The Competition
Part 1
INDEX OF ARTICLES
1. DR. CLARK RESEARCH ASSOCIATION: 13 ISSUES here2. EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH DAVID AMREIN OF
DR. CLARK RESEARCH ASSOCIATION: EMAILS here
3. TERMINATOR II: 11 ISSUES here
4. PARAZAPPER: 8 ISSUES here
5. PARAZAPPER: ZAPPING PET FISH here
6. PARAZAPPER: 7 CUREZONE POSTINGS here
7. AUTO-ZAP: 13 ISSUES here
8. LOW VOLTAGE: WARNINGS here
1. DR. CLARK RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
Issue number one.
The Dr. Clark Research Association's Super Deluxe 2004 and Deluxe 2006 "zappers" are not zappers at all. They are frequency generators dependent on the use of expensive add-ons, program drivers and smart keys for which customers are charged individually. The are marketing-driven devices and are they were created with a focus on marketing, not effectiveness. I detail the costs below.
Here is a quote from Arthur Doerksen's Auto-Zap site:
"As you probably know, various multiple-frequency zappers exist; some, like the DCRA's SuperZapper Deluxe, offer pluggable modules to alter the frequency with "program driver" chips. The truth is, these are simply not necessary and can even reduce the effectiveness of your zapping time."
On their site the Association states "The zapper is fully programmable." Sound good? What this actually means is that the purchaser must buy expensive add-ons in order to program it. The lowest possible frequency that the 2004 and 2006 can be programmed to is 23,000 Hertz. But zappers are not programmable to a variety of frequencies. Devices that are programmable require the purchase of expensive add-ons and other devices. They are frequency generators, not zappers. Zappers are pre-programmed to a single frequency and do not require the purchase of any other product. The Ultimate Zapper is not programmable. It's electronic circuitry is fully pre-programmed. There are no add-ons and there is no added cost.
The Association has just re-christened their Deluxe 2006 a Biowave Generator but they still use the word "zapper" in the small print. If you want to use their devices without program drivers or smart keys you can. But you are then paying the premium price of $189.00 for the equivalent of a simple 1995 high frequency Hulda Clark zapper that can be purchased for $60.00. The Association's devices were designed to be used with the expensive add-ons. Their marketing is subtle and deceptive. Read on for more details.
On their order page they state: "Zapper DeLuxe 2006 with with all necessary accessories". Sound good? What this actually means is that is it necessary to buy the accessories. The accessories, program drivers and smart keys are necessary for people to buy to run the programs the Deluxe was designed for. Then, they state, the "Standard Clark Program runs". The fact is that there is no "Standard Clark Program" at all. Dr. Clark never invented any programs. There is a "Standard Dr. Clark Research Association Program". Dr. Hulda Clark is a researcher and inventor. She mapped out the frequencies that various pathogens vibrate at and she invented a 1-frequency device called the zapper to kill those pathogens. She never envisaged using a frequency generator to kill pathogens, which is why she created the zapper. Dr. Clark never created any programs and she does not endorse the Association's devices or any other devices for that matter. The Ultimate Zapper is not programmable. It comes completely pre-programmed. All you have to do it turn the switch on.
The Association's smart keys are not such a smart an idea for the purchaser. Why? They first require the purchase of a $600.00 smart key programmer. This is the basis of the Association's marketing strategy. Then the purchaser has to know the frequencies of the pathogens they want to kill before ordering their Super Deluxe and the smart keys. To know those frequencies they have to order the Association's Zincrometer test kit for $672.00, and a set of very expensive test slides. And they have to purchase the Association's smart keys individually, plus the 2004 or 2006 Super Deluxe, of course. So, the cost is $600.00 (smart key programmer) plus $672.00 (Zincrometer test kit) plus $189.00 for the Super Deluxe and then the extra cost for each smart key. Plus the cost of the test slides which is in the hundreds of dollars. That comes to $1462.00, plus the cost of the individual smart keys.
This is a very expensive and complicated process with an uncertain outcome, according to people who have used it. In the end it's like playing an expensive game of zapper Roulette. The bottom line is that program drivers and smart keys are very smart marketing for the Dr. Clark Research Association. But not so smart for the vast majority of people who want to kill pathogens quickly, effectively and inexpensively.
Let's say that one has the money for all this. You just hook everything up and away you go, right? Wrong. We're not done yet. There is one last hurdle that the Association never mentions on their website but which Arthur Doerksen talks about on his Auto-Zap site at:
http://bestzapper.com/ClarkMethodMinitrainingOnSite.pdf
"Although simple in concept, the syncrometer is difficult to master. Dr. Clark says it requires six months of diligent practice before one is ready to test others. It also requires the creation or purchase of a great many test substances for use as test standards, to enable one to thoroughly test and research the human body with its many systems and organs. We are always looking for more people to become Syncrometer testers but it is definitely not for everyone."
The following paragraph is from
http://www.syncrometer.com/
"Syncrometer units are now available. If you are interested in experimenting with a Syncrometer, we suggest getting the video, Syncrometer Basics and The Syncrometer Laboratory Manual. Many people have found difficulty hearing a positive from a negative, so the video of Dr. Hulda Clark demonstrating the device in a class room setting is valuable in learning how to operate your device. We suggest you first learn how to build and use a Hulda Clark Syncrometer with the Syncrometer Basics Video, and then from there use the Lab Manual for guiding you through the many advanced Syncrometer experiments." The video is $29.95 and the manual is $19.95.
In my opinion, I don't think that the average person would even consider buying the Super Deluxe 2006 if they knew that using it means buying a syncrometer or building their own syncrometer and a whole host of other expensive accessories, and going through extensive training in the use of the Zincrometer. Oddly, none of this is explained on the Dr. Clark Research Association sites. They advertise the 2004 and 2006 boldly but it is only on the order page where they mention the obligatory purchase of their version of the syncrometer, called the Zincrometer, when using the smart keys. This is just one example in a long list of deceptions perpetrated by the Dr. Clark Research Association. Once they grab your toe and you're in the water there is no going back without losing a substantial investment. It is no wonder why they are not up front about their marketing agenda.
The Association has another marketing scheme up its sleeve. If you purchased a Super 2006 Deluxe last year and you want to benefit from this year's added functions you have to buy a new zapper for $189.00. My opinion is that their marketing strategy is not very people-friendly, which is further substantiated by the fact that users are reporting back to me that complicated and expensive do not assure the effectiveness of the Association's devices.
Please read issues number five and six, below, for more information about program drivers and smart keys. The Association treads on dangerous ground with their program drivers. The drivers imply medical claims for complex diseases. They choose two or more target frequencies which supposedly will render results for these diseases. But this is impossible for them to assure any results whatsoever and they have no testimonial proof that any results have been yet obtained. Yet results are clearly implied in the listing of complex diseases on their order page. After all, what are MS and other serious diseases listed with specific program drivers if the user is not to expect results? These are the same kinds of misleading medical claims that they agreed to refrain from making in the U.S. court order of 2003. They now go about making medical claims in a more muted and passive way, nevertheless the claims are clearly there on their site.
Regarding the use of the syncrometer, Dr. Clark herself states
"Excellent results are possible without synchrometer testing...[which is the basis of the Association's entire marketing-driven smart key approach].
In other words, according to Dr. Clark herself, the Dr. Clark Research Association's expensive marketing-driven smart key "solution" is not inevitable. Dr. Clark never even considered such an approach. She only considered a simple approach when she invented the original zapper in 1993. And she has not changed her stance since 1993. From the reports coming back to me about the Super Zapper Deluxe, their device is not providing improved results for many people, at great expense.
Issue number two.
Dr. Hulda Clark is not affiliated with and does not endorse the Dr. Clark Research Asscociation, which also has a "ghost" site called the Dr. Clark Information Center which redirects you to their main Dr. Clark Research Association site. Dr. Clark has not given David Amrein, the owner of the Dr. Clark websites, permission to use her name and she has no affiliation with him. She does not endorse the Dr. Clark Research Association's products which uses her name prominently on their site to market them. There is not a single word on the Dr. Clark Research Association's site letting people know that Dr. Clark is not connected in any way with their company.
When you do a Google search for the Super Deluxe 2004 and 2006 their site often shows up in the #2 spot. Here is what the introduction on Google says:
"dr clark's website"
This is not Dr. Clark's website. Her website is at
http://www.huldaclark.net
In my opinion all this is highly misleading and deceptive, a deception that I fell for myself until I was corrected by a number of visitors to my site.
Issue number three.
The Dr. Clark Research Association was taken to court by the U.S. FTC in 2003. They voluntarity complied with a court order related to false advertising after making medical "cure" claims for their devices and other products. The court order restrained it from advertising those false medical claims. The Association was claiming that it can cure serious diseases. Since the government has made many unjust accusations against those in the "alternative medicine" field over the past decades this must be examined very closely. Personally, I am not a great fan of the FTC, the FCC, The FDA or Health Canada which marches to the tune of the American authorities. They have unjustly persecuted zapper makers and others in the alternative health field in the past in the guise of protecting the public, but really in the service of the big pharmaceutical companies.
In this particular instance, however, I believe that the FTC made a strong case against David Amrein who is the sole owner of the Dr. Clark Research Association because he made many categorical medical claims on his sites, using the word "cure" very liberally, thereby setting himself up for the charges that were laid against him. I feel that he left himself wide open to legal action. The word "cure" is a very big word. I never use it on my site or when I email people. Using the word cure implies that 100% of the people using your devices or products will be cured. A cure is a guarantee. How can anyone make this kind of guarantee? It is pure folly to do so, in my opinion. This is a legal trap waiting to spring on anyone who falls for it. Here is the link to the FDA's court judgment that the Association complied with:
http://www.drclark.net/info/TROstipulation.pdf
Using the word cure is not only foolish in the legal sense it also carries a moral obligation which can never be met.
Issue number four.
Their site states that the "LCD Super Zapper DeLuxe 2006 is the most advanced zapper on the market. We kept the analogue heart to avoid any alteration to the wave required by Dr. Hulda..."
On her website at http://www.huldaclark.net/
Dr. Clark states "...I do not endorse any manufacturer..." of zappers.
When they say that their wave was "required by Dr. Clark" it is as though Dr. Clark were on the phone collaborating with David Amrein and telling him what she required of them. There were never any requirements made by Dr. Clark of the Dr. Clark Research Association as far as I am aware. NO details about this are provided by David Amrein. If they were honest the Dr. Clark Research Association would say something like "the wave developed by Dr. Clark". But a neutral connotation would not serve their purpose which is to create the illusion of a link between Dr. Clark and themselves. It is clear that by calling themselves the Dr. Clark Research Association they would like to leave that strong impression which is blatantly false, according to Dr. Clark's own website.
Issue number five.
For me the big tip-off regarding the issue of integrity that is at the core of my objections to the Dr. Clark Research Association appears on the page where their program drivers are for sale:
Program Driver Multiple Sclerosis Z717Program Driver Alzheimer's Z724
Program Driver Parkinson's Z731
Program Driver Crohn's Disease Z730
Program Driver Diabetes Z705
What are these program drivers supposed to do for people with Multiple Sclerosis or other neurological diseases? There are no testimonials on the site regarding any of the illnesses that the program drivers and smart keys are supposedly targeting. There could be nothing more misleading than to imply that people will get significant or lasting results for complex neurological illnesses by zapping unless they have already got to the source of the primary toxicity, or they have a very mild case where opportunistic pathogens such as bacteria and/or parasites are the main cause of symptoms, or they are in the final stage of recovery.
There is such a thing as false hope. I believe in hope and people who know my story must surely realize that. But I do not believe in raising hope unrealistically by making false claims for the performance one's product. The Dr. Clark Research Association creates a big problem when they label their add-one with disease names without giving any explanation as to what the purchase may expect from using them. Overcoming serious neurological diseases, Crohn's disease or diabetes does not consist of simply zapping, in the vast majority of cases. Toxicity and other issues must also be addressed for recovery to happen. To imply otherwise is to traffic in deception.
Neither The Ultimate Zapper nor any other zapper will be able to overcome the primary chemical or metal toxins such as dental mercury which are at the root of most of neurological illnesses. I recommend zapping as part of My Recovery Protocol. At the final stage of recovery zapping can have a powerful effect. I know whereof I speak because I had Crohn's disease and Multiple Sclerosis. David Amrein, the maker of the Super Zapper Deluxe 2004 and 2006 did not. Claiming or implying that his add-on devices can have a lasting or significant effect on these diseases is misleading. Implying that they can have a positive effect on diabetes is also highly misleading, in my opinion. I lived with diabetes all my life. I do not have diabetes but my brother died from the complications of Type I diabetes and my father died from the complications of Type II diabetes. The Ultimate Zapper's Electroporation effect can make insulin work more efficiently but it cannot change the underlying factors that cause Type I and Type II diabetes. And neither can David Amrein's devices, in my opinion.
My opinion is that David Amrein is exploiting people with the above-mentioned illnesses for profit. He may be able to fool some people who may be desperate for relief, but he cannot fool people who know better. I believe in being straight with people and I try to give them as much information as possible on my site so that they may be able to make more informed choices. In my opinion, no zapper on the market can provide dramatic results for the user for the serious illnesses I mention above unless they are in the final stage of recovery or unless they have a mild case of the disease. Anyone who states otherwise, or who implies otherwise, is just plain not telling the truth.
Issue number six.
They state on their site that the Deluxe 2006 Zapper is "the most advanced zapper on the market". This device is not a zapper nor is the Deluxe 2004. It is a frequency generator. Their advertising should read "the most complicated frequency generator (masquerading as a zapper) on the market". Their device relies on a syncrometer, program drivers and smart keys to produce results. The smart keys and program drivers are all set to specific high frequencies. Only low frequency devices act as broad-spectrum pathogen killers. High frequency devices are not capable of efficiently killing pathogens that vibrate at all frequencies. They are capable of killing individual pathogens at the specific target frequency they are set to.
Program drivers oscillate between various high frequencies thereby eliminating any broad-spectrum effect. Smart keys are not so smart. They state on their site at
http://www.braintuner.com/superzap.htm
"Smart Keys plug into a jack on the Zapper and are programmed with your choice of any SINGLE frequency from 23 kHz. up to 1 million Hz." This means that you have to know the name of the specific pathogen that you want to zap and its specific frequency. The only way to know this is by synchrometer testing which is a very complicated and expensive process. And it requires training to be able to use it effectively. Their Zincrometer costs $309.00. If you buy a smart key without testing then you are simply wasting your time and money. The Association has turned the zapper into a frequency generator, delivering one specific frequency at a time in an attempt to target specific pathogens individually.
The Ultimate Zapper kills all pathogens at all frequencies. There are no add-ons. There is no need for testing. Dr. Clark states in her books that even if oyu do testing you have to zap anyway. She makes no mention of targeting specific pathogens because she knows that zapping according to her 1-frequency principle kills all pathogens. So she says, never mind the testing process. The zapper will get the work done of killing all pathogens. But the 2006 Deluxe won't because it is not a zapper. It's program drivers are programmed to oscillate between various high frequencies and its smart keys are all programmed to a single very high frequency of between 300,000 Hertz to 500,000 Hertz. These high frequencies are incapable of killing any pathogens except the ones at the specific frequency they are set to because high frequencies are ineffective "broad spectrum" pathogen killers.
Needless to say, all of this is not explained on the Dr. Clark Research Association's website. They continue to call their frequency generator a zapper. This is just one in a long list of deceptions on their site.
Issue number seven.
The Association features a "Dr. Clark's Shop". The fact is that Dr. Hulda Clark has no shop. This is the Association's shop which is owned by David Amrein. It is David Amrein's shop and, in my opinion, should be called "David Amrein's Shop". On their site they also feature "Dr. Clark's food zappicator". Dr. Clark has no zappicator. This is the Dr. Clark's Research Association's zappicator. Dr. Clark has no shop and no zappicator and does not endorse anyone's shop or zappicator. She states this clearly on her own website.
The Association also offers, for $1,895.00, "Dr. Clark's 21-day program" which consists of various vitamins, minerals, other nutritional supplements and a couple of magnets. That will set you back a mere $90 a day. Of course, this is not Dr. Clark's 21-day program because Dr. Clark has no such program. This is the Dr. Clark's Research Association's 21-day program.
These are clear examples of the marketing strategy based on deception, manipulation and outright lies that the Dr. Clark Research Association uses to influence people into buying their zappers and other products. In my opionion, they are still up to their old tricks even after they agreed to a 2003 court order for making false medical claims for their "zapper" and for fraudulent advertising.
Issue number eight.
The Dr. Clark Research Association site has not removed an error from their site
which I have been pointing out to them for years. The Ultimate Zapper has had a
Super Stabilized wave for years. Their site falsely states:
"Super stabilized wave remains stable under load. No other zapper on the market
has such a stable wave!"
Issue number nine.
The Dr. Clark Research Association has a big photo of Dr. Hulda Clark smiling down on the front page of their main website. But if you click on the photo it leads you to Dr. Hulda Clark's one and only website that states that she does not endorse any zapper maker. The Association makes no mention of this fact on their site. This is a nice piece of subtle marketing on David Amrein's part because most people probably don't click on the photo. So all they see is Dr. Clark smiling down on the Dr. Clark Research Association's website. I make no statements, explicit or implicit, of any link between Dr. Clark and me, my products or my website. There are none.
Issue number ten.
The Super Zapper Deluxe 2004 and 2006 zapper now feature an oscillator that can go back and forth between 2 frequencies. I have read a lot about oscillating and sweeping and harmonics and smart keys and program drivers on the Dr. Clark Research Association's site. But the one thing nowhere to be found on their site is a testimonial from one single satisfied customer. You would think that if people were emailing the Association with positive results that David Amrein would have those testimonials right up there on his site for all to see, like I do. But there are no testimonials to be found on his site. This begs the question, where are all the satisfied customers who have benefitted from his complicated and expensive device?
Issue number eleven.
The Dr. Clark Research Association Super Deluxe 2004 and 2006 are based on the outdated high frequency formula that Dr. Clark originated 16 years ago and which she has since recognized as being far less effective than low frequencies. But their devices are not even designed to be used as Dr. Clark zappers.
To use their devices with the necessary attachments you have to do one of two things:
1. You need to do synchrometer testing, an expensive and complicated prodecure, if you want to use their device as a frequency generator, which is what it was designed for. They sell their Zincrometer kit for for $672.00. And you have to know the individual frequencies you want to zap at, so you need to buy smart keys which are sold as add-ons in order to access these single frequencies. But, that is only the beginning. Because the syncrometer is such a complicated device that you need to take a training course before you can use it effectively and it takes about 6 months of practice after taking the course to perfect your use of the device. Please see Issue number one, above for more details.
2. Otherwise you have to purchase their add-on program drivers. The program drivers sweep through a pre-programmed selection of frequencies and which do not ensure results. They are grossing misleading because they are labeled with the names of serious diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis and diabetes, implying that you will get results for those diseases, which constitutes false advertising, in my opinion. I have received many emails from people who were disappointed with the Super Zapper Deluxe 2006 Zapper, in spite of its apparent sophistication. Sophistication means more profits. Results are very elusive.
In addition, the Dr. Clark Research Association offers only a 30-day money back trial period and a 1-year warranty. And they charge a $30 restocking fee. The New Improved Ultimate Zapper has a 3-month money back trial period, a lifetime warranty and I charge $12.95 for cleaning, retesting, repackaging and restocking.
To use The Ultimate Zapper you only have to do 1 thing:
Turn the switch on.
The Ultimate Zapper eliminates the need for "smart keys" and "program drivers". I program everything you need into my zapper, including all the improvements. It kills all pathogens at all frequencies using a single low frequency, 2,500 Hertz. There is no need for expensive synchometer testing, purchasing hit-or-miss "smart keys", or purchasing "program drivers" that claim to target serious, complex diseases, which is very misleading. I talk about this in issue number 5, above.
The program driver mode is simply a different version of the smart key mode. The Dr. Clark Research Association turned the zapper into a frequency generator. The outcome is that they have produced a very complicated and expensive battery-powered device that is, in the end, far less effective than The Ultimate Zapper. In addition, if you want to upgrade to receive the benefit of more functions with their zapper you have to buy a new unit every year. These functions do not add to the effectiveness of their device. They are "bells and whistles". I have received testimonials from people who have used the Super Zapper 204 and 2006 Deluxe and who were very dissatisfied with the results, and the expense. It is clear that complicated and expensive devices do not guarantee effectiveness. Turning a zapper into a frequency generator and marketing it well creates an obvious commercial advantage. But the advantage is clearly not in favor of the customer.
What's more, the results people are obtaining with this device are often unsatisfactory, according to the emails I am receiving from people who have used it. Read more about the expensive and complicated Super Zapper 2006 Deluxe from the Dr. Clark Research Association under the heading "The Ultimate Zapper is More Effective Than the Programmable Zapper" on the 5 zapper Comparison Charts page. The heading is under the charts, near the bottom of the page.
Issue number twelve.
I recently received an email from a customer who received misleading information about my zapper from a affiliate marketer and promoter of the Super Deluxe 2006 Zapper. They Dr. Clark Research Association has not retracted any statements made by this affiliate and has not dissociated themselves from them. One may reasonably conclude, therefore, that they approve of these statements, at least tacitly. Here is an extract of part of that email, and my expanded responses to it.
The email comes from The Natural Health Choice organization in the UK. It "strongly points out that The Ultimate Zapper would not be effective in treating specific cancers":
Ken Presner:
The Ultimate Zapper "Would not be effective...? This is obviously a marketing ploy because the Natural Health Choise have absolutely no way of knowing whether their statement is true or not because that have not tested The Ultimate Zapper. Their statements are opinions that are commercially driven and they provide no proof of any kind or any testimonials to support their statement. There is a cancer study on my site that proves that the zapper is effective against cancer:
http://zap.intergate.ca/cancer.htm
I have received testimonials from customers who have had excellent results with The Ultimate Zapper for specific cancers including lymphatic cancer and melanoma. I state this clearly on the front page of my site.
The Natural Health Choice:
I have had a look at his comparison table between his "ultimate zapper" and the "Super Zapper deluxe 2006" that we sell.
Interestingly, his information is simply inaccurate - a good exercise in marketing for his device but factually untrue.
Ken Presner:
Beside being a tad patronizing this statement is totally untrue.
First of all, they put the name of my zapper in lower case and quotation marks in a suble attempt to diminish it. I do not so the same thing when I talk about their zapper.
Now, let's get down to the details of these allegations. Is he referring to my statements in the comparison charts that his zapper has a stable wave and a higher voltage and no AC adapter? These statements come from the Dr. Clark Research Association site. I accept them as fact. Please see below for a continuation of this discussion.
The Natural Health Choice:
Perhaps I should correct a couple of points for you:
1. The Super Zapper Deluxe is 100% positive offset.
I do not deny this fact anywhere on my site. In fact I state this clearly on the front page of my site, that all zappers produce a positive offset square wave. That is not the point. The point is that The Ultimate Zapper produces 100% positive pulses and all other zappers produce 50% positive pulses. I discuss this very clearly on the front page of my site. This is an undeniable fact.
The Natural Health Choice:
This (the reference to the positive offset square wave, above) has been independently confirmed by 5 different electronis laboratories and has been the subject of much "discussion" between the Dr Clark Research Association and a couple of my suppliers that have suggested this in their marketing. I am surprised that he is still getting away wtih claiming this on his website.
