Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A real CURE for AIDS, Hepititis, Cancer, Herpes etc, for less than the price of a night out!

page: 5
270
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
For clarification, the term "zapper" usually refers to Dr. Hulda Clark's frequency generating unit, as discussed in her books, "The Cure for All Diseases / Cancers", etc., not necessarily Beck's, which usually have his name attached to them. And yes, the zapper is frequency based, more precisely, Dr. Clark (and her son), her real breakthrough was finding the "universal frequency" that did not necessarily have to target a particular organism.

Does it work? YES. JR


You beat me to it. I own a Clarks Zapper, model is the Auto Clark Zapper (ACZ1SF) with sweeping frequency, runs off a 9v pp3 battery as we call them in the UK. And yes they do work. I use it for just about everything. I also have a water ozonator all purchased from the same site in the UK. I have absolutely no affilation with the site owners but it's called Good Vitality (Google it). Not sure if they ship to the USA but you could always enquire. Good luck anyone that needs this kind of kit.




posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Chuffer
 


The zapper is a nice machine I have one as well along with the energy wellness machine and a custom built machine. I can tell you some amazing stories.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by gatewaywithin
reply to post by Chuffer
 


The zapper is a nice machine I have one as well along with the energy wellness machine and a custom built machine. I can tell you some amazing stories.



Tell us....


2nd line



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Interesting subject... this would probably relate to people who mediate and apparently cure illnesses through similar mechanics (resonance and electrical charges within the body that manipulate and affect the body on the cellular level).

Great find!



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by old_god
 


nicely put and very true.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
sorry





[edit on 20-6-2010 by Bachrk]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by arpanet
I would say that this is just one of the many suppressed technologies, but it doesn't appear to have been suppressed at all? I know the cure for cancer was established in 1938 by Royal Raymond Rife using his remarkable microscope, and "Magic" Johnson cured his AIDs with ozone therapy.


Oops I posted a very similar post as yours, but I have one question.. If ozone therapy cured Magic Johnson then why didn't he tell the world about it? Also what is holding the rest of the world back in these super cure areas from pushing it mainstream since they would be very open to it all? I start to see similar patterns between many of these cure claims.



[edit on 20-6-2010 by Xtrozero]



I too see a similar pattern, that most of them are held back from mainstream by greedy companies, and by the cool people who want cures for themselves.


[edit on 20-6-2010 by GrinchNoMore]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bachrk
I just ordered one. I'll give my review in a couple of weeks. It says it works for Multiple Sclerosis which I've had for 12yrs.

Rife and MS

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Bachrk]


Cancer Tutor is a wonderful site, absolutely full of great, researched info. And the sister site: Independent Cancer Research Foundation.

However, I looked at that link and I didn't see Beck on the page (CancerTutor site recommends Beck heavily, together with many other protocols including one particular frequency generator).

Beck Stuff is not Rife or frequency generators, they are distinct, although apparently both incredibly effective.

Just wanted to bring clarity to the thread.

I was considering getting a FG also, but didn't want to confuse our already full healing routine


Becks stuff was a few hundred, the FG is 2000 plus. Maybe later.

edit to add: there are differences also between the beck zapper and clark zapper, for example:



The Beck device can go to over 30 volts and uses special electrodes to get the micro current into the arteries in the wrist. Has a 4 Hz Bi Phasic square wave.

The Hulda Clark Zapper uses a positive offset square wave to kill pathogens. Different frequencies are used for different penetration and harmonics. 9 to 15 volts. hand holds and foot pads are used to get the signal throughout the body.


Beck wasn't keen on Clark's zapper in the original linked video in the OP. Not sure what that was about


[edit on 20/6/10 by RogerT]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


So I shall.
First off I was skeptical about these machines until I met up with a Naturopath named Dr. Barta and began to witness first hand the treatment results.
I spent nearly 2 years with Dr. Barta and several of his colleagues watching in amazement of what these machines along with other natural alternatives were capable of.
The most amazing results I witnessed were with a totally disabled wheelchair bound man (of about 30 years of age)who had been suffering and crippled since his birth, by what doctors diagnosed as copper toxicity. He was physically distorted and literally contorted into a ball, he could not speak or function in any way. To make an extremely long story short.Over the course of 9 months of various forms of treatment(energy wellness frequency machines alternated with custom built rife generators,ionized water(mavello jp101 unit)essential oils,vitamins(Sportsron and Nature Bee), and "aqua chi" detox. All of thee above treatments approx. 3 times per week, with the intent to detox the individual combined with the patients desire to be well, had this man (who was crippled at birth)out of his wheelchair and walking in just 9 short months.Not only was he walking he was beginning to speak his first words.Keep in mind he was still a bit hunched over but walking and speaking. If i had not seen the transformation myself I would never have believed this to be possible.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
It's nice to see we've hit page 5 already, and not one single worthy debunk post (save a few personal assumptions prior to looking at the actual info and data, and the usual 'hey if it worked, wouldn't everybody know about it', and 'placebo, placebo'
)

I would have expected the pro-allopaths and science dudes all over this like a rash.

