She looked normal for someone her age. I guess that you have a predjudice
against being old?
>- be just like her at 89!
She was just under 81 when she died. I'm 78 and when I go to my high school reunions (last one 4 months ago) I see some that don't look "old" at all, others are haggard.
>- be just like her at 89!
I have never seen anyone who looked young at 80 or 89, unless they had a face lift in the past 4 or 5 years. Even then, it was only the face that looked young.
>- medically she's still stuck in a loop of 100s of years of horrible
results in health care
She took great strides to break this loop and was successful in the eyes of many.
It is obvious that you have not tried any of her suggestions. It is those who have not tried them that criticize.
A final point. While her methods were extreme, she was very very right
Oh really? If her methods were so good, why couldn't she diagnose her own disease? Why did she resort to real medical doctors? Her brother also died of cancer after treatment by Hulda.
"Hulda Regehr Clark (18 October 1928 – 3 September 2009) was a controversial naturopath, author, and practitioner of alternative medicine who claimed to be able to cure all diseases, including all cancers. After looking at all of her symptoms and her lab tests, her doctors decided that she most likely had multiple myeloma (a blood and bone cancer), which caused anemia and hypercalcemia and led to her death."
Sounds to me like the real medical field made an excellent diagnosis.
Yup read her books and bought one of her first zappers which I still have. Did not one thing for me. She made ridiculous claims about all cancer being caused by a liver fluke found only in South East Asia. If that's true, I'm swimming in them because I was diagnosed with prostate cancer 17 years ago and still have my prostate. Funny, but they never found any liver flukes in me nor have they found even one in the cancers they have removed in the Western Hemisphere. Maybe they are stealth flukes.
She was just under 81 when she died. I'm 78 and when I go to my high school
reunions (last one 4 months ago) I see some that don't look "old" at
all, others are haggard.
I am only 59 but I have seen some who look worse at my age than she did.
The majority of attendees at my last HS reunion looked great. 75 is the new 65. I have no wrinkles and have been taken for much younger - have been asked (recently) for an ID to get a senior discount. If Hulda looked much older than the 80 years she was at death, then she was a hypocrite in many more ways than one.
>- If her methods were so good, why couldn't she
diagnose her own disease?
First of all, sometimes you can not see the forest for the trees that are in the way. Perhaps I heard incorrectly, but AFIK, she only discovered her problem as a result of a neck injury from an automobile accident and by the time that she found what the real problem was, she was so debilitated that she could not physically do anything to stop it.
This is the woman who had devices to diagnose every known (according to her) illness on the planet - and she never did a self-diagnosis? She only discovered her problem after a neck injury? She was obviously ill and depleted long before that. Her diagnosis is a hoax. I was in contact with a woman who went to her clinic and was personally "diagnosed" as having terminal cancer. This woman spent several thousand dollars for her "cure" and only after recognizing later that Hulda had done nothing for her did she admit to herself that Hulda's a hoax - and that she never had cancer to begin with. In fact the vast majority of people she claimed to have cancer had never had a confirming diagnosis by an MD - before or after.
>- Yup read her books and bought one of her first
zappers which I still have. Did not one thing for me.
Sorry to hear that, maybe the one you got was defective. I personally have had tremendous success with using my zapper, as have many others.
Ever hear of the placebo effect? It many times has an even greater ability to heal than any herbs or drugs as high as 65% in some cases, including cancer. As a cancer survivor (without medical intervention) I have a book - published 20 years ago, that documented more than 200 contemporary cases of cancer cures without medical or alternative intervention, including pancreatic cancer. The author himself was diagnosed with lung cancer in his only remaining lung and given 30 days to live and last I checked, he's still alive. The placebo effect is truly miraculous and is in fact you as spirit healing your body. It happens all the time.
>- She made ridiculous claims about all cancer being
caused by a liver fluke found only in South East Asia.
That is a lie! How many US citizens went to Southeast Asia during the 1960's and 1970's? Almost 1 million went to Vietnam, drank the water, swam in it, waded in it. I am sure that none of them ever brought 1 single parasite back with them, yeah, right. Over 100,000 US citizens visit S.E. Asia every year. Oh, but they never get parasites, especially flukes.
You are the liar. The liver fluke lives only in the liver of the host animal - not the gut. It is also over two inches long. It is totally impossible to over look even by the most incompetent MD on the planet.
>- Funny, but they never found any liver flukes in me
nor have they found even one in the cancers they have removed in the Western
Hemisphere. Maybe they are stealth flukes.
Maybe they did not even bother looking because they were so ignorant as to think that parasites do not exist in the US. We are so clean and wonderful that we can not possibly have parasites here. In the early 1970,s I was in the tropics and found that I had 3 different types of intestinal parasites that I could see in my stool. I went to the county health clinic in Florida, told them about it and they sent my stool sample off. Report came back negativ. I complained and so they did it again, came back negative. I was overwhelmed with the dang things. I took a third sample to the doctor and had him look at it under the microscope. He said "you are right" and sent the third sample off with a blasting letter to the lab. The third test came back positive. The moral is that you are not going to find anything if you do not look for it. Doctors in the US Do Not Look!
Every single cancer that is removed in the United States is put through lab tests. This 2 and a half inch beast has never ever been found in a single cancer/tumor. They do look. The cancerous tissue that came out of me during my TURP was put through laboratory exams, including high powered microscope. No fluke, let alone one 2 or more inches long.
