CENSORED POSTING reposted

Hi David,

Please note that I have numbered our respective responses, below, so that everyone can follow this string more easily.

Ken Presner comment 1: I do not know how long the links were down. I checked your site and many of them were not there. I counted them and published this information. You denied that links were ever down on your site, which was not true. Now you admit that they were. When this matter came up and it was brought to my attention that the links were back up I made the change quickly as I always do when errors are pointed out to me.

David Etheredge comment 1: A few of the links were down for a few hours when they were first beiong installed. There have also been times when the internet has been slowed to a crawl due to "denial of service" attacks against other sites which makes some sites come up as missing for periods of time ( a few hours). The point is that either due to your lack of knowlege about the internet

Ken Presner comment 2: I have had my site for the past 12 years and I think that forum readers can fairly assume that I know at least one or 2 things about the Internet by now, even if you don’t.

David Etheredge comment 1: or just plain willingness to do so, you did not bother to check back for many months.

Ken Presner comment 2: That’s not true. It may have been a few weeks, at most. My list of priorities dictates my schedule. In any case my apologies for the delay. The point is that once I recognized that the links were back up I made the change immediately on my site and I acknowledged that the links were back up. But that is now a moot point. Please read below.

Ken Presner comment 2: I note that you have now removed all references to MS on your Multiple Sclerosis page after I pointed out a few things about MS in an earlier posting on this forum. Forum readers may remember that I actually had MS and Crohn’s disease and recovered from both of these “incurable diseases”. I have clicked through a few of the “health” pages on your site today and they are just carbon copies of your front page. In effect you have no health links and no health information on your site at all anymore although your margin makes it appear that you do, unlike the links on the margin on my site. Each link on my site leads to a unique page with specific information that refers to the name of that. Your site may now have links in place, lots of links, but they are “empty” links and this is highly misleading. Why don’t you remove the “empty” links from your margin? There are over 30 “health” links on my site and there is not one “empty” link or “carbon copy” link on my site.

David Etheredge comment 1: Also, each page that does come up has a contact e-mail that you did not bother with either.

Ken Presner comment 2: What was I supposed to “bother with”? What is this supposed to mean? Do you expect me to email you every time I find something wrong with your site?

David Etheredge comment 1: I have a service that monitors my sites

Ken Presner comment 2: So do I, incidentally.

David Etheredge comment 1: and there have not been any pages missing for any length of time (more than a few hours).

Ken Presner comment 2: This may be true. I have no way of knowing since I don’t monitor your site on a regular basis. I think we can put this one to rest. We’re flogging a dead horse. What I do know is that your site appears to be a corporate site with no information except for ordering information. The so-called links on your site are carbon copies of your front page. That is clear for all to see.

David Etheredge [comment from the previous string that you left out so that it makes it difficult to understand the context my comment]:

“ParaZapper: On top of that you obviously chose an unreliable source for your information,”

Ken Presner comment 2: I did not choose the source. That is clearly an inaccurate statement. Dr. Mondo S. volunteered the information to me in an unsolicited email. I did not choose him, he chose to email me. How do you know he is unreliable? That is what you are inferring here. Did you contact him? If so, what did he have to say? Did he deny the content of his report to me? Did he say I was lying?

David Etheredge comment 1: Once you were notified of the error, did you bother to contact Dr. Lloyd and get the correct information?

Ken Presner comment 2: What error? Dr. Loyd has never contacted me to report an error. It is you who were objecting to the content of the report. I was simply reporting what Dr. Mondo S. related from Dr. Loyd. That is very clearly stated on my site. That’s not an error, it’s a report from Dr. Mondo S.

David Etheredge comment 1: Before I post anything written by someone else (Dr. Thiel, and Wayne Green, for example) I check it out, verify that the information is correct, and get permission to post.

Ken Presner comment 2: Trying to take the high moral ground on this forum will clearly be a losing game for you. When you say “I check it out” this is not a true statement at all. Did you contact me about the correctness of the information in the testimonial archive on my site before you made the allegation that the testimonials are untrue and that I made them all up out of my head? Did you “check it out”? No, you did not contact me. By the way, there is an email link on each page of my site and it’s not hard to find me. So, please do not say that you verify information before posting because that is clearly not true. You say what you feel like saying whether it has any relation to the truth or not, as long as it serves your purpose, which in this case is to make me look bad and to make you look good. What else is new, eh? You state your opinions authoritatively, with a patronizing tone that is clear for all to see and hear. This does not create the truth where there is none. You may be able to put one over on a newcomer to this forum but I doubt if you will succeed with anyone who has been around here for a while and who is aware of your proclivity for manipulation and innuendo, and worse.

David Etheredge [comment from the previous string that you left out so that it makes it difficult to understand the context of my comment]:

“ParaZapper: For example, your claim that ParaZapper products did not have stabilized output was and is a misrepresentation. The better ones do”

Ken Presner comment 1: I don't remember you having stated this before. I have just made this correction on the Comparison Charts on my site. David, you are full of contradictions. You downplay the importance of the Super Stabilized wave in The Ultimate Zapper then you play up its importance in your own zappers. By implying that your better models have a stabilized wave implies that those models without out it are not so good. Then you say, below, "it did not produce any better results". So, the better ones have it but they don't produce better results? These statements are totally illogical. We see this kind of illogic from you time and again on this forum. Then you say customers "felt it too strong", further compounding this string of mystifying statements. Your explanations only serve to confuse, not to make things clear for people. You have to be a mind-reader to figure out that the heck you’re trying to say on this forum.

David Etheredge comment 1: You are digging for excuses. I never posted it before, because I did not consider it to be an important improvement. You harp as if it is the greatest thing since sliced bread and then bash my product as not having it. Yes, I post it now to show that you are wrong. Even my cheapest zapper has it now (since Feb. 2008 ). I have even upgraded old customers who wanted to have it done.

Ken Presner comment 2: I am digging for nothing at all. I am merely commenting on what you say on the forum and on your site and I am commenting on the many contradictions in your statements and the untruths that seem quite obvious. What you seem to be saying is that I should have read your mind to know that you put a stabilized wave in your zappers, because it was never stated on your site. And because I didn’t read your mind I created a problem according to your convoluted way of thinking. And what you are now saying is that you have put the stabilized wave in all your zappers but you “do not consider it an important improvement”. Well, I consider this very odd indeed. Why go to all the trouble and expense and all the confusing explanations. I make improvements because they have proven to be important and then I explain those improvements clearly on my site. I do not make insignificant improvements, improvements that I know are unimportant, then back track and double talk to explain that I might just as well not have made them at all. This makes no sense, it really doesn’t. It is a game with so many twists and turns that it’s hard to keep track of them all and impossible to really know what you’re trying to say and why you are making specific changes to your zappers. And then there is the matter of your unadvertised models whose merits and specifications we are supposed to know, also by some psychic process, I presume. “Didn’t you know that my xyz unadvertised model already has the xyz feature?” is a favorite tactic of yours previously seen on this forum. Then there are all the excuses, “I have the data but I can’t publish them” and “my lawyers tell me not to say anything.” There are so many screens you hide behind that it is a wonder if anyone can figure out your products, your site and your statements. They all appear to hide the facts through smoke and mirrors, not to elucidate them, which is exactly the opposite of what I do on my site. I am clear, concise and to the point. Whether or not you agree with the statements on my site is a different matter. I really don’t expect competitors to agree with what I say because if they did they would have to acknowledge the superiority of The Ultimate Zapper. So they have to find ways to deny what I say, plain and simple, which is what you have been trying to do for years on this forum, unsuccessfully I may add, because the amazing results people obtain with The Ultimate Zapper speak for themselves and word of mouth is very powerful. It’s just that simple.

