liver flush

Here is the page about liver stones and flushing (nico photo's):
http://curezone.com/cleanse/liver/default.asp

Here is how absurd the ideas of Hulda Clark are:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html

Maybe the flushing recipe does something, but Clark is nuts, no
doubt.

What about the zapper?

And how should flushing and the zapper cure hf or lf radiation
sickness, or maybe even x-ray radiation sickness?

Frans

Hello Frans,

Dr. Hulda Clark is certainly not nuts.
The quackbusters did have to take their accusations back in court.

Did you ever use her *liver cleaning* ?
Without having done that, you may not have an opinion about that.

Furthermore, her bioresonance frequencies do work very well.
I can attest to that.
You obviously did not look at the corresponding pages on my website.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus


----- Original Message -----
From: "franspppp" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 13:26
Subject: [eSens] liver flush

> Dr. Hulda Clark is certainly not nuts.
> The quackbusters did have to take their accusations back in court.

The quackbusters site is, in my opinion, the *worst* source
of health information on the web. The only use for that
site is to read it and then do the *opposite* of whatever
it recommends!

I've tried some of the therapies that this site ridicules,
and have confirmed for myself that they do indeed work.
You will note that the author of this site has *not*
tried any of the therapies it ridicules.

Also, you can find several anti-Quackwatch sites on the
web:

http://www.aquarianonline.com/Wellness/quackwatch.html
http://www.savedrclark.net/by_whom.htm
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/07/10/quackbusters_lose_against_homeopathy.htm

Also, we have many people on this list who are suffering
from mercury poisoning from their dental fillings. Yet the
Quackwatch site assures you that this is quackery:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

Also, it claims that EMFs are harmless:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html

So I think we can also conclude that quackwatch would conclude
that there is no such thing as electrical sensitivity, and
therefore no reason for this list to exist?

Marc

Marc,
As usual your reasoning is logical.... I'm Cured!! .... And I didn't
even know it! :-)

Alan

Dear Marc,

I am sorry, but reading what Hulda Clark writes there is only one
conclusion, this is bare nonsense. That does not mean that there
could not be some useful recipe, maybe epsomsalt+citrus+olive does
clean a lot.

And electrosensitivity certainly does not exist (I don't need a
quackwatcher for this). Neither does magnetosensitivity. The only
organ of the human body sensitive to electromagnetic radiation is the
eye, it registrates the visible light.

Suffering from microwave sickness is not sensitivity, it is suffering
from the consequences of effects of HF radiation. The problem is the
body does not have an answer to the present HF radiation. And the
medical and scientific people do not understand it is not
sensitivity, not allergy, not asbestos, smoking or drinking, it is
radiation sickness, basically to be understood and researched like
every radiation sickness (X-rays, sun burn, ionising rays), dosimetry
(place), accumulation (time), parameters of the patient, etc.

That the quackbusters loose the claim that homeopathy is illegal and
advertising should be forbidden does not prove homeopathy is true. It
does tell however that the quackbusters are a bit strange. Why do
they think it is their task to fight vehemently like that and indeed,
they often use the argument of ridiculising, which is not valid.

Don't take me wrong, I am serious about HF-radiation sickness and I
am in a terrible situation now, because I can't even go to my office
for more than a short time and at home there are dect's and
wlan's in the near neighbourhood. There is no doubt that there is a
correlation between HF-fields and the suffering of 'electrosensitive'
people. There are many people who have found this, by trying
protection, leaving to a less radiated place, measuring by simple
devices like the Aaronia HF-meter. Their stories are consistent.

But to tell you this is all because of bleach, and flukes in your
liver since there are solvents in your brain, you can kill the flukes
and the HIV (which never has been seen to exist) and bacteria by the
zapper and then new viruses raise from the dead bacteria, so you have
to use the zapper another seven minutes, and then you can remove your
liver stones (??) by epsom salt+citrus+olive oil, and you will not
get cancer because you just killed the cancer virus, it's all nuts.

Of course it is frustrating that regular medicine and science doesn't
research and explain HF radiation sickness (yet?). Of course I am
glad if people find relieve or even a solution by cognitive therapy
or suggestion or alternative means - it is good! But no reason to
leave regular science and follow nutty people like Hulda Clark.

By the way, the quackwatch article is about power lines and cancer.
According to IARC (WHO) ELF is possibly carcinogenic (Group 2B).
Twofold risk for childhood leukemia at 400 nT. See:
http://www-cie.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/vol80/80.html
So, quackwatch is wrong, there is reason for concern.

