An Interview with Dr. Hulda Clark

Watch FREE video

by Cathleen Hodgson

drclarkIt was interesting to interview Dr. Clark. With all the fear and lack of hope expressed in society it was refreshing to hear of a possible solution. One of her main points was the distinction between having the cancer go away vs. becoming well, as in a change of lifestyle, which caused the illness in the first place. She was also respectful of the medical field and validated the importance the medical doctors role in the healing process.

ASN: Could you give us just a little background on how you got to where you are, your schooling, the problems you ran into and how you got to your conclusions on treating cancer.

DR. CLARK: Well, I’ll try to sketch that out for you. I graduated from the University of Saskatchewan around 1950 and I went to McGill for a couple of years and then to the University of Minnesota where I graduated with a Ph.D. in physiology. My focus was biochemistry, physiology and biophysics, math, chemistry and biology and so on. Later on, after working as a research scientist on federal grant money for a number of years, I went into private consulting as a nutritionist. Then I was seeing sick people all day long and tried to give them the best of my knowledge in physiology and biochemistry, in other words, to apply it. This was something that was not being done on a wide scale. I also got a naturopathy degree eventually which gave me background to clinical procedures. In other words, it gave me some perspective on what the various healing systems have been in the past. And then at one point something unusual happened. I had three cancer patients in a row. And what stood out was something they had in common. They all had a particular parasite in an unusual place. When we have this parasite, the intestinal fluke, its in the intestine. That’s its normal place. And even though that surprised me quite a bit that we should have any of that in the U.S., I was even more surprised to see that in these three cancer patients at least, it was in the liver and not even in the intestines. It peaked my curiosity and so every cancer patient after that of course I did a very complete examination of all the parasites, something that I had been doing regularly anyway.

ASN: Were there certain tests that you ran to find the parasites in different parts of the body?

DR. CLARK: I was doing parasite testing. At first I was doing bowel testing which was completely inadequate but I developed an electronic way of testing and that was from my background in physics and biophysics that I was able to do that. And with that new tool I was able to search for things like parasites or toxins in a particular organ. That’s how I found the parasites in the liver specifically, not in the intestine which was what shocked me so much. I also found that it was very difficult to control them when they were in the liver, much easier to kill them in the intestines. And of course with my device I could tell whether or not I had killed them. I could find them if they weren’t dead and so it took me about a year to develop a non-drug method of killing these parasites in the liver. Before that I was using the usual methods which do a partial job. After killing them in the liver, the cancer marker was gone. Again, that was quite a surprise to me. I was using three cancer markers at the time. I was using CEA and HCG and sometimes others besides.

ASN: Can you explain what cancer markers are?

DR. CLARK: Yes, those are chemicals that are produced by cancer patients but also by non-cancer patients but there’s such a high incidence of it in cancer patients that you can use a kind of a statistical rule of thumb that if they have this cancer marker higher than a certain amount you’re almost surely seeing a cancerous effect. But I switched to using orthophosphotyrosine around 1986 as being present in about 60 different kinds of cancer.

ASN: That’s another cancer marker?

DR. CLARK: Yes. I switched to using that cancer marker because it had a very high incidence and was really much better than the other markers I had been using and indeed every person who came in with an acknowledge cancer checked positive by my testing methods to orthophosphotyrosine. So I got confidence in it that way. The striking thing was that as for killing the parasites in the liver, the orthophosphotyrosine cancer marker was gone. So that was very encouraging that there was some hope here in maybe improving the cancer patients’ lot. Then indeed the patient began to improve. They of course were going to their own oncologists and I never would discourage that because the oncologist is keeping track of tumor size and the other effects of illness. I then pursued the toxins that were present, namely carcinogens, that this person had and I found that certain carcinogens went with certain cancers. In other words, a carcinogen like nickel which is a well-known carcinogen, in fact it’s often rated as one of the top two, tended to accumulate in the prostate. And in cancer patients, it was almost always there, often in the lung too. And so I got eventually to map out an association between different carcinogens and different organs which led finally to the understanding that the carcinogens decide which organ will have the tumor but the tumor and cancers are actually caused by a particular parasite.

There was another association that I found, that all the cancer patients also had a particular solvent called isopropyl alcohol. This was very striking. I thought that if this is so specific then it should not hold true for another kind of isopropyl alcohol called normal propyl alcohol which is a lot easier for the liver to detoxify. And indeed that was the case. Normal propyl alcohol was not the item that was present in the tissues of a cancer patient. It was isopropyl alcohol which is known to be very difficult to metabolize by the liver.

