David Amrein says I have "bad business ethics". After Dr. Hulda Clark died he emailed everyone on his email list that she died from a spinal cord injury. Her death certificate states that she died from hypercalcemia which is associated with multiple myeloma, a form of cancer. This information was provided by Dr. Clark's family. David Amrein removed the erroneous information about Dr. Clark's death from his site once the true cause of death was disseminated on the Internet -- but there is no longer any mention on his site about Dr. Clark's death, or the cause of death. This is no surprise since his protocol and products are marketed with the medical claim of killing cancer. David Amrein says I have "bad business ethics".
The Dr. Clark Research Association's Super Deluxe 2004 and Deluxe 2006 "zappers" are not zappers at all. They are frequency generators dependent on the use of expensive add-ons, program drivers and smart keys for which customers are charged individually. The are marketing-driven devices and are they were created with a focus on marketing, not effectiveness. I detail the costs below.
Here is a quote from Arthur Doerksen's Auto-Zap site:
"As you probably know, various multiple-frequency zappers exist; some, like the DCRA's SuperZapper Deluxe, offer pluggable modules to alter the frequency with "program driver" chips. The truth is, these are simply not necessary and can even reduce the effectiveness of your zapping time."
On their site the Association states "The zapper is fully programmable." Sound good? What this actually means is that the purchaser must buy expensive add-ons in order to program it. The lowest possible frequency that the 2004 and 2006 can be programmed to is 23,000 Hertz. But zappers are not programmable to a variety of frequencies. Devices that are programmable require the purchase of expensive add-ons and other devices. They are frequency generators, not zappers. Zappers are pre-programmed to a single frequency and do not require the purchase of any other product. The Ultimate Zapper is not programmable. It's electronic circuitry is fully pre-programmed. There are no add-ons and there is no added cost.
The Association has just re-christened their Deluxe 2006 a Biowave Generator but they still use the word "zapper" in the small print. If you want to use their devices without program drivers or smart keys you can. But you are then paying the premium price of $189.00 for the equivalent of a simple 1995 high frequency Hulda Clark zapper that can be purchased for $60.00. The Association's devices were designed to be used with the expensive add-ons. Their marketing is subtle and deceptive. Read on for more details.
On their order page they state: "Zapper DeLuxe 2006 with with all necessary accessories". Sound good? What this actually means is that is it necessary to buy the accessories. The accessories, program drivers and smart keys are necessary for people to buy to run the programs the Deluxe was designed for. Then, they state, the "Standard Clark Program runs". The fact is that there is no "Standard Clark Program" at all. Dr. Clark never invented any programs. There is a "Standard Dr. Clark Research Association Program". Dr. Hulda Clark is a researcher and inventor. She mapped out the frequencies that various pathogens vibrate at and she invented a 1-frequency device called the zapper to kill those pathogens. She never envisaged using a frequency generator to kill pathogens, which is why she created the zapper. Dr. Clark never created any programs and she does not endorse the Association's devices or any other devices for that matter. The Ultimate Zapper is not programmable. It comes completely pre-programmed. All you have to do it turn the switch on.
The Association's smart keys are not such a smart an idea for the purchaser. Why? They first require the purchase of a $600.00 smart key programmer. This is the basis of the Association's marketing strategy. Then the purchaser has to know the frequencies of the pathogens they want to kill before ordering their Super Deluxe and the smart keys. To know those frequencies they have to order the Association's Zincrometer test kit for $672.00, and a set of very expensive test slides. And they have to purchase the Association's smart keys individually, plus the 2004 or 2006 Super Deluxe, of course. So, the cost is $600.00 (smart key programmer) plus $672.00 (Zincrometer test kit) plus $189.00 for the Super Deluxe and then the extra cost for each smart key. Plus the cost of the test slides which is in the hundreds of dollars. That comes to $1462.00, plus the cost of the individual smart keys.
This is a very expensive and complicated process with an uncertain outcome, according to people who have used it. In the end it's like playing an expensive game of zapper Roulette. The bottom line is that program drivers and smart keys are very smart marketing for the Dr. Clark Research Association. But not so smart for the vast majority of people who want to kill pathogens quickly, effectively and inexpensively.
Let's say that one has the money for all this. You just hook everything up and away you go, right? Wrong. We're not done yet. There is one last hurdle that the Association never mentions on their website but which Arthur Doerksen talks about on his Auto-Zap site at:
"Although simple in concept, the syncrometer is difficult to master. Dr. Clark says it requires six months of diligent practice before one is ready to test others. It also requires the creation or purchase of a great many test substances for use as test standards, to enable one to thoroughly test and research the human body with its many systems and organs. We are always looking for more people to become Syncrometer testers but it is definitely not for everyone."
The following paragraph is from
"Syncrometer units are now available. If you are interested in experimenting with a Syncrometer, we suggest getting the video, Syncrometer Basics and The Syncrometer Laboratory Manual. Many people have found difficulty hearing a positive from a negative, so the video of Dr. Hulda Clark demonstrating the device in a class room setting is valuable in learning how to operate your device. We suggest you first learn how to build and use a Hulda Clark Syncrometer with the Syncrometer Basics Video, and then from there use the Lab Manual for guiding you through the many advanced Syncrometer experiments." The video is $29.95 and the manual is $19.95.
In my opinion, I don't think that the average person would even consider buying the Super Deluxe 2006 if they knew that using it means buying a syncrometer or building their own syncrometer and a whole host of other expensive accessories, and going through extensive training in the use of the Zincrometer. Oddly, none of this is explained on the Dr. Clark Research Association sites. They advertise the 2004 and 2006 boldly but it is only on the order page where they mention the obligatory purchase of their version of the syncrometer, called the Zincrometer, when using the smart keys. This is just one example in a long list of deceptions perpetrated by the Dr. Clark Research Association. Once they grab your toe and you're in the water there is no going back without losing a substantial investment. It is no wonder why they are not up front about their marketing agenda.
The Association has another marketing scheme up its sleeve. If you purchased a Super 2006 Deluxe last year and you want to benefit from this year's added functions you have to buy a new zapper for $189.00. My opinion is that their marketing strategy is not very people-friendly, which is further substantiated by the fact that users are reporting back to me that complicated and expensive do not assure the effectiveness of the Association's devices.
Please read issues number five and six, below, for more information about program drivers and smart keys. The Association treads on dangerous ground with their program drivers. The drivers imply medical claims for complex diseases. They choose two or more target frequencies which supposedly will render results for these diseases. But this is impossible for them to assure any results whatsoever and they have no testimonial proof that any results have been yet obtained. Yet results are clearly implied in the listing of complex diseases on their order page. After all, what are MS and other serious diseases listed with specific program drivers if the user is not to expect results? These are the same kinds of misleading medical claims that they agreed to refrain from making in the U.S. court order of 2003. They now go about making medical claims in a more muted and passive way, nevertheless the claims are clearly there on their site.
Regarding the use of the syncrometer, Dr. Clark herself states
"Excellent results are possible without synchrometer testing...[which is the basis of the Association's entire marketing-driven smart key approach].
In other words, according to Dr. Clark herself, the Dr. Clark Research Association's expensive marketing-driven smart key "solution" is not inevitable. Dr. Clark never even considered such an approach. She only considered a simple approach when she invented the original zapper in 1993. And she has not changed her stance since 1993. From the reports coming back to me about the Super Zapper Deluxe, their device is not providing improved results for many people, at great expense.
Dr. Hulda Clark is not affiliated with and does not endorse the Dr. Clark Research Asscociation, which also has a "ghost" site called the Dr. Clark Information Center which redirects you to their main Dr. Clark Research Association site. Dr. Clark has not given David Amrein, the owner of the Dr. Clark websites, permission to use her name and she has no affiliation with him. She does not endorse the Dr. Clark Research Association's products which uses her name prominently on their site to market them. There is not a single word on the Dr. Clark Research Association's site letting people know that Dr. Clark is not connected in any way with their company.
When you do a Google search for the Super Deluxe 2004 and 2006 their site often shows up in the #2 spot. Here is what the introduction on Google says:
"dr clark's website"
This is not Dr. Clark's website. Her website is at
In my opinion all this is highly misleading and deceptive, a deception that I fell for myself until I was corrected by a number of visitors to my site.
The Dr. Clark Research Association was taken to court by the U.S. FTC in 2003. They voluntarity complied with a court order related to false advertising after making medical "cure" claims for their devices and other products. The court order restrained it from advertising those false medical claims. The Association was claiming that it can cure serious diseases. Since the government has made many unjust accusations against those in the "alternative medicine" field over the past decades this must be examined very closely. Personally, I am not a great fan of the FTC, the FCC, The FDA or Health Canada which marches to the tune of the American authorities. They have unjustly persecuted zapper makers and others in the alternative health field in the past in the guise of protecting the public, but really in the service of the big pharmaceutical companies.
In this particular instance, however, I believe that the FTC made a strong case against David Amrein who is the sole owner of the Dr. Clark Research Association because he made many categorical medical claims on his sites, using the word "cure" very liberally, thereby setting himself up for the charges that were laid against him. I feel that he left himself wide open to legal action. The word "cure" is a very big word. I never use it on my site or when I email people. Using the word cure implies that 100% of the people using your devices or products will be cured. A cure is a guarantee. How can anyone make this kind of guarantee? It is pure folly to do so, in my opinion. This is a legal trap waiting to spring on anyone who falls for it. Here is the link to the FDA's court judgment that the Association complied with:
Using the word cure is not only foolish in the legal sense it also carries a moral obligation which can never be met.
Their site states that the "LCD Super Zapper DeLuxe 2006 is the most advanced zapper on the market. We kept the analogue heart to avoid any alteration to the wave required by Dr. Hulda..."
On her website at http://www.huldaclark.net/
Dr. Clark states "...I do not endorse any manufacturer..." of zappers.
When they say that their wave was "required by Dr. Clark" it is as though Dr. Clark were on the phone collaborating with David Amrein and telling him what she required of them. There were never any requirements made by Dr. Clark of the Dr. Clark Research Association as far as I am aware. NO details about this are provided by David Amrein. If they were honest the Dr. Clark Research Association would say something like "the wave developed by Dr. Clark". But a neutral connotation would not serve their purpose which is to create the illusion of a link between Dr. Clark and themselves. It is clear that by calling themselves the Dr. Clark Research Association they would like to leave that strong impression which is blatantly false, according to Dr. Clark's own website.
For me the big tip-off regarding the issue of integrity that is at the core of my objections to the Dr. Clark Research Association appears on the page where their program drivers are for sale:Program Driver Multiple Sclerosis Z717
What are these program drivers supposed to do for people with Multiple Sclerosis or other neurological diseases? There are no testimonials on the site regarding any of the illnesses that the program drivers and smart keys are supposedly targeting. There could be nothing more misleading than to imply that people will get significant or lasting results for complex neurological illnesses by zapping unless they have already got to the source of the primary toxicity, or they have a very mild case where opportunistic pathogens such as bacteria and/or parasites are the main cause of symptoms, or they are in the final stage of recovery.
There is such a thing as false hope. I believe in hope and people who know my story must surely realize that. But I do not believe in raising hope unrealistically by making false claims for the performance one's product. The Dr. Clark Research Association creates a big problem when they label their add-one with disease names without giving any explanation as to what the purchase may expect from using them. Overcoming serious neurological diseases, Crohn's disease or diabetes does not consist of simply zapping, in the vast majority of cases. Toxicity and other issues must also be addressed for recovery to happen. To imply otherwise is to traffic in deception.
Neither The Ultimate Zapper nor any other zapper will be able to overcome the primary chemical or metal toxins such as dental mercury which are at the root of most of neurological illnesses. I recommend zapping as part of My Recovery Protocol. At the final stage of recovery zapping can have a powerful effect. I know whereof I speak because I had Crohn's disease and Multiple Sclerosis. David Amrein, the maker of the Super Zapper Deluxe 2004 and 2006 did not. Claiming or implying that his add-on devices can have a lasting or significant effect on these diseases is misleading. Implying that they can have a positive effect on diabetes is also highly misleading, in my opinion. I lived with diabetes all my life. I do not have diabetes but my brother died from the complications of Type I diabetes and my father died from the complications of Type II diabetes. The Ultimate Zapper's Electroporation effect can make insulin work more efficiently but it cannot change the underlying factors that cause Type I and Type II diabetes. And neither can David Amrein's devices, in my opinion.
My opinion is that David Amrein is exploiting people with the above-mentioned illnesses for profit. He may be able to fool some people who may be desperate for relief, but he cannot fool people who know better. I believe in being straight with people and I try to give them as much information as possible on my site so that they may be able to make more informed choices. In my opinion, no zapper on the market can provide dramatic results for the user for the serious illnesses I mention above unless they are in the final stage of recovery or unless they have a mild case of the disease. Anyone who states otherwise, or who implies otherwise, is just plain not telling the truth.
