deceptive              deceptive

PARAZAPPER tried to clone The Ultimate Zapper
-- and take its name for his zapper

See the full story below

PARAZAPPER claimed I made up the testimonials on my site
and that my zapper is made with "hobby" parts

These preposterous statements show David Etheredge
is prepared to say whatever it takes to be successful
-- the truth be damned -- see below

PARAZAPPER has completely destroyed his own credibility
through a series of disastrous choices

... rooted in unethical and deceptive marketing that saw his business
shut down by the government for false medical claims
-- read the full story below and see the Federal court warning



    "not so ultimate" ZAPPER PAGE
-- here









David Etheredge of ParaZapper is the most outstanding example of duplicity in the zapper industry. He is a pathetic fraud. He has a page on his site declaring The Ultimate Zapper is "not so ultimate". He features a photo of a zapper he says is The Ultimate Zapper sent in by a customer in 2007. Then he turns around and takes 3 features from The Ultimate Zapper for his own UZI Ultimate Zapper model. If his ParaZapper was so good as he claimed then why is he trying to copy The Ultimate Zapper? And why is he using the name of my zapper? This page is an expose of the sad litany of his 10-year smear campaign.

David Etheredge's UZI has a "beyond the Ultimate Zapper mode". That's interesting, because up till now he has been saying The Ultimate Zapper is "not so ultimate". Now he does an about-face and finds that my zapper is worthy of going "beyond". It's clear that he talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. If you line up the features of the ParaZapper UZI opposite The Ultimate Zapper it is clear there is no contest. The UZI uses the gimmick of switching frequencies. This actually creates a weaker zapper. This is true for all "sweep zappers", "dual zappers" & "multiple frequency zappers" whose ranks the UZI joins.

David Etheredge of ParaZapper says whatever it takes -- and stops at nothing -- to further his agenda. He now uses alleged customer complaints posted to Curezone to defame my zapper, my site and me. One of the so-called complaints that he quotes was from a customer who was trying to steal their Ultimate Zapper by claiming that I was not responding to requests for a refund.

Ooooh, that must have made David Etheredge happy to hear. But the truth is that this customer was a thief. The whole thing was a scam and they ended up being successful in their attempt to steal their zapper -- and also received a full refund. These are the kinds of lies David Etheredge spreads. He is happy to quote lies to try to discredit me. But by doing so he only ends up discrediting himself.

The most prominent "complaint" he cites is from a person who fraudulently complained on Complaints Board about their Ultimate Zapper. Complaints Board -- and their sister site Scamfound -- are criminal-owned "report" sites based in Riga, Latvia -- well beyond the long arm of the law. They make money by attracting advertising revenue and from extorting money from those they defame. When I proved this "report" was fraudulent Complaints Board removed it from their site and from Scamfound -- their sister site -- although they have a reputaton of never removing reports even when customers pay up.

 In fact, this fraudulent report is now being linked to multiple times by David Etheredge to make it look more impressive. He also links to the same "report" on Ripoff Report that is owned by a convicted felon named Ed Magedson woh is now wanted. At the very end of David Etheredge's scam he notes that the "report" was removed. But he does not remove it from his site or explain why it was removed. He prefers that this remain a mystery. Publishing the truth would not serve his purpose. Publishing lies works better for him. Read an expose on these phoney "report" sites.

As mentioned above, David Etheredge cites this fraudulent "report" not once but several times, as though they are different "reports". It is the same false "report". He thinks that by repeating the lie that it will stick. But in the end he notes that the "report" has been removed. So he quotes a "report" twice that is not even there! And he omits saying it was removed because it was fraudulent. This is the kind of gutter work that David Etheredge is doing to try to defame my zapper, my site and me. He is a pathetic fraud who has been doing these kinds of things for 10 years -- as this page shows.

Now let's talk about his stable of ParaZappers. They are simply versions of the original (and weak) Hulda Clark 9-volt battery zapper. He wants people to believe it is more effective than The Ultimate Zapper. But it is far less effective because it does not create the synergy that The Ultimate Zapper's unique 12-feature formula creates. This is not something I am making up. This fact comes from his customers. Here are 2 messages I received that are typical of customer reaction to ParaZapper's various models:

I bought a Uzi zapper from Parazapper. In all honesty not happy at all with it ... I would love to order with you ...

Mark P.
June 15, 2011.

I must tell you I'm extremely bummed out after having stumbled upon your website. I'd gone to Curezone looking for info on teeth zapping. Your listing came up and I started reading the comparisons between your zapper and others. After many weeks researching Curezone for a decent zapper, I bought the Parrazapper CC1. To say the least, I was quite disappointed to review the differences and also, some of the not too professional comments hurled your way. I may have to bite the bullet and send it back even though Dave charges a 50% re-stocking fee ... Basically bummed ... I am getting results but I've really had to step up the zapping ... sometimes several hours a day ... [I want to return it and buy your zapper.]

Jeff B.
May 5, 2011.

This is exactly what I have been reporting for years about the ParaZappers. They are a very weak line of zappers that require zapping for many hours a day to get any results at all. David Etheredge has many iterations with different model numbers to keep people guessing. But it makes no difference. They are just variations on a theme -- weak zappers that are not very effective. In the 18 years I have been selling The Ultimate Zapper I hear from many people who need to zap for only 15 seconds to 1 minute to receive its full benefits.

About Face

Dr. Richard Loyd, a famous electronics expert, called The Ultimate Zapper "the best single fixed frequency unit". David Etheredge actually said on Curezone that The Ultimate Zapper "may be the most powerful single frequency zapper". But then he changed his mind as it became popular. "The best" is now "quality lacking" and "cheaply made" -- and its label has even disappeared in a photo on his site. I talk about its build quality (below) that David Etheredge is glad to misrepresent.

More Deception


David Etheredge says my zapper does not produce electroporation. If he read this scientific paper or took the Electroporation Challenge or if he read the 20 Electroporation Testimonials he would change his mind -- quickly. He made the preposterous statement that I made up the 628 testimonials including those of actress Karen Allen, Dr. Mitchell H. and Dr. Ben G. and the other doctors in my worldwide network of distributors. Until recently, his site had only 9 testimonials. He is the only person ever who didn't like My Recovery Protocol -- mocking it on Curezone. He hasn't read it.

ParaZapper's 60% return "fee"

From David Etheredge's site: "... returned units MUST be postmarked by the 11th day or there may be additional charges of ... 60% for those that exceed 14 days". I offer a 3-month trial for The Ultimate Zapper-- and I don't inspect postmarks. I charge a 7% restocking fee. He offers a limited 3-year warranty. I offer an unlimited lifetime warranty. Customers who want to return his zapper are deterred by his punitive policy. I know. They email me and order my zapper that has a 1% return rate.

ParaZapper site closed

The ParaZapper site was closed by the government for false medical claims. He reached a settlement with the government that allowed him to reopen. But when he reopened he had a list of new claims -- that he removed when I showed they were also false.

Misrepresenting his Credentials

Talking in the third person singular, David Etheredge of ParaZapper misrepresents his credentials on his website. He leaves the clear impression that he is electrical engineer. He is not. He is self taught. Click here for his site page with this misrepresentation:

... introduced by David Etheredge, an electronic and biomedical engineer ...