Ken Presner comment 1: You have neatly sidestepped the inference you clearly made on the Zapper Support Forum recently that I made them all 170 of the testimonials on my site up out of my head, effectively calling both me and my customers liars.

David Etheredge comment 1: Interesting, you did not provide a quote or link to that statement. If I made any statement that all of your testimonials were not valid, I should not have. I know that you should have at least some valid testimonials.

Ken Presner comment 2:

I would like to know 2 things:

1. Are you denying that you ever made the statement at the end of the last long string I participated in on this forum a few months ago (on page 92 of this forum), inferring that statements on my site misrepresent facts so that you cannot trust that the testimonials on my site are true and were not made up by me?

2. Does the censor of this forum claim that this posting never appeared at the end of the above-mentioned string on this forum and that he did not remove it from this forum?

Since you did in fact make the statement and since it has apparently been removed from the string in the past couple of days by this forum’s censor (I cannot find it anywhere, am I mistaken?) any denial by you and by this forum’s censor would be a denial of the facts. Period.

This forum’s readers should have the answers to these questions from both you and this forum’s censor so they can judge for themselves. Any inference that I am lying about the testimonials on my site is totally false. Period. Any statement or inference to the effect that the testimonials on my site are not cut and pasted from unsolicited emails sent in by customers is a lie, plain and simple. Each and every testimonial is a word for word report from the person who sent in that testimonial. Period.

I “should have at least some valid testimonials” according to you? Do you mean some of the testimonials on my site are not truthful? You are making a sly inference here, in your inimitable sly manner, I might add. We have seen this kind of thing from you many times before on this forum. If you’re calling me a liar, just come out and say it straight out so that everyone can see it and read it and understand it loud and clear. If I say 100% of the testimonials are cut and pasted from unsolicited emails that customers send me, I mean 100%. That should be clear enough for everyone to understand, even you. Do you get my message loud and clear? Would you like to make another sly comment? Would you like to make another sly inference? Go ahead, make my evening. It seems clear that you have a strong need to make me look bad on this forum which impels you to crowd out the truth by the constant use of inference, innuendo and outright false statements. Coupled with a patronizing, ever-authoritative tone and a slyness that is becoming increasingly evident it is clear that your efforts are designed to control the opinions and ideas of the readers of this forum. The pretense of being an objective observer is a complete charade. It appears that you will do anything and everything to deny the truth about The Ultimate Zapper, my work, my site, my postings on this forum and now even my customers. If that’s not having a strong axe to grind I don’t know what is. You’re just a “helper” here? Yah sure, and my name’s Eleanor Roosevelt.

If you don’t like how I present the information on my site, OK, that’s your right, you have the right to your opinions and I have the right to my opinions. You think I exaggerate and I definitely think you exaggerate. But when you start calling me a liar and you start making sly inferences, that’s an entirely different matter. That I will never allow. You have crossed the line. Do you understand? You have crossed the line. You are impugning my integrity. I will never allow that to pass without the most vociferous response. Never.

Ken Presner comment 1: According to you The Ultimate Zapper is full of placebo effects and only has the 10.4 volts in its favor. It's 10.5 volts by the way and, to correct another of your famous spelling mistakes my last name is spelled Presner not Pressner, I think I got your last name right it's Etheredge, isn't it?

David Etheredge comment 1: My apologies for the spelling error. Otherwise, I have some customers who correlate effectiveness with the feeling that they get. However, when surveyed for actual changes in condition, the ones who had the stronger output actually had statistically a slightly lower improvement.

Ken Presner comment 2: Apology accepted. If you read the 170 testimonials on my site closely you will see that people are talking about results, not feelings. This is very clear. I’m not interested in feelings and neither are the people who are looking for relief. I’m interested in results, which is what my customers are interested in.