They state on their site that the Deluxe 2006 Zapper is "the most advanced zapper on the market". This device is not a zapper nor is the Deluxe 2004. It is a frequency generator. Their advertising should read "the most complicated frequency generator (masquerading as a zapper) on the market". Their device relies on a syncrometer, program drivers and smart keys to produce results. The smart keys and program drivers are all set to specific high frequencies. Only low frequency devices act as broad-spectrum pathogen killers. High frequency devices are not capable of efficiently killing pathogens that vibrate at all frequencies. They are capable of killing individual pathogens at the specific target frequency they are set to.
Program drivers oscillate between various high frequencies thereby eliminating any broad-spectrum effect. Smart keys are not so smart. They state on their site at
"Smart Keys plug into a jack on the Zapper and are programmed with your choice of any SINGLE frequency from 23 kHz. up to 1 million Hz." This means that you have to know the name of the specific pathogen that you want to zap and its specific frequency. The only way to know this is by synchrometer testing which is a very complicated and expensive process. And it requires training to be able to use it effectively. Their Zincrometer costs $309.00. If you buy a smart key without testing then you are simply wasting your time and money. The Association has turned the zapper into a frequency generator, delivering one specific frequency at a time in an attempt to target specific pathogens individually.
The Ultimate Zapper kills all pathogens at all frequencies. There are no add-ons. There is no need for testing. Dr. Clark states in her books that even if oyu do testing you have to zap anyway. She makes no mention of targeting specific pathogens because she knows that zapping according to her 1-frequency principle kills all pathogens. So she says, never mind the testing process. The zapper will get the work done of killing all pathogens. But the 2006 Deluxe won't because it is not a zapper. It's program drivers are programmed to oscillate between various high frequencies and its smart keys are all programmed to a single very high frequency of between 300,000 Hertz to 500,000 Hertz. These high frequencies are incapable of killing any pathogens except the ones at the specific frequency they are set to because high frequencies are ineffective "broad spectrum" pathogen killers.
Needless to say, all of this is not explained on the Dr. Clark Research Association's website. They continue to call their frequency generator a zapper. This is just one in a long list of deceptions on their site.
The Association features a "Dr. Clark's Shop". The fact is that Dr. Hulda Clark has no shop. This is the Association's shop which is owned by David Amrein. It is David Amrein's shop and, in my opinion, should be called "David Amrein's Shop". On their site they also feature "Dr. Clark's food zappicator". Dr. Clark has no zappicator. This is the Dr. Clark's Research Association's zappicator. Dr. Clark has no shop and no zappicator and does not endorse anyone's shop or zappicator. She states this clearly on her own website.
The Association also offers, for $1,895.00, "Dr. Clark's 21-day program" which consists of various vitamins, minerals, other nutritional supplements and a couple of magnets. That will set you back a mere $90 a day. Of course, this is not Dr. Clark's 21-day program because Dr. Clark has no such program. This is the Dr. Clark's Research Association's 21-day program.
These are clear examples of the marketing strategy based on deception, manipulation and outright lies that the Dr. Clark Research Association uses to influence people into buying their zappers and other products. In my opionion, they are still up to their old tricks even after they agreed to a 2003 court order for making false medical claims for their "zapper" and for fraudulent advertising.
The Dr. Clark Research Association site has not removed an error from their site
which I have been pointing out to them for years. The Ultimate Zapper has had a
Super Stabilized wave for years. Their site falsely states:
"Super stabilized wave remains stable under load. No other zapper on the market has such a stable wave!"
The Dr. Clark Research Association has a big photo of Dr. Hulda Clark smiling down on the front page of their main website. But if you click on the photo it leads you to Dr. Hulda Clark's one and only website that states that she does not endorse any zapper maker. The Association makes no mention of this fact on their site. This is a nice piece of subtle marketing on David Amrein's part because most people probably don't click on the photo. So all they see is Dr. Clark smiling down on the Dr. Clark Research Association's website. I make no statements, explicit or implicit, of any link between Dr. Clark and me, my products or my website. There are none.
The Super Zapper Deluxe 2004 and 2006 zapper now feature an oscillator that can go back and forth between 2 frequencies. I have read a lot about oscillating and sweeping and harmonics and smart keys and program drivers on the Dr. Clark Research Association's site. But the one thing nowhere to be found on their site is a testimonial from one single satisfied customer. You would think that if people were emailing the Association with positive results that David Amrein would have those testimonials right up there on his site for all to see, like I do. But there are no testimonials to be found on his site. This begs the question, where are all the satisfied customers who have benefitted from his complicated and expensive device?
The Dr. Clark Research Association Super Deluxe 2004 and 2006 are based on the outdated high frequency formula that Dr. Clark originated 16 years ago and which she has since recognized as being far less effective than low frequencies. But their devices are not even designed to be used as Dr. Clark zappers.
To use their devices with the necessary attachments you have to do one of two things:
1. You need to do synchrometer testing, an expensive and complicated prodecure, if you want to use their device as a frequency generator, which is what it was designed for. They sell their Zincrometer kit for for $672.00. And you have to know the individual frequencies you want to zap at, so you need to buy smart keys which are sold as add-ons in order to access these single frequencies. But, that is only the beginning. Because the syncrometer is such a complicated device that you need to take a training course before you can use it effectively and it takes about 6 months of practice after taking the course to perfect your use of the device. Please see Issue number one, above for more details.
2. Otherwise you have to purchase their add-on program drivers. The program drivers sweep through a pre-programmed selection of frequencies and which do not ensure results. They are grossing misleading because they are labeled with the names of serious diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis and diabetes, implying that you will get results for those diseases, which constitutes false advertising, in my opinion. I have received many emails from people who were disappointed with the Super Zapper Deluxe 2006 Zapper, in spite of its apparent sophistication. Sophistication means more profits. Results are very elusive.
In addition, the Dr. Clark Research Association offers only a 30-day money back trial period and a 1-year warranty. And they charge a $30 restocking fee. The New Improved Ultimate Zapper has a 3-month money back trial period, a lifetime warranty and I charge $12.95 for cleaning, retesting, repackaging and restocking.
To use The Ultimate Zapper you only have to do 1 thing:
Turn the switch on.
The Ultimate Zapper eliminates the need for "smart keys" and "program drivers". I program everything you need into my zapper, including all the improvements. It kills all pathogens at all frequencies using a single low frequency, 2,500 Hertz. There is no need for expensive synchometer testing, purchasing hit-or-miss "smart keys", or purchasing "program drivers" that claim to target serious, complex diseases, which is very misleading. I talk about this in issue number 5, above.
The program driver mode is simply a different version of the smart key mode. The Dr. Clark Research Association turned the zapper into a frequency generator. The outcome is that they have produced a very complicated and expensive battery-powered device that is, in the end, far less effective than The Ultimate Zapper. In addition, if you want to upgrade to receive the benefit of more functions with their zapper you have to buy a new unit every year. These functions do not add to the effectiveness of their device. They are "bells and whistles". I have received testimonials from people who have used the Super Zapper 204 and 2006 Deluxe and who were very dissatisfied with the results, and the expense. It is clear that complicated and expensive devices do not guarantee effectiveness. Turning a zapper into a frequency generator and marketing it well creates an obvious commercial advantage. But the advantage is clearly not in favor of the customer.
What's more, the results people are obtaining with this device are often unsatisfactory, according to the emails I am receiving from people who have used it. Read more about the expensive and complicated Super Zapper 2006 Deluxe from the Dr. Clark Research Association under the heading "The Ultimate Zapper is More Effective Than the Programmable Zapper" on the 5 zapper Comparison Charts page. The heading is under the charts, near the bottom of the page.
I recently received an email from a customer who received misleading information about my zapper from a affiliate marketer and promoter of the Super Deluxe 2006 Zapper. They Dr. Clark Research Association has not retracted any statements made by this affiliate and has not dissociated themselves from them. One may reasonably conclude, therefore, that they approve of these statements, at least tacitly. Here is an extract of part of that email, and my expanded responses to it.
The email comes from The Natural Health Choice organization in the UK. It "strongly points out that The Ultimate Zapper would not be effective in treating specific cancers":
The Ultimate Zapper "Would not be effective...? This is obviously a marketing ploy because the Natural Health Choise have absolutely no way of knowing whether their statement is true or not because that have not tested The Ultimate Zapper. Their statements are opinions that are commercially driven and they provide no proof of any kind or any testimonials to support their statement. There is a cancer study on my site that proves that the zapper is effective against cancer:
I have received testimonials from customers who have had excellent results with The Ultimate Zapper for specific cancers including lymphatic cancer and melanoma. I state this clearly on the front page of my site.
The Natural Health Choice:
I have had a look at his comparison table between his "ultimate zapper" and the "Super Zapper deluxe 2006" that we sell.
Interestingly, his information is simply inaccurate - a good exercise in marketing for his device but factually untrue.
Beside being a tad patronizing this statement is totally untrue.
First of all, they put the name of my zapper in lower case and quotation marks in a suble attempt to diminish it. I do not so the same thing when I talk about their zapper.
Now, let's get down to the details of these allegations. Is he referring to my statements in the comparison charts that his zapper has a stable wave and a higher voltage and no AC adapter? These statements come from the Dr. Clark Research Association site. I accept them as fact. Please see below for a continuation of this discussion.
The Natural Health Choice:
Perhaps I should correct a couple of points for you:
1. The Super Zapper Deluxe is 100% positive offset.
I do not deny this fact anywhere on my site. In fact I state this clearly on the front page of my site, that all zappers produce a positive offset square wave. That is not the point. The point is that The Ultimate Zapper produces 100% positive pulses and all other zappers produce 50% positive pulses. I discuss this very clearly on the front page of my site. This is an undeniable fact.
The Natural Health Choice:
This (the reference to the positive offset square wave, above) has been independently confirmed by 5 different electronis laboratories and has been the subject of much "discussion" between the Dr Clark Research Association and a couple of my suppliers that have suggested this in their marketing. I am surprised that he is still getting away wtih claiming this on his website.
Patronizing me by saying I am "getting away with" telling people that the positive side of my square wave is twice as long as other zappers does not address the truth of my statement. It avoids it completely. They are trying to get away with using a verbal tactic hoping that people won't notice.
I am surprised that the maker of The Super Deluxe 2006 tried to get away with lying to the public on their website before they were taken to court and convicted on all charges related to naking unsubstantiated medical claims for thier zapper. They were specifically prohibited from making 10 types of unsubstantiated claims and were required to refind customers. Here is the link to the court documents:
I have never made any health claims for my zapper and I have never misrepresented it on my website and I have never been taken to court. They never mention the fact of their trial and conviction on their website. I wonder why not?
The Natural Health Choice:
The fault is in his technique for measuring whereby the equipment he uses is adding capacitance to the circuit and thereby artificially reduces the positive offset.
What a load of malarkey. First of all he has no idea about the equipment or the testing process for my zapper. My experts use an oscilloscope and do nothing artificial when they test each unit before shipping. There is nothing artificial about my square wave or the testing process. The photos of live oscilloscope pictures on the front page of my site tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The ocsilloscope was hooked up to my zapper during the test and no other equipment was used during the testing process.
These folks have no compunction about lying about my zapper. After all they lied about their own zapper on their own website and were convicted for it. They also state that their zapper is the only one with a Super Stabilized wave. The Ultimate Zapper has produced a Super Stabilized wave for years. They refuse to remove this lie about my zapper from their site.
The Natural Health Choice:
He accepts that the Super Zapper Deluxe wave is stabilized [a fact they don't accept about The Ultimate Zapper] but then claims that it is not constant? Untrue.
They have misunderstood completely, possibly intentionally. Their wave is stabilized, but that does not mean that it is not producing distortion. The stability of the wave is not in question, that it is square under load. But battery powered zappers, whether stabilized or not, produce distortion. That's the nature of the wave produced by a 9-volt battery. That's what I mean when I say it is not constant.
The Natural Health Choice:
He accepts that the voltage is variable (up to 16V) but claims that the frequencies do not go below 23KHz.
They state on their site at
"Smart Keys plug into a jack on the Zapper and are programmed with your choice of any SINGLE frequency from 23 kHz. up to 1 million Hz."
They have just hanged themselves with their own words. They clearly state here, on their own site, that the frequency choices start ar 23 kHz.
The Natural Health Choice:
"...noting that his zapper goes down to 2KHz. Again this is simply untrue.
