As a follow up to this post, I want to offer a few explanations.

The real problem with Dr. Clark's work was that she relied on the Synchrometer to tell her the presence or absence of parasites and pathogens. The problem with this is that the synchrometer at best could only detect the vibrations or resonance produced by these organisms.

So, if these organisms were not completely killed, but were perhaps seriously stunned, they might not resonate for a period of time. I have actually seen this under the microscope. Microbes that are zapped will be immobilized, swell up, and then explode. If the are zapper to the point of swelling, but not quite to the point of exploding, after a while they start to recover and then swim off. This is one reason why Dr. Clark found new microbes present after 7 minutes. They were not completely destroyed.

So, from this observation alone, it appears that zapping longer than 7 minutes can produce better results. This however does not completely solve the problem because while one frequency might affect many different microbes, there will always be some that are only stunned. The addition of any random second frequency will definitely improve the chances of killing more microbes rather than just stunning.

Each additional frequency will successfully kill a different set of microbes. However, In doing a statistical analysis, I found that it takes 14 specific frequencies to reach 90 percent of the organisms on Dr. Clarks frequency list. The Rife frequency list has, literally hundreds of frequencies.

That aside, the CC2 with 29 frequencies provide an excellent choice for a mid-range zapper. If you need a more advanced product, then either the more powerful UZI-3 with 41 frequencies and a 10.5 volt output, or the MY with 80m more accurate frequencies will be the obvious choice.

Sadly, when Dr. Clark did her studies, using the synchrometer rather than doing actual bacterial cultures caused her to miss some important information. She was fundamentally correct in her basic ideas about zapping, just misinformed as a result of her testing methods.

I did not post this information to take any credit from her, but only as an explanation of how she came up with answers that were not entirely correct.

I am, however, very disappointed in the lack of effort of some zapper sellers to improve their products. Some are still selling the same old outdated technology that was available in 1995 / 1996 and some sadly at exorbitant prices. Sadly, the "so called" only zapper used in Dr. Clark's clinic is really outdated. It was not the only zapper used in her clinic either. I have heard from people who attended that clinic that there were several different brands in use there when they visited.

I applaud the continuing efforts of those zapper sellers who continue to improve their products.

If you would like to read more about current ParaZapper products, see http://huldaclarkparazapper.com
.