Ken Presner comment 1: Oh, isn't this cute. Another one of your "I got the evidence but I can't show it to you" games. Of course you really expect all the people getting great results with The Ultimate Zapper to email you about it, don't you? I imagine there are "enough of" those not getting great results with your models, but you don't seem anxious to publish "enough of" this information. You said a while back you have never seen a negative testimonial on any site. I guess that includes yours. Of course I get returns, about 2%. That makes 98% satisfied customers. Not bad, eh?

David Etheredge comment 1: A 2 % returns rate is very good, my return rate is lower (about 1 %) but that is not a very significant difference.

Ken Presner comment 2: That’s because you don’t have a 3-month trial offer advertised on your site. If you did your return rate would undoubtedly be higher. It just stands to reason.

David Etheredge comment 2: Like I said, the only UZ customers that I have hard from are those who did not like their UZ for some reason but that is to be expected.
Ken Presner comment 2: What is to be expected? That my customers are emailing you to complain about The Ultimate Zapper? And if some of your customers email me complaining about your zappers, is that something worthy of note with a total of 1% or 2% returns? It’s not even worth mentioning. I don’t publicize information about the people who write to me who didn’t like the ParaZapper. What’s the point? Do I want to become a nit-picker? As far as The Ultimate Zapper is concerned we’re talking about thousands of satisfied customers over a period of 12 years with a handful of customers who were not satisfied. That’s hardly worth mentioning, especially with a 3-month trial offer that has been in place for years.

David Etheredge comment 1: Why would they need to contact me otherwise. I agree that there are going to be some customers that will never be satisfied and that there are also customers who do not get benefit from a product because they do not really need it. This small percentage is often the most vocal group.

Ken Presner comment 2: This is really nit picking. It’s a non-issue.

Ken Presner comment 1: Perhaps you'd better watch what you say about me and my customers a bit more carefully in the future, David, so that I don't have to call you a liar again. Just a suggestion.

David Etheredge comment 1: The same to you Ken.

Ken Presner comment 2: I have never said that the testimonials on your site were invented by you. Frankly, it never even occurred to me that this might be the case. And it never would have occurred to me to publish a statement to this effect.

David Etheredge comment 1: As I have shown previously, you have made extensive unreliable claims about other zapper sellers and manufacturers as well as about ParaZapper.

Ken Presner comment 2: This is not true. This is your opinion, to which you have the right. The problem is that you present your opinions as the gospel truth but they are not, they’re just your opinions. I stand by the statements that I have made about your zappers and about other zappers. I am not the only one who has made direct observations about your zappers on this forum. I have pointed out some of these 3rd party comments in the 2 long postings I made previously on this forum. You are aware of this fact. Passing your opinions off as facts is a tactic you continually use on this forum. Unfortunately, your opinions require a lot more proof to turn them into facts, as others have also pointed out on this forum.

David Etheredge comment 1: You just assume that because there is not a posted claim that a product does not have it and this is just wrong. I am sorry if it bothers you, but I do not perceive any particularily high level of integrity on the part of your claims about others, so why would I think any better of the testimonials that you post?

Ken Presner comment 2: The quality of your reasoning is horrendous, I’m not afraid to say. It is obviously designed to be self-serving.

1. You disagree with my statements about your zapper and other zappers. Fine, you have the right to express your opinions. But instead of expressing them as your opinions you express them as gospel fact.

2. A priori, because according to you, you have revealed the facts, this means that the veracity of the testimonials on my site is automatically brought into doubt. What kind of cockeyed reasoning is this? You have a perfect right to disagree with what I say about your zapper and other zappers. We agree to disagree. But to claim your opinions as fact and then to call me a liar about the testimonials on my site by inference from those “facts” totally destroys your credibility on this forum. You have come to a totally false conclusion based on nothing else but your desire to see me as a liar and to have the readers on this forum see me as a liar. You have just shot yourself in the foot. By impugning my honesty and integrity you have, ipso facto, impugned your own honesty and integrity, because I have stated the truth. You have used total illogic to create a false statement and a false impression because of the need to make me look bad and to make yourself look good. Plain and simple. This is the worst kind of thing that you do here, and you have done it repeatedly, masked always by self-righteousness. I will not mince my words. Frankly, I find this kind of behavior abominable.

