Dr. Hulda Clark passed away from cancer in 2009. She was not affiliated with any zapper maker and she did not endorse any zapper. The Dr. Clark Research Association uses her name and photos on their websites to promote their Super Deluxe 2006, Biowave generators and Gamma generators which are actually frequency generators, not zappers. They imply Dr. Clark was affiliated with the "Association". She was not. You can read more about the "Association" and their conviction for misleading advertising in the The Competition Part 1. The "Association" is not the only zapper maker that uses Dr. Clark's name and photos without her approval. Among those that do so are ParaZapper (promoting their "Hulda Clark Zapper"), "Hulda Clark Research" (promoting their Mini FG), "clarkzapper.com" (promoting their "Hulda Clark Zapper"), the Deluxe Model A6 "Hulda Clark Zapper", the RSG-4, the Multi-Zap, and Auto-Zap.
Dr. Clark stated on her own website that she was not affiliated with and did not approve or endorse any zapper. Implying otherwise is deceptive. Dr. Clark stated "There are other websites and companies using my name ... or selling products that claim to be approved by me ... I am not affiliated with, and have no control over, any other website or company ... no other website speaks for me ... I do not endorse any manufacturer ... ".
I clearly state The Ultimate Zapper is based on Dr. Clark's research and is the most advanced zapper available. But there are no pictures of her smiling over my site and I don't use her name to promote my zapper. She was not affiliated with me and did not approve or endorse The Ultimate Zapper which stands on its own merits and has done so since 1996.
Dr. Hulda Clark said "sophisticated gizmos" like digital technology do not make zappers more effective. They only make them look more impressive. Digitalizing zappers makes them into complicated frequency generators. Achieving results with them is very difficult and expensive. Zappers use a single frequency. Digital "zappers", frequency generators, offer many frequencies. They create a lot of added expense, with more profit for their makers, but they don't enhance results. I explain the difference between zappers and frequency generators and how costly and complex they are.
Dr. Hulda Regehr Clark began her studies in biology at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada where she was awarded a Bachelor of Arts, Magna Cum Laude, and a Master of Arts, with High Honors. After two years of study at McGill University, she attended the University of Minnesota, studying biophysics and cell physiology. She received her Doctorate in physiology in 1958. In 1979 she left government funded research and began private consulting and research on a full time basis. She obtained an unaccredited naturopathy degree from Clayton College of Natural Health, an online school.
During her research Dr. Clark claimed to have discovered an electronic technique for scanning the human body. With it she apparently noticed clues as to the cause of cancer, HIV and other "mysterious" diseases. She discovered that toxins and parasites were the key to serious pathology and wrote The Cure for All Diseases in 1993. You can read a free copy here. Dr. Clark developed the zapper technology in 1993 to replace the classic herbal parasite-killing formula based on wormwood, black walnut and cloves that she had been advocating as a parasite killing formula. She discovered that the zapper was more efficient in killing parasites. Her formula featured a positive offset square wave with a 50% Duty Cycle and a frequency of 25,000 Hz to 30,000 Hz. The Ultimate Zapper goes far beyond this original formula. It offers a unique 11-feature formula that makes it the most powerful and effective zapper in the world.
Dr. Hulda Clark's invention of the zapper stood on the shoulders of the inventions
of the great genius Dr.
Royal Raymond Rife. Dr. Rife invented the frequency generator in the 1920's.
Here is part of an interview with Dr. Royal Rife from The Deposition of Royal R.
Rife taken in the city of Tijuana, Baja California, Republic of Mexico - March 7,
1961. It shows that the attempt to suppress electronic medicine has a long history.
It is available at
"Question: Did you ever request any governmental department or agency to make a test of your electronic frequency-generator to determine its effect upon diseases? If so, which one or ones?
Answer by (Dr. Royal Raymond Rife): Yes. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the National Research Council, Committee on Growth, Washington DC, The American Cancer Society, The Damon Runyon Fund, The Sloan Kettering Institute, The International Cancer Clinic and many others. They have shown no interest in an electronic method ... They spend millions on drugs but nothing on electronics unless it will supplement drugs like x-ray and radioactive treatments which put terrible scar tissue and burns inside the body and then the person has to have a great amount of dope and painkillers to keep the pain down. The drug racketeer makes ten billion dollars annually on cancer alone and with this money they have been able to have an unconstitutional law put on the books which stated that people will only be treated for cancer by medical doctors with x-ray, radioactive treatments, and surgery creating a drug monopoly to kill cancer; slowly."
