I am not sure I agree. First of all the syncrometer is really nothing more than a method of dowsing. Not everyone can get dowsing to work either, but it certainly does not make it useless.
My son feels dowsing is worthwhile since 6 wells were drilled by others to 400 feet were drilled within 1000 feet of my son's property and all were dry, but after dowsing his well and telling the driller where to drill, how deep each of the two seams of water were, what diameter the seams were, and how much water each would produce, he got a good well that produces over 30 gallons of water a minute, and everything I told the drillers was correct within a few feet on the depth, and an inch on the size of the veins and a couple of gallons of minute on the flows. Marshall Robb Allen wrote: > Hi......I completely agree with you.........the syncrometer is the most > useless electronic tool that I have ever tested. It absolutely does NOT > work and even what makes it even worse is that her very loyal followers > refuse to be told of its failures even though they , themselves can't get it > to work either. > Then you hear the ridiculous argument that "only very adept people can use > it".........this also makes it worthless........ > I think she has done more to hurt alternative treatments than the fda. > Please don't use quackwatch articles as proof..............there is enough > other proof of her fraudulent claims without using the idiot that owns > quackwatch.........Robb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Monett" <5ay1wk...@sneakemail.com> > To: <silver-list@eskimo.com> > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 2:05 AM > Subject: Re: CS>What About the Hulda Clark Frequency Issue? > > > CS>What About the Hulda Clark Frequency Issue? > > From: Wayne Fugitt > > Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:11:01 > > http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m72440.html > > > > > Evening Mike, > > > > > Thanks for all the technical exposure and analysis of frequency > > > measurement. > > > > > I can see no reason why the same problems do not exist with the > > > frequency measurement that Hulda Clark suggests in some of her > > > books. > > > > > While it would be nice to be able to tell good foods from bad > > > ones, and determine the state of disease with one meter (simple or > > > complex) ...... I was turned off by this theory in Hulda's book. > > > > > I simply did not believe it to be possible. > > > > > My technical knowledge does not compare with yours. I do have some > > > practical experience to go along with the small amount of > > > knowledge that I have. I simply had to refuse to believe the Hulda > > > Frequency theory. > > > > > Could these people possibly be measuring something else and > > > calling it frequency? > > > > > Maybe they are measuring the total noise level from a live food > > > and a dead food. Likewise, a live body and a dead one, or a sick > > > person compared to a healthy person? > > > > > I hate to think these people are intentionally lying to us. > > > > > Or > > > > > do they carry a card like the politicians that says, "I lie for > > > Money" ? > > > > > Wayne > > > > Hi Wayne, > > > > I was not familiar with Hulda Clark's theories, but after a short > > web review and reading some of her interviews, it is easy to see why > > she is so controversial. Attributing everything to a parasite that > > is activated by isopropyl alcohol is simply bizarre. I think a > > competent medical doctor is better qualified to discuss her claims: > > > > > > > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/primack.ht > ml > > > > Her syncrometer technique is about the most imaginative I've ever > > seen. It is very subjective, and I don't see how you could find two > > people that would give the same result. If two or more people give > > different results, which one is correct? > > > > http://www.royalrife.com/syncrometer.pdf > > > > Her results on cancer treatment is simply abysmal, as documented in > > her own book: > > > > "Case Histories" > > > > "Pages 119-372 of The Cure for All Cancers contain "case > > histories" of 138 cancer patients, of whom 103 were "cured" and 35 > > who "did not carry out instructions or could not be followed." The > > standard way to determine whether a treatment is effective is to > > carefully record the nature of the patient's disease before > > treatment and to determine the patient's condition indefinitely. > > Clark's reports contain little information about the patient's > > history and no indication that Clark performed any physical > > examinations. The only follow-up reports are for a few patients > > who returned for further treatment - usually a few weeks later. > > Cancer treatment results are normally expressed in terms of > > cancer-free status or survival over periods of years. Five-year > > survival rates are a common measure. Clark claims she can tell > > that patients are cured as soon as their ortho-phospho-tyrosine > > test is negative - within days or even a few hours after her > > treatment is begun. This claim is preposterous." > > > > [...] > > > > "None of the reports provides any basis for concluding that > > Clark's treatment has the slightest value. The majority of the > > people described in the 103 case reports did not have cancer. Of > > those that did, most had received standard medical treatment or > > their tumors were in their early stages. In these cases, Clark > > pronounced them cured but did not follow what happened after they > > left her clinic - so she could not possibly know how they did > > afterward. In some cases, she counted patients as cured even > > though she noted that they died within a few weeks after she > > treated them." > > > > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html > > > > So I have to agree with you. I find her theories very difficult to > > swallow. > > > > Best Wishes, > > > > Mike Monett > > > > > > -- > > The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > > > > Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org > > > > To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com > > Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > > > Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com > > OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html > > > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com> > >
