>- Anyone truly concerened about the health of people would not engage in taking shots at others in order to sell a product.
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.
Personally I applaud their efforts to provide a cheap zapper to the market, but not at the cost of reduced effectiveness.
>- I think its great when a user of a product says "hey this worked for me"
You obviously missed our testimonial page. Here I quote:
"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."
Even the worst products in existance can find some good testimonials to publish.
>- 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.
The specifications are there, you just chose to ignore them to make your point. 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 to zapping.
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. That is we do not lie and claim that zapping heals everything as some do.
>- It has a little more current then some but less then others
That is exactly the point. Too little or too much can end up being not beneficial. We have tested extensively and have tuned our products to the most optimum settings that we can find.
>- absolutely nothing that is innovative about the parazapper products
Here again you have missed something serious. Go back to our published data. The CCa is only available from ParaZapper and it produces a distintively noticable difference in results according to our users. 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.
Above are 3 major innovations that make a significant difference.
>- If people like their $10 dollar zapper and they are getting the results they desire then let them use it without being harassed (even about the instruction sheet, c'mon) for mentioning it.
As I said, there is a reason for a good instruction manual. I am not the only one on this forum who has made a negative comment about the ZP zapper or about the little strip of instructions. Yes, I am more vocal because I have seen the difference that good instructions make.
My problem with these users who like the ZP zapper is not that they like it. It is their blind devotion without having tried anything else. It is when they try to impress on someone else that they are experienced zapper users and that there is not a need for anything else but the ZP zapper. 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.
There are people out there who claim that a Rife machine or a BBBE will produce better results without providing the contraindications of using these devices.
>- parazapper comes on here and attempts to elevate his product above all others
As far as I can see, I have only disparaged one zapper product. Also as far as I see, there are a gang of users who have used the ZP zapper and nothing else who pounce on everyone that asks for the best zapper avaialble. They say that the ZP is great but frequently forget to mention that they have not tried anything else or that they did not have any serious health issue.
>- They are in a different position, they are users NOT the ones who profit financially from its sale.
Agreed, but if you have only tried the cheapest zapper ever made, what comparison can you offer and how do you really know how good it is? 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. Additionally, I am a salaried employee. I promote ParaZapper just like the other individuals. I have tried it and about a dozen other zappers. ParaZapper is the best that I have tried. Additionally, while there are not many ParaZapper users on this forum ( most are busy professionals ), of those who have tried ParaZapper for any length of very few claim that any other zapper works as well or better. There are some, but not many. If I ever did find a better zapper, I would open it up and find out what made it better.
>- In fact I applaud the zapperplans people for trying to make zapper that anyone can afford
As I said before, I applaud their effort in the respect. My complaint is that they use an inferior chip. Again, the proof is visible. I can not help it if you do not understand or know how to read oscilloscope images but just looking at them should make it obvious that the waveform is weak and distorted.
>- by selling so close to what it cost to make.
Woah! Back up here! Their percentage markup is higher than ParaZapper unless they are paying way too much for their parts. They do not even include a battery.
>- 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
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 corrospond to the quality of the signal that the customer receives.
>- we have no such evidence for anyone’s zapper
That is no zapper except ParaZapper. Again, you failed to read. The information is published on our site that shows that the original Clark zapper has a limited effectiveness. Our cheapest zapper is slightly more effective, and the CCa is noticably more effective. This is based on the extent of improvement that users experience and report.
>- between the ultimate zapper(or the terminator, standard clacrk zapper) and parazapper
As I have already stated, we have compared to the standard Clark zapper. As for Ken Presner'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. I have tried about a dozen zappers ( Multi-Zap, Auto-Zap, etc ) in all and there are only 2 that I voice my objections to. Both claim that batteries last a long time. I am sorry that there are people who are so poor. I find it rediculous to worry about spending 50 cents a month on batteries. Especially not when that cheapness is robbing the user of effectiveness and without explaining this to them.
>- Any other zapper that is mentioned on this forum is immediately attacked by parazapper as being inferior when
Please provide the specific pages where this claim is made.
>- many of these products produce the identical output
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.
>- THERE IS NOTHING IN THE DESIGN OF THE PARAZAPPER THAT PUTS IT ANYWHERE ABOVE THE ORIGINAL CLARK ZAPPER BUILT IN A SHOEBOX!
You are absolutely wrong. Even our shoebox zapper produces better results than the standard Clark zapper. We have a lot of customers with many different zappers from many different manufacturers. If our customers were dissatisfied, you would be hearing from a lot of them here. You do not!
>- 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.
This again must be due to a lack of knowlege on your part. Based on the same circuit but with definite improvements. First, the chip that we use is far better.
Again, this is published not only on our website but is posted in this forum by other individuals. Finally, the CCa technology that we use in our CCa model produces definitely improved results.
First, Dr. Clark does not have the time or you would see her here providing information. Don Croft? You do appear to be a real hypocrit! He makes more than 10 times what the company that makes ParaZapper does and has a higher markup. So it is OK for Don Croft to make a product but not ParaZapper?
>- There are people with serious health problems who come here for the objective help of others, not a sales pitch.
That is exactly why I respond. To let them know that there is something better out there. I once had a Rambler American and it was a good car but I certainly did not run around trying to convince people that it was the best car ever made.
From what I have seen, you definitly have presented a biased hypocritical viewpoint. Apparantly, it is OK for Don Croft or Ken Presner to profit but you jump all over a employee on a salary accusing them of profiteering. Gee wiz, I make less than half of what I made as a computer programmer.
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.
You may not like my methods, granted, but to sit and spew obvious lies about something that you have not tried is a step in the wrong direction.
I do not disparage the $10 zapper to make more sales. I do it because I have tried it and IT DOES NOT WORK AS WELL. Not even as well as the original Clark zapper, definitely not as well as Ken Presners, Don Crofts Terminator, the Auto Zap, the MultiZap, or any other zapper that I have tried.