are at:

> > Gettingwell

> >

> > To receive NO EMAIL from group, but stay a member,which will allow

> you to still read all of the posts at group site. Send message: " No

> Mail " . Gettingwell-owner

> >

April 12, 2002

-

" fmn " <fmn

Friday, April 12, 2002 11:00 AM

Re: Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be cured!

" The whole system desperately needs a good shake-up. All it would take, is

public awareness... "

It has gotten to the point, that I have no other serious message to bring to

people, on the general matter of how our major institutions (politics,

business, education, medicine, etc.) behave and treat people, than that

media are at the very heart of what is most wrong with our society. There

is no area where our country would make greater, positive progress, than

would result from serious reform of mass media.

All the intellectual bullies in our society, use mass media to force their

will and ways on people, but just as importantly, cleverly see to it that

dissenting views are all but completely suppressed. Media professionals and

the media bosses they work for are not innocent bystanders. They

participate, crucially, indispensably, in this mass delusion and deception.

April 12, 2002

And who is behind the spin doctors if not the people who profit from

the mis-information the media gives out?

Alobar

-

" John Polifronio " <counterpnt

Friday, April 12, 2002 3:44 PM

Re: Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be cured!

>

> -

> " fmn " <fmn

>

> Friday, April 12, 2002 11:00 AM

> Re: Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be cured!

>

> " The whole system desperately needs a good shake-up. All it would take,

is

> public awareness... "

>

> It has gotten to the point, that I have no other serious message to bring

to

> people, on the general matter of how our major institutions (politics,

> business, education, medicine, etc.) behave and treat people, than that

> media are at the very heart of what is most wrong with our society. There

> is no area where our country would make greater, positive progress, than

> would result from serious reform of mass media.

> All the intellectual bullies in our society, use mass media to force their

> will and ways on people, but just as importantly, cleverly see to it that

> dissenting views are all but completely suppressed. Media professionals

and

> the media bosses they work for are not innocent bystanders. They

> participate, crucially, indispensably, in this mass delusion and

deception.

>

April 13, 2002

Of course there are small-minded people in all walks of life, but if one tries,

the " cream will rise to the top " . If the science is correct, the nay-sayers will

lose and the

visionaries will persevere, but the theory must be put to the test.

Morton

fmn wrote:

> Hi there! Sure wish that's the way things worked, but we're naive when

> we beleive that scientists are unbiased, that those in scientific

> authority welcome new discoveries. Scientists complain about the

> difficulty in bringing discoveries forward. The resistance to new

> knowledge, and the unbeleivable lengths of personal attacks, are

> incomprehensible to the average person. There are few open minds in

> this territory! Even funding for research has systems set up to

> continue new rounds of old, unproductive research, and discourage novel

> research projects. It makes no sense, till we understand that much of

> this revolves around an elitist system which preserves hierarchy and

> prestige, and has nothing to do with scientific discovery. The whole

> system desperately needs a good shake-up. All it would take, is public

> awareness, for shame to ripple throughout the whole scientific

> community. Mainstream scientists have enough difficulty, and have to

> wait for those in authority to retire or die, for progress to move

> forward another increment, stalled again till that generation moves out

> of positions of power. What chance does a maverick like Hulda Clarke

> have with such a system? People lose careers over taking chances, and

> so they concentrate on keeping their jobs, and not rocking the boat.

> Meanwhile, in medicine, particularly, people continue to die, as

> scientists cover their professional asses. It's truly shameful, the

> behavior is childish, and the system is horribly corrupt! Very sad.

> Steve

>

> Morton Bodanis wrote:

>

> > If someone does really have a valid, reputable cure for something,

> > then that person should have enough confidence and concern and pride

> > to bring it to the establishment, to allow it

> > to proven by unbiased testing, double-blind tests, or whatever. If it

> > is truly valid, then no amount of testing will prove it to be false

> > and it will be written up in the esteemed

> > medical journals of the world. The world will beat a path to her

> > door. Do you want me to go on, or do you get the idea?

> > Morton

> >

> > califpacific wrote:

> >

> > > Gettingwell, " Alobar " <alobar@b...> wrote:

> > > Dear Alobar,

> > >

> > > Yes, your points are valid. Her work should not be judged on her use

> >

> > > of latin or her credentials which are probably valid. But on her

> > work

> > > and assertions. In fact that was my whole point of all my posts.

> > >

> > > The only thing that matters is what she is stating and does it work.

> >

> > >

> > > The main theme of all her work is very simple. SHE states quite

> > > emphatically that she can cure cancer, aids, etc. by killing

> > internal

> > > flukes with her zappers. She also states that she can diagnose with

> > > another machine.

