Using my secret powers, I have determined a few things.
1. You can not solve one equation for two unknowns. Similarly, a test with two uncontrolled variables (say, for instance, unspecified nutritional protocools and an electronic device), can not yeild a unique result. The writing states that not all people responded to nutritional treatments alone, while others responded completely. With that statement in the setup, tweasing apart zapper effects from nutritional effects can not be done.
2. Nothing - n o t h i n g - was measured; no blood work, no cell cultures, no biopsies, no stool samples, not even barometric pressure. "... changes in health in this pilot trial was based upon subject reports of improvement." I think it is fair to say that subject reporting is, well, subjective. And, as I touched on in another post, the subject pool already was biased toward a positive report.
3. 4 and 5 year old children can not give informed consent to participate in amedical study. Also, they do not have the vocabulary or communication skills necessary for the detailed feedback required. That their parents would force them to participate in this study goes directly to #2 above.
4. Expert observers can see through a lot of junk, but not all junk. The very young and very old are predisposessed to please authority figures, and the very old have a particular bias toward medical professionals. Plus, real expert observers are rare. BTW, in a study based entirely upon interviews, interviewer gender is a gigantic variable.
The study is a first step, not the last word. However, controls of external variables known to have direct effects on the results were completely absent, raising questions about awareness. A controlled study, and I mean one in which every conceivable variable is controlled to the best extent possible, is extremely difficult to achieve.
"How are you feeling today?" is the most ambiguous, loaded, and scientifically irresponsible question you can ask a test subject. Everything affects how we think we feel, from paint colors in the interview room to weather to grandma's broken hip. Confusing emotional stress with physical symptoms is not just a classic problem, it is *the* problem in such research. The standard number is that 85% of experiments in the health fields have proceedural problems.
Please do not confuse curiosity, imagination, and skepticism with... naysaying? I understand why you resort to stereotyping in your response, but you are wrong about me.
Good debate so far; almost downright civil at that too!; keep it up :)
One thing AK said had a definite head-jurking effect for me, one that boardered between irony and being close to oxymoronic:
"Everything affects how we think we feel..........."
Just from the point of view of how the words are defined, thinking and feeling are separate behavior characteristics although they are by no means mutually exclusive but to the contrary are nearly inseparable and inherhently interwined. Thinking is generally a matter of one's intellectual capacity being applied to a situation, feeling is generally a gauge of how much influence one's emotions are impacting a situation. Many of us may appreciate and be aware of how one's intellectual capacity tends to wane and be overun by one's emotions. As a general rule, these characterisitcs tend to be inversely proportional. In the topsy turvy mixed up way that people have been conditioned over the eons through habits of customary terminolgy and langauge they use to communicate such matters, people may routinely say they were largely doing the former (thinking) when in fact upon closer evaluation it is found that the latter (emotion) was dominant to the extent that their intellect (rational thinking) may be said to effectively have been non-existant. Just between you, me and the lampost, it seems to me that people in general are often not aware of how they are guided by their emotions and how their emotions naturally tend to dominate their intellect. Be this as it may, our customary terminology has evolved to reflect this overall situation and condition of the collective human condition - we have "intellectual thinking" and "emotional thinking". LOL!
