Detox Diets

Say not the Struggle nought Availeth said:

Logically, there is a way to "detox".

Assuming that you have "toxins" in your body, and further assuming that
these "toxins" are fat soluble, or water soluble, then the water soluble
"toxins" would be flushed out by a water diet, and the fat soluble
"toxins" could be flushed out by simply decreasing you body fat to zero.

If you decreased your body fat to zero you would die. I guess that
would take care of the toxin problem:-))

Aloha,

Rich
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Marko Proberto said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:09:35 GMT, "Marko Proberto"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Because anyone promoting this [censored] is a salesman, not a medical

person.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>Thee is NO need to detox, as you body does a fine job if you eat a

balanced

Quoted message said:

>diet and drink enough H20 a day.

I have no desire to argue Marko.
My experiences simply wouldn't support that statement,
but you are very passionate about it.

How do you believe this is true?

I do not believe it it true. I know it is true.

How?
This isn't backing you against a wall. If you're winging it from the
hip, that's ok by me. It's your belief, but I'd like to understand
what you know that makes that true for you.

I passed physiology 101.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Markos said
I do not believe it it true. I know it is true.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How?
This isn't backing you against a wall. If you're winging it from the
hip, that's ok by me. It's your belief, but I'd like to understand
what you know that makes that true for you.

I passed physiology 101.

Thanks for answering the question.
Mike

<[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hey Rich,

Rich Shewmaker said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Okay, so with extremely sensitive technology like gas chromatography,
perhaps trace amounts of THC can be found in the fatty tissues of your

old

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pothead. And if THC sticks around, maybe trace amounts of other chemicals

do

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as well. But are these traces of substance harmful? Are they removed by

ANY

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

altie "detox" regimen? Does "detox" remove each and every substance that

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be stored in the body?

Quoted message said:

Has it occured to you that storing a molecule of THC away in the body fat
may be one way the body "gets rid" of it? After all, if it is still there
after 27 years, it didn't spend those 27 years partying among the brain's
receptor sites.

Yes....I know what storing in body fat means. I don't agree that it
just sits there along with all the other chemicals that joined the
party.

What do you suggest the stuff does when stored in fats?

--

Robert Bronsing

But that's okay, see the children bleed
It'll look great on the TV

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The person you call a quack, Hulda Clark, saved my father's life.

Nope. You father survived despite Hulda. In other words, it is only correct
for you to claim that her "treatment" did not prevent his own body from healing
itself.

Andrew, If you want to make claims and use anecdotes or extrapolate
from personal medical understandings, have at it.
But your claim above about what you know regarding my father with
Hulda and the other people I saw healed at her clinic has zero
foundation .
Peoples' bodies do not spontaneously heal themselves of terminal
stomach cancer, massive liver tumors or triple brain tumors. The
people I saw at her clinic were all given up for dead by their
respective doctors, so these people had chosen the last option they
believed they had.
Your personal education doesn't supercede what all those trusted
oncologists and medical doctors from the United States, Canada, Mexico
and England diagnosed with these people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you met this woman and witnessed just some of what she claims, you
would cut her some slack from the media onslaught. Think you're
really getting the true pic from the Net?

We have a true pic from the lab, Mike. She says ALL cancer is caused by a
fluke that is indigenous to SE Asia. She says all AIDS is due to Benzene, from
Liver flukes getting into the spleen.

She is a liar, an unimaginative one at that. Her zapper is nothing more than a
garden-variety example of Ideo-motor action. Kirk Kolas has posted some very
good information that you and your father are overdue in reading.

My father died last year at age 80yo, many years after his original
surgeon wanted to remove his stomach. At his death he still had his
stomach and was cancer free.

You have a 'picture' of methods that don't resonate with you. I have
more than a pic from the Net and I understand Clark's work. You can
post your descriptions from labs and paperwork. I want the real life
result.

I also understand the need you have to see proof that will protect you
from deception. However, it doesn't mean that everyone else is
stupid and deceived.

The false belief that someone has saved one life in here from the
charlatans is egotism. If you test out a method just because I tell
you to do it in here, you would really be a dope, but the opposite is
the same. And that is rampant in here.