Patronizing me by saying I am "getting away with" telling people that the positive side of my square wave is twice as long as other zappers does not address the truth of my statement. It avoids it completely. They are trying to get away with using a verbal tactic hoping that people won't notice.
I am surprised that the maker of The Super Deluxe 2006 tried to get away with lying to the public on their website before they were taken to court and convicted on all charges related to naking unsubstantiated medical claims for thier zapper. They were specifically prohibited from making 10 types of unsubstantiated claims and were required to refind customers. Here is the link to the court documents:
http://www.drclark.net/info/TROstipulation.pdf
I have never made any health claims for my zapper and I have never misrepresented it on my website and I have never been taken to court. They never mention the fact of their trial and conviction on their website. I wonder why not?
The Natural Health Choice:
The fault is in his technique for measuring whereby the equipment he uses is adding capacitance to the circuit and thereby artificially reduces the positive offset.
Ken Presner:
What a load of malarkey. First of all he has no idea about the equipment or the testing process for my zapper. My experts use an oscilloscope and do nothing artificial when they test each unit before shipping. There is nothing artificial about my square wave or the testing process. The photos of live oscilloscope pictures on the front page of my site tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The ocsilloscope was hooked up to my zapper during the test and no other equipment was used during the testing process.
These folks have no compunction about lying about my zapper. After all they lied about their own zapper on their own website and were convicted for it. They also state that their zapper is the only one with a Super Stabilized wave. The Ultimate Zapper has produced a Super Stabilized wave for years. They refuse to remove this lie about my zapper from their site.
The Natural Health Choice:
He accepts that the Super Zapper Deluxe wave is stabilized [a fact they don't accept about The Ultimate Zapper] but then claims that it is not constant? Untrue.
Ken Presner:
They have misunderstood completely, possibly intentionally. Their wave is stabilized, but that does not mean that it is not producing distortion. The stability of the wave is not in question, that it is square under load. But battery powered zappers, whether stabilized or not, produce distortion. That's the nature of the wave produced by a 9-volt battery. That's what I mean when I say it is not constant.
The Natural Health Choice:
He accepts that the voltage is variable (up to 16V) but claims that the frequencies do not go below 23KHz.
Ken Presner:
They state on their site at
http://www.braintuner.com/superzap.htm
"Smart Keys plug into a jack on the Zapper and are programmed with your choice of any SINGLE frequency from 23 kHz. up to 1 million Hz."
They have just hanged themselves with their own words. They clearly state here, on their own site, that the frequency choices start ar 23 kHz.
The Natural Health Choice:
"...noting that his zapper goes down to 2KHz. Again this is simply untrue.
Ken Presner:
This proves they will say anything to make a sale. The Ultimate Zapper has been programmed to 2,500 Hertz for 13 years. Each unit is tested before shipping and the frequency is guaranteed. Customers who have oscilloscopes can verify this independently for themselves, and then often do so.
The Natural Health Choice:
The Super Zapper Deluxe has a 1KHz program driver available for doing food zappicating and tooth sappicating and as a result actually comes in below his lowest frequency, at exactly the 1KHz Dr. Clark recommends for these jobs.
Ken Presner:
Please read his statement carefully. Their program drivers do not take the zapper's frequency below 23,000 Hertz. They only take the zappicator's frequency below that level. The zappicator is not for body zapping. It is for food and tooth zapping. This deception is very easy to see, it is very clear.
The Natural Health Choice:
No AC adapter (with the Super Zapper Deluxe 2006)? this is true. It would not be wise to use any device that runs on mains electricity in case of electrical faults and the obvious risk of electrocution.
Ken Presner:
This is absolute nonsense. There is no risk of shock at all. For more information about this please read the section in Competition 2 entitled
DEATH BY AC SHOCK?
YAH, SURE
AND MY NAME IS ELEANOR ROOSEVELT
There is also a full discussion of the AC adapter in #8 on the FAQ Page.
You will find a complete discussion of my fail-safe AC adapter and the voltage-controlled computer chip at the heart of The Ultimate Zapper. There has not been a single problem in 12 years with The Ultimate Zapper's AC adapter. Its double insulation guarantees that it is 100% fail safe. It has been put through a series of rigorous government safety testing in the U.S.A. and Canada and it has UL and CSA approval. It has also been tested rigorously by my production experts.
The Natural Health Choice:
The Super Zapper Deluxe runs on rechargeable AA batteries and using clever electronics, steps up the voltage internally to a maximum of 16V of and when it is desired
Ken Presner:
This is true. The only problem is that 16 volts is way too high. I made prototypes of this same kind in 1996 and with a voltage of 14 to 16 volts you can barely hold onto the handholds without being stung, and burned if you hold on for too long. Offering a zapper with 16 volts is a marketing ploy. The New Improved Ultimate Zapper produces 10.5 volts, the optimum voltage for maximum therapeutic effects.
The Natural Health Choice:
3 month trial policy (of The Ultimate Zapper)? true the super zapper deluxe does not come with this trial guarantee. However, if for any reason someone decides they do not want the zapper within the first 28 days after purchasing I would of course consider this under my own campanies returns policy (In two years of trading I have not yet has a refund request).
Ken Presner:
He does not advertise a returns policy, so it is not a big surprise that people have not returned any zappers. It seems obvious to me that if he were to advertise hos company's returns policy openly that he would receive return requests. He is obviously afraid of returns. I state my returns policy clearly on my site. I receive returns at a rate of 2%. Before this I had never heard of a company that refused to advertise their returns policy.
The Natural Health Choice:
1 Year warranty (on the Super Deluxe 2006 Zapper)? true, the Super Zapper Deluxe only has a one year warranty. However, this is because the device is updated each year with additional functions.
Ken Presner:
This is very clever marketing. It automatically increases sales because they force customers to purchase a new model every year if they want to benefit from the new functions. They therefore claim they cannot offer a long-term warranty because they bring out a new model every year and people would want to exchange their old model for the new one. What he is describing is not a warranty problem but an exchange problem. These are 2 entirely different matters. But he talks about them as though they were one and the same thing. Because the maker needed to find an excuse not to offer a decent warranty. The non-existent demand by customers to exchange their zappers is a deception.
I program all improvements into my zapper. There are no expensive program drivers and smart keys to purchase. I offer a lifetime warranty on parts and labor. Their marketing scheme eliminates the need to offer a long-term warranty and it forces people to purchase expensive add-ons and new models every year.
The Natural Health Choice:
If the Warranty was extended beyond one year, people would simply try to exchange their zappers every year to get the new functionality at no further cost (and impossible costs to the Dr Clark Research Association who spend a lot each year on this research, development and manufacturing).
Ken Presner:
I bet they do. That is the heart of their marketing scheme that I discussed above. They make sure that customers cannot upgrade. They force them to buy a new model. This is the same marketing strategy as the large computer companies. It's great for the bottom line, but not so great for the customers. And they almost make it sound like we should take up a collection for David Amrein, the director of the Dr. Clark Research Association.
The Natural Health Choice:
The limited warranty is a reflection of their (the Dr. Clark Research Association's) continual research and development with this model and not a reflection of the lifespan of the device - my own zapper still works fine 4 years after purchasing it!
Ken Presner:
In my opinion there is no excuse for not offering a long-term warranty, for not stating your returns policy and for not having an advertised trial offer period. The Ultimate Zapper clearly offers these 3 things. The Super Deluxe 2006 Zapper does not. They only offer their customers excuses.
The Natural Health Choice:
I hope this make sense.
With best wishes,
Liam
Ken Presner:
It certainly does make sense. It is perfectly clear that commercialism, not the customer, comes first for the Super Deluxe 2006 Zapper.
The Dr. Clark Research Association is not the only zapper maker that uses Dr. Clark's name and cachet to promote their products. Many zapper makers have done the same thing. The Auto-Zap is a case in point. They have sought the approval of Dr. Clark's son Geoff Clark. And Arthur Doerksen, the maker of the Auto-Zap also uses photo ops with Dr. Clark on his site to promote his business. There is no link between the Auto-Zap and Dr. Clark at all, although it appears that Arthur Doerksen would like people to have a different impression. Dr. Clark has never endorsed or "approved" Arthur Doerksen's Auto-Zap, nor anyone elses zapper, including The Ultimate Zapper. Please see the discussion, below, of the Auto-Zap for more about this matter. I have never sought Dr. Clark's approval. The merits of The Ultimate Zapper have stood on their own for 12 years.
Issue number twelve.
The Dr. Clark Research Association sells Dr. Clark's New 21 Day Program for Advanced
Cancers. It costs $1895.00. They state:
"We have seen amazing results in hopeless cases with this program that are nothing
short of miraculous. But bear in mind that:
* the dental clean-up and other clean-ups are still the core of the therapy;
* no therapy in medicine works in 100% of the cases, and be it just for lack of
correct application;
* the best results are only possible if Syncrometer testing is available.
Excellent results are possible without if a radical approach is chosen, but Syncrometer testing definitely makes improved care possible. "
My first question is were the " ... amazing results ... nothing short of miraculous ..." due to the supplements or the core dental work and chelation?
The last point implies that you have to invest thousands of dollars more in the syncrometer approach, which I discuss in Issue number one, above.
$1,895.00 for this program is the price for the supplements alone. In my experience supplements can be useful, especially in the case of deficiency. But why first spend nearly $2,000 for vitamins and minerals when this does not address the core dental and chelation issues? My Recovery Protocol describes the importance of safe "silver amalgam" removal, chelation and other therapies. My advice is to start with the core issue of dental work and then add the supplements that are needed afterwards. The cost, according to my recommendations, will be a fraction of what The Dr. Clark Research Association is asking.
I wonder why anyone would bother considering laying out such a large amount of money for a program that depends on the more important element of dental work for its success. The Dr. Clark Research Association makes gives no details about safe, mercury-free dental work, which I cover extensively on my site and in My Recovery Protocol. And they have left themselves a big trap door through which to escape after you commit all that money to their supplements. This is not the kind of serious approach that I prefer. I do not sell supplements or programs on my site.
To top is all off, the Dr. Clark Research Association states:
" ... no therapy in medicine works 100% of the cases, and be it just for lack of correct application ... "
If you can figure out what the heck that last part means, please email me. I have
no idea. It appears to be a perfect escape hatch for The Dr. Clark Research Association.
Issue number thirteen.
After spending all that money on the all the products you need to make the Super Zapper Deluxe work, program drivers, smart keys, etc., you would think the results would justify all the money spent. Think again. Below are 2 of the many unsolicited testimonials I have received about the "Super".
... In the mean time [while waiting for her Ultimate Zapper to arrive] I will continue
zapping with my super deluxe zapper, I am busy with the driver programs but I don't
see [any] progress after 2 months of zapping.
best regards,
Ann V.
Jan. 25, 2008
Hi Ken,
I am very impressed with your website. I have 3 Dr. Clark Research Associations
zappers and I have never noticed any change in my health when using them. Your website
requests that we email you for a weblink to the distributors webpage of the Ultimate
Zapper. Can you do that when you get a chance? Thank you for your time and speedy
reply,
Ward S.
Apr. 30, 2008
2. EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH DAVID AMREIN OF
DR. CLARK RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
Below is an exchange of emails with David Amrein between March and June of 2009. It is not complete because we have exchanged more recent emails that I am repairing for posting here. The most recent email is at the top of this exchange, with earlier emails below. My comments are in red.
Ken Presner:
David,
You use the word "bullcrap" in your recent email to describe my opinions and then you have the audacity to talk about slander? I have quoted from your emails and from your site and I point out that you consistently misstate what I say on my site as well as in my messages. I have pointed this out repeatedly but to no avail. You keep making the same misstatements. You keep turning the facts on their head. You keep indulging in inverted logic. How my statements could possibly constitute slander (while yours could not, presumably) is totally beyond my comprehension.
I note that you seem quite concerned about the statements I have made about your site and about other makers. You characterize them as "scathing". But you have made no comments about Ken Adachi who has been branded a "malicious liar" by others for statements published on his site and who has made both scathing and inaccurate statements about The Ultimate Zapper, my site and me on his "Educate-Yourself" site. Nor have you made any comments about the consistent misstatements made by Arthur Doerksen of Auto-Zap and David Etheredge of ParaZapper about The Ultimate Zapper and my site, or about David Etheredge's false statements on Curezone which are documented on my site. These are people you have stated that you "work alongside quite fine and without any problem." You apparently do not find their ethics and business practices -- which I discuss at length -- offensive. You find my statements about them offensive. I note that you have referred to my comments about certain zapper makers as "scathing". I also note that you have yet to characterize my statements as being inaccurate. You do not characterize their statements about The Ultimate Zapper, my site and my work as being inaccurate or "scathing" when it is clear that they are both. You characterize my response to them as being "a sign of both bad taste and bad ethics". Presumably they have good taste and good business ethics. Frankly, I find this totally hypocritical.
And, lastly, I consider it very revealing that you, Ken Adachi, Arthur Doerksen and David Etheredge often have a disrespectful, contemptuous and patronizing tone when talking about me, my work and The Ultimate Zapper. And then you have the audacity to turn around and characterize my comments as being in bad taste and lacking in business ethics. Take the mote out of thine own eye.
I am always ready to correct factual errors on my site. I may note that 2 minor errors brought to my attention in the past by Arthur Doerksen of Auto-Zap and David Etheredge of ParaZapper were quickly corrected on my site. I may also note that David Etheredge removed serious errors from his site that I pointed out concerning health issues. But other errors posted to his site and to Curezone that I have brought to his attention, and errors that I have brought to your attention and to the attention of Arthur Doerksen have remained uncorrected.
I note your offer to write a public statement about The Ultimate Zapper for publication on my site but I have not yet received a similar offer from you to write a public statement about your products for publication on your site.
Sincerely,
Ken Presner
David Amrein:
Ken,
I sent the e-mail to you and stand by what I say but I did not send it for publication
to the public. Please take it off.
If you want a public statement about your zapper, I will write one for your webpage.
David
Hi David,
Thanks for your reply. I also stand by what I say. You have expressed your opinions
and I have reproduced your statement on my site. You have the right to your opinions
and I have the right to mine. If you want to make a public statement about The Ultimate
Zapper and our correspondence please feel free to do so on your own site.
If you wish to retract any portion or portions of your statement please let me know and I will be glad to post your retraction on my site.
Sincerely,
Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
Hi David,
On June 20, 2009 I received an email from your company about a "new generation of
zapper out now -- last days of introductory special". This was the first announcement
I had received about this product and your email said I had only one day to order
to take advantage of the 25% discount! Anxious to take advantage of this generous
offer I accessed the link provided in your email but there were no specifications
or other details about these new devices on your promotional page. The details about
these new products only appeared on your site a few days later. I like to read about
products before ordering them over the internet so, unable to do so in this case
I was not able to take advantage of your kind offer.
Once I had a chance to look over the details of your new
products I noted that your Vari-Zapper replaces your Super DeLuxe 2006. The cost
of the Super DeLuxe was $189 -- plus the cost of add-ons -- smart keys, program
drivers, syncrometer and the syncrometer course to learn how to use the syncrometer.
Which all comes to well over $1000. The Vari-Zapper costs $294 + $126 for a module
that turns it into a zapper -- it is designed as a frequency generator, as you point
out . I talk about the difference between zappers and frequency generators in #4
and #5 on the FAQ page of my site. The cost of the Vari-Zapper plus the module is
$420 but this does not include the cost of the syncrometer and the course to learn
how to use the syncrometer. The total cost comes to well over $1000. When all is
said and done your Vari-Zapper has only 2 of the 11 features of The Ultimate Zapper.
Your Super Zapper DeLuxe 2006 has 3. I talk in detail about your products at the
top of this page.
Your email announcing your new products reminded me that I have yet to reply to
your last email. I have been so busy lately. I was surprised that your email characterized
my criticism as "bull crap" and that you "don't think we need to get into any semantics".
Unfortunately, you have failed to grasp the essence of my email. It is not a matter
of semantics, it is a matter of basic meaning that I am addressing. You try to brush
aside any discussion of meaning by referring to my comments as semantic when they
are in fact matters of substance. I state that no zapper is endorsed by Dr. Hulda
Clark. She states this explicitly on her own website. Here is what I say about The
Ultimate Zapper on my website:
"She [Dr. Clark] is not affiliated with me and has not approved or endorsed The
Ultimate Zapper. It has stood on its own merits since 1996."
Please be so kind as to re-read this sentence one more time just so that you may
fully grasp its meaning. Your response to this very clear statement continues to
be "... You make it sound though other zappers are not endorsed by Dr. Clark and
yours is ..." How could you possibly conclude that I have stated that The Ultimate
Zapper is endorsed by Dr. Clark after reading my statements? My statements could
not be any clearer. Yet you go right ahead turn what I say upside down. This is
not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of fundamental meaning. I am at a complete
loss as to how your could get something that is so simple so completely wrong.
You further state about my comments: "Your criticism is bullcrap, and I don't think
I need to convince you because you know." You do indeed need to convince me that
my comments are "bullcrap". I find it interesting that the only specific statement
about my site in your message is your false statement about Dr. Clark endorsing
my site. Otherwise, you provide not one single detail regarding what you are referring
to as "bullcrap". Incidentally, I find your use of this word highly offensive and
disrespectful. I always try to remain civil in my emails.
Since you refuse to respond in detail to any of my statements I will respond in
detail to yours so that visitors to my site who care to look over this exchange
of emails will be able to judge for themselves:
Even though I find your use of the word "bullcrap" highly offensive and slanderous
you have placed me in the position where I feel it would be elucidating if I provide
my own definition of the word "bullcrap" based on specific information quoted from
your emails and your website, unlike your use of the word "bullcrap" which you have
glibly floated over the content of my site as a monolithic generalization without
any explanation or clarification whatsoever:
Ken Presner's definition of BULL CRAP
1. BULL CRAP IS:
Stating that your "zapper" (which is actually a frequency generator, not a zapper
-- please see the FAQ Page on my site for a detailed explanation of the difference)
is the only one with a stabilized wave when this is totally false, it has been false
for years, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly by me, but you refuse to acknowledge
your error or to correct the text on your site, or to even acknowledge that I have
brought this to your attention. In fact, ParaZapper also claims to have a stabilized
wave, which you also refuse to acknowledge but, as I point out on the Home Page
of my site, I am the only zapper maker who provides visual proof that their zapper
actually does produce a stabilized wave.
2. BULL CRAP IS:
Not answering a single question or comment directly in the exchange of emails that
we have been having over the past few months.
3. BULL CRAP IS:
Not acknowledging, and apparently not objecting to the fact, that other zapper makers
who you say you have no problem working beside have for years been making misstatements
about many zappers, including The Ultimate Zapper, my site and my work.
4. BULL CRAP IS:
Claiming you have Dr. Clark's approval to use her name -- in spite of her express
statement to the contrary on her own website -- and your refusal to provide any
proof whatsoever for your claim.
5. BULL CRAP IS:
Your claiming that Arthur Doerksen has Dr. Clark's approval for his syncrometer
but your refusal -- and his -- to provide any proof whatsoever for this claim.
6. BULL CRAP IS:
Refusing to acknowledge that Dr. Clark states explicitly on her site that she does
not endorse any zapper maker, any zapper site or any products.
7. BULL CRAP IS:
Accusing me of "bad taste" and "bad ethics" for my comments about various zapper
makers without providing one single detail about any issue that I have brought up
to support your slanderous allegations.
This is the same tactic used by politicians who try to discredit opponents by attacking
the messenger in order to distract from the necessity to discuss the issues that
the messenger is bringing to the table.
Let me discuss some specific matters that are direct and to the point. Your website
shows a lady exercising while zapping [Arthur Doerksen shows himself bicycling while
zapping.]. But I point out the fact that muscle contraction creates resistance to
the square wave and negates the positive effects of zapping, which are already minimal
with most zappers as I point out on my site and as I display in the 5 Zapper Comparison
Charts on my site. Is this in bad taste? Is this bad business ethics? I point out
that The Ultimate Zapper is not the only zapper with a stabilized wave. You have
been claiming on your site for years that your "zapper" (frequency generator) is
the only one with a stabilized wave. Your statement is completely false. Is my pointing
this out in bad taste? Is this bad business ethics? Is defending The Ultimate Zapper
against your misstatements and against the missstatements and fear-mongering of
Auto-Zap's Arthur Doerksen and ParaZapper's David Etheredge in bad taste? Is this
bad business ethics? Is discussing the deceptive marketing tactics of zapper makers
in bad taste or bad business ethics? Or is the contrary true, that their business
practices are not only in bad taste but are prime examples of bad business ethics.
I would appreciate a response from you to these direct and simple questions.
By the way, why are you afraid to use your own name for your site and your products?
Why are you afraid of standing on your own two feet? I think it would be a lot more
honest to call your site The David Amrein Research Association rather than the Dr.
Clark Research Association. But that would mean ending your marketing practice of
piggy-backing your site on Dr. Clark's name and using her reputation and her name
to sell your products, which must have amounted to quite a substantial financial
benefit to you over the past 10 years. It is clear that your marketing is based
on Dr. Clark's name and reputation, not on your own. You are one among many zapper
makers who use Dr. Clark's name and I discuss this on the Deceptive Marketing Page
of my site.
I leave it up to our readers to judge who is in "bad taste" and who practices the
"bad business ethics" that you refer to in your email.
Sincerely,
Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
Ken,
If I say that "zapper X and zapper Y are not endorsed by Dr. Clark" and yet you
sell zapper Z, then the person reading it will conclude that since you criticize
the others, that your zapper is different. [It is different. The Home Page of
my sitge clearly explains why. But nowhere do I ever say or even imply that it is
endorsed by Dr. Hulda Clark, unlike you. The logic of your sentence is completely
convoluted. In fact it defies logic.] I don't think we need to get into
any semantic details. [This is not semantics. This is getting to the crux of the
matter.] Your criticism is bullcrap, [What criticism are you referring
to? Please provide the details of this allegation.] and I don't think
I need to convince you [You may not think so but I certainly do.] because
you know. [What exactly are you referring to that I am supposed to know?]
It is just a matter of trying to look better compared to other products on the market.
[Do you mean to say that all the work you put into your website, I should say
your many websites, including all the sophisticated design work, are not meant to
make your products look better than other products on the market? And how about
all the pther zapper makers? Is the pot calling the kettle black? The Ultimate Zapper
looks better because it is better. Not because of any sophisticated design work
but because of its features.] Your zapper is as little endorsed than
anyone else's, [Now what the heck does this mean -- "as little endorsed"? Why
can't you talk straight? Nowhere do I ever say or even imply Dr. Hulda Clark's endorsement,
unlike you.] your company as little endorsed as anyone else's, [Here you
go again -- "as little endorsed".] and there is no mention on our
website (and unless I am mistaken, on Arthur Doerksen's) that it is
any different and never has been. [You certainly are mistaken. If you have
read the Home Page of my site you would not be making this statement. First of all,
if you look at Arthur Doerksen's Auto-Zap and my comments about it you will see
that Auto-Zap is simply a version of Dr. Clark's 1995 zapper with the addition of
a low frequency -- its single feature -- and a few bells and whistles added -- pseudo-features
that do not add to the zapper's effectiveness.