This proves they will say anything to make a sale. The Ultimate Zapper has been programmed to 2,500 Hertz for 13 years. Each unit is tested before shipping and the frequency is guaranteed. Customers who have oscilloscopes can verify this independently for themselves, and then often do so.
The Natural Health Choice:
The Super Zapper Deluxe has a 1KHz program driver available for doing food zappicating and tooth sappicating and as a result actually comes in below his lowest frequency, at exactly the 1KHz Dr. Clark recommends for these jobs.
Please read his statement carefully. Their program drivers do not take the zapper's frequency below 23,000 Hertz. They only take the zappicator's frequency below that level. The zappicator is not for body zapping. It is for food and tooth zapping. This deception is very easy to see, it is very clear.
The Natural Health Choice:
No AC adapter (with the Super Zapper Deluxe 2006)? this is true. It would not be wise to use any device that runs on mains electricity in case of electrical faults and the obvious risk of electrocution.
This is absolute nonsense. There is no risk of shock at all. For more information about this please read the section in Competition 2 entitled
DEATH BY AC SHOCK?
AND MY NAME IS ELEANOR ROOSEVELT
There is also a full discussion of the AC adapter in #8 on the FAQ Page.
You will find a complete discussion of my fail-safe AC adapter and the voltage-controlled computer chip at the heart of The Ultimate Zapper. There has not been a single problem in 12 years with The Ultimate Zapper's AC adapter. Its double insulation guarantees that it is 100% fail safe. It has been put through a series of rigorous government safety testing in the U.S.A. and Canada and it has UL and CSA approval. It has also been tested rigorously by my production experts.
The Natural Health Choice:
The Super Zapper Deluxe runs on rechargeable AA batteries and using clever electronics, steps up the voltage internally to a maximum of 16V of and when it is desired
This is true. The only problem is that 16 volts is way too high. I made prototypes of this same kind in 1996 and with a voltage of 14 to 16 volts you can barely hold onto the handholds without being stung, and burned if you hold on for too long. Offering a zapper with 16 volts is a marketing ploy. The New Improved Ultimate Zapper produces 10.5 volts, the optimum voltage for maximum therapeutic effects.
The Natural Health Choice:
3 month trial policy (of The Ultimate Zapper)? true the super zapper deluxe does not come with this trial guarantee. However, if for any reason someone decides they do not want the zapper within the first 28 days after purchasing I would of course consider this under my own campanies returns policy (In two years of trading I have not yet has a refund request).
He does not advertise a returns policy, so it is not a big surprise that people have not returned any zappers. It seems obvious to me that if he were to advertise hos company's returns policy openly that he would receive return requests. He is obviously afraid of returns. I state my returns policy clearly on my site. I receive returns at a rate of 2%. Before this I had never heard of a company that refused to advertise their returns policy.
The Natural Health Choice:
1 Year warranty (on the Super Deluxe 2006 Zapper)? true, the Super Zapper Deluxe only has a one year warranty. However, this is because the device is updated each year with additional functions.
This is very clever marketing. It automatically increases sales because they force customers to purchase a new model every year if they want to benefit from the new functions. They therefore claim they cannot offer a long-term warranty because they bring out a new model every year and people would want to exchange their old model for the new one. What he is describing is not a warranty problem but an exchange problem. These are 2 entirely different matters. But he talks about them as though they were one and the same thing. Because the maker needed to find an excuse not to offer a decent warranty. The non-existent demand by customers to exchange their zappers is a deception.
I program all improvements into my zapper. There are no expensive program drivers and smart keys to purchase. I offer a lifetime warranty on parts and labor. Their marketing scheme eliminates the need to offer a long-term warranty and it forces people to purchase expensive add-ons and new models every year.
The Natural Health Choice:
If the Warranty was extended beyond one year, people would simply try to exchange their zappers every year to get the new functionality at no further cost (and impossible costs to the Dr Clark Research Association who spend a lot each year on this research, development and manufacturing).
I bet they do. That is the heart of their marketing scheme that I discussed above. They make sure that customers cannot upgrade. They force them to buy a new model. This is the same marketing strategy as the large computer companies. It's great for the bottom line, but not so great for the customers. And they almost make it sound like we should take up a collection for David Amrein, the director of the Dr. Clark Research Association.
The Natural Health Choice:
The limited warranty is a reflection of their (the Dr. Clark Research Association's) continual research and development with this model and not a reflection of the lifespan of the device - my own zapper still works fine 4 years after purchasing it!
In my opinion there is no excuse for not offering a long-term warranty, for not stating your returns policy and for not having an advertised trial offer period. The Ultimate Zapper clearly offers these 3 things. The Super Deluxe 2006 Zapper does not. They only offer their customers excuses.
The Natural Health Choice:
I hope this make sense.
With best wishes,
It certainly does make sense. It is perfectly clear that commercialism, not the customer, comes first for the Super Deluxe 2006 Zapper.
The Dr. Clark Research Association is not the only zapper maker that uses Dr. Clark's name and cachet to promote their products. Many zapper makers have done the same thing. The Auto-Zap is a case in point. They have sought the approval of Dr. Clark's son Geoff Clark. And Arthur Doerksen, the maker of the Auto-Zap also uses photo ops with Dr. Clark on his site to promote his business. There is no link between the Auto-Zap and Dr. Clark at all, although it appears that Arthur Doerksen would like people to have a different impression. Dr. Clark has never endorsed or "approved" Arthur Doerksen's Auto-Zap, nor anyone elses zapper, including The Ultimate Zapper. Please see the discussion, below, of the Auto-Zap for more about this matter. I have never sought Dr. Clark's approval. The merits of The Ultimate Zapper have stood on their own for 12 years.
The Dr. Clark Research Association sells Dr. Clark's New 21 Day Program for Advanced Cancers. It costs $1895.00. They state:
"We have seen amazing results in hopeless cases with this program that are nothing short of miraculous. But bear in mind that:
* the dental clean-up and other clean-ups are still the core of the therapy;
* no therapy in medicine works in 100% of the cases, and be it just for lack of correct application;
* the best results are only possible if Syncrometer testing is available.
Excellent results are possible without if a radical approach is chosen, but Syncrometer testing definitely makes improved care possible. "
My first question is were the " ... amazing results ... nothing short of miraculous ..." due to the supplements or the core dental work and chelation?
The last point implies that you have to invest thousands of dollars more in the syncrometer approach, which I discuss in Issue number one, above.
$1,895.00 for this program is the price for the supplements alone. In my experience supplements can be useful, especially in the case of deficiency. But why first spend nearly $2,000 for vitamins and minerals when this does not address the core dental and chelation issues? My Recovery Protocol describes the importance of safe "silver amalgam" removal, chelation and other therapies. My advice is to start with the core issue of dental work and then add the supplements that are needed afterwards. The cost, according to my recommendations, will be a fraction of what The Dr. Clark Research Association is asking.
I wonder why anyone would bother considering laying out such a large amount of money for a program that depends on the more important element of dental work for its success. The Dr. Clark Research Association makes gives no details about safe, mercury-free dental work, which I cover extensively on my site and in My Recovery Protocol. And they have left themselves a big trap door through which to escape after you commit all that money to their supplements. This is not the kind of serious approach that I prefer. I do not sell supplements or programs on my site.
To top is all off, the Dr. Clark Research Association states:
" ... no therapy in medicine works 100% of the cases, and be it just for lack of correct application ... "
If you can figure out what the heck that last part means, please email me. I have
no idea. It appears to be a perfect escape hatch for The Dr. Clark Research Association.
After spending all that money on the all the products you need to make the Super Zapper Deluxe work, program drivers, smart keys, etc., you would think the results would justify all the money spent. Think again. Below are 2 of the many unsolicited testimonials I have received about the "Super".
... In the mean time [while waiting for her Ultimate Zapper to arrive] I will continue
zapping with my super deluxe zapper, I am busy with the driver programs but I don't
see [any] progress after 2 months of zapping.
Jan. 25, 2008
I am very impressed with your website. I have 3 Dr. Clark Research Associations zappers and I have never noticed any change in my health when using them. Your website requests that we email you for a weblink to the distributors webpage of the Ultimate Zapper. Can you do that when you get a chance? Thank you for your time and speedy reply,
Apr. 30, 2008
Below is an exchange of emails with David Amrein between March and June of 2009. It is not complete because we have exchanged more recent emails that I am repairing for posting here. The most recent email is at the top of this exchange, with earlier emails below. My comments are in red.
You use the word "bullcrap" in your recent email to describe my opinions and then you have the audacity to talk about slander? I have quoted from your emails and from your site and I point out that you consistently misstate what I say on my site as well as in my messages. I have pointed this out repeatedly but to no avail. You keep making the same misstatements. You keep turning the facts on their head. You keep indulging in inverted logic. How my statements could possibly constitute slander (while yours could not, presumably) is totally beyond my comprehension.
I note that you seem quite concerned about the statements I have made about your site and about other makers. You characterize them as "scathing". But you have made no comments about Ken Adachi who has been branded a "malicious liar" by others for statements published on his site and who has made both scathing and inaccurate statements about The Ultimate Zapper, my site and me on his "Educate-Yourself" site. Nor have you made any comments about the consistent misstatements made by Arthur Doerksen of Auto-Zap and David Etheredge of ParaZapper about The Ultimate Zapper and my site, or about David Etheredge's false statements on Curezone which are documented on my site. These are people you have stated that you "work alongside quite fine and without any problem." You apparently do not find their ethics and business practices -- which I discuss at length -- offensive. You find my statements about them offensive. I note that you have referred to my comments about certain zapper makers as "scathing". I also note that you have yet to characterize my statements as being inaccurate. You do not characterize their statements about The Ultimate Zapper, my site and my work as being inaccurate or "scathing" when it is clear that they are both. You characterize my response to them as being "a sign of both bad taste and bad ethics". Presumably they have good taste and good business ethics. Frankly, I find this totally hypocritical.
And, lastly, I consider it very revealing that you, Ken Adachi, Arthur Doerksen and David Etheredge often have a disrespectful, contemptuous and patronizing tone when talking about me, my work and The Ultimate Zapper. And then you have the audacity to turn around and characterize my comments as being in bad taste and lacking in business ethics. Take the mote out of thine own eye.
I am always ready to correct factual errors on my site. I may note that 2 minor errors brought to my attention in the past by Arthur Doerksen of Auto-Zap and David Etheredge of ParaZapper were quickly corrected on my site. I may also note that David Etheredge removed serious errors from his site that I pointed out concerning health issues. But other errors posted to his site and to Curezone that I have brought to his attention, and errors that I have brought to your attention and to the attention of Arthur Doerksen have remained uncorrected.
I note your offer to write a public statement about The Ultimate Zapper for publication on my site but I have not yet received a similar offer from you to write a public statement about your products for publication on your site.
I sent the e-mail to you and stand by what I say but I did not send it for publication to the public. Please take it off.
If you want a public statement about your zapper, I will write one for your webpage.
Thanks for your reply. I also stand by what I say. You have expressed your opinions and I have reproduced your statement on my site. You have the right to your opinions and I have the right to mine. If you want to make a public statement about The Ultimate Zapper and our correspondence please feel free to do so on your own site.
If you wish to retract any portion or portions of your statement please let me know and I will be glad to post your retraction on my site.
Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
On June 20, 2009 I received an email from your company about a "new generation of zapper out now -- last days of introductory special". This was the first announcement I had received about this product and your email said I had only one day to order to take advantage of the 25% discount! Anxious to take advantage of this generous offer I accessed the link provided in your email but there were no specifications or other details about these new devices on your promotional page. The details about these new products only appeared on your site a few days later. I like to read about products before ordering them over the internet so, unable to do so in this case I was not able to take advantage of your kind offer.
Once I had a chance to look over the details of your new
products I noted that your Vari-Zapper replaces your Super DeLuxe 2006. The cost
of the Super DeLuxe was $189 -- plus the cost of add-ons -- smart keys, program
drivers, syncrometer and the syncrometer course to learn how to use the syncrometer.
Which all comes to well over $1000. The Vari-Zapper costs $294 + $126 for a module
that turns it into a zapper -- it is designed as a frequency generator, as you point
out . I talk about the difference between zappers and frequency generators in #4
and #5 on the FAQ page of my site. The cost of the Vari-Zapper plus the module is
$420 but this does not include the cost of the syncrometer and the course to learn
how to use the syncrometer. The total cost comes to well over $1000. When all is
said and done your Vari-Zapper has only 2 of the 11 features of The Ultimate Zapper.
Your Super Zapper DeLuxe 2006 has 3. I talk in detail about your products at the
top of this page.