Quoted message said:

After you digest the weight of this evidence, you'll understand why the
nativety and self-righteous demeanor of her supporters engenders a negative
response. You see, Mike, the only thing more unsufferable than a Quack are his
advocates. If you doubt me, consider Tim Bolen, Jan Drew, and Rod.

Here's the deal I have with that, Andrew:
You see so much as quackery and demand proof of all that doesn't
appear truth to you. I have proof in my life for things I wouldn't
even hint at in here, because what is more insufferable to me is
someone who fears deception so much that he drives away real truth
along with the many 'true' quacks. Both are out there. Just imagine
what you have driven off....good and bad. That is a worthwhile
consideration, Andrew. Not for me, but for you.

I don't follow around Tim Bolen, Jan Drew or Rod, any more than I
follow you around or the quackwatch teams set up in here.
I look for a topic that appears interesting to me. I click on a few
posts and if I want to post back I do. Most often I don't. Do you
see anything at all improper with two people name calling back and
forth over 100's of posts? Forget quackery. That's insanity!
That occurence and posting to every new topic is the reason I believe
the fight in here is an addiction.

You're free to participate, Andrew in any way you want.
And in this group, you get to see just how easy that is done.

You wrote a lot of information below that I didn't get to, because it
appears to back up your position that Clark is a fraud with useless
science.

It's your choice to live with that, Andrew. The only thing I can
offer regarding Clark are the anecdotes regarding my father and the 6
others who were healed, some with clinical verifications.

The woman who walked in from Canada who had 3 visible brain tumors on
her X-Ray left her angry oncologists, because she didn't want them to
drill holes in her head and implant radiological chemo(I forgot the
term she used.) Her docs gave her less than a year to live.
In 7 weeks at Clark's clinic this woman's X-Rays were eventually
clear.

I have 5 other anecdotes like that, but that's all they are.
If you want to use your wisdom and current knowledge to claim Clark's
work is useless, do it, but I won't, because
1 experience like that is enough for me to investigate that
information further, knowing there are all types of 'experts' who
will first tell me it isn't possible. Is there risk of quackery?
Yes, but I want the option to investigate it.
6 other experiences including my father's experience(which was
later evaluated by at least 12 American doctor's who claimed him
cancer free) is enough for me to know there is something worthwhile in
this alternative, but to approach with caution.

Do all the antagonistic lawsuits and opposing logical science to her
mean anything? Of course, but it doesn't mean there isn't a different
definition to the universe than what those groups limit in their
scopes.

I know that from proven personal experience.
That foundation causes me to open my eyes wider which may cause me to
be deceived more often than you, but that method has also given me
access to other alternative methods you tossed aside, because not
everything looked just perfect at the onset. I'd rather take the
risk in a search, than wait for the silver platter to appear before
me.

Mike

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The person you call a quack, Hulda Clark, saved my father's life.

Nope. You father survived despite Hulda. In other words, it is only

correct

Quoted message said:

for you to claim that her "treatment" did not prevent his own body from

healing

Quoted message said:

itself.

Andrew,

Ilsa.

Quoted message said:

If you want to make claims and use anecdotes or extrapolate
from personal medical understandings, have at it.

Sure, why should YOU have all the fun?

Quoted message said:

But your claim above about what you know regarding my father with
Hulda and the other people I saw healed at her clinic has zero
foundation .

As does your own. You have no knowledge that any one there other than your
father had any disease. Surely you didn't see their medical records? Surely,
you can't believe a synchrometer-based diagnosis.

Quoted message said:

Peoples' bodies do not spontaneously heal themselves of terminal
stomach cancer, massive liver tumors or triple brain tumors. The
people I saw at her clinic were all given up for dead by their
respective doctors, so these people had chosen the last option they
believed they had.
Your personal education doesn't supercede what all those trusted
oncologists and medical doctors from the United States, Canada, Mexico
and England diagnosed with these people.

Your personal beliefs don't supercede the fact that Liver Flukes are not the
only cause of cancer...or even a statistically significant cause of cancer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you met this woman and witnessed just some of what she claims, you
would cut her some slack from the media onslaught. Think you're
really getting the true pic from the Net?

We have a true pic from the lab, Mike. She says ALL cancer is caused by a
fluke that is indigenous to SE Asia. She says all AIDS is due to Benzene,

from

Quoted message said:

Liver flukes getting into the spleen.

She is a liar, an unimaginative one at that. Her zapper is nothing more

than a

Quoted message said:

garden-variety example of Ideo-motor action. Kirk Kolas has posted some

very

Quoted message said:

good information that you and your father are overdue in reading.

My father died last year at age 80yo, many years after his original
surgeon wanted to remove his stomach. At his death he still had his
stomach and was cancer free.

That's great, but does nothing to establish whether or not Hulda helped him.
As a matter of fact, if his treatments were by synchrometer and "cleanses", its
far more likely that his recovery was only impeded by the "treatment".

Quoted message said:

You have a 'picture' of methods that don't resonate with you. I have
more than a pic from the Net and I understand Clark's work. You can
post your descriptions from labs and paperwork. I want the real life
result.

Yeah, everyone would love to find that cancer could be cured with an
inexpensive, non-functional device (zapper). You can believe that it cures
cancer or whatever, but your belief system does not supercede reality,
lab-based or experiential.

Quoted message said:

I also understand the need you have to see proof that will protect you
from deception. However, it doesn't mean that everyone else is
stupid and deceived.

The false belief that someone has saved one life in here from the
charlatans is egotism. If you test out a method just because I tell
you to do it in here, you would really be a dope, but the opposite is
the same. And that is rampant in here.

Quoted message said:

After you digest the weight of this evidence, you'll understand why the
nativety and self-righteous demeanor of her supporters engenders a negative
response. You see, Mike, the only thing more unsufferable than a Quack are

his

Quoted message said:

advocates. If you doubt me, consider Tim Bolen, Jan Drew, and Rod.

Here's the deal I have with that, Andrew:
You see so much as quackery and demand proof of all that doesn't
appear truth to you. I have proof in my life for things I wouldn't
even hint at in here, because what is more insufferable to me is
someone who fears deception so much that he drives away real truth
along with the many 'true' quacks. Both are out there. Just imagine
what you have driven off....good and bad. That is a worthwhile
consideration, Andrew. Not for me, but for you.

Hey, Mike, if it is so valid and Hulda cures people all the time, perhaps she
could demonstrate it ONCE! How about a single instance that can be verified
instead of unverifiable anecdotes?

Quoted message said:

I don't follow around Tim Bolen, Jan Drew or Rod, any more than I
follow you around or the quackwatch teams set up in here.
I look for a topic that appears interesting to me. I click on a few
posts and if I want to post back I do. Most often I don't. Do you
see anything at all improper with two people name calling back and
forth over 100's of posts? Forget quackery. That's insanity!
That occurence and posting to every new topic is the reason I believe
the fight in here is an addiction.

You're free to participate, Andrew in any way you want.
And in this group, you get to see just how easy that is done.

You wrote a lot of information below that I didn't get to, because it
appears to back up your position that Clark is a fraud with useless
science.

It would be more correct for you to say that it causes you cognitive dissonace
(look it up). It erodes your belief system and makes you feel doubt. Doubt is
the enemy of blind faith. Reality is the friend of the educated opinion.

Quoted message said:

It's your choice to live with that, Andrew. The only thing I can
offer regarding Clark are the anecdotes regarding my father and the 6
others who were healed, some with clinical verifications.

The woman who walked in from Canada who had 3 visible brain tumors on
her X-Ray left her angry oncologists, because she didn't want them to
drill holes in her head and implant radiological chemo(I forgot the
term she used.) Her docs gave her less than a year to live.
In 7 weeks at Clark's clinic this woman's X-Rays were eventually
clear.

I have 5 other anecdotes like that, but that's all they are.

Yup, the plural of anecdote is NOT data.

Quoted message said:

If you want to use your wisdom and current knowledge to claim Clark's
work is useless, do it, but I won't, because
1 experience like that is enough for me to investigate that
information further, knowing there are all types of 'experts' who
will first tell me it isn't possible. Is there risk of quackery?
Yes, but I want the option to investigate it.
6 other experiences including my father's experience(which was
later evaluated by at least 12 American doctor's who claimed him
cancer free) is enough for me to know there is something worthwhile in
this alternative, but to approach with caution.

Do all the antagonistic lawsuits and opposing logical science to her
mean anything? Of course, but it doesn't mean there isn't a different
definition to the universe than what those groups limit in their
scopes.