>- Maybe they are stealth flukes.
Go look in the Parasites Forum and you will see a lot of people in there who report flukes in their stool after cleansing. Many of these complain that their doctor said nothing was wrong.
I've seen many, many posts in the Parasites Forum and in but one rare instance was there ever any lab confirmation of flukes. I'm not denying that we in the USA have parasites, we do - including flukes. However any fluke that comes out during a bowel cleanse is an intestinal fluke, not a liver fluke - and they are from the intestines, they do not migrated to other parts of the body. Hulda says that ALL cancer is cause by Faciolopsis buskii a liver fluke found only in South East Asia and found only in the liver! Two and a half inches long and longer at that. Your claims that medical doctors have missed this GIANT invader are absurd.
Placebos first came to the general public’s attention in the 1950s. It was discovered that patients who were given harmless sugar pills and told they were medicine would often report themselves cured. In an influential article first published in 1955, Harvard researcher Henry Beecher concluded that between 30 and 40 percent of any treated group would respond to a placebo. Now, half a century later and beginning a new millennium, we are finding that the actual success rate is much higher—closer to 60 percent, and in some cases as high as 75 percent. Remarkably, it’s not unheard of for placebo effects to exceed those of the normally prescribed treatment. The implications of this are staggering.
As far as I can tell, diagnosing your self uning the synchrometer does not
work well. Most doctors do not diagnose themselves, they go to another trusted
A great many illnesses are discovered as a result of accidental injuries or from visits to the doctor for other reasons.
That's a laugh and a rationalization. Only a small fraction of disease is discovered through accidents or visits for other reasons. Hulda's clinic was available to her where she could have gone for someone else to use the fake synchrometer on her. She ended up with an MD who did real tests with real results. You fail to address the fact that Hulda treated her brother's cancer and he died. Also, she was fat if not obese, and a horrible example to those she was trying to treat.
>- I have a book - published 20 years ago, that documented more than
200 contemporary cases of cancer cures without medical or alternative
Yes, "Miracuous Recovery" is one of my favorite books too. There is a common link to almost all of the cases listed.
That is not the book I was referring to.
>- you are the liar. The liver fluke lives only in the liver of the
host animal - not the gut. It is also over two inches long. It is totally
impossible to over look even by the most incompetent MD on the planet.
Actually, you are badly misinformed. Cancer patients are almost never autopsied - period -. I am not a liar, every statement that I made was true......
You're still lying. I never said that cancer patients were autopsied, I said that their cancer was given thorough tests in the lab after removal and the vast majority of the patients survive the procedure. The reason the material is tested in minute detail is to determine the type of cancer and the possible extent of it. When a tumor is removed for example, it may be benign, or cancer. If the tumor is cancerous much of the time it is in only a portion of the tumor and a small portion at that. You read a different book than I did because Hulda claimed that each cancer has a internal fluke.
You are still living in the medical Dark Ages. Cancer patients are given X-rays as a part of diagnosis and if a two inch fluke is in the body it will be found there. Then, unless the doctor is incompetent they are given a head to toe (entire body) CT scan. If according to your interpretation of Hulda this monstrous fluke is not really in the cancer itself, the CT scan will find it as a foreign object wherever it's at. Then if further evaluation is needed the patient is put through a PET scan. This is similar to a CT scan with products that can enhance the details of cancer. Both the CT scan and the PET scan provide minute top of the head/scalp to bottom of the feet/skin information showing every millimeter of the body in cross section that is then analyzed on a computer and they (both CT and PET) can discover foreign objects smaller than a pea. So whether you believe what Hulda wrote or you believe in "floating" flukes - your conclusion is simply wild and hilarious hogwash. Almost every cancer patient I'm aware of gets at least the CT scan.
Again, nary a fluke related to cancer has ever been found in North America and you concept of knee jerk diagnosis is really really sad, totally ill-informed, and way out of date.
success rate is much higher—closer to 60 percent, and in some cases as high as
Show me the studies. It is easy to put things in a book without much basis. I will review an actual study to see for myself how well it was done and how valid it is.
One way to avoid facts is to discredit the source. Go to the link and ask them.
>- That's a laugh and a rationalization. (i.e. regarding a high
number of illnesses caused by accidents or visits for other reasons)
Only on your part, I have confirmed this with an MD.
Well a "high number" is not the same as a high percentage and while a large number may be diagnosed this way, you show me the percentages.
>- That is not the book I was referring to.
Actually, that was an error, the book is "Remarkable Recovery". I had to leave in a hurry to run some errands and did not proofread.
It's still not the book I was referring to.
>- The reason the material is tested in minute detail is to determine
the type of cancer and the possible extent of it.
I am very well aware of this as I have experience of this as well as having cultured cancer cells.
Ok, we agree then that ALL cancer is subjected to laboratory review (different than an earlier post you made) and you still think that a monster fluke is responsible for them? In spite of all the CT and PET scans going on with cancer patients? Hogwash
>- You read a different book than I did because Hulda claimed that each
cancer has a internal fluke.
No, I read several of her books but did not remember that statement.
>- You're still lying.
Again, you are not correct. My statements are true as I showed before.