But, 'electrosensitivity' is about much more than the risk for
cancer, namely about the harmfulness of HF radiation.

I am curious about the thinking of all the others on this forum,

Frans

Dear Charles,

just reread the parts of the books by Hulda Clark on her website.
Find out that the German Clark site is run by David Amrein,
scientologist. Read about scientology at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/

That the quackbusters had to take back their accusations does not
prove that Hulda Clark is not nuts. The 'liver cleaning' is not
invented by Clark, it is a traditional recipe to clean your inside.

How did you find out that the zapper works?

Frans

> And electrosensitivity certainly does not exist (I don't need a
> quackwatcher for this). Neither does magnetosensitivity. The only
> organ of the human body sensitive to electromagnetic radiation is the
> eye, it registrates the visible light.

Hmmmm, if I walk near a TV set and then immediately start to feel
"pins & needles" or tingling on my abdomen, or sharp pains in my
head, I would call that being "sensitive" or "intolerant" to it.
I would also say that some part of my body other than my eyes is
reacting to electromagnetic radiation.

Marc

> it is
> radiation sickness, basically to be understood and researched like
> every radiation sickness (X-rays, sun burn, ionising rays), dosimetry
> (place), accumulation (time), parameters of the patient, etc.

If ES is radiation sickness, then have you been treating yourself
as others in the past have treated radiation sickness? For example,
the people who survived the atomic bomb blasts in Japan ate miso
soup with seaweed in it. And after the Chernobyl nuclear reactor
site accident, they developed a concentrated seaweed extract which
is now marketed as "Modifilan".

Personally, I have had good experiences eating seaweed-based products,
and they have helped my tolerance to EMF. I've had the best luck
with a product called "Seasilver", but there are really a lot of
seaweed-based products out there for people to try.

Marc

> How did you find out that the zapper works?

Note that the zapper may not be a good thing for ES
people to try. I know of one person on another list
who claimed they became ES after having using a zapper.

I bought a zapper several years ago, tried it, and
it didn't seem to do anything for me, so I stopped
using it.

Marc

Frans,
As a FORMER Scientologist, I can vouch for the good people that are in
Scientology for the right reasons. There is some great technology used
as a hook to get people like me to join. Fortunately I met a few of the
higher ups that had "blown" out of Scientology and they shared some
information with me that made me immediately "blow".
So, implying something like if you are a Scientologist means that you
are immediately not credible is a short sighted statement. I would like
us to focus on what works in both health and in our lives and not focus
on the fringe aspects that throw the baby out with the bath water.
I do use the Zapper and have seen physical results. I am not going to
try to prove that Hulda Clark is anything, but I will say that everyone
has something to offer and it is up to each one of us to decide for
ourselves what works for ourselves.
The worst thing that can happen is for us to attack each other. That is
an old tactic used in many wars, political movements, religions, etc in
order to disintegrate a unified movement or thought concept from
within.
I enjoy having a list were people post what works and doesn't work for
themselves.
And yes, there are many different recipes for a liver cleanse or a gall
bladder flush. No patent pending on those.
Thank you Marc for keeping this conversation focused on healthy trial
and error.
Andrew



On Jan 1, 2005, at 10:13 AM, franspppp wrote:

Hello Frans,

you wander into sideways and get off the main road.

Dr. Hulda Clark is a famous american doctor, who does not sell anything.
She only gives advise and writes in her numerous books.
David Amrein is just somebody who is selling the products according to the
standards by Hulda Clark.
There are several companies who sell those products.
I am not interested in the religious beliefs of all those persons. It does
not matter.

I have several books of Hulda Clark and have read them.
I own several types of Zappers.
But I mainly use a special frequency generator which contains all the Clark
frequencies (as well as the Royal Rife frequencies) and I am very satisfied
with their working against a great number of illnesses.
It is all on http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina161.html

It is very arrogant and foolish to state that Hulda Clark is nuts, if you
never have had any experience with it.
Bioresonance works fine and effectively.

Quackbusters are everywhere, and they are paid by the pharmaceutical
industry, who see the alternatives as a menace to their business.
A lot of drugs simply do not work, contary to alternative homeopathy.
The official trend is to kill all homeopathy.

Even as per 1 Juli 2005, a number of five thousand food supplements are
forbidden to be sold in Europe, by law from Brussels.
Because Vitamins can heal you, and that is not what the general policy has
in mind.