The "fault" is not with the universe or the argument that perception is truly
reality. The fault is that Hulda is a liar. She lies when she says she has
the cure for all diseases. She lies when she says she cures cancer. She lies
when she says that all cancer is caused by liver flukes. This is not a simple
matter of "perception". She is an unimagintative liar and a repetitive one at
that.

Quoted message said:

I know that from proven personal experience.
That foundation causes me to open my eyes wider which may cause me to
be deceived more often than you, but that method has also given me
access to other alternative methods you tossed aside, because not
everything looked just perfect at the onset. I'd rather take the
risk in a search, than wait for the silver platter to appear before
me.

Mike

Its not an either-or proposition, Mike. Being realistic does not keep good
things from entering one's life.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Do all the antagonistic lawsuits and opposing logical science to her
mean anything? Of course, but it doesn't mean there isn't a different
definition to the universe than what those groups limit in their
scopes.

Mike

Please clarify this paragraph, Mike. You appear to be saying that we do not
all live in the same universe, and that the idea that natural laws are
universal is limited in scope.

--Rich

It's figurative, Rich

Mike

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do all the antagonistic lawsuits and opposing logical science to her
mean anything? Of course, but it doesn't mean there isn't a different
definition to the universe than what those groups limit in their
scopes.

Mike

Please clarify this paragraph, Mike. You appear to be saying that we do not
all live in the same universe, and that the idea that natural laws are
universal is limited in scope.

--Rich

Andrew,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you want to make claims and use anecdotes or extrapolate
from personal medical understandings, have at it.

Sure, why should YOU have all the fun?

Why would I want to be so childish about these things?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But your claim above about what you know regarding my father with
Hulda and the other people I saw healed at her clinic has zero
foundation .

As does your own. You have no knowledge that any one there other than your
father had any disease. Surely you didn't see their medical records? Surely,
you can't believe a synchrometer-based diagnosis.

This wasn't a sync diagnosis. These were first medically based
diagnoses that brought all these people to this clinic as a last
resort. ALL these people were given terminal prognoses by their local
doctors. The longest was 1 year. The shortest was 30 days.

This was then followed with Clark's weekly determinations and when
there was sufficient change that she believed could be seen by X-Ray,
she would send people out to a medical clinic for verification.

Quoted message said:

That's great, but does nothing to establish whether or not Hulda helped him.
As a matter of fact, if his treatments were by synchrometer and "cleanses", its
far more likely that his recovery was only impeded by the "treatment".

There you go, Andrew.

The Sync doesn't TREAT
I didn't say to you that he had cleanses that cured him.
and "It's far more likely" doesn't cut it.

You're ignoring the information that wouldn't let you say that.

You don't have to change your perceptions, but trying to explain
everything away as another person's misguided deceptions puts you on a
pedestal.

Mike

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do all the antagonistic lawsuits and opposing logical science to her
mean anything? Of course, but it doesn't mean there isn't a different
definition to the universe than what those groups limit in their
scopes.

Mike

Please clarify this paragraph, Mike. You appear to be saying that we do

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all live in the same universe, and that the idea that natural laws are
universal is limited in scope.

--Rich

Quoted message said:

It's figurative, Rich

Mike

No, it isn't. It's just unclear. "Do all the antagonistic lawsuits and
opposing logical science to her mean anything?" does not parse as a
meaningful sentence. What is the "different definition to the universe"?
What do "those groups limit in their scopes"? For that matter, who are
"those groups"? "Figurative" implies a metaphor, and there is simply none
here. Try again.

--Rich

Quoted message said:

It's figurative, Rich

Mike

Mike, please consider not top-posting. It is hard for readers to follow your
part of the discourse.

If I understand you correctly, and correct me if I don't, you are saying
because there are many unknowns in the universe, that nobody can have a level
of certainty to exclude the possibility of a given event.

I, and most other realists, believe that reality is not subjective, that
universal laws are universal, and that the universe doesn't cater to individual
belief systems.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do all the antagonistic lawsuits and opposing logical science to her
mean anything? Of course, but it doesn't mean there isn't a different
definition to the universe than what those groups limit in their
scopes.