The truth about his credentials is on his resume page that he keeps off-site:

David L. Etheredge

5537 Balboa Ct. Pinson, Al

35126 E-mail: Davideth@david-etheredge.name


1976 - Present

Self taught in electronics and programming. Accomplished in both.

1974 - 1980

University of Alabama in Birmingham

Undergraduate, Biology and Chemistry. Graduate studies in Biomedical Eng.

David Etheredge asknowledges that he did graduate studies in biomedical engineering but does not specify what those studies comprised. Since they overlap the "self taught" notation in his resume one can fairly assume that he is mainly self-taught. I am also self taught -- a fact that he ironically disparages on Curezone.

Read the details (below) about David Etheredge's use of deceptive marketing and his disinformation campaign.

click here


Here is a customer email I received that sums up how a lot of people feel about my zapper, my work and my site -- and the competition.


I haven't even used your product yet and I just wanted to let you know my decision making process. I saw all of that banter and back and forth on Curezone and on some of those other sites. I must hand it to you, you wouldn't back down and nobody really could match all of the features that you were offering. You concentrated on product performance while others concentrated on ease of use and other bells and whistles. Also, I liked the way that you defended yourself and the way that you fought back and went toe-to-toe. This let me know one or two things: Either you are crazy or there really is something to your Ultimate Zapper. No one in their right mind would put so much out there like you did if you really were confident about your product. Why? Because it would be too easy to rip and tear apart what you posted up. So, you have heart and some ****s to do what you do. I even saw how some of the competition changed their websites after you fired back and called them out. I even seen some try to come off like you with mini comparison charts. But, your comprehensive chart is the biggest on the net. I don't know of no other site that is willing to compare its product to all the others. It is usually a suicide mission. Yet, you went against the grain and for me that was enough to try your product. And it didn't matter whether you had some fancy return policy or not. I respect a man that can stand by his product, admit mistakes, improve, and grow. Your product will be and should be a reflection of who you are and what you represent. I'll keep you posted on my progress or come back if I have any questions.


Keith E.
Jul. 8, 2010



Business must be bad. David Etheredge of ParaZapper has gone off the deep end -- again. He may be perturbed that I have exposed his lies about The Ultimate Zapper, my site and my work. And he may be perturbed about my exposing his deceptive and corrupt marketing practices that you can read about on this page.

Making false medical claims ended up with him being raided by the Federal authorities. They closed down his business but he is now up and running again. Perhaps we should characterize it as "up and limping" rather than up and running because he says he now needs to call his lawyers if he wants to dot an "i" or cross a "t" on his site. The one exception to his "I-need-to-call-my-lawyer" excuse is when he wants to bash The Ultimate Zapper. Then he takes the phone off the hook.

To occupy himself productively, David Etheredge has created a "bash-The-Ultimate-Zapper" page on his site that you can read here. He says The Ultimate Zapper is "not so ultimate" and that it has "the cheapest hobby level parts". I guess that explains why I offer a 3-month trial and a lifetime warranty -- which no other zapper maker offers -- including him. And I guess that explains why I have a return rate of 1%. The Ultimate Zapper's effectiveness is backed by 890 testimonials under 24 health categories that you can read in The Archive. There are many more to come. Until recently David Etheredge had 9 testimonials on his site. By calling me a liar he is, in effect, also calling the thousands of satified users of The Ultimate Zapper and those who have submitted unsolicited testimonials liars, as well as the many doctors and other practitioners using The Ultimate Zapper successfully in hospitals and clinics all over the world -- as documented in the Testimonial Archive -- for malaria, HIV and many other conditions.

If The Ultimate Zapper is "not so ultimate" and is made with "the cheapest hobby level parts" then how the heck is it doing all the amazing things that you can read about in the Testimonial Archive? I posed this question. He has yet to answer it -- except by repeating the same lies he has always repeated about The Ultimate Zapper. How can he possibly explain all this? He doesn't even attempt to. He simple ignores the facts in favor of his self-serving factoids. He is a jealous competitor who cannot tolerate the fact that thousands of zapper sales have eluded him in favor of The Ultimate Zapper. People are voting with their feet and he is not pleased about it. The Ultimate Zapper is called The Ultimate Zapper for a very good reason. So he tried to clne it and took its name for his own zapper!

The photo of the inside of The Ultimate Zapper that he shows on his site looks like one of my 1996 prototypes. He says it was sent to him in 2007 by one of his customers. More deception by David Etheredge. It is true The Ultimate Zapper does not have a printed circuit board like ParaZapper but David Etheredge completely misrepresents this on his site. This is in fact the #3 feature of The Ultimate Zapper -- point-to-point wiring. The Ultimate Zaper is not machine made. Each Ultimate Zapper is hand-made and point-to-point hard wired for the highest possible reliability by expert electronic technicians. Attention to detail to produce the most reliable and highest quality product is what The Ultimate Zapper is all about. Machine made printed circuit boards are much cheaper and they produce an inferior end product and they is prone to failure. In fact, there is mounting evidence that the high temperatures that machined boards are subjected to degrade the product's quality.

Hand-made zappers have much higher production costs. Years ago I rejected using cheap printed-circuit-boards like those found in ParaZapper in favor of high quality, hand-made zappers. Printed circuit boards are not only inferior they are also prone to failure. The Ultimate Zapper never fails. It is the most reliable zapper available. In fact, many high-end audio companies are taking the very same approach today that I do -- being hand made with point-to-point wiring. Like my production team that makes each Ultimate Zapper individually, they are taking the time to produce some of the highest quality and most reliable audio products in the world -- companies like APL and Merlin Music and Audio Magic and Synergistic Research. ParaZapper chooses the easy way out -- printed circuit boards. David Etheredge's accusation that The Ultimate Zapper is made of cheap "hobby-level" parts is inane. If it were true I would have a high number of returns. My rate of return is actually less than 1%. As far as I am aware, this is the lowest rate of return of any zapper in the world. And this low return rate is not based on product failure because there have never been a single circuit failure in 18 years.

New Model SE and New Model XE are not only individually made, they are made with high quality all lead-free components. They are the most environmentally friendly zappers on the market. They are also RoHS compliant for shipment to California and the EU. The New Model SE and New Model XE use a special (and very expensive) silver alloy solder that gives it 40% higher conductivity than the original Ultimate Zapper. Its lead-free silver alloy solder is the most expensive on the market. It also has superior adhesive quality compared to leaded solder. New Model SE and New Model XE are shipped with the most expensive solid copper clips and gold-plated connectors on the market -- not the cheap nickel plated steel clips that most zappers have that corrode, rust and break off easily. The Ultimate Zapper has the highest quality, most expensive and most reliable toggle switch of any zapper on the market. The box that contains its components is the very highest quality industrial grade ABS plastic box that money can buy.

I offer a lifetime warranty because New Model SE and New Model XE are the highest quality zappers on the market. I back up The Ultimate Zapper with the best Satisfaction Guaranteed package of any zapper in the world. Compare New Model SE and New Model XE to ParaZapper and 28 other popular zappers in 5 Zapper Comparison Charts. Look at ParaZapper's limited 30-day return policy with his punitive 60% penalty and his limited 3-year warranty -- versus The Ultimate Zapper's 3-month trial period with a 7% return fee and my unlimited lifetime warranty.

