interesting. does she explain anywhere in her updated book why negative spikes are undesirable? of course, just because she says it doesn’t make it automatically true, but it is interesting to hear her opinion. what problems are predicted to occur from negative spikes? it sounds like she is saying wrist-straps are unreliable, which seems likely to me. the copper finger-rings of the $10 zappers are not the same thing, but are not tubular either. how much contact is needed? my thought is it’s important mainly for it to be constant and consistently in contact for the whole 7-minute period, ...
[retrieve this message]

---

a quick google turned this up: http://www.medicinalfoodnews.com/vol02/issue1/kefir.htm http://www.healingcrow.com/ferfun/conspiracy/conspiracy.html the thing is it has lactic acid bacteria in it. lactic acid is what makes the cheese curdle. some specialty cheeses are made using molds, but I think bacteria and certain yeasts are more common. kombucha, saurkraut, yogurt, and many other fermented foods contain lactic acid bactera as well.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

20 minutes straight isn’t the right amount. 7 minutes is the maximum at a time that will do any good. you need to take 20 minute breaks between 7 minute sessions, and you need three of them in a row. this takes about an hour. the first time gets larger parasites, the second time gets remaining microbes, and the third time gets remaining viruses. one time at 20 mins would leave a bunch of bacteria, fungi, and viruses still alive. the adverse reaction when you weren’t expecting it, coinciding with not following correct procedure, looks to be evidence that the zapper has sound theory behin ...
[retrieve this message]

---

I’ve heard of the silverado causing skin burns for some people. the problem seems to be the pads are too close, or the current is not properly limited. the closer the pads are together, the more current can go straight along it instead of spreading through the body. what you can try is touching the pads with different hands, or perhaps finding a thicker spot of skin to zap. (zapping doesn’t need high current to work.) make sure the skin between the pads isn’t moist.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

science lets you travel around the entire world once a day without even noticing. people standing (and surviving) on the outside of a sphere that spins at 1000 miles an hour as it hurtles through space above a massive ball of flaming plasma, sounds like a fairy tale. just because it’s hard to imagine doesn’t mean it isn’t true. evolution doesn’t technically place frogs anywhere in our ancestry. mammals came from reptiles, just as birds did. monotremes are mammals in most respects, yet resemble reptiles in many ways (such as laying eggs). these are living today, platypus and anteater. th ...
[retrieve this message]

---

I’m sorry. emotions are important and I didn’t realise how what I was saying would feel.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

seems like you could figure out that order by philosophical means. what do you need before you can have animals? plants for them to eat, naturally. what does it mean to have a soul? is it a biological process, or some kind of a force or field science hasn’t yet discovered?   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

that God did it is not an explanation. it’s a statement of faith. it’s okay to say He did it but that doesn’t make it a scientific answer to the question. I think there is a scientific answer to the question, but I am not sure what it is. I do have some ideas that I consider possible however. one is the big bang theory. it has some problems but they may have answers. the problems are, it begs the question (what happened before the big bang?) and it requires some strange variables like dark matter and a ”cosmological constant” that seem ad hoc (stuff made up for no good reason) to me. no ...
[retrieve this message]

---

(post changed) our faith has very important, very personal aspects that don’t depend on disbelieving anything in science.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I personally believe you are correct that the numbers are too high to be a placebo. that zappers work, I have no doubt. seems quite obvious in fact. to many of us. but the FDA is a stupid beaurocracy. whether the numbers add up or not isn’t the relevent point to them. it’s whether you fulfill enough stupid licensing requirements to say whatever kinds of things you have said. to them, saying ”the numbers are too high for a placebo” is too authoritative to say without a license and a controlled study. you should be legally allowed to say (without a license) what the numbers are, how yo ...
[retrieve this message]

---

testimonials do not equal claims. proven research is a different matter than personal experiences. knowing something from personal experience doesn’t mean you can prove it, and even then it doesn’t mean you are legally entitled to claim it. if someone wants to claim the zapper users are only experiencing a placebo, they are making an extraordinary claim in the eyes of zapper users. this claim can easily be proven using double-blind placebo studies if it’s correct, and thus far nobody has bothered to do so. if somebody does do so, then zapper makers should shut down and do something more ...
[retrieve this message]