A short digression. I note that you have crafted an interesting sentence here. In
your sentence you refer to "it" while referring to 2 different zappers as though
they belong in the same basket. The Ultimate Zapper is not the Auto-Zap. Auto-Zap
has 1 feature. And Auto-Zap is not The Ultimate Zapper. The Ultimate Zapper has
11 features. I make a direct comparison between them and 27 other popular zappers,
including all of yours, in the 5 Zapper Comparison Charts on my site and I discuss
in detail the many issues concerning Auto-Zap and Arthur Doerksen on Competition
Page 2 on my site. How you could possibly put them in the same basket is totally
beyond me.] Arthur Doerksen's Syncrometer is, if I may add that, actually
endorsed by Dr. Clark, even though I don't think she ever made that public, but
she did test it for him and confirmed to him that it complies.
[I'm waiting for proof of these statements. "Complies" with what? Dr. Clark states
on her own site that she does not endorse any maker or any product, as I have already
pointed out. I will be glad to post to my site any statements that prove that the
statement to this effect on Dr. Clark's site, written by her, is incorrect.]
The scathing comments on your website are a sign of both bad taste and bad business
ethics. [My comments about this statement are already ample
and to the point.]
D.
Hi David,
Thanks for your reply. I find it strange that after reading my reply you still insist
that I imply that Dr. Clark endorses The Ultimate Zapper. I state the exact opposite
in my email and on my site. This is very, very clear.
You stated in your message:
"... You make it sound [where exactly do I make it sound] as though other zappers
are not endorsed by Dr. Clark and yours is ..."
I have no idea how you could possibly come to this conclusion after reading my reply.
Dr. Clark endorses no zappers and no zapper makers, including The Ultimate Zapper.
She states this clearly on her site. May I repeat that I state very clearly on my
site:
"She [Dr. Clark] is not affiliated with me and has not approved or endorsed The
Ultimate Zapper. It has stood on its own merits since 1996."
Dr. Clark invented the original zapper so I imagine it is reasonable to assume that
she endorses the concept of zappers. Endorsing zappers in a generic way has nothing
whatsoever to do with the issue that you have brought up of Dr. Clark giving you
her specific approval to use her name for commercial purposes, a claim that she
contradicts very clearly on her own site regarding all zapper makers. If you fail
to make this distinction then we are talking apples and oranges. I am not talking
about Dr. Clark "endorsing zappers". I'm talking specifically about your claim that
she approved your using her name for commercial purposes. I don't use Dr. Clark's
name for my site. I don't use her name for my products. I don't use her name for
my shop. I don't use her name commercially. I use her name to refer to her research
only. I note that you refuse to respond to a single question in my message, including
those questions related to this matter.
You state in your message:
"But I also know that people with your kind of business ethics usually don't go
very far in the long run."
Your condescending comment is duly noted. What specific business ethics are you
referring to? You are resorting to the classic ploy that if you don't like the content
of the message you attack the messenger and simply ignore the content.
First let me point out, in case you are unaware of it, contrary your prognostication
that "people with [my] kind of business ethics [you do not specify what you mean
by this] usually don't go very far" I have already gone very far, and I hope to
go much farther in the future. I had a successful business career for nearly 30
years before I invented The Ultimate Zapper and started my website in 1996. I was
paralyzed with Multiple Sclerosis in 1989 and I nearly died from Crohn's disease
in 1994. I recovered completely from both of these "incurable" diseases. Not go
very far? With all due respect, you really have no idea who you are talking to and
who you are patronizing.
Regarding business ethics, had you read my website that comprises nearly 20 megabytes
and has over 30 pages of health-related information you would realize that there
are many people in the zapper business who have, for years, demonstrated truly questionable
business ethics regarding The Ultimate Zapper and my website as well as regarding
a variety of serious health matters. For instance, on my site I have documented
the false statements that Arthur Doerksen (Auto-Zap) and David Etheredge (ParaZapper)
have made about The Ultimate Zapper, my website and my work and my responses to
their statements. It seems as though you are either willing to turn a blind eye
to the behavior of certain zapper makers or you are truly in the dark vis a vis
what has been going on for years in the real zapper world.
Are you implying that there should be a feeling of solidarity among the various
zapper makers? If this is so, I suggest that you review the information on my site
about Arthur Doerksen and David Etheredge, among others, regarding The Ultimate
Zapper, as well as some of the other observations I make about the sites of other
zapper makers. I suggest that you email them with a few questions regarding their
false statements about The Ultimate Zapper, about my site and about various health
issues. Many of their declarations go back many years and have not only not been
retracted but have been reiterated by them through the years. It seems they are
unaware of your thoughts about the need for solidarity among zapper makers. Perhaps
it would be a good idea for you to let them know.
You say I make "strange claims about others' products". What specific claims are
you referring to, and about whose products? Does it trouble you that others make
"strange claims" about The Ultimate Zapper and my website? Or does the adjective
"strange" only apply when your Super DeLuxe and your site are the objects of scrutiny?
You say that you "work alongside [other zapper makers] quite fine and without any
problem." Would you be willing to do so if they were making "strange claims" about
your products and your website?
And how about the strange health claims made by zapper makers about various health
topics such as Multiple Sclerosis? I cite this disease in particular, not because
it is the only disease that is misrepresented by zapper makers on their sites --
it is not-- but because I have intimate and personal knowledge about MS having recovered
after being paralyzed and bedridden with MS in 1989. Does it trouble you that zapper
makers make irresponsible statements about MS (and other diseases) or should we
just ignore all this and pretend they never said what they said for the sake of
"zapper solidarity"? Is your attitude "never mind the truth, we have to stick together?"
My attitude is, "let's get the truth into the open where everyone can have a look
and judge for themselves."
Here is a quote from your site:
Program Driver Multiple Sclerosis Z717
Program Driver Alzheimer's Z724
Program Driver Parkinson's Z731
Program Driver Crohn's Disease Z730
Program Driver Diabetes Z705
What are these program drivers supposed to do for people with Multiple Sclerosis
or other neurological diseases, or for people with Crohn's disease which I nearly
died from in 1994, or for people with diabetes (which claimed both my father and
my brother)? There are no testimonials on your site regarding any of the illnesses
that the program drivers and smart keys are supposedly targeting. It is misleading
to imply that everyone who uses your device with the smart keys or program drivers
with the specific names attached to them will get significant or lasting results
for complex neurological diseases or other illnesses. I have received quite a few
emails from your customers that confirm that many people have had no results at
all with your device and its sophisticated add-ons. Dr. Clark herself has observed
that "sophisticated gizmos" do not make zappers more effective, just more complex.
Incidentally, your Super Deluxe is marketed as a frequency generator and the term
"zap" does not have the same meaning in the case of frequency generators as it has
for true zappers, I'm sure you are aware.
Getting back to the word "strange", is it strange to you that ParaZapper says I
made up the 250 testimonials [now 300] on my site? Is this the kind of person you
can "work alongside quite fine", and whose business ethics cause you no problems?
What if he had said the same thing about 250 testimonials on your site. Would that
be fine for you, no problem? What about Auto-Zap and his fear-mongering about The
Ultimate Zapper's AC adapter and other misleading statements? If he made inaccurate
comments about your products would you be able to work alongside him, no problem?
For starters, you might like to read what I write on my site about David Etheredge
and Curezone and Kevin Trudeau:
http://zap.intergate.ca/root.html
There are many links on the page that will lead to more interesting information.
Is there an unwritten rule somewhere that no matter what lies a zapper maker tells
about another maker or serious health matters that we should say nothing and keep
"zapper solidarity" for the sake of the zapper industry? Never mind about the truth?
Well I mind very much about the truth and I will continue to speak out about these
matters. I am not in favor of sticking one's head in the sand.
Oh, by the way, you still state on your site that the Super Deluxe is the only zapper
with a stabilized wave. The Ultimate Zapper has had a stabilized wave for many years
but your site has never reflected this fact.
Sincerely,
Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
Ken,
Your business practices speak against you, that is all I can say to this. You take
it to say something negative about me to promote what Dr. Clark says, when you sell
a zapper yourself, a zapper which quite obviously only people will who read the
Clark book. It makes no sense. [Actually it is your previous
sentence that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.] You make it sound
as though other zappers are not endorsed by Dr. Clark and yours is, which is also
untrue. I have no intention to do anything about this, as your comments have probably
been out there for quite some time and we have not had as much as a comment from
anyone about it (the only reason I found it now was because a staff who research
new products told me). But I also know that people with your kind of business ethics
usually don't go very far in the long run. [Actually, you
seem to be unaware I have already gone very far. Firstly, I recovered from 2 incurable
diseases. I consider that going far. That took nearly 7 years. Since my recovery
I have had a very successful website and zapper business since 1996. I think that
constitutes going very far, as well. Although you might not agree in either case.
Maybe you don't consider that this odyssey that began 20 years ago constitues "the
long run". If so, please let me know your definition of the "the long run".]
I have never had any trouble with any of my competitors, except one in Germany who
tried to denigrate me along the lines you do; and Oskar one time because he copied
parts of my website. All the rest of us, Self Health, Arthur Doerksen, New Action
Products, Clearwater Herbs, and all the other businesses and zapper makers in this
field, work alongside quite fine and without any problem; on the contrary, I know
many of them personally and appreciate them. We don't have any need to denigrate
each other [I think you need to check your facts
first and then have a talk with Ken Adachi of "Educate-Yourself", David Etheredge
of ParaZapper and Arthur Doerksen of Auto-Zap and ask why they denigrate The Ultimate
Zapper and my site, as well as my work, in the case of David Etheredge, and me personally
in the case of Ken Adachi] for promoting the Clark protocol; [it is using Dr. Clark's name without her permission that
I object to as well as false medical claims made for her protocol by your site and
others] or make strange claims about others' products.
[My claims about other zapper makers are not strange in the least. I object to the
unsubstantiated medical claims that are clearly being made -- on your site, the
Auto-Zap site, the ParaZapper site, the Harmonic Quad site and other zapper sites.
I believe that some of these claims could put the lives of people at risk. This
is not a frivolous matter, it is a very serious one that some zapper makers do not
seem to take seriously at all. I do. They seem to have commercial interests in mind
more than anything else.]
D.
Hi David,
Thanks for your reply. I find it strange that you insist that I imply that The Ultimate
Zapper is endorsed by Dr. Clark. Did you read my email? I state the exact opposite
on my site. I'm not talking about Dr. Clark endorsing "zappers" I'm talking about
your claim that she approved that you use her name. You seem to be very confused
and you have a lot of trouble listening to what I actually say.
You state in your message:
"... You make it sound as though other zappers are not endorsed by Dr. Clark and
yours is ..."
May I repeat. I state clearly on my site:
"She [Dr. Clark] is not affiliated with me and has not approved or endorsed The
Ultimate Zapper. It has stood on its own merits since 1996."
Do you understand what I am saying? If not, please read it again:
"She [Dr. Clark] is not affiliated with me and has not approved or endorsed The
Ultimate Zapper. It has stood on its own merits since 1996." Dr. Clark believes
in zappers. She invented the original zapper. That is not the same as endorsing
specific zapper makers. Open your dictionary and look up the word "endorse". It
means to give approval. Are you listening or are you plugged into one of your program
drivers that will only let you function on one frequency?
You state in your message:
"But I also know that people with your kind of business ethics usually don't go
very far in the long run." What the hell does that mean ... "my kind of business
ethics". You don't like what I am saying about you, obviously, you refuse to answer
a single specific question or comment from my message, I must note.
I have gone very far and will go much further. I recovered from 2 incurable diseases.
I have had my website and I have been selling The Ultimate Zapper since 1996? Not
go very far? Are you kidding? You have no idea who you're talking to. Do think that
you're talking to some lightweight? How many people do you know who have recovered
from Multiple Sclerosis? How many people do you know who have recovered from Crohn's
disease? How many people do you know who have recovered from both? Do you think
you recover from these 2 near-death experiences and dig out of a 7-year hole by
being a lightweight? Do you think for one minute that you have a ghost of a chance
of recovering if you do not possess some unusual qualities? Do you think for one
minute that these qualities are compatible with questionable business ethics? Do
think that a person who made such a remarkable recovery and who dedicated his life
to helping others would stoop to questionable business ethics? Are you out of your
mind? You have no idea who you're talking to.
You say I make "strange claims about others' products"? What claims? As with your
reluctance to reply to a single comment or question from my email you are reluctant
to be specific about any "strange claims" that I make? You say that you "work alongside
quite fine and without any problem" other zapper makers. Are you aware of their
strange claims about The Ultimate Zapper? It is strange to you that I want to talk
about the truth of your statements about Multiple Sclerosis but it is not strange
to you that ParaZapper says I made up the 250 [now 300] testimonials on my site?
This is the kind of person you can "work alongside quite fine"? What if he had said
the same thing about 250 testimonials on your site. Would that be fine for you,
no problemo?
You talk about my business practices as though telling the truth were verboten when
it comes to zapper makers. My experience has taught me that it's better to bring
the truth into the open. That goes for everything in life, not just zappers. What
about the unethical and deceptive marketing practices of the various zapper makers
that I point out on my site? Are those busines practices OK by you? You talk about
working beside all the other zapper makers in the business with no problem. I imagine
you have not read about the unethical and deceptive marketing practices of David
Etheredge of ParaZapper. Read what I write on my site about him and Curezone and
Kevin Trudeau and about a whole slew of other topics. He has been denigrating me
for years. Is that OK by you? He says I made up the 250 testimonials [now 300] on
my site! You talk about business practices? How about the fear-mongering against
me that Arthur Doerksen has been doing for years, and how about his son trying to
steal the name of my zapper and about how he backed down only when Arthur put pressure
on him to do so. Have you read about all this on my site? What kind of business
practices are these? Is this OK by you? No problemo? Good zapper people? And you
think I should stand by and say nothing to keep solidarity this people of this ilk
whose underhanded and unethical behavior is clear for all to see? You expect me
to take all this lying down to keep "zapper solidarity"? You should email the others
first with the concerns that I am bringing up here then email me back with their
replies.
I note that You have not replied to ANY of my direct comments on how you brought
this on yourself, my questions about the nature of Dr. Clark's "approval" of your
using her name, my comments about Multiple Sclerosis, or anything else. Why not?
You are focused on my "business practices" while completely avoiding the content
of what I am saying. You avoid my questions and comments completely.
You repeat the fiction that I am claiming to be approved while it is VERY VERY CLEAR
from the content on my site that I am not and that I state this very clearly. I
wonder if you are wearing blinders and ear plugs when you read my messages and when
you read my site.
If telling the truth is a crime in your books, which it appears to be, then I stand
convicted.
Sincerely,
Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
Hi David,
Thanks for your message. Please see my comments, below, in red.
David Amrein: Hi Ken,
I happened to notice your comments about me on your website.
I think it would be good to take it off, for this reason:
Ken Presner: On the one hand you refer to "comments" and
on the other hand you refer to "it". "It" means one comment. "Comments" means more
than one comment. There are 6 pages on my site where I discuss the merits of the
many zappers on the market, including yours:
http://zap.intergate.ca
http://zap.intergate.ca/root.html
http://zap.intergate.ca/competition.htm http://zap.intergate.ca/page2.htm
http://zap.intergate.ca/page3.html
http://zap.intergate.ca/wordforword.htm
David Amrein: If you believe in zappers, then you are speaking out against yourself.
Ken Presner: This statement is devoid of logic. It is the
equivalent of saying, "Harry doesn't like oranges therefore he doesn't like fruit."
I certainly do believe in zappers, some zappers, The Ultimate Zapper, of course.
You sell zappers that are designed and marketed as frequency generators and that
require the purchase of add-ons. You have a clear marketing bias in favor of program
software, program drivers, smart keys, etc. I discuss the difference between zappers
and frequency generators on the FAQ page of my site. And I specifically discuss
your "zapper" in this regard on a number of the pages that I have cited, above.
David Amrein: The reason I got attacked by the FTC was because I had excerpts from
Dr. Clark's books on my website. Those were construed as product claims, because
I also sold zappers.
Ken Presner: Whether one concludes that you were merely
quoting Dr. Clark and/or making claims of your own independent of what Dr. Clark
says in her books is a moot point. It is irrelevant. The fact is that you were clearly
making medical claims and this was not being done as an intellectual exercise. It
was being done to promote sales of your products.
David Amrein: If you now imply that this speaks against me, then you are disqualifying
the concept of the zapper on your own website, where you sell zappers ... how much
sense does that make?
Ken Presner: This statement is also devoid of logic. You
put yourself in a position where it was easy for the authorities to take action
against you. This is very clear. I started writing about this on my site years after
the fact. For instance the final court judgment which you consented to says that
you have stated:
"the Supper-Zapper Deluxe, [their spelling error] used together with the Complete
Herbal Parasite Program and avoidance of pollutants, is effective to cure diabetes,
multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, endometriosis, asthma, and many other diseases;"
How could you be so foolish to use the word "cure" and to state that diabetes and
Multiple Sclerosis can be cured by your zapper, the herbal cleanse and the avoidance
of pollutants? I know enough about Multiple Sclerosis, to mention just one of the
illnesses on this list, to be able to say that this is total nonsense and that you
have no idea what you're talking about and have no business making this kind of
statement. I recovered from Multiple Sclerosis and Crohn's disease after a struggle
that lasted nearly 7 years. You spoke out against yourself when you made these statements.
You opened the door and invited the authorities to walk in. I am not implying this
speaks against you. I am saying it openly and very clearly. I do not make these
kinds of outlandish statements on my site and I definitely do not disqualify the
concept of the zapper on my site. On the contrary. I back it up with as much scientific
research as possible, as you will discover if you read my site. It is you who have
brought doubt on the concept of the zapper by making irresponsible statements, not
me. The final court judgment was correct when it stated that you did not have a
"reasonable basis" for your claims. I note that you did not dispute or contest the
court settlement. I assume that you consented to it because it reflected the truth.
It would make no sense to consent to a court settlement that did not.
David Amrein": In addition, I want to add that I used Dr. Clark's name and her picture
(which is no longer on my website) with her approval, which I obtained in January
of 1998.
Ken Presner: What are the specifics of this approval? Where
is the proof of this approval? There is no statement in the introductory letter
to your site to this effect. But your introductory letter makes it very clear that
you are holding very tightly onto Dr. Clark's skirt. Dr. Clark makes no mention
of this approval on her site. On the contrary, on her site (at http://www.huldaclark.net)
Dr. Clark specifically states: "There are other website and companies using my name,
selling my books, or selling products claimed to be approved by me, but with two
exceptions I am not affiliated with, and have no control over, any other website
or company. The two exceptions are this page, www.huldaclark.net and www.newcenturypress.com,
because New Century Press publishes my books ... I do not endorse any manufacturer."
Where in Dr. Clark's statement is there any mention that she approves of you using
her for your website, your company and your shop and your site to promote your products?
This reminds me of Arthur Doerksen and the Auto-Zap and many other "Me and Dr. Clark"
websites. Has Dr. Clark approved of all the other sites that use her name? If so,
then why does not one single site come out and say so, including you? I can only
conclude that they do not say so because it is not so. You and many other zapper
makers imply an affiliation with Dr. Clark that Dr. Clark expressly states does
not exist. If there is an affiliation between you and Dr. Clark then come out and
say so. Otherwise don't infer it because her site contradicts that inference very
clearly. It appears that it is you who should be removing things from your site
that do not shed a good light on you. I do not use Dr. Clark's name to promote The
Ultimate Zapper. I never have and I never will.
David Amrein: Finally, I was not convicted by the FTC, but it was a settlement.
Ken Presner: I have reviewed the final court judgment today
and it is clear that you are correct. It was a settlement, not a conviction. I have
already revised the text on my site. I always take it very seriously when competitors
contact me about possible factual errors and I always make text corrections as promptly
as possible where it is clear that I have made an error.
By the way, for years you have stated on your site: "Super stabilized wave remains
stable under load. No other zapper on the market has such a stable wave!" The Ultimate
Zapper site has stated on the Front Page for many years that The Ultimate Zapper
features a stabilized wave.
David Amrein: ... which included us having to offer a full refund to all customers,
and also to give away to info website www.drclark.net, which has now been run for
almost 5 years by someone else, namely one Cristina Carugati, an independent Clark
supporter selling no products but she directs visitors to a number of sites ...
Ken Presner: ... where your products are featured and mine
are never mentioned [not coincidently, I believe].
David Amrein: and who has done a fine job in putting information on the website
about Dr. Clark.
Ken Presner: Perhaps. However, I think that my site has
more accurate and complete information about Dr. Clark than any other website. For
instance, I talk about matters that others won't go near such as Dr. Clark's methodology
which is lacking in the kind of rigorous standards that I would like to see. Dr.
Clark was a true pioneer and I pay tribute to her on my site, but I do not pander
to her or use a reverential tone when referring to her, as many zapper makers do.
I have a critical eye when I examine all health researchers and their findings.
David Amrein: Considering that we had to give a full refund without any products
returned to anyone who signed and sent back the paper that we had to send out to
all customers, and we only had about 2.5% of all orders refunded, goes to show how
satisfied our customers are.
Ken Presner: There are many possible explanations for this,
seeing as the final court judgment stipulated that you contact people who had purchased
your products many years prior to the judgment. [many email addresses and home addresses
change over such a ling period of time and there must be a high percentage of people
who cannot be contacted after a period of 5 years.]
David Amrein: Also: As you know Dr. Clark does not endorse ANY commercial venture,
not even her son Geoff's (now run by Oskar Thorvaldsson). I find it questionable
that you imply in your text (though you don't expressly state it) that your zappers
are endorsed.
Ken Presner: It is obvious that you have not even read
my site. The only references on my site to Dr. Clark are regarding her research.
I do not state or imply ANYWHERE on my site that Dr. Clark approves or endorses
me, my site or The Ultimate Zapper. I have never had any contact with Dr. Clark.
Your statement is completely and utterly false. In fact, I expressly state in a
number of places on my site that Dr. Clark DOES NOT endorse The Ultimate Zapper.
Here are the quotes and the URLs from my site that prove this fact:
from http://zap.intergate.ca/root.html
ON ITS OWN MERITS
I have great respect for Dr. Hulda Clark. She is a courageous pioneer and a groundbreaking
researcher. I pay tribute to her on the Dr. Clark Page. I do not use her name to
promote The Ultimate Zapper as you can see by reading my site. I refer to her only
when using short quotes from her site and when quoting her research. Dr. Clark is
not affiliated with me and has not approved or endorsed The Ultimate Zapper. It
stands on its own merits and has done so since 1996.
from http://zap.intergate.ca/root.html
On my site I refer to Dr. Clark's research. I do not use her name to promote The
Ultimate Zapper. She is not affiliated with me and has not approved or endorsed
The Ultimate Zapper. It has stood on its own merits since 1996.
from http://zap.intergate.ca/page2.htm
One thing that Arthur Doerksen does which I have not done and which I will never
do is to seek the approval of Dr. Hulda Clark to sell zappers or to make it appear,
as he does on his site, that Dr. Clark's son, Geoff, "approved" his zapper and that
it therefore has more credibility, or is better or more effective than other zappers.
from http://zap.intergate.ca/page2.htm
I have not sought Dr. Clark's recognition or approval, or that of her son Geoff,
for my zapper, as so many other zapper makers have. I have made no attempt to contact
her or her son in order to curry favor with them. I do not use her name to sell
my zapper, as so many other zappers makers have done without her approval. While
recognizing the importance of her work, I have retained the intellectual freedom
that I feel one must have in order to think freely and act independently. Many zapper
makers use Dr. Clark's name on their site in such a way as to lead people to believe
that Dr. Clark is associated with their site. She is not associated with any site
but her own at
http://www.drclark.net
They use her name freely as a promotional tool. Although she might have, Dr. Clark
has never taken any action against anyone using her name to sell their zappers because
she feels that if people are being helped then she should not do anything to detract
from that fact. Dr. Clark has a good heart.
