Talk:Hulda Regehr Clark

Article updated to show that Ms Clark died

I did a quick search and could find nothing to verify this. What is shown is a website memorilizing her death and people signing up and saying things. This site is not a reliable source unless I missed something. I am leaving and do not have time to correctly search this out so I am passing it on and bringing it to others attentions. Thanks and sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Worse, when I searched for the same thing, all I found were rumors from late March 2004 on Amazon. Hopefully we'll have a reliable source shortly. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hulda Clark said on her own website that New Century Press, her publisher, was a reliable source for information about her. The new domain is inmemoryofdrhuldaclark.com. Here is a copy of the official registry information for that domain:

Registrant:
  New Century Press
  1055 Bay Blvd
  Suite C
  Chula Vista, California 91911
  United States

  Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
  Domain Name: INMEMORYOFDRHULDACLARK.COM
     Created on: 04-Sep-09
     Expires on: 04-Sep-10
     Last Updated on: 04-Sep-09

  Administrative Contact:
     Carter, Linda  customerservice@newcenturypress.com
     New Century Press
     1055 Bay Blvd
     Suite C
     Chula Vista, California 91911
     United States
     (619) 476-7400      Fax -- (619) 476-7400

  Technical Contact:
     Carter, Linda  customerservice@newcenturypress.com
     New Century Press
     1055 Bay Blvd
     Suite C
     Chula Vista, California 91911
     United States
     (619) 476-7400      Fax -- (619) 476-7400

It is a reliable source. --TS 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We've verified the source is New Century Press. That's no WP:RS though. There should be some obituaries available soon that we can replace it with. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To say that a publisher is not a reliable source on the demise of one of its clients is simply flat-out false. --TS 16:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness no one is saying that. I think we can all agree that real obituary is preferrable. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I did a search again now that I've returned. I've found verifications in multiple blogs and one site that we already use in this article Quackwatch. I marked the other site with a ? for WP:RS as I do think we should be able to use a better source than this kind. I don't think the Quackwatch site is good either but I do think that she has passed away. Maybe her publisher announces something about her death in a cleaner way than what we've found? I think that the source used should continue to be marked for reliablity until we can find a better obituary notice, thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The New Century Press website itself is now saying:

In Memory of Dr. Hulda Clark

October 18, 1928 - September 3, 2009

We are all saddened at the news of losing Dr. Hulda Regehr Clark. She was loved, cherished and respected by so many.

There will be a memorial dinner for Dr. Hulda Regehr Clark, Saturday, September 26th, 2009 in Chula Vista, CA.

Memorial donations can be made to Amnesty International, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, or the American Civil Liberties Union.

Hulda Clark's own website says:

There are other websites and companies using my name, selling my books, or selling products that claim to be approved by me, but with two exceptions, I am not affiliated with, and have no control over, any other website or company. The two exceptions are this page, www.huldaclark.net and www.newcenturypress.com, because New Century Press publishes my books.

So you heard it from Hulda Clark: New Century Press is authoritative. --TS 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No longer a BLP article

"We owe respect to the living. To the dead we owe only truth." - Voltaire

Brangifer (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

O - she died? Shot info (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that she is no longer living, we should be able to use these documents:

