I didn't think my preliminary ideas would kick up such a debate. I was just leading up to my *real* questions about frequencies, harmonics, the frequency characteristics of the impedance of the human body... you know, Science stuff.
I've said this before, but here it is again. These are serious questions, I'm not attacking anyone, or anyone's beliefs. I've made a career of understanding (or figuring out) how things work, and I just don't get it with the various Zapper explanations I've seen.
So, anyone want to debate the fact that even in a (shudder) "positive offset" wave, the component sine waves swing both positive and negative?
I get concerned when details matter so much when you havent even used one in the first place.
If you really want to know read her books. She talks about it all. Each book of hers is around 500+/- pages. She has videos as well. Go for it if you are curious.
What I do not like to read is references to "third grade" and "reguritating information back to me" What are you trying to accomplish when saying things as these.
It reminds me when God asked His chosen people to find a calf for a holy sacrifice.
They could of just went ahead and found any calf and made an offering.
Yet they were not sincere. They kept on asking, going back and forth to their Lord asking question after question.
What should it look like?
How big? What shall the color be? How old shall it be?
How healthy should it appear? How how how.
Until finally the true colors were shown of a disbelieving lot of poor servants who were too proud to simply submit to a single truth.
I suggest you read a few books of hers and that should clear it up. Dont expect to find everything on the net.
I've read her books. I found them on the net. Also, there are extensive portions quoted on CZ pages.
In the past I have been a judge at grade school Science fairs. I also know some excellent grade school teachers, and discuss things such as curriculum, textbooks, etc. So when I say that someone has a 3rd graders understanding of something technical, it's because I've actually paid attention to how 3rd (and other) graders understand technical things. I didn't mean to insult anyone, it was a simple analysis of the way the person presented his information.
In another post, someone used the term "negative frequency". From the context of the message, it was clear that he meant the negative portion of the output waveform. But there really is such a thing as negative frequency, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing. It is an essential part of the math behind FM radio, and another one of those things which can exist only in the world of electronics. Think about it. How can a tuning fork vibrate at a frequency of *negative* 440Hz? There is no mechanical analogy.
This is why I have so much trouble with the explanations out there. They use what might actually be the right words, but in ways which make no sense. This is very frustrating to me, because I'm searching for an answer. I have absolutely zero interest in someone proving to me that a Zapper works. Zero interest. To make the point, I'll stipulate that the DO work. The Zapper is presented as a work of science. I speak science. Lay it on me.
I've build 4 or 5 different Zapper designs, and simulated another 5 or 6. Physical testing with an oscilloscope and spectrun analyzer confirmed the first few designs so well that now I do them in CAD systems.
The original 555 circuit design is not exactly optimized, and very inefficient. If you are using a 555 chip licensed from the original Signetics design, it very briefly shorts out the battery once each cycle. The chip is wasting more energy than it is delivering to the body. The CMOS 555 varients solved this problem, along with a couple of others, to reduce the power consumption of the circuit.
I'm messing around with a new circuit. It basically is three Zappers operating at different frequencies, with the outputs summed together into an analog driver circuit for the output. The three fundamental frequencies are selected such that the three sets of harmonics do not overlap. Spectrum analysis shows a super-rich harmonic field. Compared to the parts cost of the circuit you describe (about $1 not counting the battery or box), this one is a bit pricey. I should be able to determine how well it will work without six months of double-blind clinical trials, but of course no one knows how a Zapper works in the first place.
1. Why is it that four of the book covers show a sine wave? Over in the Zapper Support Forum , Maryellen (a very knowlegeable and frequent participant) explains that sine waves are bad for you, and only square waves will work?
2. All university libraries subscribe to a citation index service. You can look up, by author, subject, or field of interest, any article published in any accredited research journal by anyone, or all of the articles by any author. So far, I've found none by Clark.
3. If I write a book, buy a publishing company, and have my company publish my book, does that mean that everything I say in my book is correct?
4. Is the cause of all disease the human intestinal fluke, or bleach?
2. I believe she has been black balled from any US publication.
3.No it doesnt, but if you are black balled ,the only way to get published is to do it yourself! And I doubt that she went out and bought some well established profit making corporate publishing company but sort of a do it yourself kitchen table type opertion!
4. Bleach is extremely toxic as some one who suffers from chemical sensitivities let me tell you one whiff of clorox creates havoc on my central nervous system! But to answer your question Clark's claim is that these toxins such as bleach destroy the immune system and allow normal parasitic infestation to migrate throughout the body as apposed to staying in the bowels where they are dealt with more readily by a well functioning immune system!
