Home | Background | Claims | Methods | FTC and FDA | Evaluation

Evaluation of claims and criticism

Hulda Clark has been criticized because her claims lack scientific validity and consist of anecdotal evidence. Joseph Pizzorno, a prominent naturopathic physician, evaluated Clark's claims and found that her books mixed patients with conventionally diagnosed cancer with those whose cancer diagnosis was based solely on her use of the "Syncrometer". The patients with medically diagnosed cancer did not respond to Clark's treatment, while those she had diagnosed using the "Syncrometer" were "cured". Pizzorno concluded that Clark's treatments were ineffective and that treatments based on Clark's recommendations "pose a substantive public health danger".

The Swiss Study Group for Complementary and Alternative Methods in Cancer (SCAC) issued a strong warning to cancer patients considering Clark's methods:

There is no scientific basis for Hulda Clark's hypotheses and recommendations, including her suggested treatments. The parasite Fasciolopsis buskii does in fact exist, but only in Asian countries, so that an infection in our country is ruled out. Consequently, this parasite does not enter into consideration as a cause of the numerous cases of cancer in the Western countries; at most, it might be one of several causes of liver cancer (and only for this type of cancer) in the Asian countries. As a whole, Clark's thesis cannot be comprehended, nor is it proven. In individual cases, her advice can be very extensive and costly. Hence if patients do not apply her method consistently and their disease continues to progress, they run the risk of attempting to blame themselves for this, rather than Clark's treatment which is ineffective, as viewed at present.

Prominent alternative medicine proponent Andrew Weil has written, "No studies have backed up [Clark's] bizarre claims, and its unclear whether the cancer patients shes supposedly cured ever had cancer to begin with."

In 2002, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that Clark and her son Geoff operated a restaurant and leased housing for patients at Clark's Tijuana clinic. The article described a couple whose daughter, suffering from spinal muscular atrophy, was treated for 10 months by Clark at a cost of approximately $30,000 without improvement. Despite the cost and lack of improvement, the couple stated that Clark insisted she was close to curing the child, and that stopping treatment might endanger her. The patient's mother commented, "People dont understand why we stayed so long, but Hulda Clark did a very good job of preying on us," and Clark, while stating she could not respond to the parents' allegations on grounds of patient confidentiality, denied their statements in general.

dr-clark.org 2010

a b c d