"According to what I read, supposedly from her family, her true condition was hidden by a neck and should injury from an accident that led to misdiagnosis. By the time the error was discovered, it was basically too late......."
Those are all wonderful cover ups - but that's exactly what they are. Those cover ups themselves show that she had absolutely no diagnostic abilities at all with her Scientology auditing device or she would have diagnosed the cancer long before her "neck and shoulder injury." So that story simply doesn't hold water.
She also failed to correctly diagnose her brother's cancer (same equipment) and he was eventually taken by her family to allopathic medical care prior to his cancer demise.
By the way - have a very early version of the zapper that I bought before they had to move the operations to Canada. If anyone is looking for a huckster museum piece they can have it.
"In
your all knowing wisdom on this topic, have you ever considered that maybe she
did not even try to diagnose herself."
Ahh, hit a sore point huh? The woman was 80 years old. I seriously doubt that she tried to diagnose herself because the medical doctor she saw did it for her - prior to her death. It is medically impossible to list those things on a death certificate without both blood tests and bone marrow biopsies. With that diagnosis prior to death there was no reason to do an autopsy on the body.
Any practitioner making the claims that Clark did - including her trumped up and erroneous diagnostic abilities, would have used her diagnostic abilities on herself. By the time you hit 80 - unless your a marathoner, you have significant aches and pains that aren't explainable in ordinary fashion.
The spinal story that was originally published by the family turned out to be fake. Had she died from neck/spine and shoulder injuries that would have been obvious at death.
There was obviously cancer in the family. The woman couldn't cure her brother's cancer (that is a known fact) and she couldn't cure hers. It's actually pretty simple.
n your all knowing wisdom on this topic, have you ever considered that maybe she did not even try to diagnose herself.
LOL!!! You just got done falsely claiming that a neck and shoulder injury led to her misdiagnosis. And as I pointed out, many people do not even know they have cancer until they go in for something like an injury and the X-rays and scans pick up the cancer. So the REAL doctors at the hospital would have diagnosed her.
So, when she incorrectly diagnosed her brother, was there anyone who cam up with the correct diagnosis at the same time? No.
How do you know? Were you at the hospital with him when this all went down?
Do so called non-quack doctors diagnose everything correctly the first time, or every time? No.
Excuse alert!!!
Are you correct all of the time?
Excuse alert!!!
How many doctors treat their own serious illnesses?
Excuse alert!!!
I know that I am not correct all of the time but I do not sit and deny credit when it is due. While not perfect, Dr. Clark helped a lot of people that the medical profession had turned their backs on. Her success rate was far better than most chemo-therapy can offer.
Do you have any REAL evidence to this claim other than your say so? Again, you have been caught too many times making false claims so I would like to see some REAL evidence to back your claim.
And again, if her success rate was so high then why did she fail to cure herself or her brother?
And just so you can not poo poo this, I get my information from cancer survivors who call and talk to me 10, 15, and even 18 years after they had been told by their doctors to go home and die but they went to Dr. Clark instead and are still alive as a result.
According to you, which means nothing. Any credible evidence to back up this claim?
Also, there is no benefit for me to write about this other than to let people know that what you are spouting is not entirely true.
Uh, let's see. You said you have 50 sites selling electrical therapy devices including Zappers. Yet you claim there is no benefit to you in defending Clark's work. Well, not quite true again there is it? If people realize what quackery Zappers really are that does what to your Zapper sales? Want to stick with that no benefit to you lie?
Dr. Clark saved a lot of lives, even if she did not save her own.
Again, an unsubstantiated claim.
Interesting, "According to Kevin Kenward of the American Medical Association: 'Based on over 210,000 records of deceased physicians, our data indicate the average life-span of a physician is 70.8 years.'"
Looks like Dr. Clark beat that by a few years.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Talk about twisting the facts!!! Do you know how many cancers grow rapidly? So let's say that someone is 80 years old and they develop cancer then die at 81. They still beat the odds. So what does her age at time of death have to do with anything? The answer is NOTHING!!!
The only thing that is valid here is the fact that she got cancer in the first place and died from it despite her herbs and Zapper. Same with her brother.
>- quackery Zappers really are that does what to your Zapper sales
Sorry dude, you have entirely missed the boat. We have solid proof of efficacy for these applications.
So let's see this "solid proof". Post the studies showing they really work.
And again, if they work then why did Clark and her brother both die of cancer? Boy, you are going to have a hard time coming up with a good excuse for that one!!!
>- what does her age at time of death have to do with anything?
Everything. The very fact that she outlived the average age of survival in the U.S. makes a statement. I am not surprised to see you reject because it is not part of your holy grail. At the same point the statement that I posted shows that Doctors, on the average are less healthy than the rest of us. So, why the heck would we want to listen to them for health advice?
There you go again trying to act like an expert on things you clearly do not understand. As you pointed out this is an average. Yes, some people will make it over the average and some under the average. That is why it is called an average. George Burns smoked cigars and still lived to be over 100. So does this mean that smoking cigars is healthy and everyone should do it? Maybe he lived to be over 100 because of the anti-parasitical nicotine in his cigars.
Bottom line is that some people get luckily. This can be from genetics, it can be from lack of stress, it can be from a long list of things. So just because she managed to survive slightly over the average age of doctors means NOTHING!!! How many doctors are being exposed to radiation and chemo drugs unlike Clark? How many doctors are actually working in a stressful clinical situation unlike Clark? Should I go on? You are simply extrapolating whatever you can to try and help back your claims, but all you are doing is making yourself look more desperate and foolish!!!
>- only thing that is valid
What proof do you have that did did not have M.M. for 20 or even 30 years and the little use of the zapper that she had actually kept her going for that long?
Proof goes both ways. So where is your proof that she did have multiple myeloma for all those years?
But let's not forget that REGARDLESS of how long she had it that the Zapper failed to get rid of her cancer. Same for her brother's cancer. In other words the Zapper did not work in either case!!! So you are providing the evidence that the Zappers are quackery by claiming that she may have had cancer longer although the Zappers never got rid of it.
"According to what I read, supposedly from her family, her true condition was hidden by a neck and should injury from an accident that led to misdiagnosis. By the time the error was discovered, it was basically too late......."
Those are all wonderful cover ups - but that's exactly what they are. Those cover ups themselves show that she had absolutely no diagnostic abilities at all with her Scientology auditing device or she would have diagnosed the cancer long before her "neck and shoulder injury." So that story simply doesn't hold water.
You are absolutely correct. There is no way a shoulder and neck injury would mask cancer preventing a proper diagnosis. In fact, many people never know they have cancer until they do get an injury and the X-rays or scans they get reveal the cancer. So I totally agree with you that the excuses being used are nothing more than cover ups.
She also failed to correctly diagnose her brother's cancer (same equipment) and he was eventually taken by her family to allopathic medical care prior to his cancer demise.
Interesting, I had not heard that. Thanks for sharing that extra information. That can really save lives before people go off using her baseless claims and devices to deal with their severe diseases.
Taking this a little further though, I wonder what excuse they would use to explain how Clark got cancer in the first place if she as taking the antiparasitical herbs and avoiding compounds like isopropyl alcohol that she also tried to link to cancer?
"Taking this a little further though, I wonder what excuse they would use to explain how Clark got cancer in the first place if she as taking the antiparasitical herbs and avoiding compounds like isopropyl alcohol that she also tried to link to cancer?"
If you go here you will find Hulda Clark's death certificate which is public record:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/upload/2009/10/requiem_for_a_quack_part_ii/...
You will note also that both "Steven Oppenheim M.D. and certifier Silvia Garcia M.D. were from San Diego Hospice and The Institute for Palliative Medicine and confirmed these diagnoses from having last seen Hulda Clark on August 12, 2009. Palliative care is not about reversing disease, it is about relieving pain. It is most likely Hulda Clark came to Dr. Oppenheim’s care after having already received her cancer diagnosis."
Clark died in a palliative care facility AKA hospice. You don't get there as a terminal patient without first being diagnosed with a terminal illness. Having recently been given both extensive blood tests and having a bone marrow biopsy myself by a hematologist/oncologist I know for a fact that's the only way that they would come up with a cause of death at the detail they put on the death certificate. It is also the only way that Clark would be allowed into a hospice. She died in a long period of intense pain and was probably given pain medication for it up to the point of her death. Do you think that she or her family would ever admit to that? Of course not. Is it shameful to die of cancer? Of course not - thousands do it on a daily basis.
If by the age of 80 if you haven't pondered life beyond death, then you're in a hell of a fix. In fact my body thought it was immortal until it reached about 30 to 35. I have since learned for myself that I am an eternal spirit - as is everyone else on the Planet and that death of the body is simply a transition and nothing to be feared.
Hulda Clark will return some day and may again become a healer. She isn't gone, she's just taking care of some spiritual business before she comes back.
http://thesestatementshavenotbeenevaluatedbythefda.com/2011/09/hulda-clark-ca...
..........It has now been two years. I am still filled with questions and confused by the conflicting information about the cause of her (i.e., Clark's) death.
Like Oskar Thorvaldsson, owner of Self Health Resource Center, I initially learned that Dr. Hulda Clark died of a spinal injury. New Century Press, the company formed to self-publish Dr. Hulda Clark’s books and manage her website HuldaClark.net, released a statement that Dr. Clark died of complications from a spinal injury.
A month later, Hulda Clark’s death certificate was released. The cause of death was listed as anemia and hypercalcemia – diseases of the blood. An additional diagnosis was provided on the certificate: multiple myeloma. Cancer of the bone marrow.
Dr. Hulda Clark’s adversaries scanned and posted her death certificate on the internet, gloating over the damning diagnosis. Dr. Hulda Clark could not cure her own cancer. Her death certificate confirmed that she was a fraud.
If you look closely at the death certificate, attending physician Steven Oppenheim M.D. and certifier Silvia Garcia M.D. from San Diego Hospice and The Institute for Palliative Medicine, confirmed these dignoses from having last seen Hulda Clark on August 12, 2009. Palliative care is not about reversing disease, it is about relieving pain. It is most likely Hulda Clark came to Dr. Oppenheim’s care after having already received her cancer diagnosis.
If you go here you will find Hulda Clark's death certificate which is public record:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/upload/2009/10/requiem_for_a_quack_part_ii/...
It is interesting that the death certificate is listed as anemia and hypercalcemia as being the cause of the death, with the multiple myeloma being a contributing factor rather than a cause. Does not say much for whoever wrote the Death Certificate there in San Diego. Anemia and hypercalcemia are well known effects of malignancies including multiple myeloma. So in reality it was the cancer that killed her and the anemia and hypercalcemia should have been listed as the contributing factors.
Clark died in a palliative care facility AKA hospice. You don't get there as a terminal patient without first being diagnosed with a terminal illness.
True, you cannot enter hospice without a doctor determining a life expectancy of 6 months or less with a terminal disease.
According to what I read, supposedly from her family, her true condition was hidden by a neck and should injury from an accident that led to misdiagnosis. By the time the error was discovered, it was basically too late.
Just an excuse. As far as I am concerned it is never too late as long as the are still breathing. I have seen people turned around from their death beds by using the 666hz frequency. So using the excuse that someone was too far gone just because what they were doing simply does not work is nothing but an excuse.
Bottom line regarding Clark and her Zapper - she died of cancer. Why couldn't she cure herself? Didn't she have the "right" frequency? I think that its all the proof anyone needs that her zapper is as big a fake as she was.
Excellent point.
>- Viruses are not even considered alive let alone a parasite
Your ignorance shows.
Here we go with the personal attacks once again because I proved you wrong again.
A virus is the ultimate obligatory parasite according to the definition.
No, it is not. You clearly have a lot to learn about BASIC science!!!
A Parasite is any organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, for at least some part of its life, from the body of which it obtains nutriment or some form of its sustenance.
Right there you already discredited yourself once again. Viruses are not live.
http://www.beyondbooks.com/lif72/2c.asp
"This is why viruses do not belong to a kingdom of living things. Just because a virus seems alive doesn't mean it is alive. After all, it's not even a single-celled organism."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_viruses_living
"Life is defined in science with certain criteria. Some lists are slightly different, but a universal point of definition is that something living requires metabolism (the ability to create it's own energy).
Viruses lack metabolism, therefore they are not living."
http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212089/virus.htm
"Viruses are non-living microscopic particles that attack healthy cells within living things. They do not have the characteristics of living things and are not able to metabolize food. To metabolize means to change food energy into chemical energy that the body can use. Viruses are not alive, so they do not have a need for food like living oganisms. Viruses do not have an organized cell structure. They are so light that they can float in the air or water, be passed on to other organisims if touched, and fit anywhere. The virus injects its own DNA structure into healthy cells where new virus cells grow."
While a virus can not live on its own, it does qualify as a parasite.
Again, viruses are not alive to begin with.
>- she did not give complete schematics and she DID NOT specify a frequency
I am aware of the controversy. You however, have NEVER made any mistakes or omissions.
I never said I did not. But I correct my mistakes and omissions instead of ignoring them. Some people though prefer to keep making the same false claims even when the error was pointed out to them such as making reference to viruses living.
>- Have you heard of first copy, which is what I had
Yes, that is usually why second editions are published. So, why don't or didn't you sue her for such horrendous omissions. From your attitude and remarks, she obviously caused you serious pain and suffering.
Another incorrect assumption. I just have a major problem with people pushing false health information. Especially with alternative medicine since I have spent so many years working on trying to get alternative medicine legitimized. When people make up claims like Clark did so many times it does so much damage to the alternative medicine movement.
>- Since when?
Always when real, true, legitimate evidence is presented. However, I m not going to be buffaloed by some of the junk that you present as evidence.
So medical studies are "junk" to you. Oh, that's right, you are also a "liver flush" supporter. They also believe that golf ball size gallstones can pass through the ducts that don't expand that large. They also believe that the gallbladder is larger than the entire chest and abdominal cavity combined. All this while claiming fecal soaps do not exist even though I have posted a number of medical studies discussing their existence and how they form. They also don't believe that gallstones can lead to pancreatitis even though the medical journals say otherwise. Bottom line is that they don't even believe in evidence, they prefer to believe in fairy tales.
>- You have ignored all the evidence I have presented on the "Liver Flush Debate " forum,
You have not posted anything but anecdotal claims. If you consider that to be evidence, I am glad that you are not a member of the judicial system.
See my last statement. I am sorry that medical studies are above your head. But I do not rely on Dick and Jane books to get my evidence.
For example, where I have evidence from a medical journal and other credible sources about fecal soaps that the "liver flush" supporters kept denying exist and still continue to deny the existence of despite the evidence presented. You and the other "liver flush" supporters keep playing this game of asking for evidence then denying its existence once presented. Again they don't care about the truth or facts. All they care about is whatever fantasies they can come up with that fit their needs.
>- The one I am really interested in is how you think they obtain magnesium sulfate from calcium carbonate derived from seawater as you claimed.
Once again, the master of smoke and mirrors, you entirely misrepresent what I said. The magnesium is obtained from magnesium salts.
Once again the master of lies is making things up again. Here is HIS post:
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1863990#i
">- magnesium sulphate ( Epsom Salts ) are made by pharmaceutical chemical manufacturers-Hveragerthi
Only some of the cheap stuff on the store shelves is synthetic and much of it is a byproduct of the production of salt from sea water. The synthetic method treats calcium carbonate or hydroxide with sulphuric acid. "-Parazapper
So again mister master chemist and master manipulator, how do you make magnesium sulfate by the action of sulfuric acid on CALCIUM carbonate or hydroxide?
Alchemy does not work in any economical sense. Elements can not be changed unless bombarded with highly energized nuclear particles or by fission.
Yes, which is what I told you in my response:
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1864505#i
"Must be really super expensive since it would be pretty hard to transmute that calcium atom in to a magnesium atom so you could even create magnesium sulfate!"
Magnesium is also a component of seawater, since you are obviously unaware.
LOL!!!! Again, I was the one that had to explain that to you in the same response linked above (http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1864505#i):
"Either way, the pharmaceutical companies usually buy it rather than make it. Take it from an old lime chemist who knows.-Parazapper
Knows what?!!! First of all magnesium sulfate is not produced from calcium carbonate or hydroxide. Secondly, if you really are a chemist then you would have known that most of the magnesium that is present in seawater is in the form of magnesium chloride, not magnesium sulfate.
So how is magnesium separated from seawater? Well here, let me show you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium
"The Mg2+ cation is the second most abundant cation in seawater (occurring at about 12% of the mass of sodium there), which makes seawater and sea-salt an attractive commercial source of Mg. To extract the magnesium, calcium hydroxide is added to seawater to form magnesium hydroxide precipitate.
So now they are left with Magnesium chloride, not magnesium sulfate, which is otherwise known as "Epsom salts". So how do you suppose they convert that magnesium hydroxide in to magnesium sulfate? Hmmm...... Supposedly being a chemist you should know that they can react sulfuric acid on the magnesium oxide to form magnesium sulfate.
Mg(OH)2 + H2SO4 ---> MgSO4 + 2H2O
So how is that less expensive.
Of course they can also use electrolysis to separate the pure magnesium metal first, then treat this chemically to produce magnesium sulfate. But electrolysis is energy intensive and not very efficient. So the cost would be prohibitive even before the chemical treatment.
So is magnesium sulfate really extracted directly from seawater as you supposedly claim? Well let's see:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/olympusmicd/galleries/polarized/magnesiums...
"Magnesium oxide, as mined or extracted from seawater, acts as the starting point for commercial production of magnesium sulfate."
As a supposed "chemist" you should be aware of the fact that the mixing of magnesium oxide in water forms magnesium hydroxide. And as I showed above magnesium hydroxide is converted in to magnesium sulfate by the action of sulfuric acid on the hydroxide!!!"-Hveragerthi
So keep making up lies Parazapper and I will keep exposing them!!!
>- if they are off or not as you claim when they are wrong in the first place
Another twisting of the facts. Some of the frequencies may well be off by a few Hz and some may not.
Not a twisting of facts at all. But at least you admitted this time that the frequencies were not necessarily off. You are just guessing at that because it does not fit your needs.
However, the feedback that I have received is that zappers, Rife, and other electro-therapy devices do work very well in most cases. I publised statistics and the FDA called our customers looking for errors in our claims.
So let's see this publication and the FDA's results. FDA records are public, so show us a link to the findings if you are telling the truth.
They did find that our customers do have good results and as a result, classify our products as CLASS III devices when used on humans, along with pacemakers and dialysis machines.
So let's see proof of this class III approval. And let's see what that really means anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_device#Class_III:_General_controls_and_p...
"
A Class III device is one for which insufficient information exists to assure safety and effectiveness solely through the general or special controls sufficient for Class I or Class II devices.[7][9] Such a device needs premarket approval, a scientific review to ensure the device's safety and effectiveness, in addition to the general controls of Class I.[7][9] Class III devices are usually those that support or sustain human life, are of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, or which present a potential, unreasonable risk of illness or injury.[9]Examples of Class III devices which currently require a premarket notification include implantable pacemaker, pulse generators, HIV diagnostic tests, automated external defibrillators, and endosseous implants.[9]"
So why you are at it why don't you also post a link to the required scientific review that is required since this should also be a public record. And if you are not making all your claims up then you should have no problem providing links to prove the classification and the studies that would have been required. Somehow I seriously doubt you will be able to come up with these.
I will state specifically that frequency therapy does work and due to the natural resonances involved,
"Natural resonances"?!!!! LOL!!! They are not natural, they are being created by the machine. Again, changing definitions to fit your needs is not helping your case at all.
each organism has its own frequency and organelles within an organism will have their own frequencies as well.
That is resonate frequencies, not electrical frequencies. Surprised you don't know the difference being that you are supposedly an expert. But then again you thought that you can make magnesium sulfate from the calcium carbonate or hydroxide derived from seawater.
>- knew anything about electrotherapy, cancer and its origins then you would know why it works
I do know plenty about electro-therapy, cancer, and its origins.