David Amrein: By saying that these two sites (including ours) are not, and warning
from them, you make it sound like your unit is endorsed and Dr. Clark is not endorsing
any -- why don't you write on that page "my zapper is as little endorsed s any other
on the market"?
Anyway Ken, I think it would make to just take this off, as it does not shed a good
light on you.
Ken Presner: It sounds like you are contradicting yourself.
You are the one who states, above, that you used Dr. Clark's name "with her approval".
I have never stated or implied this. So it appears that it is you who needs to make
clear to people that Dr. Clark either approves of you using her name or she does
not. If she does not it is you who should change the name of your site, your products
and your shop. If Dr. Clark approves of you using her name for your site, your products
and your shop you should state this clearly on your site and not imply it or leave
it up to people's imagination to come to the logical conclusion you are in fact
affiliated with Dr. Clark, and that she is affiliated with you, contradicting the
statements she clearly makes on her site and which I have referred to, above.
I have a few observations that I would like to make about your site and your products.
1. Your site states:
"The Programs were compiled according to the books by Dr. Hulda Clark." Where does
Dr. Clark talk about zapper programming in her books? Do you mean the frequency
chart for pathogens? If this is what you are referring to then why not say so clearly?
You are making a vague reference to Dr. Clark, implying that she recommends programmed
devices, which she does not. This is deceptive marketing. In fact, she has stated
that "fancy gizmos" do not make zappers better, just more complex. She always stated
that people will end up having to zap because frequency generators are a far too
complicated route to follow.
2. Your site states:
"IMPORTANT NOTE: The Drivers are intended to make zapping more specific." You should
have added "and more expensive". What you mean is that they turn your "zapper" into
a frequency generator. Your device is really designed as a frequency generator which
is why you market expensive add-ons. Otherwise your "zapper" is merely one more
battery-powered zapper, and an expensive one, at that. Why do you not explain all
this clearly on your site, as I do on mine on the FAQ page at
http://zap.intergate.ca/wordforword.htm
3. Your site states:
that you "adhere to" Dr. Clark's recommendations. Do those recommendations include
digital technology, program drivers. smart keys, programming software? You do not
state specifically what "recommendations" you are referring to. Why not? Dr. Clark's
recommends using a simple, affordable zapper, not a frequency generator. She states
this specifically in her books. How do you justify marketing the concept of "the
zapper" and "affordability" when what you are really marketing is frequency generators
that are actually very expensive with all the add-ons?
4. Dr. Clark also does not endorse wristbands or gel electrodes. She recommends
high surface contact area for electrodes. She approves large-surface, highly conductive
hand and foot electrodes for this reason.
5. The picture of the girl in exercise clothes on your site is misleading because
muscle contraction creates resistance to the square wave. One should not exercise
while zapping. This is a marketing tool. On the contrary, relaxing while zapping
gives the best results.
6. Your site states:
"Program Drivers can "wobble" frequencies. This means that instead of a specific
frequency (e.g. 434 kHz) the can oscillate between two frequencies. This way, a
whole frequency range is covered and more harmonic frequencies produced." Oscillating
between 2 frequencies means that the zapper is functioning as a dual frequency zapper,
not as a sweep frequency generator that covers a range of frequencies. Hitting 2
frequencies is not the same as covering a range of frequencies between the 2 chosen
frequencies.
7. Your site states:
"You will also notice that our prices are reasonable." Reasonable?
1 "Super Deluxe" + syncrometer testing (which may entail the purchase of a syncrometer
and training in its use) + program software + smart keys + program drivers
= REASONABLE PRICES?
By your definition of "reasonable" [since your product costs hundreds of dollars
more than The Ultimate Zapper] I must conclude that the cost of The Ultimate Zapper
is very, very reasonable, indeed.
8. Here are 2 of many testimonials I have received about your "zapper":
from http://zap.intergate.ca/competition.htm
Issue number thirteen.
After spending all that money on the all the products you need to make the Super
Zapper Deluxe work, program drivers, smart keys, etc., you would think the results
would justify all the money spent. Think again. Below are 2 of the many unsolicited
testimonials I have received about the "Super".
" ... In the mean time [while waiting for her Ultimate Zapper to arrive] I will
continue zapping with my super deluxe zapper, I am busy with the driver programs
but I don't see [any] progress after 2 months of zapping.
best regards,
Ann V.
Jan. 25, 2008"
"Hi Ken,
I am very impressed with your website. I have 3 Dr. Clark Research Associations
zappers and I have never noticed any change in my health when using them. Your website
requests that we email you for a weblink to the distributors webpage of the Ultimate
Zapper. Can you do that when you get a chance? Thank you for your time and speedy
reply.
Ward S.
Apr. 30, 2008"
Finally, how does telling people the truth shed a bad light on me? I have received
many positive comments from people who visit my site and who appreciate all the
information that my site provides about not only The Ultimate Zapper but about many
other zappers on the market. They thank me for helping elucidate many matters concerning
zappers. I have not received a single email regarding the allegation you make in
this message that the information I provide about your site and your products sheds
a bad light on me. I really don't think you are worried about me and the bad light
that may be shining down on me. I believe you are worried about how all this makes
you look, with all due respect. I believe people want to know the truth. And I believe
that bringing out the truth sheds a good light on me. Many visitors to my site have
emailed me with thanks.
Sincerely,
Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
3. THE TERMINATOR II: SERIOUS ISSUES
Frankly, there are so many questionable statements on Don Croft's Terminator II website site that it would take a whole new web page to cover them all. They include the following issues.
Issue number one.
From a site at
http://wolfcreekranch1.tripod.com/terminator_zapper.html
that sells Don Croft's Terminator II zapper: "If your Terminator Zapper starts to sting, itch or zap your skin you MUST move it elsewhere as it can burn through the skin."
From Don Croft's own site: "...everyone who's bought one from us who has said they've got extreme sensitivity to all metals against the skin has told us later that they could wear the Terminator without getting any unpleasant skin reactions at all."
Sorry, folks, if I am in a state of disbelief at this point. Not only is this not reassuring, it is a bit scary. I have had email from users of the Terminator II who wanted to order The Ultimate Zapper because they were seriously burned by the Terminator II and they said they would never use it again.
Update on May 5, 2007. I just talked with a man who said he received deep skin burns using the Terminator II and they have not healed up after many weeks. This is just one in a long list of such reports that have come my way about the Terminator II. Don Croft has a real credibility problem when he talks about "everyone" wearing his Terminator II "without getting any unpleasant skin reactions." This is clearly untrue. On his order page he states that the Terminator II is a " a harmless research device" This is clearly untrue, as well. The giveaway is that he devotes more space on his FAQ page denying that there is any problem using his device "against bare skin" than to any other question.
Issue number two.
With all the problems with burning skin it is no wonder that Don Croft does not have a trial offer and that he does not have any information about a warranty on his site. I have a 3-month trial offer and a lifetime warranty for The Ultimate Zapper.
Issue number three.
There are a number of testimonials on Don Croft's site which I find highly questionable. One testimonial concerns someone with MS. Multiple Sclerosis is a disease with which I am intimately familiar. I was paralyzed with MS in 1989. It took me nearly 7 years to recover my health. 3 years after I came down with MS I came down with Crohn's disease. So, I had to deal with 2 "incurable" diseases at the same time.
This testimonial on Don's site is from a caregiver named John who worked with people who have MS. He says he saw Don Croft's Terminator II zapper "...put MS into remission on (sic) two patients."
The definition of remission in Wikipedia is "the state of absence of disease activity in patients with a chronic illness." The description in the testimonials does not constitute remission. I think that will be very clear once you read the story. It constitutes an amelioration of some symptoms, not a remission. I not only went through and came out the other end of Multiple Sclerosis, I have talked to hundreds of people with MS over the past 18 years. One cannot know the cause of the amelioration in this case because it happened over a period of many months and there are so many possible factors involved that may not have been mentioned, including any medication the person receiving care may have been taking. In all cases, one must be very careful when inferring cause and effect with MS, or any chronic "incurable" disease. The evidence has to be very strong, in my opinion, having gone through 7 long years of recovery. The person Don Croft is quoting on his website uses the word remission inaccurately, and Don Croft does not correct him. He thereby gives his readers the impression that his Terminator II zapper has worked some kind of minor miracle. This is grossly misleading. An amelioration of some symptoms is not a remission. And it is certainly far from miraculous. It is actually quite common with people who have MS. Symptoms often come and go spontaneously, without rhyme or reason.
The caregiver in question was working with a patient who had"...no movement in his legs or his left arm. His left hand was always in a ball, and he had limited use of his right hand. He could not raise his right hand to his mouth...he could no longer control his swallow, and would choke, start sneezing uncontrollably, and end up sneezing blood after three spoons of his food. It was not pretty. "
The evidence for this "remission" is that he "put the zapper on him for a few hours whenever I was working. After three times of doing this, I was walking past his room one night, where he usually lay with legs straight out, and he had drawn them up! He never sneezed any more blood- feeding him was less of a problem. One day when I came to work he was waggling his fingers at me. It took me a minute to understand he was showing me that all his fingers were working properly again. After several months his left fist began to have some squeeze - now he can shake your hand with an honest grip (you have to put the hand around yours). He can hurt you when you shake his right hand and scratch the back of his head with it as well. He can pull his left arm in a bit, when it has been moved out, and pronate it. He sometimes says a few words in the morning."
This is remission from Multiple Sclerosis? With all due respect, calling this remission is like calling an apple an orange. MS is a disease of toxicity. Neither Don Croft's zapper, nor The New Improved Ultimate Zapper nor any zapper on the planet can put anyone with the serious symptoms described here into remission, which means that the disease goes away for a while. MS is multi-factorial. The most important thing is the primary toxicity. In most cases with MS it is dental mercury from "silver amalgam" fillings which are 50% mercury. A lot of my site is devoted to the various factors involved with Multiple Sclerosis. Please read my site for more information.
Issue number four.
Here is another case of misleading people. There is a reference in another testimonial on Don Croft's site about diabetes. This is another disease I know something about. I lived with diabetic for many years. My father had Type II for 36 years. My brother had Type I for 35 years. They both died from the complications of diabetes.
From a testimonial on Don Croft's site: "My mother is a Type II diabetic and suffers from high blood pressure...my brother-in-law is a Type I diabetic. So you'll have good case studies for both types of diabetes."
The fact is that no zapper, including mine, can bring back the beta cells in the islets of langerhans in the pancreas so that they will start producing insulin again, nor can they reverse the cardio-vascular complications of diabetes. Various forms of chelation therapy may be able to accomplish the latter. You will never see a "good case study" about the Terminator II and diabetes on Don Croft's website, or on any other zapper maker's website, including mine.
Issue number five.
On his site Don Croft states "...none of the pronouncements made... about the low-current electrocution of parasitic organisms are founded on any clinical or lab research..."
This statement is completely false. Please see the front page of my site for documentation to the contrary. Clinical and lab research is being done and studies have already been published. Don Croft has not been doing his homework.
Issue number six.
Don Croft refers to "electrophoresis" on his website without explaining anything about it. He undoubtedly means electroporosis which is also known as electroporation. His only comment is "If I were to answer each of these caveats and recommendations this FAQ would assume the size of a small booklet ..." And he delines to go any further. It seems to be too much trouble for him to pursue things. Please read about the powerful electroporation effect on the front page of this site.
I have taken the trouble to investigate many health-related subjects on my site. My site is far longer than a small booklet. It is the size of a book. I go to the trouble of explaining in detail, all the whys and wherefores about zapping, and many subjects dealing with toxicity and chronic illness. And I invite people to email me for clarification on any point. This is the duty I have assumed, to be as informative as I possibly can for people, having spent years trying to find a way out of two "incurable" diseases. I spend many hours every day answering my email alone, not to mention the hundreds of hours I put into revising, updating and adding to my site every month. I work a minimum of 10 hours a day, 7 days a week. My site comprises 38 pages and some pages run 1000 to 2000 lines. My site is far more than a "small booklet". I have devoted 13 years to this work and I will continue to do my best to help provide people with the most up-to-date information that I can. I had two "incurable" diseases. I am passionate about helping people in any way I can.
Issue number seven.
Don Croft states on his site "How do zappers cure arthritis and high blood pressure?... it's not hard to see why they cure these illnesses." I never use the word cure on my site. Not only is it illegal to do so, I feel that it is irresponsible to so do because one may be creating a false impresssion: that 100% of those doing a certain therapy can affect this "cure". No zapper maker should ever make such a bold statement. To do so, in my opinion, is not only misleading but it is also unethical.
Issue number eight.
Don Croft's Terminator II has copper penny electrodes that touch the skin directly. He says there is no problem with this, that any copper ions entering the body are not dangeroous. I disagree. Dr. Clark was very specific about this, letting people know that they must wrap the copper handholds with paper towelling to prevent harmful copper ions from entering the body. Don Croft even goes to the trouble of saying that the paper towelling will not prevent the copper ions from entering the body, which is also untrue. The proof that they will enter the body is that the paper towelling will eventually turn green. Copper oxide is being trapped in the paper towelling and copper ions are indeed being prevented from entering the body by using the damp paper towelling.
Issue number nine.
This is from Don Croft's site: "Since we now sell more Zappers than anyone else in the market..."
My question is how many zapper makers have turned over their sales records to Don Croft? Raise your hands, please. I certainly haven't, and I don't imagine too many others have, either. Frankly, I have no idea where Don Croft is coming from. He has what I would call a "shoot from the hip" style. Shoot first and ask questions later. I like to ask questions first before pulling the 6-shooter from the holster.
I am in the process of compiling a list and a discussion of many issues I have with Don Croft's website. It has a kind of "I just got out of the saddle, where's the nearest saloon" folksy tone that lacks the kind of analytical approach that I prefer. A difference in style is one thing. Making serious misstatements and vague pronouncements? That's a whole other thing. We're dealing with serious issues on our site and the issues and our readers deserve a serious attitude, in my opinion. Here is another example of what I meam from Don's site: "15 cycles (15,000 Hertz) per second is a 'feel-good' frequency." Sorry, Don, but what the heck does that mean? Can you be a bit more specific.
Issue number ten.
There is a lot of talk about the mobius coil and the natural crystal and the neodymium magnet and the orgone material and the 15 Hertz frequency on the Terminator site. My questions is "Where's the beef?" When all is said and done all that matters are results. People who use the Terminator II and then switch to The Ultimate Zapper email me to let me know there is no comparison. The Ultimate Zapper wins hands down.
One of the main reasons is that 15 Hertz is far too low a frequency to have the broad-spectrum parasite-killing effect that the Ultimate Zapper's 2,500 Hertz produces. I experimented with very low frequency 9 volt prototype zappers in 1996. I used frequencies as low as 5 Hertz. The results of my research showed that there was no comparison between those very low frequencies and 2,500 Hertz. I was experimenting to clean up parasites that lingered after my operation for Crohn's disease. I had already done DMSA chelation. I found the results with the 2,500 Hertz AC adapter prototype were head and shoulders above those I was able to obtain with 9-volt prototypes set to very low frequencies in the range of 5 to 500 Hertz.
Issue number eleven.
Effectiveness is the bottom line with all zappers. I have received a continuous stream of emails over the years about the ineffectiveness of the Terminator II zapper. Here are 3 typical emails about the Terminator II.
I received this email on May 19, 2007:
Dear Ken, I am interested in your zappers as well as in becoming a distributor...
would like to start with 3 to begin with. I have used the croft terminator zapper
with absolutely no benefits at all, and eventually had to return it. Please let
me know of pricing if i purchase three zappers. Thanks and best wishes, Imran R.
I received this email on August 31, 2007:
Hi Ken, I've been suffing from warts and jock itch for almost two years now. I was wondering will your Ultimate zapper help get rid of this? I bought the Terminator II and have been using it for two months and have seen no results. Will your zapper work better and what kind of results should i notice? thanks, Dave
I received this email on March 4, 2007:
Hi Ken, ... Several years ago I bought 6 Terminators from Croft and gave them to patients and friends to try. Feedback was "no noticeable results, no improvement, nada nada...." so l was very disappointed ... Aloha, Allen and Sharie
4. PARAZAPPER: SERIOUS ISSUES
Issue number one.
The name of the maker of the ParaZapper is nowhere to be found on his website and there is no story on his site about how he was inspired to produce the ParaZapper. There is nothing personal on the site at all, in fact. At the bottom of the site pages is the name of a limited liability company. This is the only identifying reference on the ParaZapper site. The whole site has the appearance and feel of a generic site that is entirely lacklustre and gray, like the background color that was chosen for this site. This color gray goes beyond the mere appearance of the site. I discuss this matter below.
Issue number two.
There are 56 links in the margin on the left side of the ParaZapper site. It looks like a very impressive list. But when you start clicking on those links you will find that only 24 of them take you to an information page. The other 32 links on the ParaZapper site take you nowhere when you click on them.
Update on April 10, 2008: ParaZapper has corrected this problem after reading my comments about it on curezone.com.
Every single link on the more than 30 pages of my site is active. And when you click and arrive at an information page on my site you receive solid information based on experience and research. Not so on the ParaZapper site. It reminds me of that old advertising phrase "Where's the beef?" There is no substance at all to the ParaZapper site. It is easy to see that the ParaZapper site is essentially a commercial site made to look like it contains helpful information which it really does not contain.
Issue number three.
When you do find a link to an information page you find very little specific information about the particular ailment that the page is supposed to be talking about. At the end of each information page you find the same paragraph on parasties that is repeated on every information page:
"People around the world are infested with parasites..."
Any specific information on the information pages on the ParaZaqpper site are short and sweet, lacking both serious content and detail. The statements he makes on his information pages are completely lacking in research and specific recommendations, except to use his zapper, unlike the informaiton pages on my website. Let's examine one of these pages. The page on Multiple Sclerosis, a disease I am intimately familiar with, contains barely one paragraph of information, which I quote below:
"If you suffer from Multiple Sclerosis or symptoms of MS then you may have parasites which are causing these problems or increase your succeptability."
This is a load of hogwash, having struggled for 7 years to regain my health after being paralyzed with MS in 1989. There is no proof anywhere to support the statement of a link between parasites and MS. There is not one shred of evidence to support this statement on his site. Dr. Hulda Clark has stated that shigella bacteria are found in the brain of everyone with MS, but she makes no mention about people with MS having parasites that can cause MS or increase one's succeptibility to MS.
The real cause of MS, which I go into in great detail on my site and in my e-books, is toxicity. In the vast majority of cases the toxin is dental mercury. Bacteria that are associated with MS do not cause MS. They are attracted to mercury and diseased tissue. Once dental mercury is safely removed and DMSA chelation is done (you can read all about this on my site) then bacteria have nowhere to hide. Their significance diminishes and zapping can finish them off.
The MS page on the ParaZapper site further states:
"Recent medical evidence shows that many people have significant numbers of parasites living inside of themselves and that these parasites may be causing or aggravating your Multiple Sclerosis."
What medical evidence is he refering to? Where is this medical evidence? He provides not a clue. If there where such evidence one would think that he would be eager to provide it to people, not only to help them, but as proof that the ParaZapper has helped people kill those fictitious parasites and improve their condition. It is a little more than suspect that he provides no proof for these statements and no testimonials to back them up.
When I make specific statements about MS, Crohn's disease, cancer, heart disease and other ailments on my site I always back them up with specific information, citations, links and unsolicited testimonials. People know I have done my research, they know they can count on my personal experience if I am taking about MS or Crohn's, they can examine the testimonials in my archive, they often contact me for further information, and they are spurred on to do their own research and to make further progress. That is the intention of my site. The intention of the ParaZapper site is simply to sell ParaZappers while providing no useful or specific information to prospective customers.
The maker of the ParaZapper caps off the MS paragraph on his site with the following sentence:
"Other frequent symptoms of these parasite infections [that supposedly occur in people with MS] are low resistance to illnesses such as colds and flu, asthma, allergies, colitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, and malaise as well as pains."
This is the same generic statement that appears on every information page on his site. It is very clear that these "filler" statements are added to the ParaZapper's site pages to add to their apparent content while providing nothing substantial in the way of useful information to help people. The ParaZapper site pages, containing scant information, would look very short if these fillers were not there. I do not have filler statements anywhere on my site.
Multiple Sclerosis is one of the most prevalent neurological diseases, and this is all the ParaZapper site has to offer people? They might as well have avoided the subject entirely. It is clear that this site is primarily a commercial venture. It is not designed to provide people with helpful information on specific illnesses and diseases that they might use to improve their health, and give them ideas for their own research.
Issue number four.
The ParaZapper site has only 9 short testimonials on the testimonial page. Three of them are one-liners. The most impressive, according to David Etheredge (ParaZapper) is the one about zapping his pet fish for fish fungus. The length of the testimonial page on the ParaZapper site is the equivalent of one single book page. The testimonial archive on my website is the equivalent of over 200 book pages. It contains over 300 stories from people who have obtained amazing results with The Ultimate Zapper.
Issue number five.
It sounds like the maker of the ParaZapper must be getting a lot of returns because he has a very punitive policy when it comes to returns. All of the information I am providing here comes directly from his site. He gives his customers only 10 days to try out his zapper. That is far to short a period of time for many people. I offer my customers a 3-month trial. Then he charges them $17.50 for each return. I charge $12.95 for cleaning, retesting, restocking and repackaging, as stated on my site. Furthermore, "Used wrist straps can not be resold so there is a $9.00 US restocking charge on units returned with used wrist straps."
But the maker of the ParaZapper goes much further. He penalizes his customers severely for late returns after the 10-day trial period is up. Here is a quote from his site:
"Units...may be subject to a re-stocking charge of 25 % for 11 to 14 days and 60 % for those that exceed 14 days." Wow, that's what I call punitive! He says "Units that are not postmarked by the 11th day..." It sounds like he has a magnifying glass in his office inspecting postmarks every morning. This is not my idea of a very friendly business approach. I would never even consider doing such a thing. I give people 1-month leaway if they would like to return their zapper after the 3-month trial period is over. In addition, the Maker of the ParaZapper charges an additional $3.50 to clean and polish the handholds and an additional $5 to clean and polish the foot pads. As I mention in point #2, above. this is essentially a commercial site and the return policy reflects that strictly commercial approach.
If you buy the ParaZapper with handholds and footpads the total cost is $146.00. If you return the ParaZapper after 3 months you receive $40.90 back in cash. That's 28% of the purchase price. There is a very large penalty waiting in the wings for everyone who purchases the ParaZapper. The penalty amounts to 72% of the purchase price. In effect their return policy forces purchasers to keep their zappers if they are not satisfied with the results. Their policy is designed to eliminate returns. After the purchaser pays for the return postage there is very little money coming back to them.
They call their return policy a "Money Back Guarantee". I think that is a slight exaggeration.
The Ultimate Zapper costs $149.95 with the handholds. The footpads are an additional $29.95. The total cost is $179.90. People who return their Ultimate Zapper after the 3-month trial period receive $166.95 back in cash. That's 93% of the purchase price. There are no extra charges for cleaning and polishing, or anything else.
And I don't watch post marks when people return their zappers. Returns are processed promptly when I receive them. Every return receives the full purchase price back minus the $12.95 service charge mentioned above. The New Improved Ultimate Zapper has only a 2% return rate. The ParaZapper does not publish his return rate.