Let's flush all of your incorrect statements then and go to Faciolopsis buskii which you claim you have never seen in her books. Go to "Curing Cancer" on page 331 of her "Cure For All Diseases" and carefully read the part that you skipped. Under "Another Fluke Disease" on that page she says that "the responsible parasite is Fasciolopsis buskii (i.e. liver fluke) the human intestinal fluke, a flatworm." (Her highlights, not mine.) She then goes on to describe how the eggs of these flukes not only go out through your feces but also enter into your body and how these flukes then enter into ALL cancers (on page 332).
That liver fluke has a very unique life cycle. The link below provides a thorough explanation of this "cancer causing" fluke and I'll quote various portions of it - you can go to the site (and a zillion others like it) and read for yourself.
"You definitely have a tendency to misinterpret, twist, or distort. Additionally, I am well aware of what parasites are and can do from my years of college ad a biology major and from my graduate studies in biomedical engineering. I have learned over the years that what we are taught is not always true and what is thought to be true today is shown to be wrong tomorrow......"
You've got it backwards, you are the one who is lying and twisting facts. I don't remember anywhere that the AMA promoted smoking - but I do remember some doctors who did. A few doctors are not the AMA.
>- regarding a high number of illnesses caused by accidents or visits
for other reasons
I did not say caused, I said "A great many illnesses are discovered as a result of accidental injuries or from visits to the doctor for other reasons." Another distortion on your part.
Picky, picky, picky. Please tell me the difference between "a high number" and "A great many." And you accuse me of distortion? Again, give me some percentage numbers because they are really low.
>- It's still not the book I was referring to.
Are you sure of that too? You seem to be avoiding naming it.
You claimed to be reading my mind by supplying me with the name of the book so I figured you could find it on your own. You are such an expert on cancer and you've never read "50 Essential Things to do When the Doctor Says It's Cancer" by Greg Anderson? It contains no alternative medicine, but it does provide a path for people diagnosed with cancer. I followed his recommendations. I've been prostate cancer free for 18 years without medical intervention and I don't have one damned parasite in me and there were no parasites found in the in depth analysis of the cancer material that came out of me.
>- that ALL cancer is subjected to laboratory review
No, not all. But yes, most cancer is given a cursory examination to determine the types of cells present, Nothing more. There is no immediate or postmortem examination to attempt to find possible causes in all but a few exceptions. Again, you have misread, misinterpreted, or misrepresented what the original statement was.
You mentioned the fact that there not all post mortem cancers are tested and I never disagreed with you on that point. However to say that cancers that are removed are giving a "cursory" review is a humongous distortion of what really goes on. You are stumbling over your closed mind. The cancers are given an in-depth analysis and a parasite in the cancer has never been found in North America, in spite of your claims and in spite of what Hulda has written.
>- you still think that a monster fluke is responsible for them?
It is entirely possible, what you overlook, or possibly misrepresent is that each and every fluke will be that size. That is how big they "can get". If a person has several smaller ones, it is easy to overlook them. Most CT scans, MRI's, etc will miss them anyhow. These scans use contrast agents that are specifically absorbed by actively growing cancer cells but not by other normal tissue, including parasites. Also, if you had bothered to read the cancer page that I sent you a link to, you would see that there are other parasites that increase the risk of and even cause cancer. This is according to the NIH. I used to have many more links to their site but as soon as I posted a link, they took the pages down to hide the truth. I now keep a copy of every page that I refer to.
That CT scans and MRI's will miss most of them is out and out trash talk with nothing to back it up. This "giant" (in terms of a fluke, it is a giant) can get well over 2 inches. That's a slam dunk for a CT scan. They find things much smaller than that, and I've experienced it. There have been no flukes found in conjunction with a cancer in North America.
>- Hulda says that the liver fluke is in ALL cancer
Please refer me to that page. What I read was that the liver fluke was present in all cancer patients. Is this another distortion?
I gave you the name of her book, the chapter, page number, and even quoted some of her writing. Before I did that you claimed to never have heard that Fasciolopsis buskii (which has been ridiculed all over the Internet besides quackwatch - including the University of Iowa)? You claim to follow her advice and have "read her books" yet have not read that?
>- That's another of your utterly ludicrous statements with nothing but
Hulda to back it up
Here you are flat out misrepresenting. I have links to the National Institute of Health that back me up but you do not bother to read them.
That's because you never provided a link.
>- Neither a fluke nor any other parasite has ever been found in me or
the cancer tissue that has been removed from me including lung cancer. It is
impossible for these items you swear by to have been missed with all the testing
that is done today.
Let me see, hmmmm, what contrasting agent is going to show up a fluke? Oh, well, since PET scans are specifically designed to highlight cancer cells, surely they would show a foreign body? No, they are designed to find cancer cells! Don't be totally naive, tests such as CT, PET, etc. only find what they as designed to find. Everything else is background.
What contrasting agent do tumors have to make them show up? I have a neighbor who's lungs are almost filled with small tumors (from fungus, a common result of living in Southern California and Nevada) and they show up on X-rays as well as a CT scan. They are no different than 2 plus inch worms - yet they are much, much, smaller..
>- F. buski does not live in the liver: these large leaf-shaped worms
inhabit the upper regions of the small intestine.
>- one of several species of aquatic snail. ... If the right species of snail is absent, the miracidia die. ... You will also note that in order to complete its life cycle it has to find a host snail of a particular variety
There are snails in North American waters that can serve as the intermediate host although not as well. However, that is mute in many cases.
