Lisa D.

You have valid concerns, and let me reply with what our stance is.

Alternative medicine is largely "experience medicine". While orthodox
Medicine starts wit a hypothesis, tests that first in the lab, then maybe
In animals, then in humans, and finally ends up with a product to market
That has been "scientifically" tested and proven, this process in holistic
Medicine is usually reversed.

The scientific method of orthodox medicine has its own problems, for
Example that it is generally found that drugs do not work as well when they
Are used on the general public as the studies suggested. Also, many
Hypotheses are found wrong and never become a product, and finally, while
The use of many of these products has been proven, their side effects are
Often also severe but often not weighed sufficiently against the benefits.
It has been found, for example, that statins will lower the chance of heart
Attacks, but that overall survival is about the same for patients taking
Statins or not. This means that the side effects wipe out the apparent
Benefit.

The procedure in holistic medicine is generally this one: a practitioner
Such as Dr. Clark, Dr. Gerson, Dr. Rau, Dr. Weill, Dr. Whoever, will try
And find some workable approaches while working with the patients. This is
To a large degree trial and error, yet it can be ventured upon because most
Of the remedies used have little or no side effects. After many years of
Practice such a therapist will reach some conclusions as to what is
Actually working in practice, and will then maybe formulate some hypotheses
As to why this is working. Those are then maybe tested in a lab or in
Animals or in actualy clinical trials at the end of the process. Once they
Have, this knowledge should then really not be "alternative" any more. It
Should be absorbed into orthodox medicine because it now has undergone the
Same kind of testing. It usually still isn't accepted then, though.

How ever that may be, with most of these approaches there is some
Uncertainty as to the effect. Someone will assert that it works from years
Or usually decades of experience. Many patients prefer to work with less
Harmful remedies that are proven in practice than more harmful remedies
Proven in a lab. I summarize this as "while in alternative medicine we know
The remedies work but no one knows why, in orthodox medicine everyone knows
Exactly why they don't work". That is a bit sarcastic of course and it is
Not really true, as obviously there are plenty of useful and workable
Therapies in orthodox medicine. However, not usually for chronic
Conditions, and we believe that due to the fact that orthodox medicine
Tries to cure the patient while alternative medicine tries to get the body
To a point where it cures itself. Also orthodox medicine focuses on cure
While holistic medicine focuses on prevention; finally, orthodox medicine
Looks at a problem that it tries to cure while holistic medicine looks at
The underlying causes which it tries to remove. In a simple situation, for
Example where a specific bacterium causes a specific condition, the
Approach of orthodox medicine is usually very effective. In complex
Situations, where many causes add up over a long time to a systemic
Condition, orthodox medicine usually has little to offer, or only some
Band-aids which don't really cure and may even do more harm in the long
Run.

You ask if this isn't quackery, I woud ask what the definition of quackery
Is. If you define quackery is "scientifically" unproven medicine, then all
Of alternative medicine would be quackery. But the defintion of it that I
Find is this: Random House Dictionary describes a "quack" as a "fraudulent
Or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends,
Professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he
Or she does not possess; a charlatan".

Dr. Clark has never sold any products besides her services and her books,
And she was mostly poor and died poor and left nothing behind. So there
Isn't any fraud in this. She may have been wrong, but she certainly stood
For what she said. Whether she is an ignorant pretender would be a matter
Of viewpoint, but she was practicing from 1963 until 2008, I value that
Experience high. She had a doctorate in biology and I think one can't claim
That she did not know her facts. Furthermore, she disclosed in her books
Very openly what her research consisted of and how she came about her
Conclusions, therefore I don't think one could say she pretended anything
Or was a charlatan. The many people she treated and who are alive today who
Were supposed to die would testify for her. Of course, she had her failures
Too and probably only time will tell how much of what she said will stand
Up against the test of time.

But if I may recall one thing here: When Dr. Clark suggested the use of the
Zapper for cancer in 1995, there were no scientific papers on the subject
At all. Meanwhile, low intensity DC current has been tested in several
Places and there are a dozen or more publications about it. I think one
Must bear in mind that coming up with something entirely novel is a feat
That should not be underestimated.

Kind Regards