Re: Zapper proof of efficacy

<- An electric signal is an electric signal, whatever the device

You are entirely wrong. There are many important factors such as slew rate, maximum bandwidth, output impedance, etc that make a difference.

Not one of the zappers that you tried has CC technology.

>- you use the word "parasites" to stay vague enough to include parasitic protozoas and parasitic worms

Vague? The list includes protozoa. On top of that, as I said before, wikipedia is a poor reference and lacks accuracy. They leave out bacteria. Many bacteria that live in the intestine are parasites. Many fungi that live in or on the body are parasites. Those are not listed either. Any virus is an obligatory parasite, in that it can not reproduce without a host cell. To exclude these other organisms is not only being vague but narrow minded.

>- I have 3 zappers who respect the recommendations by Hulda Clark of what a good zapper is

So, Dr. Clark did not know everything that makes the difference between a good zapper and a great zapper.

>- Another excuse, this demonstrates once again that you prefer to stay vague, blurry, rather than making serious experiments and posting the results

Again you are wrong about the reason. I prefer to stay out of jail. Since the FDA spent almost a million dollars trying to put me there, I will remain as cautious as I can.

>- i have wasted thousand of dollars in these useless devices

Sorry that you chose the wrong ones. Many people have had positive results.

>- lies, deformations.

No, truth. The studies are quite clear on their objectives, successes, and failures. If you try to read things into them, this is your problem.

Why are there so few studies when the ones that have been done are successful? Why has the scientific world not done additional studies on other organisms such as helminths?

What are they trying to hide?

Tweet