As I stated before, several million North Americans have been to S.E. Asia. We import foods from S.E. Asia which may be contaminated
Then why haven't any F. buski been found in North America? They sure don't have a problem finding them in S. E. Asia. As I understand it the required conditions go beyond just the snail which is one of several reasons they are found outside of Asia.
As I stated before, several million North Americans have been to S.E. Asia. We import foods from S.E. Asia which may be contaminated.
Yes, I've been there too. The foods that carry the required fluke have to be fresh, not cooked. Despite your insistence that these giant worms/flukes are in North America, none have ever been found - anywhere! Why is it that doctors/science in Asia find them and we can't? Did you flush out flukes in your cancer cure? Did you have a lab identify them?
>- It is impossible for them to complete a life cycle within the human
body as Hulda claims in the book section that I referred to. The eggs have to be
passed from the body before they can continue their life cycle.
I agree with this in general, but oddly, they keep finding exceptions to these so called rules.
I think we actually agree on a lot of things, but I think the belief of Hulda's "findings" and "cures" is mass hysteria. I have read a book on a guy who cured his bone marrow cancer - by a professor at Oxford who learned to breathe through his toes and did coffee enemas after visiting Gerson's daughter. He was given 6 months to live and lasted 10 years when, refusing medical intervention, he died from an infected tooth. I do believe that you have to put everything together and go with what you think will work for you. I seriously doubt the exceptions but if that's what it takes for your belief system, then have at it.
In summation, If you are not a doctor, you should be because it appears
that you can not look beyond the end of your nose.
Modern medicine is in the dark ages and the candle that you are holding is behind that. The National Institute of Health backs me up. According to their publications, many parasites, including several flukes, cause cancer.
Again, you've got it backwards. I have never claimed to be a doctor and neither was Hulda. Just because Hulda had a PhD in biology, her ND was a 100 hour correspondence course. Please provide the NIH sources. If they say that flukes cause cancer, Hulda says all cancer is caused that way.
I can see beyond the end of my nose, it is you that is close minded - in spite of your education - which references to are almost always a sign of very low self-esteem.
>- I don't have one damned parasite in me and there were no parasites
found in the in depth analysis of the cancer material
Again, you are missing the whole point. The parasites are not in the cancer. They are living elsewhere in your body, giving off toxins that erode your immune system.
That's a damned lie. Hulda Clark says they are in the cancer - in various stages of development including the adult stage. I have no liver fluke anywhere in my body, never have, never will.>- That CT scans and MRI's will miss most of them is out and out trash talk with nothing to back it up.
More BS. I have had a CT scan - without a contrast agent. The scans (multiple) easily found granulomas (tumors) in my lungs. I've seen the CT scans on a computer, they show up beautifully, and they are very small. These very small granulomas even showed up on X-rays. You don't know a thing about what you are talking about.
Your statement from NIH about parasites does not make any claim regarding their connection to cancer as you claimed earlier.
>- Before I did that you claimed to never have heard that Fasciolopsis
Never heard that it what? Was in a tumor? That is correct. Apparantly Dr. Clark was not entirely correct in all of her statements. But she was and is very correct in that parasites do cause cancer. The NIH has published dozens of studies showing this. Everytime that I would link to one, they would take it down until I started saving copies of them.
You say that Clark was not "entirely correct in all of here statements" yet she made the claim that Fasciolopsis buski was in every cancer and she made that statement in each and everyone of her books.
One thing that I have learned from studying parasitology is that parasites
have a very strong influence over the host, including turning down the hosts
immune system. This in turn allows cancer to develope when it would not
ordinarily do so. Perhaps you and your doctor friends should give some further
consideration to the role of parasites in the development of cancer before you
continue poopooing the idea.
Ok, I'm going to cut through all the BS that you've presented regarding the liver fluke and present what an eminently qualified parasitologist (and many others) say regarding Hulda's fluke. Alongside Peter W. Pappas both you and Hulda Clark are functionally illiterate in regards to parasites.
It still absolutely amazes me that you claim to have read Clark's books but didn't find any of her liver fluke insanity. I pointed out the page number of her "Cure for All Diseases" and you still couldn't find it. Well, Peter Pappas (and many, many others) read all of Hulda's books and found in each of them that she stated that Fasciolopsis buski (the liver fluke) was the cause of all cancer as well as AIDS and a host of other illnesses - and you didn't know that????? She also claims that the adult liver fluke can be found in these host individuals - in the affected areas.
I used to have a link to Pappas' web site at Ohio State University where there were several pages devoted to debunking the liver fluke theory but the site is now under modification. However, quack watch has preserved a declaration of Pappas that says much the same thing. I could care less of your thoughts on quack watch, the messenger isn't important - but the message is. Pappas makes direct quotes from Clark's books regarding her utterly insane thoughts on liver flukes that you will find below.
I also with to point out that on cure zone someone calling themselves "Zapperman" sent Dr. Pappas a zapper in 1998 with the joyous anticipation that Zapperman would be blessed with revealing to Dr. Pappas some sort of hocus pocus anti parasite miracle. Well, you can see from his declaration below that it did not work. By the way - would you happen to be Zapperman? http://curezone.com/diseases/cancer/cancercured.asp
Just a few observations from Pappas declaration. Fasciolopsis buski has never ever been found in relation to cancer (or a host of other Clark liver fluke caused disease) - period. Also despite the claims of Hulda that liver fluke eggs get into the human blood stream is pure garbage - they don't. Another valid thing he points out is that Fasciolopsis buski is limited only to S. E. Asia (has never been found anywhere else) and that even there cancer rates are no higher than the rest of the world. He also points out that parasites do not cause cancer!!!!