By the way, the ParaZapper has a limited 3-year warranty. The Ultimate Zapper has a free lifetime warranty.
Issue number 6.
In a comment obviously directed at The Ultimate Zapper (because only I and ParaZapper sell footpads) David Etheredge states on his site "These pads are better quality than others sell." Well, sorry David, but I sell my high quality large, solid copper footpads for $39.95. You sell mini footpads for $46.00.
David Etheredge is in the habit of shooting from the hip without verifying his facts. This makes him far less credible than he would like people to believe. Given all the time that he devotes to posting messages on curezone.com you would think that he would bother to verify his facts before putting his feet in the do-do.
Issue number 7.
David Etheredge of ParaZapper has spent an inordinate amount of time over the past five years posting to the zapper forum at curezone.com in an attempt to improve his sales. He does not bother to verify his facts, belittles others who do not agree with him, makes snide and demeaning comments on a regular basis, practices brow-beating at will, attempts at all times to take the high ground because he is a "professional" and denies that he has any commercial intent. I have posted a long message to the forum recently covering many issues that I have with his comments about health matters, The Ultimate Zapper, and claims and contradictions that he makes concerning the ParaZapper. Here is the link to my curezone posting:
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1040261#i
Over these past few months, in response to inquiries from a few customers who have encouraged me to post to the forum, I have begun to enter the fray. There are many other issues besides those in the above posting that I have raised on the curezone.com zapper forum about David Etheredge and the his ParaZapper. I have also talked about his punitive returns policy, which it appears is designed to intimidate people into not returning their zappers. Why are his stated terms punitive, if not to intimidate? Why is his stated policy not lenient if he claims to be lenient with people when they contact him about returns? I am up front and very flexible with my returns policy. I am one of only two zapper makers in the world (the other is the Auto-Zap zapper) who offers a 3-month trial period, no questions asked when a customer wishes to return their zapper.
My impression of David Etheredge through his comments on curezone.com is that he is a practiced manipulator. He uses the zapper forum to promote his agenda (which is obviously commercial, and which he always denies). He belittles and demeans others who do not agree with him by patronizing and bullying them. It appears that he thinks of the forum as his own personal bully-pulpit. Others see through him very well and many people have posted scathing criticisms of him on the forum. I refer to these criticisms in my recent posting on the forum. David Etheredge loves bashing others but he hates to be bashed. In my opinion he deserves all the criticism that he receives. He invites it. If he expects others to take his comments lying down he had better think twice. David Etheredge does not own the curzone.com zapper forum.
Issue number 8.
ParaZapper is "marketing-dense". While I have been content to maintain 1 site for
the past 13 years David Etheredge has created at least a dozen sites. They all market
the same products. On his "pet-zapper" site he talks about "Stabilized output".
Here's what he has to say about wave stabilization: "All of our zappers have it
but, While some zapper makers claim that this is great, we do not see any significant
gains. It only adds low frequency signal and this is not important
(his emphasis)." I believe this is disingenuous. David Etheredge claims to have
added a stabilized wave to all his zapper models (he offers no visual proof on this
site -- I do for The Ultimate Zapper), having done so only after I talked about
the benefits of wave stabilization on my site. Why in the world would he add a feature
to his zappers that he thought was "not important"? I certainly would not go to
all the trouble and expense of doing such a thing. This makes no sense at all to
me. But there are a lot of things about David Etheredge and his many sites, and
his many pronouncements on Curezone, that make no sense to me. He says I must have
made up all 300 testimonials on my site that my customers sent in. And he vociferously
supports Kevin Trudeau (convicted and jailed for larceny) -- who, not coincidently,
mentioned ParaZapper in one of his books. David Etheredge has never replied to my
criticism of is support for Kevin Trudeau at
http://zap.intergate.ca/root.html
Does David Etheredge have any credibility at all?
5. PARAZAPPER:
ZAPPING HIS PET FISH
Here is David Etheredge's favorite testimonial, according to him. It is the longest
of the 9 testimonials on his ParaZapper site at
http://parazapper.com
It was submitted by David Etheredge himself.
"Possibly the strangest Testimonial ever"
"Since we started zapping and selling zappers about 4 years ago, we have had many
calls and testimonials from a lot of folks about a lot of strange things. Possibly
the strangest may have been my own experience. I have kept tropical fish since I
was about 13 years old and have seen many of them succumb to various illnesses over
the years. I currently have a 40 gallon tank with a number of fish including a school
of Brilliant Rasboras. Recently, we were very busy for a few days and I did not
have the time to thoroughly inspect my fish for a few days. As I sat down next to
the aquarium on a Friday night, I noticed that one of the Rasboras had grown a beard.
Looking closer, I discovered that it was a horrible fungal infection that had taken
over the entire lower jaw. Sadly, there was not much jaw left and I started to dispose
of the poor fellow. Luckily for the little guy, I noticed my zapper on the table
and decided to see if it could help him. I made 2 special copper paddles and suspended
each on opposite sides of a jar filled with water from the tank. The fish was placed
in the jar and zapped a full session and returned to the tank. In the morning, I
noticed that a lot of the fungus was gone and that there was almost no lower jaw
left. I zapped the fish again for 2 more days and most of the fungus was gone. It
is now 4 weeks later and the little fish is still swimming around although he has
extreme difficulty eating and has lost a lot of weight because of this. He now has
a gaping hole for a mouth and you can see clear down his throat but he is learning
a new way to eat and swims with the rest of the school. I did start using an antifungal
medicine in the tank after the 3rd day to keep it from spreading to the other fish.
Beat this one if you can.
David Etheredge (the maker of ParaZapper)"
[Comment from Ken Presner: Yes, beat this one if you can, indeed. There are 300 testimonials on my site. All of them were submitted by satisfied users of The Ultimate Zapper. Sorry, no fish-zapping stories among them.]
6. CUREZONE POSTINGS
Here are the links to five postings to the curezone.com zapper support forum that I made in 2007 and 2008 in response to postings made by David Etheredge a.k.a ParaZapper. Such were the lies and deception in his postings that they prompted me to respond and to lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of the curezone helper who signs off with his commercial name, ParaZapper instead of his real name, David Etheredge, in spite of curzone's stated regulations of zero tolerance for promotion or advertising. He is the only poster to the Zapper Support Forum who refuses to abide by this basic rule which has yet to be enforced in his case. He has been only too willing to point out the rules to me while at the same time willfully ignoring them himself. It need not be stated that hypocrisy is a normal part of day-to-day life on the forum.
Oh, by the way, I'm not the only one to have made these observations about life wtih ParaZapper on the Zapper Support Forum. 'Darkgatherer' made some very accurate observations about ParaZapper in a posting on the forum in February 2006. It looks like nothing has changed in the interim, not surprisingly. I have added the 'Darkgatherer' link here.
Curezone Posting #1 -- Dec. 2007
from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1095357
Curezone Posting #2 -- Jan. 2008
from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1040261
Curezone Posting #3 -- June, 2008
from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1199958Curezone Posting #4 -- June, 2008
from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1204296
Curezone Posting #5 -- July, 2008
from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1207083Curezone Posting #6 -- July 9, 2008
from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1210584Darkgatherer Posting
from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=653103
Here is a testimonial from a customer about my exchanges with David Etheredge a.k.a.
ParaZapper on the curezone.com Zapper Suppport forum.
"Hi Mr. Presner,
Just wanted to let you know that the Ultimate Zapper I ordered arrived here just
fine. I've been using it daily for a week now (started on Friday, January 25). I'm
impressed with the appearance and quality of the unit ... I read the debate you
had at CureZone with the fellow who makes the ParaZapper. The fact that I purchased
YOUR unit, tells you who I thought won the debate. I appreciated your knowledge,
your logic, and how articulate you are."
Ronn G.
Jan. 31, 2008.
CUREZONE POSTING #1
click here
CUREZONE POSTING #2
From: http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1040261
Hello David,
This will be a long message that I hope will answer your questions. It will also
expound on the major concerns I have with your postings and your site. To make it
easier for people to follow the various subjects in question I have grouped my comment
into 9 categories which address many of the subjects we have been discussing recently
on this forum: global concerns, your most recent "cut-and-paste", your website,
misleading health information, testimonials, unfair criticism and false statements
about The Ultimate Zapper, claims by David Etheredge, David Etheredge the altruist,
criticism of David Etheredge and the ParaZapper. Throughout this long posting my
comments will be in red and all other comments in black, for easy dialogue identification.
1. GLOBAL CONCERNS
Ken Presner: You should expect some stiff response when you claim not to have any
commercial motivation on this forum. You only want to help people get information,
according to you. If this is true, why do you never sign off as David Etheredge?
You always sign off as ParaZapper. You want people to see the name ParaZapper and
remember it. The name David Etheridge would not leave the same impression. It would
not leave a commercial impression. You want to leave the impression that you are
just providing information on this forum but it is very clear that you are promoting
your zapper here. I think that the following series of postings by you on this forum,
beginning with a commercial announcement by you, should put an end to deception
on your part, once and for all.
David Etheredge: "Since their beginning in May of 2000, the developers of the ParaZapper
line of products have increased their position in the parasite zapper market, achieving
top brand position in December 2004 according to Overture search results. Prior
to that time, Terminator Zapper had been the leader. I suspect that we are also
very close to number 1 in sales if not already there ... The important point is
that as we have only been on the market for 4 years, we have reached the point of
being the most requested name brand... Sounds like self promotion and free advertisement
... I guess maybe it might to some, but it should be considered a newsworthy change
in the industry otherwise ..." Comment by a forum participant: Not to shock you,
but it really is NOT some sort of "nice change" to see self- promotion on here.
This is for exchange of ideas and information. You'll probably say it is informative
in regard to your zapper, but his is really not the place - as has already been
mentioned.
Ken Presner: You often have a patronizing, know-it-all tone which belies your statement
that you are only here to help people get information (information that you want
them to have, of course). You clearly have an ax to grind. We all do, so let's not
pretend that there is no commercial motivation behind your postings. I make no such
pretense. You compare the ParaZapper with the others to show it in its best light,
just as I do regarding The Ultimate Zapper. It is clear that your intent is to manipulate
people. You make the false assumption that readers cannot read the lines, and between
the lines?
Ken Presner: Nearly every time you respond to my postings, and those longer postings
of others, you conveniently cut and paste the parts you choose to respond to, enabling
you to avoid the issues you don't want to respond to. We see this manipulative tactic
of yours time and again in this forum. While you are selective in your responses
I am comprehensive in my replies. I never cut and paste to avoid any issues. You
use this "cut-and-paste" tactic to try to control the agenda on this forum and to
try to dominate the forum with your opinions, delivered with a tone of authority.
There is no authority in the zapper business and there is no one who speaks with
the voice of authority on this forum. There are only individuals expressing their
opinions and voicing their ideas. We should allow everyone to do so freely. This
forum is not yours to control or dominate but you have been trying mighty hard for
a long time to do so because you devote so much time to it. It is clear that you
are not principally motivated by altruism and that there is a strong commercial
motivation behind the high profile you spend so much time maintaining here.
Ken Presner: Your response "sorry, got no time to answer all your concerns" does
not ring true at all. You have devoted a lot of time over a period of many years,
day in and day out, to be all over this forum, so you obviously do have the time
to answer whatever you wish to answer. You respond only to the questions and comments
you choose to respond to, avoiding the issues you wish to avoid, especially those
that may put you in a bad light. This is part of the art of maintaining a high profile
and a good impression that you carefully cultivate here.
Ken Presner: Perhaps because you have been around here for so many years you assume
that the role of authority falls to you, by default, and that the role of moderator
has become your natural role in this forum. You gave this very strong impression
when you recently declared, "Time for users to weigh in." Why is it time for users
to weigh in? Because you say so? Calling the troops to the front line fell flat
on its face. There was not a single response to your "call to arms". This clearly
shows that those contributing to this forum, possibly to your chagrin, are not as
susceptible to your influence as you might like them to be. Your "call to arms"
backfired resoundingly.
2. YOUR MOST RECENT CUT-AND-PASTE RESPONSE TO MY POSTING
[This is a cut and paste of my words by you from my previous posting.] Ken Presner:
** By inference you are finally admitting here that many of your pages are empty
of content.
David Etheredge: Again, falsely stated. I have stated before that I was legally
forced to remove some claims from a couple of pages on my website. Only a couple
of pages are lacking in the information that I would prefer to be posted.
Ken Presner: Frankly, I find this a sad comment about the level of your knowledge
in the area of health. All of the health-oriented pages on your site are woefully
lacking in health information and have that "cookie-cutter" look, repeating the
same stock phrases on each page while offering no insightful information at all.
That your readers may be satisfied with this level of "information", according to
you, is irrelevant, in my opinion. My object in providing health information on
my site is to provide the most accurate and complete information that I can, not
to provide information that the customer may find helpful "enough". This falls under
the category of pandering, in my opinion. I will comment more on this matter in
the category "your website", below. There are 3 categories to your health-related
pages: those pages that provide survey results and stock phrases, and sometimes
testimonials, creating what I categorize as harmless pages; those pages that provide
only stock phrases and no survey information, also creating harmless pages; and
those pages that provide misleading information, could be potentially harmful. I
will comment on the misleading pages below. The bulk of the "information" on many
of your health-related pages is created by the reporting of your survey results.
By your own admission your survey results are merely anecdotal and do not constitute
proof of effectiveness. Yet you present them as proof of effectiveness. This is
contradictory. The testimonials presented on other sites are merely anecdotal, according
to you, whereas your testimonials are "scientific data" and are proof of effectiveness.
The upshot of all this is that your approach shows both your lack of knowledge and
your desire to project an image as being knowledgeable. This contradiction can only
be resolved by doing some research, putting some real information on those pages
or by taking them down.
[This is a cut and paste of my words by you from my previous posting.]
Ken Presner: >- are not your unpublished testimonials likewise anecdotal?
David Etheredge: I quote from our testimonials page: we feel that testimonials are
not a reliable source of information as they are one-sided. I have never seen a
site that published a negative testimonial, but I can guarantee that they exist,
even for the best products such as penicillin and aspirin.
Ken Presner: Does that mean that the testimonials on your site (and the unpublished
ones referred to on your site) are likewise unreliable?
Ken Presner: Does that mean that there are negative testimonials about the ParaZapper?
If so, why are you hiding them?
Ken Presner: If testimonials are not a reliable source of information why do you
rely on them so heavily on your health-related pages? They are the core of your
"survey" results, but they are merely anecdotal, the same as the testimonials on
other sites are merely anecdotal. You cannot have it both ways, although you try
very hard to do so.
Ken Presner: You have never seen a negative testimonial on a site? I think you can
make that statement about your site with complete accuracy.
Ken Presner: It looks like you have not searched my site closely. There is a noteworthy
negative testimonial on the FAQ page on my site which I discuss at length. I guess
you didn't look closely enough at my site before making this bold declaration. David
Etheredge: Statistical data presents a more accurate view of results, so we present
some of that here following the testimonials.
Ken Presner: On your site, with a bit of alchemy, testimonials are transmuted into
"statistical data" which magically changes them from being anecdotal and unreliable
into being scientific and reliable. You are constantly citing testimonials on your
site as proof of effectiveness. The so-called "statistical data" is merely a compilation
of testimonials which, by your own admission, "are not a reliable source of information".
You are trying to convince readers that, what you admit as an unreliable source
of information is actually reliable because you now call it "data". The testimonials
on your site are qualified to be presented as data, but the testimonials on my site
are not equally qualified. Because they are yours, that's the only difference, which
belies your claim to being solely an information-provider with no commercial or
ulterior motive. We all have a commercial motive. The only difference is that I
admit it and you do not.
[This is a cut and paste of my words by you from my previous posting.]
Ken Presner: >- found that you were making unfair and inaccurate comments about
The Ultimate Zapper and about my site David Etheredge: Please list these claims
here.
Ken Presner: You make a number of unfair and inaccurate comments about The Ultimate
Zapper in this forum. The comments relate to features of The Ultimate Zapper that
include the footpads, clips and AC adapter as well as comments related to testimonials
and "hype". All of these matters are discussed in this posting.
3. YOUR WEBSITE [The following 2 quotation are taken from the health-related pages
on your site.]
"Recent medical evidence shows that many people have significant numbers of parasites
living inside of themselves and that these parasites may be causing or aggravating
your yeast infections. Other frequent symptoms of these parasite infections are
low resistance to illnesses such as colds and flu, asthma, allergies, colitis, chronic
fatigue syndrome, infections such as candida, and malaise as well as pains." "People
around the world are infested with parasites including many from countries previously
thought to be reasonably free of intestinal parasites including the United States.
Recent medical studies indicate that American men live shorter lives of up to 4
years because of parasites. Other medical studies find that the average male carries
up to 2 lbs of parasites inside of his body."
Ken Presner: You tack these 2 paragraphs to page after page of your health pages,
plugging in the required disease or ailment name in the appropriate slot, as though
providing important health information were just a matter of disease-name substitution.
You refer to candida yeast on some of these pages while making no mention at all
that candida is attracted to mercury which is deposited in the tissues by "silver
amalgam" fillings which are 50% mercury. In the overwhelming majority of candida
cases that have been brought to my attention over these past 11 years dental mercury
has been a significant factor in the pathological picture. Without dealing with
the dental mercury issue it is very difficult for people to deal successfully with
the candida problem by zapping alone. You mention nothing at all about this on your
site. You concentrate on zapping alone, to the exclusion of other toxicity factors,
as though zapping will solve all problems for all people. It will not. I am honest
and up front about this all over my site, starting with the front page.
Ken Presner: This is what I mean when I talk about doing real research and providing
really useful health information for people, not just cutting and pasting the names
of ailments and diseases into the same slot all the way down the line, while stating
"people find this information useful and that seems to be good enough for them so
it's good enough for me". This is a very sloppy approach, indeed, for someone who
claims to be professionally trained. I'll have more to say about your site below.
4. MISLEADING HEALTH INFORMATION
Ken Presner: There are a number of pages on your site containing misleading information.
These pages include the MS page, the fibromyalgia page, the IBS and colitis page
and the intestinal parasites page. Your very narrow approach to pathology is shown
by your exclusive concern with parasites and parasite killing, as though killing
parasites were the beginning and the end of the chain of pathology. This is clearly
not the case. The chain of pathology is far more complex than this and Dr. Hulda
Clark who invented the original zapper is among those who talks about this complexity.
She talks about chemical and metal toxins, as I do on my site. Here is a quote from
the front page of my site that explains my approach:
"MY RECOVERY PROTOCOL FOR OVERCOMING ILLNESS"
I was paralyzed by Multiple Sclerosis in 1989. I nearly died from Crohn's disease
in 1994. Both diseases were caused by mercury poisoning from my silver amalgam fillings.
I guarantee you will never feel the same way about the American Dental Association
and about visiting the dentist after reading The Big Dental Lie and The ADA Lies
thru their teeth. Silver amalgams are 50% mercury. Watch this movie of dental mercury
causing brain neuron damage. Mercury leaches into the organs and attracts parasites
and bacteria. My zapper played a vital role at the end of my recovery by killing
parasites and bacteria attracted to mercury in the brain and intestines and by its
electroporation therapy. Today I am fit as a fiddle. I did not recover my health
by accident. My Recovery Protocol explains how to detoxify and rebuild the immune
system. It includes The Ultimate Liver Cleanse, a powerful detoxifier. See The Ultimate
Liver Cleanse page with testimonials, photos and discussion. Many illnesses are
caused by parasites, bacteria and viruses alone. But many are caused by mercury
or other metals or chemicals that act as a magnet for parasites, bacteria and viruses.
In both cases people often get quick results with The Ultimate Zapper. Many people,
including me, have experienced its deep penetration into organs like the bowel that
Dr. Clark says zappers cannot reach."
Ken Presner: I could spend a lot of time expounding on these matters here but I
will leave it to the readers of this forum to take time to look over the 30+ health
oriented pages on my site to discover more. The four specific pages I refer to above
about your site do not take into account the factors of metal and/or chemical toxicity
in pathology. So, they are not only fragmentary, they are also misleading. These
4 pages refer to diseases I am intimately aware of, having been paralyzed with Multiple
Sclerosis in 1989 and having nearly died from Crohn's disease in 1994. When I referred
to MS specifically in an earlier posting you brushed aside my personal experience
with talk of someone you know who claims MS is caused by a virus, yada, yada. I
would never have responded in kind if I had information about a specific disease
on my site that was misleading and this were pointed out to me by a competitor who
obviously knew more about it that I did because of their own personal experience.
I would either update my information or take the page down, and I would certainly
not patron that person in the process. This attitude of yours belies your claim
of wanting to get useful information to the readers of this forum. It is abundantly
clear that if that useful information comes from me it cannot be classified as useful,
according to you.
Ken Presner: More misleading information from some cut-and-paste pages on your site:
"How does ParaZapper work? The following have been suggested and are under investigation.
By killing other parasites living in your body that distract your immune system.
By interfering the entry of viruses into the host cells which allows the immune
system time to catch them. By alerting the immune system to their presence which
allows the immune system to eliminate them quicker."
Ken Presner: This "cut-and-paste" appears on the shingles page and on the cold and
flu page on your site. It is as though killing parasites alone will take care of
the immune system, according to you. Nothing could be further from the truth if
dental mercury is in the picture, which is the case with about 80% of the adult
population in the U.S.A. and many other countries. Dental mercury suppresses the
immune system, even after the removal of "silver amalgam" fillings and going through
the process of DMSA chelation, which brings the body burden of mercury to very low
levels. There is a way to rejuvenate the immune system which I talk about in My
Recovery Protocol at http://zap.intergate.ca/recovery.html My own immune system,
with lab tests as proof, strengthened by over 50% in just over a year after using
2 natural therapies.
Ken Presner: Here is more misleading information, from the candida page on your
site: "If you want to successfully kill candida, you need a zapper that produces
a lower frequency such as 2500 Hz. Also, the zapper should use a CMOS 555 timer
as this will produce the strongest output with least battery drain. Additionally,
the best results are obtained when using copper tube hand paddles and copper plate
footpads."
Ken Presner: This paragraph begins with the words "if you want to". You are thus
assuming that the zapper will kill candida. You build this assumption into the way
you construction this sentence. You are thus making a strong medical claim that
I place in the "know-it-all" category and is obviously misleading for the reasons
stated above, the link with dental mercury being completely ignored by you. This
sentence serves a clear commercial purpose but you do not provide any proof in the
least for its veracity. This is another in a long series of "sloppy non-science"
that appears on your site. You point a finger at my site and talk about claims that
I supposedly make while at the same time refusing to look in the mirror. You live
in a glass house. You should not be throwing stones unless you are willing to accept
the consequences.
Ken Presner: The quotation, below, is from a posting on this forum where the reader
caught you contradicting yourself, once again: Forum poster: >- How is it "effective
against intestinal candida", when you yourself said zappers have a very hard time
getting into the intestine?
ParaZapper: ParaZapper CCa with copper paddles and copper footpads was excellent
against intestinal candida mostly because the CCa was tuned to maximize the output
to the body when using footpads and paddles together. Also, that combination put
the signal effectively throughout the body rather than arm to arm or point to arm.
Ken Presner: You don't answer the question at all. You simply side step the contradiction.
And there is no mention of dental mercury here, or anywhere else on your site.