5. You dont have to patronize us or make your point ala Stephen barret's quackbusters type hogwash. You will lose peoples interest or support that way!
I don't think peer-reviewed scientific journals blackball people. Some professional organizations can, and if those organizations control a journal, then they can refuse to accept articles from non-members. But blackballing someone is a pretty public act, subject to wide review.
A graduate student or faculty member of any University accredited in a research field (Biology, Nutrition, Electrical Engineering, whatever) can submit articles for publication to the journals in the field. The journal editor knows who the author is and who the reviewers are, but both are anonymous to the other(s). And the editor's decision whether or not to publish is subject to review. Power corrupts, so there are instances of abuse, favoritism, etc. But overall, the system is pretty clean.
OK, the part about buying your own publishing company was snotty. But the assumption that because she has a book she must be right has clearly become irritating to me. Again, she may be right; Zappers may be the greatest thing since Pasteur hypothesized "germs" (and he really got pounded for that one). But enough with the books. They present her theories, which is good. But they are unexamined, unchallenged, and untested, which severely cripples their legitimacy.
Well maybe you should go back to your books until you can give us some information that is more then just negative chatter! If you come up with a hypotheses that offers some real breakthrough Im sure we will all be glad to read it! We have heard your objections and they are noted, any more of the same is just redundant knitpicking!
In fact, I do have some ideas. The problem is that at this stage they are a big bunch of "Gee, what if..."
What if, besides a specific frequency for each pathogen, there also is a minimum energy level required for destruction? I can solve that if I know the levels.
What if pathogens respond to harmonics of the frequencies listed in the tables? Can a more optimized HF harmonic field be created? Yes, if I know the frequencies of interest.
A sweep frequencg generator would guarantee energy at every frequency, and at a pretty high field strength. But the time spent at each frequency would be far less than the time a standard Zaper spends at each of its 15 harmonics. What if less time at more frequencies is important?
A white noise generator spends the same amount of time at each frequency, and generates ALL frequencies. But the energy at each frequency is very low. What if 12V or 15V white noise is the best? I can design one using the same 9V battery.
A lot of IF's, and nowhere to go for guidance. I've done a lot of projects over the years, and nothing guarantees success like have a well thought out, high quality question to work with.
You have to understand that there is no entity that will legitimize Clark's zapper. There is no entity that will give a scientifically unbiased backing of a product that can be built at home for a few dollars. There is no financial incentive for anyone to create a real study. More importantly, if the zapper does in fact work there are actually entities out there that would want it removed from the market because it would compete with their businesses - pharmaceutical companies charging $5 for a consumable prescription pill don't want to see a $5 reusable zapper taking their business.
There doesn't even have to be intentional ill will (conspiracy) to keep the zapper from becoming legitimized. All there has to be is a "no incentive" aspect. Ask yourself this: who exactly would test the zapper, legitimize it, put it to market... and why exactly would they even try?
Does the zapper work? I don't know, and it doesn't matter in your case because you will never get the proof you are looking for, other than possibly some anecdotal evidence in an obscure publication that will never see the light of day in the market.
>>>>>>>"But overall, the system is pretty clean."<<<<<<<<<<<
No, it's not. A clean system would give unbiased testing for all alternatives like the zapper. Whenever you have something to sell the system is already corrupt.
Does this mean the zapper works? No. But it does tell you that even if it does work it would not be given the legitimacy you are looking for. You are basically on your own to figure it out.
Stop ALL your question - it'll never end! If you want REAL answer to if the zapper work or not, buy it, use it. If it doesn't work - There, that is your answer.
If Hulda Clark protocol work or not - Try it if it doesn't work - There, that is your answer.
Zapper-
My daughter, when to my family doctor in Long Beach, California was coughing for weeks and her doctor said she has throat inflamation. She told me it hurt her
throat. During zapping, she said, Dad, my throat didn't hurt anymore. My throat
also cause me disconfort at night, I zapped it and relief. IT DOES WORK!
Protocol -
My wife cough endlessly, she use the Clarkia thing to kill the parasites. Her cough now minimize, she only use it for less than a week.
As for the ultimate test, am going to try on my self with the PARASITE CLEANSE, KIDNEY CLEANSE, BOWEL CLENSE AND THE KIDNEY CLEANSE. I will let you know or email me if you want to result, that is 6 months from now.
Asking for answer will never satisfy you unless you act upon doing it yourself, that's why there are independant researcher.