Where's VneZonyDostupa et al?

[edit on 20/6/10 by RogerT]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
How do you think a minizapper differs from a Sota magnetic pulser ?

I am trying to find comparisons but cant seem to find any.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT

Where's VneZonyDostupa et al?

[edit on 20/6/10 by RogerT]


Sorry for the delayed post. I just returned from a vacation/family visit in Russia and haven't been active on here for the past two weeks.

I haven't slogged through the entire five pages yet, so I'll just offer a few quick comments and then maybe come back to post here later.

My main issue is, why are we supposed to believe that a technology that is cheap, readily available online, easily constructed, and supposedly wildly successful isn't being widely used? Saying that pharmaceutical companies are "suppressing it" doesn't make any sense, as old home remedies are still very popular, despite marketing efforts by pharmaceutical companies. Why wouldn't this become main stream? Why don't some of the owners of these machines submit them for research? Why hasn't an industrious graduate student who wants to make a name for himself/herself researched one of these machines? Why haven't even veterinarians started using them in their clinics? Surely, the pharmaceutical companies couldn't care less about how dogs and cats are being treated.

Of course, all of these questions are secondary to the fact that the machine makes no scientific sense. Passing an electric current of any given frequency through the body won't selectively destroy pathogens. Cells, bacterium, and viruses don't have unique charges or frequencies. The charge/frequency of a cell's membrane fluctuates within a given range depending on the ionic environment both inside and outside of the cell.


[edit on 6/20/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I found a link to Beck's complete paper, with diagrams and instructions, in pdf format:

altered-states.net...



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
this is amazing, for 50bucks i can make this device? even if it doesn't work, for 50bucks its worth trying, and hes not making any money off of it, so its not like im a buying his book or anything, so hes more then likely telling the truth and not trying to scam people to make money.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Nice work mate.
will watch the video and see what all the fuss is about. This is what I believe ATS should be about. At least it can either be proven or disproved. Unlike most other things on here.

Good find.

Heres the Zapper

Beck Zapper

[edit on 20-6-2010 by C11H17N2NaO2S]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


The answer is simple, just research what they did to Rife. They shut him down,blackballed him and anyone associated with him and burned down his lab. Just after his work made world headlines and his machines were to be dispersed world wide.
Answer me this why did they do this to one of the worlds most brilliant men?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by gatewaywithin
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


The answer is simple, just research what they did to Rife. They shut him down,blackballed him and anyone associated with him and burned down his lab. Just after his work made world headlines and his machines were to be dispersed world wide.
Answer me this why did they do this to one of the worlds most brilliant men?


Oddly, there is no evidence of these events beyond people who "heard about it" from a "site" or "some guy".

Also, for someone who was so "blacballed" and "suppressed", his information seems widely distributed. Why is that?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by RogerT

Where's VneZonyDostupa et al?

[edit on 20/6/10 by RogerT]


Sorry for the delayed post. I just returned from a vacation/family visit in Russia and haven't been active on here for the past two weeks.



Ah, there you are. Welcome to the thread.



I haven't slogged through the entire five pages yet, so I'll just offer a few quick comments and then maybe come back to post here later.

Super. Look forward to it.



My main issue is, why are we supposed to believe that a technology that is cheap, readily available online, easily constructed, and supposedly wildly successful isn't being widely used?


Who suggested you should believe that?
It is being widely used, as evidenced by the posts on this very thread!

If a few of your ilk would adopt a bit of integrity and actually promote stuff that worked, rather than stuff that doesn't, a lot more people would be using it.

Of course, if you did that, you'd probably lose your doctor's license. Perhaps there's a clue there




Saying that pharmaceutical companies are "suppressing it" doesn't make any sense, as old home remedies are still very popular, despite marketing efforts by pharmaceutical companies.
Why wouldn't this become main stream?