> > >

> > > Don't you think the burden of proof should be upon the one making an

> >

> > > assertion of truth and not eveyone elses to prove them wrong with NO

> >

> > > foundation or studies done or available to anyone else. Just to buy

> > > her book and NO other detailed work study available to anyone else.

> > >

> > > How could they do an indepth study on her work when as far as I

> > know,

> > > there is NO indepth study of her work by her, just her book and her

> > > web site, which they did evaluate to their opinions.If you have read

> >

> > > her book, you will see there is not much there in to grab ahold of

> > > either.

> > >

> > > I personally don't care if someone wants to use her methods, But If

> > > they are very sick I would like if they were fully cognizant of what

> >

> > > they are buying and spending their time on. If one has cancer time

> > is

> > > a very precious commodity. This is no time to trying to bamboozle

> > > people, to rob them of thier money but stealing something more

> > > important, their time to do something valid in the hopes of saving

> > > their own lives.

> > >

> > > The point of all I have said about this " cure " is if it is a cure,

> > is

> > > it would be very easy for her to really show everyone. Something

> > > like......Here is a person who everyone agrees has cancer , here are

> >

> > > the xrays, hospital test results etc. Now watch, with my methods I

> > > will effect a cure. And in an open manner we can see if yes it works

> >

> > > or no it didnt work.

> > >

> > > I didnt say she had the answer to " cure " cancer, she did to the tune

> >

> > > of about a million book and many other sales of machines etc.

> > > I don't see any other issue at all. Everyone wants to comment on her

> >

> > > and what I said, but NOT one person has addressed this main and

> > > almost only issue. My god If I had the cure for cancer, I would be

> > > world famous in no time and no one would care less about my

> > > credentials or anything else.

> > >

> > > Why all the nit picking when the only thing that matters is does it

> > > work and if so why no examples or proof from her camp.

> > >

> > > I am all for promoting possible valid therapies whether any

> > > established interests like it or not. In my opinion all I see here

> > is

> > > hucksterish marketing and outlandish claims with NO back up data and

> >

> > > a good spin pr campaing to fleece to sick and desperate.

> > > But this is just my opinion, you certainly are welcome to yours.

> > just

> > > give me the same right. and give everyone else the same right with

> > > all available information not some sales spiel.

> > >

> > > That is exactly what I see has been happening. There are two points

> > > in her approach but she mixes the two and uses one as an excuse for

> > > the other.

> > >

> > > One is her " discovery " a scientific/medcal claim. the second is her

> > > business to sell cures, a business.

> > >

> > > Nothing wrong with either of those endeavers. But instead of showing

> >

> > > the efficacy of one she moves to the second and then says buy this

> > > because I claim the first (discovery).

> > >

> > > If the first part is not true then the motive for the second part is

> >

> > > highly suspect. We are not dealing here with rocket science, we're

> > > talking about killing parasites in the body with a machine and

> > curing

> > > extremely serios secondary diseases.

> > >

> > > This should be very easy if it works. It is a very simple premise

> > and

> > > a very simple protocol.

> > >

> > > There should be very litte controvery in an open environment to see

> > > if it works or not. If it did work, I don't think there would be any

> >

> > > controversy. Lots of people would be lining up to buy her machine

> > and

> > > for treatment and also to administer treatments to others. She does

> > > admit to a 5% failure rate but I think we would still consider it a

> > > near miracle in comparison to whats available now from established

> > > medicine.

> > >

> > > respectfully,

> > >

> > > Frank

> > >

> > > PS. I didn't want to get into her expanded theories. Mental problems

> >

> > > are caused by parasites in the brain, heart trouble is caused by

> > > parasites in the heart. ditto for the liver, arthritus, diabetes,

> > > aids, etc. Please jst cure a couple of cancer patients before you

> > > expect me to swallow any more bug theories.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > " califpacific " <califpacific>

> > > > <Gettingwell>

> > > > Friday, April 05, 2002 8:27 PM

> > > > Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be

> > > cured!

> > > >

> > > > > Gettingwell, Shiree4000@a... wrote:

> > > > > > Frank,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Would like to know why you feel the way you do

> > > > > > about Dr. Clark...are you saying none of her

> > > > > > cleanses, etc are effective either?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lor

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Lor,

> > > > > I think most people wh read Clarke's theories would conclude

> > they

> > > are

> > > > > false just by common sense. She basically says all disease has

> > the

> > > > > same cause .Use her zappers and you will get well.

> > > > >

> > > > > If that were only remotely true, no one could hide the fact. It

> > > would

> > > > > spread like wildfire. no advertising needed,and everyone would

> > get

> > > > > well by simply word of mouth knowledge.

> > > > >

> > > > > The established medical/naturopathic interests couldn't hold

> > > > > something that simple from being well known if it was the cause

> > of

> > > > > ALL cancers, Aids, diabetis, etc..