Your email announcing your new products reminded me that I have yet to reply to your last email. I have been so busy lately. I was surprised that your email characterized my criticism as "bull crap" and that you "don't think we need to get into any semantics". Unfortunately, you have failed to grasp the essence of my email. It is not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of basic meaning that I am addressing. You try to brush aside any discussion of meaning by referring to my comments as semantic when they are in fact matters of substance. I state that no zapper is endorsed by Dr. Hulda Clark. She states this explicitly on her own website. Here is what I say about The Ultimate Zapper on my website:
"She [Dr. Clark] is not affiliated with me and has not approved or endorsed The Ultimate Zapper. It has stood on its own merits since 1996."
Please be so kind as to re-read this sentence one more time just so that you may fully grasp its meaning. Your response to this very clear statement continues to be "... You make it sound though other zappers are not endorsed by Dr. Clark and yours is ..." How could you possibly conclude that I have stated that The Ultimate Zapper is endorsed by Dr. Clark after reading my statements? My statements could not be any clearer. Yet you go right ahead turn what I say upside down. This is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of fundamental meaning. I am at a complete loss as to how your could get something that is so simple so completely wrong.
You further state about my comments: "Your criticism is bullcrap, and I don't think I need to convince you because you know." You do indeed need to convince me that my comments are "bullcrap". I find it interesting that the only specific statement about my site in your message is your false statement about Dr. Clark endorsing my site. Otherwise, you provide not one single detail regarding what you are referring to as "bullcrap". Incidentally, I find your use of this word highly offensive and disrespectful. I always try to remain civil in my emails.
Since you refuse to respond in detail to any of my statements I will respond in detail to yours so that visitors to my site who care to look over this exchange of emails will be able to judge for themselves:
Even though I find your use of the word "bullcrap" highly offensive and slanderous you have placed me in the position where I feel it would be elucidating if I provide my own definition of the word "bullcrap" based on specific information quoted from your emails and your website, unlike your use of the word "bullcrap" which you have glibly floated over the content of my site as a monolithic generalization without any explanation or clarification whatsoever:
Ken Presner's definition of BULL CRAP
1. BULL CRAP IS:
Stating that your "zapper" (which is actually a frequency generator, not a zapper -- please see the FAQ Page on my site for a detailed explanation of the difference) is the only one with a stabilized wave when this is totally false, it has been false for years, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly by me, but you refuse to acknowledge your error or to correct the text on your site, or to even acknowledge that I have brought this to your attention. In fact, ParaZapper also claims to have a stabilized wave, which you also refuse to acknowledge but, as I point out on the Home Page of my site, I am the only zapper maker who provides visual proof that their zapper actually does produce a stabilized wave.
2. BULL CRAP IS:
Not answering a single question or comment directly in the exchange of emails that we have been having over the past few months.
3. BULL CRAP IS:
Not acknowledging, and apparently not objecting to the fact, that other zapper makers who you say you have no problem working beside have for years been making misstatements about many zappers, including The Ultimate Zapper, my site and my work.
4. BULL CRAP IS:
Claiming you have Dr. Clark's approval to use her name -- in spite of her express statement to the contrary on her own website -- and your refusal to provide any proof whatsoever for your claim.
5. BULL CRAP IS:
Your claiming that Arthur Doerksen has Dr. Clark's approval for his syncrometer but your refusal -- and his -- to provide any proof whatsoever for this claim.
6. BULL CRAP IS:
Refusing to acknowledge that Dr. Clark states explicitly on her site that she does not endorse any zapper maker, any zapper site or any products.
7. BULL CRAP IS:
Accusing me of "bad taste" and "bad ethics" for my comments about various zapper makers without providing one single detail about any issue that I have brought up to support your slanderous allegations.
This is the same tactic used by politicians who try to discredit opponents by attacking the messenger in order to distract from the necessity to discuss the issues that the messenger is bringing to the table.
Let me discuss some specific matters that are direct and to the point. Your website shows a lady exercising while zapping [Arthur Doerksen shows himself bicycling while zapping.]. But I point out the fact that muscle contraction creates resistance to the square wave and negates the positive effects of zapping, which are already minimal with most zappers as I point out on my site and as I display in the 5 Zapper Comparison Charts on my site. Is this in bad taste? Is this bad business ethics? I point out that The Ultimate Zapper is not the only zapper with a stabilized wave. You have been claiming on your site for years that your "zapper" (frequency generator) is the only one with a stabilized wave. Your statement is completely false. Is my pointing this out in bad taste? Is this bad business ethics? Is defending The Ultimate Zapper against your misstatements and against the missstatements and fear-mongering of Auto-Zap's Arthur Doerksen and ParaZapper's David Etheredge in bad taste? Is this bad business ethics? Is discussing the deceptive marketing tactics of zapper makers in bad taste or bad business ethics? Or is the contrary true, that their business practices are not only in bad taste but are prime examples of bad business ethics. I would appreciate a response from you to these direct and simple questions.
By the way, why are you afraid to use your own name for your site and your products? Why are you afraid of standing on your own two feet? I think it would be a lot more honest to call your site The David Amrein Research Association rather than the Dr. Clark Research Association. But that would mean ending your marketing practice of piggy-backing your site on Dr. Clark's name and using her reputation and her name to sell your products, which must have amounted to quite a substantial financial benefit to you over the past 10 years. It is clear that your marketing is based on Dr. Clark's name and reputation, not on your own. You are one among many zapper makers who use Dr. Clark's name and I discuss this on the Deceptive Marketing Page of my site.
I leave it up to our readers to judge who is in "bad taste" and who practices the "bad business ethics" that you refer to in your email.
Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
If I say that "zapper X and zapper Y are not endorsed by Dr. Clark" and yet you sell zapper Z, then the person reading it will conclude that since you criticize the others, that your zapper is different. [It is different. The Home Page of my sitge clearly explains why. But nowhere do I ever say or even imply that it is endorsed by Dr. Hulda Clark, unlike you. The logic of your sentence is completely convoluted. In fact it defies logic.] I don't think we need to get into any semantic details. [This is not semantics. This is getting to the crux of the matter.] Your criticism is bullcrap, [What criticism are you referring to? Please provide the details of this allegation.] and I don't think I need to convince you [You may not think so but I certainly do.] because you know. [What exactly are you referring to that I am supposed to know?] It is just a matter of trying to look better compared to other products on the market. [Do you mean to say that all the work you put into your website, I should say your many websites, including all the sophisticated design work, are not meant to make your products look better than other products on the market? And how about all the pther zapper makers? Is the pot calling the kettle black? The Ultimate Zapper looks better because it is better. Not because of any sophisticated design work but because of its features.] Your zapper is as little endorsed than anyone else's, [Now what the heck does this mean -- "as little endorsed"? Why can't you talk straight? Nowhere do I ever say or even imply Dr. Hulda Clark's endorsement, unlike you.] your company as little endorsed as anyone else's, [Here you go again -- "as little endorsed".] and there is no mention on our website (and unless I am mistaken, on Arthur Doerksen's) that it is any different and never has been. [You certainly are mistaken. If you have read the Home Page of my site you would not be making this statement. First of all, if you look at Arthur Doerksen's Auto-Zap and my comments about it you will see that Auto-Zap is simply a version of Dr. Clark's 1995 zapper with the addition of a low frequency -- its single feature -- and a few bells and whistles added -- pseudo-features that do not add to the zapper's effectiveness.
A short digression. I note that you have crafted an interesting sentence here. In
your sentence you refer to "it" while referring to 2 different zappers as though
they belong in the same basket. The Ultimate Zapper is not the Auto-Zap. Auto-Zap
has 1 feature. And Auto-Zap is not The Ultimate Zapper. The Ultimate Zapper has
11 features. I make a direct comparison between them and 27 other popular zappers,
including all of yours, in the 5 Zapper Comparison Charts on my site and I discuss
in detail the many issues concerning Auto-Zap and Arthur Doerksen on Competition
Page 2 on my site. How you could possibly put them in the same basket is totally
beyond me.] Arthur Doerksen's Syncrometer is, if I may add that, actually
endorsed by Dr. Clark, even though I don't think she ever made that public, but
she did test it for him and confirmed to him that it complies.
[I'm waiting for proof of these statements. "Complies" with what? Dr. Clark states
on her own site that she does not endorse any maker or any product, as I have already
pointed out. I will be glad to post to my site any statements that prove that the
statement to this effect on Dr. Clark's site, written by her, is incorrect.]
The scathing comments on your website are a sign of both bad taste and bad business
ethics. [My comments about this statement are already ample
and to the point.]
Thanks for your reply. I find it strange that after reading my reply you still insist that I imply that Dr. Clark endorses The Ultimate Zapper. I state the exact opposite in my email and on my site. This is very, very clear.
You stated in your message:
"... You make it sound [where exactly do I make it sound] as though other zappers are not endorsed by Dr. Clark and yours is ..."
I have no idea how you could possibly come to this conclusion after reading my reply. Dr. Clark endorses no zappers and no zapper makers, including The Ultimate Zapper. She states this clearly on her site. May I repeat that I state very clearly on my site:
"She [Dr. Clark] is not affiliated with me and has not approved or endorsed The Ultimate Zapper. It has stood on its own merits since 1996."
Dr. Clark invented the original zapper so I imagine it is reasonable to assume that she endorses the concept of zappers. Endorsing zappers in a generic way has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue that you have brought up of Dr. Clark giving you her specific approval to use her name for commercial purposes, a claim that she contradicts very clearly on her own site regarding all zapper makers. If you fail to make this distinction then we are talking apples and oranges. I am not talking about Dr. Clark "endorsing zappers". I'm talking specifically about your claim that she approved your using her name for commercial purposes. I don't use Dr. Clark's name for my site. I don't use her name for my products. I don't use her name for my shop. I don't use her name commercially. I use her name to refer to her research only. I note that you refuse to respond to a single question in my message, including those questions related to this matter.
You state in your message:
"But I also know that people with your kind of business ethics usually don't go very far in the long run."
Your condescending comment is duly noted. What specific business ethics are you referring to? You are resorting to the classic ploy that if you don't like the content of the message you attack the messenger and simply ignore the content.
First let me point out, in case you are unaware of it, contrary your prognostication that "people with [my] kind of business ethics [you do not specify what you mean by this] usually don't go very far" I have already gone very far, and I hope to go much farther in the future. I had a successful business career for nearly 30 years before I invented The Ultimate Zapper and started my website in 1996. I was paralyzed with Multiple Sclerosis in 1989 and I nearly died from Crohn's disease in 1994. I recovered completely from both of these "incurable" diseases. Not go very far? With all due respect, you really have no idea who you are talking to and who you are patronizing.
Regarding business ethics, had you read my website that comprises nearly 20 megabytes and has over 30 pages of health-related information you would realize that there are many people in the zapper business who have, for years, demonstrated truly questionable business ethics regarding The Ultimate Zapper and my website as well as regarding a variety of serious health matters. For instance, on my site I have documented the false statements that Arthur Doerksen (Auto-Zap) and David Etheredge (ParaZapper) have made about The Ultimate Zapper, my website and my work and my responses to their statements. It seems as though you are either willing to turn a blind eye to the behavior of certain zapper makers or you are truly in the dark vis a vis what has been going on for years in the real zapper world.
Are you implying that there should be a feeling of solidarity among the various zapper makers? If this is so, I suggest that you review the information on my site about Arthur Doerksen and David Etheredge, among others, regarding The Ultimate Zapper, as well as some of the other observations I make about the sites of other zapper makers. I suggest that you email them with a few questions regarding their false statements about The Ultimate Zapper, about my site and about various health issues. Many of their declarations go back many years and have not only not been retracted but have been reiterated by them through the years. It seems they are unaware of your thoughts about the need for solidarity among zapper makers. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to let them know.
You say I make "strange claims about others' products". What specific claims are you referring to, and about whose products? Does it trouble you that others make "strange claims" about The Ultimate Zapper and my website? Or does the adjective "strange" only apply when your Super DeLuxe and your site are the objects of scrutiny? You say that you "work alongside [other zapper makers] quite fine and without any problem." Would you be willing to do so if they were making "strange claims" about your products and your website?
And how about the strange health claims made by zapper makers about various health topics such as Multiple Sclerosis? I cite this disease in particular, not because it is the only disease that is misrepresented by zapper makers on their sites -- it is not-- but because I have intimate and personal knowledge about MS having recovered after being paralyzed and bedridden with MS in 1989. Does it trouble you that zapper makers make irresponsible statements about MS (and other diseases) or should we just ignore all this and pretend they never said what they said for the sake of "zapper solidarity"? Is your attitude "never mind the truth, we have to stick together?" My attitude is, "let's get the truth into the open where everyone can have a look and judge for themselves."
