Guest guest Posted April 22, 1999 Report Share Posted April 22, 1999 At 09:53 22.04.99 -0700, <wingnut@...> wrote: >I have a friend whose mother has cancer and asked me to attempt to locate an address for Dr. Hulda . Do you know of one? Let me know if you have one, thanks. ~~~ I do not know, but i am sure that web master of this site knows that: Hulda site in Swiss: http://www..ch which is the home page of Dr. Research Association. It is also a very good source for ordering the parasite herbs plus the other things needed to do the various handlings. Dusan Stojkovic Norway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 1999 Report Share Posted October 23, 1999 Currently using Dr. 's method. She is a wonderful person. I hope her method works for my husband. We're also using Dr. Revici's compounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 1999 Report Share Posted October 23, 1999 Hello, Joyce, is it possible to order a vidio of Dr. 's Ft. talk? I am very interested in any updated information from her and am so glad she is able to speak out on the injustices done on anyone attempting to heal Cancer in America. I attribute my 95% cured multiple Myeloma to her. I am unable to travel due to complications from fractured Lumbar vetebras/severe Osteoperossis disabilities. Just obtain a Vidio for me and I will send credit card info or ck. Thanks, Liz , R.N.,C.O.H.N. ,Ret. At 11:34 AM 10/23/1999 -0700, you wrote: > >http://hills.cccsf.cc.ca.us/~jinouy01 > >Dr. has had great success in treating cancer (she was recently >jailed, and is awaiting trial), but will be speaking. Go to see her if >you cn make it. > >Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:14:17 EDT >From: Jwtrader@... >rife-list@... >Subject: [RF]: Dr. Hulda 's 1st USA Public Lecture - NOW > >Dr. Hulda 's 1st USA Public Lecture - NOW >Update by Tim Bolen: Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999: > >Please forward this to everyone you know in the local area and within >driving distance whether you can come or not. Tell them to do the same to >everyone they know. Dr. , just yesterday, was given approval to be >in Ft. this week. > >She is speaking Friday at the 10th International Forum on New Science. >Special Presentation: > >HULDA CLARK, PH.D., N.D. >International Author and Alternative Healer >Friday: October 22, 1999, 7:00 P.M. >WORKSHOP: 8:10 P.M. -10:10 P.M. > > $20.00 >COMBINATION LECTURE AND WORKSHOP $30.00 >THIS IS THE FIRST EVER PUBLIC LECTURE IN THE U.S. FOR >DR. CLARK >*The Forum is taking place now from October 21-24, 1999. For additional >information, call (970)-482-3731. More information on the Forum is >available >at > >www.newsciences.org. >The 10th Annual International Forum on New Science will be held >~ October 21 through 24, 1999 >~ Holiday Inn, North, Fort , Colorado >~ Call 970-484-4660 for room rate > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Get A 0% Intro APR Visa with Instant Approval right now a >GetSmart.com at http://clickhere./click/1270 > > >Visit http://cures for cancer.evangelist.net for cancer info or to unsubscribe > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 1999 Report Share Posted October 24, 1999 You might want to ask those carrying her products at " Dr. Research Association " or the " Self Resourch Center " at: http://www..ch/hiv/hiv_frame.htm http://www.concentric.net/~Healthy/ or call the numbers at the bottom of this page where she will be speaking. On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, wrote: > Hello, Joyce, is it possible to order a vidio of Dr. 's Ft. > talk? I am very interested in any updated information from her and am so > glad she is able to speak out on the injustices done on anyone attempting > to heal Cancer in America. I attribute my 95% cured multiple Myeloma to > her. I am unable to travel due to complications from fractured Lumbar > vetebras/severe Osteoperossis disabilities. Just obtain a Vidio for me and > I will send credit card info or ck. Thanks, Liz , R.N.,C.O.H.N. ,Ret. > > At 11:34 AM 10/23/1999 -0700, you wrote: > > > >http://hills.cccsf.cc.ca.us/~jinouy01 > > > >Dr. has had great success in treating cancer (she was recently > >jailed, and is awaiting trial), but will be speaking. Go to see her if > >you cn make it. > > > >Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:14:17 EDT > >From: Jwtrader@... > >rife-list@... > >Subject: [RF]: Dr. Hulda 's 1st USA Public Lecture - NOW > > > >Dr. Hulda 's 1st USA Public Lecture - NOW > >Update by Tim Bolen: Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999: > > > >Please forward this to everyone you know in the local area and within > >driving distance whether you can come or not. Tell them to do the same to > >everyone they know. Dr. , just yesterday, was given approval to be > >in Ft. this week. > > > >She is speaking Friday at the 10th International Forum on New Science. > >Special Presentation: > > > >HULDA CLARK, PH.D., N.D. > >International Author and Alternative Healer > >Friday: October 22, 1999, 7:00 P.M. > >WORKSHOP: 8:10 P.M. -10:10 P.M. > > > > $20.00 > >COMBINATION LECTURE AND WORKSHOP $30.00 > >THIS IS THE FIRST EVER PUBLIC LECTURE IN THE U.S. FOR > >DR. CLARK > >*The Forum is taking place now from October 21-24, 1999. For additional > >information, call (970)-482-3731. More information on the Forum is > >available > >at > > > >www.newsciences.org. > >The 10th Annual International Forum on New Science will be held > >~ October 21 through 24, 1999 > >~ Holiday Inn, North, Fort , Colorado > >~ Call 970-484-4660 for room rate > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Get A 0% Intro APR Visa with Instant Approval right now a > >GetSmart.com at http://clickhere./click/1270 > > > > > >Visit http://cures for cancer.evangelist.net for cancer info or to unsubscribe > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Get A 0% Intro APR Visa with Instant Approval right now a > GetSmart.com at http://clickhere./click/1270 > > > Visit http://cures for cancer.evangelist.net for cancer info or to unsubscribe > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 1999 Report Share Posted November 3, 1999 Dear jsr, What makes you think Hulda is interested in any cancer cure you think you may have. Are you interested in HER cancer cures, and willing to forget about YOURS?? Of course not. All these alternative docs and proponents of specific treatments are only interested in their own litttle niche, whether it's ego trip or market share, same as the establishment. The only benefit to the public at large is that most ANY of these alternative methods are less permanently harmful to the body than the traditional surgery, chemo and radiation; unless you happen to hit upon a totally useless method, and therefore waste valuable time in getting effective treatment. Rosy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 1999 Report Share Posted November 3, 1999 my dad is one of Dr. 's patience. What's the pertinence of your finding with Dr. 