David Etheredge comment 1: The real proof is in the pudding. You are completely unwilling to accept a 3rd party testing / evaluation / comparison. I have always been willing to put my products up against anyone who was willing.

Ken Presner comment 2: I would be more than willing to put my products up against those of other zapper makers under correct conditions but, as I point out below, this is truly a moot point. I will never allow anyone to dictate the terms of a comparison study. That is the point I am making and it is the most important point in this debate. The whole matter of 3rd party testing and double blind testing is a house of cards and I will explain why very clearly.

The only real zapper verification that can be done is specification verification, like Geoff Clark used to do until too many people used it as an “approval” marketing tool, and he put a stop to that because they were just using Dr. Clark’s name to sell their products. Specifications can be verified and I have no reason not to trust that what each maker advertises on his site reflects the true output of his product. I would never question the veracity of your advertised specifications or those of any other zapper maker. My production people verify each zapper before shipping and I assume your production people do the same thing.

Next, there is the matter of double blind testing. It is impossible to do double blind testing with zappers even for very obvious ailments such as warts or melanoma or other visible complaints that could be quantified and easily verified for results because all complaints are subject to a whole host of factors and variables that make zapper results a very individual matter and which would also make this approach problematic. I have more comments below about this subject.

Any testing would have to be done with hundreds of subjects, at the very least, for any meaningful statistical results to be culled from such a study. Who will pay for this testing? I imagine every zapper maker who would like to participate would want a trusted representative present during the testing process to monitor the results. I certainly would. Who would pay for the services of all these representatives and for their expenses? I certainly don’t have the financial resources to pay for a representative. We are talking about controlled testing procedures here. How could the representatives of each zapper maker do the rigorous monitoring that would create the necessary standard so that the study could qualify as a serious study? How could they monitor each person who is zapping to make sure they are following the required protocol every day at the same time of day, making sure of the number of minutes zapped, making sure of the number of minutes for each break, making sure the electrodes and contacts are in place, verifying the output of the equipment, making sure the handhold covering is of uniform dampness, monitoring any side effects and any progress? We are talking about hundreds of test participants here. They would require hundreds of representatives from each zapper maker for proper monitoring. Who would pay for their services and their expenses? If all the study’s participants were brought together for the study who would pay for their expenses for a period of weeks or months? How could they abandon their occupations and families for that extended period of time?

And what about footpads? Would the zapper makers who sell footpads, such as The Ultimate Zapper and ParaZapper, forgo the use of footpads during testing or should they require other zapper makers to use footpads during testing? How would it be possible to monitor test results using the handholds only, the footpads only and the handholds and footpads used at the same time? Who would pay for the hundreds of sets of equipment from each zapper maker and the hundreds of oscilloscopes that would be necessary to conduct the study?

