Tattva-viveka
Cancer
Bhakta Ivar - June 14, 2005 10:07 am
Pranams,
I've been wondering during the last few months why we have a devotee dying of cancer, when it can be so effectively and easily treated with Hulda Clark's program. Has HH Bhakti-tirtha Maharaja tried it? I have no experience of the program not working.
Ivar Verploegh
PS: Hulda Clark's method should not be confused with orthomolecular, ayurvedic or other naturopathic methods. The question is: has he tried her program?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - June 14, 2005 2:10 pm
I'm not gonna say anything just quote from her book The Cure for All Cancers:
All cancers are alike. They are all caused by a parasite. A single parasite! It is the human intestinal fluke. And if you kill this parasite, the cancer stops immediately. The tissue becomes normal again. In order to get cancer, you must have this parasite. . . .This parasite typically lives in the intestine where it might do little harm, causing only colitis, Crohn's disease or irritable bowel syndrome, or perhaps nothing at all. But if it invades a different organ, like the uterus, kidneys or liver, it does a great deal of harm. If it establishes itself in the liver, it causes cancer! It only establishes itself in the liver of some people. These people have propyl alcohol in their body. All cancer patients (100%) have both propyl alcohol and the intestinal fluke in their livers. The solvent propyl alcohol is responsible for letting the fluke establish itself in the liver. In order to get cancer, you must have both the parasite and propyl alcohol in your body.
Shyam Gopal Das - June 14, 2005 2:44 pm
Prabhu, als het allemaal zo eenvoudig is, waarom neemt de moderne wetenschap het dan niet over? Persoonlijk denk ik niet dat het zo eenvoudig ligt zoals hierboven is beschreven en vraag me dan ook af of deze voorstelling wel in goede aarde valt bij de toegewijden...
Excuse my Dutch.
Babhru Das - June 14, 2005 5:34 pm
Boy, do I wish I could read Dutch.
When I lived in San Diego, there was a lot of excitement about Dr. Clark's program. The buzz was hard to avoid, with some devotees trying harder to distribute Clark's books than Prabhupadas, and people sitting around with those "zappers" as regularly as with their japa beads, if not more.
One woman claimed to have been cured of ovarian cancer by following her program. Another claimed to have been cured of eye cancer. The latter ended up going back home to Belgium to have the eye removed, then died of cancer about four years ago.
Audarya-lila Dasa - June 14, 2005 5:48 pm
I work in the cancer diagnostic industry, which is a subset of the oncology field as a whole. Cancer is a very complex disease with a myriad of causes - as we learn more about cancer better therapeutic methods are being developed based around the better knowledge base. There are hundreds of targeted therapies in clinical trials as I write this - many with quite a bit of hope for those who are suffering with cancer.
Bhakta Ivar - June 15, 2005 10:12 am
To reply to the Dutch question:
Clark's method involves avoiding parasite infection, contact with propylalchohol and toxins, which require quite a few changes in lifestyle. There's no money for the pharmaceutical industry there. Rather loss (Clark discourages the use of ordinary toothpaste etc.).
To answer Audarya-lila prabhu: Cancer is indeed caused by many different things, which is acknowledged by Clark, but she points at the root cause of tumors, which is orthophosphotyrosine, produced by parasites. The tumors develop in organs which are polluted or weakened. Thus a smoker may get lung cancer, a meat eater bowel cancer etc. But they all have parasites in their liver. Read the books for more information. The Cure for All Diseases is great. There's no regular or alternative therapy like it. And no therapy should be undertaken without ridding the body of parasites. Even healthy people should regularly cleanse their system this way (I just finished a three week program).
Ivar
Bhakta Ivar - June 15, 2005 12:23 pm
Bhakta Ivar - June 15, 2005 12:32 pm
This is a continuation of the Cancer thread which started in Anouncements.
In answer to Babhru's comments, I would agree that devotees sometimes get so caught up in new health systems that they practically give up sadhana or interest in bhakti yoga. Reiki is a good example.
The zapper only needs to be used for about a week or so, and it takes about an hour a day (or something like that, I do not use the zapper, just the herbs). One can read a book or listen to a lecture (on CD for example) while doing it.
Clark's therapy requires many lifestyle changes. The person who eventually died of eye cancer, did he or she really follow the therapy under the guidance of an expert? Did they really apply all the principles? There are many factors involved.
We can give many more examples of people who died of regular cancer treatment. Advocates of both sides will always illustrate their views with failure of the opposing party. The fact is that the majority of people do cure their cancer through Clark's method, especially those who do it under able guidance.
Ivar
Babhru Das - June 15, 2005 4:57 pm
Ivar, I just bristle a little at the hype, having seen it so inundate a community of devotees. If I had had better experience with Clarke's program, I'd have recommended it to my mother, who died of ovarian cancer eight years ago, and to my friend Mulaprakriti, who died of ovarian cancer last summer in Vrindavan.