David Etheredge accuses me of "profiteering off [my] customers". One more inanity in a long list from him. First of all, feature for feature The Ultimate Zapper offers better value than any other zapper in the world -- hands down -- including any of his ParaZapper models. Have a look at the 5 Zapper Comparison Charts and you'll see this is obviously true. Also, regarding the despicable use of the word "profiteering", most of the work I do is helping people with serious illnesses -- like MS and Crohn's disease that I recovered from in the 1990s. I do this work free of charge. I work 10 hours a day 365 days a year -- without a day off since year 2000. Also (something I have never publicized with a megaphone), to help people who are in financial need, I offer more discounts to customers than any other zapper maker -- personal discounts upon request as well as my special Introductory Offer for the New Model SE New Model XE and the $20.00 discount on My Recovery Protocol that also comes with a free copy of The Ultimate Liver Cleanse. I also offer generous additional distributor and referral discount programs. I have a worldwide network of distributors.

It is a fact that it is more expensive to produce one Ultimate Zapper than it is to produce any ParaZapper model not only because it contains expensive parts but also because hard-wiring takes extra time and care and quality control -- contrary to the lies that David Etheredge publishes on his site and would like people to believe. The cost of producing The Ultimate Zapper is actually about twice what David Etheredge says I should sell The Ultimate Zapper for! The only conclusion I can come to is that he would like me to sell The Ultimate Zapper below cost so that I would be forced to go out of business so that he could pick up extra sales. My dear mother passed away recently in her 98th year. I inherited her genes. David Etheredge will have to stick around for a while longer, God willing.

More lies from David Etheredge. He states that "His zapper [meaning The Ultimate Zapper] does include a [he means "an"] AC wall adapter that does not meet the IEC 60601 specifications for contact with humans. This could possible [he means "possibly"] be lethal in some cases." David Etheredge has been lying and fear-mongering about The Ultimate Zapper for many years [-- with his typical smattering of poor spelling and grammar. If he can't even compose the text on his site in correct English he should at least hire a proof-reader or use spell check, IMHO. The sloppiness that characterizes his site is the same trait that got him into trouble with the government regulators in 2003. He is more than sloppy about his business practices. I characterize his business practices as deceptive and corrupt and I document my statements on this page and on the links to other pages on this site.]

The fact is that there has never been a single failure of The Ultimate Zapper's AC adapter in 18 years -- and there never will be because it is UL and CSA approved and contains fail-safe double insulation. David Etheredge's lies about the AC adapter were refuted at #16 on the FAQ Page on my site years ago -- which he has chosen to ignore. His lies were not only resoundingly refuted by me but also by an electronics expert whose opinion I did not solicit and who I do not even know. This has not prevented David Etheredge from continuing to repeat those very same lies year after year. I guess he figures if he repeats them often enough and for long enough then people will start to believe them. The best he can expect is to end up fooling some of the people some of the time.

More lies from David Etheredge. He attempts to cast doubt about The Ultimate Zapper's powerful Electroporation Effect and its powerful blood electrification effect. His statements show that he has no idea what he is talking about. The testimonials sent in by people who have used The Ultimate Zapper for both blood electrification and electroporation completely refute David Etheredge's assertions. They prove the exact opposite of what he states. Quoting Bob Beck or Dr. Hulda Clark sounds impressive -- until you realize they made glaring errors in their research. It is obvious that they did not know everything. Quoting false statements made by "authorities" is one of the rabbits David Etheredge pulls out of his hat. He may think he is the David Copperfield of Zapperland but he is just the same old David Etheredge.

More lies from David Etheredge. I note that he has tried to "massage" the oscilloscope views on the page he has "dedicated" to The Ultimate Zapper by quoting Dr. Hulda Clark. The only problem is that Dr. Clark was wrong when she stated that a spike in the square wave has the effect of "sustaining pathogen life". In fact, I have yet to read any scientific description of this or any proof of this from anywhere in the world -- and David Etheredge provides no evidence whatsoever to support this statement. Quoting Dr. Clark does not make this statement true. In fact, it is not true. The living and indisputable proof is the 890 testimonials in The Archive. Dr. Clark was wrong about many things and this is one of the things that she was definitely wrong about. Dr. Clark was a great innovator but she was not perfect and her research was not perfect.

The fact is that a short spike below the zero line is normal. In fact, there is a short spike at the top and bottom of every zapper wave produced by every zapper from every zapper maker including, ironically, ParaZapper's own zapper wave that you can see below -- taken from his own site! Here is the information from my top production expert regarding this:

"Hi Ken,

Here is a picture off the ParaZapper website. Notice that his zapper also has an upward spike at the beginning and a downward spike at the end of each cycle. I have also noticed this on other square waves that I have measured. It must be a common occurance. I notice too that under load, his zappers' voltage drops quite a bit, unlike ours ...". The drop in voltage with ParaZapper translates into diminished therapeutic effectiveness -- from an already weak zapper as the 5 Zapper Comparison Charts show.

Here is David Etheredge's oscilloscope photo of ParaZapper's wave from his own site:




The Ultimate Irony is that while the ParaZapper spikes may diminish the therapeutic effectiveness of its already weak wave form the short spikes at the top and the bottom of The Ultimate Zapper's wave do not diminish its powerful therapeutic effects at all because its wave is very, very powerful -- as thousands of users know -- to the probable chagrin of David Etheredge. The difference between the ParaZapper wave and The Ultimate Zapper wave is clearly explained on the Home Page. Its power is derived from the synergy of its unique formula comprised of 12 special features. The Ultimate Zapper New Model XE and New Model SE are the most powerful and effective zappers available. They are 40% more powerful than the original Ultimate Zapper. This may turn out to be The Ultimate Thorn in the side of David Etheredge.

More lies from David Etheredge. On his "bash-The-Ultimate-Zapper" page David Etheredge states: "This zapper [The Ultimate Zapper] should not sell for more than $45 or $50 US. [Well, I'm sure David Etheredge would be very happy if I sold The Ultimate Zapper well below cost.] For that price, we give you far better quality." Say again? Far better quality? Have a look at the 5 Zapper Comparison Charts that compare 33 popular zappers -- including ParaZapper -- using the 12 features that make zappers effective. Have a look at the ParaZapper wave and compare it to The Ultimate Zapper's wave on the Home Page. Then draw your own conclusions about the "far better quality" of the ParaZapper -- that has only 3 of the 12 features while The Ultimate Zapper has all 12 features, not to mention ParaZapper's top models are more expensive than The Ultimate Zapper and they also have only 3 features. "Far better quality" because of a printed circuit board? And my name is Eleanor Roosevelt.

More lies from David Etheredge. One of David Etheredge's most obvious lies is his declaration that The Ultimate Zapper has no label. With all due respect, I think he needs to make an appointment with his eye doctor. He can't see the photo of the label on The Ultimate Zapper's box at the top of the Home Page? Let's go slow. First, cover your left eye. David Etheredge will apparently go to any lengths to discredit The Ultimate Zapper -- even if it means lying. Ironically, his obsession with trying to discredit The Ultimate Zapper at any cost only ends up with him discrediting himself. What goes around comes around. "As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap." (Galatians 6:7)

I have been helping people recover from serious conditions, including so-called incurable diseases, for 18 years and I will continue to do so in spite of the unethical, inane and often despicable marketing tactics of David Etheredge of ParaZapper that I expose on this page and this page. I recovered from paralysis with Multiple Sclerosis in 1989 and I nearly died from Crohn's disease in 1994. It took nearly 7 years for me to recover my health and start to get my life back. How many incurable diseases has David Etheredge had? None. He dedicated his life to selling zappers. I dedicated my life to helping others. I have over 30 "pages" on my site devoted to serious health issues and research. They comprise nearly 1000 book pages. David Etheredge's ParaZapper site is basically an order page, and nothing more. He actually has a number of "mirror sites" that are also merely order pages.

