Open letter to Ken Presner

I'm posting this in these forums:
Zapper Support
Zapper Debate
Hulda Clark Support
Hulda Clark Debate

If this is a problem, please let me know a better way to broadcast. Thanks.

Open letter to Ken Presner

Ken:

On your website FAQ page, FAQ 16, Reason #4, you use one my Curezone posts, complete with my handle, to justify one of your product claims. I am not surprized that you did this without contacting me first; such behavior is consistant with the personality displayed in many of your postings.

Remove my writing from your site immediately. You are not and never will be qualified to determine when and how to use my writing. You do NOT have my permission to quote me about anything, ever. I don't respect you personally or professionally, your marketing efforts, or your products. FAQ 16 has several examples of why I hold you in such low regard.

1. In Reason #1 you refer to the chip used in the Ultimate Zapper as a "computer chip." However, the internal schematic of the chip on your home page clearly is that of an old, bipolar 555. Not only is this not a computer chip of any kind, it isn't even a digital part. Despite what appears to be a totem-pole output stage, its main function is that of two analog comparators. The original part came out of the analog design group at Signetics, and the chips are made using linear fab techniques.

2. The AC adapter pictured on the home page is not the same one you've been selling since 1996 as stated in Reason #3. It is based on a Power Integrations control chip that had not yet been invented in 1996. This is confusing because it is shown next to the Zapper and handholds, yet the text states that it is not the one that comes standard; it is an expensive extra-cost item. Your original AC power adapter was typical for its time, a small, unregulated linear power supply. Your current device is a switching power supply. While your new part has a universal input and a better regulated output, its internal design and construction are completely different from your original one, and nothing about the reliability of either design carries over to the other.

3. You go on at length about criticisms of your AC adapters, but you never address the key point of those criticisms: While your AC adapters are UL or CSA rated, **they are not UL or CSA rated for use with patient-contact electronic equipment.** This is a critical omission, and after 16 years I think it is intentional. It also is typical of the technical writing on your site, exploiting a less technically-aware, susceptible, and possibly vulnerable audience.

ak
Tweet