Re: Ultimate Zapper VS others

Hello David,

KEN PRESNER: First of all, I have a comment, below, about the poster in this thread who repeatedly asks

>- Which zappers do you recommend? I am looking for a cheap and effective one?

KEN PRESNER: Even when responses are posted to his/her questions, above, this person just keeps repeating the same question as though no response had ever been given. This makes me wonder.

DAVID ETHEREDGE (ParaZapper): Dual frequency zappers produce better results according to the information that I have collected and they are about one third or less than the cost of some other mentioned on this forum.

KEN PRESNER: Your statement about dual zappers producing better results is undocumented and unsubstantiated. When I provide information on this forum that you claim is undocumented or unsubstantiated you are quick to criticize me. But when you do the same thing it is totally acceptable, according to you. "People need to know this information" you repeatedly proclaim, when offering undocumented and unsubstantiated information on this forum. So, there is one rule for you here and another rule for all the other zapper makers. And you are the one who makes the rules, of course. And when this obvious fact is pointed out and challenged you either claim you are being bashed or you ignore the issue completely. We see this time and time again on the forum.

KEN PRESNER: You state, without providing any proof, that you have collected information regarding dual zappers being better (better than single frequency zappers, presumably, but by what factor you refuse to say). Better is now the by-word on your site, used without substantiation, of course.

Firstly, you emphasize the price advantage of buying dual frequency zappers. Your statement is totally false. Some dual frequency zappers available are less expensive than single frequency zappers, some are the same price, and some cost far more. Your response belies your self-proclaimed role on this forum as being only an interested observer with no commercial agenda, merely providing information. I have talked about this in earlier postings here. You are simply trying to promote the ParaZapper.

Secondly, your statement about dual zappers, which is undocumented and unsubstantiated, is reminiscent of this recent exchange, below, between you and another poster where you claim to have information about a university study, and then you refuse to produce it.

You claim to provide only the truth on this forum but when, as in this case, you are challenged with a direct question, you glide by it and refuse to provide a direct answer. You have also refused to provide any response to these questions, below, leading me to repeat my statement, above, that your credibility on this forum has long since evaporated. Specifically, if, as you claim, "the source has removed themselves from any other statements", there is absolutely nothing preventing you from answering the questions posed by this poster. They are quoted below:

"- Which was the university;
- Which was the zapper model;
- What was the study setup;
- How the zapper was used (frequency, duration of sessions, etc)"

KEN PRESNER: Here is the full exchange between the poster, referred to, above:

POSTER: "I found on ParaZapper site the following statement :

Recently, one of our ParaZapper ™ models was tested at a major US university. Their results were reported as follows:

"25+ men with HIV use the zapper when feeling the signs of a cold or flu with almost immediate (within 24 hours) response. Symptoms seem to stop and cold/flu never advances."

On this site:


http://www.paradevices.com/colds-flu.html


Could you provide some more details, because if it is true, it would be a big advantage for
a) zapper technology globaly
b) parazapper instance of zapper

Well, what are the details of the study:
- Which was the university;
- Which was the zapper model;
- What was the study setup;
- How the zapper was used (frequency, duration of sessions, etc);
and the evidence it happend at all :)

DAVID ETHEREDGE (PARAZAPPER):

While we have the posted statement on University letterhead, the source has removed themselves from any other statements. It appears that someone got to them and they will not provide any other information.

POSTER: Sorry, but it doesn't convince me, that such a study happen at all. In such case I think you should remove that information from your site, since there is lack of source and citation. Don't you think?

DAVID ETHEREDGE (PARAZAPPER):

No, it is not presented as proof of anything. I believe that people should have the information presented to weigh on their own. I do agree that it does not provide much creedence, but it is certainly evident that someone does not want the information out.

KEN PRESNER: My question is "What information?" You have provided no follow-up information at all, merely an initial statement that represents a claim. You have it on University letterhead, so you say, but refuse to divulge any details. The only information we have, according to you, is "Symptoms seem to stop and cold/flu never advances." Well, this is hardly a convincing statement. Symptoms "seem" to stop. The cold/flu (the common cold is not the same at all as the influenza, by the way) "never advances". What does this statement mean? Does it mean that the person is stuck with it forever, that it retreats, that it stops? This kind of nebulous statement does not stand up under even cursory inspection.

If, according to you, "the source has removed themselves from any other statements", that does not prevent you from letting people know the content of the information that you claim to have in hand, if you indeed have any information. The "Creedence" (actually spelled "credence") which you admit is lacking, is at the very root of the problem here because credence means believability, which is another word for credibility, which you are very short of on this forum, as I have already pointed out. Without being challenged you would be able to continue to pass off these kinds of unsubstantiated statements as being factual, which I find manipulative, as I have pointed out before on this forum. This is part of your modus operandi which I have expounded on in previous postings. The motto of the story: caveat emptor. Anyone who takes your "authoritative" statements at face value only has to look a bit deeper to find out what is really going on. Your statements about only providing the truth on this forum, that you are only here to help people get accurate information, and that you have no commercial ax to grind are obviously false and self-serving. The more you try to hide the truth, and the more this is pointed out, the clearer it is to see who you really are: just one of many zapper makers who is trying to sell his zappers.

Sincerely,
Ken Presner
http://zap.intergate.ca
Tweet