's. Please let me know. Mundo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2000 Report Share Posted May 31, 2000 whats the site address..thanks sally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2000 Report Share Posted June 26, 2000 I thought a few words of rebuttal regarding Hulda might be useful - since there seems to be a rush to judgement on this forum. What you fail to point out is that the reason her libel suit was overturned is that the appeals judge allowed the materials in question to be tested by acceptable testing methods (which had not been allowed during the initial trial) - those testing methods proved that she was right - that the materials contained the very pollutants she had claimed. Why don't you put that in your article? That she was in fact vindicated by the appeals court!!! That in fact her synchrometer had detected the specific pollutants in the products in question. I attended the synchrometer testing class in California a couple of years ago. Even with partially damaged hearing from being a pilot, I was able to become somewhat capable with the synchrometer - at the end, in a blind test, I successfully identified seven out of 10 pollutants. I feel I could have gotten better - and I witnessed the instructor get 100% right. You are quite quick to condemn! Finally, let me say that my wife has Stage IV breast cancer. All of her doctors (Henry Ford Medical Center, Karmanos Center, M D Center) say they have no idea what causes breast cancer! They also say it is incurable once it has mestasticised - that it can only be treated to extend life and somewhat improve quality of life. Laraine's treatment currently costs about $5,000 a week, with no hope of success (meaning a cure). At M D last week, they began the process to sign her up for a $200,000 minimum bone marrow transplant/high dosage chemo regimen that statistically has no hope of a cure (per all the medical studies). The medical establishment has already taken over $500,000 of our insurance company's money during this period where there is no hope of a cure. It certainly makes on wonder who are the charlatans. One last point. We treated ulcers for life, with very expensive drugs, until two doctors (who were forced to complete their research in Australia after all their funding and laboratory resources were cut off in the USA) discovered that 90% of ulcers were caused by a bacteria living in the stomach. In order to even present their results, they had to resort to subterfuge. Five years after their research was finally accepted, over 90% of prescriptions were still for the old method of treatment, rather than the new method that is a cure. Perhaps that should be a caution to every one on this forum. It was the common wisdom that bacteria could not survive in the stomach's acid. Why didn't pathologists look during autopsies. There certainly were many cadavers available, because we used to die from ulcers. I submit that we didn't look, because it just couldn't be. How many discoveries might have happened years earlier if we'd all had more open minds? Who else is looking for the cause of breast cancer, not just ways of treating it? I find her books quite interesting - I have certainly learned a lot about the human body, and find that her liver and kidney cleanses certainly produce the results she says. My only use of the zapper has been to eliminate a variety of skin problems and minor infections - for instance, I always had acne on my back and subacious cysts on my face - after use of the zapper, both cleared up for good. I wish there was a serious research organization that would try to duplicate her results with the synchrometer, rather than simply trying to prove her wrong, or even worse, debunk her after simply watching her. As a spouse who is watching my wife die (she will not try any of Dr. 's methods because her reaction is similar to kkolas@guleph's). I am appalled that the federal government is attacking Dr. . In fact, they are attacking anyone who claims to be working on a " cure " . Perhaps I could understand their position if the medical establishment had anything to offer that was effective at all for mestasticized breast cancer, or that was even mildly more cost effective. In her most recent trial where she was charged with practicing medicine without a license, the federal government said their case was not about whether or not her methods worked, it was about her not having an MD license. They offered to settle (drop all charges) if she would stop work on finding a cure, both in Mexico where her clinic is, and in the USA. She refused to settle. Finally, the court dismissed the charges. Of note, early on I checked out her credentials - she does indeed have a Doctor of Philosophy degree in bio-physics, granted by the University of Minnesota on June 14th, 1958. I verified this with the University of Minn on 4/3/96 - you can call them at 612-625-5333. ly, this gives her impeccable credentials to set out on a search for the causes of disease. Is anyone on this forum willing to take a closer look? _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2000 Report Share Posted June 26, 2000 , I don't know why you are letting the AMA treat your wife? Dr. Johanna Budwig's diet has cured many terminally ill, simply with the flax oil, cottage cheese mix, and vegetarian diet. I have cancer and have been greatly improved on the Dr. Budwig diet: [Note, the beginning of the diet for the very ill is an enema of 500cc of flax seed oil, you can get Dr. Budwig's books at a health food store, or any bookstore, or at Barlean's: www.barleans.com who sell the flax oil, and books wholesale to cancer victims] Read on: Re: Dr. Hulda I thought a few words of rebuttal regarding Hulda might be useful -since there seems to be a rush to judgement on this forum.What you fail to point out is that the reason her libel suit was overturnedis that the appeals judge allowed the materials in question to be tested byacceptable testing methods (which had not been allowed during the initialtrial) - those testing methods proved that she was right - that thematerials contained the very pollutants she had claimed. Why don't you putthat in your article? That she was in fact vindicated by the appealscourt!!! That in fact her synchrometer had detected the specific pollutantsin the products in question.I attended the synchrometer testing class in California a couple of yearsago. Even with partially damaged hearing from being a pilot, I was able tobecome somewhat capable with the synchrometer - at the end, in a blind test,I successfully identified seven out of 10 pollutants. I feel I could havegotten better - and I witnessed the instructor get 100% right. You arequite quick to condemn!Finally, let me say that my wife has Stage IV breast cancer. All of herdoctors (Henry Ford Medical Center, Karmanos Center, M D Center)say they have no idea what causes breast cancer! They also say it isincurable once it has mestasticised - that it can only be treated to extendlife and somewhat improve quality of life. Laraine's treatment currentlycosts about $5,000 a week, with no hope of success (meaning a cure). At M D last week, they began the process to sign her up for a $200,000minimum bone marrow transplant/high dosage chemo regimen that statisticallyhas no hope of a cure (per all the medical studies). The medicalestablishment has already taken over $500,000 of our insurance company'smoney during this period where there is no hope of a cure. It certainlymakes on wonder who are the charlatans.One last point. We treated ulcers for life, with very expensive drugs,until two doctors (who were forced to complete their research in Australiaafter all their funding and laboratory resources were cut off in the USA)discovered that 90% of ulcers were caused by a bacteria living in thestomach. In order to even present their results, they had to resort tosubterfuge. Five years after their research was finally accepted, over 90%of prescriptions were still for the old method of treatment, rather than thenew method that is a cure. Perhaps that should be a caution to every one onthis forum. It was the common wisdom that bacteria could not survive in thestomach's acid. Why didn't pathologists look during autopsies. Therecertainly were many cadavers available, because we used to die from ulcers. I submit that we didn't look, because it just couldn't be. How manydiscoveries might have happened years earlier if we'd all had more openminds? Who else is looking for the cause of breast cancer, not just ways oftreating it?I find her books quite interesting - I have certainly learned a lot aboutthe human body, and find that her liver and kidney cleanses certainlyproduce the results she says. My only use of the zapper has been toeliminate a variety of skin problems and minor infections - for instance, Ialways had acne on my back and subacious cysts on my face - after use of thezapper, both cleared up for good. I wish there was a serious research organization that would try to duplicateher results with the synchrometer, rather than simply trying to prove herwrong, or even worse, debunk her after simply watching her. As a spouse whois watching my wife die (she will not try any of Dr. 