I seriously doubt that based on your statements above. You have shown a serious lack of knowledge about chemistry and radiofrequency therapy.
>- some frequencies will also be able to kill human cells
Yes, this one reason why she gave a range in her second edition and all later books.
LOL!!! You still don't get it. A "range" can include healthy and dangerous frequencies!!!! The more you post the more you show how much you need to be avoided when looking for health advice.
However, while some human cells do have resonances within the range but there is an aspect of the human cell that makes it somewhat impervious to these frequencies.
Proof to this claim? Obviously you do not understand how frequencies can affect cells.
That is the difference between the cells of higher lifeforms have a flexible cell membrane where many lower organisms have rigid cell walls or semi-rigid membranes. Flexible cell walls just shimmy like a balloon.
You are showing even more of your ignorance. It does not matter if a life form is a higher or lower life form as to whether it has a cell membrane or wall. Yes, humans have cell membranes, just like bacteria. Plants contain cell walls. So according to your own statement above you are clearly stating that radiofrequency therapy will not kill bacteria since they have cell membranes as well. And since viruses have neither they also would not be affected according to your claim. You really should learn about what you are posting about before posting it because you are a walking, breathing billboard for medical quackery!!!
>- If that were the case then Rife would not have narrowed his list of frequencies down to a few related frequencies
This just goes to show that Rife did not find all of the answers and most likely did not investigate square waves but mostly centered his work around sinusoidal waves.
Again you are speculating since you have no evidence to the contrary. I find it very interesting myself that out of all the frequencies Rife tested he narrowed them all down to three frequencies. And all three of those frequencies were related to each other and the body's primary, healthy frequency. It was a lot more than coincidence. But of course you would not realize that being that you have no clue what you are talking about as your responses have shown.
>- would not touch a Zapper
Your loss.
Not at all. I believe in things that actually work, not made up science based on bogus claims about parasites causing all diseases.
Many people suffer great loss by not trying things. What you do not know can hurt. That aside, I agree that Rife is in general better if you can afford it.
1. Rife units do not have to be expensive.
2. Are something that really has no real basis, such as "Zappers" really a bargain when there is no evidence that they work? Especially when one's life is depending on it?
>- the herbs she chose are known for fighting cancer, but not because of anything to do with parasites
A seriously misguided idea. Wromwood and Green tincture of walnut have been known to have anti-parasitic properties from centuries ago. Use of wormwood dates back to before 1500 B.C., and evidence of wormwood's anti-parasitic use by Egyptian herbalists was found on papyrus from around this time.
LOL!!! That simple concept really went over your head. Of course why am I not surprised? I never said they did not have antiparasitical properties. Problem with your basis is that parasitical cancers are EXTREMELY rare. Therefore, according to your own statement these herbs would RARELY work for cancer. Luckily these herbs have other properties that help them in the fight of cancers since cancers are rarely caused by parasites.
>- If Rife could have continued his work then maybe he would have one day stumbled upon the key as to why different frequencies were not needed for different diseases.
Yes, but even better, he might have come to the realization that more could be accomplished with multiple frequencies and might have even delved deeper into square waves and harmonics.
Again, multiple frequencies are not needed. Like Rife, you need to learn how these frequencies actually work to understand why.
>- where I have been royally kicking
Your opinion only and what you present as facts is not just questionable, it is mostly anecdotal garbage. You have not posted even one single peer reviewed study that showed negative results for flushing. Sadly for you, you rate yourself much higher than others do.
There you go again twisting things. I have addressed your bogus claims and proved them wrong. What do your false claims about making magnesium sulfate from calcium carbonate or hydroxide from seawater have to do with the safety of "liver flushing". Don't try to skirt the facts by twisting things.
And as far a evidence, what evidence have the "liver flush" supporters provided to prove the safety and effectiveness of "liver flushing"? Oh, that's right, ABSOLUTELY NONE!!! On the other hand I have presented overwhelming evidence against most of the claims made by the "liver flush" supporters even though I was not the original claimant and thus did not have the burden of proof. So why have you and the other "liver flush" supporters failed to come up with even one piece of REAL evidence that "liver flushing" is valid? Could it be you have no evidence to present just like you have no real evidence to back your claims about the FDA approval and the claims you have made about radiofrequency therapy?
Additionally, either you are retired with lots of spare time and nothing better to do, or you are paid to be here posting your bunk. This is easy to tell from the hours of time you spend putting all of your bunk out there. I noticed that only 2 of 15 agreed with your post
I see your full time hobby is assuming. As far as who has agreed or disagreed with me we all know that is politics. The "liver flush" supporters all hit "agree" on any posts made by other "liver flush" supporters even when they are proven wrong. For example, look at all the "liver flush" supporters that clicked "agree" when you falsely claimed that magnesium sulfate was from calcium carbonate or hydroxide extracted from seawater? Again, it did not matter that your claim was completely bogus, they still clicked "agree" just because you were a "liver flush" supporter and you were attacking me. So you can try to twist the facts all you want, but most people here on Curezone are intelligent enough to see right through your games.