That’s just for starters. The next set of problems is even greater in complexity. The only truly accurate measure for the effectiveness of each zapper with each participant would be to use each zapper according to an agreed-upon protocol with each person, then the person would have to be brought back by some miraculous process to their original state of ill-health and the process would have to be repeated with a different zapper. The reason for this methodology is that this is the only possible way to make direct comparisons between zappers because each case of zapping is very individual and depends on many factors. Each person who zaps has a unique biochemical and bio-electric profile and a unique receptivity. Mental and spiritual factors also have to be taken into consideration. They affect the aura and can play a vital role in the ability to respond to therapy. Age and general state of health are also important factors. These are never the same from one person to another. It’s not like lining up a group of subjects and having them pop an aspirin if they all have the same kind of headache at the same time to see if the pill will get rid of the headache after 6 hours. In a rigorous zapper study the individual pathology “fingerprint” of each person, their individual biochemical and bio-electric backgrounds, the zapping protocol and the effectiveness of the formula of each zapper all combine to determine the outcome. One example: The Ultimate Zapper is so powerful that a high percentage of people using it need only one minute of zapping to get the desired results. How can you compare this to other zappers? Do you make everyone zap for 7 minutes no matter what zapper they are being tested with and when someone feels unwell with The Ultimate Zapper because of they are detoxifying too quickly (die-off) an observer concludes that The Ultimate Zapper has a defect and is injuring people? Or do you make all zapper makers zap at only one minute which is insufficient time for the vast majority of zappers to show any meaningful results? Who develops the criteria that will be used for the study? Who makes the judgments? How could one ever create a level playing field and uniform criteria agreed upon by all zapper makers? I believe it is clear that the challenges posed by a zapper study militate against a practical study being undertaken. The zapper studies done by Dr. Clark were not comparative studies. They were done with her zapper only, in her clinic, and the results were reported empirically and anecdotally with no apparent uniform standards and no apparent rigorous methodology. This is evident when reading the material she has published.

One example: If a 57-year-old female had 15 years of exposure to pesticides from living downwind from an agricultural area, is in a weakened state of health and had to quit working 2 years previously, has 6 mercury fillings (known in the dental business as “silver amalgams”), a history of candida and gastro-intestinal pain in the area of the ileosecal valve, experiencing some visual irregularities and peripheral numbness in the toes, has multiple food allergies and chemical sensitivities, how could you possibly duplicate the individuality of this case and compare it with any other? It’s impossible. If The Ultimate Zapper worked to relieve this person of the candida and abdominal pain how would you ever be able to say if another zapper would or would not have been able to accomplish the same results? Each person is like a finger print and has a unique set of problems with a unique history? Only “identical testing” would be comparative and “identical testing” is virtually impossible with zappers. Even if it were theoretically possible to find 2 people with the exact same sets of problems and the exact same history you would be able to compare only 2 zappers, using one on each person. What about the other zapper makers in the study? How would they feel about this? Who would choose which 2 zappers to use in this case? And who will pay to find these “identical” subjects. Who is going to judge that they are in fact “identical”? Who is going to organize a truly valid study with hundreds of people that will produce reliable and credible comparative results? No one has the money or the manpower in the zapper industry to take on this kind of project because it is clear that this project would cost millions of dollars to implement professionally. The fact is that comparative testing for zappers would be impossible even if those huge financial resources were at the disposal of the zapper industry for the reasons stated above. The alternative to such a controlled study would be specification testing but specification testing tells nothing about the synergy or interaction of the various features produced by various zappers and the effect that this synergy has on creating therapeutic results for the wide variety of illnesses, conditions and complaints for which zappers are used. It is very clear that specification testing is not able to predict results. It can only measure a set of output criteria. In the end, all of this is of no consequence at all because all that matters to people who purchase zappers are results.