Mike

Please clarify this paragraph, Mike. You appear to be saying that we do not
all live in the same universe, and that the idea that natural laws are
universal is limited in scope.

--Rich

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The person you call a quack, Hulda Clark, saved my father's life.

Nope. You father survived despite Hulda. In other words, it is only correct
for you to claim that her "treatment" did not prevent his own body from healing
itself.

Andrew, If you want to make claims and use anecdotes or extrapolate
from personal medical understandings, have at it.

What was the treatment that Hulda Clark used on your father's stomach
cancer?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Quoted message said:

Andrew, If you want to make claims and use anecdotes or extrapolate
from personal medical understandings, have at it.
But your claim above about what you know regarding my father with
Hulda and the other people I saw healed at her clinic has zero
foundation .

First of all your claim that people were cured of terminal diseases is
anecdotal and unverifiable. You could have made it all up for all I
know. Has a peer reviewed journal EVER published a case of terminal
cancer being successfully treated by Hulda Clark's methods??

I have seen many people make many claims but when it comes down to
verifying any of it I have NEVER EVER seen verification. Just a lot of
incredible unverifiable claims.

Quoted message said:

Peoples' bodies do not spontaneously heal themselves of terminal
stomach cancer, massive liver tumors or triple brain tumors.

Oh, really. And you have personally investigated EVERY case of
terminal cancer to see if ANY have spontaneously healed?? Rarely there
have been remissions in terminal cancers that no one can explain. It
may be uncommon but it does occur. I happen to know someone who was
diagnosed with an incurable cancer and inexplicably she is still alive
six years later (having been given only months to live). Miracles do
happen sometime. OTOH maybe the diagnosis was incorrect. Who knows?

Secondly, as I said previously, other than your claim, there is no
verifiable evidence that what you say is true. I am quite skeptical.
And the fact that you continue to support Jan Drew, a pathologic liar,
makes me wonder about your own credibility. Birds of a feather and all
that.

Quoted message said:

The
people I saw at her clinic were all given up for dead by their
respective doctors, so these people had chosen the last option they
believed they had.

Did you talk to their doctors or see their medical records to see if
they really had been given up for dead??

Quoted message said:

Your personal education doesn't supercede what all those trusted
oncologists and medical doctors from the United States, Canada, Mexico
and England diagnosed with these people.

Funny that we don't read about these miraculous recoveries in peer
reviewed journals. The most likely reason why is that they are
completely bogus.

Quoted message said:

My father died last year at age 80yo, many years after his original
surgeon wanted to remove his stomach. At his death he still had his
stomach and was cancer free.

Did your father have an autopsy to confirm that he was cancer free??

Quoted message said:

You have a 'picture' of methods that don't resonate with you. I have
more than a pic from the Net and I understand Clark's work. You can
post your descriptions from labs and paperwork. I want the real life
result.

Most people want real life results. Sadly one cannot rely on
unverifiable anecdotes by anonymous posters. If one does believe these
incredible claims then it just goes to prove that a fool is born every
day.

<snip more unverifiable claims>

Aloha,

Rich
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

Quoted message said:

What was the treatment that Hulda Clark used on your father's stomach
cancer?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

The same that she describes in her books.
Mike

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What was the treatment that Hulda Clark used on your father's stomach
cancer?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

The same that she describes in her books.

This response clinches it. Mike is a shill for Hulda Clark. No
surprise here.

He tells us all these incredible and miraculous stories of many people
being cured of terminal diseases by Hulda Clark methods but when asked
for the treatment his father used refers you to the book without
giving any details.

Why else would he not directly answer the question and instead refer
you to her books?? Hulda Clark describes various treatments in her
books ranging from parasite cleanses, zappers and removal of amalgams.

Aloha,

Rich

Quoted message said:

Mike

------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

@. said:

Quoted message said:

Andrew, If you want to make claims and use anecdotes or extrapolate
from personal medical understandings, have at it.
But your claim above about what you know regarding my father with
Hulda and the other people I saw healed at her clinic has zero
foundation .

First of all your claim that people were cured of terminal diseases is
anecdotal and unverifiable. You could have made it all up for all I
know. Has a peer reviewed journal EVER published a case of terminal
cancer being successfully treated by Hulda Clark's methods??

