Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Yes, the Cure Library is an interesting site, and even has some good info. Too bad it buys heavily into the bogus claims and protocol of one of alternative medicine's biggest charlatans: Hulda Clark. That rips it for me, right there! Clarks liver cleanses are good, but that does not excuse her track record of rip-offs and chicanery. According to court records, Clark's books alonehave generated over $7 million in sales - and that does not include her " treatments " for all the patients diagnosed with cancer or HIV or whatever with her " synchrometer " . She screwed the pooch when she used the synchrometer to diagnose an undercover investigator for the Indiana Department of Health with HIV, then told him that a 3 mintute zapper treatment had cured him, but that he would have to come back for 6 more treatments to keep it from returning. When she found out he was an agents, Clark told him that her earlier information was a mistake. Hulda Clark . . . . synchrometer, universal flukes . . . ROFLMAO! I could go on and on here about Clark, but I will leave it at this unless someone wants to get totally annihilated in a debate on the subject of Hulda Clark - it is one I know well! oleander soup , robert-blau wrote: > > Interesting site, big cancer section . . . > > The Cure Library » Cures from around the world > http://www.curelibrary.com/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Cough, cough, cough. ;o) Well...I used the Clark zapper as part of my cancer protocol. I still zap but use a somewhat different type now. The protocol that my doc had me on was extensive and I used a lot of supplements, diet and modalities that many would scoff at. Believe me when I say a lot of people were standing around with their arms folded as if to say, " Whatever! " However, I have been well for 7 years. People often asked what I think really did the trick. I always reply that I believe that everything worked together synergistically in order to bring my body back into health. I believe that I used everything that I was supposed to use. And I worked on my emotional health, allowing myself to believe that I really could get well. I guess I am a little surprised, Tony. There are a lot of modalities that " seem " like quackery and possibly oleander soup would be put into that category by many. However, I have been " thinking out of the box " long enough to know that there are a lot of modalities that will help with cancer but there is no one thing that does it on its own. Why?---because the emotional aspect of cancer always, always enters in to the equation along with so healthy diet, exercise, etc. So many who are fighting cancer forget or absolutely refuse to deal with their emotions. I won't say I know the story " quite well " as you say---however, I do know the story. But, again, this is the oleander soup group, right? LOL! Happy 4th to everyone!! Looks like it will be rainy here in the Houston area---just what we need, more mosquitoes! Be Well~ Loretta Yes, the Cure Library is an interesting site, and even has some good info. Too bad it buys heavily into the bogus claims and protocol of one of alternative medicine's biggest charlatans: Hulda Clark. That rips it for me, right there! Clarks liver cleanses are good, but that does not excuse her track record of rip-offs and chicanery. According to court records, Clark's books alonehave generated over $7 million in sales - and that does not include her " treatments " for all the patients diagnosed with cancer or HIV or whatever with her " synchrometer " . She screwed the pooch when she used the synchrometer to diagnose an undercover investigator for the Indiana Department of Health with HIV, then told him that a 3 mintute zapper treatment had cured him, but that he would have to come back for 6 more treatments to keep it from returning. When she found out he was an agents, Clark told him that her earlier information was a mistake. Hulda Clark . . . . synchrometer, universal flukes . . . ROFLMAO! I could go on and on here about Clark, but I will leave it at this unless someone wants to get totally annihilated in a debate on the subject of Hulda Clark - it is one I know well! Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Never be surprised to see me come down on a charlatan and a fraud who causes the entire field of natural health practitioners and supporters to be looked upon with suspicion. I would do the same for anyone who used oleander fraudulently - and as a matter of fact, I did just that when I helped expose the Shimoda Atlantic fake cancer company and fake cancer drug scam - and as a result had hired thugs come looking for me, was threatened with numerous lawsuits (and worse) and had this forum infiltrated and attacked from within and without. OK, Hulda Clark. I know that there are a lot of Clark fans, but that does not alter the fact that she is a charlatan who engaged in unethical practices to prey on her patients for the sake of making a buck (actually quite a few bucks). Yes, she did get SOME things right in " A Cure for All Cancers " , although I have to agree with Dr. Ray Sahelian when he labels it " a pitiful book " . Likewise, her protocol has SOME good things in it such as the diet cleanup and liver flush which could help beat cancer. However, her parasite claims are absurd and her Synchrometer is the kind of voodoo nonsense that enables the FDA and mainstream quackbusters to label legitimate natural and alternative treatments with