---

yeah I eat food for investigational or research or some kind of legally meaningless purpose, not to ”prevent” starvation or ”cure” hunger... :D I wonder how that law works... do I need a prescription for food or does the fda specifically permit me to consume it as a hunger cure without one?   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

increased energy -- very common side effect after the die-off. also while it may not kill all the germs inside the intestine it could kill the ones attaching the infection to the wall. and yeah the above is purely for your personal enjoyment :) hope you get well soon. maybe if this doesn’t work you can make some zapping plates like vtool suggests and attach your $10 zapper to them. not sure how they work, maybe they amplify the signal for the given pathogen, like some kind of radio resonance.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

http://www.zapperplans.com/plans.html it’s a lower current design with the same signal output. and it’s free to see on the web, no scam. you can hook it to plates for plate zapping too. $10 zapper is if you want to buy one instead of build your own. it’s not a waste.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

I don’t understand what you are saying at all... who is donating to who? and why? the $10 zapper is ready-made, the plans are free on their site. $10 is a very low price for a working, ready-made zapper, isn’t it?   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

cool, that’s the one I use. no fair trying to know in advance that it really works. it’s an experiment you try and see. I can say ”I believe 100% that it really, actually works” as many times as I like (as I’m obviously a fallible individual with the right to my own beliefs and opinions whatever the FDA says) but pending further scientific investigation I can’t say plainly ”it works.” not about cs, kombucha, herbs, or anything else I believe in, even if it does work. all that said -- I really believe 100% that the zapperplans.com $10 zapper actually works and kills bacteria and such. (i ...
[retrieve this message]

---

I think vtool stepped over the line there. the FDA shouldn’t have shut parazapper down. however he may have been using some brainwashing without realising it and that’s not acceptable. there needs to be more scientific data before anyone can say zappers are (or aren’t) actually going to prevent or cure a disease. hulda clark’s book sounds scientific to me, but hey it’s a book for laymen that skips peer review. her book might be right on one point and wrong on 99 others for all we know until scientists have run the necessary tests and proved each point right or wrong. moral of the story is, ...
[retrieve this message]

---

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html (text removed) I decided that what I posted here was overstating the case. I felt bad about the quote mining (I used to use them to justify my own creationism emotionally) and thought I should share it’s dangers with my fellow christians. I did not mean to make it sound like a personal attack.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

it’s good to believe in God. it’s bad to use Him to explain things you don’t understand in science. things don’t evolve by accident, they evolve because it’s their nature to do so. ”accident” is a part of the process, sure, but that doesn’t make it less natural. the big bang is one theory, you can take it or leave it. evolution doesn’t depend on it. I think it’s fundamentally flawed in that it thinks the second law is so universal everything must be downhill from a single point. rather I think the second law doesn’t apply within certain super-dense energy concentrations such as black ...
[retrieve this message]

---

the moral argument for God’s existence is rendered logically invalid if morality depends on God’s existence because it is circular reasoning. you can’t say morals prove God, who therefore defines morals. better to say God and morals are both logically implied by something independant of either. for example, the forces of nature cause humans to be moral theists. if we mutate otherwise we become depressed or sociopathic, traits that tend to eliminate themselves from the gene pool. Your concept of ex nihilo is rather strange if you are trying to be logical. If ”God” is outside the equation ...
[retrieve this message]

---

is life designed? ”The issue is NOT that life can reproduce and that things like muscles have various functions. The issue is, where did life come from to begin with.” simple answer: self-replicating molecules. these complex structures don’t have to spring into being all of a sudden, that’s the point, they come gradually and naturally. ”A scientist in a lab has not done it (which would only prove my point that a mind must be behind it).” this is the logical problem: if proof = disproof, you have a meaningless argument. there’s no way it could be untrue by definition. I think ...
[retrieve this message]

---

the person who compiled this list (no offense intended) does not understand nor accurately represent evolution. inaccurately representing, then shooting down the opposing position is called a ”straw man” argument. it is emotionally satisfying, but you can’t let that sway you into thinking you proved your point. things that don’t by themselves prove evolution do constitute proof in conjunction with other things. flipping a coin and getting heads twice in a row gives you evidence, but not proof, that the coin is weighted. getting it 10 or 100 times in a row constitutes stronger evidence y ...
[retrieve this message]

---

check these out on line as well: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260_1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html as to being a christian I believe you are correct that it’s true, but a literal interpretation of genesis is not.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

some of the evidence in use today to support creation science claims is fabricated or has been refuted. (the million-year-old clam in the chick tract, for example.) other supposed evidence against evolution is open to interpretation, or irrelevent to the question. mostly it’s all used in such a way as to emotionally undermine people’s trust in the evidence that is used to affirm evolution, as much as possible. trouble is, there’s way too much of it to honestly call into question. creation science advocates always find themselves attacking the emotionally provocative points of the theory, r ...
[retrieve this message]