So then I was tracing those two variables for awhile and found that they always occurred together. The isopropyl alcohol and the parasite occurred together and I still haven’t worked out the details of the relationship.

I have one piece of the puzzle I think pretty well in place and that’s another cancer marker HCG. Remember I was using that initially. It seems that the isopropyl alcohol reduces somehow the HCG and then the parasite acting on the HCG somehow produces the cancer marker orthophosphotyrosine. Those details still have to be verified. But now the picture became more rational even though it’s surprising or spectacular, it is rational. You have first of all a collection of toxins or carcinogens in some organs. The parasite, which everybody eventually has to pick up, finds that toxic accumulation where the immunity is low and if there is isopropyl alcohol present, it will be spurred to reproduce somehow and then with this reproduction of the parasite, orthophosphotyrosine is made and that makes your tissue then divide also.

Metals come into this whole process too. They may make the mitosis possible. And so quite a few of the bare metals like nickel and others are carcinogens. But then I did ask one more question, why are some people getting the cancers while other people, who are using the products with isopropyl alcohol in them and getting the same parasites and having the same life habits such as smoking and so on, why do some of them not get cancer? And I found the answer to that to be aflatoxin consumption. We have a lot of microtoxins or molds in our foods, but it is aflatoxins that’s associated with isopropyl alcohol presence. In other words, if everybody who has an isopropyl alcohol accumulation (can’t metabolize it anymore) and is at great risk for getting cancer has aflatoxin accumulation in their liver from eating moldy foods and that could go to a kind of a familial cause. Maybe some families cannot detoxify aflatoxin as well as others or they’re simply eating more. By the time their eating a lot of peanuts and peanut butter and moldy bread, you’re set up for aflatoxin damage to the liver. So that’s the chain of events where I have it so far.

ASN: So you were able to combat this with different herbs to kill the parasites?

DR. CLARK: Yes, I found a combination of herbs that will kill all the parasite stages. See, what’s so unusual about having this parasite in the liver is that it will also have its little stages in parts of the body where they should also never be. It’s not normal to have this parasite in the liver or to have its stages in the body anywhere.

ASN: So you can have this parasite in your liver but the cancer can be anywhere in your body?

DR. CLARK: That’s right. So to kill all the stages is quite a challenge. Clinically, drugs don’t do that. Eggs need one kind of treatment and the larvae need another kind. Also, I do need these three herbs together to kill all the different stages. The cloves are part of it, common cloves that you use in cooking and baking but they have to be very freshly ground otherwise they lose their action. Common ground cloves from the grocery store don’t do it. You could get whole cloves and grind them. Another herb is wormwood and that’s available on the market but you could also grow it as a shrub. The third one is a tincture, which means an alcohol extract, drinking alcohol, ethyl alcohol of course. You make this extract of the green hull of the black walnut tree. So there again is something that people have at their elbows and I have written the recipe for making the extract or tincture in the book so people can help themselves to this antiparasite recipe.

ASN: So how have you been presenting this to the “medical world”? How are doctors accepting this?

DR. CLARK: They have not had access to it except through purchasing the book because although I sent a scientific report to three of the regular journals, all three rejected it. However, it has been accepted by an alternative journal and so it has gone out recently to that group of doctors. Unfortunately, there isn’t any way of reaching the average M.D. It is frustrating but I did think that presenting it to professionals would not be a suitable way to reach the public. To reach the public, you should give it directly to them so that is what I did. There could have been a lag period of ten years I felt between putting it in a professional journal and having it reach the public-much, much too long considering that the treatment is totally non-hazardous. ASN: I see you mention in the beginning of your book that when you figured all this out, you set a goal to work on 100 cases before you would actually say anything or give false hope to people. So you actually went through 100 cases of cancer with your technique and found the recovery rate to be very high. Was it 100%?

DR. CLARK: We have to distinguish between two effects: getting rid of the malignancy and recovering the patient. Those are two different things because a damaged organ is something above and beyond getting rid of the malignancy. If you remember the sequence of events in cancer, it makes sense. First you have the toxic accumulation, then the parasite finds it. Then it reproduces in it and makes it malignant. So taking the malignancy out doesn’t get rid of your toxic accumulations. And that is along with the malignancy what has damaged the organ. So getting rid of the parasite is of course primary in importance but you also have to get rid of the toxic accumulation.