the same brush Clark handed them a bucket full of paint for. No matter how fond of you may be of Clark, whether her protocol might have worked for you or someone you know, or how much you might tend to sympathize, as I do, with anyone the FDA comes against, her record speaks for itself. Although Wikipedia is not always the source of the most accurate information, in the case of Doctor Clark, their information checks out to be quite accurate (so before anyone lets emotions or prejudices holds sway, or condemns the following information simply because they don't like where it came from, check out the annotated references first! Facts are facts, no matter where you find them): Legal issues In 1993, while Clark lived and practiced in Indiana, a former patient complained to the Indiana attorney general. An investigator for the Indiana Department of Health and a deputy attorney general visited her office incognito as part of a sting operation. Clark proceeded to test the investigator and " told him he had the HIV virus [sic], but said that he did not have cancer. " She told the investigator that she could cure his HIV in 3 minutes, but that he would " get it back " unless he committed to returning for six more appointments. She then ordered blood tests from a laboratory. Upon learning of the undercover investigators' status, Clark stated that everything she had told them had been a " mistake " .[13] In September 1999, Clark was found and arrested in San Diego, California, based on a fugitive warrant from Indiana. She was returned to Indiana to stand trial, where she was charged with practicing medicine without a license. The charge was later dismissed for failure of speedy trial. The judge's verdict did not address the merits of the charges but only the issue of whether the delay had compromised Clark's ability to mount a defense and her right to a speedy trial.[2] In February 2001, Mexican authorities inspected Clark's Century Nutrition clinic and ordered it shut down, as the clinic had never registered and was operating without a license. In June 2001, the Mexican authorities announced that the clinic would be permitted to reopen, but was prohibited from offering " alternative " treatments. The clinic was also fined 160,000 pesos (about $18,000), and Clark was barred from working in Mexico, even as a consultant; however, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported in 2003 that there was evidence that Clark continued to work at the clinic.[11] Evaluation of claims and criticism: Hulda Clark has been criticized because her claims lack scientific validity and consist of anecdotal evidence. Joseph Pizzorno, a prominent naturopathic physician, evaluated Clark's claims and found that her books mixed patients with conventionally diagnosed cancer with those whose cancer diagnosis was based solely on her use of the " Syncrometer " . The patients with medically diagnosed cancer did not respond to Clark's treatment, while those she had diagnosed using the " Syncrometer " were " cured " . Pizzorno concluded that Clark's treatments were ineffective and that treatments based on Clark's recommendations " pose a substantive public health danger " .[14] The Swiss Study Group for Complementary and Alternative Methods in Cancer (SCAC) issued a strong warning to cancer patients considering Clark's methods:[15] There is no scientific basis for Hulda Clark's hypotheses and recommendations, including her suggested treatments. The parasite Fasciolopsis buskii does in fact exist, but only in Asian countries, so that an infection in our country is ruled out. Consequently, this parasite does not enter into consideration as a cause of the numerous cases of cancer in the Western countries; at most, it might be one of several causes of liver cancer (and only for this type of cancer) in the Asian countries. As a whole, Clark's thesis cannot be comprehended, nor is it proven. In individual cases, her advice can be very extensive and costly. Hence if patients do not apply her method consistently and their disease continues to progress, they run the risk of attempting to blame themselves for this, rather than Clark's treatment which is ineffective, as viewed at present. Prominent alternative medicine proponent Andrew Weil has written, " No studies have backed up [Clark's] bizarre claims, and it's unclear whether the cancer patients she's supposedly cured ever had cancer to begin with. " [16] In 2002, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that Clark and her son Geoff operated a restaurant and leased housing for patients at Clark's Tijuana clinic. The article described a couple whose daughter, suffering from spinal muscular atrophy, was treated for 10 months by Clark at a cost of approximately $30,000 without improvement. Despite the cost and lack of improvement, the couple stated that Clark insisted she was close to curing the child, and that stopping treatment might endanger her.[2] The patient's mother stated: People don't understand why we stayed so long, but Hulda Clark did a very good job of preying on us. While stating she could not respond to the parents' allegations on grounds of patient confidentiality, Clark denied their statements in general.[2] References: 1. ^ a b c d e f " The 95 percent promise? Complaints trail entrepreneur, who claims remarkable cure rate " , by Penni Crabtree and Sandra Dibble. Published in the San Diego Union-Tribune on February 24, 2002. Accessed March 7, 2007. 2. ^ Hulda Clark biographical sketch. 