Pappas blows all of your wishy washy evasive responses to my comments out of the water. Below you will also find a link to Dr. Joseph E. Pizzorno regarding the herbal cures of Hulda clark. Pizzorno is an eminent ND who founded Bastyr University - the first natural healing university in the country and he points out the erroneous claims of Hulda Clark.
Have at it and if you don't believe what you read below then take up your case with them, not me. Your "logic" doesn't hold a candle to either of the gentlemen below.
Peter W. Pappas, Ph.D, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby states as follows:
1. My name is Peter W. Pappas. I am a United States citizen over the age of 18. I currently reside in Columbus, Ohio.
2. 1 have a B.A.degree in biology from Humboldt State University in Arcata, California, awarded in 1966. In 1968 1 received an M.A. in Biology from Humboldt State University. I received a Ph.D. in 1971 from the University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, in zoology, parasitology, and biochemistry. I served a post-doctoral fellowship through the National Institutes of Health fi-om 1971-1973 at Rice University in Houston, Texas in parasitology, and served as research associate at Rice in parasitology in 1973.
3. From 1973 until 2000 1 was a faculty member at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. I served as an Assistant Professor from 1973 through 1977, as an Associate Professor from 1978 through 1982 and as Professor of Zoology from 1983 through 2000. From 1989 through 1998 1 was chairman of the Department of Zoology at Ohio State. (The Departments' name was changed to "Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology" in 2000.) In 1998 and 1999 1 was the Director of the Introductory Biology Program at Ohio State. I am now retired from Ohio State, having been awarded the title of Professor Emeritus, and I am a technical consultant for LabBook-com in Columbus, Ohio. LabBook.com develops and markets commercial software for managing laboratory information and mining genomic databases.
4. My specialized academic training is in the area of parasitology -- the study of parasites. In general terms, "parasitologists" study all aspects of the "biology of parasites," including, but not limited to, (1) taxonomy and systematics, (2) life cycles, (3) pathology, (4) epidemiology (including the distribution, control, and eradication of parasitic infections), (5) and treatment of parasites and parasitic infections. Parasitologists might specialize in one or more of the above areas, they might specialize in the study of parasites infecting a specific host (e.g., "human parasitology"), or they might specialize in other biological disciplines related directly to one of the above areas (e.g., biochemistry of parasites in relation to chemotherapy). Many biologists with specialized training in other biological disciplines study parasites as "'model systems," including evolutionary biologists, molecular biologists, taxonomists and systematists, and ecologists. Parasitic organisms are extremely diverse -- virtually every major group of animals has at least one member that is a "parasite," and in some groups of animals all members are parasites. Just like parasites, parasitologists are also extremely diverse in terms of "what" they study and "why" they study it.
5. While a faculty member at Ohio State University, I maintained an active research program in parasitology, primarily biochemistry, physiology, and cell biology of parasites. I have published approximately 90 articles in refereed scientific journals and edited three reference books. I have also served on the editorial boards of five national/international parasitological journals, and I currently serve as co-moderator of the primary parasitology news group on the web (bionet.parasitology). My CV is attached.
6. At Ohio State University, my primary teaching responsibility for 27 years was an advanced undergraduate/graduate-level course, Introductory Parasitology. As part of maintaining the course's content with contemporary parasitological concepts and principles, I have read extensively in many areas of parasitology and "human parasitology." This includes reading and studying many general, human, and veterinary parasitology textbooks written in the U.S. or U.K., and extensive readings in the original literature (refereed scientific journals). For the past five years I have maintained a large web site (Parasites and Parasitological Resources) designed as (1) a teaching aid for college-level students and (2) a source of information for the lay person. The web site contains information on over 200 species of parasites and over 500 photographic images of parasites, and most of the important parasites of humans are included. During a typical month, the web site's home page receives more than 10,000 hits, and the entire web site receives >150,000 hits. Through an e-mail link in this web site, I receive and answer many questions from all over the world regarding many aspects of parasitology. The web site's URL is www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~parasite/home.html.
7. I became aware of Hulda Clark's claims regarding parasites and disease in 1996 when I developed my web site. As part of developing this web site, I conducted extensive searches of the web for other parasitology sites. In addition to sites that were clearly academic and instructional in content, I came across many sites that espoused the belief of Hulda Clark that parasites cause many diseases including cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, etc. Throughout my 33 years in academia, I had never heard of nor read about such a theory. Initially, I simply ignored Hulda Clark and her theory, as I was simply too busy. However, as my web site developed, I began to get e-mails asking for my "opinion" about Clark and her theories. I also discovered that many of the "proClark" web sites had copied copyrighted images from my web site and were using them without my permission. Thus, I not only purchased Clark's books, The Cure for All Cancers (1993), The Cure for HIV and AIDS (1993), and The Cure for.All Diseases (1995), but I also began an extensive search for and investigation of "pro-Clark" web sites. Over the past few years, I have become familiar with Hulda Clark's theories and many of the web sites that support her theories and sell various cures for parasites.