's methods becauseher reaction is similar to kkolas@guleph's). I am appalled that the federalgovernment is attacking Dr. . In fact, they are attacking anyone whoclaims to be working on a " cure " . Perhaps I could understand their positionif the medical establishment had anything to offer that was effective at allfor mestasticized breast cancer, or that was even mildly more costeffective.In her most recent trial where she was charged with practicing medicinewithout a license, the federal government said their case was not aboutwhether or not her methods worked, it was about her not having an MDlicense. They offered to settle (drop all charges) if she would stop workon finding a cure, both in Mexico where her clinic is, and in the USA. Sherefused to settle. Finally, the court dismissed the charges. Of note, early on I checked out her credentials - she does indeed have aDoctor of Philosophy degree in bio-physics, granted by the University ofMinnesota on June 14th, 1958. I verified this with the University of Minnon 4/3/96 - you can call them at 612-625-5333. ly, this gives herimpeccable credentials to set out on a search for the causes of disease. Is anyone on this forum willing to take a closer look?_______________________________________________________Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by ExciteVisit http://freelane.excite.com/freeispGet HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there. Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2000 Report Share Posted June 26, 2000 I find what you say about Dr. very interesting regarding the dismissal of charges against her. My following of her case, however, disclosed that the judge threw it out because the time for it to come up had far exceeded the statute of limitations. The time in spent in court on her case had little time to allow for proving or disproving her treatments. Where did you get that info please? Best, JR I thought a few words of rebuttal regarding Hulda might be useful - since there seems to be a rush to judgement on this forum. What you fail to point out is that the reason her libel suit was overturned is that the appeals judge allowed the materials in question to be tested by acceptable testing methods (which had not been allowed during the initial trial) - those testing methods proved that she was right - that the materials contained the very pollutants she had claimed. Why don't you put that in your article? That she was in fact vindicated by the appeals court!!! That in fact her synchrometer had detected the specific pollutants in the products in question. I attended the synchrometer testing class in California a couple of years ago. Even with partially damaged hearing from being a pilot, I was able to become somewhat capable with the synchrometer - at the end, in a blind test, I successfully identified seven out of 10 pollutants. I feel I could have gotten better - and I witnessed the instructor get 100% right. You are quite quick to condemn! Finally, let me say that my wife has Stage IV breast cancer. All of her doctors (Henry Ford Medical Center, Karmanos Center, M D Center) say they have no idea what causes breast cancer! They also say it is incurable once it has mestasticised - that it can only be treated to extend life and somewhat improve quality of life. Laraine's treatment currently costs about $5,000 a week, with no hope of success (meaning a cure). At M D last week, they began the process to sign her up for a $200,000 minimum bone marrow transplant/high dosage chemo regimen that statistically has no hope of a cure (per all the medical studies). The medical establishment has already taken over $500,000 of our insurance company's money during this period where there is no hope of a cure. It certainly makes on wonder who are the charlatans. One last point. We treated ulcers for life, with very expensive drugs, until two doctors (who were forced to complete their research in Australia after all their funding and laboratory resources were cut off in the USA) discovered that 90% of ulcers were caused by a bacteria living in the stomach. In order to even present their results, they had to resort to subterfuge. Five years after their research was finally accepted, over 90% of prescriptions were still for the old method of treatment, rather than the new method that is a cure. Perhaps that should be a caution to every one on this forum. It was the common wisdom that bacteria could not survive in the stomach's acid. Why didn't pathologists look during autopsies. There certainly were many cadavers available, because we used to die from ulcers. I submit that we didn't look, because it just couldn't be. How many discoveries might have happened years earlier if we'd all had more open minds? Who else is looking for the cause of breast cancer, not just ways of treating it? I find her books quite interesting - I have certainly learned a lot about the human body, and find that her liver and kidney cleanses certainly produce the results she says. My only use of the zapper has been to eliminate a variety of skin problems and minor infections - for instance, I always had acne on my back and subacious cysts on my face - after use of the zapper, both cleared up for good. I wish there was a serious research organization that would try to duplicate her results with the synchrometer, rather than simply trying to prove her wrong, or even worse, debunk her after simply watching her. As a spouse who is watching my wife die (she will not try any of Dr. 's methods because her reaction is similar to kkolas@guleph's). I am appalled that the federal government is attacking Dr. . In fact, they are attacking anyone who claims to be working on a " cure " . Perhaps I could understand their position if the medical establishment had anything to offer that was effective at all for mestasticized breast cancer, or that was even mildly more cost effective. In her most recent trial where she was charged with practicing medicine without a license, the federal government said their case was not about whether or not her methods worked, it was about her not having an MD license. They offered to settle (drop all charges) if she would stop work on finding a cure, both in Mexico where her clinic is, and in the USA. She refused to settle. Finally, the court dismissed the charges. Of note, early on I checked out her credentials - she does indeed have a Doctor of Philosophy degree in bio-physics, granted by the University of Minnesota on June 14th, 1958. I verified this with the University of Minn on 4/3/96 - you can call them at 612-625-5333. ly, this gives her impeccable credentials to set out on a search for the causes of disease. Is anyone on this forum willing to take a closer look? _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers. 1/4633/13/_/378/_/962027749/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there. Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2000 Report Share Posted June 26, 2000 Are you referring to the following appeal decision? Kay Libel finding against health-book author reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Anne Krueger STAFF WRITER 05-Oct-1998 Monday Tijuana scientist Hulda sounded an alarm in her books on curing cancer and AIDS: Her " syncrometer " had found the cancer-causing substance benzene in a wide variety of household products. Some of them were made by Melaleuca Inc., an Idaho company that sells personal hygiene, cosmetic, over-the-counter pharmaceutical and nutritional items containing tea tree oil. The substance comes from the leaves of a tree that grows primarily in Australia. Melaleuca sued , claiming she had libeled the company in three books, which had more than $7 million in sales. Last year, a San Diego jury agreed, awarding the company $1.5 million in damages. But last week, the verdict was reversed by the San Diego-based 4th District Court of Appeal. The justices concluded 's written statements about the products clearly were false but said Melaleuca had to prove made them maliciously. Because an instruction given to the jury on the legal concept of malice was in error, deserves a new trial, the appeals court said. The unanimous decision, written by Justice Benke, was certified for publication, meaning it can be cited as legal precedent. was described in the court ruling as an independent research scientist operating a center near Tijuana. She claims to have a cure for cancer, AIDS and several other serious illnesses. believes the diseases are caused by intestinal parasites and toxic substances, the ruling said. If exposure to the substances -- particularly isopropyl alcohol and benzene -- is stopped, a person will be better able to resist the parasites that cause disease, she contends. In detailing the history of the case, the justices said uses a device she invented called a syncrometer to detect cancer-causing substances. She claims the syncrometer is capable of detecting even minute amounts of substances, such as benzene, in products or in a patient. In her books, said the syncrometer detected benzene in almost all products made from tea tree oils. In late 1994, the claims came to the attention of officials of Melaleuca, which markets its 110 products through a catalog and independent agents. The court ruling said Melaleuca's sales in 1996 were between $3.5 million and $4.5 million a month. An independent laboratory test commissioned by Melaleuca found no benzene in its products. rejected Melaleuca's demand that she stop distributing her books, and in June 1995, the company sued her for libel, defamation and negligence. Following a trial before San Diego Municipal Judge Janet Kintner, the jury awarded Melaleuca $550,000 in damages and $1 million in punitive damages, those meant to punish or deter misbehavior. Jurors found 's statements about the Melaleuca products were false. And although they decided she did not know they were false, they concluded " she published the statements in reckless disregard of whether they were false. " The jury was given an instruction by the judge that to find had acted with malice, she " must have had serious doubts about the truthfulness " of her statements when she published them. The court of appeal agreed with that the instruction was in error. It likely led the jury to subjectively conclude that, " while may not have known her statements were false, she should have known they were false, " the court said. Attorney Guylyn Cummins, who represented in the appeal, said courts have ruled that comments about a product have a high degree of legal protection because of the public interest involved. " If you are a sincere researcher and you believe in the syncrometer, you should have the right to say what the results are unless you have serious doubts that the results are true, " Cummins said Friday. The appeals court said a chemist hired by Melaleuca testified there was no accepted scientific basis for the syncrometer testing advocated by . Yesterday, attorney Roper, who represented Melaleuca in the appeal, emphasized the justices had found 's statements about Melaleuca's products were unfounded. " They said she had no basis for what she was saying, " Roper said. " Her conclusions are false. " Roper said no decision has been made on whether to appeal the ruling. Both attorneys agreed the jury instruction will have to be rewritten in future cases if the ruling stands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Copyright Union-Tribune Publishing Co. Re: Re: Dr. Hulda >I find what you say about Dr. very interesting regarding the >dismissal of charges >against her. My following of her case, however, >disclosed that the judge threw it out because >the time for it to come up had far exceeded the >statute of limitations. The time in spent in court >on her case had little time to allow for proving >or disproving her treatments. Where did you >get that info please? Best, JR > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws. >1/4634/13/_/378/_/962042095/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there. Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2000 Report Share Posted June 26, 2000 " W. Crouse " wrote: > I thought a few words of rebuttal regarding Hulda might be useful - > since there seems to be a rush to judgement on this forum. Here are some comments: > > > What you fail to point out is that the reason her libel suit was overturned > is that the appeals judge allowed the materials in question to be tested by > acceptable testing methods (which had not been allowed during the initial > trial) - those testing methods proved that she was right - that the > materials contained the very pollutants she had claimed. Why don't you put > that in your article? That she was in fact vindicated by the appeals > court!!! That in fact her synchrometer had detected the specific pollutants > in the products in question. I am not sure where you got this information, but it is false. The appeals court overturned the decision of the jury based on constitutional arguments. That's it. The judgment is available online if you wish to read the whole thing: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/d028639.pdf http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/d028639.doc The argument was based on first amendment protection. Some tidbits from the decision: " If this appeal turned solely on the question of whether statements defendant and appellant Hulda Regehr has published about products distributed by plaintiff and respondent Melaleuca, Inc. (Melaleuca), are true, there is little doubt Melaleuca would prevail. There is simply no scientific basis for ’s conclusions about Melaleuca’s products, and the acceptable scientific evidence which is in the record entirely refutes ’s conclusions. " It was overturned because " the law of defamation and the law of injurious falsehood require that a plaintiff prove far more than the publication of a false statement. Where, as here, the defendant has made false statements which disparage the contents of a product, the owner or distributor of the product is required to produce clear and convincing evidence the defendant acted with actual malice. " Whoever told you that it was overturned because of " further testing allowed by the judge " seems to be simply lying. Read the decision. > I attended the synchrometer testing class in California a couple of years > ago. Even with partially damaged hearing from being a pilot, I was able to > become somewhat capable with the synchrometer - at the end, in a blind test, > I successfully identified seven out of 10 