3. ^ " State's diploma mills draw academic ire " , by Adam Jones. Published 11 Feb 2007. Accessed 14 Feb 2007. 4. ^ The Cure For All Diseases 5. ^ Disclaimer from David Amrein's website, drclark.net. Accessed 15 Feb 2007. 6. ^ A second disclaimer from Amrein's website, drclark.net. Accessed 15 Feb 2007. 7. ^ As quoted in a page capture from www.drclark.net in a Federal Trade Commission complaint against David Amrein's Dr. Clark Research Association. Accessed 27 Dec 2006. 8. ^ Clark HR. The Cure for All Cancers. San Diego, CA: ProMotion Publishing, 1993, p. 120. 9. ^ Furrer M, Naegeli B, Bertel O (2004). " Hazards of an alternative medicine device in a patient with a pacemaker " . N Engl J Med 350 (16): 1688-90. PMID 15084709. 10. ^ a b " FTC sues over health claims " , by Penni Crabtree. Published in the San Diego Union-Tribune on January 29, 2003. Accessed March 7, 2007. 11. ^ STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF, Civ. No. l:03CV0054. Decision of the United States District Court for the Northern Division of Ohio, Eastern Division, dated November 18, 2004. Accessed March 7, 2007. 12. ^ State of Indiana vs. Hulda Clark: Probable Cause Affidavit, Filed August 16, 1993 13. ^ Western Herb and Dietary Products: Evaluation by Dr. Joseph E. Pizzorno, N.D. May 8, 2001. Accessed 15 Feb 2007. 14. ^ Swiss Study Group for Complementary and Alternative Methods in Cancer (SCAC) warns cancer patients against reliance on Clark's methods. 15. ^ Exploring Alternative Cancer Treatments, from Dr. Andrew Weil's Self Healing. Accessed May 4, 2007. oleander soup , " Dr. Loretta Lanphier " <drlanphier wrote: > > Cough, cough, cough. ;o) > > Well...I used the Clark zapper as part of my cancer protocol. I still zap > but use a somewhat different type now. The protocol that my doc had me on > was extensive and I used a lot of supplements, diet and modalities that many > would scoff at. Believe me when I say a lot of people were standing around > with their arms folded as if to say, " Whatever! " > > However, I have been well for 7 years. People often asked what I think > really did the trick. I always reply that I believe that everything worked > together synergistically in order to bring my body back into health. I > believe that I used everything that I was supposed to use. And I worked on > my emotional health, allowing myself to believe that I really could get > well. > > I guess I am a little surprised, Tony. There are a lot of modalities that > " seem " like quackery and possibly oleander soup would be put into that > category by many. However, I have been " thinking out of the box " long > enough to know that there are a lot of modalities that will help with cancer > but there is no one thing that does it on its own. Why?---because the > emotional aspect of cancer always, always enters in to the equation along > with so healthy diet, exercise, etc. So many who are fighting cancer forget > or absolutely refuse to deal with their emotions. > > I won't say I know the story " quite well " as you say---however, I do know > the story. But, again, this is the oleander soup group, right? LOL! > > Happy 4th to everyone!! Looks like it will be rainy here in the Houston > area---just what we need, more mosquitoes! > > Be Well~ > Loretta > > > > > > Yes, the Cure Library is an interesting site, and even has some good > info. Too bad it buys heavily into the bogus claims and protocol of > one of alternative medicine's biggest charlatans: Hulda Clark. That > rips it for me, right there! > > Clarks liver cleanses are good, but that does not excuse her track > record of rip-offs and chicanery. > > According to court records, Clark's books alonehave generated over $7 > million in sales - and that does not include her " treatments " for all > the patients diagnosed with cancer or HIV or whatever with her > " synchrometer " . > > She screwed the pooch when she used the synchrometer to diagnose an > undercover investigator for the Indiana Department of Health with HIV, > then told him that a 3 mintute zapper treatment had cured him, but > that he would have to come back for 6 more treatments to keep it from > returning. > > When she found out he was an agents, Clark told him that her earlier > information was a mistake. > > Hulda Clark . . . . synchrometer, universal flukes . . . ROFLMAO! > > I could go on and on here about Clark, but I will leave it at this > unless someone wants to get totally annihilated in a debate on the > subject of Hulda Clark - it is one I know well! > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Tony, have you ever had someone completely misinterpret what you told them or describe a happening, that you both witnessed, in a completely different manner than what you thought you saw? I have. Have you ever had to deal with the FDA or experience what they can legally do to a company/practitioner and how they can ruin a person not only financially but also professionally? I have not---but know people who have come under this Gestapo type activity. Nothing in natural medicine is “proven” just as chemo/radiation is not proven. Yet it is still used---some get a response and most die. With natural medicine most get a response and many, many live without having to fear complications later on in life from a toxic treatment. However, conventional medicine considers nothing in alternative medicine as scientific. Do we make science a god or do we accept that our “science” could be flawed? I also saw the site about the fake cancer company and I