With regard to the lady I referred to: Yes, she followed Clarke's program quite strictly, under Clarke's personal supervision for a long time, if I remember correctly. That's not hard to do when you live less than an hour from Tijuana, where Clark had her clinic. And she certainly did not sacrifice her sadhana for her treatment. This woman was also very strict with herself in that regard and died immersed in hearing and chanting, surrounded by devotee friends.
As I said before, one woman in San Diego claimed Clarke's program cured her cancer. If it helps some, that's wonderful. The Gerson therapy, which I mentioned to BT Swami, and which is similar to part of the therapy he had been using, also helps many. But selling either as the cure will likely draw a response from me every time.
Haridas.bts - June 15, 2005 5:02 pm
Thank you Bhabru prabhu
we cannot sell anything apart from kc as THE CURE. it is dangerous to hype something up so much. we find that when someone believes in something or someone so much that they want the whole world to follow their enthusiasm and faith, but we live in a world of duality and we are all individuals.
One mans poison may be anothers medicine, we must never forget that
Babhru Das - June 15, 2005 7:37 pm
I may have responded more sharply than is appropriate to Ivar's query. I believe he just asked whether Maharaja had tried the therapy. I was probably overreacting to his assertion that he has no experience of the therapy not working.
Shyam Gopal Das - June 15, 2005 8:14 pm
The wording "so effectively and easily treated" suggests something else, Babhru prabhu. It might be that I am misreading this, but then I hope Ivar can give some clarification on his wording.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - June 15, 2005 9:55 pm
I think that whomever is interested is this pappekak should read this article.
Babhru Das - June 15, 2005 11:34 pm
Is that the Russian spelling?
Bhakta Ivar - June 16, 2005 8:31 am
Quackwatch.com, sounds like one of those groups, sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, that will criticize any alternative view on health. Although I'm quite openminded, I'm not so fond of reading material from such biased groups, with obvious hidden agendas. I will read the article though.
As far as my wordings of easily and effectively, easily in the sense that you don't have to pollute your body with chemicals and radiation, and then lose your hair (or sikha) as in regular cancer treatment. Using the proper vitamins and amino acids, the eradication of parasites is not uncomfortable.
Effectively because it takes away the root cause, or lets say a major root cause. Effectively because it encourages people to take responsibility for their own health: the purity of their blood, their organs etc. I.e.: a healthier diet, avoiding intimate contact with (carnivorous) pets etc. And effectively because it has indeed helped many people. I would say one has more chances of success when one also uses high doses of anti-oxidants, Q10 etc. But that makes the treatment quite expensive, and not everyone may be able to pay that, or one may be so strict a vegetarian that one doesn't want to take certain supplements. These two issues again bring up a doubt regarding the devotee who had eye cancer.
Ivar
Bhakta Ivar - June 16, 2005 8:35 am
By the way, I don't want to preach "the gospel of Clark", I just wish everyone a long life to learn and grow as much as possible before dying. That's why I'm in the naturopathic business: to allow people to achieve and maintain perfect physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual health.
Ivar
Bhakta Ivar - June 16, 2005 11:11 am
I read the Quackwatch article. Indeed, Clark doesn’t provide Case histories the way you would find them on Pubmed. And it’s a sad thing that the treatment has become so expensive. Applying the basic principles doesn’t have to be so expensive though. Especially the three herbs, the core of the program, are cheap. Wormwood can be grown in one’s garden. The Zapper is optional.
That “the Fasciolopsis buski is found in Asia and the Indian subcontinent” is a weak argument, because many people visit these countries regularly, and we import large quantities of food and herbs. So although in smaller quantities, the parasites should be present all over the world, and once in someones intestines, they stay there.
Whether it cures cancer or not, these things are always important: freeing the immune system from the burden of parasites, bacteria, virusses and toxins, providing the body with the proper nutrients (vitamins, minerals, carotenoids, essential amino acids and fatty acids), keeping the colon in good shape (probiotics, fibre), the blood vessels clean and strong (bromelain, OPC etc.) and the mind aimed at self control and spiritual growth. Whichever health system pays attention to these factors is in harmony with God’s design. Any health system that discourages one to take any of these nutrients (in the form of food supplements or a specific diet) is indirectly doing people harm. Although some (not all!) naturopaths discourage conventional cancer treatment, there are just as many oncologists discouraging people to take food supplements, even though scientific evidence (on Pubmed for example) shows they can be effective.
Of all the allopathic methods, I think surgery is not a bad idea at all. Not too harmful to the rest of the body and often effective (skin cancer, breast cancer). Chemotherapy is another thing though.
Ivar