The only thing we have to go on when it comes to looking for proof of effectiveness is the empirical data, the results that people are actually obtaining and reporting with each zapper, as reported by each zapper maker, and as reported by Dr. Hulda Clark , the inventor of the original zapper. I have no doubt that your zappers and the zappers of other makers help people. That’s what zappers are designed to do. What I am saying is that I have never seen the consistently remarkable kinds of reports from any other zapper maker that The Ultimate Zapper has elicited from users over a period of 12 years, both in terms of the quality of the results as well as the speed of results. It is clear that The Ultimate Zapper produces superior results. There is no way anyone can deny that fact without resorting to falsification. You can talk all you want about your opinions about The Ultimate Zapper’s specifications, that 10.5 volts is the only thing you see that could make any difference; that the Super Stabilized wave makes no difference, though you have gone to the trouble to put in all of your models now, even the cheaper ones, besides it’s just a placebo effect (for my zapper but not for yours, of course); that the 100% positive pulses are just a placebo effect (though I seem to remember a while back that one of your unadvertised models had a variable positive wave, which would, of course not produce a placebo effect because it was in your zapper, not mine); that the lower frequency makes no difference for my zapper (it must be another placebo effect), but you added the lower frequency to your own zappers to create the “dual frequency zapper” so that makes a positive difference for yours (no placebo effect here); that the harmonics make no difference; that the undistorted wave makes no difference and that the constant current makes no difference. You can talk all you like about how you feel the specifications of The Ultimate Zapper are unremarkable, you can pretend to be an objective observer on this forum which you most assuredly are not (you’re just here to “help”, how very kind of you). The fact is you are just another zapper salesman using this forum, and trying to dominate it, to promote your own zappers. It might as well be called the ParaZapper Promotion Forum. If you signed off as David Etheredge, calling this forum the David Etheredge Promotion Forum would not have the same impact, would it?

The one thing you have tried to dismiss, but are unable to do successfully without falsification, are the amazing results people have obtained with The Ultimate Zapper as reported in the unsolicited testimonials. You infer that I made up those reports, which is untrue, and in case they may be true, to your chagrin, you minimize their importance by saying they are no better than the results of any other zapper, which is clearly untrue. You have put yourself between a rock and a hard place. If you recognize that the testimonials are true then, ipso facto, you have to accept their content and then The Ultimate Zapper can’t be all that bad a zapper after all, in fact it starts to look like a superior zapper when you read the testimonials.
Your lack ability to reason clearly is one of the main problems you exhibit on this forum. You have created a very big problem by opening this can of worms, not for me because word of mouth has brought thousands of customers to The Ultimate Zapper over the past 12 years, the vast majority of whom are very satisfied with the results, but for yourself because your credibility is obviously brought into serious question by your false inferences, your use of innuendo, your false statements and by your patronizing tone and your ever-authoritative attitude that encourages the readers of this forum to accept your opinions as fact. All this adds up to one word, manipulation.

There is no doubt you will have trouble explaining away the testimonials on my site including the unsolicited testimonials from people who have used other zappers and have found The Ultimate Zapper superior to the others. If it were a matter of me making unsubstantiated claims I would be in a difficult spot trying to defend myself. But this is clearly not the case. So, in order to make me look bad and make yourself look good you either have to find a way to minimize the importance of the testimonials on my site, or question their veracity by inferring I am a liar, which is exactly what you have done on this forum.

In the testimonial archive, besides the 12 categories devoted to specific kinds of illnesses and diseases, there are 2 additional categories of testimonials. There are 19 testimonials in the archive under the category “Satisfied Customers”, customers reporting they are happy with the results without specifying what specific ailments they were zapping for. And there are 20 testimonials under the heading “Well-Being”. These testimonials can only be brushed aside by someone with a very big axe to grind. I cite only 3 testimonials below from the testimonial archive on my site.

34. ONE MINUTE OF ZAPPING

Ken
I just received your wonderful product yesterday. I have had another zapper for four or five years now, but one minute of zapping with yours is superior to two hours of zapping with the old zapper I had (from a different company). You truly do have a superior product.
Geoffrey
Sept. 9, 2006

33. THE MOST EFFECTIVE ZAPPER

Hi Ken,
I have now tried your zapper for some months, and I would just like to tell you that your zapper is indeed by far the most effective zapper I have tried (I have three other brands also).
I would like to inquire about becoming a distributor, and would like to order three zappers with footpads and transformers (220/240 AC-110DC).
Best regards,
Geir ( from Norway)
Nov. 24, 2006

23. I HAVE MY LIFE BACK

Dear Ken,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

I'm functioning and well!! I can't believe it. Have been progressively getting worse for 10 years with Epstein-Barr virus/Mono. When I ordered the [Ultimate] Zapper I was not functioning ... sleeping 12 hours, waking up exhausted, laying in the chair all day, too tired to watch TV. Have been zapping faithfully since late October and am a normal human being again. There are no words ... I have my life back. So now I would like to be a distributor ... as I have owned two successful businesses I could crank it up ...
Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks again,
Janice
Dec. 5, 2007

David Etheredge comment 1: As for testimonials, there are many thousands of testimonials posted for the standard original Clark zapper,

Ken Presner comment 2: That may be true but if you read them closely you will find a vast difference in the results posted for the original Clark Zapper and the results obtained with The Ultimate Zapper. Furthermore, if you read the testimonials in Dr. Clark’s books carefully you will find that they refer to her detoxification program, not specifically to results obtained with her zapper. There is a very big difference. In fact I comment on the testimonials Dr. Clark has published in The Cure for All Cancers on the Dr. Hulda Clark page on my site at
http://zap.intergate.ca/hulda.htm


Here is a quote from that page:

I base my comments on the following observations: the cover of The Cure for All Cancers [by Dr. Hulda Clark ] states that it includes "over 100 Case Histories of Persons Cured". This is not true. I have read the first 58 case histories and here are the statistics that I have compiled from the information that Dr. Clark provides in those case histories:
cured: 16
worse: 1
dying: 3
died: 4
opted out: 1
started treatment: 4
no change: 4
progress unclear: 2
progress made: 23

David Etheredge comment 1: …there are many [testimonials] for most other zappers. These claims are just as strong as the ones that you post.

Ken Presner comment 2: If this were so (it is clearly not true across the very wide range of ailments covered in the testimonial archive on my site), then it amounts to a de facto admission by you of the “strong” effectiveness of The Ultimate Zapper.

David Etheredge comment 1: There are not many for PZ for one specific reason. We told our customers not to send them. We did post a few from several years back but excluded any that claimed a cure or healing.

Ken Presner comment 2: Frankly, I would never ask customers not to send in testimonials. First of all, I like to hear how people are doing. After all is said and done that is my greatest reward, knowing that I am helping people. Second of all, if I choose not to publish them at the present time that does not mean that there might not come a time in the future when I would like to publish them. It is obvious that if I don’t have those testimonials I can’t publish them and I can’t even comment on their content, except through the veil of memory.

David Etheredge comment 1: As a final note, you complain that I dominate this forum. Yes, I am frequently the only one who answers many of the questions. If it was not for my replies, many questions would be left unanswered. I do not see you here in a helpful way at all. The only concern that you show is for your product and for your customers.

Ken Presner comment 2: As I have stated before, I am not here to help. You are trying to impose the criteria of your self-appointed role on this forum on me and I reject it. I have discussed this in an earlier posting but since you would like to bring up the subject again I will be glad to reply once again. I only post here from time to time and I only do so to respond to specific issues that concern The Ultimate Zapper and to make sure it is not misrepresented and that my site and my work are not misrepresented. I hope that people find my postings helpful but I am not here in the role of a daily “helper” as you have chosen to be on this forum. I help people from my website and my other work, not with little forum sound bites to keep my profile high. Your claim of helping people here who would otherwise not be helped is what I will politely term a slight exaggeration. It not only exaggerates your ability to help others it also exaggerates the impression that people depend on this forum for your help and the help of others in solving their problems. The assumption you build into your response is that I should be seen as a helper here, like your self-styled role here, and if I am not doing the same thing as you claim to be doing then I am not doing what I’m supposed to be doing here, which makes you look really good and makes me look not so good. This is just one more example of how you subtly manipulate people on this forum. I think only a novice will be taken in by your postings. “Better, Better, Better”, the new and creative marketing approach you have chosen for your site, and “electrical engineer”, will never convince people you make a better zapper. And they cannot be convinced of your credibility and the veracity of your statements once they have read what you have to say in your spurious postings about The Ultimate Zapper on this forum.

Sincerely,
Ken Presner