8. In her writings, Clark makes a number of claims about parasites and disease. In The Cure for All Cancers, Clark states:
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. [Clark is referring to Fasciolopsis buski, a parasitic flatworm.] 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.
9. In The Cure for HIV and AIDS, Clark states: "This [parasite] is the source of the HIV virus (sic)" and a photograph of Fasciolopsis buski follows. She goes on to say, "The HIV virus (sic) belongs to this fluke," and "[I]f it establishes itself in the thymus, it causes HIV/AIDS." Furthermore, in both of these books, Clark emphasizes that effective treatment for this parasite (and, therefore, a cure for cancer, AIDS, and may other diseases purportedly caused by this parasite) requires the use of both herbal remedies and electrical devices "Zappers").
10. The claims of Hulda Clark (and many of the web sites that sell herbal remedies and "Zapper") that (1) a single parasite causes cancer, AIDS, and many other diseases, and that this parasite can be killed with electrical devices ("Zappers") are not supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. This statement is based on the observations and correspondence summarized below.
11. Cancer, AIDS, and many of the diseases that Clark claims are caused by Fasciolopsis buski, are distributed world-wide, yet the distribution of this parasite is limited to S.E. Asia.
12. Clark claims that she has diagnosed this parasite in everyone with cancer, AIDS, and other diseases, and that she diagnoses these infections using a "Syncrometer" (an electrical device that somehow indicates the presence of parasites and/or toxins in the body.) However, the only reliable and acceptable method for the diagnosis of Fasciolopsis buski infections in humans is demonstrating the presence of the parasite's eggs in human feces. Thus, her statement that "everyone" is infected with this parasite is based on inaccurate diagnostic methodology. Moreover, if this parasite caused all of these diseases, the parasite would be found during routine pathology procedures. I have been unable to find any evidence that this parasite is found during such routine procedures.
13. Clark's books contain a number of inaccurate statements about the biology of Fasciolopsis buski and other parasites, so one must question her as an authority on parasites or parasitic diseases. She misspells the scientific name of the parasite; she spells the specific buskii, when the correct spelling is buski. When discussing any species of living organism, the correct spelling of the scientific name is essential. In The Cure for All Cancers, the title for Figure 2 (which is not a photomicrograph) refers to "strings of eggs from the parasite -- the parasite does not produce "strings of eggs," and the eggs are microscopic (cannot be seen without a microscope). Clark states tliat "[T]he adult [parasite], though, stays tightly stuck to our intestine (or liver, causing cancer, or uterus, causing endometriosis, or thymus, causing AIDS, or kidney, causing Hodgkin's disease.)" The adult parasite does live in the small intestine, as stated by Clark, but I have been unable to find any reports (other than Clark's) of this parasite being found in the human uterus, thymus, or kidney. Clark states: "Some of these eggs [produced by the adult parasites] batch in the intestine or the blood." There is no credible evidence that the eggs of any species of fluke will batch in the human intestine, or in the blood or time. There are a few species of flukes in which the eggs normally enter the blood or tissues (e.g., the schistosomes which cause schistosomiasis), but, even with these species of parasites, the eggs do not hatch in the blood or tissue. Clark states that "[w]e all have tapeworm stages in our bodies...." and "[e]very tumor, benign or malignant, has a tapeworm stage in the middle of it, even including warts." I have been unable to substantiate either of these statements in the medical literature. Although Clark has an advanced academic degree (a Ph.D. in physiology) and an N.D., she has no academic training as a parasitologist and she clearly does not have a basic understanding of the most fundamental parasitological principles.
14. There is overwhelming evidence in the form of peer-reviewed articles appearing in scientific journals that virtually all types of cancer result from the uncontrolled division of cells, and that the uncontrolled division of cells has a genetic basis. That is, cancer is caused by the activation or inactivation of specific genes that control the division of cells; it is not caused by a parasite. If this parasite truly causes cancer and, therefore, kills thousands of people each year, how could this parasite go unnoticed? Even in areas of the world where Fasciolopsis buski is endemic, there are no published studies that demonstrate (1) a relationship between this parasite and cancer and (2) that curing this parasite cures cancer. The only studies that support these theories are those mentioned in Clark's books, and her studies lack scientific integrity. Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), not a parasite.
Although there's some disagreement as to when and where HIV was introduced first into the human population, it is clear that it was not a prevalent disease until the early 1980s. However, Fasciolopsis buski has been recognized as a human parasite for hundreds of years, a fact recognized by Clark in her books.
15. Hulda Clark believes that parasites cause many common diseases. In the terminology of the scientific method, Clark is stating a hypothesis or statement of belief. However, the scientific method requires that, for a hypothesis to be accepted as a theory, the hypothesis must be tested. That is, controlled, empirical, unbiased experiments must be done. Moreover, the experiments and their results must be reviewed by other scientists to insure that the experiments were conducted properly and that.the data are unbiased. This is what differentiates good science from bad science. Herein lies a major flaw with Clark's theories. Her hypotheses have not been tested using controlled experiments, and her methods of collecting data are biased. Rather, most of the diseases were diagnosed and treated by Clark, and Clark also claimed the diseases were cured. Thus, Clark's "case histories" represent an egregious example of a highly biased experimental protocol, and her theories are based on bad science.
