Oh and don't believe everything the Cancer Indu$try and Drug Baron$ say, they just want to keep thier jobs and profits, theres little point in making conventional drugs that work too well, Cancer/Aids cures widely publicised=NHS collapses, together with all those gravy train consultancy fees for the Oncology "experts"! Cancer is easily curable, after all, it's only a disease! [and symptom also] The Bristol Cancer help Center can give INDEPENDENT [vital], non-vested interest treatments programmes.
Remember, the establishment are against alternatives, not because they are useless, but because they work!
Just scratch the surface and never take anything at face value. Oh, and 'don't knock it til you try it!'
I cannot state whether Clark is right or wrong, since the problem (as always with "alternative treatment") is that little official documentation exist (apart from the 100 case studies of cured patients, which is a result of Clark's own research and records).
However, Clark has clearly stated that one freely can copy pages from her book and likewise the galvanometer as well oscillator can be build for little money... how can this possibly make her 'wrong' per se? On the contrary I believe the main point here is that Clark (unlike many others) doesn't exhibit a desire to profit from her method's. Sure she has written a book about it... but what's the point in terms of profit if she allows the content not to be copyrighted (which she does at some webpages, e.g http://avarek.dk). She would lose a heck of a lot of money using such a strategy won't she? On the contrary it seems to me more like a non- commercial ideology, which hopefully can provide some useful results as opposed to sheer despair.
Now, what REALLY bothers me me is when people claim that 'somebody' says 'something' and then they either cite the person who says it wrongfully or they rephrase the content of the source (in this case Clark) in order to make a point that possibly cannot be obtained otherwise.
I won't even debate whether it's intentional or not, but by paraphrasing the content of the book into this:
"She claims in the book that these will detect and cure the parasites that cause all advanced cancers" a reader from London completely dismissed Clarck's theory on false grounds.
My point is not whether the theory works or not, but rather that this is not even what Clark's theory says; In relation to the treatment part of her theory she suggests that all living life has a given electric frequency. Thus (according to Clark) one cane get rid of the parasites by zapping by using a device (oscillator and galvanometer) which attacks the parasites within a very low frequency of hertz (which the receiver cannot even feel). Consequently, the parasites will (supposedly) die after a given number of treatments.
Thus speaking of "curing" the parasites (cf. the quotation above) is straight-forward nonsense and mis- quotation; It isn't the parasites that is being cured here... it's the host, alias the human body!
Finally, it deserves mention that Clark's methods are based on experiments made during a scientific PhD research in bio-physics, which in my humble opinion doesn't make it a "quack cancer cure" per se.
Fortunately I can see that others share this point of view; why dismiss all alternative method before hand. My father presently uses Hulda Clark's zapping method as a part of his overall treatment program and if it may provide a beneficial effect by stressing and ultimately killing the parasites which may very well cause the cell- mutation disease known as 'cancer', I don't see why anybody shouldn't...?!
But please do check out other methods as well by searching the web for info on the 'Graviola'- extract in particular as well as 'Curcumin' (a segment found i the curry spice) as well... and good luck!