• http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/huffman.html

• http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/primack.html

• http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/pappas.html

• http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/pizzorno.html

Brangifer (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very wary of changing our bar for sourcing based on a person's recent death. If these were good sources, then they should have been strong enough whether Clark was alive or deceased. If these sources were unacceptable while she was alive, I'm not entirely clear on why they are suddenly acceptable now that she is deceased. Could you elaborate? MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Without checking the details: If the sources were only unacceptable because of WP:BLP violations, and they no longer violate WP:BLP because the only person about which contraversial information is provided is dead, then there's no policy or guideline which suggests exclusion is now appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur. However in saying that - I think both Arthur and Mastcell are saying the same thing - that being - if they are RS and satisfy WEIGHT then they should be ok. -- Shot info 00:26, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, and that's a big "IF", the arguments used by her supporters were that the hosting was the major problem. Barrett has been in legal conflict with her, and he hosts the documents. Now all those concerns should be laid to rest and normal RS rules should apply, with no BLP concerns. Note that I am not certain that the original arguments used were legitimate, but were simply wikilawyering attempts to whitewash her. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking back through the discussions above, the attempts to keep out this information were directed at keeping out anything connected with Barrett and Quackwatch. The main instigator of this witchhunt was involved in deleting all mentions of Barrett and Quackwatch (he had done it before, going on deletion rampages), and is now on a topic ban from these topics. We need to get back to working by the normal RS rules and include sources that apply. If they are factual, as the deposition is, they can be included as facts, if they are opinions, then they can be included as opinions and attributed properly. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I haven't gone through the article and talk history enough to find all the context, but do we have some reliable secondary sources to provide context for information from these documents? --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of tactfullness and respect I find it somewhat inappropriate to start with major changes of an article very soon after a person passed away. Do you want the same to happen the day dr S. Barrett dies? MaxPont (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, no one has done any such thing. Here are the sum total of changes between Clark's death and the present day. You will note that they consist mostly of changing the present tense to the past tense. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusing wording?

Anyone else think that, "Clark stated that she actually cured diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS, unlike conventional treatments only aiming to relieve symptoms" is confusing or misleading? I can see how she might be weaseling with the fact that there is no cure for AIDS. However, does she actually claim that all conventional treatments for all types of cancer only relieve symptoms and never actually cure cancer? --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, will reword a bit (the word "often" got lost in the copyedit). Avb 09:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a diff of all the changes made after August 16. Avb 09:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

The certificate of death states the cause of death was anemia and hypercalcemia with multiple myeloma being a significant contributing condition. I'm sure this can be worded better in the article. Because she claimed to be an expert at identifying and treating cancer, it is extremely notable that multiple myeloma was the significant contributing condition. This information is from her certificate of death, which should be included as a reference. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hulda Regehr Clark (18 October 1928 – 3 September 2009) was born in Canada and, during some 50 years within an occupation of scientific research into human physiology, became a controversial naturopath, authoress, and practitioner of alternative medicine who claimed to be able to cure all diseases, including all cancers. Claims (including an authoritative proposition by a qualified professional oncology surgeon) suggesting that cancer was the underlying cause of Clark's death are not the truth. Documentary evidence of the preceding months of: (A) anemia (immediate cause); and (B) hypercalcemia (underlying cause) are documented, as the specific "cause of death", upon section 107 of her death certificate. She died following medical treatment for the hypercalcemia and, in relation to that verified "underlying cause" of death, section 112 of her death certificate further factually details: "... Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause ... multiple myeloma ..." (a blood cancer & bone cancer). Clark was last seen alive by a physician, on 12 August 2009, more than 2 weeks before her death in California. Also, according to section 109 of the San Diego death certificate, a biopsy (that could have provided evidence for a medical diagnosis of any existence of multiple myeloma) was never done and cancer was never proved, as causative of the hypercalcemia, by any other medical laboratory test. -- WATerian (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2009 GMT

The fact that the "biopsy" box is not checked means only that a biopsy was not performed after death. It does not mean no biopsy was ever performed.====='

]'

- Nunh-huh 20

09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Got any reliable sources for your additions? A personal statement by a physician doesn't count, unless published by a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Without weighing in on the cause of death in this specific case, allow me a few general comments. Hypercalcemia and anemia are common sequelae of myeloma. Fatal anemia and/or hypercalcemia don't just happen; they are caused by some underlying condition. In the presence of lytic bone lesions and renal failure, myeloma is fairly high on the list. Blood tests can be diagnostic in and of themselves (see serum protein electrophoresis), although I think most oncologists would perform a bone marrow biopsy regardless to complete the workup. The material on Clark's website is incorrect when it claims that the "treatment" for myeloma would be "watch and wait". For someone with symptomatic myeloma, the treatment of choice is generally (in an elderly patient who is not a candidate for stem cell transplantation) oral melphalan, prednisone, and probably at least a trial of thalidomide. In any case, I don't see a need for further discussion here. Both the death certificate and Clark's website indicate that myeloma was a proximate contributor to her death; other reliable sources could be discussed, but we don't really need to entertain unsourced and uninformed argumentation any further. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Section 112 of Clark's official death certificate is reliable evidence that the "underlying cause" was not a result of multiple myeloma because section 112 states: "Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause given in 107" -- WATerian (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2009 GMT