Dr. Royal Rife possessed the greatest mind of all those who have made major contributions to electronic medicine, with the possible exception of Nikola Tesla whose many inventions included the alternating current and the technology that created electric power generation at Niagara Falls. Nikola Tesla pioneered the field of electrotherapy. Dr. Clark's work grew out of the discoveries and inventions of both Nikola Tesla and Dr. Royal Rife. Dr. Clark's work focused the attention of alternative medicine on the interplay of metal and chemical toxins with parasites, bacteria and viruses in the pathological process. Unlike Tesla and Rife her primary interest was initially toxicity, not electromedicine. I agree very much with Dr. Clark's description of the pathological process but I think it is a mistake to swallow what she says whole. To the extent that she elucidates the truth she should be recognized and lauded. But being reverential toward her, which some zapper makers appear to be, does not serve the truth which should always be our primary concern. I believe one should look carefully and critically at what Dr. Clark says, as one should do with every serious researcher who attains a position of influence.
Dr. Clark used the word "cure" very liberally in her books. This invites close scrutiny. "Cure" is the strongest of claims. It carries a heavy burden of proof. In my opinion, the proof of cure offered in her books does not meet scientific standards for proof of cure. Her claim to have over 100 "cures" in The Cure for All Cancers was clearly not true. I base my comments on the following observations: the cover of The Cure for All Cancers states that it includes "over 100 Case Histories of Persons Cured". This is not true. I have read the first 58 case histories and here are the statistics that I have compiled from the information that Dr. Clark provides in those case histories:
opted out: 1
started treatment: 4
no change: 4
progress unclear: 2
progress made: 23
After reviewing the case histories it is clear that the cover of the book is misleading. Anyone knowing this must be wary about the content and import of the case histories, at the very least. In addition, many of the histories Dr. Clark offered are difficult to decipher. They are presented inconsistently, in unscientific terms, with information that is often vague, and with Dr. Clark's personal comments and speculation interspersed in the text. All of these factors add up to an unclear picture of what has happened in many of the cases she discusses. In short, I was not as impressed with Dr. Clark's "cures" as some other zapper makers who have made positive comments about them. It is obvious that bringing the testimonials to a higher standard in order to lend credibility to them will require a more rigorous methodology than Dr. Clark used.
Bolstering my statements about the lack of credibility in Dr. Clark's case histories is the fact that there are first-hand reports on the Internet of people who allegedly received treatment at Dr. Clark's clinic in Mexico with unsuccessful results. When one examines these reports one may be prompted to question the alleged success of some of Dr. Clark's treatment methods. When Dr. Clark used the words "cure", "all cancers" and "all diseases" those words may engender false hope in people suffering from serious illness, in my opinion. Using these words implies that universal results may be obtained where this may not in fact be the case. If one engenders hope in another person in matters of life and death that hope should have a firm basis in reality. One assumes a heavy burden of responsibility when one offers hope to desperate people.
Those who have read about my story know that I certainly believe in hope. I lived on pure hope for many years as I struggled to overcome Multiple Sclerosis and Crohn's disease. Initially, my hope for recovery was not engendered by anyone but myself guided, I believe, by a higher power. Along the road to recovery my hope was bolstered by Dr. Hulda Clark and others. When I engender hope in others it is not by way of making any claims or promises. It is by way of recounting my story. I do not present any scientific proof of recovery from illness on my site. Nor do I present any scientific proof for the effectiveness of The Ultimate Zapper. All "proof" on my site is empirical. It is personal and anecdotal by way of my own experience and the experience of others as elicidated in the testimonials as I explain on the discliamer page and other pages on my site.
Scientific proof regarding chronic illness should aim for a very high standard. It should require that evidence be collected through double-blind or other credible studies and tests over a long period of time involving a large number of subjects, entailing the collection of a great deal of data. Such studies should be rigorous and should be conducted under controlled conditions. This process would undoubtedly be lengthy and costly. Neither my work nor Dr. Clark's work measure up to this high standard. Scientific proof of reversal of disease requires a standard that neither I nor Dr. Clark provide. It would require a great deal of money and the creation of a dedicated organization. In my case, having recovered from Multiple Sclerosis and Crohn's disease, there has never been any proof presented using a scientific standard, as far as I am aware, that there is a "cure" for Multiple Sclerosis or Crohn's disease or, on the contrary, that there is no cure for these diseases.
