From: cathyb on

JanD wrote:
> >
> > "Researcher" <ital1(a)boursorama.com> wrote in message
> > news:1133779624.277254.314910(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> After one year of reading of the books of Hulda Clark, I decided to
> >> make tests with her zapper.
> >>
> >> Tests on myself :
> >> Each time I have a beginning of influenza or cold, I have 3 periods of
> >> zapping during 7 minutes separated by 20 minutes. Result: With each
> >> time I brood the disease (it is declared slightly but does not develop
> >> more).
> >>
> >> Tests on my girlfriend :
> >> Result: Exactly as mines.
> >>
> >> Tests my mother :
> >> She has diabetes but I do not know yet if that influences the disease
> >> (She's zapping since 4 days).
> >> These last days she had a pain which was trotted in its body. Once on
> >> the right, once on the left... She slept with difficulty (even if I did
> >> not notice it) and she did not want to take the dog outside fear of
> >> having pains.
> >> She zapped this morning (3x7 minutes, spaced by 20 minutes).
> >> She's just called me to tell me that this zapper is miraculous. I'm the
> >> happiest of all the boys !
> >>
> >> I know that there is necessary however to remain careful. >

Restored:

Yes it is. Nothing has been more repeatedly proven in medical science
than
that sham treatments or sugar pills can produce the results you
describe in
up to 50% of people with subjective complaints (i.e. perceived symptoms
as
opposed to objectively measurable aspects of disease) or self-limiting
ailments. So you are wise to be wary.

The reasons, apart from spontaneous improvements, are complex, but
important components in your type of testing can be the subjects
telling the
beloved experimenter (you) what they think you want to hear and a
person who
has spent good money on a rather dinky gadget trying hard to get
results
that would justify that. We are not always conscious of our own
biases.


In any case,



> all my family cannot do any more without the zapper. If the positive
> effects persist, I will speak about it to a doctor (homeopath) to see
> what he thinks...


Homeopaths are caught up in they same type of collective illusion.
Didn't
you know that?

These kinds of "pretend medicine" are harmless enough, and may even
help
people over bad patches, but no one should ever get the impression that
the
zapper is a useful treatment for serious illnesses like cancer or
diabetes,.
That is the risk from shaky endorsements of such methods such as yours.



Peter Moran


<snip spam >

Now why is Jan spamming for Hulda Clark's products? A woman of whom she
once said
"I am NOT a strong supporter Of Hulda Clark, with the exception of
her personal character."

Or was the site Jan posted a spoof? It's difficult to tell with Clark,
and a site with such items as:

"The Food Zappicator, Dr. Hulda Clark's food and substance
polarization device. Five year full warranty. Air mail free within the
US or Canada, $15 US international."

LOL

Cathy

From: Researcher on
I don't want to make the war against anti-hulda clark's peoples.

At the beginning, for a few months, everyone around me had been skeptic
and nobody wanted to test the zapper.

Then I made the first tests since I have the zapper I do not develop
more any disease but they are hardly declared and do not go further.

Then, after some successive tests on myself, my girlfriend wanted to
test because she hates to be made contaminate by diseases (cold,
influenza) and as soon as she had caught a disease it tested the
zapper. successfully.

My mother began the treatment one week ago but she did not do it
correctly (she did not make three periods the seven minutes separated
by twenty minutes, but she rather did it per single periods from 10 to
20 minutes).

She then had a pain which travelled in its body... In the arm, on the
right of the back, the left of the back, towards the heart... That
*could* prove that the theory of Hulda Clark is plausible... A parasite
*could* ballader in the body of somebody.

She then used per periods seven minutes separated by twenty minutes (3
x 7 minutes periods).

The travelling pain was then kicked.

I hope that this will continue.

Another friend of my mother wants to try now, as she saw my mother with
pain one day, and the following day my mother had not this moving pain
anymore...