I have seen many people make many claims but when it comes down to
verifying any of it I have NEVER EVER seen verification. Just a lot of
incredible unverifiable claims.

Yes...Rich.
That's what I have - personal experiences and anecdotes when it comes
to Clark's program.

Yes I could have made it all up, but I didn't. That's where people get
into conversation about things.

I glanced at the intense questioning you wrote below.
It's like a machine gun and I'm supposed to address every single
little doubt and work hard for what?

Did I personally investigate EVERY case of terminal cancer?
Damn man.....I'm asking you to accept something on faith here first
and that is that this possibility exists. You're starting out that
everything that comes into this group is impossible. That's safe
thinking, but rather unreasonable for a group defined as Alternative.

Do the possibilities you mention completely eliminate what happened
with these people? Not at all
Could your possibilities be true? Sure....is it really that likely?
Not to me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peoples' bodies do not spontaneously heal themselves of terminal
stomach cancer, massive liver tumors or triple brain tumors.

Oh, really. And you have personally investigated EVERY case of
terminal cancer to see if ANY have spontaneously healed?? Rarely there
have been remissions in terminal cancers that no one can explain. It
may be uncommon but it does occur. I happen to know someone who was
diagnosed with an incurable cancer and inexplicably she is still alive
six years later (having been given only months to live). Miracles do
happen sometime. OTOH maybe the diagnosis was incorrect. Who knows?

Secondly, as I said previously, other than your claim, there is no
verifiable evidence that what you say is true. I am quite skeptical.
And the fact that you continue to support Jan Drew, a pathologic liar,
makes me wonder about your own credibility. Birds of a feather and all
that.

Is there any post you will make that will not have Jan Drew's name in
it? This is the internet. It doesn't matter to me if you think I'm
credible or not. If you have any sense you'll assume not and then
decide if anything is worth investigating.

There isn't anything I'll take at face value in this group or even
published on a website.

People in this group make claims of amazing backgrounds. Doctors come
in here to argue for hours in a day? The friends I have who are
doctors are so busy that wasting their lives in here wouldn't leave
them time to even do gratis work. People come in here to post
dozens of messages in a day...just in this one NG....retorting to name
calling? Doesn't that appear pathological?

Get a grip and if we should happen to post together again, do your
best to respond without putting Jan Drew in your post.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The
people I saw at her clinic were all given up for dead by their
respective doctors, so these people had chosen the last option they
believed they had.

Did you talk to their doctors or see their medical records to see if
they really had been given up for dead??

No....I wasn't going to Canada or England or elsewhere in Mexico or to
hunt down other doctors in the US to prove that these people were
given terminal prognoses that drove them to Tijuana in the hopes that
they could spend uncomfortable weeks together. Would you have such
fortitude to consider that type of research when the reason you
arrived was to see your father not die?

I did see X-Rays in succession. The most enjoyable to me was watching
the 3 masses in that woman's brain slowly disappear.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your personal education doesn't supercede what all those trusted
oncologists and medical doctors from the United States, Canada, Mexico
and England diagnosed with these people.

Funny that we don't read about these miraculous recoveries in peer
reviewed journals. The most likely reason why is that they are
completely bogus.

It's not funny. You can't wrap yourself around what I told you
enough to think that just maybe, that just possibly there could be
something to this. Where's the basis for a peer reviewed journal?
Those studies don't accept anecdotes, but the people I know who have
have published are certainly open to discussing them.

You aren't. Everything unusual is quackery or stupidity until proven
otherwise. There is a big lesson in that. Take it or leave it.

Rich, you give up the obvious explain-aways but in the wrong order.
What you said above is one of the first things people say except,
those who aren't in medical jobs say "If it were true, then my doctor
would already know about it." Everyone but you is stupid and
deceived and everything there is to know on Earth appears in peer
reviewed journals or comes perfectly prepared for
misc.health.alternative.

You say you want proof. It isn't in the form you want and you may have
to go get it yourself. That's what I did with a few other methods
I've found tremendously valuable.

Clark's method is TOUGH. Following her program to get results is one
of the most disciplined efforts I've personally tried. I did it to
support my father.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My father died last year at age 80yo, many years after his original
surgeon wanted to remove his stomach. At his death he still had his
stomach and was cancer free.

