There are a lot of people on this site more qualified than I to make remarks about Hulda Clark e's work. In some ways I think Hulda is really "out there" but in other ways I think she is really on to something.
I consider myself lucky to have found out about the liver flush. My energy level increase, improved fat digestion, decreased incidence of moodiness, and reduction of allergies is all the "proof" I need.
A "cure" for someone is a "cure" whether they "zapped" themselves or read the tarot cards. We all have to do what we feel is right for us. If one thing doesn't hit the mark for me, I try something else. For instance, Bovine Colostrum hasn't done anything for me but I know many people who have overcome serious illness with it. Not everyone responds the same to anything. We are all different. If our bodies and minds were all the same, Science could heal us easily and consistently. Instead some people get well using "traditional" medicine, others with Chinese Medicine or some other approach. Some people can abuse thier bodies and live a hearty life - others are more sensitive to toxins. We are not the same.
I sent an e-mail letter to Quackwatch several months back after being so thoroughly disgusted with his "traditional medicine rules and all else is crap" attitude. The guiding principal behind Quackwatch would seem noble, but the end result is that his site seems narrow-minded, prejudicial, and racist. Below is a copy of that e-mail to Quackwatch:
Your Quackwatch site contains many interesting perspectives that are surely warmly supported by the medical establishment.
For those consumers that are comfortable with the "take 2 of these and call me in the morning" approaches to medicine your site must be a real comfort. The overall message of your site is trust your standard care doctor. For many patients/consumers this is fine advice as they are not asked to think for themselves about the status of their health. But for those who have been failed by standard care, we should be supported in our search for alternatives.
How people choose to spend their time and money on health care is a freedom of choice issue and should not be hampered. Your site appears to try to dissuade that act of free choice because there might just be "something" to all the mumbo-jumbo you rail so hard against. To discourage someone from exercising their right to step outside of the medical establishment does little to support your cause to eliminate the few cases of true quackery. Just because something has not been researched and written about in JAMA doesn't mean it isn't medically significant to patients. I wonder, how in the world did doctors and patients ever solve health problems before the AHA, JAMA, and medical advisory boards? Must have been miracles for it couldn't have practitioners and patients coming together to try "something new" in order to get well.
There is not one area of alternative medicine that your site has not strived to derail. In addition to being narrow-minded your site borders on the racist/culturally insensitive. For example, when you summarily attack Chinese Medicine, you are attacking not only a medicinal effort, but also culturally significant practices. Your site's criticism of Chinese Medicine does little to invalidate these practices and much to suggest a racial/cultural bias. As Americans, how do we have the right to judge and criticize another cultures medicinal practices using an American set of rules?
Therapeutic nutrition as a subset of metabolic therapy is another area your site may want to re-think in its criticisms. Cultural/racial differences do play a role in diet. Diets vary widely around the world and to suggests that diets should be based on advisory panels like the AHA and AMA and not on individual metabolic needs is reprehensible. Dietary needs are highly individual and largely determined by race/culture/genetics. It is arrogant, racist and unhealthy to suggest that one diet is appropriate for all Americans. Even Americans practicing standard medicine have identified cultural/racial/genetic links to insulin resistance and the role of diet.
Altering dietary ratios of protien/carbs/fat that mirror different cultural groups is proving clinically significant. If you do some homework you might be pleasantly surprised to discover some "real science" behind it. Among a long list of good research, read the work of Loren Cordain, Ph.D. and Gerald Reaven, M.D. on insulin resistance (Syndrome X). You would also do well to read Bernard Wolfe's two studies on how higher protein intakes lower cholesterol and insulin resistance. Wolfe confirms that protein intakes at 22 - 27% of total intake is therapeutic and reduces insulin resistance. Reaven proves that 40% fat is therapeutic for insulin resistance. These researchers recommend dietary therapies that directly oppose the AHA recommendations of 10p/60c/30f % and can be found as typical dietary ratios in other cultures. The work of Wolfe and Reaven are backed by clinical studies that proves they are more successful than the AHA diet in treating insulin resistance. This is an important issue since as many as 25% of the U.S. population has some feature of the insulin resistance syndrome. Chromium supplementation has been thoroughly researched in the area of insulin resistance as well, but its importance has been summarily dismissed on your site. Your site would have people thinking the likes of Wolfe and Reaven are quacks because their research and recommendations contradict the AHA.
Maybe your site has thrown the baby out with the bath water. A little open-mindedness wouldn't hurt your effort or your consumers. Since you were a psychiatrists and not a nutritionist I hope you wont be offended that I will continue to do my own homework as well as take nutritional advice from a certified nutritionist instead of a psychiatrist such as yourself. To do so would be a real "quack."