16. After reading Clark's books and receiving many e-mails asking questions about Clark's theories, I tried to find information in the original literature. (The articles in refereed scientific journals or reputable reference books) that would support Clark's beliefs. Despite extensive searches of numerous major academic and medical libraries and extensive scientific and medical databases, I could not find a single article that supported Clark's theories about Fasciolopsis buski and diseases.
17. In early 1999, I posted the following statement on my web site: Hulda Regehr Clark claims that this parasite causes "all diseases, " cancer, and HIV and AIDS, and several web sites use these claims in their advertisements to sell various "cures "for these diseases. There are no peer-reviewed, published, scientific studies demonstrating that Fasciolopsis buski causes any of these diseases in humans. Furthermore, there are no peer-reviewed, published, scientific studies demonstrating that the various treatments, tinctures, cleanses, electrical devices (e.g., the "Zapper"), etc., sold through these web pages have any therapeutic value.
18. In response to the appearance of this statement, I received several e-mail messages from David Amrein, the President of the "Dr. Clark Research Association." Mr. Amrein asked that I remove this statement from my web site, and, in hopes of finding supporting information, I responded with the following: "Tell me where I can find information that supports the theories of Hulda Clark, information that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and I will remove the comments from my web page. In fact, if you tell me where I can find this information, I will be more than happy to (1) include the information in my web page and (2) add an apology to my web page. I await anxiously your response." Despite my very clear request for information, Mr. Amrein did not provide any information that would support Clark's theories.
19. Later in 1999, Mr. Tim Bolen (who is referred to as "a media consultant" on the "Dr. Clark Research Association web site) and Mr. Leo Regehr [Hulda Clark's brother] sent a number of e-mail messages to me and various administrators at Ohio State University complaining about the statements on the website. I made them the same offer that I made to Mr. Amrein. I received no information that refutes the comments that are included in my web site. I must assume that no such information exists.
I declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statement is true and
Executed, this 9th day of May, 2001 at Columbus, Ohio.
Peter W. Pappas, Ph.D.
Link to Dr. (ND) Pizzorno: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/pizzorno.html
Hulda Clark says they are in the cancer - in various stages of development
including the adult stage.
So, you do believe Hulda Clark. Since you are using her word as gospel and to call me a liar on that basis makes you a hypocrit!
My statement is based on NIH funded studies that clearly explain that parasites living in the intestines can cause cancer in other locations in the body.
What idiot logic. I DO NOT believe Hulda Clark. That's the basis of this entire thread. First you ask me to point out where Hulda even said such a thing - and I did. Now you come back with an asinine statement like the above.
You have NEVER presented the NIH study and nowhere but nowhere does the NIH study say anything about parasites in cancer. Besides, we are not talking about any parasites, we are talking about fasciolopsis buskii, the parasite that Hulda claims is in every cancer. There is a humongous difference between your statement and what Hulda claims.
>- Most cancers do not even show up well on a CT scan
unless they use a "contrast agent".
I said "Most", not "all"'.
I strongly diagree. Prove it!
>- I've seen the CT scans on a computer, they show up
beautifully, and they are very small
Thank you! "Computer enhanced!" The normal images do not show well at all and I have examined several. Even with the computer enhanced ones, not all cancers are eazy to see.
More bull shit. Get your butt into the 21st century. They no longer produce X-Rays or CT scans on film, or haven't you heard. There was no computer enhancement of the small granulomas that I've seen on the CT scan and they showed up clearly on X-rays as well. CT scans are sent directly to a computer where no enhancements are made and are analyzed there.
>- Your statement from NIH about parasites does not make
any claim regarding their connection to cancer as you claimed earlier
#1 About one-in-five liver cancers are cholangiocarcinomas, arising from branches of the bile ducts that are located within the liver. Certain liver parasites are recognized risk factors for this type of liver cancer.
You have not presented anything to back up your statement - other than your statement. Besides, you just proved Hulda Clark to be wrong - there are no fasciolopsis buskii in the liver. Thank you for providing a closing to the argument you're presenting trying to support Ms. Clark.
So, that was a wrong statement if that is what she claimed in each and
every book but her other thousand statements were not so wrong.
That wasn't a wrong statement, she made that same statement over and over again in many books in regard not only to cancer but a host of other diseases as well. You have once again supported my claim that Hulda Clark was a hoax and a liar. You're inability, once more, to read is readily apparent regarding her books and the S. E. Asia liver fluke.
>- present what an (one) eminently qualified parasitologist (and many
others) say regarding Hulda's fluke.
I have read his discounts before and not everyone agrees entirely with his statements and conclusions.
Additionally, the very fact that it is posted on quackwatch makes it completely suspect because quackwatch is nothing but a propoganda machine that attempts di destroy naturopathic and wholistic practices just like they did with chiropractic. Why are there no quack M.D.'s listed there? Especially when there have been many exposed?
Support for the zapper 95 percent success according to Dr. Robert Thiel.
I can personally tell you that there is a strong effort to suppress the zapper and Dr. Thiel feels so threatened that he will not run another study.
We sent several zappers to a major university in California for studies with HIV infected individuals. While several of the tests showed improvement, the study was discontinued under undue influence.
Dr. Pappas had a web site at Ohio State University discounting the fasciolopsis buskii claim and I cannot find anyone anywhere disputing Dr. Pappas. You are attacking the messenger without addressing the message.
