From: Researcher on
Again and again and again... No scientific data, no scientific
approach... ONLY SHOOTING IN THE DARK. Always the same fake
arguments...

Which damage. With each time that a subject can become interesting for
the whole world, it always wedged brain there to repeat the same
sentences continuously, and without never being wearied.

But real facts continue to show :
I still do not know if the zapper of Hulda Clark modified something on
the level of the diabetes of my mother... But she had had for a few
months a bump on an arm and a doctor intended it for a surgical
operation.
Since one week that she zaps, the bump decreased... I point out the
facts, in one week:
1- She was zapping irregularly (not 3x7 minutes, spaced by 20min)
2- The following day, she was tired the whole day
3- The third day (or maybe before but she did not told us) : A moving
pain in the right of her body, then left, then next to the heart...
4- The fourth day (or around) : She starts to zap normally (3x7min,
spaced by 20min)
5- The moving pain was nearly entirely gone; She zaps every morning
(3x7)
6- Now the pain is entirely gone
7- The bump on her arm is decreasing slowly

.... UNTIL NOW, ONLY POSITIVE EFFECTS ... GOOD DOCTORS SHOULD SAY THAT
IT IS A COOL THING... BUT HERE DOCTORS WILL SAY IT IS DANGEROUS ...
BIZARRE, DON'T YOU THINK ? I DON'T KNOW BUT... WE'LL SEE...


In any event she continues her official drugs and continuous to see
doctors allopathic and homeopathic for the follow-up, it is important



Tim Campbell a écrit :

> Mark Probert wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Of those I have spoken with who have tried the Zapper far more than 50%
> > > report positive results; the majority do.
> >
> > That is because they believed that the gizmo would do something.
>
>
> I'm still waiting for you to present the evidence that the placebo
> effect is repeatedly demonstrable.

From: cathyb on

Researcher wrote:

> Again and again and again... No scientific data, no scientific
> approach... ONLY SHOOTING IN THE DARK. Always the same fake
> arguments...
>
> Which damage. With each time that a subject can become interesting for
> the whole world, it always wedged brain there to repeat the same
> sentences continuously, and without never being wearied.
>
> But real facts continue to show :
> I still do not know if the zapper of Hulda Clark modified something on
> the level of the diabetes of my mother... But she had had for a few
> months a bump on an arm and a doctor intended it for a surgical
> operation.
> Since one week that she zaps, the bump decreased... I point out the
> facts, in one week:
> 1- She was zapping irregularly (not 3x7 minutes, spaced by 20min)
> 2- The following day, she was tired the whole day
> 3- The third day (or maybe before but she did not told us) : A moving
> pain in the right of her body, then left, then next to the heart...
> 4- The fourth day (or around) : She starts to zap normally (3x7min,
> spaced by 20min)
> 5- The moving pain was nearly entirely gone; She zaps every morning
> (3x7)
> 6- Now the pain is entirely gone
> 7- The bump on her arm is decreasing slowly
>
> ... UNTIL NOW, ONLY POSITIVE EFFECTS ... GOOD DOCTORS SHOULD SAY THAT
> IT IS A COOL THING... BUT HERE DOCTORS WILL SAY IT IS DANGEROUS ...
> BIZARRE, DON'T YOU THINK ? I DON'T KNOW BUT... WE'LL SEE...

Do you reallly think that giving us a blow-by-blow account of the
progression of a bump on your Mum's arm is a scientific approach?!

>
>
> In any event she continues her official drugs and continuous to see
> doctors allopathic and homeopathic for the follow-up, it is important

Well, yes. It also makes risible your assumption that the fraud Hulda
Clark's device is responsible for anything that has happened to your
mother . Wittering on about the scientific approach while claiming that
your sample of n=1 (with that sample also taking other medication)
recovering from a "bump on her arm" is evidence that Clark's magic
zapper works is about as far from a scientific approach as you can get.

Claiming "POSITIVE EFFECTS" simply makes you look foolish, since no-one
will ever know whether the, er, bump, would have gone spontaneously or
was affected by some other factor in her life.

That's why there are medical trials with large populations, and
allowances made for confounding factors. Something Hulda Clark has
failed ever to carry out.

Wonder why.

Anyway, please don't presume to lecture others about the scientific
approach until you can demonstrate a basic understanding of it.

Cathy

PS I'd be interested to know why you're not demanding that Clark
produce any scientific data to back up her frauds, something she has
notably failed to do.

>
>
>
> Tim Campbell a écrit :
>
> > Mark Probert wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Of those I have spoken with who have tried the Zapper far more than 50%
> > > > report positive results; the majority do.
> > >
> > > That is because they believed that the gizmo would do something.
> >
> >
> > I'm still waiting for you to present the evidence that the placebo
> > effect is repeatedly demonstrable.

From: Researcher on
No one dares to have a scientific approach...
Even you don't have a scientific one.

Once, the questions I asked in my threads won't be asked, the
scientific approach is dead here... As no one can answer all my
questions, then I consider that we cannot have a technical or real
medical discussion here... I think there are a lot of fake doctors
here... Nearly sure about it, because REAL doctors would have answered
my questions one by one... and NONE of them has been answered, neither
in this thread, nor in the "scientific approach of hulda clark's
protocols" that I posted some days ago...

SO, what's now ?

I WANTED A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
I ASKED MY QUESTIONS
NO ONE ANSWERED EVEN ONE
I GIVE THE FACTS... I'VE GIVEN UP WITH SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, AS NO ONE
DARES TO TRY ONE.

From: cathyb on

Researcher wrote:

> No one dares to have a scientific approach...
> Even you don't have a scientific one.
>
> Once, the questions I asked in my threads won't be asked, the
> scientific approach is dead here... As no one can answer all my
> questions, then I consider that we cannot have a technical or real
> medical discussion here... I think there are a lot of fake doctors
> here... Nearly sure about it, because REAL doctors would have answered
> my questions one by one... and NONE of them has been answered, neither
> in this thread, nor in the "scientific approach of hulda clark's
> protocols" that I posted some days ago...
>
> SO, what's now ?
>
> I WANTED A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
> I ASKED MY QUESTIONS
> NO ONE ANSWERED EVEN ONE
> I GIVE THE FACTS... I'VE GIVEN UP WITH SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, AS NO ONE
> DARES TO TRY ONE.

Please indicate what you're replying to.

As you indicated in your last post by implying that your mum's bump was
evidence for Hulda Clark's zapper working, you wouldn't know a
scientific approach if it bit you on the nose.

As I replied:

"Anyway, please don't presume to lecture others about the scientific
approach until you can demonstrate a basic understanding of it."

From: JohnDoe on
Researcher wrote:
> No one dares to have a scientific approach...
> Even you don't have a scientific one.
>
> Once, the questions I asked in my threads won't be asked, the
> scientific approach is dead here...

The scientific approach to Hulda Clark is dead because here basic claims
do not check out, scientifically. The liverflukes and stones she sees
everywhere just aren't there. If they there, she can't cure people from
them, period. End of scientific research into her claims.

> As no one can answer all my questions,

A fool can ask more questions in 5 minutes than a wise man can answer in
a lifetime.

> then I consider that we cannot have a technical or real
> medical discussion here...

If you had a clue about medicine or the world around you the discussions
with you would be much more meaningful.

> I think there are a lot of fake doctors here...
> Nearly sure about it, because REAL doctors would have answered
> my questions one by one...

Puhleaze....

> and NONE of them has been answered, neither
> in this thread, nor in the "scientific approach of hulda clark's
> protocols" that I posted some days ago...
>
> SO, what's now ?

I hope what's now is that you go visit a real doctor with any medical
problem you or your family has and that you actually listen to them. And
that you stop trying out totally useless, bogus and fraudulent things
like Hulda's Zapper. This is advice that might save your life!

> I WANTED A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH

So far you showed no comprehension of even the basics of a scientific
approach. If you have no idea what it is you want, how can you know if
you got it or not?

> I ASKED MY QUESTIONS

So we noticed.

> NO ONE ANSWERED EVEN ONE

You got answers, you just did not understand them. Heck, you didn't even
understand they were answers.

> I GIVE THE FACTS... I'VE GIVEN UP WITH SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, AS NO ONE
> DARES TO TRY ONE.

You haven't even started with the scientific approach. Your
'experiments' with your mother are about as unscientific as you can
possibly get. Just start with looking up 'scientific method' on
Wikipedia. Just as a very, very basic start. Then try to read up on how
a medical trial works and why.