People that my mother knows want to know more.





cathyb a écrit :

> JanD wrote:
> > >
> > > "Researcher" <ital1(a)boursorama.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1133779624.277254.314910(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > >> After one year of reading of the books of Hulda Clark, I decided to
> > >> make tests with her zapper.
> > >>
> > >> Tests on myself :
> > >> Each time I have a beginning of influenza or cold, I have 3 periods of
> > >> zapping during 7 minutes separated by 20 minutes. Result: With each
> > >> time I brood the disease (it is declared slightly but does not develop
> > >> more).
> > >>
> > >> Tests on my girlfriend :
> > >> Result: Exactly as mines.
> > >>
> > >> Tests my mother :
> > >> She has diabetes but I do not know yet if that influences the disease
> > >> (She's zapping since 4 days).
> > >> These last days she had a pain which was trotted in its body. Once on
> > >> the right, once on the left... She slept with difficulty (even if I did
> > >> not notice it) and she did not want to take the dog outside fear of
> > >> having pains.
> > >> She zapped this morning (3x7 minutes, spaced by 20 minutes).
> > >> She's just called me to tell me that this zapper is miraculous. I'm the
> > >> happiest of all the boys !
> > >>
> > >> I know that there is necessary however to remain careful. >
>
> Restored:
>
> Yes it is. Nothing has been more repeatedly proven in medical science
> than
> that sham treatments or sugar pills can produce the results you
> describe in
> up to 50% of people with subjective complaints (i.e. perceived symptoms
> as
> opposed to objectively measurable aspects of disease) or self-limiting
> ailments. So you are wise to be wary.
>
> The reasons, apart from spontaneous improvements, are complex, but
> important components in your type of testing can be the subjects
> telling the
> beloved experimenter (you) what they think you want to hear and a
> person who
> has spent good money on a rather dinky gadget trying hard to get
> results
> that would justify that. We are not always conscious of our own
> biases.
>
>
> In any case,
>
>
>
> > all my family cannot do any more without the zapper. If the positive
> > effects persist, I will speak about it to a doctor (homeopath) to see
> > what he thinks...
>
>
> Homeopaths are caught up in they same type of collective illusion.
> Didn't
> you know that?
>
> These kinds of "pretend medicine" are harmless enough, and may even
> help
> people over bad patches, but no one should ever get the impression that
> the
> zapper is a useful treatment for serious illnesses like cancer or
> diabetes,.
> That is the risk from shaky endorsements of such methods such as yours.
>
>
>
> Peter Moran
>
>
> <snip spam >
>
> Now why is Jan spamming for Hulda Clark's products? A woman of whom she
> once said
> "I am NOT a strong supporter Of Hulda Clark, with the exception of
> her personal character."
>
> Or was the site Jan posted a spoof? It's difficult to tell with Clark,
> and a site with such items as:
>
> "The Food Zappicator, Dr. Hulda Clark's food and substance
> polarization device. Five year full warranty. Air mail free within the
> US or Canada, $15 US international."
>
> LOL
>
> Cathy

From: JohnDoe on
Researcher wrote:
> I don't want to make the war against anti-hulda clark's peoples.
>
> At the beginning, for a few months, everyone around me had been skeptic
> and nobody wanted to test the zapper.
>
> Then I made the first tests since I have the zapper I do not develop
> more any disease but they are hardly declared and do not go further.
>
> Then, after some successive tests on myself, my girlfriend wanted to
> test because she hates to be made contaminate by diseases (cold,
> influenza) and as soon as she had caught a disease it tested the
> zapper. successfully.
>
> My mother began the treatment one week ago but she did not do it
> correctly (she did not make three periods the seven minutes separated
> by twenty minutes, but she rather did it per single periods from 10 to
> 20 minutes).
>
> She then had a pain which travelled in its body... In the arm, on the
> right of the back, the left of the back, towards the heart... That
> *could* prove that the theory of Hulda Clark is plausible... A parasite
> *could* ballader in the body of somebody.
>
> She then used per periods seven minutes separated by twenty minutes (3
> x 7 minutes periods).
>
> The travelling pain was then kicked.
>
> I hope that this will continue.
>
> Another friend of my mother wants to try now, as she saw my mother with
> pain one day, and the following day my mother had not this moving pain
> anymore...
>
> People that my mother knows want to know more.

I have seen you talking for while about scientific research into Hulda
Clarks claims. I'd like to point out to you that what you are doing does
not even remotely resemble 'scientific testing'. As a matter of fact,
this sort of 'testing' has kept ineffective and sometimes even dangerous
treatments (like bloodletting) alive in the past and some even today.
It has been pointed out to you before, but I'll just do it again: there
is no scientific basis whatsoever for Clark's claims. None. Nobody but
her is able to find liverstones and liverflukes everywhere. Nobody.
There is not even a fringe scientific theory that could form the basis
for the zapper, none, nowhere. There are no scientifically validated
reports of anyone ever being cured of anyhting with the zapper, just
stories like yours, which aren't scientific.

> cathyb a ?crit :
>
>
>>JanD wrote:
>>
>>>>"Researcher" <ital1(a)boursorama.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1133779624.277254.314910(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>After one year of reading of the books of Hulda Clark, I decided to
>>>>>make tests with her zapper.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tests on myself :
>>>>>Each time I have a beginning of influenza or cold, I have 3 periods of
>>>>>zapping during 7 minutes separated by 20 minutes. Result: With each
>>>>>time I brood the disease (it is declared slightly but does not develop
>>>>>more).
>>>>>
>>>>>Tests on my girlfriend :
>>>>>Result: Exactly as mines.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tests my mother :
>>>>>She has diabetes but I do not know yet if that influences the disease
>>>>>(She's zapping since 4 days).
>>>>>These last days she had a pain which was trotted in its body. Once on
>>>>>the right, once on the left... She slept with difficulty (even if I did
>>>>>not notice it) and she did not want to take the dog outside fear of
>>>>>having pains.
>>>>>She zapped this morning (3x7 minutes, spaced by 20 minutes).
>>>>>She's just called me to tell me that this zapper is miraculous. I'm the
>>>>>happiest of all the boys !
>>>>>
>>>>>I know that there is necessary however to remain careful. >
>>
>>Restored:
>>
>>Yes it is. Nothing has been more repeatedly proven in medical science
>>than
>>that sham treatments or sugar pills can produce the results you
>>describe in
>>up to 50% of people with subjective complaints (i.e. perceived symptoms
>>as
>>opposed to objectively measurable aspects of disease) or self-limiting
>>ailments. So you are wise to be wary.
>>
>>The reasons, apart from spontaneous improvements, are complex, but
>>important components in your type of testing can be the subjects
>>telling the
>>beloved experimenter (you) what they think you want to hear and a
>>person who
>>has spent good money on a rather dinky gadget trying hard to get
>>results
>>that would justify that. We are not always conscious of our own
>>biases.
>>
>>
>>In any case,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>all my family cannot do any more without the zapper. If the positive
>>>effects persist, I will speak about it to a doctor (homeopath) to see
>>>what he thinks...
>>
>>
>>Homeopaths are caught up in they same type of collective illusion.
>>Didn't
>>you know that?
>>
>>These kinds of "pretend medicine" are harmless enough, and may even
>>help
>>people over bad patches, but no one should ever get the impression that
>>the
>>zapper is a useful treatment for serious illnesses like cancer or
>>diabetes,.
>>That is the risk from shaky endorsements of such methods such as yours.
>>
>>
>>
>>Peter Moran
>>
>>
>><snip spam >
>>
>>Now why is Jan spamming for Hulda Clark's products? A woman of whom she
>>once said
>> "I am NOT a strong supporter Of Hulda Clark, with the exception of
>>her personal character."
>>
>>Or was the site Jan posted a spoof? It's difficult to tell with Clark,
>>and a site with such items as:
>>
>> "The Food Zappicator, Dr. Hulda Clark's food and substance
>>polarization device. Five year full warranty. Air mail free within the
>>US or Canada, $15 US international."
>>
>>LOL
>>
>>Cathy
>
>
From: cathyb on

JohnDoe wrote:
> Researcher wrote:
> > I don't want to make the war against anti-hulda clark's peoples.
> >
> > At the beginning, for a few months, everyone around me had been skeptic
> > and nobody wanted to test the zapper.
> >
> > Then I made the first tests since I have the zapper I do not develop
> > more any disease but they are hardly declared and do not go further.
> >
> > Then, after some successive tests on myself, my girlfriend wanted to
> > test because she hates to be made contaminate by diseases (cold,
> > influenza) and as soon as she had caught a disease it tested the
> > zapper. successfully.
> >
> > My mother began the treatment one week ago but she did not do it
> > correctly (she did not make three periods the seven minutes separated
> > by twenty minutes, but she rather did it per single periods from 10 to
> > 20 minutes).
> >
> > She then had a pain which travelled in its body... In the arm, on the
> > right of the back, the left of the back, towards the heart... That
> > *could* prove that the theory of Hulda Clark is plausible... A parasite
> > *could* ballader in the body of somebody.
> >
> > She then used per periods seven minutes separated by twenty minutes (3
> > x 7 minutes periods).
> >
> > The travelling pain was then kicked.
> >
> > I hope that this will continue.
> >
> > Another friend of my mother wants to try now, as she saw my mother with
> > pain one day, and the following day my mother had not this moving pain
> > anymore...
> >
> > People that my mother knows want to know more.
>
> I have seen you talking for while about scientific research into Hulda
> Clarks claims. I'd like to point out to you that what you are doing does
> not even remotely resemble 'scientific testing'. As a matter of fact,
> this sort of 'testing' has kept ineffective and sometimes even dangerous
> treatments (like bloodletting) alive in the past and some even today.
> It has been pointed out to you before, but I'll just do it again: there
> is no scientific basis whatsoever for Clark's claims. None. Nobody but
> her is able to find liverstones and liverflukes everywhere. Nobody.
> There is not even a fringe scientific theory that could form the basis
> for the zapper, none, nowhere. There are no scientifically validated
> reports of anyone ever being cured of anyhting with the zapper, just
> stories like yours, which aren't scientific.

Why, thank you John.

Needed to be said. The comparison with bloodletting was inspired.

Cheers,

Cathy

>
> > cathyb a écrit :
> >
> >
> >>JanD wrote:
> >>
> >>>>"Researcher" <ital1(a)boursorama.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1133779624.277254.314910(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>>After one year of reading of the books of Hulda Clark, I decided to
> >>>>>make tests with her zapper.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Tests on myself :
> >>>>>Each time I have a beginning of influenza or cold, I have 3 periods of
> >>>>>zapping during 7 minutes separated by 20 minutes. Result: With each
> >>>>>time I brood the disease (it is declared slightly but does not develop
> >>>>>more).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Tests on my girlfriend :
> >>>>>Result: Exactly as mines.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Tests my mother :
> >>>>>She has diabetes but I do not know yet if that influences the disease
> >>>>>(She's zapping since 4 days).
> >>>>>These last days she had a pain which was trotted in its body. Once on
> >>>>>the right, once on the left... She slept with difficulty (even if I did
> >>>>>not notice it) and she did not want to take the dog outside fear of
> >>>>>having pains.
> >>>>>She zapped this morning (3x7 minutes, spaced by 20 minutes).
> >>>>>She's just called me to tell me that this zapper is miraculous. I'm the
> >>>>>happiest of all the boys !
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I know that there is necessary however to remain careful. >
> >>
> >>Restored:
> >>
> >>Yes it is. Nothing has been more repeatedly proven in medical science
> >>than
> >>that sham treatments or sugar pills can produce the results you
> >>describe in
> >>up to 50% of people with subjective complaints (i.e. perceived symptoms
> >>as
> >>opposed to objectively measurable aspects of disease) or self-limiting
> >>ailments. So you are wise to be wary.
> >>
> >>The reasons, apart from spontaneous improvements, are complex, but
> >>important components in your type of testing can be the subjects
> >>telling the
> >>beloved experimenter (you) what they think you want to hear and a
> >>person who
> >>has spent good money on a rather dinky gadget trying hard to get
> >>results
> >>that would justify that. We are not always conscious of our own
> >>biases.
> >>
> >>
> >>In any case,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>all my family cannot do any more without the zapper. If the positive
> >>>effects persist, I will speak about it to a doctor (homeopath) to see
> >>>what he thinks...
> >>
> >>
> >>Homeopaths are caught up in they same type of collective illusion.
> >>Didn't
> >>you know that?
> >>
> >>These kinds of "pretend medicine" are harmless enough, and may even
> >>help
> >>people over bad patches, but no one should ever get the impression that
> >>the
> >>zapper is a useful treatment for serious illnesses like cancer or
> >>diabetes,.
> >>That is the risk from shaky endorsements of such methods such as yours.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Peter Moran
> >>
> >>
> >><snip spam >
> >>
> >>Now why is Jan spamming for Hulda Clark's products? A woman of whom she
> >>once said
> >> "I am NOT a strong supporter Of Hulda Clark, with the exception of
> >>her personal character."
> >>
> >>Or was the site Jan posted a spoof? It's difficult to tell with Clark,
> >>and a site with such items as:
> >>
> >> "The Food Zappicator, Dr. Hulda Clark's food and substance
> >>polarization device. Five year full warranty. Air mail free within the
> >>US or Canada, $15 US international."
> >>
> >>LOL
> >>
> >>Cathy
> >
> >

From: Researcher on
> I have seen you talking for while about scientific research into Hulda
> Clarks claims. I'd like to point out to you that what you are doing does
> not even remotely resemble 'scientific testing'.

So are you ready for a REAL scientific discussion ? Can you answer all
the questions I've asked since the beginning of this thread ? So are
you ok for answering to these ?
Since now, NOBODY in this thread has had a scientific approach... All
that you say has not any proof.


>As a matter of fact,
> this sort of 'testing' has kept ineffective and sometimes even dangerous
> treatments (like bloodletting) alive in the past and some even today.

Ok... I believe that what you say can be real. So... Please, GIVE ME
THE EMAIL ADDRESS OR CONTACTS OF THESE PEOPLE WHO HAD BLOODLETTING
BECAUSE OF USING THE ZAPPER... GIVE ONLY ONE AND I'LL CONTACT THEM.
THEN I'LL GET SOME DATA FROM A REAL PEOPLE WHO TRIED IT.

Please describe how the bloodletting came... How long have the zapper
been used ? By whom ? When ? What kind of bloodletting... In which
country ? Which people ? Have you got photos of bloodletting caused by
a zapper ? Can you tell us why a 5V positive offset voltage can cause
bloodletting ? There should be scientifical data on that, isn't there ?


> It has been pointed out to you before, but I'll just do it again: there
> is no scientific basis whatsoever for Clark's claims. None. Nobody but
> her is able to find liverstones and liverflukes everywhere. Nobody.
> There is not even a fringe scientific theory that could form the basis
> for the zapper, none, nowhere. There are no scientifically validated
> reports of anyone ever being cured of anyhting with the zapper, just
> stories like yours, which aren't scientific.

So... Can you tell us precisely what is not scientific or what is
scientific in Hulda Clark's claims... Stop shooting in the dark (I tell
you that but also to the other ones -the kids-) and tell us precisely
what seems strange or not in her book...


Thanks