thought that the people actually came after David from Minnesota Wellness I didn’t realize that you were also involved. Wow! I recognized they were a scam when I first saw that they were supposedly making available a chemo drug in an over-the-counter manner. I knew there was no way to get this drug without a prescription and that it was not available in pill form but only in IV form I do a lot of research and saw their site before anyone started doing anything about it. Now, those type of people, need to be hung up by their toes!! They are purposefully preying on and taking advantage of people who are sick and desperate. One thing I have found in natural medicine—possibly you have seen this, also. People in natural medicine can be just as mean-spirited and vindictive toward each other as the people that I described in the above paragraph. There is a lot of “in-fighting” about who is correct and who is not, who is qualified and who is not, who gets more attention, who came up with what first, whose treatment is the best, etc. I’m sure that Big Pharma really loves this as it takes our focus off of where the “fight” really is. There are a lot of people that will go after practitioners simply because they “think” they are doing a huge service to everyone. Like it is their civic duty to get these evil people off the streets and they will do whatever it takes. Too bad we are not as diligent with conventional medicine---we just keep going back for more and more and continue to get sicker and sicker. No one gets it right every time and, I do believe, that some are here to blaze a path for others to follow. Most new ideas are highly ridiculed at first and are not accepted until a long time in the future. Make no mistake about it, the FDA and quackbusters are going to find something wrong with everything that is not out of Big Pharma’s mouth or that does not make them money. We all know this. I don’t care what the likes of Stephen Barrett or others say, their ridiculous conclusions are very transparent. I also don’t especially fare well with the conventional docs that have one foot in allopathic and one foot in natural medicine. Most want the best of both worlds. However, conventional medicine and natural medicine are complete opposites no matter how much some would have us believe that they should “mesh.” The premise for each is no where near the same. Dr. Sahelian and Dr Weil are some examples of this. Dr Weil has no idea of what a truly healing diet is but he does give some good advice in other matters. I am not saying they are not good doctors, but I wouldn’t put them up to run as spokesmen for natural medicine, either. Again, no one has it just right and we are not always going to agree on everything I believe there are “holes” in all the instances that are sighted by Wikipedia about Dr. Clark. By holes I mean that possibly the complete story is not given or very well could be that all the facts have never been completely given for the public to know. You are correct in that Wikipedia is not always a good source and suspect at best, many times. I could tell some stories about the chiro that helped me heal from cancer. Stories that I watched unfold as I was doing my internship and the untruths that get told because people want fast and complete healing with natural medicine, even though they did not get that with conventional medicine and even though they resist following a protocol that insists upon a complete lifestyle change. There are some (past patients) that would probably call him a quack. He is not a quack, but instead a doc way, way before his time. There are many out there just like him. Alternative practitioners are a lot easier to ruin professionally and bring down than conventional medicine. And people hold alternative medicine to a much higher standard than conventional. As I said before, many decide that it is their mission in life to bring a practitioner down who was unable to produce the results that they wanted as in “let’s definitely put this quack out of business.” So much goes on behind the scenes that most never know about. When I hear of a family successfully suing an oncologist because their loved one died from the toxic effects of chemo, then just maybe the playing field will tilt a little toward being level. Until that happens---it is not level at all. Those alternative practitioners that work with cancer patients must be very, very careful with not only what they say but how they say it and to “whom” they are saying it to---they never know who they are dealing with. We also must remember that what works for one doesn’t always work for everyone, but people have the mindset that it should. There are many modalities that work in natural medicine but a person must be willing to give it time When the body heals naturally it takes time. However, most are impatient and very quick to say something is quackery without allowing for the time factor. It took me 8 months to heal from stage 3 colon cancer. I have seen it take a couple of years for others to heal. Why? Because we must take into consideration mind, body and spirit. And we must also factor in compliance to the protocol. For instance, I have seen women who want to use natural progesterone for pre-menopausal symptoms. They use it one whole month (even though they are told that it can take 3-6 months for the body to begin to fully utilize it) don’t get much relief and then tell everyone that will listen that they tried natural HRT for their hormonal symptoms and it just