I think I'll respectfully disagree. Please keep in mind that I'm speaking only of University research programs, not in-house corporate stuff. While a lot of Univ. pharmacology research is privately funded, a lot of it isn't. I don't know the split, but I would be surprised it it were more than 60-40 either way depending on the school. Some have very close working relationships with industry, some don't have any.
A side argument could be made that the non-corporate stuff (federal Science and health agencies, national non-profit disease agencies (cancer society, heart association, etc.)) are somehow "influenced" by corporate medical instrument and pharma companies, but I'm trying to stay away from that type of speculation. As for medical instrumentation research, I think the funding percentage from corporations is lower than that for pharma research.
But...... when you get away from those two areas, and get into biology, microbiology, cellular biology, infectious diseases, nutrition, bio-mechanical engineering, bio-electrics, etc., the percentage of funding coming from for-profit corporations drops way off. Yes, everyone knows that a radical breakthrough in some obscure corner of cellular microbiology could lead to a billion dollar market for a new frimbus, but the odds are so long and the timeframe so unstable that very few companies will devote enough cash to truly influence an entire field of research. Thus my position that the whole peer-reviewed research structure in this country is **relatively** clean. Certainly cleaner that the corporate-funded stuff (celebrex, anyone?).
There is safety in numbers. University research in the US employs hundreds of thousands of people. Most of them are decent, ethical scientists trying to do with you tax money what corporations won't let them do - learn something new, explain something, understand something, invent something - without all of that business stuff in the way. They aren't a lot of fun at a party, but most of these guys are pretty good at what they do, and job satisfaction is the only incentive they need. Sadly, in too many cases it is the only incentive they have.
Of course there are problems, cooked data, influenced results, out of control egos. With a body count that high, and in some cases some gigantic potential rewards, abuses will happen. But some people - make that *most* people - can't be bought when it comes to their life's work.
A side thought. In our litigious country, the liability insurance on patient-contact electronic equipment is astronomical. Remember Stella, the woman who won a multi-million dollar settlement from McDonalds because she dumped a cup of coffee on herself? First, imagine what her lawyers would do if she got an electrical burn from a Zapper, then pop over to the Zapper Support Forum and read all of the messages about burns, rashes, etc. The reasearch would be cheap, but the insurance on the human-subject pool would be in the millions.
ak
ps. I'm trying to work on the tone of my posts. How is this one? Thanks.
i think your tone is fine. with that said, you have to remember that doctors are constantly coming to curezone to try and disrupt or disparage the forums or therapies mentioned. people here are al ... Sorry, we had to truncate this message! ... Click here to read it
I don't want to discourage you, to the contrary actually. I'd love to see the zapper legitimized and brought to market on a large scale if it does work. If you are trying to market or invent a similar product I more than support you 100% in your venture. I would also though have to constructively question how you would do it - the money, time and steps you would need to take for an individual to push such a product to market would be near impossible.
Even if it was 100% fully proven, researched and documented that zappers work, most people wouldn't even find out about zappers because of the same marketing problem - money - who would advertise it and inform people on a large scale? There's very little financial incentive to market a cheap reusable product that would need $millions$ to pass FDA regulations, be exposed to lawsuits, etc... Regardless of research, the zapper will probably remain a curiousity footnote. Some would benefit, but 99% of people would still be going to their doctor to get a prescription pill, marketed to the patient or doctor by our system that pushes pills and rejects alternatives that don't make money.
The only financial problem I see is the subject pool for clinical trials. Gigundous liability issues. Other than that, and the liability insurance on the final product, bringing a zapper to market would be pretty cheap. Everyone knows how non-complex is the basic design. Ultrasonic pest repellents are at about the same level, and sell for $20.
For a better gauge, look at home blood pressure monitors. Even better, home blood sugar testers for diabetics. More complicated, more dangerous, smaller market - and under $200, maybe under $100. Many Zappers are in that price range already. The key is "real" testing. With it you get medicare/medicaid support, a real biggie.
A couple of people have directly or indirectly questioned my motivations. I'll respond to them in another thread.
It has worked very well in our family.
Stopped a spreading staph infection.
Halts strep throats in a few days.
When our zapper is working our children never need any antibiotics due to colds advancing into ear infections and raging swollen tonsils.
The list goes on.
If anyone is truly sincere they will always find the truth.
Images Description The Cure For All Diseases by Hulda Regehr Clark Rules
Home
One confused puppy - 2 
And the press rolls on......
etc. etc.