"Would you like a Liver Flush with that colon cleanse? ", my ratings are much higher. As a matter of point, most of your posts have very little positive votes and a large number of negative votes, so what you consider kicking but is fluff.
See above. You ought to check yourself for colon polyps while you still have your head so far up in your.......
>- when it is based on bogus research it is already by definition over priced and fluff
Once again, the even FDA could not find any evidence that our products do not work. What they found was lots of very satisfied customers. At least one of their agents accused us of hypnotizing our customers.
Sure, and as you also claimed calcium is used to make magnesium sulfate. Sorry, but you have busted in too many lies to have any credibility in my eyes. But if you are by some miracle telling the truth then you would have no problem providing the FDA reports, which are public records. If you cannot provide them then we will all know why.
The fact is that while not perfect, the zapper does have at least a reasonable level of effectiveness for certain applications. We certainly have solid proof that it can kill microbes living in water.
Apparently not bacteria as they have cell membranes and viruses since they have no membrane. And as you said above human cells are not affected since they have flexible membranes, which by the way bacteria also have.
If you are going to recant on your claims though now lets see the studies backing your claim.
We also have plenty of data to show that some microbes are killed quicker at one frequency while others are more susceptible to other frequencies.
See above.
On top of that it was not an effort to make a personal attack, but to point out that to the great majority of people here, you not only appear to be narrow minded, but portray the image of close mindedness. I will say that I have seen a few changes in what you say on a few topics since you first appeared on these forums. That is welcome, but your pretending that you have all of the answers because you have read a few pages of Rife, Bare, Lahovsky, or others, does not cut it.
Again you assume too much. I have done a lot more research that simply reading a few pages. And I did not obtain my information from sales sites like you clearly have.
I have been living, breathing, and eating Electro therapy for the past 11 years to the tune of 12 to 16 hours a day.
Seeing how much time you spend here on Curezone attacking people I seriously doubt that claim as well.
I do not just read, I have a lab and test it. Since Rife, Clark, and whoever else is not here, others like myself are pursuing the badly needed answers. No, I am not the only one and qiute possibly not the best. But at least, I am doing and making progress.
I have been researching radiofrequency therapy for 20 years. And again, not from sales sites like you clearly have.
As for the rest of your claim I seriously doubt the res of your claims as well. Again, you have been caught in too many lies to be taken seriously. But we will see whether or not you can come up with documentation for your claims you made about the FDA. Details of whether or not you really have a facility would be revealed in the documents if you are telling the truth. And again, if you cannot come up with evidence of your claims then we will all know that you are lying again as FDA documents are public record.
>- did you realize that they never claimed anyone was cured by this method
Yes, I do not claim cures either. All that I claim is that my products kill germs in water.
But you also claimed that flexible cell membranes make cells resistant. Bacteria have flexible cell membranes. So you are really contradicting yourself again.
>- Chemotherapy can achieve those results
Look again, what they were receiving was palliative. They were on their death bed and had exhausted their chemo / radiation options. If they had been given this treatment early on as their primary therapy, they would have fared much better.
ROTFLMAO!!!! What a load of garbage!!! The person I saw use a Rife unit at 666hz had terminal liver cancer and was given less than a week to live. He ended up dying 2 years later from an aneurysm. But a scan a month earlier showed the cancer still had not returned. He was using no other therapy other than the Rife unit. And I have seen other such turnarounds. So it really has nothing to do with how advanced or aggressive a cancer is. If the proper FREQUENCY is used the person can be turned around as long as they are still breathing. So you are just looking for excuses as to why the varied frequencies failed.
Please do not take what I say as a personal attack because that is not what is intended. You have a habit of taking certain things that you read as gospel and in your fervor spread a lot of poorly based misinformation. Learn to open you mind and give the things that you are hard set against at least a bit of study. While I think that you are definitely smart, educated, and somewhat knowledgeable, there are many things that you are overlooking. Your efforts would be more effective and much better appreciated if you would delve into things further before slamming the door in denial.
Is the speech you gave yourself?
I do want to express that while I know that some of Dr. Clark's early work had definite shortcomings, she did try to make corrections in her later writings and for this I give her Kudos.
She expanded her quackery to include other diseases in to her personal bogus list of diseases supposedly caused by parasites. She was a quack, pure and simple!!!
She opened the door for many of us into a number of aspects of our health and made us think about things. I have a lot of research still left to do and could do it sooner if I did not have to spend so much time on these forums undoing the damage that has been caused by others who have posted either poorly based information or intentionally try to provide bad information.
Then stop posting misinformation and I will stop correcting your mistakes.
[quote]
Problem with your basis is that parasitical cancers are EXTREMELY rare. Therefore, according to your own statement these herbs would RARELY work for cancer. Luckily these herbs have other properties that help them in the fight of cancers since cancers are rarely caused by parasites.
[/quote]
Knowing how doctors and labs don't know how to diagnose a parasitic worm infection reliably, i don't know how you can be so confident about that.
Being that virtually every oncogene that has been found is viral, and that these viral DNAs can be found in most cancers, plus the fact that viruses have been shown to cause cancers yes I can say that with confidence.
Furthermore, Clark was claiming a specific parasite was causing not only all cancers, but also all diseases. And it is a parasite that can be easily identified. Yet it does not show up in the majority of cancer patients. If you think you have some real evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.
[quote]
So let's see this publication and the FDA's results. FDA records are public, so show us a link to the findings if you are telling the truth.
[/quote]
This is not because a person works for the FDA or has a degree that he is always right. History has proven this again and again. You should know that.
I have no idea what you are rambling about. I never mentioned anything about anyone working for the FDA. What I am referring to is that if the FDA really inspected his facilities then they should have given him a written report of the results, especially based on his claims. And even if they did not give him a written statement the FDA would still have to file a report, which would be a public record. Since he seems to know what was said this means he would have to have seen the report IF it really exists and IF the FDA really did what he claimed. I think he is making up the whole story so I am asking for a link to a copy of the report to see if the story is true or made up.
[quote]
Are something that really has no real basis, such as "Zappers" really a bargain when there is no evidence that they work?
[/quote]
I haven't noticed any usefull effects of "THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL ZAPPER" (the ultimate zapper) against parasitic worms. However i have killed warts with it. So you can't say it's a useless device. There is more lies than results, that's for sure.
Warts are also caused by viruses, which are readily destroyed by voltage. It has been known for decades that even as little as 1 volt can destroy a virus. Thus killing warts does not mean the frequencies of the device had any effect.
>- >- A virus is the ultimate obligatory parasite according to the definition.
>- No, it is not. You clearly have a lot to learn about BASIC science!!!
Actually, you need to get updated and out of your antiquated information.
No, you need to stop changing definitions to fit your needs.
>- any organism
Non-cellular life = Virus
Once again, viruses are not living!!! So they do not constitute "life"!!! How many times does that simple concept need to be explained to you before you get it?!!!
And since you are also trying to redefine "organism" to fit your needs let's look at the definition of organism:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/organism
or·gan·ism (ôrg-nzm)
Notice that they make no references to "viruses" as viruses are not living and do not fall within the definition of organism regardless!!!
"The issue of life without cellular structure came again to the fore with the 2003 discovery that the large and complex Mimivirus " Ref: Luis P. Villarreal (2005). Viruses and the Evolution of Life. New York ASM Press.
Again, you need to learn how to do proper research:
http://www.microbiologybytes.com/virology/Mimivirus.html
"Mimivirus has many characteristics which put it at the boundary between living organisms and non-living entities. It is as large as several bacteria, such as Rickettsia conorii and Tropheryma whipplei, has a genome larger than a number of bacteria, and encodes some genetic products previously not known to be possessed by any virus. In particular, mimivirus contains genes coding for nucleotide and amino acid synthesis which even some small obligate intracellular bacteria lack. This means that unlike these bacteria, mimivirus is not dependent on the host cell genome for coding the metabolic pathways for these products. It does however, lack genes for ribosomal proteins, making mimivirus dependent on a host cell for protein synthesis and energy metabolism.
So, is mimivirus alive? Like all viruses, mimivirus particles do not reproduce by division, but are replicated by the self-assembly of preformed components. This differentiates it from cellular living organisms such as bacteria."
"In discussing the taxonomic domains of life, the terms Acytota or Aphanobionta are occasionally used as the name of a viral kingdom, domain, or empire. The corresponding cellular life name would be Cytota. Non-cellular organisms and cellular life would be the only two subdivisions of earthly life—also known as terrestrial organisms,"
The paragraph directly above is also found in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cellular_life
And look at what else they state:
"Non-cellular life is life that exists without a cellular structure. This term presumes the phylogenetic scientific classification of viruses as lifeforms.[1]"
You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper with each post.
From WikiPedia, I know, not the best reputed but:
"Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell".
Straddling does not mean "is". Viruses are not considered living. Try looking up the definition of living instead and then try to tell us how viruses fit the definition of living.
From The Bacteriophage T4 Virus
On the other end of the spectrum, a different criterion for defining life would be the ability to move a genetic blueprint into future generations, thereby regenerating your likeness. In the second, more simplistic definition, viruses are definitely alive. They are undeniably the most efficient entities on this planet at propagating their genetic information.
http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html
LOL!!! Do you even know what a bacteriophage is?!!! Apparently you don't since if you did you would not have posted that realizing that it is not helping your case at all! And no, viruses still do to fit the definition of life.
Even more funny is the fact that you apparently don't even bother to read the links you post as "evidence"!!! From the link above you presented as evidence:
"Viruses exist in two distinct states. When not in contact with a host cell, the virus remains entirely dormant. During this time there are no internal biological activities occurring within the virus, and in essence the virus is no more than a static organic particle. In this simple, clearly non-living state viruses are referred to as 'virions'. "
Keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper and deeper.........
Things have change since 1940 HV, get updated.
Yes, since 1940 we have learned what bacteriophages are. Apparently you have not caught up to modern times yet.
>- Viruses lack metabolism, therefore they are not living."
This is false and is a narrow minded view point. Viruses are in a spore state but at the point where they come into contact with the correct receptor site, they do show self replicating action of attaching to the host, changing their shape, injecting not only their genetic material, but a minimum number of control proteins or m-RNA, commanding the host cell to do the virus bidding.