Did your father have an autopsy to confirm that he was cancer free??

Whew! I don't believe you asked me this.
About 5% of bodies in the US receive autopsies.
What you also missed, is that years went by from his original terminal
diagnosis to the point of his passing from an unrelated event. About
8 years.

My father had 13 or 14 doctors and eventually 2 surgeons finally
claimed he was cancer free. I said it was more than 12 because I lost
count after that. This wasn't a man who was hopping from one doctor
to the next for a convenient result. The doctors were disagreeing and
he wanted to have a concrete determination after he left Clark's
clinic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You have a 'picture' of methods that don't resonate with you. I have
more than a pic from the Net and I understand Clark's work. You can
post your descriptions from labs and paperwork. I want the real life
result.

Most people want real life results. Sadly one cannot rely on
unverifiable anecdotes by anonymous posters. If one does believe these
incredible claims then it just goes to prove that a fool is born every
day.

Sadly?
I didn't ask you to put your stamp of approval on Clark's work just
because I told you some anecdotes from my personal experiences with
her.

The only way the average person has to share this information is with
anecdotes. Reasonable skeptiscm is responsible thinking, but unbelief
makes you a fool.

The extreme demand for intense and expensive studies from everyone who
has something to say is damn laziness on your part.
You aren't going to get them and you aren't going to change the
anecdotes.

I think we would all like the big studies.
Wait for them and while you're waiting, should you get a diagnosis you
don't like, then remember the answers you gave to the other question I
had interest in. What would you do in that case?

It's at that moment that some people I've met like you, suddenly have
interest in anecdotes. The anecdotes will still be there. Some will
be true and some will be false. Throw them all out if you want.
It's just that at that moment, it's tough to create a Plan B.

Shaka,

Mike

Quoted message said:

<snip more unverifiable claims>

Quoted message said:

Aloha,

Rich
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

Rich
You're lazy and paranoid.
Read the book. Check it out for free.
I don't want to write everything she says.
If you know what she describes, then you should know just how clear
her program is. It's difficult to follow, but it certainly isn't
complicated.

Mike

@. said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What was the treatment that Hulda Clark used on your father's stomach
cancer?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net

The same that she describes in her books.

This response clinches it. Mike is a shill for Hulda Clark. No
surprise here.

He tells us all these incredible and miraculous stories of many people
being cured of terminal diseases by Hulda Clark methods but when asked
for the treatment his father used refers you to the book without
giving any details.

Why else would he not directly answer the question and instead refer
you to her books?? Hulda Clark describes various treatments in her
books ranging from parasite cleanses, zappers and removal of amalgams.

Aloha,

Rich

Quoted message said:

Mike

------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

Quoted message said:

Did I personally investigate EVERY case of terminal cancer?
Damn man.....I'm asking you to accept something on faith here first
and that is that this possibility exists. You're starting out that
everything that comes into this group is impossible.

Strawman argument. I NEVER said that everything that comes into this
group is impossible. I often express skepticism. Sorry if you cannot
tolerate that I am skeptical without FALSELY accusing me of thinking
that it is all impossible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peoples' bodies do not spontaneously heal themselves of terminal
stomach cancer, massive liver tumors or triple brain tumors.

Oh, really. And you have personally investigated EVERY case of
terminal cancer to see if ANY have spontaneously healed?? Rarely there
have been remissions in terminal cancers that no one can explain. It
may be uncommon but it does occur. I happen to know someone who was
diagnosed with an incurable cancer and inexplicably she is still alive
six years later (having been given only months to live). Miracles do
happen sometime. OTOH maybe the diagnosis was incorrect. Who knows?

Secondly, as I said previously, other than your claim, there is no
verifiable evidence that what you say is true. I am quite skeptical.
And the fact that you continue to support Jan Drew, a pathologic liar,
makes me wonder about your own credibility. Birds of a feather and all
that.

Is there any post you will make that will not have Jan Drew's name in
it?

Cue Jan to attack me from behind her kill file. I notice that you did
not address my point that terminal cancer cases can go into
spontaneous remission with no apparent cause. It is rare but possible.

Quoted message said:

This is the internet. It doesn't matter to me if you think I'm
credible or not.

Of course you don't care. You don't care that Jan Drew lied about her
amalgam history either. Your priorities are showing.

