>- Did you not recently slyly infer the testimonials on my site were all made up out of my head?
As I said before, the track record that I have seen in regards to other claims makes me question the accuracy of anything that you have posted. I never called anyone who sent you testimonials a liar, only questioning the accuracy and reliability.
>- What about all the nonsense on your site which I note you have recently deleted after I pointed out a few things, like giving false information on MS.
Nope, there are no deletions. Apparantly the CGI is not linking correctly. It is a pretty sizeable piece of code, over half a meg in size. I will fix it as soon as I have time. I am too swamped with orders at the moment. Thanks for letting me know. I made a change in a hurry as I had to go out of state to pick up my recently purchased electron microscope.
>- Or did I get this one wrong, too.
AFIK, it is not allowed to blatanly spam with website material. If you bother to look, there have been several zapper sellers who have provided links to their sites. It is rare that anyone complains about this. It is obvious that there were several people complaining about your tactics.
Ken, if you have something that is beneficial to the readers of the Zapper Forum
that helps them, then post. You have made it obvious that this is not your intention, however.
>- Have you ever had a look at the MS page on my site, and other health-related pages?
Yes, I have not posted anything negative about those pages unless you ranted on a forum in a way that I found to have inaccuracies or questionable statements. My pages have had many things removed, mostly in 2005-2006.
>- Man, you sure know how to sling mud at me, my site, my zapper and my work.
The only notes that I have placed on any forum about your site are in direct response to claims that you posted on that forum except in the few cases that were in regards to technical matters when discussed with another poster.
>- You should have had your posting privileges rescinded long ago for violating the rule against using the name of a zapper website to promote your ParaZapper.
If this is true, then you should have been banned for using the name Ken Presner as you have this posted all over your web site. "Ken Presner's ... ". Same difference. I did not post "David Etheredge's Super Zapper" on my site as I considered this as self aggrandizing. OK, granted, I did state that I was responsible for the introduction of the use of augmentation footpads only after someone else tried to claim credit. I provided them with dates, etc, and they withdrew their claim. If you can fairly claim credit for the introduction of some improvement, please do claim that credit.
In the final reality, I never said that your zapper was bad, just that a single frequency is not as good as dual frequencies. +
First, a single frequency is not as good as dual frequencies and dual frequencies is not as good as multiple frequencies. I stand by that statement. It does not matter who makes the zapper, dual is more likely to produce better results, quad is likely to be even better. ParaZapper MX had 16 specific frequencies.
Second, having multiple negative contacts such as having a negative footpad reduces effectiveness. It is the positive signal that produces the effects of reducing microbes so it is beneficial to have multiple positive electrodes. There should be only one negative electrode and that should be either a hand or foot contact and the negative should be the smallest electrode.
Third, having positive offset is still open as far as I am concerned. I have not been able to show any significant improvement in results. I included it in ParaZapper products because Dr. Clark said it was better and I did not find a significant problem associated with it.
Forth, stabilized output in some cases my improve the strength of feeling which increases the placebo effect but making the pulses more noticible. If you feel it then that by itself can make you feel that it is working. But ... it may possibly improve results otherwise, the jury is still out on this one. The one test that I did showed that when added to ParaZapper CCa, the stabilized output did not improve results. We added it to our cheaper ParaZapper products because Ken Presner claimed that it was better and that we did not have it. Dr. Lloyd also likes it.
Fifth, the use of a wall adapter that is not rated for IEC-60101 which is the standard considered as safe for use with human contact through medical equipment is a concern for me. The Analog Kid has expounded on the general safety of switching supplies in a very convincing manner, but if they are that safe, then why the need for the 60101 rating? Sorry, I would not be willing to risk my life or the lives of my customers, even that one in a million. You do what you wish.
Sixth, I state plainly on my web site that even the worst product in the world can have lots of great testimonials. Consider drugs such as Celebrex. Great testimonials, but some people also suffer dire consequences, even after providing great testimonials. There are great testimonials for the statin drugs which can cause serious liver damage. To get an accurate and realistic picture, a statistical analysis of data is needed. Ideally, this should be done in a double blind study but a completely independent third party, but sometimes, this is not feasible for one reason or the other. The truth is, however, that rarely does something work for everyone every time. You do have some impressive stories posted, but sorry Ken, when it comes to testimonials, I am a skeptic.
Seventh, claims of being the best zapper in the world are at the very least a real stretch without independent third party comparison. Again, I do not claim that yours is bad, but I support that dual frequencies and quad frequency zappers such as Dr. Lloyd's (and I do not understand why he would say yours is better than his) are better. Every bit of data that I get so far indicates that 8 frequencies and 16 frequencies are even better.
Eighth, in order to have the maximum effect on a particular organism, the output of a zapper needs to be the exact base frequency that produces the exact harmonic frequency that would affect that organism. A single frequency is not likely to do that within reason. A frequency of 15 Hz is far better in that respect than 2000, 2180, 2280, or 2500 Hz, but 15 Hz does have other problems associated. The actual frequency that is needed for each problem is often very precise ( sometimes +/- 0.01 Hz) so for serious work, the 555 timer is not going to cut it although it is a great output driver.
Ninth, A higher frequency that produces the exact harmonic is going to have a stronger effect simply because the closer that the base frequency is to a particular harmonic, the stronger the harmonic will be.
Tenth, voltage and current are both important factors but too much of either can be detrimental. I have seen zappers with outputs of 15 to 30 volts and one (sorry for bashing) manufacture claims 1 amp output ... potentially pure deadly if it is true! This is reckless IMHO. A current of 20 milliamps (0.020 amps) is considered potentially fatal by many sources. Even 10 ma (0.010 ampere) can be fatal in some situations. The human body can feel as little as 4 ma at a reasonably low frequency. As for voltage, the output of 9.6 to 9.8 volts should be sufficient if provided at the right frequencies.
So there you have it Ken. Get to work and create the real ultimate zapper.
BTW, I just realized something. You think that parazapper.com is my big site? Only about 3 percent of my zapper business ever went through that site.
I am tired, having just returned from driving 1100 miles in about 30 hours.