The greatest satisfaction I have had over the years is that I have succeeded in helping many people recover from a wide variety of very serious conditions. With God's help I will be able to continue to do so. I have received the gratitude of countless people over the past 18 years. Jealous competitors like David Etheredge only strengthen my resolve to continue my work. David Etheredge has once again exposed himself as the unscrupulous character that he is -- for everyone to see -- the same person that I have so accurately been depicting on various pages on this site for many years. I have been applauded for doing so by many of the visitors to this site. David Etheredge must think people are damn fools. I have news for him. They aren't.


ParaZapper's dual zapper requires zapping 4 times longer than The Ultimate Zapper to get any results at all because it has a very weak formula. The Charts show it has only 3 of the 11 features that make zappers effective. The following testimonial is from a third party who posted his comments about ParaZapper on Curezone.


From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=653103

"... I have seen absolutely nothing in the [ParaZapper] specs. that makes it anything more than the average zapper ... There is nothing in the design ... that puts it anywhere above the original Clark zapper built in a shoebox!"

Dec. 7, 2005


David Etheredge conceded "... The Ultimate Zapper ... may be the most powerful single frequency zapper" in the world. However, he says ParaZapper's 2 frequencies are "better". He offers "survey results" as proof but those "results" do not mention frequency! He has consistently refused to publish the actual surveys when asked to do so by Curezone readers. I see a smoking gun going back into the holster. Until recently he offered a total of 9 testimonials as proof for ParaZapper's effectiveness but none mention frequency. The longest testimonial was about zapping his own pet fish.

No dual zapper maker has ever produced proof that 2 frequencies are better than 1 low frequency -- because there is no proof. In fact, in spite of his claims, David Etheredge has never offered a shred of evidence to show that his 3-feature ParaZapper is even in the same ballpark as the 12-feature Ultimate Zapper.


I find it highly ironic that one of The Ultimate Zapper's 12 features that makes a big difference regarding its effectiveness, the stabilized wave, is denigrated by David Etheredge -- but he also offers it as a feature in his zappers! The reason he denigrates the stabilized wave is that ParaZapper is so feature-weak that it cannot maximize the power of the stabilized wave since it lacks the synergy of the The Ultimate Zapper's other 11 features. Here is what David Etheredge says about the stabilized wave: "It makes no difference but I have incorporated it into the ParaZapper anyway."

In other words, David Etheredge goes to all the trouble of incorporating a stabilized wave into his zappers -- then turns right around and disclaims its effectiveness! I find this absurd. Why go to the trouble and expense of incorporating a feature into your product that you subsequently deny has any benefit -- except a "placebo" effect? This makes absolutely no sense at all -- except in a different context. I believe that David Etheredge went to all the trouble of incorporating a stabilized wave in his zapper -- and then disclaiming its effectiveness -- for competitive reasons. After reading about the effectiveness of the stabilized wave in The Ultimate Zapper on my site he wanted to discourage people from considering this feature seriously -- at least in The Ultimate Zapper. Simply ignoring the issue would show weakness so his convoluted approach was to incorporate it in his zappers -- with no visual proof for this inclusion, incidentally -- and then deny its effectiveness. What he is actually saying is "I tried it, it doesn't work, but it's in my zapper too." That's like telling people "For those who think a stabilized wave is an important feature they can take advantage of its ineffectiveness in the ParaZapper." Absurd.


David Etheredge's statements about the stabilized wave -- and the convoluted logic of his denial -- come from the same person who says that I made up the 890 testimonials in The Archive. In typical fashion, until recently he offered a mere 9 testimonials on this site. The greater absurdity is that he denies their reliability and calls them misleading and "one-sided". I have never heard of a 2-sided testimonial. One again, David Etheredge presents a positive attribute then denies it. The reason is in this case is obvious. He cannot ignore the 628 testimonials on my site so he tries to down-play their importance. After his denial he then implies that he has a lot more testimonials in the wings waiting to be published -- it is only his lawyers who are preventing him from doing so! Does all this sound familiar?

This contradictory flip-flop technique, ambivalence combined with pretzel logic,  is in evidence all over David Etheredge's site and in his postings on Curezone. I believe one gets a good insight into David Etheredge and his marketing practices by looking at this phenomenon. You may want to read the section below about Kevin Trudeau for insight into another example of its use in his promotional statements. The pattern of deception that emerges time and again in his writings -- affirmation then denial -- is very clear. If he were honest and straightforward he would not include a feature in his zappers then subsequently state it offers no benefit. And he would not include testimonials on his site then state they have no value! He would simply not offer the feature and not publish any testimonials. It is clear that there is a clear pattern of intent to deceive here. His use of this technique allows David Etheredge to have one leg on each side of every important issue -- which enables him to stand on either side of the fence or, more accurately, on both sides of every important fence at the same time. This sort of strange ambivalence is very convenient. But it can also be confusing to those who are not wise to the game. Which is part of the game.


The bottom line is that David Etheredge has shown on his site and on the Curezone forums that he is cunning competitor. He likes to boast that he is #1 in zapper sales -- to which I have responded that he is welcome to the #1 spot. (How he arrived at the conclusion that he is #1 in zapper sales is actually a mystery since I doubt that any competitor has provided him with their sales figures.)

I have responded to him that I could not care less if I am #17 in sales. After my near-death experiences with Multiple Sclerosis and Crohn's disease my prime motivation has been to try to help people. I think that is obvious from looking over my site. David Etheredge claims to be a helper. The only problem is how he demonstrates this to people. He uses the name of Kevin Trudeau, a convicted larcenist to promote his products. And he uses Curezone which he has admitted is in collusion with him in a corrupt scheme. More about this below. In my opinion, David Etheredge will do anything to try toboost sales. In yet another deceptive ploy he uses a magazine article that made a passing mention of his zapper as proof that ParaZapper is part of a miraculous cure for Multiple Sclerosis -- a preposterous claim. This is just one of many claims that he has unabashedly made over the years with no proof whatsoever for their veracity. No wonder his business was shut down by the FDA in 2006 for illegal marketing. After a judicial warning he was allowed to re-open.


David Etheredge says "be sure you buy a dual". I say "be very careful, compare features before you decide, and examine very carefully what each maker says. Also, have a look at each maker's returns policy." A good place to start is The Charts that compare the 33 most popular zappers using the 12 features that make zappers effective.

The Charts also show return and warranty policies for all 29 zappers. ParaZapper denies his returns policy is punitive. He has a limited 30-day trial, limited 3-year warranty and 60% return penalty after 10 days that he says is just there to scare people.

Here is a quote from the ParaZapper site:

"... returned units MUST be postmarked by the 11th day or there may be additional charges. Units that are not postmarked by the 11th day may be subject to a re-stocking charge fo [his spelling error, he means "of"] 25 % for 11 to 14 days and 60 % for those that exceed 14 days."

