En parasitolog har ret effektivt tilbagevist Hulda Clarks og Michael Kastbergs teorier og behandlingsformer.
Federal Trade Commission anlagde i 2001 sag mod et firma der markedsførte produkter baseret på Hulda Clarks anbefalinger. I den forbindelse kom parasitologen Peter W. Pappas med et vidneudsagn der tilbageviser Hulda Clarks teori om at parasitter er roden til al sygdom og kan helbredes med hendes egne enkle metoder.
Et kortfattet resume er som følger:
- den parasit som Hulda Clark og Michael Kastberg påstår er grunden til alle sygdomme lever kun i sydøstasien, men mennesker over hele verden bliver syge af AIDS og kræft
- Hulda Clarks diagnosemetoder er tvivlsomme. Hvis det var sandt at alle mennesker er inficerede med denne parasit burde den eller dens æg findes af parasitologer når de checker folks afføring - og det gør den ikke.
- Hulda Clarks bøger indeholder en række upræcise påstande om parasittens biologi, så hendes autoritet på dette område må betvivles.
- Der er overvældende evidens i form at videnskabelige artikler i anerkendte tidsskrifter for at kræft skyldes celler der deler sig ukontrolleret og ikke parasitter.
- Det undrer ham også at HIV først for alvor blev almindelig i de tidlige firsere når denne parasit (som ifølge Hulda Clark og Michael Kastberg er årsagen til HIV) har været kendt fra mennesker i hundredevis af år, som hun også selv nævner i sine bøger.
- hendes hypotese er ikke blevet testet i kontrollerede eksperimenter og hendes måde at indsamle data på er behæftet med systematiske fejl. De fleste sygdomme blev både diagnosticeret og behandlet af Clark og det var også hende der påstod patienterne var kurerede. Hendes teorier er altså baseret på dårlig videnskab.
Her er en del af hans vidnesudsagn med hans egne ord:
11. Cancer, AIDS, and many of the diseases that Clark claims are caused by Fasciolopsis buski, are distributed world-wide, yet the distribution of this parasite is limited to S.E. Asia.
12. Clark claims that she has diagnosed this parasite in everyone with cancer, AIDS, and other diseases, and that she diagnoses these infections using a "Syncrometer" (an electrical device that somehow indicates the presence of parasites and/or toxins in the body.) However, the only reliable and acceptable method for the diagnosis of Fasciolopsis buski infections in humans is demonstrating the presence of the parasite's eggs in human feces. Thus, her statement that "everyone" is infected with this parasite is based on inaccurate diagnostic methodology. Moreover, if this parasite caused all of these diseases, the parasite would be found during routine pathology procedures. I have been unable to find any evidence that this parasite is found during such routine procedures.
13. Clark's books contain a number of inaccurate statements about the biology of Fasciolopsis buski and other parasites, so one must question her as an authority on parasites or parasitic diseases. She misspells the scientific name of the parasite; she spells the specific buskii, when the correct spelling is buski. When discussing any species of living organism, the correct spelling of the scientific name is essential. In The Cure for All Cancers, the title for Figure 2 (which is not a photomicrograph) refers to "strings of eggs from the parasite -- the parasite does not produce "strings of eggs," and the eggs are microscopic (cannot be seen without a microscope). Clark states tliat "[T]he adult [parasite], though, stays tightly stuck to our intestine (or liver, causing cancer, or uterus, causing endometriosis, or thymus, causing AIDS, or kidney, causing Hodgkin's disease.)" The adult parasite does live in the small intestine, as stated by Clark, but I have been unable to find any reports (other than Clark's) of this parasite being found in the human uterus, thymus, or kidney. Clark states: "Some of these eggs [produced by the adult parasites] batch in the intestine or the blood." There is no credible evidence that the eggs of any species of fluke will batch in the human intestine, or in the blood or time. There are a few species of flukes in which the eggs normally enter the blood or tissues (e.g., the schistosomes which cause schistosomiasis), but, even with these species of parasites, the eggs do not hatch in the blood or tissue. Clark states that "[w]e all have tapeworm stages in our bodies...." and "[e]very tumor, benign or malignant, has a tapeworm stage in the middle of it, even including warts." I have been unable to substantiate either of these statements in the medical literature. Although Clark has an advanced academic degree (a Ph.D. in physiology) and an N.D., she has no academic training as a parasitologist and she clearly does not have a basic understanding of the most fundamental parasitological principles.
14. There is overwhelming evidence in the form of peer-reviewed articles appearing in scientific journals that virtually all types of cancer result from the uncontrolled division of cells, and that the uncontrolled division of cells has a genetic basis. That is, cancer is caused by the activation or inactivation of specific genes that control the division of cells; it is not caused by a parasite. If this parasite truly causes cancer and, therefore, kills thousands of people each year, how could this parasite go unnoticed? Even in areas of the world where Fasciolopsis buski is endemic, there are no published studies that demonstrate (1) a relationship between this parasite and cancer and (2) that curing this parasite cures cancer. The only studies that support these theories are those mentioned in Clark's books, and her studies lack scientific integrity. Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), not a parasite.
Although there's some disagreement as to when and where HIV was introduced first into the human population, it is clear that it was not a prevalent disease until the early 1980s. However, Fasciolopsis buski has been recognized as a human parasite for hundreds of years, a fact recognized by Clark in her books.
15. Hulda Clark believes that parasites cause many common diseases. In the terminology of the scientific method, Clark is stating a hypothesis or statement of belief. However, the scientific method requires that, for a hypothesis to be accepted as a theory, the hypothesis must be tested. That is, controlled, empirical, unbiased experiments must be done. Moreover, the experiments and their results must be reviewed by other scientists to insure that the experiments were conducted properly and that.the data are unbiased. This is what differentiates good science from bad science. Herein lies a major flaw with Clark's theories. Her hypotheses have not been tested using controlled experiments, and her methods of collecting data are biased. Rather, most of the diseases were diagnosed and treated by Clark, and Clark also claimed the diseases were cured. Thus, Clark's "case histories" represent an egregious example of a highly biased experimental protocol, and her theories are based on bad science.