pollutants. I feel I could have > gotten better - and I witnessed the instructor get 100% right. You are > quite quick to condemn! That is great. Now why doesn't she act like a real scientist and submit her device to some real double blinded and controlled studies? They would cost virtually nothing to do. If she could prove the detection of substances under such conditions, the paper would be worthy of publication in Nature or Science! Let's see her do it! > Finally, let me say that my wife has Stage IV breast cancer. All of her > doctors (Henry Ford Medical Center, Karmanos Center, M D Center) > say they have no idea what causes breast cancer! They also say it is > incurable once it has mestasticised - that it can only be treated to extend > life and somewhat improve quality of life. Laraine's treatment currently > costs about $5,000 a week, with no hope of success (meaning a cure). At M D > last week, they began the process to sign her up for a $200,000 > minimum bone marrow transplant/high dosage chemo regimen that statistically > has no hope of a cure (per all the medical studies). The medical > establishment has already taken over $500,000 of our insurance company's > money during this period where there is no hope of a cure. It certainly > makes on wonder who are the charlatans. You raised some very valid points. I am not interested in attempting to defending the (American) health care industry (I'm Canadian). I am sorry to hear about your wife's condition. Certainly, if the scientific evidence does not support high dose chemo and marrow transplants (which appears to be the case) it doesn't seem appropriate to enroll in that treatment. But this does not vindicate Hulda of her responsibility to validate her testing and treatment. What she is doing now in Mexico is simply human experimentation, without a review board. > One last point. We treated ulcers for life, with very expensive drugs, > until two doctors (who were forced to complete their research in Australia > after all their funding and laboratory resources were cut off in the USA) > discovered that 90% of ulcers were caused by a bacteria living in the > stomach. In order to even present their results, they had to resort to > subterfuge. Five years after their research was finally accepted, over 90% > of prescriptions were still for the old method of treatment, rather than the > new method that is a cure. Now this is a great point. And the take home message is that the theory was finally accepted by the scientific community once the data was published in a scientific forum, so that it could be further investigated and validated. Hulda has never published anything... yet she has made literally " hundreds " of discoveries. > Perhaps that should be a caution to every one on > this forum. It was the common wisdom that bacteria could not survive in the > stomach's acid. Why didn't pathologists look during autopsies. There > certainly were many cadavers available, because we used to die from ulcers. > I submit that we didn't look, because it just couldn't be. How many > discoveries might have happened years earlier if we'd all had more open > minds? Who else is looking for the cause of breast cancer, not just ways of > treating it? I would venture to guess that hundreds of scientists (epidemiologists, oncologists, geneticists, etc...) are involved in investigating the causes. Try searching on cancerNET... there is plenty or research going on. > I find her books quite interesting - I have certainly learned a lot about > the human body, and find that her liver and kidney cleanses certainly > produce the results she says. My only use of the zapper has been to > eliminate a variety of skin problems and minor infections - for instance, I > always had acne on my back and subacious cysts on my face - after use of the > zapper, both cleared up for good. > > I wish there was a serious research organization that would try to duplicate > her results with the synchrometer, rather than simply trying to prove her > wrong, or even worse, debunk her after simply watching her. I wish she would actually present her data in a scientific forum, like thousands of other " researchers " do. > As a spouse who > is watching my wife die (she will not try any of Dr. 's methods because > her reaction is similar to kkolas@guleph's). I am appalled that the federal > government is attacking Dr. . In fact, they are attacking anyone who > claims to be working on a " cure " . Perhaps I could understand their position > if the medical establishment had anything to offer that was effective at all > for mestasticized breast cancer, or that was even mildly more cost > effective. I disagree with you here. They are simply going after people that are offering desperate people unproved and scientifically nonsensical " cures " with no proof behind them. > In her most recent trial where she was charged with practicing medicine > without a license, the federal government said their case was not about > whether or not her methods worked, it was about her not having an MD > license. They offered to settle (drop all charges) if she would stop work > on finding a cure, both in Mexico where her clinic is, and in the USA. She > refused to settle. Finally, the court dismissed the charges. Is there really any questioning the fact that she was (and continues to) diagnosing and treating people without appropriate medical credentials? > Of note, early on I checked out her credentials - she does indeed have a > Doctor of Philosophy degree in bio-physics, granted by the University of > Minnesota on June 14th, 1958. I verified this with the University of Minn > on 4/3/96 - you can call them at 612-625-5333. ly, this gives her > impeccable credentials to set out on a search for the causes of disease. Yes. She has a legitimate Ph.D. This is not a disputed fact. But a Ph.D. from the fifties does not give the person a right to " play doctor " with cancer and AIDS patients down in Mexico. I would love to hear what her thesis topic was. In an interview, she claimed: " My focus was biochemistry, physiology and biophysics, math, chemistry and biology and so on. " That is not much of a focus. Her " naturopathic degree " is from Clayton College of Natural Health, which is a correspondence school. That is a dubious degree, in my opinion. I still get junk mail from them. > Is anyone on this forum willing to take a closer look? > > Thanks for your comments, . Do you have any comments on the science behind an asian parasite causing cancer all over the world? Why is Ralph Moss speaking out against Hulda? How about addressing some of these glaring problems with what she writes? -- Kirk Kolas Ontario Veterinary College Class of 2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2000 Report Share Posted June 26, 2000 jrtex@... wrote: > I find what you say about Dr. very interesting regarding the > dismissal of charges > against her. My following of her case, however, > disclosed that the judge threw it out because > the time for it to come up had far exceeded the > statute of limitations. The time in spent in court > on her case had little time to allow for proving > or disproving her treatments. Where did you > get that info please? Best, JR JR, In the " practicing medicine without a license " case the charge was thrown out because: " Brown Circuit Judge Judith ruled the delay in arresting and prosecuting violated the former area resident's right to a speedy trial. " " This is not a case of bad faith on the part of the state, " wrote in the decision, issued Monday. " However, the bottom line remains that the government bears the burden of bringing a defendant to trial within the speedy-trial provisions of