My name is Doug Rowlands, and my comment is asfollows:
If you choose to believe that Dr. Clark is full of itand ignore her advice, then chances are you will eventually develop some type of health complication at some point in your life. When this happens, then it is an opportunity for you to discover whether she IS actually right or not, (telling people to eat healthy food, cleanse, etc. etc.) by performing the protocol on yourself and seeing if it works. That is far more logical than just assuming, out of the blue, that everyone on her message boards (thousands of people) are all liars, all getting paid from Hulda Clark- someone who is not tremendously rich to say the least (she allows people to copy her book for free). True, if we really lived in the happy fantasy world where media executives and pharmeceudical corporations care about people and thus, promote Dr. Clark's work, then she would certainly recieve a Nobel peace prize and millions of lives would be saved. However, if this DID happen- the entire medical system would crumble before our eyes, multinational corporations would go bankrupt because people would not buy their toxic products anymore: it would be a catastrophe. This is why Dr. Clark has not recieved the credit she deserves, like the long list of geniuses before her: Gallileo, Picasso, Syd Barrett, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, and many others- ALL rejected by the societies they lived in at the time they were alive.
Thank you for your comments Doug. Your letter implies that those notadhering to Hulda Clark's theories are more likely to get sick than those who do. The truth is that everyone will probably get sick someday. That being said, Hulda Clark has by no means cornered the market in pointing out that we live in a toxic environment. We all know that car and factory emissions, and many of our modern conveniences like household cleaners, cosmetics, processed foods, (the list is endless) can lead to disease. It is also common knowledge that we should exercise and eat healthy. What makes Hulda Clark different though, is her claim to diagnose and cure disease. All cancer, she claims, is caused by parasites. This assertion is scientifically known to be false.
As to your reference to the Medical Establishment's suppression of Hulda Clark's ideas... you seemed to have missed the whole point of my essay. If Hulda Clark truly did have a cure for cancer, nothing could prevent word of that cure from getting out to the general public. News of a cure for dying people can not be suppressed. There would be cancer cured people all over the world by now.
As you know Doug, that has not happened. How many people do you personally know that have been cured of cancer by following Hulda Clark's methods? Are your beliefs in Hulda Clark's message strong enough to approach people who have cancer, to inform them that they can be cured by following her protocol? If you truly believe in Clark's cure, don't you think you have an ethical obligation to save as many people as you can, even if it's making a nuisance of yourself? All you need to do is help cure one person. That person in turn will tell another who is ill. If there is anything to Hulda's cure, your effort will have a snowball effect and countless lives will be saved.
About your reference to historical figures: Comparing Hulda Clark's unpopularity to Galileo, Picasso and Einstein is a real stretch. Galileo was scorned because of scientific ignorance, whereas with Clark, it is science that finds fault with her theories. The analogy you use is totally inappropriate. As for Pablo Picasso, he died a very rich and famous artist, well respected by the art world. Albert Einstein achieved celebrity status for his genius while he was alive. Unlike Clark though, Einstein welcomed scientific evidence to prove his theories. Hulda Clark has nothing in common with these people.