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't see that it is my place to disprove hulda clarkes cures.

> > I

> > > > > think it would be her, or her spokepeole's place to prove that

> > > they

> > > > > do work. If something this simple worked it could be easily

> > > proven by

> > > > > virtually anyone including most laypeople.

> > > > >

> > > > > Clarke and her operation have all the earmarks to me of fraud,

> > > > > although that is my personal opinion. When I read one of her

> > > books,

> > > > > my impression of it was that this person doesn't have a clue

> > about

> > > > > what she is talking about. If fact if it were not for the sad

> > > state

> > > > > of who she were exploiting she would be laughable.

> > > > >

> > > > > attached below is just one opinion on her, given by the founder

> > of

> > > > > Bayster university (completely naturopathic).

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't know of one any serious name in natural healing who

> > would

> > > > > consider her or her claims seriously.

> > > > >

> > > > > And yes, I do think that natural methods have great promise to

> > > help

> > > > > cure cancer and many other diseases, but claims like her's just

> > > make

> > > > > all seriouse attempts to bring natural methods to the fore look

> > > bad

> > > > > by association and end up being lumped with these type claims

> > by

> > > the

> > > > > public at large.

> > > > >

> > > > > Below is a statment filed in court. There have been others, but

> > > here

> > > > > is one. It is by one of the top spokemen FOR natural nutritional

> >

> > > > > methods.

> > > > >

> > > > > respectfully,

> > > > > Frank

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > While I do ternd to suspect that Dr. Hulda Clarke's

> > methods

> > > &

> > > > theories are probably not much more than hot air, the 2 court

> > > depositions

> > > > you posted, Frank, have left me scrathing my head. Unless I

> > missed

> > > > something, neither of the depositions actually talked about any

> > > reputable

> > > > scientist actually testing Dr.Clarke's zapper in any way. I am

> > > very

> > > > suspicious of " science " which dismisses anything without applying

> > > scientific

> > > > experimentation. I suspecther theories about flukes causing

> > cancer

> > > are far

> > > > fetched, but without scientists testing her zapper, I am left

> > > wondering if

> > > > her methods might have some merit even though her theoretical

> > > beliefs might

> > > > be full of hooey.

> > > >

> > > > Likewise criticizing Dr. Clarke's latin as a way of

> > > discrediting her

> > > > paristological investigations is pretty bogus. It is quite

> > > possible to be

> > > > ignorant of the niceties in any field of endeavor & still have

> > > something

> > > > worthwhile to contribute. Criticizing Dr.Clarke's latin comes

> > > very close

> > > > (IMO) to an Ad Hominin Attack - Stating that an argument of the

> > > opposing

> > > > person is invalid because of that person's poor character.

> > > >

> > > > When I was in high school I was told that Hall --who

> > > extracted

> > > > Aluminum from fused (molten) bauxite -- was able to run his

> > > experiments

> > > > because the proferssor was away for term break & Hall had the run

> > > of the

> > > > lab. Had the professor been there, he would have forbidden the

> > > experiments

> > > > (according to my Chemistry teacher) because the prof was convinced

> >

> > > they

> > > > would have been futile & expensive to run.

> > > >

> > > > Again, not saying Dr. Clarke is necessarily correct in her

> >

> > > > assertions. Just saying I would rest easier if her tools were

> > > tested

> > > > instead of being dismissed because here credentials are lacking or

> >

> > > she makes

> > > > claims which are over-statements (at best).

> > > >

> > > > Alobar

> > > >

> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > > > " My dear Kepler, what do you say of the leading philosophers here

> > > > to whom I have offered a thousand times of my own accord to

> > > > show my studies, but who, with the lazy obstinacy of a serpent

> > > > who has eaten his fill, have never consented to look at the

> > planets,

> > > > or moon, or telescope? "

> > > >

> > > > --Galileo Galilei in a letter to Johannes Kepler

> > >

> > > Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health

> >

> > > and well being.

> > >

> > > To learn more about the Gettingwell group,

> > > Subscription and list archives are at:

> > > Gettingwell

> > >

> > > To receive NO EMAIL from group, but stay a member,which will allow

> > you to still read all of the posts at group site. Send message: " No

> > Mail " . Gettingwell-owner

> > >

April 13, 2002

Yes, some in the media put out misinformation according to their biases, but to

say that all the media is biased in favour of the forces of evil is foolish.

Morton

Alobar wrote:

> And who is behind the spin doctors if not the people who profit from

> the mis-information the media gives out?

>

> Alobar

>

> -

> " John Polifronio " <counterpnt

>

> Friday, April 12, 2002 3:44 PM

> Re: Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be cured!

>

> >

> > -

> > " fmn " <fmn

> >

> > Friday, April 12, 2002 11:00 AM

> > Re: Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be cured!