It is interesting in the example given that "feeling" also involved the element of gauging one's sensory input "how do you feel?", which no doubt influences how one thinks and feels. Back to the topics at hand, like the merits of double-blind study coupled with the everpresent reality of bias, at least by definition, double-blind study wins hands down as a method for proving and disproving the worth of something that somebody was motivated to study. As a disclaimer to saying what I'm about to say, I respect AK's knowledge, experience and capacity to communicate (as evidenced by my enjoyment and enlightenment from having read many of his past and various posts); I remember in the past he also made comments about his respect for the use of double-blind study methodology. However, there is a pretty large body of evidence out there, so to speak, if one is so inclined to search for, digest, contemplate and appreciate it, that indicates double-blind studies do not always occur in a vaccum IE> without prevailing bias. The bias may not become so prominent in the actual testing, per se. At least by definition, it can not. By strict definition, double-blind implies a reasonable attempt to keep bias out of the equation. But in the practical world of reality that occurs beyond and or outside of strict definitions, bias can and does often make it's effects known with respect to such study, if not in the actual carrying out of the criteria (and motives therein) for the testing, it becomes prominent, often in the form of various familiar and predictably ugly emtions, like greed, lust for authority/power, fear (of a higher, up-the-chain master/puppet-master) etc. in the methods and motives used to impact how the findings of a given study are reported. For instance results undesirable to the biases of those who promoted/funded the study may be minimized, corrupted, twisted or just plain and outright sat-on and buried in favor of desired results. To the average person, we may emotionally think of people doing such studies as having our best interests at heart (emotion :) and or in mind (intellect ;), which leads us to collectively trust whatever results may be publicized for whatever "thing" whatever "person" was motivated to study. In this light, and keeping in mind the authority, power and ubiquitous prevalence of mainstream (medicine, higher-learning/universities/science, and the reporting systems therein - IE> the media, sheparded under the massive umbrella of government oversight), how many among us see alternative methods, such as but not limited to things like Zappers, as having even the faintest snow ball in Hell's chances of ever being legitmately double-blind studied AND legitimately reported to the public? It is my impression that the past 100 years, conservatively speaking, of the livlihoods of mainstream medicine compared to alternative medicine has well documented (although not too well in the public;) that so far, there have not been many if any people with big enough kahunas (male or female) to take on and take a stand against (and survive!) the obvious and gargantuan effort required to pull off such a collective test (literally and figuratively) In honor of a familiar and time-honored trait of emotional thinking, I'm still holding out hope via the wishful thinking therein :)
Clarity - I thought the context made it clear that I was using the word "feel" in a medical sense, not an emotional, cognitive, or tactile one.
Somewhere in the last few days (so many forums... fora? forae?) I expanded on the nature of bias in testing. Basically, knowing that you are in a test situation automatically biases your responses. How depends on the nature of the test, etc., but people just think differently when being tested, or used as test subjects.
And don't heap too much praise on the double-blind protocol. It is merely a method to reduce the bias effects *of the test moderator/interview/whatever*. It does not and can not offset bad experiment design, let alone counter, or even discern, the biases of the subjects. If you ask two groups of people how they are feeling today, one group on a warm, bright, sunny day and one group on a cold, dark, rainy day, you've got bias; it won't matter if the experiment is single, double, or triple blind. Better yet, interview everyone on the same day, half in a room with flourescent lights and half in a room with incandescents. With a large enough population, the bias will show up in the results. This stuff was worked out in the 60's, yet it affects the majority of the "research" being done today.
I am part of a long-term knee study. Every 6 months I get a free MRI of my knees, plus the joy of a 20 page written questionaire and the thrill of a 30-minute interview, all to determine how my knees "feel". They DO record the outside temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure. I checked.
In this report, we present the results of double-blinded studies on the use of direct electric current to alter the infectivity oŁ HIV-1 for susceptible cells in vitro. Two lymphoblastoid cell lines (H9 and CEM-SS) were exposed to aliquots of the RT strain of HIV-1 treated with direct current. Results of these studies show that virus treated with currents from 50 to 100 microamperes (ěA) has a significantly reduced infectivity for susceptible cells.
I've been doing my own informal knee study based upon a knee that had a few important components surgically removed in 1976...... how do I feel? Like the figurative old ford truck that's been driven and used for 30 years after having had the coil/spring and shock-absorber removed from the left suspension, during which there was some conditions of weather, fair to partly with some occasional humidity and mostly barometric pressure :)
Africa, in a way this makes sense. Some Americans may think of them as backwards, undeveloped, third-world, and all kinds of other names one may call a different far away culture. But they do not seem to be strapped and straining under a feloneous institutional system of frauds like we are in America. Viva la Africa! FWIW, for several years now various people involved in the Orgonite Movement have been writing of their visits to parts of Africa, during which they handed out free zappers, which the people by and large took to quickly and have had many successes in treating various and numerous common diseases there. I've read of a specially designed solar-powered unit made as a tribute to the the first of such visits........ imagine that, but don't expect to be told about this on the nightly "news", don't expect hollywood to crank out a fluffed up movie dramatizing the event, and don't expect to read of such a story in the Times or any other similar rag that passes for mainstream print media around these parts.
Anyone who has enough money to do a "scientific study" is most likely biased one way or another. Where did the money come from? The world we live in today is commercially driven. The money most likely comes from one of two scources, someone who is marketing product "A" and wants to present it as effective, or someone who is marketing product "B" and wants to present product "A" as ineffective and possibly dangerous because the successful marketing of product "A" would dramatically have a negative effect on the marketing of product "B". These studies can easily be done, manipulated, or presented in a way that shows the desired results.
So who do you trust? Do you turn your trust to government watchdog agencies that are run by people who have ties and interests in product "B"?
Do your own "study". Research and take note of what those who have tried a product have to say about it, what they have experienced. How long has it been in use by the public, have there been reports of side effects or other problems? Ultimately you may only find "concrete proof" by becoming your own test subject.
The answer is fairly simple. Company producing zapper could invest in the scientific research. Government organisation who spend millions in finding a cure for cancer and other diseases could invest as well. If zapper was the answer to cancer then why would governments spend millions on chemotherapy ? The claim of parasites causing cancer seems ridiculous. Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer how would parasites play a part here ? Does smoking create parasite friendly environment ? Why governments spends millions in anti-smoking campaigns ?
>- Company producing zapper could invest in the scientific research
ParaZapper was among the largest until they were shut down by a FDA raid last Feb. It would take their entire gross receipts for 20 years to pay for only the initial testing. Where is either the incentive or even the possibility.
>- why would governments spend millions on chemotherapy ?
Very simple. Because new chemo-therapy can be patented, the zapper can not.
Yes, absolutely, there is a 97 percent linkage of "American(USA)" tobacco usage and NSCLC (Non Small Cell Lung Cancer). Some other foreign tobacco products do not cause as large a percentage of cancer problems. This is because "American" tobacco is Sugar cured and contains up to 18 percent Sugar according to sources.
Other cancers such as Mesothelioma are also caused by other environmental conditions.
However, only a percentage of smokers get cancer and only a percentage of those who are exposed to asbestos will get Mesothelioma. The is some reason why some will develope cancer and others will not. This breakes down to individual health conditions and the same is true for parasites.
......Government organisation who spend millions in finding a cure for cancer and other diseases could invest as well.....
It's easy to be mislead upon seeing statements that portrays the GOVERNMENT as spending money on this or that. This makes it easy to overlook the fact that, theoretically, at least above the table, the government generally has no source of funds to spend on anything until it appropriates them out of other people's wallets. For instance, suppose the people's taxes are diverted to fund the building of an oil pipleline.... just for kicks, lets throw a dart and say....in Alaska.... many billions of dollars are spent paying many thousands of Halliburton (or fill-in your government contrator of choice) employees good-wages to build said plant. At some point, one must assume this pipleline goes into productive use. Who gets this oil? Where do the profits go? and before you propose an answer, do you still believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause or are you interested in buying a bridge in Brooklyn?....I'll be bleeped if I know where the oil and profits end up. In the future, anytime you see a statement that reads "government spends XXX on YYY" or "government funds XXXX", you can pretty much rephrase this to more accurately read "the people, wittingly and not, by choice or not, are funding XXX".
.......Why governments spends millions in anti-smoking campaigns ?.......
This seems a reasonable question until one realizes this is just another spin on the same "Government funds xxxx" myth. Also, I personally do not see the merits in questioning the motives of madmen (and madwomen, or PC-madpeople), and while it may be true that the government appropriates the spending of millions of other people's money to prop up their no-smoking stance, I'm pretty sure the government rakes in billions upon billions in tax revenues from the sales of tobacco.....seems a pretty favorable trade-off for them, one that allows the government to make themselves out as the good guys at minimal expense - a relatively skimpy few millions on the supposed campaign against a widespread addiction that, percentage wise, the average addict will not kick, which pretty much guarantees future billions upon billions of tobacco tax revenues will continue to roll in despite the governments best efforts to stop smoking.
I have a question about the zapper.In order for zapper to work it has to reach all cells in the body.So how come if I hold contacts for a small electrical clock with my fingers it does not work.It means I have no electric current coming throgh my fingers.Is that logical?How then I get the benefit? I do not understand?How do you explain that?
>- how come if I hold contacts for a small electrical clock with my fingers it does not work.
A small electric clock will normally only operate from a DC source of sufficient power. This power requirement would far exceed the output power of the zapper in most cases. Additionally, the zapper output is not pure DC but is a polsed signal.
>- means I have no electric current coming throgh my fingers
No, just insufficient to operate the clock FWIW.
>- How then I get the benefit?
This is explained on many if not all zapper sites.