hypothesis is that particular unnamed parasites induce almost all
cancers, perhaps by excreting metabolites. In developed countries,
parasites are very uncommon. The approaches mentioned could not
confirm the presence of parasites in the liver or elsewhere, nor
could they identify local collections of isopropyl alcohol, freon, and the
bizzare list of other compounds mentioned by Dr. Clark. So it seems
unlikely that her essential hypothesized mechanism(s) for causing
cancer (parasitism) and for curing cancers (killing parasites), are correct.
It is not rare for scientists to make wrong guesses or hypotheses,
because eliminating wrong guesses, is how scientists approach more correct
or predictive theories. Here, there is the proverbial "grain of truth";
correlations and animal models show that some viruses like Hepatitis,
and probably some other infectious agents, can help induce cancers;
but these are not the "parasites" described by Dr. Clark. Again,
eukaryotic parasites are very rare in the US and Canada, and cannot
possibly cause the list of diseases mentoined by Dr. Clark; these
diseases and chemicals cannot be measured easily, certainly not by
someone with undergraduate physics many years ago; the most advanced
recording devices and labels would not begin to quantify this list of
chemicals in an intact body.
I recommend skepticism. It is unfortunate that this is apparently a
published book; it is certainly not peer-reviewed. Both parasitologists
and oncologists will recognize its publication "at best", as an
error. Unfortunately, this type of error can be hard to correct, because
in areas outside of one's specialty, many people tend to regard alternative
explanations as equally likely. Many things are not known about
parasites and cancer. However, there are enough obvious errors in the interview
to recommend extreme caution! Most money spent on cancer through
accepted institutions is also wasted, but at least most of the players are
acting on the best available data and hypotheses.
Gerald McLaughlin, Ph.D.