I did find what the top half dozen toxins were and at the time I wrote the book I had not finished studies on freon and that is turning out to be probably the most significant toxin that we have because it attracts the other toxins. See one question I did not address though I may have alluded to it is why do some people make a toxic collection into a fibroid tumor or a breast tumor or what we call cysts because they’re benign but it’s still the same thing. It’s an accumulation that your body has decided to wrap up in a coat. And why do some people do that and others do not. Others excrete it or eliminate it. And some people will however make a tumor or a cyst out of it say in the breast instead. And I have since I believe found the answer to that question and that is freon.

Most of us have been exposed to leaking freon at some time or other in our lives. An air conditioner has gone bad or a refrigerator stopped cooling or something like that and we have had a dose of freon that we breathed in and it has no reaction. The body cannot excrete it. Therefore, it has to go somewhere in the body. The body pushes it somewhere such as to the breast or the prostate but it has to then stay there because there are no reactions. You probably recall that from reading about the ozone hole. There are no reactions for freon on earth. Therefore it filters its way up through the atmosphere and eventually bangs up against the ozone layer and as luck would have it, or bad luck, the ozone will react with it. But here on earth there are no reactions for it. And the same thing applies within the body. And that then acts as the trap for other toxins the way a little puddle of mercury would trap anything that’s coming by. I think that this is how this is happening but whatever the mechanism is, freon probably has the highest incidence of occurrence in patients because we all have it anyway. We all have a little freon in us.

ASN: So then, back to the 100 cases, what was the verdict? Most of them were cured?

DR. CLARK: How many get healed and get healthy again depends on how sick they were you see, not just on the treatment. So they all lost their malignancy. The method is 100% effective in stopping the cancer, the malignancy. But it isn’t 100% effective in making you well because that isn’t what you have to do to get well. You have to get rid of your toxins such as the leading freon in your house, the lead in your plumbing, the cigarette smoke of course, the asbestos coming from your dryer or hair blower – those are the things you have to do to get well if you’re sick. Of course, if you’re not sick, then you’re immediately free of your cancer.

ASN: But all the people you tested got rid of their malignancy?

DR. CLARK: Yes, very many people got well too, but that is a different issue.

ASN: So let’s switch over to the AIDS aspect, do you find this also linked to parasites?

DR. CLARK: This particular parasite causes a number of our ailments. It brings the HIV virus. That doesn’t cause AIDS but it brings the HIV virus. It causes endometriosis, it causes Alzheimer’s, it causes Hodgkin’s disease…

ASN: How about MS?

DR. CLARK: Yes, it causes MS. It’s not a single actor, MS. It’s not the only parasite so I don’t want to say that “it” is responsible. I want to say that I always see it there but that’s a different thing. So it is involved in MS. That would be a better way to state that.

ASN: And have you come to the same natural remedy to treat these?

DR. CLARK: Yes, but you have to do two things, you have to kill the parasites and remove the toxins. There are different solvents in different illnesses so it was isopropyl alcohol for cancer, it’s benzene for the HIV virus, it’s methylene chloride for endometriosis and it’s xylene and toluene for Alzheimer’s.

ASN: Have the doctors who have worked with the patients you treated validated the fact that this might have helped their patient?

DR. CLARK: Yes, very many of them have. Of course patients go home and see their regular doctors and the doctors do their testing and frequently tell the patients there’s no sign of cancer or that the cancer must be in remission or something like that. It has not however resulted in their curiosity as to how that was brought about. Of course, they’re not expected to, it’s research doctors that would be expected to.

ASN: And that is your field?

DR. CLARK: I’m a Ph.D., not an M.D., not a “medical” doctor. There are very many research “M.D.’s” who would be interested in this.

ASN: It is ever a problem, in terms of your books, offering diagnoses, etc. without being an M.D.?

DR. CLARK: I don’t think that this is presenting a problem.

ASN: Have you gotten a lot of calls since publishing your books?

DR. CLARK: Yes, of course I don’t take most of the calls because I’m too busy but I know that the publisher and various resource people, vitamin companies have had a lot of calls.

ASN: Is there anything else that you would like to talk about?

DR. CLARK: Well, I feel so happy that all this happened before the turn of the century, that we finally have the true cause of our cancers and some of our other diseases and most of all, we have a new technology that is simple enough for the public to use themselves and now they can go after their own causes without having to be so mystified about certain diseases – what’s causing them and why they’re coming now and didn’t earlier and so on. It is high time that people engage in their own health problems.

Ultimately, the truth does have to be confirmed. It’s a matter of being patient I think because the professionals have to be very cautious. I just hope that they’re not lagging because this is such an important issue but they do have to be cautious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *