[.ca] The Cure for All Diseases: With Many Case Histories (ISBN 1890035017)

great book, bad company management:
I've known about this book for years, since it came out, but I was always turned off by the hideously new-agey cover and the similarly crackpot sounding title. I read extensively about health and alternative medicine, but am very critical of all new-agey approaches that emphasize the idea that the source of illness is spiritual or psychological (not that this is not possible, but I believe it is rare - not at all the cause of the vast majority of illnesses). I'm not sure what compelled me to finally buy the book, maybe curiosity. But I was surprised and delighted to find that it is based on physical, biological issues in the body (namely, toxins and parasites). The methods of ridding the body of these disease-causing elements are both eccentric (using electricity) and traditional (herbal formulas). I have not built the infamous zapper yet, but out of curiosity I might, since I am familiar with some of the other uses of electricity in medicine (eg, the Rife machine), and know it has benefitted people in those circumstances. So far I have found the pet parasite elimination program very helpful, as well as the mold-reducing hygiene tips (soak grains and dried fruit in vitamin c solution to de-mold them - and they taste so much better! non-soaked items now taste musty to me). My caveat is the following: I was compelled to do some research on this book, and on Hulda Clark. (I am a professional researcher working on a PhD in the humanities, so it's my instinct to check resources as best I can). What I have discovered so far is this: I have read that Hulda Clark died recently (though I haven't confirmed the details on this), and that she seems to have signed off certain rights to a person by the name of David Amrein, who is now the president of the "Dr. Hulda Clark Research Association." The problem I have is that David is a MBA-weilding Scientologist (this is confirmed by several sources, including a Scientologist-run website), and is using the methods of Scientology to profit off of Hulda's work, and is implementing questionable marketing tactics in the manner of aggressive, multi-level marketing style ploys that the Scientologists traditionally engage in, and in effect is destroying the potential for integrity and recognition that this work might otherwise be able to attain. What this means is that when you try to do a search on Hulda Clark, you get dozens if not hundreds of websites that are all marketing stuff - stuff that is not necessary to purchase (Hulda has instructions on building the necessary equipment yourself at hardly any cost, and the herbs are all available from any herbal medicine supplier). The whole work of Dr. Clark's is sadly going through a major cult-branding (to see this dynamic on another - although toxic - substance, run an internet search on Klamath lake blue-green algae, and you'll see a similar pattern. And there are numerous products out there that are traceble back to Clearwater, Florida, and Scientology marketing gimmiks). There is no record that Dr. Clark herself was a Scientologist, and by the absence of marketing in her work it seems she was not. This is unfortunate, because this kind of marketing is misleading, and clogs up internet search engines for people trying to do legitimate research on a product. If you do do research, note you will also find information written by anti-alternative medicine people and organizations (quackwatch) about the "scandalous" fact that Dr. Clark had a medical degree from a correspondence school. So what? Her previous graduate education was accredited. She's a trained researcher, whether or not she's a licenced doctor. Many MDs are ivy-leage certificated, but morons when it comes to healing people. I base my judgement on the integrity of the research in relation to other work in the field (ie, alternative medicine), as well as on it's ability to affect positive change in my own biological existence, which this work has. It's just a shame that it's been turned into a marketing monster.

Doug:
(...)is an easy task to see if this is true or not. It's called a "controlled experiment" similar to the one my dad's friend underwent with prostate cancer. He too went through the HD Clark regimine, among other 'cure cancer' treatments on the market, with one exception: his Tcell count for cancer was monitored every six months by a cancer center in San Diego, CA. It was a simple test. When cancer cells in the body reach a certain level, known by blood tests, the subject is in danger of death. This conclusion is arrived at by years of practical research that shows exactly that conclusion. No one disputes that claim. When a person has a certatin number of cancer cells in his body, the cancer matastisizes (travels to other body parts), and he dies unless he takes action. If cancer matatisizes, and travels to other parts of the body, you're pretty much dead. That's why the skin cancer melanoma is so feared--it has a tendency to break away form the skin and travel to other body parts. But back to my dad's friend. After a year of Clarks and others' remedies, the cancer cell count was so high the doctor told him in no uncertain words, "If you do not do something now, you're going to die." He had the prostate surgery, non invasive, and within 6 months his cell count was back to normal. Now that is a good experiment. It takes the diagnosis of a subject, in indisputable terms--that he has cancer--then monitors 'remedies' by testing every so often for cell counts. This is something that Clark did not do. I know there is no way to convince people of what they want to believe, but if you care about living, just make sure you allow established science to monitor, through controlled experiments, your body's progress, or not, using alternative methods. If you still don't believe in established science, then at least you have made an informed decision to die. If my dad's friend had not done just that, science told him he would have long ago been a dead man--but her's the rub--no one can prove that because he decided to have the established medical proceedure. However, others with his same condition have died because they did not have the medical proceedures, and many have died using 'Clark type' methods, whereas those with similar cancers did not die using established science. This is one way in which science works: It takes past knowledge and applies that to future, similar circumstances. Sure, science makes errors, and you can be a guinea pig if you want to. The stakes are your life though. So ignore what you wish and die well if you wish. For me, given the information I have read, this is quack works. It is suprious. So when someone says "X worked for me" ask them how they know that. Ask them is they were part of a controlled experiment. Ironically, HD Clarks brother died after receiving tratments from his sister and was proclaimed 'cured.' He died several months later of cancer. Excerpted from the essay above, which is completely cited and supported: "None of the reports provides any basis for concluding that Clark's treatment has the slightest value. The majority of the people described in the 103 case reports did not have cancer. Of those that did, most had received standard medical treatment or their tumors were in their early stages. In these cases, Clark pronounced them cured but did not follow what happened after they left her clinic -- so she could not possibly know how they did afterward. In some cases, she counted patients as cured even though she noted that they died within a few weeks after she treated them. Two people who seem knowledgeable have informed me that Clark's brother, Henry Regehr, died of cancer despite treatment by her."

A must read for everyone:
As a diabetic , With only 1 week into beginning of the program, I can see a dramatic improvement with my sugar levels. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in total health. Ted T.

Tim's been busy:
With all the positive reviews for this labarynth of lies I assume Hulda Clark's publicist, Tim Bolen has been sending in multiple reviews. It can't be real cancer patients sending in reviews, they all die of cancer. If Hulda Clark is correct, then why not cure people of cancer in the US? Why not allow the system to be clinically trialled? If it's financial reward she seeks, proving her system works will lead to a nobel prize which has a $1,000,000. In fact she would likely win multiple nobel prizes. This book can be reviewed with one simple word. QUACK!

How not to get sick:
I zapped and rifed and detoxed and it helped some I guess. But, is there a better way? Can stinking thinking get us sick in the first place? For healing of the soul first, check out "Deadly emotions" by Dr. Don Colbert and "A More Excellent Way" by Henry Wright. These books talk about biblical pronciples -- but don't let that scare you off. They work no matter hwat you believe.