I think these questions have been answered a thousand times here on ATS. Regardless, it's outside the scope of the thread. The question is 'does it work or not'. Popularity in a media led world does not infer efficacy, especially in the health industry. As a doctor peddling a sham of a treatment with a less than 3% true cure rate, you should know that better than anyone!



Why don't some of the owners of these machines submit them for research? Why hasn't an industrious graduate student who wants to make a name for himself/herself researched one of these machines?


Why don't you try reading the data and research that has already been done (some posted here) and challenge that!




Why haven't even veterinarians started using them in their clinics? Surely, the pharmaceutical companies couldn't care less about how dogs and cats are being treated.


Who says they haven't. Although not sure how easy it would be to strap an electically stimulating device to a cat for 2 hours per day




Of course, all of these questions are secondary to the fact that the machine makes no scientific sense. Passing an electric current of any given frequency through the body won't selectively destroy pathogens. Cells, bacterium, and viruses don't have unique charges or frequencies. The charge/frequency of a cell's membrane fluctuates within a given range depending on the ionic environment both inside and outside of the cell.


Some of your rather more learned colleagues completely disagree with you (hint: read the OP and linked research). But it's nice for you to display your bias and ignorance up front prior to any investigation.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Because you cannot eradicate someone who studied at Johns Hopkins and developed technology which is still commonly used today in the fields of optics, electronics, radiochemistry, biochemistry, ballistics, and aviation. It is a fair statement that Rife practically developed bioelectric medicine himself.

You cannot erase a man from history who received 14 major awards and honors and was given an honorary Doctorate by the University of Heidelberg for his work. During the 66 years that Rife spent designing and building medical instruments, he worked for Zeiss Optics, the U.S. Government, and several private benefactors.

I liken Rifes story to that of Teslas.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT


Who suggested you should believe that?
It is being widely used, as evidenced by the posts on this very thread


Luckily, anonymous anecdotes don't a scientific process make.



If a few of your ilk would adopt a bit of integrity and actually promote stuff that worked, rather than stuff that doesn't, a lot more people would be using it.


Which attitude would you prefer your treating physician have:

a) "I haven't seen sufficient evidence that therapy X works, so I am not comfortable providing it to my patients until that evidence is made available."

OR

b) "Well, a bunch of people on the internet said this works. There aren't any papers, peer-reviewed data sets, or longterm cohort studies, but what the hell? Anonymous people on the internet don't lie, do they?"


Of course, if you did that, you'd probably lose your doctor's license. Perhaps there's a clue there



It's exceedingly hard to lose your license. You can use any experimental therapy you wish, as long as you don't violate ethics (first do no harm, etc.) and the patient has given full consent.

Nice sweeping generalization, though. I suppose all of us have our own biases, you and I both included.



Saying that pharmaceutical companies are "suppressing it" doesn't make any sense, as old home remedies are still very popular, despite marketing efforts by pharmaceutical companies.
Why wouldn't this become main stream?


I think these questions have been answered a thousand times here on ATS. Regardless, it's outside the scope of the thread. The question is 'does it work or not'. Popularity in a media led world does not infer efficacy, especially in the health industry. As a doctor peddling a sham of a treatment with a less than 3% true cure rate, you should know that better than anyone!





Why don't you try reading the data and research that has already been done (some posted here) and challenge that!


I just read the links in the OP. There is no data or research posted. The three links are interviews with Beck, descriptions of his methods, and that's it. No patient profiles, no percent successes, no blood titers, no histological samples...nothing. Just interviews and claims of suppression.

It's awfully hard to debate the data when no data is given.






Who says they haven't. Although not sure how easy it would be to strap an electically stimulating device to a cat for 2 hours per day


It wouldn't be any harder than keeping an IV or catheter in an animal. And yet, there are no references anywhere of these devices being used in veterinary care.



Some of your rather more learned colleagues completely disagree with you (hint: read the OP and linked research). But it's nice for you to display your bias and ignorance up front prior to any investigation.


I've yet to see any research posted in the OP. Also, the opinion of one researcher doesn't replace decades of research by scientists all over the world. The simple fact is, cells don't have constant, unique frequencies or charges. They are dynamic, fluctuating systems, not static objects. This is why every cell has hundreds ion pores, active transport channels, and endocytosis systems. Our cells (and other cellular organisms) are constantly adjusting their charge and ionic content.





new topics

top topics



 
270
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join