Category: US HEALTH CARE SYSTEM CRITIQUE

It’s time for us to get together to beat up the “quackbusters” again.

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

As you know, I’ve become an expert on how the REAL “quackbusters” operate.  I know “who” they are, “what” they are, “where” they are, and “when” and “how” they operate.  I’ve carefully researched the “quackbuster’s” Modus Operandi, and because of that, when I get involved in a project, using that information, THEY LOSE, and the world hears about it…

So far, we, in the North American Health Freedom Movement have successfully attacked, and dismantled, the “quackbuster’s” ability to simply show up, make wild-eyed statements about health care, and damage some leading-edge health professional.  Look what happened to Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson in California over the NCAHF v. King Bio case, or what happened to little Bobbie Baratz, Massachusetts’s most famous hair-removal expert, when he showed up in Wisconsin.  Their “expert witness” system has been stopped cold.

Now, We’re Going to Hit Them Even Harder, in Another Part of Their Plan…

Read on, and I’ll show you how.

The strategy team that runs the REAL “quackbuster” operation, several years ago, came up with a “disinformation” campaign designed to create doubt about “alternatives” to drugs, in the public mind.

One of the things they did was to set up their minions to screech as loudly as they could, to anyone who would listen, that “alternatives are ‘unproven, untested.’  They haven’t been double-blind studied.”

You’ve heard that statement often, right?  Everyone, without exception, who says that about “alternatives” is a scam artist intent on deceiving, with intent to damage, the American public.  Period.  It is a criminal, fraudulent, act to make such a statement.

Why?  For two reasons (1)  double-blind studies are only one of about 43 different types of ACCEPTED forms of scientific studies, and it IS NOT the type of study that would be used to determine the effectiveness of a “therapy” either conventional or alternative.  It is used for the testing of the safety and effectiveness of dangerous drugs.  (2)  Scientists, involved in the scientific process, are part of the “testing and proving process.”  The “scientific method”  IS the proving process.  Scientists “prove” and “test” their subject carefully, using the “scientific method” as they work each, and every, day.

Anyone who says different is a liar, and a scam artist.

Here’s How We’re Going to Hit Them Back For That Lie…

The Rand Corporation, several years ago, developed a health care testing system that was eventually labeled “SF-36.”  It is, in medical jargon, known as a “Patient Outcome Study.” It was, and is, designed to monitor the efficacy of virtually any kind of health or medical paradigm.

The “SF-36” is a LEGALLY ACCEPTED form of study. Period.  Don’t let some “quackbuster” scam artist tell you different.

I’m going to show the “alternative” health world how to use it, for themselves.  I’ve been working with experts for months, putting this program together – and I’m willing to share it – tell you how to do it.  If you’re interested in doing your own, or if you have questions about this one, contact me at “jurimed1@earthlink.net.”

For months, my friend Hulda Regehr Clark PhD, and I, have been working out the details of “how” to use the SF-36 format for individual processes within therapies. therapies themselves, tools used within therapies, etc.  We came up with a plan.  I’m going to show it to you right now, and ask you to participate in phase one, and help me work out the bugs.

Now, its possible that you might not have ever been involved in any of Clark’s protocols, per se.  It is possible that you may have done, or are doing, one of these protocols using directions from another scientist, or practitioner.  That’s OK.  The determining factor, in whether or not you can participate, is in THE DESCRIPTION of the protocol.  If you follow, or have followed that description, then participate please.

So, here’s what we are going to do.

Hulda Regehr Clark PhD has a myriad of preventive programs she recommends in her books.  These include the use of a “zapper,” and a “synchrometer.”  Besides those, several important programs are described.  Among these are: the Kidney Cleanse, the Liver Cleanse, the Parasite Program (18 Day), the Bowel Program,  the HIV/AIDS Program,  and Plate Zapping.

You can go to any, or all, of these “SF-36” studies by clicking on them one at a time, and by clicking on the apprppriate text, can read the actual protocol, except for the last two.  The last two;  the HIV/AIDS Program,  and Plate Zapping, are not explained with backup pages.  They are very specialized.

If you are using any of the Clark programs at this time, or have used one (or more), Dr. Clark, and I, would like to know about it.  Again, if you’re interested in doing your own, or if you have questions about this one, contact me at “jurimed1@earthlink.net.”

All of the answers provided will be used for Dr. Clark’s research activities.  Once the study has progressed, the results will be posted on the internet.

Important Note…

I know that the “quackbusters”  infiltrate my e-mail broadcast lists.  I don’t mind that.  I don’t mind telling them how badly they’re getting beaten and humiliated.  But, I know they’ll see this survey as one more opportunity to attack Clark, by engaging the survey with false names, and false results.  I’m prepared for that – and want to remind all of them that this is, in fact, a business arrangement between Clark and myself.  Interference with that business arrangement is actionable.

Warning to “quackbusters…”  I know that your discussion groups are monitored, both, by government agents, and members of the North American Health Freedom Movement EAGER to catch you individually, or as a group, in a criminal act.  In addition, myself, and Clark’s legal team, are EAGER to pursue you with litigation, should you be so stupid as to interfere with this survey.  There is no such thing as being anonymous on the internet.

Why Adopt This SF-36 Method?

Because there is no rebuttal to patients getting better – and these studies will show which therapies work, and which don’t.

Please participate in the study, and…

Stay tuned…

Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate