>- By figuring this out is also explained why so many of the frequency devices on the market were ineffective.
This is very true and is one of the main problems with the basic and original Hulda Clark zappers. The cheaper ones and even some of the more expensive onse, have a wide variation in frequency. Some vary as much as +/- 15 percent from one unit to the next. I have reviewed a lot of zappers and many have a lot of testimonials but the testimonials only account for a small percentage of the units sold. So if a person buys a standard zapper or one with the super stabilized output, it is hit or miss. Also, some, if not many, of the so called Rife machines are not as accurate as they would have you believe. Each and every one of our units is tested, not only with an oscilloscope for waveform, but also with a frequency meter, accurate to at least 5 or 6 digits.
As a result of this, we have been making our products far more accurate ( 0.25 percent or better ) in order to achieve more consistent results.
You are very right in that a change of 1 Hz can and does make a significant difference in many cases. In other cases, being reasonably close ( within a few Hz ) can be enough. Our upcoming MY will have a basic accuracy of better than +/- 1 Hz on most of the frequencies.
>- It also explained why the 11 page frequency list that circulates with so many of these machines is bogus
Yes, some of the machines that have been used are off by many Hz, not just a couple. To get the real values, you need at least 6 or 7 digits of resolution and accuracy that only comes from quality equipment.
>- multiple frequencies are not really needed
I absolutely disagree on this point. The issue is that there are often many different microbes present and a frequency that works for one may not work for another.
The multiple frequencies are not there for the one single organism that may predominate, a single, highly accurate frequency can accomplish that as you suggested. The additional frequencies are for the other possible microbes that may coexist. Also, there may be variants of any microbe that may differ by a few Hz.
>- would not touch any frequency device based on her claims.
I have to disagree with this too. In 2005, I published significant statistics showing the reported effectiveness of even the old basic style zappers. These statistics show a high level of effectiveness for the 30 kHz zapper mode and especially for the 2.5 kHz mode. Both of these were generic frequencies with an accuracy of +/- about 5 percent. Even with this limited accuracy, there was a reported effectiveness of 90 percent to 95 percent for certain conditions. Another study that showed that the Clark Zapper was effective is the Thiel study.
For more difficult tasks, the results that we published were somewhat lower. Even with that, the results showed definite credence for the Clark Zapper's effectiveness. The FDA even stated as much in their letter to us where they classified that zapper as a Class III device when sold for use on humans. That is up there with pacemakers and kidney dialysis machines.
>- frequency above 32,000hz
I do not recall reading that particular note and unfortunately, I loaned out my copy that never returned. We did however show that 2.5 kHz was better in general and we also showed that using both frequencies 2.5 kHz and 30 kHz produced better results than either one alone.
I am glad that we can agree on some things yet still differ on others. It is the diversity of opinion that makes this interesting. I, personally, continue to study and try to make improvements.