DID NOT WORK. LOL! There have been some very good things come from Hulda Clark, as you definitely allude to. She has a great blood lab table in one of her books that I use all the time. And one thing that I like about her is that she says cholesterol should be 200 plus the person’s age. Now, tell that to your cardiologist and they WILL have a heart attack! And I’m sure there are quite possibly some things that she didn’t do well---I have never met her personally therefore I don’t know her motives and I have learned that second-hand stories are almost never the complete truth---usually a mixture of truth and lies. However, I do know that she took a chance and put her findings out there in more than several books. Most charlatans are just not that brave. Certainly, when looking for an alternative cancer protocol, one must do thorough research, educate themselves (this is not only the first step toward healing but also very empowering), take ownership of their illness and also take responsibility for it. No one knows your body better than you do. There are just no magic bullets and if someone says indicate they have a magic bullet then you quite possibly need to run in the opposite direction. Cancer is a whole body illness and thus the whole body must be treated. I, too, get angry, Tony, when I see natural medicine being put down because of the sloppy work of someone or because someone is misrepresenting themselves and their work or what their capabilities are for helping people to get well. But I have realized that sometimes these people, who are so severely criticized and “seem” guilty, have gotten the short end of the stick and just possibly there are situations that went on in which the public is not privy to. Again, I have seen this happen to more than a few practitioners. They were made to look like very evil people and they just were not. We are all entitled to our opinions. One thing I do know---and that is that we must be willing to step of the box when it comes to beating cancer. We must be open, but also very wise. We must be willing to walk the path that is least trod because, more times than not, that is the path where the answer resides. That’s what happened with me---God put me on a path that I would have NEVER willingly took and it has been nothing short of amazing! Ok…I’m up way too late but allowing myself this since I don’t have to work tomorrow. You and I are on the very same side, Tony, and I enjoy hearing other people’s opinions and discussing issues. Thanks for all your thoughts on the matter. Have a great holiday. Be Well Loretta oleander soup oleander soup On Behalf Of Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:44 PM oleander soup Re: The Cure Library and Hulda Clark Never be surprised to see me come down on a charlatan and a fraud who causes the entire field of natural health practitioners and supporters to be looked upon with suspicion. I would do the same for anyone who used oleander fraudulently - and as a matter of fact, I did just that when I helped expose the Shimoda Atlantic fake cancer company and fake cancer drug scam - and as a result had hired thugs come looking for me, was threatened with numerous lawsuits (and worse) and had this forum infiltrated and attacked from within and without. OK, Hulda Clark. I know that there are a lot of Clark fans, but that does not alter the fact that she is a charlatan who engaged in unethical practices to prey on her patients for the sake of making a buck (actually quite a few bucks). Yes, she did get SOME things right in " A Cure for All Cancers " , although I have to agree with Dr. Ray Sahelian when he labels it " a pitiful book " . Likewise, her protocol has SOME good things in it such as the diet cleanup and liver flush which could help beat cancer. However, her parasite claims are absurd and her Synchrometer is the kind of voodoo nonsense that enables the FDA and mainstream quackbusters to label legitimate natural and alternative treatments with the same brush Clark handed them a bucket full of paint for. No matter how fond of you may be of Clark, whether her protocol might have worked for you or someone you know, or how much you might tend to sympathize, as I do, with anyone the FDA comes against, her record speaks for itself. Although Wikipedia is not always the source of the most accurate information, in the case of Doctor Clark, their information checks out to be quite accurate (so before anyone lets emotions or prejudices holds sway, or condemns the following information simply because they don't like where it came from, check out the annotated references first! Facts are facts, no matter where you find them): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 She actually is a dark entity so she has some powers but negative ones..Just my 2 cents JaniceTony wrote: Yes, the Cure Library is an interesting site, and even has some good info. Too bad it buys heavily into the bogus claims and protocol of one of alternative medicine's biggest charlatans: Hulda Clark. That rips it for me, right there! Clarks liver cleanses are good, but that does not excuse her track record of rip-offs and chicanery. According to court records, Clark's books alonehave generated over $7 million in sales - and that does not include her "treatments" for all the patients diagnosed with cancer or HIV or whatever with her "synchrometer". She screwed the pooch when she used the synchrometer to diagnose an undercover investigator for the Indiana Department of Health with HIV, then