Actually, I did read her paper.
I was going to avoid commenting on it, since I really hate to go head-to-head with someone with a PhD...but I can think of at least two errors in her
paper, one of which I can speak to first-hand. Having helped clean up after a major flood of the Mississippi River (Fire fighters get to do ALL the
fun jobs!), I got tested for every parasite, worm, and toxin under the sun...thankfully, I tested negative for most of the really odd ones, including
hookworm. Oddly enough, I was undergoing treatment for clinical depression at the time. Now, since all depression is caused by hookworms (quote:
All persons I have seen with clinical depression had small roundworms in the brain. Is it any wonder the brain can't make enough neurotransmitters
or gets them out of balance? The usual worms are hookworms (Ancylostoma), Ascaris of cats and dogs, Trichinellas and Strongyloides.) something is
rather odd. I guess my doctor and my psychologist were both off the mark in diagnosing depression.
I'm also amazed that either a) every doctor I've ever known was wrong about cancer, or b) a lot of folks that I knew over the last 40 years took
trips to Asia when I wasn't looking. (second quote:
Fasciolopsis buskii is the fluke (flatworm) that I find in every case of cancer, HIV
infection, Alzheimer's, Crohn's disĀease, Kaposi's, endometriosis, and in many people without these diseases.) Oddly enough, Fasciolopsis
buskii is native to southwest asia. Also makes me wonder what my Grandmother had, since it couldn't have been Alzheimer's Disease...she'd never
been out of Missouri in her entire life.
Now, I'm not going to say that the esteemed Dr. is somehow in error. I, after all, don't have the academic credentials to do so...but I do wonder
what, exactly, all those cancer victims, Alzheimer's patients, and even I, myself were suffering from, since we don't fit the inviolate pattern set
forth in yon scholarly work.
I was also interested to find that none of the "many case histories" associated with that paper were handled in a standard method. A typical
supportive case study involves carefully documented tests, done over months or years. From what I can find, the 'case histories' supporting this
treatment regime were annecdotal in nature, rather than rigorous.
Problems with case studies
In short, while I can't say for a certainty that she's a quack of the highest order, I can say that her methodology is under attack from both "Big
Pharma" and from alternative medical authorities. I can also say that her claims of 'universal causes' for cancer, Alzheimer's, and depression
have several exceptions.