LOL!!! That is not the definition of "living". Once again you are trying to change definitions to fit your needs.
Per the FDA letter:
"Your product is therefore a device as that term is defined in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ("the Act")"
"in that it is a class III device under section 513(f), 21 USC 360c(f), "
Again, show us where this exists so it can be verified. You could have pulled up that sentence from whatever website just like you make up definitions to meet your needs. I want to see some real evidence that the FDA came to your place and this is what they stated in their report. And as I said before these reports are public record. Therefore, if you are telling the truth then you can go to the FDA's website and type your company name in to pull up any letters or reports issued to that company. The fact that you are refusing to show us any real evidence of what the FDA found and stated makes your entire claim highly suspicious!!!
>- So keep making up lies Parazapper and I will keep exposing them!!!
No lies there,
And so far no proof of your claims. Let's see the FDA reports, which should be listed on their website and thus you can provide a link IF they really exist.
Again, Magnesium sulphate exists as a natural substance and is produced as such.
I never claimed that magnesium sulfate was not found naturally. So why are you trying to imply I did? Are you always this misleading?
Just because something is produced and sold through other channels is only an alterative.
Again, commercial magnesium sulfate is not natural, it is synthesized. Even by your claim that it is extracted from seawater the process by which this is done would still make it a synthetic. Especially when trying to make it from calcium carbonate and hydroxide from seawater as you claimed.
Just because vitamin C is produced chemically, does not make it ineffective, just not as good as that coming from natural sources.
Wrong again. Natural vitamin C contains bioflavonoids that the vitamin C needs to work properly. In addition, synthetic vitamin C is extremely unstable. We proved that fact back in high school chemistry. On the other hand most plant sources of vitamin C contain other antioxidants within the plant that help protect the vitamin C from oxidation thus making it more stable. Supposedly being a chemist I would have thought you would be aware of these basic and WELL KNOWN facts!!!
>- natural resonances involved,
Frequencies that are natural to the organism can be driven harded than normal by the ringing effect of the zapper. No matter how much poo pooh you generate, the zapper still works.
Of course you have no real evidence to back this claim. Of course you also do not understand the difference between resonant frequency and radiofrequency, nor chemistry, nor how the body works, nor.........
>- A "range" can include healthy and dangerous frequencies!!!!
Great, give me a couple of dangerous frequencies above 15 Hz and below 35 kHz that cause significant dabger at the milliwatt level that a zapper provides.
42hz is considered a cancer causing frequency. Gee, that was easy!!!
>- since cancers are rarely caused by parasites.
This is well documented as the tests for parasites are seriously flawed.
Irrelevant. This does not prove that parasites are a major cause of cancer. So better come up with something else to dig yourself out of the crater you made for yourself.
>- Again you are speculating since you have no evidence to the contrary.
It was the evidence to the contrary that raised you ire and sparked this debate which should be on a debate forum.
What evidence have you provided? So far all you have done is discredit yourself by posting misinformation that has already been discredited. Kind of like your making of magnesium sulfate from calcium carbonate and calcium hydroxide claim. Sorry, but that was seriously funny!!!
>- >- Your loss.
>- Not at all. I believe in things that actually work,
YOU CAN NOT know whether or not something works if you have not even bother to try.
Have you ever flown a rocket ship to the moon? If not then you better write to NASA and tell them that going to the moon is impossible. Hopefully that simple point does not fly over your head again.
This again, is nothing more than prejudicial, narrow minded, perpetuation of ignorance -->> lack of knowledge, education, or awareness. You have not tried or tested, therefore lack the necessary knowledge, experience, or awareness needed to make a true,
accurate, and fair judgment.
See above.
I do not have time to continue responding at this time but suggest that you take a deeper look in the mirror because the false misleading statements that you make can end up costing someone their life and you will have to be responsible for that.
I don't blame you for running away. You have already completely shot your credibility by posing bogus claims then attempting to argue against the evidence proving you wrong.
Then to play the "you are going to cost someone their life" card is just lower than low and a shear act of desperation. Again, if the Zappers really worked in the first place then why did Hulda Clark die of cancer?
You should also look at the agree / disagree ratings on your posts. There are very few messages that you have posted that readers agree with.
ROTFLMAO!!! Another great act of desperation. Everyone here knows that the votes here mean nothing. They are only political tools. As I pointed out before over on the "Liver Flush Debate" forum the other "liver flush" supporters kept clicking "agree" on all your posts even though you were wrong just because you were supporting "liver flushing" and attacking me personally. For example, on your post where you incorrectly claimed that magnesium sulfate was produced by the action of sulfuric acid on calcium carbonate or calcium hydroxide you had 3 "liver flush" supporters agree with you even though you were 100% wrong!!! Since you obviously know nothing about chemistry, the action of sulfuric acid on calcium carbonate or calcium hydroxide results in the production of calcium sulfate, not magnesium sulfate. And the same "liver flush" supporters also clicked agree on various other posts of yours that were also completely discredited. So if you think that the agree and disagree votes really mean anything then you are much more gullible than I originally thought!!!