Guest guest Posted May 5, 1999 Report Share Posted May 5, 1999 [Note: The following e-mail responds to another e-mail about Dr. Hulda . The original e-mail is prefaced by >> marks.] Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 16:18:34 -0800 From: Arthur Doerksen Reply-arthur@... rife-list@... Subject: Re: Is TITANIUM bio-compatible? [off-list] & Hulda Dear Trevor, I really enjoy your frequent contributions to the Rife list. I happen to have met Hulda , and know her personally. I find her to be a person of great integrity and humility. On February 22, 1995 my wife Lyn and I and a friend who is a naturopath from Abbotsford, BC booked two hours with Hulda for testing and learning re her Syncrometer. As an electronic engineer with a strong interest in medicine, I wanted to debunk her for myself. I had seen several technical errors and inconsistencies in her book, " The Cure for All Cancers " , and had grave doubts about her claims for the Syncrometer. Trevor, I must say that in those two hours Hulda convinced me of her integrity, medical knowledge, diagnostic ability and intuition. Using the Dermatron (a fancier syncrometer) Dr. tested each of us for a multitude of substances and pathogens, and the results were striking and repeatable. Using only the Dermatron she found out that we had a gas leak at our home 1500 miles away (high vanadium levels) and our friend Joanne had a fridge that was leaking Freon. All true, but we had not told her a thing! Just recently my mother-in-law had the metals removed from her mouth and still tested positive for mercury. Dr. was puzzled, until the dentist revealed that he had used sutures sterilized by mercury. When the sutures came out, the mercury test was clear. The Syncrometer is an amazing instrument in trained hands, but it takes many hours of practice to become adept. The hard part is getting the probes to have exactly the same pressure on exactly the same site for each test. > ************************************************************************ > WARNING: The following has been written by a person with no formal (or > informal) medical training. It represents an opinion only. I am often > wrong in deductive reasoning and I would not suggest that anyone base > life-threatening choices on my advice or comments. > > ************************************************************************ > > The following relates to Hulda Regehr 's book, The Cure For All > Diseases. > > 1) If one followed all the suggestions in the book, then I am certain one > would live a longer, healthier life. > > 2) I do not take issue with many of the suggestions of substances to > avoid: such as formaldehyde, acetone, trichloroethane, fibreglass, benzene > and many others. These are very definitely dangerous substances. > > 3) The book is representative of the worst kind of science I have ever > seen published. There are no blind studies. It is almost all annecdotal > evidence. There are so many errors of deduction in this book, it defies > belief. Just look at the Syncrometer. It cannot work, ever. There is a > possibility that a system similar to that described may possibly work, but > it's present form, I would challenge anyone to supply repeatable, reliable > results. The Zapper as described has basic errors in the published > information. Science is defined as knowledge, and if it can be repeatably verified in controlled experiment, it is true according to the scientific method. Dr. has verified the parasite-cancer connection in thousands of " anecdotal " cases which she documents with blood tests and CAT scans where possible. When an MD in Toronto asked Hulda for double blind study results she answered, " I believe it is unethical to do double blind studies which require the withholding of lifesaving treatment from a terminal patient in order to provide a 'control group.' " If I were ever terminal I do not think my wife and four children would want me to be denied a chance at a non-toxic healing just so some researcher could have a " control group. " By the way, a quick glance at Cathey's site (http://www.europa.com/~rsc/chemorad.htm) will document that the double blind cross-over randomized studies for the safety and efficacy of chemo and radiation do not exist either. > 5) Many factors must be taken into account with amalgam fillings: The > quality of the filling, the susceptibility of the person, etc, etc. Look, > in general I agree than amalgam fillings probably should not be inside > humans, but lets look at the big picture. Amalgam fillings SHOULD be > chemically stable and reasonably inert... Tell that to the dental researchers who have found that the average mercury/silver amalgam filling loses HALF its mercury content in five years: fully 25% of the weight of the filling!!! And where do you think it goes? Back to the Haz-mat contractor for disposal or recycling? Uh-uh. Even back in the 1850's dentists knew mercury was toxic, but the big buck won out. I have read that double blind studies on amalgam toxicity are very hard to do because a control group without amalgams is almost impossible to find in the " developed " world. > Cheers, Yes. For Dr. , Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, Royal Rife and all the other pioneers who blaze the trail... Arthur J. Doerksen A.D.Comtronics & Engineering - 604-533-4933 http://www.adcomtronics.com " Amazing grace, how sweet the sound... " 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.