I'm not so sure what it means. It seems a bit self-contradictory. The editors and bloggers who are medical experts don't seem to have trouble with it, but it's not clear why. Could someone give a detailed explanation of what section 112 of the certificate of death is used for and what "Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause given in 107" means? --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The dubious tag was the best I could find to identify the disputed content and direct editors here, but I think some simple clarification is all that's necessary to resolve this situation. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want my view as someone with relevant medical training, then the answer is obvious. She likely had myeloma, although her doctors apparently did not follow the standard diagnostic approach to confirm that suspicion. Two major and extremely common complications of myeloma are anemia and hypercalcemia, either or both of which can be fatal if unaddressed. Death certificates are notoriously unreliable as to specifics of causation - not only are many doctors unclear on the difference between causes and mechanisms of death, but they are often completed by physicians without firsthand knowledge of a patient's clinical course over time. Based on the death certificate and the material from Clark's website, the overwhelmingly logical conclusion is that she had myeloma, which led to fatal anemia and/or hypercalcemia. That's my opinion, based on the available (admittedly incomplete) sources and my personal knowledge and training. It is also largely WP:SYN, and keep in mind that I am pseudonymous, so for all my claims of medical expertise, I may very well be a 24-year-old college dropout. I am very tired of the close parsing here - it seems driven by a desire on one editor's part to bend over backward to evade the obvious conclusion that Clark died of a form of cancer - her own website says as much, which makes the denialism here particularly odd. MastCell ^Talk 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Deadlinks

Copied from the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

the below links are no longer available, neither is doing a search for Hulda Clark at signonsandiego.com, have left the links here in case they come up again 28/11/2009! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgee2 (talk • contribs) 2009-11-28T15:40:57

Fixed. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

cause of death related to cancer unconfirmed

Was unable to find verifiable information that her death was related to a type of cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.2.165 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you were unable to find it, but it's been found before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's even been found before on "her" web site, but reference 25 states: "Dr. Hulda Clark, 80, passed away in September of multiple myeloma...." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Split/redundant criticism

There is currently criticism in both the Claims and the Criticism sections. It looks like all the pieces are valid and warranted, but they are kind of a double-hit as currently set up. Should all criticism be moved to the criticism section, or should the criticism be incorporated into the claims section, or is this the best arrangement? Ocaasi (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Links

Link 2 works, link 4 doesn't, but they're both referencing the same article. Link 4 should be merged into Link 2.

I don't have time to do it now, but will later if no one objects. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Avb 16:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Claim: In one case, a patient with a cardiac pacemaker suffered arrhythmias because of interference from the "Zapper." [17]

The article cited provides several important notations.

1) Both patients and health care professionals should be aware of potential pacemaker interactions in the environment, since cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators are sensitive to many kinds of electromagnetic interference.

2) Pacemakers and defibrillators are frequently exposed to a “hostile” electromagnetic environment from a variety of external sources. These include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment, metal detectors, antitheft devices, household appliances, some digital cellular phones, and power tools.2 The most frequent adverse responses to electromagnetic interference are inappropriate temporary inhibition, as documented in our patient, or triggering of pacemaker stimuli and reversion to asynchronous pacing

3) Despite being cautioned about exposure to environmental magnetic fields and in disregard of the warning on the device package, our patient used the Zapper

The writers of this article intentionally attempt to skew the truth by implying that the zapper is the hazard, while medical literature, pacemaker instructions, and many other sources plainly point out that this is a problem with the pacemaker. The patient had been properly warned.

4) The Zapper, which is available worldwide, is a simple, battery-powered, direct-current–offset pulse generator with square-wave output at a constant frequency

There are several scientific publications that support this last statement but it will be covered separately.

CPUDave (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)