[The following quotation is cut and pasted from a previous posting on this forum]
Forum poster: >- What do you think is the best zapper devise i should get for a
diabetic person like me? If I were diabetic, I would probably choose the ParaZapper
CCa with copper paddles and footpads. The CCa is designed to provide the power needed
for these accessories and the combination provides a better signal to the abdominal
area than any other zapper. The Pancreas is located in this area and is responsible
for the regulation of sugar in the body. Do not expect the zapper or any other device
to cure your diabetes. These devices can help you on the road to recovery but eating
and drinking the right things and cleansing your system of the things that cause
your problems is the ultimate goal.
Ken Presner: This information about diabetes is clearly false. My father died from
the complications of Type II diabetes and my brother died from the complications
of Type I diabetes. I lived with diabetics all my life and I have done some research
on the subject. May I say, with all due respect, that you appear to know very little
about the complex diseases (Type I and Type II) called diabetes, as well as Multiple
Sclerosis, intestinal diseases and other serious illnesses. The information you
provide is misleading and could possibly be harmful. That zapping can help at all
with any serious aspect or complication of diabetes is totally misleading and irresponsible.
My unsolicited advice to you is to take those pages down and refrain from talking
about subjects you know little or nothing about. In addition, zapping may be able
to help with some factors associated with MS and Crohn's disease, as I point out
on my site, but not in the way you present it. No wonder why the FDA has been after
you. You leave yourself wide open to legal action in talking about serious illness
in the wishy-washy, casual and unscientific way that you do. Anyone who listens
to your health advice should be very, very careful.
5. TESTIMONIALS
Ken Presner: The testimonial page on my site offers over 100 testimonials [now over
300 -- June, 2009] that cover 14 different categories and dozens of diseases and
illnesses. The best you have to offer is 9 testimonials on your testimonial page,
3 of which are one-liners. You claim to have 100's of testimonials in a hidden archive
and that the FDA is preventing you from publishing them. Yet you do publish 9 testimonials
on your testimonial page. If the FDA is preventing you from publishing testimonials
then why do you publish 9 testimonials? If you are acting in defiance of the FDA
are these the most impressive testimonials you have with which to defy them, with
the most impressive testimonial, in your opinion, being the testimonial about fish
fungus? Are you really acting in defiance of the FDA or is your statement about
being restricted by the FDA less than truthful?
Ken Presner: Here is a compendium of quotations from your site showing clearly the
process of alchemy where testimonials become "interesting data" and "statistical
data". What I find really interesting is how the testimonials on my site are anecdotal
and unreliable, according to you, whereas yours are transmuted into "interesting
data" and "statistical data", by virtue of their being on your site and being compiled.
You claim only to be providing objective information for forum readers here. You
claim to have no commercial interest and that you do not sell zappers. And, up until
very recently, you have been eliciting support from readers of your site in the
battle to be able to sell and promote zappers freely.
Parazapper: The best testimonial we can provide is the following. Many of our customers
after getting great results from out ParaZappers call back and order additional
ParaZappers for the rest of their family and for their friends! Nearly 50% of our
customers buy from us because they have seen the results that a friend or a relative
has had from using ParaZapper.
Ken Presner: What customers? How can you have customers if you don't sell zappers?
The obviously contradictory nature of your comments is clear from the quotations,
below. You want to have it both ways so you sit on whichever side of the fence is
convenient for you to sit on when you pontificate.
ParaZapper: "We feel that testimonials are not a reliable source of information
as they are one-sided."
Ken Presner: The above statement is clearly contradicted by the following statements
that you make on your site: "I can only tell you what customers who have responded
to our surveys have told us." "True, not a blind study but definitely interesting
data." "Hope that this helps." "This and other statistical data is reported on our
website. No other zapper manufacturer, Rife manufacturer, or Beck manufacturer collects
and reports data in this manner."
Ken Presner: The latter statement is true. I present unsolicited testimonials from
customers in their raw form so that people can judge for themselves. This makes
them even more credible and powerful, in my opinion. These testimonials are categorized
and indexed in the archive so that people can find the relevant information easily.
I do not solicit information through surveys and I do not compile statistics. The
fact that you do so belies your claim of having no commercial interest. The "data"
you provide is clearly self-serving and promotional.
ParaZapper: If you want to see more info about our data, see http://www.paradevices.com/?mv_pc=curezone&zsubj=testimony"_ParaZapper
Testimonials
Ken Presner: The above link does not exist.
ParaZapper: Even the worst products in existance [sic] can find some good testimonials
to publish.
Ken Presner: The above statement is clearly self-serving and is a negative catch-all.
It is not a statement designed to provide information for the sake of information,
as you claim to be doing on this forum. It is essentially manipulative. It does
not address why there are so many positive testimonials for The Ultimate Zapper,
for example. It addresses the issue by using a negative, which can never be proven.
It is a manipulative use of debate tactics.
Ken Presner: The following is an exchange between you and a forum poster that points
out your lack of scientific approach. You point a finger at my site and its lack
of scientific proof, while at the same time being totally incapable of providing
any scientific proof yourself on your own site. All data concerning all zappers,
including The Ultimate Zapper and the ParaZapper, is empirical. There is no data
regarding any zapper that meets scientific standards.
Forum poster: >- showing the wave form as evidence of greater effectiveness is meaningless
without any real hard data that shows that a particular wave will be that much more
effective
ParaZapper: As I stated before, the data is there if you took the time to look.
We post actual percentage of improvement data reported by customers. There is a
difference and it dioes {sic] corrospond [sic] to the quality of the signal that
the customer receives.
Ken Presner: I am not the only one to have caught you in your web of contradictions
on this forum. The following exchange from this forum is between you and a forum
poster: Forum Poster: "In one breath you say "we feel that testimonials are not
a reliable source of information as they are one-sided. I have never seen a site
that published a negative testimonial, but I can guarantee that they exist, even
for the best products such as penicillin and aspirin."... in the next you say "We
tell them what other customers tell us about what does work and what does not work
when it comest [sic] to zapping."
ParaZapper: "The CCa is only available from ParaZapper and it produces a distintively
noticable difference in results according to our users"
Forum Poster: This information is not according to any independent studies but "according
to our users" even though you just stated that testimonials are unreliable. Now,
either you don't except testimonials as reliable or you base your statements on
them, which is it? I think the hypocrisy is yours alone.
Ken Presner: I could not have stated this more clearly myself. The forum posting,
above, gets to the crux of the entire matter.
Ken Presner: Below, is another exchange between David Etheredge and a forum poster
who has caught David Etheredge in yet another contradiction.
Forum Poster: >- How is the zapper supposed to kill intestinal parasites, such as
f. buskii, if it cannot penetrate the gut? The standard 30 kHz frequency does not
penetrate to the gut very well but it does some, especially when the copper paddles
and footpads are used together. The 2.5 kHz frequency does penetrate better and
is also aided by using the copper paddles and copper footpads together. The combination
forces the signal to pass through the gut rather than just from arm to arm across
the top of the chest.
Ken Presner: Below is an exchange from this forum between judyflorida and David
Etheredge (ParaZapper) who uses the term "rigorous testing" when referring to testimonials
in order to try to elevate their status, once again:
ParaZapper: Hi judyflorida! There are, of course, no guarantees except a money back guarantee but of those who use ParaZapper CCa with copper paddles and footpads, 80 percent report positive improvement ( better than 30 percent improvement ). 50 % report better than 50 % improvement in 2 to 6 months. Please note that these results are for arthritis in general and not all arthritis problems are parasite related.
judyflorida: >- maybe zapperplans feels that handholds work good enough for anybody
ParaZapper: That might be, but it is awful arrogant to make such assumptions, especially
without rigorous testing. That is why I survey our customers, because it is their
opinion that really counts.
[Ken Presner: That's a bit much, calling this poster arrogant because she expresses
an opinion different from yours, David]
[Ken Presner: What's wrong with judyflorida's opinion? Does it deserve to be slapped
aside in the offhanded manner with which you do so? Not in my opinion. Your comment
shows your lack of respect for this poster. Even if you do not agree with her that
does not give you the right to demean her and to assume the "voice of authority"
in the manner you so often do on this forum. Your tone and your attitude are unacceptable,
in my opinion, and you should be prepared to hear some stiff opposition to it, which
you have called bashing, in the past, and which you indulge in gratuitously and
freely yourself whenever you so choose, as readers of this forum who follow your
postings can readily observe.]
6. UNFAIR CRITICISM AND FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE ULTIMATE ZAPPER
Ken Presner: "... you were making unfair and inaccurate comments about The Ultimate
Zapper and about my site ..."
David Etheredge: Please list these claims here. Ken Presner: There are a number
specific issues I will discuss, below, in this regard. They are in addition to the
issues of the patronizing tone that David Etheredege regularly indulges in on this
forum, and his hypocrisy concerning the matter of testimonials which I have already
devoted much time to in this posting.
a) David Etheredge repeatedly bashes the use of testimonials on my site yet he uses
his own testimonials freely as proof of effectiveness on his own site. He is a hypocrite.
He should look in his own mirror.
b) As I have already stated, we have compared to the standard Clark zapper. As for
Ken Pressner's ultimate zapper [That should read Ken Presner's Ultimate Zapper,
I always get the spelling of David Etheredge's name correct and I always spell the
name of the ParaZapper correctly] ( which I tried with a 9v battery ) I have not
complained about it. [This statement is clearly false as we can read, below.]
c) David Etheredge (ParaZapper): "As far as I can see, I have only disparaged one
zapper product the ZP]." [This statement is clearly false as we can read, below.]
d) David Etheredge (ParaZapper): Unfortunately, Ken has not figuered [sic] out the
right way to use the footpads."
Ken Presner: David Etheredge (Mr. Authority) not only makes an inaccurate statement
here (I have given the answer to this at length in a precious posting) he somehow
needs to make his statement with a patronizing tone, which is so often observable
on this forum. This belies his statements that his role is only that of an information
provider on this forum. It appears clear that he considers this forum his bully-pulpit.
e) Ken Presner: Below is another statement showing David Etheredge's inability to
state a point without adding a patronizing tone.
David Etheredge: >- these clips are just pathetic. For that reason, ParaZapper products
have soldered connections. No corrosion, no connectors slipping off, better electrical
properties.
Ken Presner: The fact is that The Ultimate Zapper's clips are solid copper.
f) Ken Presner: Here is another cheap shot from David Etheredge, below:
David Etheredge: ">- footpads came in (could have got those at Home Depot) Just
curious, how much do they charge for those cheaply made footpads? Are they pure
C11000 copper or an alloy? Are they a solid 0.032 thickness or thin stuff?
Ken Presner: The footpads that are shipped with The Ultimate Zapper are the highest
quality solid footpads made from pure copper.
g) Ken Presner: >- Anyone truly concerned about the health of people would not engage
in taking shots at others in order to sell a product.
David Etheredge: I agree, but I have only take shots at one product that I consider
to be seriously inferior and it is strictly due to the CMOS chip that they use in
their product.
Ken Presner: This statement is clearly false, as you can read in the exchanges,
above. David Etheredge never admits fault. The "Voice of Authority" from the bully-pulpit
is omnipresent on this forum.
h) Ken Presner: Here is my original reply on this forum to David Etheredge regarding
his disparaging comments about The Ultimate Zapper:
Hello, I have just become aware of your posting. The fact is that what works for one person does not necessarily work for all. I am keenly aware of this fact having been selling my zapper for 11 years [now over 13 years]. My return rate is less than 2%. If people were not getting satisfactory results that rate would be much higher. The often astounding testimonials on my site tell the same tale. Yes, I am very aware that there are many different configurations that one can use to get good results with my zapper. I always suggest that people experiment to see what works best for them. The particular configuration you mention may indeed work well for some people. I actually figured that out all by myself a while back but I don't often get involved in posting to curezone. This is only the second time that I have done so, once again at the specific request of a customer. I have put the finishing touches to a second diagram that will be uploaded to my site at the end of the month. I suggest you choose your words a bit more carefully and show a bit more respect when you post regarding me and my site in future. The "pathetic" clips you are referring to are now stainless steel clips [they are now solid copper, recently upgraded]. With all due respect you have no idea what are you talking about when you refer to my footpads. You should be careful when you talk about my footpads being "cheaply made footpads". The footpads are solid, rigid copper plates and come directly from my supplier. They are the most expensive component of the zapper package that I ship. They cost $12.45 each and because of the extra weight they are actually shipped below cost. They are shipped at the same price as a simple zapper without footpads. In fact, every order I ship is shipped below cost so that I can keep prices affordable for the customer. So the next time you post about me and my site I suggest a different, more respectful tone would be more appropriate. Have a close look at my site. If you read between the lines it will give you a very good idea who you are dealing with when you choose to make inaccurate or disparaging comments about my zapper. You may be aware that I have 2 long pages on my site devoted to The Competition. I discuss 5 issues with your zapper and your website at
http://zap.intergate.ca/competition.htm
Two very obvious problems with your zapper and your site are:
1. You write absolute nonsense about Multiple Sclerosis.
2. You have a VERY punitive returns policy.
Sincerely, Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
i)David Etheredge: There is not any other zapper out there with CCa technology built
in, so they may produce a similar but not identical output. There is not any other
zapper out there that offers augmentation footpads, and no other zapper provides
a thorough users manual. These make a definite difference.
David Etheredge: Sadly, ParaZapper is the only zapper that offers the augmentation
footpads. While we have suggested this to other manufacturers, they have not offered
these so far.
Ken Presner: Sadly, these statement are completely false. The Ultimate Zapper offers
solid copper footpads and has done so for years. It also comes with a free user's
manual that is also available online.
David Etheredge: Also, the stronger the model they used, the better the results.
Ken Presner: Which, according to David Etheredge's own criteria, means that The
Ultimate Zapper with footpads produces the best results of any zapper on the market
because it is, by far, the strongest zapper available.
7. CLAIMS BY DAVID ETHEREDGE
Ken Presner: The ParaZapper is the only zapper I know of whose maker claims that
the user's manual is an important zapper feature. I would never even think of making
such a ridiculous statement. A user's manual in no way can be considered a feature
of an electronic device. It is an aid to its use. The features of a device are those
built into the electronic circuitry.
Ken Presner: Below, is an exchange between a forum poster and David Etheredge regarding
the user's manual:
Forum poster: >- You always say that the parazapper is not the average zapper and
I was interested to find out what made it better and I have seen absolutely nothing
in the specs.
David Etheredge: The specifications are there, you just chose to ignore them to
make your point [Ken Presner: David Etheredge's patronizing tone rears its head,
once again]. You obviously missed the greatest specification: A real users manual.
This is the main reason why our customers report better success. We tell them what
other customers tell us about what does work and what does not work when it comest
[sic] to zapping.
Ken Presner: The Ultimate Zapper has 11 electronic features that make it the most
effective zapper available. The user's manual is not included in those features,
let alone even considered its "greatest specification". If the user's manual is
the "greatest specification" of the ParaZapper this obviously begs the question
about the relatively lesser importance of its other features.
Ken Presner: To compound this state of affairs David Etheredge states "The second
most important specification that you missed is actual published data giving the
customer a fair and reasonable expectation are to what kind of results that they
can achieve." A user's manual is a specification? Published data is a specification?
These statements come from David Etheredge who claims to be a qualified engineer
yet apparently does not even know the meaning of the word specification. David Etheredge:
Also, according to users, the Augmentation footpads almost double the effectiveness
of the zapper. ParaZapper is the only zapper company that currently offers these.
This is despite the fact that I have called and personally talked to several of
our competitors about this. They are not interested because the cost too much and
are not profitable.
Ken Presner: Does David Etheredge think if he repeats this false statement often
enough that people will believe him? The Ultimate Zapper has been offering footpads
for years. I have never received a call from Mr. Etheredge.
Ken Presner: Here is the excellent rebuttal of David Etheredge by this forum poster
who catches David Etheredge in yet another contradiction: Its really ridiculous
to claim that I haven't read all your material just because you don't like the conclusions
that I reached from reading it (so every time you are about to write that I missed
something, please refer to this sentence ... I haven't missed a page on your site,
my conclusions are just not the ones you would like me to draw). I know the site
inside and out because I always read your statements and wanted to learn about the
parazapper and it seems I have learned quite enough to know that it is nothing special.
Now lets discuss this "innovative technology" lol ... From the parazapper site "The
CCa has an internal device that senses the current flowing out to the body and if
it is not sufficient, the circuit adapts to increase the current until the correct
level is reached (if possible )." Followed directly by "Also, because it can deliver
a stronger signal, it has a control for you to adjust if it gets too strong." Why
would one need to adjust the current if the device is able to adjust to apply "correct
level" automatically? It should not be needed because it couldn't get too strong
if it is sensing the amount of current and applying it exactly. If a zapper outputs
the correct current in the first place then this is a pretty meaningless feature
and in the contradicting statements just noted it makes one wonder if it even works
as advertised. This is not a advanced technological advance it is a smoke and mirrors
technique to attempt to make the zapper standout in the croud, kind of like Crofts
use of pennies for electrodes. Lets get get to the next technological advancement
... footpads may be more effective but that is still not a reason to buy the parazapper,
as footpads can be connected to ANY GOOD ZAPPER, can they not? Since they can be
connected to any good zapper and bought for a few bucks at any hardware store, they
are not a reason to claim that the parazapper is better zappers because you offer
them as an accessory. That's like saying one ipod is better then the other mp3 players
because it has headphones, when one can easily connect them to any mp3 player. So
the headphones are not a reason to buy an ipod. They are an accessory not a part
of an advanced device. Let me inform you that copper pads made in the shape of feet
are not a "technological advancement" LOL ... it is another smoke attempt to make
it seem as though it is vastly different when the truth is it is not. Footpads are
just another means of applying the output to the body. What if I came out with a
zapper that had an entire copper suit that one could wear, would that be a technological
advancement because it is able to apply the signal to more areas of the body? If
you are just attempting to apply the signal to as much of the body as we can then
my copper suit would be far better then footpads lol. But in no way would my patented
copper zapping suit be a technological advancement or make the zapper more then
the average zapper any more then footpads. Nothing mentioned on the parazapper site
or in your response qualifies (in the mind or any sane person) as a "major innovation."
A major innovation would be to truly discover the mechanism at work in effecting
the bodies when zapping is concerned and finding another method (other then electrical
current) to apply a treatment with a near 100% success rate. That would be a major
innovation. But there is still a debate about what the mechanism for healing is
and there is no conclusive proof as to which side of the debate is correct.
Ken Presner: Here is a succinct comment on the user's manual by this same forum
poster: If your only selling point is the better instruction manual then that is
a sad statement to make ... there are many free, thorough, and comprehensive zapping
articles on the net which require no purchase from a ill person who needs there
money for other ...
Ken Presner: Here is a stinging criticism of David Etheredge and his ParaZapper
from this same forum poster: You said "I am seeking to protect the person who needs
a good zapper from ignorance." The only ignorance you are protecting people from
is the ignorance of where provide there credit card numbers to purchase the parazapper.
Because that is the only product you provided such valuable info on. You say that
you have tried a "dozen other zappers" as well ... wow that's an amazing coincidence
that you just happen to work for the company of the best zapper you've ever tried.
That is the definition of bias, is it not? Those who have only used one zapper may
be limited in their scope but at least their experiences are not blatantly motivated
by anything other then caring for others. As for the $10 zapper, the chip may be
inferior but if people who have used it are satisfied with the results they have
received, then who are you to downplay their testimonials in favor of your own biased
counter testimonial? I said "Any other zapper that is mentioned on this forum is
the specific pages where this claim is made."
Ken Presner: Here is another pointed criticism of David Etheredge by this same forum
poster in reply to another disparaging comment about The Ultimate Zapper made by
David Etheredge in his inimical backhanded style: A few sentence before this you
said "As for Ken Pressner's ultimate zapper ( which I tried with a 9v battery )
I have not complained about it. I do not like it plugged into the wall though."
In the same sentence as saying you have not complained about it you come out and
complain about it. A properly engineered product that is plugged into the wall has
not been shown to be more dangerous or ineffective then using a 9 volt battery but
you have to take every opportunity to take shots at any other products in order
to make the parazapper appear superior.
Ken Presner: This same forum poster challenges David Etheredge once again: You said
"There is not any other zapper out there with CCa technology built in, so they may
produce a similar but not identical output." No two zappers, even built by the same
company, are going to produce the exact same output just because of the variations
in individual parts so "similar" is about as close as one can get. You said "Even
our shoebox zapper produces better results than the standard Clark zapper." According
to whom? I have not seen any competent independent lab studies showing this to be
the case.
Ken Presner: This same forum poster exposes the flawed logic that David Etheredge
often indulges in on this forum: You said "If our customers were dissatisfied, you
would be hearing from a lot of them here. You do not!" I have also never seen any
customers praising your products either, so that is blatantly false/ flawed argument.
Ken Presner: This same forum poster points out an important false claim made by
David Etheredge for his ParaZapper: You said "Based on the same circuit but with
definite improvements. First, the chip that we use is far better. You in no way
provide any info on how this chip is better in terms of its effect on a patient.
You can not be so certain of its superiority as there is still the debate about
what the mechanism is that is causing the positive effects on user's health. You
said "First, Dr. Clark does not have the time or you would see her here providing
information." Yes this is true, she would be giving info on her protocols not attempting
to steer people toward a zapper manufactured for her profit. In fact as far as I
know she does not have a line of zappers that she profits from. You said "From what
I have seen, you definitly have presented a biased hypocritical viewpoint."
Ken Presner: This same forum poster exposes David Etheredge's use of manipulation,
his bullying approach and his obvious commercial intent: LoL, how to you ever call
anyone biased...you have some nerve don't you. I have no interests in the use or
lack in of any product (so that rules out bias) and my statements have in no way
been hypocritical (as I never objected to having business, just to disgusting methods
of bias profiteers like yourself) but yours on the other hand have been clearly
shown to be so. You said "I do not know what your problem is but I work 12 to 16
hours a day 6 to 7 days a week looking for improvements and trying to help people
get better. I do know one thing though. You have not tried the ParaZapper CCa because
if you had, you would not have written this."
Ken Presner: Once again, this same forum poster hits the nail on the head: Well
if you are spending that much time trying to find improvements then it truly has
not been a very fruitful search because their have not been any major improvements
as I've said. Are you saying that no one who has used a parazapper product has sent
it back or been dissatisfied with the results? You said earlier that there were
negative testimonials. So I think those people, having used it would agree with
what I wrote. So to say that no one who ever used the product would ever write anything
critical is an absolute fallacy. I was opened to using the parazapper when I first
came on this site but after seeing your sleazy methods and your blatantly unsupported
statements, I wouldn't spend one cent the parazapper products and think they should
be ashamed of the way there product is being marketed. The parazapper may be a good
zapper (though I see nothing that makes it superior to the crowd) but the form of
ambulance chasing that you engage in on this site reflects very poorly on the company
and its product. If I were your employer you would be out on your ass and no longer
be a "salaried employee." I had to write this because it sickens me to see people
who are sick and frightened, looking for help having to deal with people with vested
interests.
Ken Presner: More false logic from David Etheredge:
David Etheredge: It is my opinion that if a person were to buy a zapper for this
particular problem, they should use a lower frequency zapper and that they should
use augmentation footpads as they can produce additional benefit. Whether or not
they buy from us is mute [Ken Presner: He means "moot", not mute.] because at this
time we are not selling zappers. I still have not seen any proof that anything else
will produce better results. As I have said repeatedly, show me the data.