Here is a quote from your site:
Program Driver Multiple Sclerosis Z717
Program Driver Alzheimer's Z724
Program Driver Parkinson's Z731
Program Driver Crohn's Disease Z730
Program Driver Diabetes Z705
What are these program drivers supposed to do for people with Multiple Sclerosis or other neurological diseases, or for people with Crohn's disease which I nearly died from in 1994, or for people with diabetes (which claimed both my father and my brother)? There are no testimonials on your site regarding any of the illnesses that the program drivers and smart keys are supposedly targeting. It is misleading to imply that everyone who uses your device with the smart keys or program drivers with the specific names attached to them will get significant or lasting results for complex neurological diseases or other illnesses. I have received quite a few emails from your customers that confirm that many people have had no results at all with your device and its sophisticated add-ons. Dr. Clark herself has observed that "sophisticated gizmos" do not make zappers more effective, just more complex.
Incidentally, your Super Deluxe is marketed as a frequency generator and the term "zap" does not have the same meaning in the case of frequency generators as it has for true zappers, I'm sure you are aware.
Getting back to the word "strange", is it strange to you that ParaZapper says I made up the 250 testimonials [now 300] on my site? Is this the kind of person you can "work alongside quite fine", and whose business ethics cause you no problems? What if he had said the same thing about 250 testimonials on your site. Would that be fine for you, no problem? What about Auto-Zap and his fear-mongering about The Ultimate Zapper's AC adapter and other misleading statements? If he made inaccurate comments about your products would you be able to work alongside him, no problem?
For starters, you might like to read what I write on my site about David Etheredge and Curezone and Kevin Trudeau:
There are many links on the page that will lead to more interesting information.
Is there an unwritten rule somewhere that no matter what lies a zapper maker tells about another maker or serious health matters that we should say nothing and keep "zapper solidarity" for the sake of the zapper industry? Never mind about the truth? Well I mind very much about the truth and I will continue to speak out about these matters. I am not in favor of sticking one's head in the sand.
Oh, by the way, you still state on your site that the Super Deluxe is the only zapper with a stabilized wave. The Ultimate Zapper has had a stabilized wave for many years but your site has never reflected this fact.
Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
Your business practices speak against you, that is all I can say to this. You take it to say something negative about me to promote what Dr. Clark says, when you sell a zapper yourself, a zapper which quite obviously only people will who read the Clark book. It makes no sense. [Actually it is your previous sentence that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.] You make it sound as though other zappers are not endorsed by Dr. Clark and yours is, which is also untrue. I have no intention to do anything about this, as your comments have probably been out there for quite some time and we have not had as much as a comment from anyone about it (the only reason I found it now was because a staff who research new products told me). But I also know that people with your kind of business ethics usually don't go very far in the long run. [Actually, you seem to be unaware I have already gone very far. Firstly, I recovered from 2 incurable diseases. I consider that going far. That took nearly 7 years. Since my recovery I have had a very successful website and zapper business since 1996. I think that constitutes going very far, as well. Although you might not agree in either case. Maybe you don't consider that this odyssey that began 20 years ago constitues "the long run". If so, please let me know your definition of the "the long run".]
I have never had any trouble with any of my competitors, except one in Germany who tried to denigrate me along the lines you do; and Oskar one time because he copied parts of my website. All the rest of us, Self Health, Arthur Doerksen, New Action Products, Clearwater Herbs, and all the other businesses and zapper makers in this field, work alongside quite fine and without any problem; on the contrary, I know many of them personally and appreciate them. We don't have any need to denigrate each other [I think you need to check your facts first and then have a talk with Ken Adachi of "Educate-Yourself", David Etheredge of ParaZapper and Arthur Doerksen of Auto-Zap and ask why they denigrate The Ultimate Zapper and my site, as well as my work, in the case of David Etheredge, and me personally in the case of Ken Adachi] for promoting the Clark protocol; [it is using Dr. Clark's name without her permission that I object to as well as false medical claims made for her protocol by your site and others] or make strange claims about others' products. [My claims about other zapper makers are not strange in the least. I object to the unsubstantiated medical claims that are clearly being made -- on your site, the Auto-Zap site, the ParaZapper site, the Harmonic Quad site and other zapper sites. I believe that some of these claims could put the lives of people at risk. This is not a frivolous matter, it is a very serious one that some zapper makers do not seem to take seriously at all. I do. They seem to have commercial interests in mind more than anything else.]
Thanks for your reply. I find it strange that you insist that I imply that The Ultimate Zapper is endorsed by Dr. Clark. Did you read my email? I state the exact opposite on my site. I'm not talking about Dr. Clark endorsing "zappers" I'm talking about your claim that she approved that you use her name. You seem to be very confused and you have a lot of trouble listening to what I actually say.
You state in your message:
"... You make it sound as though other zappers are not endorsed by Dr. Clark and yours is ..."
May I repeat. I state clearly on my site:
"She [Dr. Clark] is not affiliated with me and has not approved or endorsed The Ultimate Zapper. It has stood on its own merits since 1996."
Do you understand what I am saying? If not, please read it again:
"She [Dr. Clark] is not affiliated with me and has not approved or endorsed The Ultimate Zapper. It has stood on its own merits since 1996." Dr. Clark believes in zappers. She invented the original zapper. That is not the same as endorsing specific zapper makers. Open your dictionary and look up the word "endorse". It means to give approval. Are you listening or are you plugged into one of your program drivers that will only let you function on one frequency?
You state in your message:
"But I also know that people with your kind of business ethics usually don't go very far in the long run." What the hell does that mean ... "my kind of business ethics". You don't like what I am saying about you, obviously, you refuse to answer a single specific question or comment from my message, I must note.
I have gone very far and will go much further. I recovered from 2 incurable diseases. I have had my website and I have been selling The Ultimate Zapper since 1996? Not go very far? Are you kidding? You have no idea who you're talking to. Do think that you're talking to some lightweight? How many people do you know who have recovered from Multiple Sclerosis? How many people do you know who have recovered from Crohn's disease? How many people do you know who have recovered from both? Do you think you recover from these 2 near-death experiences and dig out of a 7-year hole by being a lightweight? Do you think for one minute that you have a ghost of a chance of recovering if you do not possess some unusual qualities? Do you think for one minute that these qualities are compatible with questionable business ethics? Do think that a person who made such a remarkable recovery and who dedicated his life to helping others would stoop to questionable business ethics? Are you out of your mind? You have no idea who you're talking to.
You say I make "strange claims about others' products"? What claims? As with your reluctance to reply to a single comment or question from my email you are reluctant to be specific about any "strange claims" that I make? You say that you "work alongside quite fine and without any problem" other zapper makers. Are you aware of their strange claims about The Ultimate Zapper? It is strange to you that I want to talk about the truth of your statements about Multiple Sclerosis but it is not strange to you that ParaZapper says I made up the 250 [now 300] testimonials on my site? This is the kind of person you can "work alongside quite fine"? What if he had said the same thing about 250 testimonials on your site. Would that be fine for you, no problemo?
You talk about my business practices as though telling the truth were verboten when it comes to zapper makers. My experience has taught me that it's better to bring the truth into the open. That goes for everything in life, not just zappers. What about the unethical and deceptive marketing practices of the various zapper makers that I point out on my site? Are those busines practices OK by you? You talk about working beside all the other zapper makers in the business with no problem. I imagine you have not read about the unethical and deceptive marketing practices of David Etheredge of ParaZapper. Read what I write on my site about him and Curezone and Kevin Trudeau and about a whole slew of other topics. He has been denigrating me for years. Is that OK by you? He says I made up the 250 testimonials [now 300] on my site! You talk about business practices? How about the fear-mongering against me that Arthur Doerksen has been doing for years, and how about his son trying to steal the name of my zapper and about how he backed down only when Arthur put pressure on him to do so. Have you read about all this on my site? What kind of business practices are these? Is this OK by you? No problemo? Good zapper people? And you think I should stand by and say nothing to keep solidarity this people of this ilk whose underhanded and unethical behavior is clear for all to see? You expect me to take all this lying down to keep "zapper solidarity"? You should email the others first with the concerns that I am bringing up here then email me back with their replies.
I note that You have not replied to ANY of my direct comments on how you brought this on yourself, my questions about the nature of Dr. Clark's "approval" of your using her name, my comments about Multiple Sclerosis, or anything else. Why not? You are focused on my "business practices" while completely avoiding the content of what I am saying. You avoid my questions and comments completely.
You repeat the fiction that I am claiming to be approved while it is VERY VERY CLEAR from the content on my site that I am not and that I state this very clearly. I wonder if you are wearing blinders and ear plugs when you read my messages and when you read my site.
If telling the truth is a crime in your books, which it appears to be, then I stand convicted.
Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
Thanks for your message. Please see my comments, below, in red.
David Amrein: Hi Ken,
I happened to notice your comments about me on your website.
I think it would be good to take it off, for this reason:
Ken Presner: On the one hand you refer to "comments" and on the other hand you refer to "it". "It" means one comment. "Comments" means more than one comment. There are 6 pages on my site where I discuss the merits of the many zappers on the market, including yours:
David Amrein: If you believe in zappers, then you are speaking out against yourself.
Ken Presner: This statement is devoid of logic. It is the equivalent of saying, "Harry doesn't like oranges therefore he doesn't like fruit." I certainly do believe in zappers, some zappers, The Ultimate Zapper, of course. You sell zappers that are designed and marketed as frequency generators and that require the purchase of add-ons. You have a clear marketing bias in favor of program software, program drivers, smart keys, etc. I discuss the difference between zappers and frequency generators on the FAQ page of my site. And I specifically discuss your "zapper" in this regard on a number of the pages that I have cited, above.
David Amrein: The reason I got attacked by the FTC was because I had excerpts from Dr. Clark's books on my website. Those were construed as product claims, because I also sold zappers.
Ken Presner: Whether one concludes that you were merely quoting Dr. Clark and/or making claims of your own independent of what Dr. Clark says in her books is a moot point. It is irrelevant. The fact is that you were clearly making medical claims and this was not being done as an intellectual exercise. It was being done to promote sales of your products.
David Amrein: If you now imply that this speaks against me, then you are disqualifying the concept of the zapper on your own website, where you sell zappers ... how much sense does that make?
Ken Presner: This statement is also devoid of logic. You put yourself in a position where it was easy for the authorities to take action against you. This is very clear. I started writing about this on my site years after the fact. For instance the final court judgment which you consented to says that you have stated:
"the Supper-Zapper Deluxe, [their spelling error] used together with the Complete Herbal Parasite Program and avoidance of pollutants, is effective to cure diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, endometriosis, asthma, and many other diseases;"
How could you be so foolish to use the word "cure" and to state that diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis can be cured by your zapper, the herbal cleanse and the avoidance of pollutants? I know enough about Multiple Sclerosis, to mention just one of the illnesses on this list, to be able to say that this is total nonsense and that you have no idea what you're talking about and have no business making this kind of statement. I recovered from Multiple Sclerosis and Crohn's disease after a struggle that lasted nearly 7 years. You spoke out against yourself when you made these statements. You opened the door and invited the authorities to walk in. I am not implying this speaks against you. I am saying it openly and very clearly. I do not make these kinds of outlandish statements on my site and I definitely do not disqualify the concept of the zapper on my site. On the contrary. I back it up with as much scientific research as possible, as you will discover if you read my site. It is you who have brought doubt on the concept of the zapper by making irresponsible statements, not me. The final court judgment was correct when it stated that you did not have a "reasonable basis" for your claims. I note that you did not dispute or contest the court settlement. I assume that you consented to it because it reflected the truth. It would make no sense to consent to a court settlement that did not.
David Amrein": In addition, I want to add that I used Dr. Clark's name and her picture (which is no longer on my website) with her approval, which I obtained in January of 1998.
Ken Presner: What are the specifics of this approval? Where is the proof of this approval? There is no statement in the introductory letter to your site to this effect. But your introductory letter makes it very clear that you are holding very tightly onto Dr. Clark's skirt. Dr. Clark makes no mention of this approval on her site. On the contrary, on her site (at http://www.huldaclark.net) Dr. Clark specifically states: "There are other website and companies using my name, selling my books, or selling products claimed to be approved by me, but with two exceptions I am not affiliated with, and have no control over, any other website or company. The two exceptions are this page, www.huldaclark.net and www.newcenturypress.com, because New Century Press publishes my books ... I do not endorse any manufacturer."