By your own admission Hulda Clark was a hoax and a liar.
In summation you have presented nothing to support your theories. You've been the route, so you know that with what information you have presented here on Cure Zone if you were to take it to a thesis committee and were to try and defend it - you would be laughed out of the building and off the campus too. There is no scientific evidence to support any of Hulda's claims regarding cancer - including the zapper. You are reaching out and not only claiming that modern medicine is in the Dark Ages, but you are also claiming that all science is there as well. Are you one of those who believe that men walking on the moon was a hoax? In the process of your presentation here on this list you are also denigrating your own education. It would have been impossible for you to get your PhD with the type of evidence you present here.
You have a belief/faith in the zapper and many of Hulda's false claims. That is exactly what is required for the placebo effect. I suggest that you continue to live in your own little fantasy world because if you were to accept the truth your cancer would return full force. I do not belittle your faith because it is completely independent of what you have erroneously chosen to support it with. However, it's time to call a spade a spade. You as spirit (not your body) have healed yourself.
Posted on: Wednesday, 11 November 2009, 14:00 CST
Human expectations and the power of the mind may be behind the success of many natural health remedies, according to an Associated Press report on Tuesday about the use and potential risks of alternative medicines.
Known as the placebo effect, people sometimes feel better after taking a dummy pill or a faked treatment simply because they expect the treatment will work to improve their condition.
In other words, the brain has the ability to alter physical symptoms, such as pain, anxiety and fatigue.
The healing power of the placebo effect was recently demonstrated during tests of a new drug that relieves the symptoms of lupus. The test found that one in three participants felt better after they received the dummy pills instead of the actual drug.
The placebo effect plays a large part in alternative medicine, which includes therapies and herbal remedies based on beliefs versus science, the Associated Press said.
Such therapies are often used to relieve subjective symptoms such as pain.
"It has a pejorative implication — that it's not real, that it has no medicinal value," said Dr. Robert Ader, a psychologist at the University of Rochester in New York who has researched the subject.
But placebos can have real and beneficial effects, he said.
"Much of the results of certain alternative procedures are largely placebo effects, unless you believe there are people who exert magical powers so they can hold their hands over your body and cure you of disease," Ader told the AP.
"Make you feel better? That's entirely possible, especially if you believe it."
Scientists say the placebo effect accounts for roughly one-third of the benefits of any treatment — even carefully tested ones.
This conclusion dates to a historic report in 1955 called The Powerful Placebo. The groundbreaking report, in which H.K. Beecher analyzed dozens of previous studies, found that 32 percent of patients responded to a placebo.
Beecher’s conclusions were supported by subsequent studies, which found that placebos could increase pulse rates, blood pressure and reaction speed when people were told they had taken a stimulant. The reverse held true in people were told that a placebo drug would make them drowsy.
Scientists do not yet completely understand how the placebo effect works, but there are many possible explanations.
Brain imaging shows that beliefs can indeed drive biological changes, including alterations in levels of chemical messengers and stress hormones that signal pleasure and pain....... rest of story at the link.
Here's a picture of fasciolopsis buskii that Hulda says in every cancer (and other places as well). And you claim that modern medicine can't find them? Even after investigating every cancer in the lab? Hogwash!
One last thing regarding Hulda's treatments - and many alternative treatments for that matter, that is the placebo effect that I mentioned in another post. (I do not consider her gallbladder flush or any of her parasite treatments to be her treatments as they have been used for decades in other places and she just copied them. If she could cure parasites in the body she would have been awarded a Nobel Prize because malaria is caused by a parasite.)
Even though medical researchers told Chuck Park that he might be getting a sugar pill, the 30-year-old software producer was pretty sure he was getting the real thing. Just a few weeks into the clinical trial, Park’s depression started to lift. He began to feel less anxious and sad.
So when Park learned he’d been taking a placebo all along, it was a surprise.
“I was fully expecting to receive the real drug even though I knew that the placebo was a possibility,” remembers Park of Culver City, Calif. “I guess I wanted it to work — and in a way, it did....... (more at the link)
An article published just a couple of days ago:
Alternative Medicine Success Largely Due To Placebo Effect
Human expectations and the power of the mind may be behind the success of many natural health remedies, according to an Associated Press report on Tuesday about the use and potential risks of alternative medicines.
Known as the placebo effect, people sometimes feel better after taking a dummy pill or a faked treatment simply because they expect the treatment will work to improve their condition.
In other words, the brain has the ability to alter physical symptoms, such as pain, anxiety and fatigue.
The healing power of the placebo effect was recently demonstrated during tests of a new drug that relieves the symptoms of lupus. The test found that one in three participants felt better after they received the dummy pills instead of the actual drug. ....(more at the link)
That article indicates that over 30% of ALL healing is via the placebo effect, and yes MDs still use placebo pills, with success.
I in no way negate alternative healing as I've had benefits from it myself, but when one person becomes a guru and is worshiped as the greatest healer on the planet with NO scientific data to back it up, I know that the placebo effect is in play.
There is not one scientifically documented case that Hulda Clark cured a cancer. Not one that has been diagnosed prior to her treatment and then found to be healed after treatment via the medical profession.
Hulda's brother died of cancer after her treatment and she died of cancer. Not very good testimonials for her healing abilities.