I did not seek Dr. Clark's recognition or approval, or that of her son Geoff, for The Ultimate Zapper, as so many other zapper makers have. For a number of years Geoff Clark, Dr. Hulda Clark's son, gave his "approval" to zappers that were sent to him for testing and which met certain standards. Here is a copy, below, of the original Dr. Hulda Clark "approval" letter from Geoff Clark's Self Health Resource Center copied from the Multi-Zap zapper website. As far as I have been able to ascertain Geoff Clark owns the Self Health Resource Center in California which maintains a website and which acts markets his mother's electronic products. I do not use Dr. Clark's name to sell The Ultimate Zapper. Many other zappers makers, including the Dr. Clark Research Association and the Auto-Zap zapper use Dr. Clark's name and photographs, without her approval, to create the impression of association with Dr. Clark in order to market and promote their zappers and other products.
On his website, the maker of the Multi-Zap zapper is honest and clear about the meaning of Geoff Clark's approval letter. He explains exactly what that "approval" means on his site:
"Dr. Hulda Clark has chosen not to patent or license the Zapper technology that she developed in conjunction with her son, Geoff Clark. This has encouraged many private companies to produce and market their own version of the "Zapper". Dr. Clark is not directly involved with any company that makes and/or sells Zappers. Until recently, Geoff Clark would test any commercial "Zapper" and lend his approval to, thereby certifying, only those devices which meet Dr. Hulda Clark's criteria for a Zapper. Essence Instrument's Multi-Zap Zapper was approved by Geoff Clark in 1999. Please note: The Zapper "certification" service was no longer being offered by Geoff Clark when this most recent version of the Multi-Zap was introduced in 2002. Although the letter below refers to an earlier version of the Multi-Zap, the 'new' Multi-Zap is an improved version and it retains all of the features and specifications of the original."
Arthur Doerksen of the Auto-Zap zapper did not provide any explanation of the meaning of the Geoff Clark "approval" that was prominently displayed for years on his site. He left it up to his readers to imagine just what that "approval" meant. Ironically, the Auto-Zap zapper no longer met the requirements of the Dr. Clark "approval" after its maker lowered its frequency to 2,500 Hertz many years ago. Only 25,000 Hertz zappers qualified for that "approval". The Ultimate Zapper would not have met with Geoff Clark's "approval" for this very same reason. Its many other improvements would also have disqualified it from "approval". The fact is that the Dr. Clark approval had very narrow parameters and was limited to the old zapper formula created by Dr. Clark in 1995. "Approval" simply meant that Geoff Clark had verified the output of the zappers sent to him. He tested them against the specifications published in his mother's books. If they conformed to those specifications they were "approved". The "approval" procedure was merely a testing and verification procedure which is clear from the "approval" letter, above. It never represented a product endorsement and was never meant to be a product endorsement because Dr. Clark states on her website that she does not approve or endorse any zapper website or any zapper. Nevertheless, this specification approval by Geoff Clark was used misleadingly by zapper makers who did not discourage people from believing that Dr. Clark approved of their zapper in the sense of the word endorsement. Geoff's Clark's mother's name was misleadingly used for years by zapper makers to promote their products. Geoff Clark finally put an end to this charade and stopped providing this "approval" service to zapper makers.
Dr. Clark's "approval" was used as a marketing tool by many zapper makers who sought to give their zapper the benefit of the Hulda Clark "seal of approval" in order to promote their zapper sales. After I published this information on my site regarding the meaning of Geoff Clark's "approval", Arthur Doerksen of the Auto-Zap zapper stopped advertising Dr. Clark's "approval" on his site.
Each Ultimate Zapper is tested on a digital multi-meter and an oscilloscope to ensure that it conforms strictly to the specifications advertised on my website. Its unique 11-feature formula has produced amazing results over the past 16 years. These results are reported in the testimonial archive. They show that The Ultimate Zapper is, without question, the most advanced zapper available. Ironically, zapper makers who have used Dr. Clark's "specification approval" on their websites have assured their customers that their zappers conform to the specifications of the old 1995 Hulda Clark zapper. In my opinion, innovation and effectiveness are far more important than approval. The Ultimate Zapper is the most powerful, most effective zapper in the world, not only by virtue of its unique 11-feature formula but, more importantly, according to those who have used it and compared it to the other major zappers and have obtained amazing results with it. Many "comparison emails" have been sent to me over the years and I have posted them to the testimonial archive which now contains more than 500 testimonials.
Many zapper makers, including Arthur Doerksen of the Auto-Zap zapper and David Amrein of the Dr. Clark Research Association use Dr. Clark's name and picture on their sites to lead people to believe that Dr. Clark is associated with their sites. On her own website at
Dr. Clark stated that she did not endorse or approve any zappers and she was not associated with any zapper sites including those that use her name.