Where in Dr. Clark's statement is there any mention that she approves of you using her for your website, your company and your shop and your site to promote your products? This reminds me of Arthur Doerksen and the Auto-Zap and many other "Me and Dr. Clark" websites. Has Dr. Clark approved of all the other sites that use her name? If so, then why does not one single site come out and say so, including you? I can only conclude that they do not say so because it is not so. You and many other zapper makers imply an affiliation with Dr. Clark that Dr. Clark expressly states does not exist. If there is an affiliation between you and Dr. Clark then come out and say so. Otherwise don't infer it because her site contradicts that inference very clearly. It appears that it is you who should be removing things from your site that do not shed a good light on you. I do not use Dr. Clark's name to promote The Ultimate Zapper. I never have and I never will.
David Amrein: Finally, I was not convicted by the FTC, but it was a settlement.
Ken Presner: I have reviewed the final court judgment today and it is clear that you are correct. It was a settlement, not a conviction. I have already revised the text on my site. I always take it very seriously when competitors contact me about possible factual errors and I always make text corrections as promptly as possible where it is clear that I have made an error.
By the way, for years you have stated on your site: "Super stabilized wave remains stable under load. No other zapper on the market has such a stable wave!" The Ultimate Zapper site has stated on the Front Page for many years that The Ultimate Zapper features a stabilized wave.
David Amrein: ... which included us having to offer a full refund to all customers, and also to give away to info website www.drclark.net, which has now been run for almost 5 years by someone else, namely one Cristina Carugati, an independent Clark supporter selling no products but she directs visitors to a number of sites ...
Ken Presner: ... where your products are featured and mine are never mentioned [not coincidently, I believe].
David Amrein: and who has done a fine job in putting information on the website about Dr. Clark.
Ken Presner: Perhaps. However, I think that my site has more accurate and complete information about Dr. Clark than any other website. For instance, I talk about matters that others won't go near such as Dr. Clark's methodology which is lacking in the kind of rigorous standards that I would like to see. Dr. Clark was a true pioneer and I pay tribute to her on my site, but I do not pander to her or use a reverential tone when referring to her, as many zapper makers do. I have a critical eye when I examine all health researchers and their findings.
David Amrein: Considering that we had to give a full refund without any products returned to anyone who signed and sent back the paper that we had to send out to all customers, and we only had about 2.5% of all orders refunded, goes to show how satisfied our customers are.
Ken Presner: There are many possible explanations for this, seeing as the final court judgment stipulated that you contact people who had purchased your products many years prior to the judgment. [many email addresses and home addresses change over such a ling period of time and there must be a high percentage of people who cannot be contacted after a period of 5 years.]
David Amrein: Also: As you know Dr. Clark does not endorse ANY commercial venture, not even her son Geoff's (now run by Oskar Thorvaldsson). I find it questionable that you imply in your text (though you don't expressly state it) that your zappers are endorsed.
Ken Presner: It is obvious that you have not even read my site. The only references on my site to Dr. Clark are regarding her research. I do not state or imply ANYWHERE on my site that Dr. Clark approves or endorses me, my site or The Ultimate Zapper. I have never had any contact with Dr. Clark. Your statement is completely and utterly false. In fact, I expressly state in a number of places on my site that Dr. Clark DOES NOT endorse The Ultimate Zapper. Here are the quotes and the URLs from my site that prove this fact:
ON ITS OWN MERITS
I have great respect for Dr. Hulda Clark. She is a courageous pioneer and a groundbreaking researcher. I pay tribute to her on the Dr. Clark Page. I do not use her name to promote The Ultimate Zapper as you can see by reading my site. I refer to her only when using short quotes from her site and when quoting her research. Dr. Clark is not affiliated with me and has not approved or endorsed The Ultimate Zapper. It stands on its own merits and has done so since 1996.
On my site I refer to Dr. Clark's research. I do not use her name to promote The Ultimate Zapper. She is not affiliated with me and has not approved or endorsed The Ultimate Zapper. It has stood on its own merits since 1996.
One thing that Arthur Doerksen does which I have not done and which I will never do is to seek the approval of Dr. Hulda Clark to sell zappers or to make it appear, as he does on his site, that Dr. Clark's son, Geoff, "approved" his zapper and that it therefore has more credibility, or is better or more effective than other zappers.
I have not sought Dr. Clark's recognition or approval, or that of her son Geoff, for my zapper, as so many other zapper makers have. I have made no attempt to contact her or her son in order to curry favor with them. I do not use her name to sell my zapper, as so many other zappers makers have done without her approval. While recognizing the importance of her work, I have retained the intellectual freedom that I feel one must have in order to think freely and act independently. Many zapper makers use Dr. Clark's name on their site in such a way as to lead people to believe that Dr. Clark is associated with their site. She is not associated with any site but her own at
They use her name freely as a promotional tool. Although she might have, Dr. Clark has never taken any action against anyone using her name to sell their zappers because she feels that if people are being helped then she should not do anything to detract from that fact. Dr. Clark has a good heart.
David Amrein: By saying that these two sites (including ours) are not, and warning from them, you make it sound like your unit is endorsed and Dr. Clark is not endorsing any -- why don't you write on that page "my zapper is as little endorsed s any other on the market"?
Anyway Ken, I think it would make to just take this off, as it does not shed a good light on you.
Ken Presner: It sounds like you are contradicting yourself. You are the one who states, above, that you used Dr. Clark's name "with her approval". I have never stated or implied this. So it appears that it is you who needs to make clear to people that Dr. Clark either approves of you using her name or she does not. If she does not it is you who should change the name of your site, your products and your shop. If Dr. Clark approves of you using her name for your site, your products and your shop you should state this clearly on your site and not imply it or leave it up to people's imagination to come to the logical conclusion you are in fact affiliated with Dr. Clark, and that she is affiliated with you, contradicting the statements she clearly makes on her site and which I have referred to, above.
I have a few observations that I would like to make about your site and your products.
1. Your site states:
"The Programs were compiled according to the books by Dr. Hulda Clark." Where does Dr. Clark talk about zapper programming in her books? Do you mean the frequency chart for pathogens? If this is what you are referring to then why not say so clearly? You are making a vague reference to Dr. Clark, implying that she recommends programmed devices, which she does not. This is deceptive marketing. In fact, she has stated that "fancy gizmos" do not make zappers better, just more complex. She always stated that people will end up having to zap because frequency generators are a far too complicated route to follow.
2. Your site states:
"IMPORTANT NOTE: The Drivers are intended to make zapping more specific." You should have added "and more expensive". What you mean is that they turn your "zapper" into a frequency generator. Your device is really designed as a frequency generator which is why you market expensive add-ons. Otherwise your "zapper" is merely one more battery-powered zapper, and an expensive one, at that. Why do you not explain all this clearly on your site, as I do on mine on the FAQ page at
3. Your site states:
that you "adhere to" Dr. Clark's recommendations. Do those recommendations include digital technology, program drivers. smart keys, programming software? You do not state specifically what "recommendations" you are referring to. Why not? Dr. Clark's recommends using a simple, affordable zapper, not a frequency generator. She states this specifically in her books. How do you justify marketing the concept of "the zapper" and "affordability" when what you are really marketing is frequency generators that are actually very expensive with all the add-ons?
4. Dr. Clark also does not endorse wristbands or gel electrodes. She recommends high surface contact area for electrodes. She approves large-surface, highly conductive hand and foot electrodes for this reason.
5. The picture of the girl in exercise clothes on your site is misleading because muscle contraction creates resistance to the square wave. One should not exercise while zapping. This is a marketing tool. On the contrary, relaxing while zapping gives the best results.
6. Your site states:
"Program Drivers can "wobble" frequencies. This means that instead of a specific frequency (e.g. 434 kHz) the can oscillate between two frequencies. This way, a whole frequency range is covered and more harmonic frequencies produced." Oscillating between 2 frequencies means that the zapper is functioning as a dual frequency zapper, not as a sweep frequency generator that covers a range of frequencies. Hitting 2 frequencies is not the same as covering a range of frequencies between the 2 chosen frequencies.
7. Your site states:
"You will also notice that our prices are reasonable." Reasonable?
1 "Super Deluxe" + syncrometer testing (which may entail the purchase of a syncrometer and training in its use) + program software + smart keys + program drivers
= REASONABLE PRICES?
By your definition of "reasonable" [since your product costs hundreds of dollars more than The Ultimate Zapper] I must conclude that the cost of The Ultimate Zapper is very, very reasonable, indeed.
8. Here are 2 of many testimonials I have received about your "zapper":
Issue number thirteen.
After spending all that money on the all the products you need to make the Super Zapper Deluxe work, program drivers, smart keys, etc., you would think the results would justify all the money spent. Think again. Below are 2 of the many unsolicited testimonials I have received about the "Super".
" ... In the mean time [while waiting for her Ultimate Zapper to arrive] I will continue zapping with my super deluxe zapper, I am busy with the driver programs but I don't see [any] progress after 2 months of zapping.
Jan. 25, 2008"
I am very impressed with your website. I have 3 Dr. Clark Research Associations zappers and I have never noticed any change in my health when using them. Your website requests that we email you for a weblink to the distributors webpage of the Ultimate Zapper. Can you do that when you get a chance? Thank you for your time and speedy reply.
Apr. 30, 2008"
Finally, how does telling people the truth shed a bad light on me? I have received many positive comments from people who visit my site and who appreciate all the information that my site provides about not only The Ultimate Zapper but about many other zappers on the market. They thank me for helping elucidate many matters concerning zappers. I have not received a single email regarding the allegation you make in this message that the information I provide about your site and your products sheds a bad light on me. I really don't think you are worried about me and the bad light that may be shining down on me. I believe you are worried about how all this makes you look, with all due respect. I believe people want to know the truth. And I believe that bringing out the truth sheds a good light on me. Many visitors to my site have emailed me with thanks.
Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
Frankly, there are so many questionable statements on Don Croft's Terminator II website site that it would take a whole new web page to cover them all. They include the following issues.
From a site at
that sells Don Croft's Terminator II zapper: "If your Terminator Zapper starts to sting, itch or zap your skin you MUST move it elsewhere as it can burn through the skin."
From Don Croft's own site: "...everyone who's bought one from us who has said they've got extreme sensitivity to all metals against the skin has told us later that they could wear the Terminator without getting any unpleasant skin reactions at all."
Sorry, folks, if I am in a state of disbelief at this point. Not only is this not reassuring, it is a bit scary. I have had email from users of the Terminator II who wanted to order The Ultimate Zapper because they were seriously burned by the Terminator II and they said they would never use it again.
Update on May 5, 2007. I just talked with a man who said he received deep skin burns using the Terminator II and they have not healed up after many weeks. This is just one in a long list of such reports that have come my way about the Terminator II. Don Croft has a real credibility problem when he talks about "everyone" wearing his Terminator II "without getting any unpleasant skin reactions." This is clearly untrue. On his order page he states that the Terminator II is a " a harmless research device" This is clearly untrue, as well. The giveaway is that he devotes more space on his FAQ page denying that there is any problem using his device "against bare skin" than to any other question.
With all the problems with burning skin it is no wonder that Don Croft does not have a trial offer and that he does not have any information about a warranty on his site. I have a 3-month trial offer and a lifetime warranty for The Ultimate Zapper.
There are a number of testimonials on Don Croft's site which I find highly questionable. One testimonial concerns someone with MS. Multiple Sclerosis is a disease with which I am intimately familiar. I was paralyzed with MS in 1989. It took me nearly 7 years to recover my health. 3 years after I came down with MS I came down with Crohn's disease. So, I had to deal with 2 "incurable" diseases at the same time.
This testimonial on Don's site is from a caregiver named John who worked with people who have MS. He says he saw Don Croft's Terminator II zapper "...put MS into remission on (sic) two patients."
The definition of remission in Wikipedia is "the state of absence of disease activity in patients with a chronic illness." The description in the testimonials does not constitute remission. I think that will be very clear once you read the story. It constitutes an amelioration of some symptoms, not a remission. I not only went through and came out the other end of Multiple Sclerosis, I have talked to hundreds of people with MS over the past 18 years. One cannot know the cause of the amelioration in this case because it happened over a period of many months and there are so many possible factors involved that may not have been mentioned, including any medication the person receiving care may have been taking. In all cases, one must be very careful when inferring cause and effect with MS, or any chronic "incurable" disease. The evidence has to be very strong, in my opinion, having gone through 7 long years of recovery. The person Don Croft is quoting on his website uses the word remission inaccurately, and Don Croft does not correct him. He thereby gives his readers the impression that his Terminator II zapper has worked some kind of minor miracle. This is grossly misleading. An amelioration of some symptoms is not a remission. And it is certainly far from miraculous. It is actually quite common with people who have MS. Symptoms often come and go spontaneously, without rhyme or reason.