Quoted message said:

If you have any sense you'll assume not and then
decide if anything is worth investigating.

If I investigated every crackpot claim on the internet I would not
have time to enjoy life.

Quoted message said:

People in this group make claims of amazing backgrounds. Doctors come
in here to argue for hours in a day? The friends I have who are
doctors are so busy that wasting their lives in here wouldn't leave
them time to even do gratis work. People come in here to post
dozens of messages in a day...just in this one NG....retorting to name
calling? Doesn't that appear pathological?

Diversion noted. Personal attacks noted.

Quoted message said:

Get a grip and if we should happen to post together again, do your
best to respond without putting Jan Drew in your post.

Diversion again noted. Personal attack again noted.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The
people I saw at her clinic were all given up for dead by their
respective doctors, so these people had chosen the last option they
believed they had.

Did you talk to their doctors or see their medical records to see if
they really had been given up for dead??

No....I wasn't going to Canada or England or elsewhere in Mexico or to
hunt down other doctors in the US to prove that these people were
given terminal prognoses that drove them to Tijuana in the hopes that
they could spend uncomfortable weeks together. Would you have such
fortitude to consider that type of research when the reason you
arrived was to see your father not die?

You missed my point. You ASSumed that all these people really were all
given up for dead when you did not even check it out. So either you
are making it all up or you are very gullible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Funny that we don't read about these miraculous recoveries in peer
reviewed journals. The most likely reason why is that they are
completely bogus.

It's not funny. You can't wrap yourself around what I told you
enough to think that just maybe, that just possibly there could be
something to this.

It is so improbable given your complete lack of credibility for me to
even give it much thought. Of course anything is possible which is
what allows the quacks to prey on the desperation of the hopeless.

Quoted message said:

Where's the basis for a peer reviewed journal?
Those studies don't accept anecdotes, but the people I know who have
have published are certainly open to discussing them.

Of course peer reviewed journals accept case studies.

<snip more diversions and unverifiable claims>

Aloha,

Rich
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

(Ilsa9) said:

"It only takes days to be cured of cancer regardless of the type you have. It
does not matter how far progressed the cancer is-you can still stop it
immediately. Does this mean you can cancel your date for surgery, radiation or
chemotherapy? Yes, after curing your cancer with this recipe, it cannot come
back. This is not a treatment for cancer: It is a cure!"

I would like everyone to notice how Hulda Clark does not claim to be
able to cure cancer. As the words above were written by the woman
herself I must now agree with her disciple Jan Drew and apologise for
erroneously saying that Hulda Clark claimed to be able to cure cancer.
She makes no such claim, as can be seen by her very own words, which I
will repeat:

Quoted message said:

"It only takes days to be cured of cancer regardless of the type you have. It
does not matter how far progressed the cancer is-you can still stop it
immediately. Does this mean you can cancel your date for surgery, radiation or
chemotherapy? Yes, after curing your cancer with this recipe, it cannot come
back. This is not a treatment for cancer: It is a cure!"

</sarcasm>

How do you like them rotten apples, Jan? I await your apology.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Peter Bowditch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Ilsa9) said:

"It only takes days to be cured of cancer regardless of the type you

have. It

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

does not matter how far progressed the cancer is-you can still stop it
immediately. Does this mean you can cancel your date for surgery,

radiation or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

chemotherapy? Yes, after curing your cancer with this recipe, it cannot

come

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

back. This is not a treatment for cancer: It is a cure!"

I would like everyone to notice how Hulda Clark does not claim to be
able to cure cancer. As the words above were written by the woman
herself I must now agree with her disciple Jan Drew and apologise for
erroneously saying that Hulda Clark claimed to be able to cure cancer.
She makes no such claim, as can be seen by her very own words, which I
will repeat:

Quoted message said:

"It only takes days to be cured of cancer regardless of the type you

have. It

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

does not matter how far progressed the cancer is-you can still stop it
immediately. Does this mean you can cancel your date for surgery,

radiation or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

chemotherapy? Yes, after curing your cancer with this recipe, it cannot

come

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

back. This is not a treatment for cancer: It is a cure!"

</sarcasm>

How do you like them rotten apples, Jan? I await your apology.

Don't hold your breath. ;o) Rich