told him that a 3 mintute zapper treatment had cured him, but that he would have to come back for 6 more treatments to keep it from returning. When she found out he was an agents, Clark told him that her earlier information was a mistake. Hulda Clark . . . . synchrometer, universal flukes . . . ROFLMAO! I could go on and on here about Clark, but I will leave it at this unless someone wants to get totally annihilated in a debate on the subject of Hulda Clark - it is one I know well! Tony oleander soup , robert-blau wrote: > > Interesting site, big cancer section . . . > > The Cure Library » Cures from around the world > http://www.curelibrary.com/ > Bored stiff? Loosen up...Download and play hundreds of games for free on Games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Clark's idea that ALL cancers are caused by either her fluke or exposure to isopropyl alchohol is just nuts! I followed up on the major references to Clark. If anything, she is worse than Wikipedia makes her out to be. Unlike you, Clark has studied under no one and has no credentials. She has a PhD in crab physiology from 1958 and a mail order ND degree from an unaccredited college. Her Tiajuana clinic where it costs up to $15,000 per week is an armpit in a bad part of town where the only drugs sold are through the windows of cars - and the only " cures " are for conditions diagnosed by the " syncrometer " . Regardless of their credentials for representing natural healing, both Weil and Pizzomo quite correctly point out that it is unclear that the patients Clark diagnosed with her " syncrometer " had cancer to begin with, whereas NONE of the ones who were medically diagnosed with cancer responded to her treatment. So what if some of her work has validity? Hard to keep up the charade of ripping people off otherwise. No matter how much she may have gotten right, she gave in to the dark side and let greed drive her and so I reject her totally. On to the cancer scams - the website you refer to was just one of several belonging to Arthur VanMoor. It was David who exposed him and was the subject of his lawsuits and harassment. I merely did a bit of preliminary investigating after being tipped off by a friend, determined the Flu Fighter and Cancer Cure sites were bogus, and passed on the info to David, who conducted an in depth investigation and reported about it in his newsletter. Then it was picked up by Dr. Ralph Moss and, after that, Fox News, who claimed all the credit. I was mentioned in the court proceedings and my name is on one of VanMoor;s zany response websites, but he never came after me. And THAT is not the case I was referring too. The one I was referring to was the Shimoda-Atlantic scam and their fake cancer drug Xenavex - masterminded by a multiple felon who was a white supremicist linked to east coast syndicates and the Oklahoma City bombing (where he is still wanted on a bench warrant for failure to appear in the Terry Nichols trial). It was a fun period for awhile, jumping at things that went bump in the dark! oleander soup , " Dr. Loretta Lanphier " <drlanphier wrote: > > Tony, have you ever had someone completely misinterpret what you told them > or describe a happening, that you both witnessed, in a completely different > manner than what you thought you saw? I have. Have you ever had to deal > with the FDA or experience what they can legally do to a > company/practitioner and how they can ruin a person not only financially but > also professionally? I have not---but know people who have come under this > Gestapo type activity. Nothing in natural medicine is " proven " just as > chemo/radiation is not proven. Yet it is still used---some get a response > and most die. With natural medicine most get a response and many, many live > without having to fear complications later on in life from a toxic > treatment. However, conventional medicine considers nothing in alternative > medicine as scientific. Do we make science a god or do we accept that our > " science " could be flawed? > > I also saw the site about the fake cancer company and I thought that the > people actually came after David from Minnesota Wellness. I didn't realize > that you were also involved. Wow! I recognized they were a scam when I > first saw that they were supposedly making available a chemo drug in an > over-the-counter manner. I knew there was no way to get this drug without a > prescription and that it was not available in pill form but only in IV form. > I do a lot of research and saw their site before anyone started doing > anything about it. Now, those type of people, need to be hung up by their > toes!! They are purposefully preying on and taking advantage of people who > are sick and desperate. > > One thing I have found in natural medicine-possibly you have seen this, > also. People in natural medicine can be just as mean-spirited and > vindictive toward each other as the people that I described in the above > paragraph. There is a lot of " in-fighting " about who is correct and who is > not, who is qualified and who is not, who gets more attention, who came up > with what first, whose treatment is the best, etc. I'm sure that Big Pharma > really loves this as it takes our focus off of where the " fight " really is. > There are a lot of people that will go after practitioners simply because > they " think " they are doing a huge service to everyone. Like it is their > civic duty to get these evil people off the streets and they will do > whatever it takes. Too bad we