---

no, that’s not what I was saying. the laws of physics only hold true in the universe as we know it. they are statements that hold true for matter and energy in normal circumstances. we don’t know for other circumstances. as to the ad hominems, I was home schooled and have been a biblical young-earth creationist for most of my life. you can’t accept something on authority and call it science. you can’t accept evolution on someone’s mere authority and call it an education. some people do, and it’s sad. but it’s not science. you need to understand the reasoning behind it to accept it. once ...
[retrieve this message]

---

”Which is more important to how a Zapper works, the voltage impressed on the body or the electron flow through it?” good question. the amount of current actually involved in killing pathogens is probably very minute, i.e. micro-amps or less rather than milli-amps. the trouble is it’s non-zero and must be evenly spread to the whole body. since induction/impedence is higher per amount of current in an oscillating field, you can get away with far lower current on a pulsed signal than straight dc.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

no, what I’m trying to say is there is not much basis for the idea that harmonics or frequencies are what makes hulda clark zappers work. what makes them work is the dc, ”positive” nature of the pulse, i.e. it’s not accompanied by a reversed current. apparently it works by charging and discharging the body’s capacitors repeatedly. perhaps pathogens are capacitative in nature? perhaps saying beck-style devices use harmonics was slightly incorrect. what I meant is the theoretical model of electrocuting pathogens using specific frequencies might include the effects of a harmonic wave from ...
[retrieve this message]

---

the second law of thermodynamics states that energy that is harnessed in an engine will tend to be lost through radiation. it doesn’t say anything about matter getting degraded, although that effect may be related. another thing is these ”laws” of thermodynamics are made up by humans. [edit: I should have said ”made up by humans to fit the evidence” or some such. obviously they werent made up ad hoc for no reason.] they don’t strictly have to be true. [edit: by true I meant universally true. they are of course true in the circumstances we normally observe, or we wouldn’t be still callin ...
[retrieve this message]

---

einstein believed strongly that nature itself is God. in other words, all that order and purpose floating around that we can see, feel, touch, experiment with, etc. is something we can feel spiritual about. the complexity of a molecule indicates complex circumstances. self-reproduction and survival over a billion years would be a very complex circumstance. we’re glad to hear you are not a moonie :)   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

there are real answers to the questions you are asking. the atheists you talk to are probably offended by your religious beliefs so they answer patronizingly, not taking you seriously enough to make the point logically. an internet search will turn you up a lot of answers, some of which are worded very politely yet convincingly. where did morality come from if evolution is true? well, in small tribes of people it is very beneficial to be able to trust them. if they are complete jerks, you can’t trust them so your whole tribe misses out on the benefits of morality. thus those primates an ...
[retrieve this message]

---

I am familiar with this argument. however, life is not a mousetrap. mousetraps don’t reproduce. life has reproduced since it’s inception -- that’s part of it’s very definition. it uses a variety of mechanisms (most of which are very tiny) to survive and reproduce so it is not that hard to imagine that several of these mechanisms could be put together by random chance, creating a working mechanism that performs a completely different, yet beneficial, function. for example, you have muscles in your eyes. does that mean the whole mechanism of muscular tension and relaxation came into being ...
[retrieve this message]

---

the trouble with that assertion is it could be made about anything. most people who say they are not religious define the word more narrowly. they don’t believe in the concept of a supernatural world that can’t be expressed in natural terms. but they do believe in getting up in the morning, eating regular meals, taking showers/baths, lots of stuff. they even usually have faith in mankind and progress. evolution may seem incredible but like many strange seeming scientific rules is makes sense. ”an object in motion will remain in motion indefinately unless acted upon by some opposing forc ...
[retrieve this message]

---

as near as I can tell the harmonics theory is irrelevant in the hulda clark-style parasite zapper. she used both types, and in the cure for all diseases talked mainly about the pulsing kind. that is the kind she tells how to make in a shoe box. simple pulsed dc current, just like zapperplans.com or the butter knife circuit. with beck-style ac zappers probably the precise harmonics are relevant because it targets the pathogens one at a time instead of slaughtering them wholesale. a harmonic could kill parasites not targetted by the ac zapper. you are right (imo) to question the idea of h ...
[retrieve this message]