> >

> > " The whole system desperately needs a good shake-up. All it would take,

> is

> > public awareness... "

> >

> > It has gotten to the point, that I have no other serious message to bring

> to

> > people, on the general matter of how our major institutions (politics,

> > business, education, medicine, etc.) behave and treat people, than that

> > media are at the very heart of what is most wrong with our society. There

> > is no area where our country would make greater, positive progress, than

> > would result from serious reform of mass media.

> > All the intellectual bullies in our society, use mass media to force their

> > will and ways on people, but just as importantly, cleverly see to it that

> > dissenting views are all but completely suppressed. Media professionals

> and

> > the media bosses they work for are not innocent bystanders. They

> > participate, crucially, indispensably, in this mass delusion and

> deception.

> >

>

> Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health

> and well being.

>

> To learn more about the Gettingwell group,

> Subscription and list archives are at:

> Gettingwell

>

> To receive NO EMAIL from group, but stay a member,which will allow you to

still read all of the posts at group site. Send message: " No Mail " . To:

Gettingwell-owner

>

April 13, 2002

Sorry, but some " people like us on the list " are, though well-meaning, are quite

misinformed. And to propagate misinformation just to salve our egos is criminal.

Science still must be

put to the test. As the saying goes, the truth will out.

Morton

BonnieBar wrote:

> That sound as though it should be true, but let's face it. There are many

> ways to cure and if it's natural (knowledge to pass along) the path is beaten

> by folks like us on the list. Big company's don't get involved unless

> there's a profit.

> BonnieB

>

> In a message dated 4/11/2002 10:32:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> mortonmb writes:

>

> <<

> If someone does really have a valid, reputable cure for something, then that

> person should have enough confidence and concern and pride to bring it to the

> establishment, to allow it

> to proven by unbiased testing, double-blind tests, or whatever. If it is

> truly valid, then no amount of testing will prove it to be false and it will

> be written up in the esteemed

> medical journals of the world. The world will beat a path to her door. Do

> you want me to go on, or do you get the idea?

> Morton

> >>

>

> Getting well is done one step at a time, day by day, building health

> and well being.

>

> To learn more about the Gettingwell group,

> Subscription and list archives are at:

> Gettingwell

>

> To receive NO EMAIL from group, but stay a member,which will allow you to

still read all of the posts at group site. Send message: " No Mail " . To:

Gettingwell-owner

>

April 13, 2002

Hi John! Ah, yes! Just where to start? The primary media is in so few

hands, and the worldview is thus controled. I don't know that this can

be changed, but " media literacy " is one way. " Who profits from my

beleiving this? " " Is this a biased story? " " Am I being manipulated or

deceived? " " What am I not being told? " are useful questions. We've all

been too trusting. All our Institutions strive to hold together what

may be a mass delusion. Beleiving that these Institutions work in our

interest is naive. Do any of them? " Follow the money " is also a useful

lead. Who funds them? Who might profit? Who else have " spokespersons "

worked for, been funded by, hope to work for? It may be that we have to

assume deception, vested interests, and manipulation. The best

disinformation techniques involve an element of truth, and this may be a

silver line we can follow into alternate media for context, background,

and differing perspectives. " Always question everything " may be the

best policy. Steve

John Polifronio wrote:

>

> -

> " fmn " <fmn

>

> Friday, April 12, 2002 11:00 AM

> Re: Re: Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be

> cured!

>

> " The whole system desperately needs a good shake-up. All it would

> take, is

> public awareness... "

>

> It has gotten to the point, that I have no other serious message to

> bring to

> people, on the general matter of how our major institutions (politics,

>

> business, education, medicine, etc.) behave and treat people, than

> that

> media are at the very heart of what is most wrong with our society.

> There

> is no area where our country would make greater, positive progress,

> than

> would result from serious reform of mass media.

> All the intellectual bullies in our society, use mass media to force

> their

> will and ways on people, but just as importantly, cleverly see to it

> that

> dissenting views are all but completely suppressed. Media

> professionals and

> the media bosses they work for are not innocent bystanders. They

> participate, crucially, indispensably, in this mass delusion and

> deception.

>

April 18, 2002

In a message dated 12/04/02 04:03:23 GMT Daylight Time, BonnieBar

writes:

> That sound as though it should be true, but let's face it. There are many

> ways to cure and if it's natural (knowledge to pass along) the path is

> beaten

> by folks like us on the list. Big company's don't get involved unless

> there's a profit.

> BonnieB

>

But you are so wrong Bonnie, if there is no profit but it does cure, the big

(drug) companies do get involved - to get the 'cure' banned.

Marianne

Dr. Hulda Clark - Cancer can now be cured!

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads