posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:19 PM
Naturally, I've browsed over some claimed technologies such as this...
As someone with an education in electronics engineering, and being self-taught in many fields, including my recent dabblings in cancer fighting, I'm
still highly skeptical of this.
Too good to be true, often is.
At least with ozone technology there are foreign and even U.S. studies that can be used to argue with. I've yet to see any real scientific studies on
this 'zap' tech worth citing. If you know of any, please do share.
I fail to see how low wattage on the skin is going to affect blood pathogens.
To me, clinical studies aren't even required to prove the concept itself. What is required are scientific studies demonstrating the claim that low
voltages would kill pathogens, but, and this is a very important but, doesn't also kill desirable healthy cells.
With that established, the plot only thickens...
How does applying this voltage to the skin affect the blood stream?
How does applying this to the skin actually kill a solid tumor mass? Assuming this technology were feasible in the slightest, it would stand to reason
that it could potentially be used against leukemia, or at least for stopping tumors from spreading via the blood stream... but to literally fry a
tumor is a whole other story.
Shouldn't people just zap themselves with a stun gun every few months to prevent cancer? (Many people die from stun guns, but still.) Why isn't
Tazer marketing on this (is the point)?
It doesn't make sense to me, other than to have the blood flow thru a specially designed device the blood flows directly thru and back into the
system. Under this model, which is complicated, you'd surely have to run it for long enough for all (HIV) infected blood cells to be affected. In
terms of cancer, this would kill mutagens in the blood stream, but it still wouldn't target a solid localized tumor mass (period).
I'm sure I can keep going, but I'm putting the ball in your court now...
[edit on 7-9-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]