The caregiver in question was working with a patient who had"...no movement in his legs or his left arm. His left hand was always in a ball, and he had limited use of his right hand. He could not raise his right hand to his mouth...he could no longer control his swallow, and would choke, start sneezing uncontrollably, and end up sneezing blood after three spoons of his food. It was not pretty. "
The evidence for this "remission" is that he "put the zapper on him for a few hours whenever I was working. After three times of doing this, I was walking past his room one night, where he usually lay with legs straight out, and he had drawn them up! He never sneezed any more blood- feeding him was less of a problem. One day when I came to work he was waggling his fingers at me. It took me a minute to understand he was showing me that all his fingers were working properly again. After several months his left fist began to have some squeeze - now he can shake your hand with an honest grip (you have to put the hand around yours). He can hurt you when you shake his right hand and scratch the back of his head with it as well. He can pull his left arm in a bit, when it has been moved out, and pronate it. He sometimes says a few words in the morning."
This is remission from Multiple Sclerosis? With all due respect, calling this remission is like calling an apple an orange. MS is a disease of toxicity. Neither Don Croft's zapper, nor The New Improved Ultimate Zapper nor any zapper on the planet can put anyone with the serious symptoms described here into remission, which means that the disease goes away for a while. MS is multi-factorial. The most important thing is the primary toxicity. In most cases with MS it is dental mercury from "silver amalgam" fillings which are 50% mercury. A lot of my site is devoted to the various factors involved with Multiple Sclerosis. Please read my site for more information.
Here is another case of misleading people. There is a reference in another testimonial on Don Croft's site about diabetes. This is another disease I know something about. I lived with diabetic for many years. My father had Type II for 36 years. My brother had Type I for 35 years. They both died from the complications of diabetes.
From a testimonial on Don Croft's site: "My mother is a Type II diabetic and suffers from high blood pressure...my brother-in-law is a Type I diabetic. So you'll have good case studies for both types of diabetes."
The fact is that no zapper, including mine, can bring back the beta cells in the islets of langerhans in the pancreas so that they will start producing insulin again, nor can they reverse the cardio-vascular complications of diabetes. Various forms of chelation therapy may be able to accomplish the latter. You will never see a "good case study" about the Terminator II and diabetes on Don Croft's website, or on any other zapper maker's website, including mine.
On his site Don Croft states "...none of the pronouncements made... about the low-current electrocution of parasitic organisms are founded on any clinical or lab research..."
This statement is completely false. Please see the front page of my site for documentation to the contrary. Clinical and lab research is being done and studies have already been published. Don Croft has not been doing his homework.
Don Croft refers to "electrophoresis" on his website without explaining anything about it. He undoubtedly means electroporosis which is also known as electroporation. His only comment is "If I were to answer each of these caveats and recommendations this FAQ would assume the size of a small booklet ..." And he delines to go any further. It seems to be too much trouble for him to pursue things. Please read about the powerful electroporation effect on the front page of this site.
I have taken the trouble to investigate many health-related subjects on my site. My site is far longer than a small booklet. It is the size of a book. I go to the trouble of explaining in detail, all the whys and wherefores about zapping, and many subjects dealing with toxicity and chronic illness. And I invite people to email me for clarification on any point. This is the duty I have assumed, to be as informative as I possibly can for people, having spent years trying to find a way out of two "incurable" diseases. I spend many hours every day answering my email alone, not to mention the hundreds of hours I put into revising, updating and adding to my site every month. I work a minimum of 10 hours a day, 7 days a week. My site comprises 38 pages and some pages run 1000 to 2000 lines. My site is far more than a "small booklet". I have devoted 13 years to this work and I will continue to do my best to help provide people with the most up-to-date information that I can. I had two "incurable" diseases. I am passionate about helping people in any way I can.
Don Croft states on his site "How do zappers cure arthritis and high blood pressure?... it's not hard to see why they cure these illnesses." I never use the word cure on my site. Not only is it illegal to do so, I feel that it is irresponsible to so do because one may be creating a false impresssion: that 100% of those doing a certain therapy can affect this "cure". No zapper maker should ever make such a bold statement. To do so, in my opinion, is not only misleading but it is also unethical.
Don Croft's Terminator II has copper penny electrodes that touch the skin directly. He says there is no problem with this, that any copper ions entering the body are not dangeroous. I disagree. Dr. Clark was very specific about this, letting people know that they must wrap the copper handholds with paper towelling to prevent harmful copper ions from entering the body. Don Croft even goes to the trouble of saying that the paper towelling will not prevent the copper ions from entering the body, which is also untrue. The proof that they will enter the body is that the paper towelling will eventually turn green. Copper oxide is being trapped in the paper towelling and copper ions are indeed being prevented from entering the body by using the damp paper towelling.
This is from Don Croft's site: "Since we now sell more Zappers than anyone else in the market..."
My question is how many zapper makers have turned over their sales records to Don Croft? Raise your hands, please. I certainly haven't, and I don't imagine too many others have, either. Frankly, I have no idea where Don Croft is coming from. He has what I would call a "shoot from the hip" style. Shoot first and ask questions later. I like to ask questions first before pulling the 6-shooter from the holster.
I am in the process of compiling a list and a discussion of many issues I have with Don Croft's website. It has a kind of "I just got out of the saddle, where's the nearest saloon" folksy tone that lacks the kind of analytical approach that I prefer. A difference in style is one thing. Making serious misstatements and vague pronouncements? That's a whole other thing. We're dealing with serious issues on our site and the issues and our readers deserve a serious attitude, in my opinion. Here is another example of what I meam from Don's site: "15 cycles (15,000 Hertz) per second is a 'feel-good' frequency." Sorry, Don, but what the heck does that mean? Can you be a bit more specific.
There is a lot of talk about the mobius coil and the natural crystal and the neodymium magnet and the orgone material and the 15 Hertz frequency on the Terminator site. My questions is "Where's the beef?" When all is said and done all that matters are results. People who use the Terminator II and then switch to The Ultimate Zapper email me to let me know there is no comparison. The Ultimate Zapper wins hands down.
One of the main reasons is that 15 Hertz is far too low a frequency to have the broad-spectrum parasite-killing effect that the Ultimate Zapper's 2,500 Hertz produces. I experimented with very low frequency 9 volt prototype zappers in 1996. I used frequencies as low as 5 Hertz. The results of my research showed that there was no comparison between those very low frequencies and 2,500 Hertz. I was experimenting to clean up parasites that lingered after my operation for Crohn's disease. I had already done DMSA chelation. I found the results with the 2,500 Hertz AC adapter prototype were head and shoulders above those I was able to obtain with 9-volt prototypes set to very low frequencies in the range of 5 to 500 Hertz.
Effectiveness is the bottom line with all zappers. I have received a continuous stream of emails over the years about the ineffectiveness of the Terminator II zapper. Here are 3 typical emails about the Terminator II.
I received this email on May 19, 2007:
Dear Ken, I am interested in your zappers as well as in becoming a distributor... would like to start with 3 to begin with. I have used the croft terminator zapper with absolutely no benefits at all, and eventually had to return it. Please let me know of pricing if i purchase three zappers. Thanks and best wishes, Imran R.
I received this email on August 31, 2007:
Hi Ken, I've been suffing from warts and jock itch for almost two years now. I was wondering will your Ultimate zapper help get rid of this? I bought the Terminator II and have been using it for two months and have seen no results. Will your zapper work better and what kind of results should i notice? thanks, Dave
I received this email on March 4, 2007:
Hi Ken, ... Several years ago I bought 6 Terminators from Croft and gave them to patients and friends to try. Feedback was "no noticeable results, no improvement, nada nada...." so l was very disappointed ... Aloha, Allen and Sharie
Dear Ken Presser,
I haven't read your "reply" yet, but I will. I'll just work from this e-mail for the moment. I didn't attempt to e-mail you or attempt to debate you about anything, so your "reply" is apparently an attempt on your part to rebutt what I had to say about your blowhard ways and your exaggerated claims concerning your over-hyped generator and your claims to it being similar to a Beck electrifier. I don't insult people who I haven't yet engaged in conversation, so your characterization is misplaced. I think the word you're looking for is CRITICISM. You apparently don't like what I had to say about your unremitting hype, so you choose to call that insulting and hypocritical. You have difficulty distinguishing between A and B, I notice. After I read your "reply", I'll get back to you. I'm sure I'll have more to say.
Dear Ken Adachi,
My last name is spelt P-R-E-S-N-E-R.
I have just read your reply which I do not demean, although perhaps I should, by putting it in quotation marks as I note you have described my "reply". This snide attitude is exactly the kind of thing that I talk about in my reply on my site at
to the information on your site about The Ultimate Zapper and me. I find it interesting that your reply is a reply, with no quotation marks, but a reply on my site is a "reply". I never claimed that you emailed me or that you attempted to debate me. This is another in a series of your paper tigers that I talk about in my reply, no quotation marks, at
I stated in my reply that you have made statements on your site that are clearly false. I suggest that you "work from" the information that I have provided in my email and that I uploaded to my site at
I note that you like to use CAPITAL LETTERS on your site and in this reply to HYPE the importance of your statements. MOST PEOPLE find it normal to use upper and lower case and any EMPHASIS they wish to place on THEIR STATEMENTS comes from what they say, not from THEIR OVERUSE OF CAPITAL LETTERS. It is readily apparent that you do in fact insult those, including me, who you "haven't yet engaged in conversation". Your tone is clearly bullying. That will not get very far with me, I assure you. You have not "engaged" me in conversation before yet your tone is clearly lacking in respect, deliberately provocative and insulting. My characterization is not misplaced. It is completely accurate and to the point. It is based on your statements.
By the way, does your statement that you "don't insult people who I haven't yet engaged in conversation" mean that you merely wait until you have "engaged" someone "in conversation" before beginning to insult them? In which case, may I point out, you have not provided me with this consideration.
"Blowhard"? Take the mote out of thine own eye ...
As I point out in my reply, on my site my customers' testimonials "blow" far harder than I ever would dare to do. In fact, I deliberately understate things lest people like you accuse me of exaggeration. It is obvious that you have a very large ax to grind. And you waste no effort in grinding it.
You insist on claiming that I say things that I do not say on my site. Here is one more paper tiger. I never say that The Ultimate Zapper is similar to the Beck electrifier. I say that it has been shown to provide the same results but that these two devices are completely different in design. That's right, I don't like what you say not because I am sensitive to CRITICISM but because what you say is clearly false. I have provided the details about this on my site since your site forbids "negative" replies on its "forum", although I note that you are very liberal with your own negativity about others, including me and my site, on your "Educate-Yourself" site.
Yes, I choose to call your negativity hypocritical because
it is very clear that it is the word that describes it most appropriately. Arthur
Doerksen of Auto-Zap and David Etheredge of ParaZapper have pointed out factual
errors on my site in the past and I have been very quick to correct them. I try
my very best to keep my site as factually accurate as possible and am glad when
people, especially competitors, let me know about any inaccuracies so that I can
correct them. Corrections have also been made over the years thanks to emails from
customers. I have a site that comprises nearly 20 megabytes, all of it written by
me, I might note (which makes it challenging to keep up with changing events), as
opposed to your own site which contains copious information "taken" from a wide
variety of sources, information that has not been penned by yourself. I will not
abide the outright lies that you spout about me and The Ultimate Zapper on your
site, statements without any basis in fact and that carry a tone of authority and
BULLY PULPIT that is particularly offensive. I provide the details about this on
my site at
If you would specify what A is and what B is then perhaps we can see if I have "difficulty in distinguishing" between them, as you so patronizingly comment, thank you very much. This instance, as with so many of the other statements you have made about The Ultimate Zapper, as I point out in my reply on my site, is one more example of how you are totally vague in the statements that you make on your site, conveniently omitting to provide any details whatsoever, and how your tone is lacking in the kind of respect one would expect from a third party who might be making a simple inquiry or comment. As I have already pointed out, you have a very large ax to grind. I will be writing more about this soon on my site. Your emails and my replies will be uploaded to my site at
As of yet I have received no reply from Ken Adachi and
none appears on his site.
Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca
Here is a posting by "Jack" on Ken Adachi's "Educate-Yourself" site
Thanks for the fast response. I must understand a little more on it this SOTA made item. I am keen on a device that kills all virus and similar pathogens. Currently I have just purchased a "Ultimate Zapper" .
With Best Regards,
Here is Ken Adachi's reply to "Jack" with my comments in red:
Ken Adachi: [Please note Ken Adachi's persistent use of
CAPITAL LETTERS to emphasize his statements, as though by using capitals his statements
somehow become truthful even though they are not.]