are not as diligent with conventional > medicine---we just keep going back for more and more and continue to get > sicker and sicker. No one gets it right every time and, I do believe, that > some are here to blaze a path for others to follow. Most new ideas are > highly ridiculed at first and are not accepted until a long time in the > future. > > Make no mistake about it, the FDA and quackbusters are going to find > something wrong with everything that is not out of Big Pharma's mouth or > that does not make them money. We all know this. I don't care what the > likes of Stephen Barrett or others say, their ridiculous conclusions are > very transparent. I also don't especially fare well with the conventional > docs that have one foot in allopathic and one foot in natural medicine. Most > want the best of both worlds. However, conventional medicine and natural > medicine are complete opposites no matter how much some would have us > believe that they should " mesh. " The premise for each is no where near the > same. Dr. Sahelian and Dr. Weil are some examples of this. Dr. Weil has no > idea of what a truly healing diet is but he does give some good advice in > other matters. I am not saying they are not good doctors, but I wouldn't > put them up to run as spokesmen for natural medicine, either. Again, no one > has it just right and we are not always going to agree on everything. > > I believe there are " holes " in all the instances that are sighted by > Wikipedia about Dr. Clark. By holes I mean that possibly the complete story > is not given or very well could be that all the facts have never been > completely given for the public to know. You are correct in that Wikipedia > is not always a good source and suspect at best, many times. > > I could tell some stories about the chiro that helped me heal from cancer. > Stories that I watched unfold as I was doing my internship and the untruths > that get told because people want fast and complete healing with natural > medicine, even though they did not get that with conventional medicine and > even though they resist following a protocol that insists upon a complete > lifestyle change. There are some (past patients) that would probably call > him a quack. He is not a quack, but instead a doc way, way before his time. > There are many out there just like him. Alternative practitioners are a > lot easier to ruin professionally and bring down than conventional medicine. > And people hold alternative medicine to a much higher standard than > conventional. As I said before, many decide that it is their mission in > life to bring a practitioner down who was unable to produce the results that > they wanted as in " let's definitely put this quack out of business. " So much > goes on behind the scenes that most never know about. > > When I hear of a family successfully suing an oncologist because their loved > one died from the toxic effects of chemo, then just maybe the playing field > will tilt a little toward being level. Until that happens---it is not level > at all. Those alternative practitioners that work with cancer patients must > be very, very careful with not only what they say but how they say it and to > " whom " they are saying it to---they never know who they are dealing with. > We also must remember that what works for one doesn't always work for > everyone, but people have the mindset that it should. There are many > modalities that work in natural medicine but a person must be willing to > give it time When the body heals naturally it takes time. However, most > are impatient and very quick to say something is quackery without allowing > for the time factor. It took me 8 months to heal from stage 3 colon cancer. > I have seen it take a couple of years for others to heal. Why? Because we > must take into consideration mind, body and spirit. And we must also factor > in compliance to the protocol. For instance, I have seen women who want to > use natural progesterone for pre-menopausal symptoms. They use it one whole > month (even though they are told that it can take 3-6 months for the body to > begin to fully utilize it) don't get much relief and then tell everyone that > will listen that they tried natural HRT for their hormonal symptoms and it > just DID NOT WORK. LOL! > > There have been some very good things come from Hulda Clark, as you > definitely allude to. She has a great blood lab table in one of her books > that I use all the time. And one thing that I like about her is that she > says cholesterol should be 200 plus the person's age. Now, tell that to > your cardiologist and they WILL have a heart attack! And I'm sure there are > quite possibly some things that she didn't do well---I have never met her > personally therefore I don't know her motives and I have learned that > second-hand stories are almost never the complete truth---usually a mixture > of truth and lies. However, I do know that she took a chance and put her > findings out there in more than several books. Most charlatans are just not > that brave. > > Certainly, when looking for an alternative cancer protocol, one must do > thorough research, educate themselves (this is not only the first step > toward healing but also very empowering), take ownership of their illness > and also take responsibility for it. No one knows your body better than you > do. There are just no magic bullets and if someone says indicate they have > a magic bullet then you quite possibly need to run in the opposite > direction. Cancer