Confessions of a Quackbuster

This blog deals with healthcare consumer protection, and is therefore about quackery, healthfraud, chiropractic, and other forms of so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM).

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Response to Tim Bolen's nonsense about Hulda Clark

Here is my first (private) message to Tim Bolen, in which I responded to one of his first so-called "press release(s)", which he sent as spam to lots of people. I simply copied his mail and interspersed my comments. For the sake of this blog entry, I have also colored some of his words:

----- Original Message -----
From: "healthbase"
To: "Tim and Jan Bolen"
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 9:09 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim and Jan Bolen
To: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Sent: 1. februar 2000 19:07

> Contact
> Tim & Jan Bolen - JuriMed
> (949) 728-0838
> cell phone: (949) 433-6292
> for Immediate Release
> About two hundred people, from all over the world,
> came to meet conventional medicine's idea of "The
> Most Dangerous Woman in America," Hulda Regehr Clark,


> supporters, claiming that the NCAHF activities have
> deprived millions of Americans of first-rate health
> care, causing unnecessary suffering and death.

Try and prove this "claim", Tim.

> Alternative health professionals, all around America,
> are searching for the funding sources for NCAHF
> activities.

We don't need funding, unlike you. We use our leisure time.

> Story Summary
> establishment)
> Opinion by Tim Bolen

Yes, it's your opinion.

> Hulda Clark Ph.D., a medical researcher for 51 years,
> is challenging the basis of American conventional
> medicine. If she's right, and wins her battles,
> she'll change American medicine forever. If she's
> right, planet earth can go into the new millennium
> without cancer, HIV/AIDS and other killers.

Sounds pretty if'ish to me.

> World-wide supporters say she is. And, no matter how
> hard minions of the medical establishment attack
> Clark, she just keeps picking up more, and more,
> support.
> Both the American Libertarian Party and the American
> Reform Party have made the attack on Clark in Indiana
> part of their "Election 2000" platform. They use it as
> an example of what's wrong with health in America.

If that's all the support she can get, she's in poor shape.

>>snip<< > Enraged supporters, after the arrest, organized a
> world-wide campaign on her behalf. And, the campaign,
> in full swing is no longer just a defense through
> raising money and public awareness. It is a
> full-fledged offense. Clark supporters are actively
> searching out the people they believe are behind the
> Clark attack, gathering information for prosecution.
> They believe that what is happening to Clark was
> "arranged" by minions of the medical establishment,
> and is a violation of federal RICO statutes. They
> believe that what is being done to Clark has happened
> time and time again to alternative health
> practitioners in America. They believe that the
> orchestration to stop innovation in health has caused
> the suffering and deaths of millions of American.
> They characterize this attack as just one more effort
> to discredit, and discourage, non-conventional health
> practitioners, those that disdain the use of drugs and
> surgery for more natural remedies.
> Clark supporters, go one step further, believing that
> the issue is about money; huge profits for
> pharmaceuticals. They believe the medical
> establishment is using its influence to attack the
> woman who has found a cure for cancer, and other
> diseases, with her innovative approaches.

True believers. No knowledge, just belief.

"...a cure for cancer,..." Prove it just once. What you write next
shows that even you don't have proof. Still a lot of "if"s.

> Clark supporters point out that if Clark is right
> about what causes cancer, and how to cure that cancer,
> then the huge $8.6 million per year U.S. chemotherapy
> industry is dead, dead, dead. And, every conventional
> Oncologist is the country can get in the unemployment
> line.
> More and more studies are showing how useless
> chemotherapy actually is combating cancer, and how it
> can actually make the situation worse.

What studies are you referring to? References please.

> Her theories are based upon common sense. Her primary

It's just a theory. As far as "common sense", in her case, there isn't
much that's common about it. Nonsense would be a better word.

> ~ If she's right about cancer, then the $8.6 million
> per year American chemotherapy industry is out of
> business.
> ~ Conventional Oncologists and Cancer Centers are out
> of business.
> ~ the American Cancer Society, and the Cancer
> Institute will lose ALL semblance of credibility.
> ~ If she's right about HIV/AIDS then the huge AIDS
> chemotherapy industry is out of business.
> ~ If she's right about HIV/AIDS then the huge AIDS
> government bureaucracy which keeps tabs on HIV
> positive Americans is out of business.
> ~ If she's right that the "Zapper" can kill viruses,
> harmful bacteria, and smaller parasites then the
> immense "off-the-shelf" cold and flu industry
> (pharmaceuticals again) are out of business.
> ~ If she's right that the electronic "Syncrometer" can
> analyze the human body completely, then, a new age of
> medicine is born...
> ~If she's right about benzine and isopropyl alcohol;
> huge product bases, like women's cosmetics, shampoos,
> soaps, and much more, will have to find other
> ingredients. Benzine could go on the same list as
> DDT.

Again, a lot of "if"s. But she's wrong.

> There has been a lot of speculation about how this
> ludicrous attack on Dr. Clark came to be. Although
> there may have been other contributing factors,
> supporters believe that earlier prosecutors (before
> prosecutor James Oliver married Investigator Amy
> Hoffman) simply saw no merit in the case. It is their
> theory that Amy Hoffman (Oliver), as an Investigator,
> may have gone through training provided by the
> Federation of States Medical Boards (FSMB) which in
> itself is horribly infected by it's relationship with
> the so called National Council Against Health Fraud
> (NCAHF) Any training Hoffman received at FSMB hands

Who'd be interested in supporting health fraud? Why do you defend it, Tim?

> would have prejudiced her against any, and all,
> alternative or leading-edge practitioners. The FSMB
> openly Characterizes all alternative practices as
> "health fraud."
> So far - The attack on Hulda Clark has backfired on
> the opposition. The Clark case may just be their
> "Waterloo." The NCAHF, which appears to me to be a
> crackpot(?) organization run out of the basement of a

Now who's pointing the finger? That statement says more about you,
than it does about the NCAHF.

> de-licensed MD in Allentown, PA, has taken an active

"Retired" is the word. That's why he has so much time to
pursue his hobby, of trying to give people the information they don't
get from those who are out to deceive them. Thus they are prepared
to make an informed decision.

> role to damage Clark, and some say, all alternative
> health practitioners. But, either they're not very
> good at this campaign, or the American public has had
> enough of their terrorism. For, they're not doing
> very well in this case. In fact their efforts have
> only served to focus health freedom activists on the
> source of the overall problem. Those activists, with

The problem is health fraud. Without it, no need for quackbusting.

> new awareness, are in turn, pointing the finger, and
> communicating quite well, to their elected officials,
> and the media - a combination which has proven to be
> extremely effective.
> In California, a state which has the reputation for
> leading the nation in some kinds of social changes,
> health freedom activists are winning some startling
> victories. It is expected that the strategies they
> have used, will be used, and improved upon,
> nationwide, in the health movement. It looks as though
> Kentucky is already about to add a new wrinkle.
> Californians actively fought for the removal of the
> NCAHF from their Loma Linda University address. The
> activists won - thereby removing the NCAHF's ability
> to intimate they had academic acceptance for what

Academic acceptance is certainly not something that
"Dr." Clark has. And with good reason. But if you're
immune to cognitive dissonance, then you'll continue to
support her.