our constitutions and our laws. That burden was not met in this case. " In the libel case, in which Melaleuca sued (won a $1.5 million judgment and then lost on appeal), the verdict was reversed based on First Amendment free speech arguments. Hope that clears things up. -- Kirk Kolas Ontario Veterinary College Class of 2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2000 Report Share Posted June 26, 2000 , I agree that a rebuttal is called for here. I was very suprised at the complete trashing of Hulda and her ideas. I have found that she has helped me to think about the chemicals that I use every day. Like something as simple as soap. I now make all my own , and as far as the parasites & the zapper go I can't wait to get one. A friend has gone through 3 cleanses and uses the zapper feels so much better, she and her husband feel a change for the better Each time. You know when I first read it I thought how stupid. And what lies!!!! But , I have changed my mind. Although I don't agree with everything , I've learned to take what I can use and disreguard the rest. If the only thing I learned from that book was about daily health products I have spent the my money wisely. BUT.. she makes a valid point about metals reacting negatively in the mouth. My husband is in dentristy and has told me in Europe the practice of combining different metals is either illegal (he's in bed I'll ask him in the morning) or was never used. The Galvanic reaction that occurs when amalgam and a gold crown or perhaps a non-precious partial denture is real. And I think the danger it drawing the attention of the FDA.. I know that something is going on government wise. In the next year or so we should be hearing more about this. Every different metal in the mouth is a drain on the immune system. Hulda is right about the mouth and soap so I don't dismiss her other claims lightly. Joyce >I thought a few words of rebuttal regarding Hulda might be useful - >since there seems to be a rush to judgement on this forum. > >What you fail to point out is that the reason her libel suit was overturned >is that the appeals judge allowed the materials in question to be tested by >acceptable testing methods (which had not been allowed during the initial >trial) - those testing methods proved that she was right - that the >materials contained the very pollutants she had claimed. Why don't you put >that in your article? That she was in fact vindicated by the appeals >court!!! That in fact her synchrometer had detected the specific pollutants >in the products in question. > >I attended the synchrometer testing class in California a couple of years >ago. Even with partially damaged hearing from being a pilot, I was able to >become somewhat capable with the synchrometer - at the end, in a blind test, >I successfully identified seven out of 10 pollutants. I feel I could have >gotten better - and I witnessed the instructor get 100% right. You are >quite quick to condemn! > >Finally, let me say that my wife has Stage IV breast cancer. All of her >doctors (Henry Ford Medical Center, Karmanos Center, M D Center) >say they have no idea what causes breast cancer! They also say it is >incurable once it has mestasticised - that it can only be treated to extend >life and somewhat improve quality of life. Laraine's treatment currently >costs about $5,000 a week, with no hope of success (meaning a cure). At M D > last week, they began the process to sign her up for a $200,000 >minimum bone marrow transplant/high dosage chemo regimen that statistically >has no hope of a cure (per all the medical studies). The medical >establishment has already taken over $500,000 of our insurance company's >money during this period where there is no hope of a cure. It certainly >makes on wonder who are the charlatans. > >One last point. We treated ulcers for life, with very expensive drugs, >until two doctors (who were forced to complete their research in Australia >after all their funding and laboratory resources were cut off in the USA) >discovered that 90% of ulcers were caused by a bacteria living in the >stomach. In order to even present their results, they had to resort to >subterfuge. Five years after their research was finally accepted, over 90% >of prescriptions were still for the old method of treatment, rather than the >new method that is a cure. Perhaps that should be a caution to every one on >this forum. It was the common wisdom that bacteria could not survive in the >stomach's acid. Why didn't pathologists look during autopsies. There >certainly were many cadavers available, because we used to die from ulcers. >I submit that we didn't look, because it just couldn't be. How many >discoveries might have happened years earlier if we'd all had more open >minds? Who else is looking for the cause of breast cancer, not just ways of >treating it? > >I find her books quite interesting - I have certainly learned a lot about >the human body, and find that her liver and kidney cleanses certainly >produce the results she says. My only use of the zapper has been to >eliminate a variety of skin problems and minor infections - for instance, I >always had acne on my back and subacious cysts on my face - after use of the >zapper, both cleared up for good. > >I wish there was a serious research organization that would try to duplicate >her results with the synchrometer, rather than simply trying to prove her >wrong, or even worse, debunk her after simply watching her. As a spouse who >is watching my wife die (she will not try any of Dr. 's methods because >her reaction is similar to kkolas@guleph's). I am appalled that the federal >government is attacking Dr. . In fact, they are attacking anyone who >claims to be working on a " cure " . Perhaps I could understand their position >if the medical establishment had anything to offer that was effective at all >for mestasticized breast cancer, or that was even mildly more cost >effective. > >In her most recent trial where she was charged with practicing medicine >without a license, the federal government said their case was not about >whether or not her methods worked, it was about her not having an MD >license. They offered to settle (drop all charges) if she would stop work >on finding a cure, both in Mexico where her clinic is, and in the USA. She >refused to settle. Finally, the court dismissed the charges. > >Of note, early on I checked out her credentials - she does indeed have a >Doctor of Philosophy degree in bio-physics, granted by the University of >Minnesota on June 14th, 1958. I verified this with the University of Minn >on 4/3/96 - you can call them at 612-625-5333. ly, this gives her >impeccable credentials to set out on a search for the causes of disease. > >Is anyone on this forum willing to take a closer look? > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2000 Report Share Posted June 26, 2000 Well...is that what I said or not? The statute of limitations...the time to get to trial flat ran out. jrtex@... wrote: > I find what you say about Dr. very interesting regarding the > dismissal of charges > against her. My following of her case, however, > disclosed that the judge threw it out because > the time for it to come up had far exceeded the > statute of limitations. The time in spent in court > on her case had little time to allow for proving > or disproving her treatments. Where did you > get that info please? Best, JR JR, In the " practicing medicine without a license " case the charge was thrown out because: " Brown Circuit Judge Judith ruled the delay in arresting and prosecuting violated the former area resident's right to a speedy trial. " " This is not a case of bad faith on the part of the state, " wrote in the decision, issued Monday. " However, the bottom line remains that the government bears the burden of bringing a defendant to trial within the speedy-trial provisions of our constitutions and our laws. That burden was not met in this case. " In the libel case, in which Melaleuca sued (won a $1.5 million judgment and then lost on appeal), the verdict was reversed based on First Amendment free speech arguments. Hope that clears things up. -- Kirk Kolas Ontario Veterinary College Class of 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm sure this will offend some people, but I think it's funny! 