Antibiotics only work in ca 8 % of the cases. Colliodal Silver works much
better.
After 9/11, the danger of Anthrax loomed and the Americans wanted Bayer to
make their patents free so that US companies could also make a special drug.
But many found that CZ is a very cheap alternative.
Then the FDA regarded the CS as a drug and in the US nobody was allowed
anymore to offer it for sale on the US websites.
I also make CS myself and am very satisfied with the results.
So it is no fairytale that CS works fine.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus




----- Original Message -----
From: "franspppp" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 16:13
Subject: [eSens] Re: liver flush

Marc,

Is Seasilver the same product as SeaEnergy (which you recommend in
the links under Supplements), marketed perhaps under different names?
If they are different products, do you prefer one to the other?

I am looking for a good nutritional supplement to use as a "first
step" -- strengthen resistance to EMFs, rebuild overall health...
before attempting any detox program that might stress the system.

Thanks.
Cara

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:
Personally, I have had good experiences eating seaweed-based products,
> and they have helped my tolerance to EMF. I've had the best luck
> with a product called "Seasilver", but there are really a lot of
> seaweed-based products out there for people to try.
>
> Marc

> Is Seasilver the same product as SeaEnergy (which you recommend in
> the links under Supplements), marketed perhaps under different names?
> If they are different products, do you prefer one to the other?

Seasilver and Sea Energy are not the same product, but they are
certainly quite similar. There is also a 3rd product called
"Body Balance" which is also similar. If you look into these 3
products histories, you will find that the "inventors" all
worked together at one point in time.

I have only tried Seasilver and Sea Energy. My impression has
always been that Seasilver was a better product, but a couple
of years ago there was a fiasco where they got shut down by
the FDA, distributors complained about the unfair policies
of the company which caused them to not earn their promised
income (these companies are all multi-level marketing),
and there were also complaints that the "new, improved"
formula was not as good as the old one. Plus, Seasilver
had some really annoying info-mercials on the radio.

So as a result of all that, I decided to switch to Sea
Energy. Having bought a bottle of Seasilver while on
vacation in Hawaii last month, I still think that
Seasilver may be a slightly better product (in terms
of results), but I think the difference is not large
enough to matter much (at least to me).'

Note that none of these products are really that high
in any particular nutrient. I think their advantage
is that you can absorb the nutrients through the
mucous membranes of your mouth, instead of having
to digest them. That's important to the ill, because
the ill often have faulty digestion, so it's hard
to get the nutrition back into your body.

And also, I did find that my EMF tolerance improves
while taking these products, and dimishes after stopping
them, which is the main reason I like them. Also,
when I go and get EAV tested for supplement needs,
these products almost always test positive, and have
so for years.

Marc

Oh, and note that since Quackwatch took the time
to write about how awful Seasilver is, you know
it must be good! :-)

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/seasilver.html

Marc

Well, that's good enough for me. Have ordered the Seasilver and will
report back. Thanks.

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:
> Oh, and note that since Quackwatch took the time
> to write about how awful Seasilver is, you know
> it must be good! :-)
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/seasilver.html
>
> Marc

Marc and all,

this is nonsense. Something cannot be good BECAUSE quackwatch writes
about it. There should be another reason.

Frans

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:
> Oh, and note that since Quackwatch took the time
> to write about how awful Seasilver is, you know
> it must be good! :-)
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/seasilver.html
>
> Marc

I have that belief about the FDA, CDC (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention), Fox News, AMA (American Medical Assoc.), and others.
I think they have a deliberate campaign to discredit opposing views and
prevent us from regaining our health, power, etc. In fact, a
depopulation program is in place with National Security Memoranda
supporting it and all.
Many of us are conditioned to immediately react in a negative way to
any "conspiracy" implications. I am not concerned with "theories", and
I am willing to follow a fact where ever it may lead.
Would you like to take a look under a stone?
Andrew
On Jan 3, 2005, at 2:15 PM, franspppp wrote:

Since the Quackbusters try to downplay all the good-working stuff, we like
everything they find awfull.

The other reason is, that most of this awfull stuff works very fine indeed.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus


----- Original Message -----
From: "franspppp" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 20:15
Subject: [eSens] Re: Seasilver vs Sea Energy?

> this is nonsense. Something cannot be good BECAUSE quackwatch writes
> about it. There should be another reason.

Yes, and I listed the other reason -- I've tried it, and it
works for me.

Marc

> Something cannot be good BECAUSE quackwatch writes
> about it.

This statement reminded me of something I read years ago,
about people in the alternative health field feeling that
it was an HONOR to be mentioned on Quackwatch, because
that was recognition that their form of treatment was
seen as a threat by conventional medicine.

So, in essence, they thought that something MUST be
good if Quackwatch writes about it.

Marc