Re: Hulda Clark reputation damaging

I've gone back to your post a few times, and still don't get some of your points. However, here are some responses.

"
(I bet you disagree even with world-wide proven scientific stuff)
"

Actually, if there is one consistant theme to most of my posts, it is that many of the ideas expressed around here do exactly that - go against world-wide proven scientific stuff - and I call them out on it. Harmonics, resonance, skin effect, AC power adapters, inverse-square law, double-blind testing, the synchrometer's blocking oscillator, blah blah blah. The art of engineering is creating new applications for old ideas, so I'm a big fan of that since it pays for my food. But I'm also the first to point out that using old stuff in a new theory *must* account for the old, proven aspects. The perfect example of doing this the right way is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It appears to contradict at least one of Newton's Laws of Motion, a difficult, if almost stupid thing to do after two industrial revolutions. But when you apply conventional velocities to Einstein's equations, they beautifully become Newton's. That's how you extend knowlege.

"
...please just refer to your research, as Hulda Clark and other honest researchers did.
"

No, she didn't. Simply stating results does not constitute research, or even the results of research. *All* research is conducted, and must be presented, in context; without such context, her "results" reduce to simple opinion. The underlying science, evolution of theories, previous efforts, what worked, what didn't work - these are the things that give research context and understanding. Clark did not publish her experimental protocols, subject pool definition, subject screening criteria, test methods, control group strategies and results, *all* data, statistics, numerical analysis methods, or any of the dozens of other aspects of what constitutes "research" on this planet.

The thing that gives value to "world-wide proven scientific stuff" is an unbelievably detailed understanding of *exactly* how that stuff works, and an evolved, globally accepted research method. Saying something works, or even showing it works, isn't nearly enough, and she knew this. Clark got a PhD studying potassium in crayfish, so she knew all about this. This makes the content of her books even less credible, since you don't bypass a few hundred years of "world-wide proven" scientific method for no reason.

"
Were you like "it's a scam" the day before, and next day were you "it's safe"? just because a patent says it?
"

No. The patent process can be as political as a university PhD program, and the results need even more scrutiny since the granting of a patent doesn't approach the credibility of a peer-reviewed research program.

Back to the synchrometer - As we celebrate thhe 150th anniversary of the Gettysburh Address, it is especially important (in the context of world-wide proven scientific stuff) to note that our scientific understanding of electricity is older. OK, only 2 years older, but still, that's a loooong time ago. And the blocking oscillator is approaching 100 years old. My point is that the why and how of this circuit are very old news. *Any* change in capacitance or resistance or temperature will affect the frequency of operation. That's the proven scientific stuff. The leap from there to proclaiming that the change is due to the presence of cancer cells (without even getting into the stability and sensitivity necessary for that to happen) is not science. It is magical thinking. And selling magical thinking is fraud.

ak
Tweet