Ken Presner: All proof for all zappers is empirical. Data is not proof. It is just
a collection of statistics that comes from testimonials that are, according to David
Etheredge, unreliable, unless the data is collected according to scientific principles,
which is not the case for the data collected by David Etheredge. He has, once again,
put his foot in his mouth. He would like to have it both ways, but this is not possible.
8. DAVID ETHEREDGE THE ALTRUIST
Ken Presner: David Etheredge as "the helper". His comments need no comment from
me. They speak for themselves, in my opinion:
David Etheredge: I would be negligent if I just let them rule the day and not speak
out. It is important for potential users to know that there are alternatives and
that it makes a difference. The truth is most of the people on this forum already
have zappers so the information that I post here does not produce many sales anyhow.
I am seeking to protect the person who needs a good zapper from ignorance.
9. CRITICISM OF DAVID ETHEREDGE AND THE PARAZAPPER
Ken Presner: Here are excellent comments critical of David Etheredge and his ParaZapper
from an insightful forum poster:
a) Parazapper, Anyone truly concerened about the health of people would not engage
in taking shots at others in order to sell a product. Attempting to always belittle
every other zapper that is even brought up in discussion is a sad statement. I think
its great when a user of a product says "hey this worked for me" but to actually
have someone with a financial interest in the sale of the product to be attempting
to promote their product to sick people is just the same as what the drug companies
do, with doctors as their agents usually. You always say that the parazapper is
not the average zapper and I was interested to find out what made it better and
I have seen absolutely nothing in the specs. that make it anything more then the
average zapper. It has a little more current then some but less then others...the
frequencies that they use are widely available among other zappers. In fact there
is absolutely nothing that is innovative about the parazapper products except the
hype. There are many excellent zappers that have made their reputation based on
effectiveness and not on a sleazy sales pitch. If your zapper can stand on its own
reputation then let it do so and don't push its use in every question asked by anyone
about anything.
b) Any other zapper that is mentioned on this forum is immediately attacked by Parazapper
as being inferior when many of these products produce the identical output. THERE
IS NOTHING IN THE DESIGN OF THE PARAZAPPER THAT PUTS IT ANYWHERE ABOVE THE ORIGINAL
CLARK ZAPPER BUILT IN A SHOEBOX! It is based on the same circuit...in fact there
haven't been any significant advances in the zapper since the original design was
published. So whether you use the original design or one of the many based on it
it really doesn't make much of a difference, none of them are far superior as some
would claim.
c) Parazapper lurks in here and jumps on anyone who asks a question about their
serious health issue in order to pounce on them and give them his sales pitch.
d) There are people with serious health problems who come here for the objective
help of others, not a sales pitch. Someone needed to finally say what so many are
thinking in this forum.
e) Ok now let me respond to the half truths and outright lies... At no point did
I ever say it was wrong to run a business and make a profit, what I was criticizing
was your overall sleazy method of attempting to lead sick people to your product
in a forum where they should be able to get many opinions and not one that is clearly
biased and suspect in the opinion of many on these forums.
Ken Presner: This sums up how I feel about David Etheredge and his postings on this
forum. I also feel that there is nothing special about his ParaZapper whereas it
is clear that The Ultimate Zapper's features do make it a very special and unique
zapper.
(posted February, 2008)
CUREZONE POSTING # 3
From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1199958
Hello David,
Because I am very busy working on projects and don't check in on this forum much
anymore I will respond here to only one part of your lengthy response
(to my long posting at htttp://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1095357 ):
You state, above:
"Yes, you went to my site once, found a few pages down and was happy to post that
for years without ever going back and checking. This in addition to above is proof
enough that you falsify and distort the information to promote your product. Based
on that, how can anyone trust your testimonials? How does anyone know that you did
not write every single one of them?"
That's an absolute crock of shit. You're a bald-faced liar. When I posted this on
my site you let me know the links were back, I checked, found you were right, and
quickly made the correction on my site. That is a fact.
I falsify nothing at all on my site. The report about Dr. Loyd is absolutely true
as presented to me By Dr. S., word for word. If you don't like how I present the
facts that's your problem. But don't you ever call me a liar. If you do you'll hear
from me.
The fact is that you are trying to sow doubt in people's minds about the veracity
of the testimonials on my site, inferring the testimonials on my site have been
created by me. Your inference is a total lie. The testimonials are cut and pasted
from the emails I receive from customers. I state that on my site. This is not only
an insult to me it is an insult to those my zapper has helped. You talk about ME
"falsifying and distorting". You've got a goddamn nerve you manipulative bastard.
The fact that the testimonials tell a story of the great success people have obtained
by using The Ultimate Zapper probably does not go down very well with you. I can
understand that. Because that's the bottom line, the amazing results people are
getting with The Ultimate Zapper. You don't like to hear the truth, too bad for
you. But you had better watch what you say about me, my site, my work and my zapper,
and my customers. I have worked too hard and too long to let someone like you get
away with lying about me. You can dominate this forum all you want and lie about
me and my customers all you want. But when I check in and catch you lying you'll
hear from me, I promise you.
Sincerely,
Ken Presner
(posted June, 2008)
CUREZONE POSTING #4
From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1204296
[this is the second posting link, the first one is no longer available due to curezone censorship]
This posting was made to curezone on June 29, 2008. The censored posting was made a few days earlier.
Hi David,
Please note that I have numbered our respective responses, below, so that everyone can follow this string more easily.
Ken Presner comment 1: I do not know how long the links were down. I checked your site and many of them were not there. I counted them and published this information. You denied that links were ever down on your site, which was not true. Now you admit that they were. When this matter came up and it was brought to my attention that the links were back up I made the change quickly as I always do when errors are pointed out to me.
David Etheredge comment 1: A few of the links were down for a few hours when they were first beiong installed. There have also been times when the internet has been slowed to a crawl due to "denial of service" attacks against other sites which makes some sites come up as missing for periods of time ( a few hours). The point is that either due to your lack of knowlege about the internet
Ken Presner comment 2: I have had my site for the past 12 years [now 13 years] and I think that forum readers can fairly assume that I know at least one or 2 things about the Internet by now, even if you don't.
David Etheredge comment 1: or just plain willingness to do so, you did not bother to check back for many months.
Ken Presner comment 2: That's not true. It may have been a few weeks, at most. My list of priorities dictates my schedule. In any case my apologies for the delay. The point is that once I recognized that the links were back up I made the change immediately on my site and I acknowledged that the links were back up. But that is now a moot point. Please read below.
Ken Presner comment 2: I note that you have now removed all references to MS on your Multiple Sclerosis page after I pointed out a few things about MS in an earlier posting on this forum. Forum readers may remember that I actually had MS and Crohn's disease and recovered from both of these "incurable diseases". I have clicked through a few of the "health" pages on your site today and they are just carbon copies of your front page. In effect you have no health links and no health information on your site at all anymore although your margin makes it appear that you do, unlike the links on the margin on my site. Each link on my site leads to a unique page with specific information that refers to the name of that. Your site may now have links in place, lots of links, but they are "empty" links and this is highly misleading. Why don't you remove the "empty" links from your margin? There are over 30 "health" links on my site and there is not one "empty" link or "carbon copy" link on my site.
David Etheredge comment 1: Also, each page that does come up has a contact e-mail that you did not bother with either.
Ken Presner comment 2: What was I supposed to "bother with"? What is this supposed to mean? Do you expect me to email you every time I find something wrong with your site?
David Etheredge comment 1: I have a service that monitors my sites
Ken Presner comment 2: So do I, incidentally.
David Etheredge comment 1: and there have not been any pages missing for any length
of time (more than a few hours).
Ken Presner comment 2: This may be true. I have no way of knowing since I don't monitor your site on a regular basis. I think we can put this one to rest. We're flogging a dead horse. What I do know is that your site appears to be a corporate site with no information except for ordering information. The so-called links on your site are carbon copies of your front page. That is clear for all to see.
David Etheredge [comment from the previous string that you left out so that it makes it difficult to understand the context my comment]: "ParaZapper: On top of that you obviously chose an unreliable source for your information,"
Ken Presner comment 2: I did not choose the source. That is clearly an inaccurate statement. Dr. Mondo S. volunteered the information to me in an unsolicited email. I did not choose him, he chose to email me. How do you know he is unreliable? That is what you are inferring here. Did you contact him? If so, what did he have to say? Did he deny the content of his report to me? Did he say I was lying?
David Etheredge comment 1: Once you were notified of the error, did you bother to contact Dr. Lloyd and get the correct information?
Ken Presner comment 2: What error? Dr. Loyd has never contacted me to report an
error. It is you who were objecting to the content of the report. I was simply reporting
what Dr. Mondo S. related from Dr. Loyd. That is very clearly stated on my site.
That's not an error, it's a report from Dr. Mondo S.
David Etheredge comment 1: Before I post anything written by someone else (Dr. Thiel,
and Wayne Green, for example) I check it out, verify that the information is correct,
and get permission to post.
Ken Presner comment 2: Trying to take the high moral ground on this forum will clearly be a losing game for you. When you say "I check it out" this is not a true statement at all. Did you contact me about the correctness of the information in the testimonial archive on my site before you made the allegation that the testimonials are untrue and that I made them all up out of my head? Did you "check it out"? No, you did not contact me. By the way, there is an email link on each page of my site and it's not hard to find me. So, please do not say that you verify information before posting because that is clearly not true. You say what you feel like saying whether it has any relation to the truth or not, as long as it serves your purpose, which in this case is to make me look bad and to make you look good. What else is new, eh? You state your opinions authoritatively, with a patronizing tone that is clear for all to see and hear. This does not create the truth where there is none. You may be able to put one over on a newcomer to this forum but I doubt if you will succeed with anyone who has been around here for a while and who is aware of your proclivity for manipulation and innuendo, and worse.
David Etheredge [comment from the previous string that you left out so that it makes it difficult to understand the context of my comment]:
"ParaZapper: For example, your claim that ParaZapper products did not have stabilized output was and is a misrepresentation. The better ones do"
Ken Presner comment 1: I don't remember you having stated this before. I have just made this correction on the Comparison Charts on my site. David, you are full of contradictions. You downplay the importance of the Super Stabilized wave in The Ultimate Zapper then you play up its importance in your own zappers. By implying that your better models have a stabilized wave implies that those models without out it are not so good. Then you say, below, "it did not produce any better results". So, the better ones have it but they don't produce better results? These statements are totally illogical. We see this kind of illogic from you time and again on this forum. Then you say customers "felt it too strong", further compounding this string of mystifying statements. Your explanations only serve to confuse, not to make things clear for people. You have to be a mind-reader to figure out that the heck you're trying to say on this forum.
David Etheredge comment 1: You are digging for excuses. I never posted it before, because I did not consider it to be an important improvement. You harp as if it is the greatest thing since sliced bread and then bash my product as not having it. Yes, I post it now to show that you are wrong. Even my cheapest zapper has it now (since Feb. 2008 ). I have even upgraded old customers who wanted to have it done.
Ken Presner comment 2: I am digging for nothing at all. I am merely commenting on
what you say on the forum and on your site and I am commenting on the many contradictions
in your statements and the untruths that seem quite obvious. What you seem to be
saying is that I should have read your mind to know that you put a stabilized wave
in your zappers, because it was never stated on your site. And because I didn't
read your mind I created a problem according to your convoluted way of thinking.
And what you are now saying is that you have put the stabilized wave in all your
zappers but you "do not consider it an important improvement". Well, I consider
this very odd indeed. Why go to all the trouble and expense and all the confusing
explanations. I make improvements because they have proven to be important and then
I explain those improvements clearly on my site. I do not make insignificant improvements,
improvements that I know are unimportant, then back track and double talk to explain
that I might just as well not have made them at all. This makes no sense, it really
doesn't. It is a game with so many twists and turns that it's hard to keep track
of them all and impossible to really know what you're trying to say and why you
are making specific changes to your zappers.
And then there is the matter of your unadvertised models whose merits and specifications
we are supposed to know, also by some psychic process, I presume. "Didn't you know
that my xyz unadvertised model already has the xyz feature?" is a favorite tactic
of yours previously seen on this forum. Then there are all the excuses, "I have
the data but I can't publish them" and "my lawyers tell me not to say anything."
There are so many screens you hide behind that it is a wonder if anyone can figure
out your products, your site and your statements. They all appear to hide the facts
through smoke and mirrors, not to elucidate them, which is exactly the opposite
of what I do on my site. I am clear, concise and to the point. Whether or not you
agree with the statements on my site is a different matter. I really don't expect
competitors to agree with what I say because if they did they would have to acknowledge
the superiority of The Ultimate Zapper. So they have to find ways to deny what I
say, plain and simple, which is what you have been trying to do for years on this
forum, unsuccessfully I may add, because the amazing results people obtain with
The Ultimate Zapper speak for themselves and word of mouth is very powerful. It's
just that simple.
Ken Presner comment 1: You have neatly sidestepped the inference you clearly made on the Zapper Support Forum recently that I made them all 170 of the testimonials on my site up out of my head, effectively calling both me and my customers liars.
David Etheredge comment 1: Interesting, you did not provide a quote or link to that statement. If I made any statement that all of your testimonials were not valid, I should not have. I know that you should have at least some valid testimonials.
Ken Presner comment 2:
I would like to know 2 things:
1. Are you denying that you ever made the statement at the end of the last long string I participated in on this forum a few months ago (on page 92 of this forum), inferring that statements on my site misrepresent facts so that you cannot trust that the testimonials on my site are true and were not made up by me?
2. Does the censor of this forum claim that this posting never appeared at the end of the above-mentioned string on this forum and that he did not remove it from this forum? Since you did in fact make the statement and since it has apparently been removed from the string in the past couple of days by this forum's censor (I cannot find it anywhere, am I mistaken?) any denial by you and by this forum's censor would be a denial of the facts. Period.
This forum's readers should have the answers to these questions from both you and this forum's censor so they can judge for themselves. Any inference that I am lying about the testimonials on my site is totally false. Period.
Any statement or inference to the effect that the testimonials on my site are not cut and pasted from unsolicited emails sent in by customers is a lie, plain and simple. Each and every testimonial is a word for word report from the person who sent in that testimonial. Period. I "should have at least some valid testimonials" according to you? Do you mean some of the testimonials on my site are not truthful? You are making a sly inference here, in your inimitable sly manner, I might add. We have seen this kind of thing from you many times before on this forum. If you're calling me a liar, just come out and say it straight out so that everyone can see it and read it and understand it loud and clear. If I say 100% of the testimonials are cut and pasted from unsolicited emails that customers send me, I mean 100%. That should be clear enough for everyone to understand, even you. Do you get my message loud and clear? Would you like to make another sly comment? Would you like to make another sly inference? Go ahead, make my evening. It seems clear that you have a strong need to make me look bad on this forum which impels you to crowd out the truth by the constant use of inference, innuendo and outright false statements. Coupled with a patronizing, ever-authoritative tone and a slyness that is becoming increasingly evident it is clear that your efforts are designed to control the opinions and ideas of the readers of this forum. The pretense of being an objective observer is a complete charade. It appears that you will do anything and everything to deny the truth about The Ultimate Zapper, my work, my site, my postings on this forum and now even my customers. If that's not having a strong axe to grind I don't know what is. You're just a "helper" here? Yah sure, and my name's Eleanor Roosevelt.
If you don't like how I present the information on my site, OK, that's your right, you have the right to your opinions and I have the right to my opinions. You think I exaggerate and I definitely think you exaggerate. But when you start calling me a liar and you start making sly inferences, that's an entirely different matter. That I will never allow. You have crossed the line. Do you understand? You have crossed the line. You are impugning my integrity. I will never allow that to pass without the most vociferous response. Never.
Ken Presner comment 1: According to you The Ultimate Zapper is full of placebo effects and only has the 10.4 volts in its favor. It's 10.5 volts by the way and, to correct another of your famous spelling mistakes my last name is spelled Presner not Pressner, I think I got your last name right it's Etheredge, isn't it?
David Etheredge comment 1: My apologies for the spelling error. Otherwise, I have some customers who correlate effectiveness with the feeling that they get. However, when surveyed for actual changes in condition, the ones who had the stronger output actually had statistically a slightly lower improvement.
Ken Presner comment 2: Apology accepted. If you read the 170 testimonials on my site closely you will see that people are talking about results, not feelings. This is very clear. I'm not interested in feelings and neither are the people who are looking for relief. I'm interested in results, which is what my customers are interested in.
Ken Presner comment 1: Oh, isn't this cute. Another one of your "I got the evidence but I can't show it to you" games. Of course you really expect all the people getting great results with The Ultimate Zapper to email you about it, don't you? I imagine there are "enough of" those not getting great results with your models, but you don't seem anxious to publish "enough of" this information. You said a while back you have never seen a negative testimonial on any site. I guess that includes yours. Of course I get returns, about 2%. That makes 98% satisfied customers. Not bad, eh?
David Etheredge comment 1: A 2 % returns rate is very good, my return rate is lower
(about 1 %) but that is not a very significant difference.
Ken Presner comment 2: That's because you don't have a 3-month trial offer advertised
on your site. If you did your return rate would undoubtedly be higher. It just stands
to reason.
David Etheredge comment 2: Like I said, the only UZ customers that I have hard from
are those who did not like their UZ for some reason but that is to be expected.
Ken Presner comment 2: What is to be expected? That my customers are emailing you to complain about The Ultimate Zapper? And if some of your customers email me complaining about your zappers, is that something worthy of note with a total of 1% or 2% returns? It's not even worth mentioning. I don't publicize information about the people who write to me who didn't like the ParaZapper. What's the point? Do I want to become a nit-picker? As far as The Ultimate Zapper is concerned we're talking about thousands of satisfied customers over a period of 12 years [now 13 years] with a handful of customers who were not satisfied. That's hardly worth mentioning, especially with a 3-month trial offer that has been in place for years.
David Etheredge comment 1: Why would they need to contact me otherwise. I agree that there are going to be some customers that will never be satisfied and that there are also customers who do not get benefit from a product because they do not really need it. This small percentage is often the most vocal group.
Ken Presner comment 2: This is really nit picking. It's a non-issue.
Ken Presner comment 1: Perhaps you'd better watch what you say about me and my customers a bit more carefully in the future, David, so that I don't have to call you a liar again. Just a suggestion.
David Etheredge comment 1: The same to you Ken.
Ken Presner comment 2: I have never said that the testimonials on your site were invented by you. Frankly, it never even occurred to me that this might be the case. And it never would have occurred to me to publish a statement to this effect.
David Etheredge comment 1: As I have shown previously, you have made extensive unreliable claims about other zapper sellers and manufacturers as well as about ParaZapper.
Ken Presner comment 2: This is not true. This is your opinion, to which you have the right. The problem is that you present your opinions as the gospel truth but they are not, they're just your opinions. I stand by the statements that I have made about your zappers and about other zappers. I am not the only one who has made direct observations about your zappers on this forum. I have pointed out some of these 3rd party comments in the 2 long postings I made previously on this forum. You are aware of this fact. Passing your opinions off as facts is a tactic you continually use on this forum. Unfortunately, your opinions require a lot more proof to turn them into facts, as others have also pointed out on this forum.
David Etheredge comment 1: You just assume that because there is not a posted claim that a product does not have it and this is just wrong. I am sorry if it bothers you, but I do not perceive any particularily high level of integrity on the part of your claims about others, so why would I think any better of the testimonials that you post?
Ken Presner comment 2: The quality of your reasoning is horrendous, I'm not afraid to say. It is obviously designed to be self-serving.
1. You disagree with my statements about your zapper and other zappers. Fine, you have the right to express your opinions. But instead of expressing them as your opinions you express them as gospel fact.
2. A priori, because according to you, you have revealed the facts, this means that the veracity of the testimonials on my site is automatically brought into doubt. What kind of cockeyed reasoning is this? You have a perfect right to disagree with what I say about your zapper and other zappers. We agree to disagree. But to claim your opinions as fact and then to call me a liar about the testimonials on my site by inference from those "facts" totally destroys your credibility on this forum. You have come to a totally false conclusion based on nothing else but your desire to see me as a liar and to have the readers on this forum see me as a liar. You have just shot yourself in the foot. By impugning my honesty and integrity you have, ipso facto, impugned your own honesty and integrity, because I have stated the truth. You have used total illogic to create a false statement and a false impression because of the need to make me look bad and to make yourself look good. Plain and simple. This is the worst kind of thing that you do here, and you have done it repeatedly, masked always by self-righteousness. I will not mince my words. Frankly, I find this kind of behavior abominable.
David Etheredge comment 1: The real proof is in the pudding. You are completely unwilling to accept a 3rd party testing / evaluation / comparison. I have always been willing to put my products up against anyone who was willing.
Ken Presner comment 2: I would be more than willing to put my products up against
those of other zapper makers under correct conditions but, as I point out below,
this is truly a moot point. I will never allow anyone to dictate the terms of a
comparison study. That is the point I am making and it is the most important point
in this debate. The whole matter of 3rd party testing and double blind testing is
a house of cards and I will explain why very clearly. The only real zapper verification
that can be done is specification verification, like Geoff Clark used to do until
too many people used it as an "approval" marketing tool, and he put a stop to that
because they were just using Dr. Clark's name to sell their products. Specifications
can be verified and I have no reason not to trust that what each maker advertises
on his site reflects the true output of his product. I would never question the
veracity of your advertised specifications or those of any other zapper maker. My
production people verify each zapper before shipping and I assume your production
people do the same thing.
Next, there is the matter of double blind testing. It is impossible to do double
blind testing with zappers even for very obvious ailments such as warts or melanoma
or other visible complaints that could be quantified and easily verified for results
because all complaints are subject to a whole host of factors and variables that
make zapper results a very individual matter and which would also make this approach
problematic. I have more comments below about this subject. Any testing would have
to be done with hundreds of subjects, at the very least, for any meaningful statistical
results to be culled from such a study. Who will pay for this testing? I imagine
every zapper maker who would like to participate would want a trusted representative
present during the testing process to monitor the results. I certainly would. Who
would pay for the services of all these representatives and for their expenses?
I certainly don't have the financial resources to pay for a representative. We are
talking about controlled testing procedures here. How could the representatives
of each zapper maker do the rigorous monitoring that would create the necessary
standard so that the study could qualify as a serious study? How could they monitor
each person who is zapping to make sure they are following the required protocol
every day at the same time of day, making sure of the number of minutes zapped,
making sure of the number of minutes for each break, making sure the electrodes
and contacts are in place, verifying the output of the equipment, making sure the
handhold covering is of uniform dampness, monitoring any side effects and any progress?
We are talking about hundreds of test participants here. They would require hundreds
of representatives from each zapper maker for proper monitoring. Who would pay for
their services and their expenses? If all the study's participants were brought
together for the study who would pay for their expenses for a period of weeks or
months? How could they abandon their occupations and families for that extended
period of time? And what about footpads? Would the zapper makers who sell footpads,
such as The Ultimate Zapper and ParaZapper, forgo the use of footpads during testing
or should they require other zapper makers to use footpads during testing? How would
it be possible to monitor test results using the handholds only, the footpads only
and the handholds and footpads used at the same time? Who would pay for the hundreds
of sets of equipment from each zapper maker and the hundreds of oscilloscopes that
would be necessary to conduct the study?
That's just for starters. The next set of problems is even greater in complexity.
The only truly accurate measure for the effectiveness of each zapper with each participant
would be to use each zapper according to an agreed-upon protocol with each person,
then the person would have to be brought back by some miraculous process to their
original state of ill-health and the process would have to be repeated with a different
zapper. The reason for this methodology is that this is the only possible way to
make direct comparisons between zappers because each case of zapping is very individual
and depends on many factors. Each person who zaps has a unique biochemical and bio-electric
profile and a unique receptivity. Mental and spiritual factors also have to be taken
into consideration. They affect the aura and can play a vital role in the ability
to respond to therapy. Age and general state of health are also important factors.
These are never the same from one person to another. It's not like lining up a group
of subjects and having them pop an aspirin if they all have the same kind of headache
at the same time to see if the pill will get rid of the headache after 6 hours.
In a rigorous zapper study the individual pathology "fingerprint" of each person,
their individual biochemical and bio-electric backgrounds, the zapping protocol
and the effectiveness of the formula of each zapper all combine to determine the
outcome.
One example: The Ultimate Zapper is so powerful that a high percentage of people
using it need only one minute of zapping to get the desired results. How can you
compare this to other zappers? Do you make everyone zap for 7 minutes no matter
what zapper they are being tested with and when someone feels unwell with The Ultimate
Zapper because of they are detoxifying too quickly (die-off) an observer concludes
that The Ultimate Zapper has a defect and is injuring people? Or do you make all
zapper makers zap at only one minute which is insufficient time for the vast majority
of zappers to show any meaningful results? Who develops the criteria that will be
used for the study? Who makes the judgments? How could one ever create a level playing
field and uniform criteria agreed upon by all zapper makers? I believe it is clear
that the challenges posed by a zapper study militate against a practical study being
undertaken. The zapper studies done by Dr. Clark were not comparative studies. They
were done with her zapper only, in her clinic, and the results were reported empirically
and anecdotally with no apparent uniform standards and no apparent rigorous methodology.
This is evident when reading the material she has published.
One example: If a 57-year-old female had 15 years of exposure to pesticides from
living downwind from an agricultural area, is in a weakened state of health and
had to quit working 2 years previously, has 6 mercury fillings (known in the dental
business as "silver amalgams"), a history of candida and gastro-intestinal pain
in the area of the ileosecal valve, experiencing some visual irregularities and
peripheral numbness in the toes, has multiple food allergies and chemical sensitivities,
how could you possibly duplicate the individuality of this case and compare it with
any other? It's impossible. If The Ultimate Zapper worked to relieve this person
of the candida and abdominal pain how would you ever be able to say if another zapper
would or would not have been able to accomplish the same results? Each person is
like a finger print and has a unique set of problems with a unique history? Only
"identical testing" would be comparative and "identical testing" is virtually impossible
with zappers. Even if it were theoretically possible to find 2 people with the exact
same sets of problems and the exact same history you would be able to compare only
2 zappers, using one on each person. What about the other zapper makers in the study?
How would they feel about this? Who would choose which 2 zappers to use in this
case? And who will pay to find these "identical" subjects. Who is going to judge
that they are in fact "identical"? Who is going to organize a truly valid study
with hundreds of people that will produce reliable and credible comparative results?
No one has the money or the manpower in the zapper industry to take on this kind
of project because it is clear that this project would cost millions of dollars
to implement professionally.
The fact is that comparative testing for zappers would be impossible even if those
huge financial resources were at the disposal of the zapper industry for the reasons
stated above. The alternative to such a controlled study would be specification
testing but specification testing tells nothing about the synergy or interaction
of the various features produced by various zappers and the effect that this synergy
has on creating therapeutic results for the wide variety of illnesses, conditions
and complaints for which zappers are used. It is very clear that specification testing
is not able to predict results. It can only measure a set of output criteria. In
the end, all of this is of no consequence at all because all that matters to people
who purchase zappers are results. The only thing we have to go on when it comes
to looking for proof of effectiveness is the empirical data, the results that people
are actually obtaining and reporting with each zapper, as reported by each zapper
maker, and as reported by Dr. Hulda Clark, the inventor of the original zapper.
I have no doubt that your zappers and the zappers of other makers help people. That's
what zappers are designed to do. What I am saying is that I have never seen the
consistently remarkable kinds of reports from any other zapper maker that The Ultimate
Zapper has elicited from users over a period of 12 years [now 13 years], both in
terms of the quality of the results as well as the speed of results. It is clear
that The Ultimate Zapper produces superior results. There is no way anyone can deny
that fact without resorting to falsification.
You can talk all you want about your opinions about The Ultimate Zapper's specifications, that 10.5 volts is the only thing you see that could make any difference; that the Super Stabilized wave makes no difference, though you have gone to the trouble to put in all of your models now, even the cheaper ones, besides it's just a placebo effect (for my zapper but not for yours, of course); that the 100% positive pulses are just a placebo effect (though I seem to remember a while back that one of your unadvertised models had a variable positive wave, which would, of course not produce a placebo effect because it was in your zapper, not mine); that the lower frequency makes no difference for my zapper (it must be another placebo effect), but you added the lower frequency to your own zappers to create the "dual frequency zapper" so that makes a positive difference for yours (no placebo effect here); that the harmonics make no difference; that the undistorted wave makes no difference and that the constant current makes no difference. You can talk all you like about how you feel the specifications of The Ultimate Zapper are unremarkable, you can pretend to be an objective observer on this forum which you most assuredly are not (you're just here to "help", how very kind of you). The fact is you are just another zapper salesman using this forum, and trying to dominate it, to promote your own zappers. It might as well be called the ParaZapper Promotion Forum. If you signed off as David Etheredge, calling this forum the David Etheredge Promotion Forum would not have the same impact, would it?
The one thing you have tried to dismiss, but are unable to do successfully without
falsification, are the amazing results people have obtained with The Ultimate Zapper
as reported in the unsolicited testimonials. You infer that I made up those reports,
which is untrue, and in case they may be true, to your chagrin, you minimize their
importance by saying they are no better than the results of any other zapper, which
is clearly untrue. You have put yourself between a rock and a hard place. If you
recognize that the testimonials are true then, ipso facto, you have to accept their
content and then The Ultimate Zapper can't be all that bad a zapper after all, in
fact it starts to look like a superior zapper when you read the testimonials.
Your lack ability to reason clearly is one of the main problems you exhibit on this
forum. You have created a very big problem by opening this can of worms, not for
me because word of mouth has brought thousands of customers to The Ultimate Zapper
over the past 12 years [now 13 years], the vast majority of whom are very satisfied
with the results, but for yourself because your credibility is obviously brought
into serious question by your false inferences, your use of innuendo, your false
statements and by your patronizing tone and your ever-authoritative attitude that
encourages the readers of this forum to accept your opinions as fact. All this adds
up to one word, manipulation.
There is no doubt you will have trouble explaining away the testimonials on my site
including the unsolicited testimonials from people who have used other zappers and
have found The Ultimate Zapper superior to the others. If it were a matter of me
making unsubstantiated claims I would be in a difficult spot trying to defend myself.
But this is clearly not the case. So, in order to make me look bad and make yourself
look good you either have to find a way to minimize the importance of the testimonials
on my site, or question their veracity by inferring I am a liar, which is exactly
what you have done on this forum. In the testimonial archive, besides the 12 categories
devoted to specific kinds of illnesses and diseases, there are 2 additional categories
of testimonials. There are 19 testimonials in the archive under the category "Satisfied
Customers", customers reporting they are happy with the results without specifying
what specific ailments they were zapping for. And there are 20 testimonials under
the heading "Well-Being". These testimonials can only be brushed aside by someone
with a very big axe to grind. I cite only 3 testimonials below from the testimonial
archive on my site.
34. ONE MINUTE OF ZAPPING
Ken I just received your wonderful product yesterday. I have had another zapper for four or five years now, but one minute of zapping with yours is superior to two hours of zapping with the old zapper I had (from a different company). You truly do have a superior product.
Geoffrey Sept. 9, 2006
33. THE MOST EFFECTIVE ZAPPER
Hi Ken, I have now tried your zapper for some months, and I would just like to tell you that your zapper is indeed by far the most effective zapper I have tried (I have three other brands also). I would like to inquire about becoming a distributor, and would like to order three zappers with footpads and transformers (220/240 AC-110DC).
Best regards, Geir (from Norway) Nov. 24, 2006
23. I HAVE MY LIFE BACK
Dear Ken,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
I'm functioning and well!! I can't believe it. Have been progressively getting worse for 10 years with Epstein-Barr virus/Mono. When I ordered the [Ultimate] Zapper I was not functioning ... sleeping 12 hours, waking up exhausted, laying in the chair all day, too tired to watch TV. Have been zapping faithfully since late October and am a normal human being again. There are no words ... I have my life back. So now I would like to be a distributor ... as I have owned two successful businesses I could crank it up ... Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks again, Janice Dec. 5, 2007
David Etheredge comment 1: As for testimonials, there are many thousands of testimonials posted for the standard original Clark zapper,
Ken Presner comment 2: That may be true but if you read them closely you will find
a vast difference in the results posted for the original Clark Zapper and the results
obtained with The Ultimate Zapper. Furthermore, if you read the testimonials in
Dr. Clark's books carefully you will find that they refer to her detoxification
program, not specifically to results obtained with her zapper. There is a very big
difference. In fact I comment on the testimonials Dr. Clark has published in The
Cure for All Cancers on the Dr. Hulda Clark page on my site at http://zap.intergate.ca/hulda.htm
Here is a quote from that page: I base my comments on the following observations:
the cover of The Cure for All Cancers [by Dr. Hulda Clark] states that it includes
"over 100 Case Histories of Persons Cured". This is not true. I have read the first
58 case histories and here are the statistics that I have compiled from the information
that Dr. Clark provides in those case histories:
cured:
16 worse: 1
dying: 3
died: 4
opted out: 1
started treatment: 4
no change: 4
progress unclear: 2
progress made: 23
David Etheredge comment 1: ... there are many [testimonials] for most other zappers.
These claims are just as strong as the ones that you post.
Ken Presner comment 2: If this were so (it is clearly not true across the very wide range of ailments covered in the testimonial archive on my site), then it amounts to a de facto admission by you of the "strong" effectiveness of The Ultimate Zapper.
David Etheredge comment 1: There are not many for PZ for one specific reason. We told our customers not to send them. We did post a few from several years back but excluded any that claimed a cure or healing.
Ken Presner comment 2: Frankly, I would never ask customers not to send in testimonials. First of all, I like to hear how people are doing. After all is said and done that is my greatest reward, knowing that I am helping people. Second of all, if I choose not to publish them at the present time that does not mean that there might not come a time in the future when I would like to publish them. It is obvious that if I don't have those testimonials I can't publish them and I can't even comment on their content, except through the veil of memory.
David Etheredge comment 1: As a final note, you complain that I dominate this forum. Yes, I am frequently the only one who answers many of the questions. If it was not for my replies, many questions would be left unanswered. I do not see you here in a helpful way at all. The only concern that you show is for your product and for your customers.
Ken Presner comment 2: As I have stated before, I am not here to help. You are trying
to impose the criteria of your self-appointed role on this forum on me and I reject
it. I have discussed this in an earlier posting but since you would like to bring
up the subject again I will be glad to reply once again. I only post here from time
to time and I only do so to respond to specific issues that concern The Ultimate
Zapper and to make sure it is not misrepresented and that my site and my work are
not misrepresented. I hope that people find my postings helpful but I am not here
in the role of a daily "helper" as you have chosen to be on this forum. I help people
from my website and my other work, not with little forum sound bites to keep my
profile high. Your claim of helping people here who would otherwise not be helped
is what I will politely term a slight exaggeration. It not only exaggerates your
ability to help others it also exaggerates the impression that people depend on
this forum for your help and the help of others in solving their problems. The assumption
you build into your response is that I should be seen as a helper here, like your
self-styled role here, and if I am not doing the same thing as you claim to be doing
then I am not doing what I'm supposed to be doing here, which makes you look really
good and makes me look not so good. This is just one more example of how you subtly
manipulate people on this forum. I think only a novice will be taken in by your
postings. "Better, Better, Better", the new and creative marketing approach you
have chosen for your site, and "electrical engineer", will never convince people
you make a better zapper. And they cannot be convinced of your credibility and the
veracity of your statements once they have read what you have to say in your spurious
postings about The Ultimate Zapper on this forum.
Sincerely,
Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
(posted June, 2008)
CUREZONE POSTING #5
From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1207083
Hello forum readers,
I have noted recent comments on this forum about the rules and regulations. It has
been noted recently by a forum poster that I have an agenda. This is correct. My
agenda is to point out that the rules and regulations are not enforced equally on
the forum for all participants. You may remember that the first posting I made on
this forum was to defend my zapper. It was in response to a zapper maker who made
negative, argumentative and untruthful, comments about The Ultimate Zapper - "pathetic
clips and cheap-looking footpads", saying that he was merely quoting another poster.
I could not allow that to pass without responding and I believe that is understandable.
The following questions concern only the rules and regulations on this forum. They
are not introduced as an argument or a debate. They are introduced as questions
with the hope that they will be clarified. I believe they deserve to be answered
clearly and in a straightforward manner so that everyone on the forum can understand
them. I also believe that there is no reason for this string to be deleted from
the forum because these questions deal strictly with the clarification of rules
and regulations which should be a matter of interest to all who read and participate
in this forum. They apply to one and all.
In posing these questions I make the assumption that zapper makers are allowed to
ask questions on the forum about the forum's rules and regulations. I believe this
is a reasonable assumption. Here are my rules-related questions:
a) Are zapper makers allowed to advertise and promote their zappers in any way,
including "plugging", on the forum?
b) Is "plugging" recognized by the forum's rules committee as a synonym for "advertising
and promotion"?
c) If a zapper maker were to explicitly state that he intended to "plug" his zapper
on the forum, and then followed through, what would be the response of the forum's
rules and regulations committee?
d) Are zapper makers allowed to make negative comments about other zapper makers,
their sites or their products on this forum?
e) If zapper makers make negative comments about other zapper makers, their sites
or their products on the forum either directly or by quoting someone else who does
so, is this recognized by the forum's rules and regulations committee as being "argumentative"
and provocative which is a violation of the forum's rules and regulations?
f) If zapper makers make negative comments about other zapper makers, their sites
or their products on the forum either directly or by quoting someone else who does
so, is this recognized by the forum's rules and regulations committee as a negative
form of "advertising and promotion" and as a violation of the forum's rules and
regulations against any form of "advertising and promotion"?
g) If zapper makers make negative comments about other zapper makers, their sites
or their products on the forum either directly or by quoting someone else who does
so, is this recognized by the forum's rules and regulations committee as being "argumentative"
and provocative and a violation of the rules concerning being "helpful and supportive"?
h) Are zapper makers allowed to defend their products, their sites and their name
against negative, untruthful or provocative comments made about them on the forum
by other zapper makers?
i) Are zapper makers allowed to say, on the forum, that their zapper can kill cancer?
Is this considered "advertising and promotion"?
j) Are zapper makers allowed to use the name of their zapper or the name of their
website instead of their real name, or a pseudonym, to sign off their postings in
order to get around the forum's ban against promoting zappers and zapper sites on
the forum? Does the forum's rules and regulations committee recognize this as a
violation of the rules and regulations against using the forum in any way for the
"advertising and promotion" of any zapper or any zapper site?
Sincerely,
The Ultimate Zapper
(posted July, 2008)
CUREZONE POSTING #6
From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1210584
Hello forum readers,
The rules committee did not respond to my request for rules clarification. I don't
think this is a great surprise. They refused to clarify some simple questions about
the rules, responding instead with one-liners. They are very frugal and it should
be clear why. The users of this forum only have the right to know the rules that
the rules committee allows them to know. But they do not have the right to know
all the rules because the refusal to answer simple questions about the rules indicates
that there are some rules that are hidden. Hidden things are interesting, aren't
they? Why is the rules committee hiding behind a wall of silence? What are they
hiding? What are they afraid of? Don't tell me, let me guess, the name of the game
is making it look like the game is played according to the rules when it really
isn't. The name of the game is CONTROL.
Anyway, keep those zapper questions coming. As long as they're about troublesome
health problems and foot pads and handholds and parasites and other everyday zapper
things, no problemo. You're in the clear. But if you like to look at really interesting
things, uh oh, you're in trouble, you're "arguing and debating". What's the forum's
rules committee gonna do about these interesting things? Absolutely nothing. Things
like the use of the forum for commercial purposes which is supposed to be against
the forum's rules but really isn't, exemplified by
1. The "news announcement" of the New Pathways article by ParaZapper (an article
which is a hoax, as was the "news announcement", and which I talk about in earlier
postings at length).
2. The "news announcement" of #1 in zappers sales by the #1 in zapper sales, ParaZapper.
3. The stated intention by ParaZapper on this forum to "plug" his zapper here.
4. The use of the ParaZapper name, the name of a commercial website selling a product
by the same name, for signing off postings instead of a non-zapper name. "Mentioning
of personal websites is not allowed", I was told in an earlier posting. Really?
Signing off with the name ParaZapper is a clearly a commercial "plug", it is advertising
and promotion that is openly accepted on the forum, but advertising and promotion
are supposed to be against the rules. They clearly aren't. What's the rules committee
gonna do about all this? Absolutely nothing. When you come on the forum you don't
talk about these things, that's one of the hidden rules, and you don't ask questions
about these things. Then you're in the clear. But if you do talk about them and
ask questions, aaaooooowww, you just stepped on somebody's toes, boy. Now, that's
against the rules!
This sure is a great forum, eh?
Sincerely,
The Ultimate Zapper
7. AUTO-ZAP: 13 ISSUES
To read the 13 Auto-Zap issues click here.
8. LOW VOLTAGE WARNINGS
On their websites other zapper makers talk about low battery voltage, low battery indicators and low battery lights. This indicates that they are obviously concerned about the voltage factor when zapping. Why? Because low voltage means low effectiveness, a fact they never get around to mentioning. The fact is that all 9 volt battery zappers discharge from 9 volts to zero volts and perform at less than optimum voltage from the moment the user turns the switch on for the very first time up until the time they change the battery and start the process all over again. So, there is a lot of talk on other sites about how long the battery lasts and how hard the maker has tried to keep the voltage from discharging, which is impossible to do, of course. But no matter how these 9 volt zappers are configured, just on the basis of their voltage alone they all lack the power to delivery the kinds of results that The Ultimate Zapper is capable of deliverying, and has been deliverying for the past 13 years. Let's look at what the 9 volt zapper makers have to say on their sites.
THE AUTO-ZAP
The Auto-Zap states on his site: " ... the Auto-Zap will start only if full output is assured for the entire cycle". They state "the zapper [will] not start ... if the battery is below 6.5 volts." This is not very encouraging since Dr. Hulda Clark states you need an output of at least 9.4 volts for optimum performance to remove toxins from the blood. Since the Auto-Zap's battery voltage starts off at 9 volts it is certain that its voltage will end up far too low to be therapeutically effective even before the battery reaches its cut-off voltage of 6.5 volts.
They seem proud of the fact that "We are the only ones who can offer 500 hours of guaranteed correct zapping from one 9 volt battery. Most others are barely able to do 50 hours, with no guarantee of correct operation even then." The only problem is that it is irrelevant how many hours you get from a 9-volt battery if the performance is sub-standard, which it is with all 9 volt zappers. The emphasis on "correct output" is also irrelevant if there is not enough power being generated for optimum therapeutic effectiveness. The Ultimate Zapper always delivers 10.5 volts DC for maximum therapeutic effectiveness. Please read "Serious Issues with the Auto-Zap", below, to find out about other issues concerning the Auto-Zap, such as their seeking "approval" from Dr. Clark to promote their zapper and their photo ops of themselves with Dr. Clark on the Auto-Zap site to give the impression of a "link" with Dr. Clark, which in fact does not exist.
THE TERMINATOR II
The Terminator II states on his site: "When the light goes dim or no longer lights up there is still enough current to kill parasites, but it's best to put a fresh battery in. At what voltage goes the green blinking light go out?" Don Croft doesn't say. What does he mean when he says "it's best" to change the battery? It sounds like a soft way of saying that by the time the light dims and goes out any benefit at all has long since passed. When the light no longer lights up is there still enough current to kill parasites? Can his zapper possibly be working at maximum efficiency as the battery discharges to the point where the light no longer goes on? From a Terminator II-related site: "One 9 volt battery operates at peak performance for 96 hours." What does that mean, "peak performance"? How can performance possibly be peak when it starts at 9 volts and discharges thereafter? And is it peak for all 96 hours? If so, then they are implying that the voltage level really doesn't matter, which is a very strange implication taking into consideration all the evidence to the contrary. The Ultimate Zapper delivers maximum output, 10.5 volts, each and every time you zap.
PARAZAPPER AND OTHERS
From the ParaZapper site: "Higher output with ParaZapper PLUS you get a full 9 volts output instead of 7.5 that regular Hulda Clark Zappers produce....Long Battery Life...Red Low Battery Indicator on ParaZapper PLUS." Oh I see, the other 9 volt batteries don't even have an intial output of 9 volts, they only put out 7.5 volts? If that's true this can't be very comforting news to people using 9 volt zappers.
Actually, this is not true at all. 9-volt batteries have an initial output of 9 volts, which is why they are called 9-volt batteries. I have no idea why ParaZapper (David Etheredge), an electrical engineer, makes this statement which is obviously false. Anyone with a voltage meter can verify that 9-volt batteries produce 9 volts, initially.
The ParaZapper has a "red low battery indicator" for 2 models only. They do not state how low the voltage is when the red low battery indicator comes on.
The Harmonic Quad says "The low battery light will come on when the strength falls below 5.7 volts."
Dr. Hulda Clark's Model A-6 Zapper (the only zapper used in Dr. Clark's clinic) has a "low battery indicator". They do not state how low the voltage is when the low battery indicator comes on.
The Multi Zap Zapper site states it has "low battery warning". They do not state how low the voltage is when the low battery warning comes on.
The Zapper C3i site states it has a "9 volts peak voltage...low battery light". They do not state how low the voltage is when the low battery light comes on.
The MiniFG has no low battery indicator.
The RSG4 Sweep Zapper has no low battery indicator.
The Beck miniZAP has a "low battery signal". They do not state how low the voltage is when the low battery warning comes on.
The Biowave A-6 Deluxe has a "low battery indicator". They do not state how low the voltage is when the low battery warning comes on.
The Micro-Zapper states:
"Keep a fresh battery in the Micro-Zapper for optimum performance. Use a battery
tester or a DC voltage meter to measure the battery voltage. A new battery has between
9 and 10 volts. When battery voltage drops below 7 VDC it should be replaced. To
check the Micro-Zapper's frequency output use a voltage meter set on AC. It should
read from 4 yo 8 volts, depending on battery condition The light cannot to be used
to determine battery condition. It will remain on until the battery is almost completely
dead. Don't waste a zapping session by using a weak battery."
The Sota Bio Tuner states: "Low battery warning light". They do not state how low the voltage is when the low battery warning comes on.
The Ultimate Zapper is the only zapper in the world that delivers 10.5 constant volts each and every time you zap for maximum therapeutic effectiveness. There is no low-battery warning because there is no battery. It is powered by an AC adapter that always delivers 10.5 volts.
TRIAL OFFER |
kenpresner
|
ORDER HERE |
IMPORTANT
PAGES
-
- kenpresner
@hotmail.com - Ordering
- Trial Offer
- Distributors
- Instructions
- Comparison Charts
- Testimonials
- My Recovery Protocol
- FAQ