1/6001/13/_/378/_/962072004/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there. Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2000 Report Share Posted June 27, 2000 >My husband is in dentristy and >has told me in Europe the practice of combining different metals is either >illegal (he's in bed I'll ask him in >the morning) or was never used. And I think the danger it drawing the attention of the FDA..>I know that something is going on government wise. In the next year or so we >should be hearing more about this>> Hi Again , I asked my husband about the FDA being interested & as far as he knows they aren't the part about Europe was Wrong again - so I guess it was wishful thinking or I dreamed it .... I do think it should be banned. But , that would probably be impossible. Metal used in dental " Gold " is actually many different metals. The other metals vary , but gold is too soft to be used without adding harder metals the same goes for silver. Palladium is used a lot. But, the price of that has skyrocketed now a lot of dentists are using non-precious and God only knows whats in that. Sorry for the wrong information. Joyce > > > >>I thought a few words of rebuttal regarding Hulda might be useful - >>since there seems to be a rush to judgement on this forum. >> >>What you fail to point out is that the reason her libel suit was overturned >>is that the appeals judge allowed the materials in question to be tested by >>acceptable testing methods (which had not been allowed during the initial >>trial) - those testing methods proved that she was right - that the >>materials contained the very pollutants she had claimed. Why don't you put >>that in your article? That she was in fact vindicated by the appeals >>court!!! That in fact her synchrometer had detected the specific >pollutants >>in the products in question. >> >>I attended the synchrometer testing class in California a couple of years >>ago. Even with partially damaged hearing from being a pilot, I was able to >>become somewhat capable with the synchrometer - at the end, in a blind >test, >>I successfully identified seven out of 10 pollutants. I feel I could have >>gotten better - and I witnessed the instructor get 100% right. You are >>quite quick to condemn! >> >>Finally, let me say that my wife has Stage IV breast cancer. All of her >>doctors (Henry Ford Medical Center, Karmanos Center, M D Center) >>say they have no idea what causes breast cancer! They also say it is >>incurable once it has mestasticised - that it can only be treated to extend >>life and somewhat improve quality of life. Laraine's treatment currently >>costs about $5,000 a week, with no hope of success (meaning a cure). At M >D >> last week, they began the process to sign her up for a $200,000 >>minimum bone marrow transplant/high dosage chemo regimen that statistically >>has no hope of a cure (per all the medical studies). The medical >>establishment has already taken over $500,000 of our insurance company's >>money during this period where there is no hope of a cure. It certainly >>makes on wonder who are the charlatans. >> >>One last point. We treated ulcers for life, with very expensive drugs, >>until two doctors (who were forced to complete their research in Australia >>after all their funding and laboratory resources were cut off in the USA) >>discovered that 90% of ulcers were caused by a bacteria living in the >>stomach. In order to even present their results, they had to resort to >>subterfuge. Five years after their research was finally accepted, over 90% >>of prescriptions were still for the old method of treatment, rather than >the >>new method that is a cure. Perhaps that should be a caution to every one >on >>this forum. It was the common wisdom that bacteria could not survive in >the >>stomach's acid. Why didn't pathologists look during autopsies. There >>certainly were many cadavers available, because we used to die from ulcers. >>I submit that we didn't look, because it just couldn't be. How many >>discoveries might have happened years earlier if we'd all had more open >>minds? Who else is looking for the cause of breast cancer, not just ways >of >>treating it? >> >>I find her books quite interesting - I have certainly learned a lot about >>the human body, and find that her liver and kidney cleanses certainly >>produce the results she says. My only use of the zapper has been to >>eliminate a variety of skin problems and minor infections - for instance, I >>always had acne on my back and subacious cysts on my face - after use of >the >>zapper, both cleared up for good. >> >>I wish there was a serious research organization that would try to >duplicate >>her results with the synchrometer, rather than simply trying to prove her >>wrong, or even worse, debunk her after simply watching her. As a spouse >who >>is watching my wife die (she will not try any of Dr. 's methods >because >>her reaction is similar to kkolas@guleph's). I am appalled that the federal >>government is attacking Dr. . In fact, they are attacking anyone who >>claims to be working on a " cure " . Perhaps I could understand their >position >>if the medical establishment had anything to offer that was effective at >all >>for mestasticized breast cancer, or that was even mildly more cost >>effective. >> >>In her most recent trial where she was charged with practicing medicine >>without a license, the federal government said their case was not about >>whether or not her methods worked, it was about her not having an MD >>license. They offered to settle (drop all charges) if she would stop work >>on finding a cure, both in Mexico where her clinic is, and in the USA. She >>refused to settle. Finally, the court dismissed the charges. >> >>Of note, early on I checked out her credentials - she does indeed have a >>Doctor of Philosophy degree in bio-physics, granted by the University of >>Minnesota on June 14th, 1958. I verified this with the University of Minn >>on 4/3/96 - you can call them at 612-625-5333. ly, this gives her >>impeccable credentials to set out on a search for the causes of disease. >> >>Is anyone on this forum willing to take a closer look? >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! >1. Fill in the brief application >2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds >3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR >1/5197/13/_/378/_/962117256/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there. Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2000 Report Share Posted June 28, 2000 Why use metal at all in your crowns, there are many different types of all ceramic crowns out there today, a couple which are very good are OPC & Impress. ask your dentist about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2000 Report Share Posted June 29, 2000 I have to agree with you. But not all dentists believe murcury is poisoness. I had a filling about a year ago, I had to literaly argue with the attending dentist to not put in a mercury filling. He got really snotty and rude. What finally tipped me off, was when he told the lady that was to clean my teath, " we would have been here sooner, but she insisted she have that other kind of filling " . We are the customer, without us there is no work. So demand from your dentist to use only that which is good for you. And they don't know everything, odviously cause this guy thinks mercury is safe, and a better way to fix a filling. I know not all are like this but beware. I ended up telling this guy that I don't care what he says I can read and from all that I have read I do not wish any more mercury in my mouth. Cost a little more, but definitly worth it. Re: Re: Dr. Hulda > Why use metal at all in your crowns, there are many different types of all > ceramic > crowns out there today, a couple which are very good are OPC & Impress. ask > your dentist about them. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Shop at gazoontite.com & breathe happier and healthier! Click here! > 1/5491/13/_/378/_/962188363/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there. Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2002 Report Share Posted September 23, 2002 Hi, I bought her book and followed her instructions as much as possible and didn't get any results. I think the hydrogen peroxide technique is a better bet. Dr. Hulda > Hello, I was going to start Dr. 's 100 parasite cleanse... has anyone had any success with her techniques??? please let me know if this is too good to be true??? Thanks...Gr. > > > > Read AIDS-Cured Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 i also used the so call cured for aids/hiv from Dr. Hulda and to be honest it didnt work for me either. I tried other therapies that had work a lot better than hers. D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2003 Report Share Posted March 2, 2003 Dr. has no affiliation with the group you are referring to although it is called the Dr. Research Organization. Dr. is not involved in the FTC action. I have read that the devices which the FTC is trying to get recalled have been approved for sale as medical devices in Europe. I also understand that the people who sell those units sent letters to all that bought them offering their money back if they were dissatisfied and that with over a thousand replies only one person asked for a refund. Many sent unsolicited testimonials telling of their good results with the device. You can go to the Web site of that organization at <A HREF= " www..net " >www..net</A> to learn more. Dr. does not sell anything except her books. If you want the latest available information on 's work order a copy of her book " The Cure for HIV and Aids " from New Century Press at 800-519-2465. This new book has 646 pages and on the cover it says " With 68 Case Histories. " It has only been available for about a week. The older edition had 543 pages and said " With Over 75 Case Histories " on the cover. If you go to a bookstore now you are likely to get the older edition. The new edition adds an enormous amount of new information. Much of this is general and can be very valuable to people with afflictions other than HIV. You will notice that in the books she tells you how to make all her devices from readily available components. even went to the trouble to design versions that could be built by people with no knowledge of electronics. She changed the design of her zapper to make it even more foolproof. She found that some of the devices being sold by others were not effective and that her advice that these units should be individually checked on an oscilloscope was not being followed. The changes eliminate the possibility that the tolerances of electronic components will result in some ineffective devices. Dr. has not patented any of the devices described in the new books, though many advised her to do so. Most who read the Cancercure postings know that when any device or product that threatens the market for profitable drugs or medical devices is marketed, there will be an effort to discredit them and force them off the market. Note the copyright notice in all of 's books gives permission to reproduce the material for noncommercial purposes. Some have even posted her entire books on the Web. S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2003 Report Share Posted March 2, 2003 Dr. has no affiliation with the group you are referring to although it is called the Dr. Research Organization. Dr. is not involved in the FTC action. I have read that the devices which the FTC is trying to get recalled have been approved for sale as medical devices in Europe. I also understand that the people who sell those units sent letters to all that bought them offering their money back if they were dissatisfied and that with over a thousand replies only one person asked for a refund. Many sent unsolicited testimonials telling of their good results with the device. You can go to the Web site of that organization at <A HREF= " www..net " >www..net</A> to learn more. Dr. does not sell anything except her books. If you want the latest available information on 's work order a copy of her book " The Cure for HIV and Aids " from New Century Press at 800-519-2465. This new book has 646 pages and on the cover it says " With 68 Case Histories. " It has only been available for about a week. The older edition had 543 pages and said " With Over 75 Case Histories " on the cover. If you go to a bookstore now you are likely to get the older edition. The new edition adds an enormous amount of new information. Much of this is general and can be very valuable to people with afflictions other than HIV. You will notice that in the books she tells you how to make all her devices from readily available components. even went to the trouble to design versions that could be built by people with no knowledge of electronics. She changed the design of her zapper to make it even more foolproof. She found that some of the devices being sold by others were not effective and that her advice that these units should be individually checked on an oscilloscope was not being followed. The changes eliminate the possibility that the tolerances of electronic components will result in some ineffective devices. Dr. has not patented any of the devices described in the new books, though many advised her to do so. Most who read the Cancercure postings know that when any device or product that threatens the market for profitable drugs or medical devices is marketed, there will be an effort to discredit them and force them off the market. Note the copyright notice in all of 's books gives permission to reproduce the material for noncommercial purposes. Some have even posted her entire books on the Web. S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 You can read her 3week cancer curing program here http://www.you-are-what-you-eat.com/3week-cancer-curing-program.html Heaven on Earth <ren@...> wrote: Can you help me with any of this info or links to this info: c.. miracle " cures " for cancer? (I think Ive learned alot from all of you on this one!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 In a message dated 2/22/05 5:19:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, self_health_solutions@... writes: > http://www.you-are-what-you-eat.com/3week-cancer-curing-program.html > this won't open Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 I can't get it to open now either. But you can buy her prevention book at amazon.com for around $20. > > In a message dated 2/22/05 5:19:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, > self_health_solutions@y... writes: > > > > http://www.you-are-what-you-eat.com/3week-cancer-curing- program.html > > > > this won't open > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.