is a whole body illness and thus the whole body must be > treated. > > I, too, get angry, Tony, when I see natural medicine being put down because > of the sloppy work of someone or because someone is misrepresenting > themselves and their work or what their capabilities are for helping people > to get well. But I have realized that sometimes these people, who are so > severely criticized and " seem " guilty, have gotten the short end of the > stick and just possibly there are situations that went on in which the > public is not privy to. Again, I have seen this happen to more than a few > practitioners. They were made to look like very evil people and they just > were not. > > We are all entitled to our opinions. One thing I do know---and that is that > we must be willing to step of the box when it comes to beating cancer. We > must be open, but also very wise. We must be willing to walk the path that > is least trod because, more times than not, that is the path where the > answer resides. That's what happened with me---God put me on a path that I > would have NEVER willingly took and it has been nothing short of amazing! > > Ok.I'm up way too late but allowing myself this since I don't have to work > tomorrow. You and I are on the very same side, Tony, and I enjoy hearing > other people's opinions and discussing issues. Thanks for all your thoughts > on the matter. Have a great holiday. > > Be Well > Loretta > > > > oleander soup oleander soup On > Behalf Of > Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:44 PM > oleander soup > Re: The Cure Library and Hulda Clark > > Never be surprised to see me come down on a charlatan and a fraud who > causes the entire field of natural health practitioners and supporters > to be looked upon with suspicion. > > I would do the same for anyone who used oleander fraudulently - and as > a matter of fact, I did just that when I helped expose the Shimoda > Atlantic fake cancer company and fake cancer drug scam - and as a > result had hired thugs come looking for me, was threatened with > numerous lawsuits (and worse) and had this forum infiltrated and > attacked from within and without. > > OK, Hulda Clark. I know that there are a lot of Clark fans, but that > does not alter the fact that she is a charlatan who engaged in > unethical practices to prey on her patients for the sake of making a > buck (actually quite a few bucks). > > Yes, she did get SOME things right in " A Cure for All Cancers " , > although I have to agree with Dr. Ray Sahelian when he labels it " a > pitiful book " . Likewise, her protocol has SOME good things in it such > as the diet cleanup and liver flush which could help beat cancer. > However, her parasite claims are absurd and her Synchrometer is the > kind of voodoo nonsense that enables the FDA and mainstream > quackbusters to label legitimate natural and alternative treatments > with the same brush Clark handed them a bucket full of paint for. > > No matter how fond of you may be of Clark, whether her protocol might > have worked for you or someone you know, or how much you might tend to > sympathize, as I do, with anyone the FDA comes against, her record > speaks for itself. > > Although Wikipedia is not always the source of the most accurate > information, in the case of Doctor Clark, their information checks out > to be quite accurate (so before anyone lets emotions or prejudices > holds sway, or condemns the following information simply because they > don't like where it came from, check out the annotated references > first! Facts are facts, no matter where you find them): > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2007 Report Share Posted July 4, 2007 Absolutely - and it took me several paragraphs to say what you summed up in one sentence. oleander soup , Preferred Customer <commonsense2265 wrote: > > She actually is a dark entity so she has some powers but negative ones..Just my 2 cents Janice > > Tony wrote: Yes, the Cure Library is an interesting site, and even has some good > info. Too bad it buys heavily into the bogus claims and protocol of > one of alternative medicine's biggest charlatans: Hulda Clark. That > rips it for me, right there! > > Clarks liver cleanses are good, but that does not excuse her track > record of rip-offs and chicanery. > > According to court records, Clark's books alonehave generated over $7 > million in sales - and that does not include her " treatments " for all > the patients diagnosed with cancer or HIV or whatever with her > " synchrometer " . > > She screwed the pooch when she used the synchrometer to diagnose an > undercover investigator for the Indiana Department of Health with HIV, > then told him that a 3 mintute zapper treatment had cured him, but > that he would have to come back for 6 more treatments to keep it from > returning. > > When she found out he was an agents, Clark told him that her earlier > information was a mistake. > > Hulda Clark . . . . synchrometer, universal flukes . . . ROFLMAO! > > I could go on and on here about Clark, but I will leave it at this > unless someone wants to get totally annihilated in a debate on the > subject of Hulda Clark - it is one I know well! > > > > oleander soup , robert-blau@ wrote: > > > > Interesting site, big cancer section . . . > > > > The Cure Library » Cures from around the world > > http://www.curelibrary.com/ > > > Bored stiff? Loosen up... > Download and play hundreds of games for free on Games. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.