There are many web sites that sell a single frequency zapping device. The one you got is based on a 2500Hz frequency. It is based on the original design of Dr. Hulda Clark, but Ken Presner (http://zap.intergate.ca/) "improved" it [by putting the word improved in quotation marks you are obviously inferring that The Ultimate Zapper is not an improved version of the original Dr. Hulda Clark Zapper -- which is totally false -- the front page of my site explains precisely why it is by fat the best zapper available] by changing the duty cycle to about 90% (even though he ERRONEOUSLY claims that it's 100%). This statement is completely false. I state on my site that the Duty Cycle is near 100%. There is no such thing as a 100% Duty Cycle.
It is not the "Ultimate Zapper" as Ken Presner claims. [That is Ken Adachi's opinion. His opionion is certainly not shared by the thousands of satisfied customers who have bought The Ultimate zapper since 1996 and on can fairly infer that it is certainly not the shared by the 300 people who have sent in testimonials which can be read on my site. You may note that Ken Adachi provides no evidence whatsoever to support this opinion.] There are many things that he says on his web site that are either not true, or are distortions of the truth, or are misleading statements. [You will note that, as I point out repeatedly -- I have also emailed Ken Adachi about this -- he provides not a scintilla of evidence to support his opinion, not a single specific response to any specific statement I make on my site.]
He leaves you with the impression that his zapper will produce the same bio electrification results that Beck achieved to neutralize HIV. That is NOT true. [It is absolutely true. The HIV testimonial on my site shows this very clearly -- and there are many others that I have not yet been authorized to publish that are coming in from Africa.] He even references the Kaali experiments at the Albert Einstein NYC College of Medicine that Bob Beck based his research on! Beck's design is FUNDAMENTALLY different in waveform, frequency, method of application and RESULTS. [This is absolutely true, as I have written. The Beck device and The Ultimate Zapper work on very different principles but they accomplish the same thing. There is more than 1 way to skin a cat. The other way is with The Utimate Zapper. The testimonials in the archive on my site under the category BLOOD show beyond a shadow of a doubt that The Ultimate Zapper is easily as effective for blood-related illnesses as Beck blood purifiers. By the way, Bob Beck did not invent the principles behind blood electrification. Those principles were invented by Dr. Royal Raymond Rife on whose shoulders Bob Beck stood. Dr. Rife was the true genius of electronic medicine. Bob Beck, Dr. Hulda Clark and every maker of frequency generators and zappers has stood in his shadow. Dr. Rife owed a debt of gratitude, in turn, to the great genius Nikola Tesla.]
Many of the things that Ken Presner says may be true, [Thank you very much but, once again, Ken Adachi refuses to provide a single detail. He talk in generalities and does so with an authoritative tone, neither of which mean that he either knows what he is talking about or that he is telling the truth.] but many things he says are also misleading and some are not accurate at all. [Once again, where's the beef. No details or specifics are provided.] Many of his statements are utterly specious and designed to make you believe that his zapper is the Be All and End All of zappers. [Where's the beef? Yackety yackey yack, and nothing more.] He's a hype-ster of the First Magnitude. [Actually, I am very careful not to overstate the attributes of The Ultimate Zapper left people like Ken Adachi accuse me of exaggeration. It is my customers who are so effusive that anything I say pales in comparison. All you have to do is look over the 300 testimonials in the archive on my site to see that this is absolutely true.]
Presner's claims of success are based on Hulda Clark's pioneering research, not his. [This is absolutely false. The Ultimate Zapper was inspired by Dr. Hulda Clark which I state up front on the Home Page of my site. And I pay tribute to Dr. Clark on the Dr. Clark Page on my site, as well. But The Ultimate Zapper is head and shoulders above the original zapper that Dr. Clark invented in 1996 and the success that it has attained is based on its own merits. It is not a 1993 model Hulda Clark zapper -- and I explain the difference very clearly on the Home Page of my site.] He seems to want to take far more credit than he deserves. [I only take credit where it is fair for me to do so. I think that this is abundantly clear from reading my site. Except in the case of jealous competitors who will say just about anything to try to discredit me. Many of them including Ken Adachi who sells his own Silver Terminator, David Etheredge who sells ParaZapper and Arthur Doerksen who sells Auto-Zap have been making false statements about The Ultimate Zapper, my site and my work for years. I have been responding to their statements for years, as well, and you can read what I have to say on the Deceptive Marketing Page, the Competition 1 Page and the Competition 2 page on my bsite, all accessible on the right-hand margin of the Home Page.] He's mainly interested in MARKETING and selling his zapper. [Well, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. Of course I want to market The Ultimate Zapper. Does Ken Adachi mean to say that he is not interested in marketing his Silver Terminator. You be the judge of who is really interested in MARKETING when you see the long line-up of products Ken Adachi markets and the one zapper, footpads and AC adapter, plus my 4 books, marketed on my site.] He's OVERSTATING and hype-ing the capabilities of that zapper to the nth degree. [Once again, I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing, WHERE"S THE BEEF, KEN ADACHI?]
The Ultimate Zapper will do what a positive offset, 90% duty cycle, pulsing DC square wave will do running at 2500Hz, [Now what the heck does that cconvoluted sentence mean? It will do what it will do? It certainly will do what it will do, and it certainly does, but I don't think that Ken Adachi means this in the positive way that I do and that The Ultimate Zapper's customers have attested to for the past 13 years.] but it CAN'T reproduce the same results as the Beck electrifier because it's FUNDAMENTALLY different and not the same design at all. [Wrong again, Ken Adachi. As I pointed out, above, The Ultimate Zapper can do the very same blood purification work that the Beck device can. Testimonials in the archive on my site show this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not to the consternation of satisfied customers but to the consternation of a number of compeititors.]
Beck's positive clinical trial results (involving THOUSANDS of people WITH AIDS) were based on using the BECK ELECTRIFIER [This is obviously true. Bob Beck died in 2002 and I believe his clinical trials happened long before his death. How in the world, and why in the world, would Bob beck be use The Ultimate Zapper for clinical trials to prove the effectiveness of his own device? The logic of this excapes me completely. Ken Adachi is becoming famous for creating paper tigers. I believe this is an example of this propensity on his part.] and NOT based on Ken Presner's adulterated version [Adulterated? I am surprised that Ken Adachi did not take the opportunity to put this word in CAPITAL LETTERS for emphasis. I don't see anywhere that he characterizes his own Silver Terminator as an adulterated Terminator II. I don't see anywhere that he characterizes any zapper that was developed from the original Dr. Hulda Clark Zapper as adulterated? This is the equivalent of using the word "improved" in quotation marks, as her does above, a sarcastic and negative way to characterize the product of a competitor. This speaks volumes about Ken Adachi and his "Educate-Yourself" site, in my opinion.] of a Clark zapper that he decided to hype [Yada, yada, yada. More put-downs from Ken Adachi.] as the "Ultimate Zapper." [In quotation marks, one again. A similar tactic is employed by Arthur Doerksen of Auto-Zap fame, another jealous competitor. Have a look at the 5 zapper comparison charts on my site to see how their zappers stack up side by side with 29 other zappers, and the 11-feature Ultimate Zapper which needs no hyping at all. The charts and the testimonials, along with endorsements and scientific backing, all referred to on the Home Page of my site, tell the true story. None of Ken Adachi's negative talk can erase the truth.]
Caveat emptor. [Indeed. May the buyer beware. Take your time before deciding which zapper to purchase. Examine carefully not only what zappers makers say about their own products but also what they say about their competitiors and how they talk about their competitors. All this should be carefully noted in your evaluation so that you can make the best possible choice.
On their websites other zapper makers talk about low battery voltage, low battery indicators and low battery lights. This indicates that they are obviously concerned about the voltage factor when zapping. Why? Because low voltage means low effectiveness, a fact they never get around to mentioning. The fact is that all 9 volt battery zappers discharge from 9 volts to zero volts and perform at less than optimum voltage from the moment the user turns the switch on for the very first time up until the time they change the battery and start the process all over again. So, there is a lot of talk on other sites about how long the battery lasts and how hard the maker has tried to keep the voltage from discharging, which is impossible to do, of course. But no matter how these 9 volt zappers are configured, just on the basis of their voltage alone they all lack the power to delivery the kinds of results that The Ultimate Zapper is capable of deliverying, and has been deliverying for the past 13 years. Let's look at what the 9 volt zapper makers have to say on their sites.
The Auto-Zap states on his site: " ... the Auto-Zap will start only if full output is assured for the entire cycle". They state "the zapper [will] not start ... if the battery is below 6.5 volts." This is not very encouraging since Dr. Hulda Clark states you need an output of at least 9.4 volts for optimum performance to remove toxins from the blood. Since the Auto-Zap's battery voltage starts off at 9 volts it is certain that its voltage will end up far too low to be therapeutically effective even before the battery reaches its cut-off voltage of 6.5 volts.
They seem proud of the fact that "We are the only ones who can offer 500 hours of guaranteed correct zapping from one 9 volt battery. Most others are barely able to do 50 hours, with no guarantee of correct operation even then." The only problem is that it is irrelevant how many hours you get from a 9-volt battery if the performance is sub-standard, which it is with all 9 volt zappers. The emphasis on "correct output" is also irrelevant if there is not enough power being generated for optimum therapeutic effectiveness. The Ultimate Zapper always delivers 10.5 volts DC for maximum therapeutic effectiveness. Please read "Serious Issues with the Auto-Zap", below, to find out about other issues concerning the Auto-Zap, such as their seeking "approval" from Dr. Clark to promote their zapper and their photo ops of themselves with Dr. Clark on the Auto-Zap site to give the impression of a "link" with Dr. Clark, which in fact does not exist.
The Terminator II states on his site: "When the light goes dim or no longer lights up there is still enough current to kill parasites, but it's best to put a fresh battery in. At what voltage goes the green blinking light go out?" Don Croft doesn't say. What does he mean when he says "it's best" to change the battery? It sounds like a soft way of saying that by the time the light dims and goes out any benefit at all has long since passed. When the light no longer lights up is there still enough current to kill parasites? Can his zapper possibly be working at maximum efficiency as the battery discharges to the point where the light no longer goes on? From a Terminator II-related site: "One 9 volt battery operates at peak performance for 96 hours." What does that mean, "peak performance"? How can performance possibly be peak when it starts at 9 volts and discharges thereafter? And is it peak for all 96 hours? If so, then they are implying that the voltage level really doesn't matter, which is a very strange implication taking into consideration all the evidence to the contrary. The Ultimate Zapper delivers maximum output, 10.5 volts, each and every time you zap.
From the ParaZapper site: "Higher output with ParaZapper PLUS you get a full 9 volts output instead of 7.5 that regular Hulda Clark Zappers produce....Long Battery Life...Red Low Battery Indicator on ParaZapper PLUS." Oh I see, the other 9 volt batteries don't even have an intial output of 9 volts, they only put out 7.5 volts? If that's true this can't be very comforting news to people using 9 volt zappers.
Actually, this is not true at all. 9-volt batteries have an initial output of 9 volts, which is why they are called 9-volt batteries. I have no idea why ParaZapper (David Etheredge), an electrical engineer, makes this statement which is obviously false. Anyone with a voltage meter can verify that 9-volt batteries produce 9 volts, initially.
The ParaZapper has a "red low battery indicator" for 2 models only. They do not state how low the voltage is when the red low battery indicator comes on.
The Harmonic Quad says "The low battery light will come on when the strength falls below 5.7 volts."
Dr. Hulda Clark's Model A-6 Zapper (the only zapper used in Dr. Clark's clinic) has a "low battery indicator". They do not state how low the voltage is when the low battery indicator comes on.
The Multi Zap Zapper site states it has "low battery warning". They do not state how low the voltage is when the low battery warning comes on.
The Zapper C3i site states it has a "9 volts peak voltage...low battery light". They do not state how low the voltage is when the low battery light comes on.
The MiniFG has no low battery indicator.
The RSG4 Sweep Zapper has no low battery indicator.
The Beck miniZAP has a "low battery signal". They do not state how low the voltage is when the low battery warning comes on.
The Biowave A-6 Deluxe has a "low battery indicator". They do not state how low the voltage is when the low battery warning comes on.
The Micro-Zapper states:
"Keep a fresh battery in the Micro-Zapper for optimum performance. Use a battery tester or a DC voltage meter to measure the battery voltage. A new battery has between 9 and 10 volts. When battery voltage drops below 7 VDC it should be replaced. To check the Micro-Zapper's frequency output use a voltage meter set on AC. It should read from 4 yo 8 volts, depending on battery condition The light cannot to be used to determine battery condition. It will remain on until the battery is almost completely dead. Don't waste a zapping session by using a weak battery."
The Ultimate Zapper is the only zapper in the world that delivers 10.5 constant volts each and every time you zap for maximum therapeutic effectiveness. There is no low-battery warning because there is no battery. It is powered by an AC adapter that always delivers 10.5 volts.