Nevertheless, many zapper makers use Dr. Clark's name and pictures freely as a promotional tool, including Arthur Doerksen of the Auto-Zap zapper and David Amrein of the Dr. Clark Research Association. Although she might have done so, Dr. Clark, who must surely have been very kind-hearted, never took legal action against anyone using her name to sell their zappers. She stated that if people are being helped then she should not do anything to detract from that fact. Neverheless, those using questionable business practices should be noted, in my opinion.
I would like to comment on two websites that have used Dr. Clark's name and picture to promote their zappers, without Dr. Clark's approval: the Auto-Zap website which is owned by Arthur Doerksen, and the "Super Zapper Deluxe" website run by the Dr. Clark Research Association website which is owned by David Amrein.
The Dr. Clark Research Association uses Dr. Clark's name and photos to market their zappers. David Amrein, the owner of the Dr. Clark Research Association, was charged by the FTC (the Federal Trade Commission) in 2003 with making false advertising claims about both of his Super Deluxe zappers (which are actually frequency generators, as discussed on the Competition page of this site) as well as other health products. He was convicted and agreed to an FTC-dictated settlement. David Amrein still displays photos of Dr. Clark prominently on his site to create the impression that there is a connection between him and Dr. Clark. He has taken Dr. Clark's name as the name for his website. He did not name his site the David Amrein Research Association website, for a very good reason, in my opinion. His name envokes only a commercial intent. He has no health recovery story to tell his customers, only a commercial one.
Arthur Doerksen prides himself on being an electrical engineer. I find it ironic that he sought the approval of Dr. Hulda Clark for his zapper. She was not an electrical engineer. She was a researcher. He implies that being an electrical/electronics professional is of paramount importance in the zapper field and that this "professional" status obviously automatically precludes the invention of a superior zapper by someone without formal credentials in the electrical/electronics field.
Royal Rife's Microscope
Arthur Doerken neglects to point out that Dr. Hulda Clark is an amateur in the field of electrical engineering and electronics. Her lack or formal credentials is evident when compared to those of Dr. Royal Rife and Nikola Tesla who were the true geniuses of electronic medicine. Arthur Doerksen also neglects to mention that being a mere researcher and amateur inventor ironically did not prevent Dr. Clark from inventing the original zapper in 1993 which all other zappers, including theirs, are based on. And it did not prevent me, an electronics researcher without formal engineering credentials, from inventing The Ultimate Zapper, the most advanced zapper in the world, which has led the way for all other zappers for the past 17 years since the invention of the original zapper by Dr. Clark.
Arthur Doerksen attempts to elevate the status of his Auto-Zap zapper by parading the fact that he is an electrical engineer. The fact that he is a professional engineer does not, ipso facto, make Auto-Zap superior. In fact, except for one feature, the lower frequency, Auto-Zap is a mere version of the old 1995 Hulda Clark zapper with some added bells and whistles including a low-battery indicator, a timer and a beeper. Arthur Doerksen uses photos and stories of Dr. Clark on his site to market his zapper hoping that all the "Hulda and me" appeal will distract people from the fact that the Auto-Zap is a simple 1995 Hulda Clark zapper. David Amrein does the same thing on his site promoting his "zappers" which are not zappers at all but frequency generators that require the purchase of expensive add-ons to be able to function as designed.
The Ultimate Zapper has no bells and whistles. It has a unique 11- feature formula that makes it truly the best zapper available. There are no photos or stories about "Hulda and me" on The Ultimate Zapper site. And there never was a page on my site entitled "Geoff Clark approved my zapper". The Ultimate Zapper has stood on its own merits since the very beginning in 1996. There are 458 unsolicited testimonials in the archive that attest to its effectiveness.
I recognize the importance of Dr. Clark's work and I owe her a great debt of gratitude. She has been a great example of the need for intellectual freedom and the need to speak freely which are still our constitutional rights. Those inalienable rights enabled me invent The Ultimate Zapper and to create my website. The fact that our basic freedoms have been seriously eroded in recent years through intimidation by government agencies and their corporate partners challenges us to be all the more determined to defend those freedoms. For without them we are in tacit collusion with those who are bent on the creation of tyranny. We will be complicit in our own demise if we do not oppose that tyranny. The destruction of our health freedoms is part of the history being written of the New World Order which has the potential to wreak more havoc in our world than was wrought in any previous historical era. Only awareness, vigilance and courage can turn back the ominous tide of destructive forces that now threaten to determine the future of mankind.
January 24, 2012