---

everyone should know about this by now but yes they are $10 at http://zapperplans.com and many other places have fine hulda clark parasite zappers. good healing to everyone spacemiser   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

sorry to hear you’re having a hard time. you have to expect disagreement on controversial issues though. if the moderators don’t like it, they will censor you. on an internet forum free speech isn’t always a guarantee. do you want to post on a forum where just anything can be posted? nobody would stick around there! I do feel your pain though, best of luck.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

yeah I bet that would work great, lots of people sell theirs on ebay. it’s like a game where people bid each other up, you can probably get a good price :)   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

”You can get it at http://www.zapperplans.com” yeah that’s the place. it’s small and not hard to use. kombucha is great too. good health to you spacemiser   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

thanks for the reply Foghat. I agree it’s not that hard to be spiritual and believe in an old earth and common ancestry etc. and yeah the moonies are scary. when I was a creationist I didn’t know Jonathan Wells was a moonie. but I don’t think they corrupt it on purpose even, they just have an emotional mindset that makes them see things that aren’t really there. ”creation proofs” travel quickly, starting out small and getting exaggerated like gossip. ”defending the faith” becomes more a case of memorizing trivia/gossip and regurgitating it without doing much thinking. and mo ...
[retrieve this message]

---

sounds like a good deal, plastic box should look nice. zapperplans.com is just heatshrink over the circuit, no switch just a battery clip. good luck, space miser   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

yowza, sugar rush! I used to post stuff kinda like this too, I understand your feelings. once you understand some of the science behind things it’s less hard to believe. (preachers can be ignorant -- don’t trust them not to be.) for example, if a single mutation killed a person how could each of us contain 50 to 100 of them? only about 3 of those actually do anything, and usually even those are not helpful or harmful. maybe you wouldn’t need all 3 billion in a spontaneous ”event” like that, only about 100 million or so. kind of a silly concept though because nobody thinks that happened. ...
[retrieve this message]

---

there’s a slight difference between philosophical truth (is there just one God? are we morally responsible for our actions?) and literal naturalistic truth (is the earth millions of years old? are all animals and humans of common descent?) the creation science movement comes from a reluctance of people to believe that a naturalistically false document has a philosophically true message. it takes a bit of imagination and faith to accept this, but it’s not too hard. believing in bible stories or any other form of history takes some imagination, and the bible strongly encourages faith.   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---

equation? hmm. start with reproduction (i.e. a reproducing machine), and you have two logical consequences: mutation and selection. take these three and you wind up with ”life” that can adapt to multiple environments, i.e. a hotter one and a colder one. skeptical of abiogenesis? well, there are hydrothermal vents below the sea where a lot of minerals and warm water with high CO2 content exist under high pressure. since minerals crystalize, and since crystalization is a sort of reproductive process, it might have kick-started the life process. seperating oxygen from the carbon using the ...
[retrieve this message]

---

I don’t think you’re being quite fair to christians or evolutionists there. first, christians aren’t all creation-science advocates. some believe strongly in evolution. that’s because christianity is philosophical in nature (specifically, moral philosophy -- that we are all sinners in need of redemption which Jesus provides) rather than scientific (also called natural philosophy -- a branch that excludes the concept of unknowability for any included mechanism). for example, I can’t easily test with science whether it is wrong to kill someone. (I can’t easily turn a screw with a hammer or p ...
[retrieve this message]

---

if you’re not endowed with a huge amount of money I’d say zapperplans.com is the way to go. their model is small and sleek, yet powerful. not sure if it cures ADD but could possibly help make energy levels and hormonal balances more stable if there’s a pathogenic component. ADD is a lack of attentive focus, and I think it may be influencable (and possibly caused) by pavlovian mental associations. there was an experiment done where the researcher (pavlov) rang a bell and each time gave some dogs a whiff of food. each time their mouth would water because of the yummy smell. after enough t ...
[retrieve this message]

---

yeah boosting your immunity to acne bacteria is the best long-term solution. also figure out what damages your skin and try to stop it from happening -- they feed on dead and weakened skin. my (incomplete, but encouraging) success against acne was triggered by showering more often with 3x body wash which has a moisturizing agent. that (I think) left a protective coating and also stopped some of the skin cells from dying as much, letting it recover so it could fight the bacteria better. I know that’s not an all-natural solution, but if it works I ain’t going to knock it :) also I’ve been ...
[retrieve this message]

---

is this according to the spec at zapperplans.com or hulda’s original schematic? also are you selling them for under $10? good luck space miser   [End]
[retrieve this message]

---