CureZone   Log On   Join

Parazapper Read this! by 3rdleg ..... Zapper Support Forum

Date:   10/25/2005 5:52:11 AM ( 17 years ago ago)
Hits:   3,909

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

I ,by no means, think that parazapper is not sincere...I always look forward to your posts because you are always helpful to people and give them good info and advice. I have no reason to doubt your claims about your zappers and would love to have the opportunity to test one myself someday but I was not criticizing your product I was speaking to the mechanism by with zappers work.

Your zappers may very well be much stronger the average zapper but all zappers work by a similar mechanism, and mostly on surface areas in the body. You may have the worlds strongest zapper but it is still limited to range to the range that a zapper can reach within the body.

Blood electrifiers work directly on the blood stream and once you have cleaned that up ,your immune system becomes so powerful that anything that is left on the surface areas has little chance of surviving very long.

you are correct that I have never used your zapper but in Science you can make theoretical predictions based on the known mechanism at work and from what I've seen it could be the strongest zapper in the world and it could never have the potency of a good Beck unit but I am always open minded an willing to be shown other wise.

Parazapper said "I also give away a few of these each month."
Well put me on that list, I would give you an honest and thorough report and if it worked well I would change my name on the forum to parazapperlover or something similar lol. But I'm also trying to get some university studies going here in New York at some of the more prestigious universities and people have shown some real interest in taking a look at zappers.

Parazapper, If you agree that blood electrifiers are generally more potent then why didn't you create a super Electrifier instead of trying to improve the zapper? just wondering why you went that way.


<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.09 sec, referred by