The rigours of psuedo Science you mean? Until pharmaceuticals have a much better track record of cures and less attributable deaths, then this type of Science holds no real "scientific" water.
The Science that is performed on behalf of pharmaceuticals is done so by "guns for hire" and results are most often skewed to get desired results. That has become the reality of our day. Many scientists have spoken out about this and usually find themselves unfunded and even discredited whne they do.

Maybe this kind of science has an explanation for the reason so many people today have chronic, degenerative diseases, a trend that continues to grow, not receed.

I know of several people who have tried to get their technology considered for studies and they are always met with extreme resistance. Why do you suppose that is? I Know. It's called protecting a monopoly. I, and many others would love to see well done studies on alternative protocols but due to political and economic pressures from corporations and their lobby groups, this isn't going to happen any time soon.

Interestingly, look up some of the patents on similar electo-medicine devices to Hulda's, and take note of your findings. In one case, a group of reaserchers from The Einstein College, studied a similar device as Hulda's and had incredible results that were even published. Low and behold, it fell from the public eye as quick as it was released for review. Was someone bought off? Who knows, but it is just another example of what happens when something threatens the monopoly of the corporate illness business of the global elite. There are many, many stories(doocumented) like this one.

Yes, it would be nice to have alternative treatments proven by studies. There are small studies on the zapper, but the info in mass media is suppressed (e.g. a study of prof. Henry Lai, Washington University on influence of the zapper on leukemia cells and normal cells - the first one being reduced).
But, you cannot simply discard the usual problems with costs:
-small studies may not be costly, but they are not enough to prove anything
-big studies (on large enough sample of people) are always very costly, even if the people do it voluntarily for free
THE BIG QUESTION IS:
who would pay that? And who pays the scientific studies that are done now? The answer is that it is paid by those who find them profitable, have the big money and want to pay for that.
Well, probably you will not deny that eating apples is healthy in comparison to eating ice cream or chocolate. But there is no scientific proof you would like to have. TELL ME, who would pay a study confirming that apples are healthier (the apple growers? would they have enough money for that?).
Didn't you ever find it funny that you find more studies on good effects of chocolate and other processed foods than studies on fresh whole foods? Didn't you ever find it funny that a toxic anti-cholesterol pill (recently pulled out of the market) came through the complicated scientific process easily, while the alternative non-toxic treatments have been ignored...
You say PUBLISH IT. Well - where? In the journals run by people who are in direct conflict of interest, being paid by pharmaceutic companies? Will they not filter any info they do not like? Or somewhere else? There are many, many questions like these.
Often the studies produce ridiculous results. I.e. one study found out that people sleeping longer die earlier. The conclusion of respected scientist was quite funny: people should sleep less to live longer. But a logical explanation would be different: These people die earlier and need more sleep, because they are less healthy, not because they sleep longer. Reducing sleep will not make them healthy, quite on the contrary. I have seen many "scientific" explanations of studies like this.