David Etheredge states that he inspects postmarks to see if returns are posted after day 10. My returns policy is not a scare tactic. I give customers 3 months to try The Ultimate Zapper. I also offer a lifetime warranty. There is a 7% return fee. I don't inspect postmarks for returns. David Etheredge says "Be sure you buy a dual." I think that a better idea is to shop around, get as much information as possible, compare zappers and take your time.


Curezone posters have noted that David Etheredge indulges in unethical marketing practices to promote his ParaZapper. His strategy includes using Dr. Clark's name prominently to promote his Hulda Clark Zappers. Dr. Clark states clearly on her website " ... I do not endorse any manufacturer."

Sadly, David Etheredge goes downhill from there. He declared with authority on Curezone that I made up the 628 testimonials on my site. In response to this inane statement -- an obvious attempt to discredit my work -- I think it's fair to invite everyone to read this page about his misleading medical claims, what Curezone posters think about his marketing practices and the 2006 Federal judicial warning against him for illegal marketing. The following Curezone testimonial submitted by a third party is direct and to the point.


From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1261256

"I would read all of ParaZapper's posts with a grain of salt. I have tried Ken Presner's Ultimate Zapper and found it to be worth every penny (even with the courier cost, as I have ordered it to a country with less than reliable mail). The advice on his site and testimonials were priceless. Give it up, ParaZapper, admit that you can't compete intellectually, monetarily or by reputation against the Ultimate Zapper site and all it stands for."

from Vietnam,
Sept. 19, 2008.

No dual zapper maker has ever produced any proof that 2 frequencies are better than 1 low frequency -- because there is none. Dr. Hulda Clark's research was based on the principle of a single frequency. That research is still valid today. ParaZapper is not unique in claiming that 2 frequencies are better than 1. This unsupported claim is used as a marketing tool by all makers of dual zappers. To make his claim appear more credible ParaZapper exploits Dr. Clark's name. He calls his zapper a "Hulda Clark zapper". He is not the only maker who uses Dr. Clark's name to promote sales. Many makers who market weak zappers use Dr. Clark's name. The irony is that "Hulda Clark zappers" must have a single frequency -- according to her research. Dual zappers are not "Hulda Clark zappers".


ParaZapper's name is David Etheredge. He hides behind his company name on his site and Curezone. He was rebuked by Curezone members for ambulance chasing -- which he admitted -- for promoting his zapper against forum rules -- which he also admitted -- for other unethical practices -- which he has never disputed -- for making false statements about my zapper -- which he has never denied -- and for denying his zapper is just a common 3-feature unit -- as The Charts show.


David Etheredge of ParaZapper uses "Hulda Clark zapper" liberally on his site to promote his zappers. But Dr. Clark states on her own site that she does not give any maker permission to use her name and does not endorse any maker or any product. This has not deterred David Etheredge from using her name -- even though his zappers are not Hulda Clark zappers according to Hulda Clark's specifications. He has never received Dr. Clark's permission to use her name -- and he even contradicts himself (in typical fashion) on Curezone by stating he never uses anyone's name on his site without their permission! Since I started talking about this he has started to remove references to Dr. Clark's name from his home page, shifting her name to other pages on his site to make his exploitation of Dr. Clark a bit less visible.


I have great respect for Dr. Hulda Clark. She was a courageous pioneer and a groundbreaking researcher -- although I do not think her methodology is rigorous enough. I pay tribute to her on the Dr. Clark Page. But 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.


The reality of why dual zappers are not more effective than a single low-frequency zapper is that dual zapper physics show that the lower frequency is the one that does the work of killing the parasites. The higher frequency adds nothing to the effectiveness of the lower frequency -- which is why many zapper makers have shifted to a single low frequency. In fact, Dr. Clark discovered the superiority of low frequencies years ago. But because her original zapper research work was based on a single high frequency she continued to use her high frequency A6 zapper in her clinic to maintain the continuity of her research results. Makers of high frequency zappers add a low frequency because they know low frequencies are superior. They then call their zappers "dual zappers" which they then market as "better". When they add a low frequency to their zapper, dual zappers do become better than high frequency zappers -- but not because they have 2 frequencies. In any case, the fact is they don't come close to the power of The Ultimate Zapper, as The Charts show, since their over-all formulas are feature-weak compared to The Ultimate Zapper's unique 12-feature formula that includes a single low frequency.


On Curezone David Etheredge has repeatedly attempted to discredit The Ultimate Zapper, my website, my e-books and the work I have been doing to help people for the past 18 years. It is clear that he will say anything to try to discredit me, and other competitors as well. I take sales away from him. He is underhanded and dishonest in how he responds. I discuss his unethical business practices on this page. Below I describe the latest in a series of attempts by David Etheredge to discredit my work.

Every one of the 890 testimonials on my site is cut and pasted word for word from an unsolicited testimonial sent in by a customer or from a submission made to Curezone or another forum. Period.

In early 2008 I discovered that David Etheredge had posted on Curezone that I made up all the testimonials on my site. According to him, those who email testimonials to me -- and, presumably, those who post testimonials in favor of The Ultimate Zapper on Curezone -- never submitted them. I think David Etheredge's problem is the testimonials on my site are so amazing that he cannot admit to himself that they were produced by the zapper of a competitor who he has been trying to discredit for years.

I have being running an honest business since 1996. That's the only kind of business I know how to run. I hate being called a liar. After I replied in no uncertain terms to David Etheredge's off-the-wall posting on Curezone about the testimonials on my site he changed his tune and revised his statement. He said some of the testimonials may be true. Then he revised it a thrid time saying that he never claimed the testimonials on my site were made up. In his typical fashion, he ended up reversing himself completely. The fact is that the 890 testimonials on my site pose a real problem for David Etheredge, not only because they are amazing but because, until recently, he had only 9 testimonials on his own site, 3 of which were one-liners. His longest testimonial was about zapping his own pet fish. I'm not joking. If that's the most important testimonial he has then ParaZapper and David Etheredge are in trouble. David Etheredge claims that he is hamstrung by his lawyers. The proof that this was one more lie is that he started to post a few more testimonials after I started talking about this.

I find David Etheredge's attitude to testimonials extremely strange. It is a mystery to me why he has any testimonials at all on his site. He says on his site and on Curezone that testimonials are unreliable and misleading, including his own testimonials, because they are "one-sided". Then he implies that he has a lot more testimonials in the wings waiting to be published and that it is only his lawyers who are preventing him from doing so. In typical fashion, his statements are completely contradictory. What he is saying, in effect, is "testimonials are no good, but just wait. Once my lawyers give me the go-ahead there will be a lot more of them on my site. In the meantime, here are 9 testimonials, just to peak your interest. The most interesting one is about zapping my pet fish." Pet fish?

The nonsense he writes about testimonials being "one-sided" is the talk of an opportunist who wants to be on both sides of the issue -- as usual -- so that he can choose whichever side is to his advantage at any given point in time. On the one hand David Etheredge can be free to criticize me for posting 890 testimonials on my site -- The Ultimate Zapper site has the largest testimonial archive in the zapper business. On the other hand he can take the other side of the issue by hinting he himself has a lot of testimonials in the wings just waiting to be published. But why even publish 9 testimonials and why even hint at other testimonials in the wings if they are all unreliable, misleading and "one-sided"? David Etheredge doesn't explain this obvious contradiction.

From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1261256

"I would read all of ParaZapper's posts with a grain of salt. I have tried Ken Presner's Ultimate Zapper and found it to be worth every penny (even with the courier cost, as I have ordered it to a country with less than reliable mail). The advice on his site and testimonials were priceless. Give it up, ParaZapper, admit that you can't compete intellectually, monetarily or by reputation against the Ultimate Zapper site and all it stands for."

This Curezone poster (Darkgatherer) hits the nail on the Head:

From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=653181

"In one breath you say "we feel that testimonials are not a reliable source of information as they are one-sided. I have never seen a site that published a negative testimonial, but I can guarantee that they exist, even for the best products such as penicillin and aspirin."

"... in the next you say "We tell them what other customers tell us about what does work and what does not work when it comes to zapping."

"... Followed later by "The CCa is only available from ParaZapper and it produces a distintively noticable difference in results according to our users."

"Not according to any independent studies but "according to our users" even though you just stated that testimonials are unreliable."

"Now, either you don't except [sic] testimonials as reliable or you base your statements on them, which is it? I think the hypocrisy is yours alone."

If the testimonials on the ParaZapper website are unreliable and misleading then, presumably, David Etheredge's whole website is unreliable and misleading because it is also "one-sided". This logic somehow eludes him. In fact, David Etheredge's ParaZapper website IS unreliable and misleading, not because it is "one-sided" but because the information on his it is inaccurate and misleading, because he makes false medical claims and because he indulges in blatantly unethical marketing practices which I discuss further on this page.

David Etheredge claims he has never seen a negative testimonial on any site. Well, quite a few negative testimonials have been posted on Curezone about David Etheredge regarding his "research", his ParaZapper, his website, his "ambulance chasing" on Curezone, how he does business and how naive he was concerning the FDA raid that closed him down in 2006. Here are a few exerpts from those postings with the reference links provided. These postings do not include my own 7 postings on Curezone which consist of discussions with David Etheredge. They are available for viewing on this page along with a discussion of 7 additional issues involving David Etheredge and his ParaZapper site.

From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=653103

"Parazapper, anyone truly concerned about the health of people would not engage in taking shots at others in order to sell a product. Attempting to always belittle every other zapper that is even brought up in discussion is a sad statement ... You always say that the Parazapper is not the average zapper and I was interested to find out what made it better and I have seen absolutely nothing in the specs. that make it anything more than the average zapper."

From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=653181

" ... A few sentences before this you [ParaZapper] said ...

"As for Ken Presner's Ultimate Zapper (which I tried with a 9v battery) I have not complained about it. I do not like it plugged into the wall though."

"In the same sentence as saying you have not complained about it you come out and complain about it. A properly engineered product that is plugged into the wall has not been shown to be more dangerous or ineffective than using a 9 volt battery but you have to take every opportunity to take shots at any other products in order to make the Parazapper appear superior."

"Well if you are spending that much time trying to find improvements [for ParaZappers] then it truly has not been a very fruitful search because there have not been any major improvements ... I was open to using the Parazapper when I first came on this site but after seeing your sleazy methods and your blatantly unsupported statements, I wouldn't spend one cent on the Parazapper products ... I see nothing that makes it superior ... but the form of ambulance chasing that you engage in on this site reflects very poorly on the company and its product. If I were your employer you would be out on your ass ... "

From : http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=654499

"Vtool: I agree ... that the information that ParaZapper has posted is incorrect. However, is ParaZapper really and intentionally lying to people or is he innocently misinformed? ... You original post in huge BIG LETTERS suggests that he is intentionally deceiving people and I don't think this is the case, entirely."

[Ken Presner: Note that this poster tacks the word "entirely" on the end, implying that David Etheredge is intentionally deceiving people, to one extent or another.]

From : http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=652645

"... I applaud your attempt to do scientific testing but the protozoa test is completely meaningless ... Parazapper I have to say that we are allies in our belief that zappers are important but I have seen absolutely nothing in your technical data or in the build or design of the Parazapper (including the frequency) that would show that it reaches the blood stream or other difficult to reach cavities. The testimonials of customers do not provide any objective evidence of the depth to which it reaches."

From : http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=654149

" ... [ParaZapper,] you claim you have research, yet you don't own even an fscan. What do you use, a microscope? Do you use a Syncrometer??? If so, you'd have to own the anatomy slides, and should KNOW this is a VALID and EFFECTIVE methodology. The more you talk, the more I question your "research". http://www.drloyd.com/syncrometer.pdf

"Michael Forrest, as you stated, violated an agreement that he entered into with the Feds, is that correct? Now you ask me if he used "Bye Bye Big Brother"? Come on Parazapper, you KNOW the answer to this question, just like you KNEW about the license needed to use investigative products, as your January 24th post in the Radionics Device Forum PROVES. However, I think you can agree that ASSET protection is paramount in such a situation - because the FIRST thing they have done is seize your stuff ... and they can do the same with ALL your assets in some cases ... including bank accounts, etc."

From Curezone.com (sorry, still looking for the link, to be posted shortly):

"You are one heck of a naive dude [ParaZapper]. You make outlandish claims then you expect the FDA to send you a warning letter? You don't know the history of the FDA raiding other "alternative" medical pushers for making claims and doing things the FDA might consider against their wishes? You claim innocence of the past? The only place you will get preferential treatment is on the forums where you have been mesmerized by your own status and think this applies to the world outside the forums."

From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=654592

"How funny! When I hit the "disagree" button on Parazapper's post, it won't work! When I hit the "agree" button with vtool's post, it does work! Gees ... Just how many hundreds or thousands of dollars did ole' Parazapper "donate" to the "nonprofit" Curezone? ... Curezone has one h*ll of a marketing potential via these forums, now doesn't it?"

From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=654032

"... Here's Parazapper's 1/24/2006 post to the Radionics Forum on the matter, which HE tells us HE KNEW ... If he doesn't know about how to properly apply for licenses which HE POSTS about, then a week or two later GETS BUSTED over ... geez ..."


I recovered from MS after a near 7-year battle. David Etheredge never had MS. He never had any disease. The ParaZapper site used to have an MS page with so-called helpful information about MS. David Etheredge deleted the information about MS from his site after reading my comments on Curezone about them. Under the guise of helping people he uses Curezone to promote ParaZapper. He always signs off his postings with his commercial name, ParaZapper.

The Curezone forum states the forum cannot be used for commercial purposes. David Etheredge is the only person on the forum allowed to sign off using a commercial name. He states that he intends to use the forum to "plug" his ParaZapper. He does far more than that. And the forum's moderator allows him to do so, making a mockery of the forum's "official" rules. The moderator is in collusion with David Etheredge to allow him to use the forum for commercial purposes. When I posted a series of clear and direct questions to the moderator about the forum's rules I was met with complete silence. There are reports that David Etheredge has donated a large sum of money to the "non-profit" Curezone forum that allows him to profit handsomely from using the forum for his commercial purposes. Many people have sent me emails about Curezone. Here is a typical one.

"Hi Mr. Presner,

Just wanted to let you know that the Ultimate Zapper I ordered arrived here just fine. I've been using it daily for a week now (started on Friday, January 25). I'm impressed with the appearance and quality of the unit ... I read the debate you had at CureZone with the fellow who makes the ParaZapper. The fact that I purchased YOUR unit, tells you who I thought won the debate. I appreciated your knowledge, your logic, and how articulate you are."

Ronn G.
Jan. 31, 2008.


I was in contact with David Etheredge over a long period of time on Curezone (I no longer post there) and I have observed his way of doing things. I will provide one clear example here. David Etheredge's sense of morality is such that after Kevin Trudeau showed a photo of ParaZapper in his book, and David Etheredge's phone was ringing off the wall with new orders, Kevin Trudeau suddenly became David Etheredge's heroic health savior on Curezone. According to David Etheredge, Kevin Trudeau has done so much good for humanity by publishing his book (Amazon reviewers of Kevin Trudeau's book are in complete disagreement with David Etheredge on this point, by the way) that Kevin Trudeau's selfless service to humanity obliterates his criminal behavior. His transgressions can be and should be completely ignored, according to David Etheredge. Otherwise David Etheredge might be tainted with them by his enthusiastic support for Kevin Trudeau. That would not make David Etheredge look very good because he cannot resist using Kevin Trudeau's name to promote his ParaZapper sales. So David Etheredge reaches into his bag of convoluted pretzel logic to make things look good for Kevin Trudeau -- and for himself. Moral guilt through the support of a convicted and active larcenist becomes transmuted into moral rectitude by the legerdemain of David Etheredge. It seems fitting that we nickname David Etheredge the David Copperfield of the zapper industry.


The fact is that Kevin Trudeau is a convicted larcenist who spent time in the penitentiary for conning people out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the fact is that he has not changed his ways. He continues to cheat customers out of their money on his website in defiance of the law. Since the individual sums are not large enough to justify any single customer hiring a lawyer to pursue the matter, Kevin Trudeau is able to get away with fraud and larceny.

All of this is irrelevant according to David Etheredge whose support for Kevin Trudeau never wavers, even in spite of the fact that there is a website devoted to the thousands of internet customers who document their cases of being cheated by Kevin Trudeau who puts false charges on their credit cards and refuses to remove them. According to David Etheredge this can all be easily explained. According to David Etheredge it must be Kevin Trudeau's employees who are doing this. It could not be the upstanding, selfless Kevin Trudeau, the helper of humanity, who is participating in such illegal activity -- although he spent time behind bars in the past for doing this very thing. That's the end of story for David Etheredge who is interested in closing the book on this affair rather than showing the least interest in examining the facts to find out the truth of the matter.

That Kevin Trudeau's employees are the malfactors is a totally unproven and clearly presumptuous exculpatory claim on the part of David Etheredge. He provides no proof whatsoever for this statement made with characteristic authority. David Etheredge's statement is total speculation without any support in fact -- a supposition that is clearly created to make Kevin Trudeau look good. Because if it makes Kevin Trudeau looks good that makes David Etheredge look good. It is hard to use someone's name to promote sales if he is a known larcenist. If Kevin Trudeau looks bad then David Etheredge looks bad, too -- guilt by association. So, yah gotta find a way to make it all look good. Making unfounded claims with no proof is a tactic David Etherdge also uses in support of his ParaZappers.


If it is true that Kevin Trudeau's employees are cheating customers then why has Kevin Trudeau not investigated the matter and fired those responsible for this criminal activity? Whose bank account is this stolen money going into, Kevin Trudeau's account or his employees' accounts? If the money is going into Kevin Trudeau's own account why has he not done the right thing by calling the police to report criminal activity on the part of his employees? Why has he not refunded the customers who have been cheated out of their hard-earned money, who have lodged complaints and who have created their own website to make their complaints public and highly visible? If the stolen money is going into his employees' accounts why has Kevin Trudeau not called the police about this and filed criminal charges against those employees for stealing money that he cannot return to his customers who have been cheated? Why has he not insisted on a criminal investigation in the face of obvious criminal activity? Because Kevin Trudeau is the real criminal. Why does David Etheredge brush all this aside as unimportant and refuse to answer any of these questions? Because David Etheredge will find any excuse to support even a criminal if that criminal has helped put money in David Etheredge's bank account. His sense of right and wrong is dictated by his financial interests. Plain and simple.


Has David Etheredge taken lessons from Kevin Trudeau? Here is how David Etheredge does business. Here is now he treats his customers. He has a 10-day returns policy for his ParaZapper. He says that if returns are postmarked after day 11 customers are subject to a 60% penalty. But when I asked David Etheredge about this on Curezone he denied that he imposes these penalties on customers. He says he only uses them to scare customers. Scare customers? What kind of mentality is this? What kind of business practice is this? Trying to intimidate customers is the right way to do business? Well it certainly is not, according to my way of thinking. I have a 3-month trial offer for The Ultimate Zapper. Customers have up to 4 months to return their zapper. I don't look at postmarks, I don't have a punitive returns policy and I would never think of trying to intimidate customers. Doing business the right way is about attracting customers by offering a superior product, not trying to intimidate them. I find David Etheredge's way of doing business very strange. Read this page for more about David Etheredge and ParaZapper.

By 2006 it must have been clear to the authorities that David Etheredge was careless about his business practices, that he possessed a poor sense of judgment and that he had a serious problem with ethics. More importantly for the authorities, David Etheredge made himself very vulnerable because he was breaking the law. In 2006 the government raided his premises, seized his assets, closed his business down and took legal action. David Etheredge complied with a Federal judicial warning related to the illegal marketing of his ParaZapper. He was allowed to reopen for business several months later. He says he is being watched by government lawyers as well as his own lawyers. Knowing how he does business this does not surprise me in the least.


Issue number one.

The name of the maker of the ParaZapper is nowhere to be found on his website and there is no story on his site about how he was inspired to produce the ParaZapper. There is nothing personal on the site at all, in fact. At the bottom of the site pages is the name of a limited liability company. This is the only identifying reference on the ParaZapper site. The whole site has the appearance and feel of a generic site that is entirely lacklustre and gray, like the background color that was chosen for this site. This color gray goes beyond the mere appearance of the site. I discuss this matter below.

Issue number two.

In 2008, there were 56 links in the margin on the left side of the ParaZapper site. It looked like a very impressive list. But when you started clicking on those links you found that only 24 of them took you to an information page. The other 32 links on the ParaZapper site took you nowhere when you clicked on them.

Update on April 10, 2008: ParaZapper has corrected this problem after reading my comments about it on curezone.com.

Every single link on the more than 30 pages of my site is active. And when you click and arrive at an information page on my site you receive solid information based on experience and research. Not so on the ParaZapper site. It reminds me of that old advertising phrase "Where's the beef?" There is no substance at all to the ParaZapper site. It is easy to see that the ParaZapper site is essentially a commercial site made to look like it contains helpful information which it really does not contain.

Issue number three.

When you do find a link to an information page on the ParaZapper site you find very little specific information about the particular ailment that the page is supposed to be talking about. At the end of each information page you find the same paragraph on parasties that is repeated on every information page:

"People around the world are infested with parasites..."

Any specific information on the information pages on the ParaZaqpper site are short and sweet, lacking both serious content and detail. The statements he makes on his information pages are completely lacking in research and specific recommendations, except to use his zapper, unlike the informaiton pages on my website. Let's examine one of these pages. The page on Multiple Sclerosis, a disease I am intimately familiar with, contains barely one paragraph of information, which I quote below:

"If you suffer from Multiple Sclerosis or symptoms of MS then you may have parasites which are causing these problems or increase your succeptability." [sic -- spelling mistake]

This is a load of hogwash, having struggled for nearly 7 years to regain my health after being paralyzed with MS in 1989. There is no proof anywhere to support the statement of parasites causing MS or increasing one's susceptibility to MS. There is not one shred of evidence to support this statement on his site. Dr. Hulda Clark has stated that shigella bacteria are found in the brain of everyone with MS, but she makes no mention about people with MS having parasites that can cause MS or increase one's succeptibility to MS. Parasites in teh case of MS are opportunistic. Zapping with The Utimate Zapper helped break the chain of pathology in my case. But the underlying cause of the disease, as in most cases, was mercury poisoning from so-called silver amalgam fillings that are 50% mercury.

The real cause of MS, which I go into in great detail on my site and in my e-books, is toxicity. In the vast majority of cases the toxin is dental mercury. Bacteria or parasites that are associated with MS do not cause MS. They are attracted to mercury and diseased tissues and organs. Once dental mercury is safely removed and DMSA chelation is done (you can read all about this on my site) then bacteria and parasites have nowhere to hide. Their significance diminishes and zapping can finish them off.

The MS page on the ParaZapper site further states:

"Recent medical evidence shows that many people have significant numbers of parasites living inside of themselves and that these parasites may be causing or aggravating your Multiple Sclerosis."

What medical evidence is he refering to? Where is this medical evidence? He provides not a clue. If there where such evidence one would think that he would be eager to provide it to people, not only to help them, but as proof that the ParaZapper has helped people kill parasites and improved their condition. It is a little more than suspect that he provides no proof for these statements and no testimonials to back them up.

When I make specific statements about MS, Crohn's disease, cancer, heart disease and other ailments on my site I always back them up with specific information, citations, links and unsolicited testimonials. People know I have done my research, they know they can count on my personal experience if I am taking about MS or Crohn's, they can examine the testimonials in The Archive, they often contact me for further information, and they are spurred on to do their own research and to make further progress. That is the intention of my site and my work. To help people make informed decisions. The intention of the ParaZapper site is simply to sell ParaZappers while providing no useful or specific information to prospective customers.

The maker of the ParaZapper caps off the MS paragraph on his site with the following sentence:

"Other frequent symptoms of these parasite infections [that supposedly occur in people with MS] are low resistance to illnesses such as colds and flu, asthma, allergies, colitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, and malaise as well as pains."

This is the same generic statement that appears on every information page on his site. It is very clear that these "filler" statements are added to the ParaZapper's site pages to add to their apparent content while providing nothing substantial in the way of useful information to help people. The ParaZapper pages, containing scant information, would look very short indeed if these fillers were not there. I do not have filler statements anywhere on my site.

Multiple Sclerosis is one of the most prevalent neurological diseases, and this is all the ParaZapper site has to offer people? David Etheredge might as well have avoided the subject entirely. It is clear that his site is primarily a commercial venture. It is not designed to provide people with helpful information on specific illnesses and diseases that they might use to improve their health and give them ideas for their own research.

Issue number four.

Until recently, the ParaZapper site hads only 9 short testimonials on the testimonial page. Three of them were one-liners. The most impressive, according to David Etheredge (ParaZapper) was the one about zapping his pet fish for fish fungus. The length of the testimonial page on the ParaZapper site is the equivalent of one single book page. The testimonial archive on my website is the equivalent of over 400 book pages. It contains 628 unsolicited testimonials from people who have obtained amazing results with The Ultimate Zapper.

Issue number five.

It sounds like David Etheredge must be getting a lot of returns because he has a very punitive policy when it comes to returns. All of the information I am providing here comes directly from his site. He gives his customers only 10 days to try out his zapper. That is far to short a period of time for many people. I offer my customers a 3-month trial. Then he charges them 60% for each return after 14 days! I charge a 7% return fee. Furthermore, he states, "Used wrist straps can not be resold so there is a $9.00 US restocking charge on units returned with used wrist straps."

But the maker of the ParaZapper goes much further. He penalizes his customers severely for late returns after the 10-day trial period is up. Here is a quote from his site:

"Units...may be subject to a re-stocking charge of 25 % for 11 to 14 days and 60 % for those that exceed 14 days." Wow, that's what I call punitive! He says "Units that are not postmarked by the 11th day..." It sounds like he has a magnifying glass in his office inspecting postmarks every morning. This is not my idea of a very friendly business approach. I would never even consider doing such a thing. I give people 1-month leaway if they would like to return their zapper after the 3-month trial period is over. In addition, David Ethredge an additional $3.50 to clean and polish the handholds and an additional $5 to clean and polish the foot pads. As I mention in point #2, above. this is essentially a commercial site and the return policy reflects his strictly commercial approach.

If you buy the ParaZapper with handholds and footpads the total cost is $146.00. If you return the ParaZapper after 3 months you receive $40.90 back in cash. That's 28% of the purchase price. There is a very large penalty waiting in the wings for everyone who purchases the ParaZapper. The penalty amounts to 72% of the purchase price. In effect their return policy forces purchasers to keep their zappers if they are not satisfied with the results. Their policy is designed to eliminate returns. After the purchaser pays for the return postage there is very little money coming back to them.

They call their return policy a "Money Back Guarantee". I think that is a slight exaggeration.

 People who return their Ultimate Zapper after the 3-month trial period receive 93% of the zapper purchase price back. There are no extra charges for cleaning or polishing -- or anything else.

And I don't watch post marks when people return their zappers. Returns are processed promptly when I receive them. The Ultimate Zapper has only a 1% return rate. The ParaZapper does not publish his return rate.

By the way, the ParaZapper has a limited 3-year warranty. The Ultimate Zapper has an unlimited lifetime warranty.

Issue number 6.

In a comment obviously directed at The Ultimate Zapper (because only I and ParaZapper sell footpads) David Etheredge states on his site "These pads are better quality than others sell." Well, sorry David, but I sell my high quality large footpads for $34.95 to $69.95. You sell mini footpads for $46.00.

David Etheredge is in the habit of shooting from the hip without verifying his facts. This makes him far less credible than he would like people to believe. Given all the time that he devotes to posting messages on curezone.com you would think that he would bother to verify his facts before putting his feet in the do-do.

Issue number 7.

David Etheredge of ParaZapper has spent an inordinate amount of time over the past 10 years posting to the zapper forum at curezone.com in an attempt to improve his sales. He does not bother to verify his facts, belittles others who do not agree with him, makes snide and demeaning comments on a regular basis, practices brow-beating at will, attempts at all times to take the high ground because he is a "professional" [he has been lying about his credentials for 10 years] and denies that he has any commercial intent. I posted a long message to the forum recently covering many issues that I had with his comments about health matters, The Ultimate Zapper, and claims and contradictions that he makes concerning his ParaZapper. Here is the link to my curezone posting:


In response to inquiries from a few customers who have encouraged me to post to the forum, I entered the fray. There are many other issues besides those in the above posting that I raised on the curezone.com zapper forum about David Etheredge and the his ParaZapper. I have also talked about his punitive returns policy, which it appears is designed to intimidate people into not returning their zappers. Why are his stated terms punitive, if not to intimidate? Why is his stated policy not lenient if he claims to be lenient with people when they contact him about returns? I am up front and very flexible with my returns policy. I am one of only two zapper makers in the world (the other is the Auto-Zap zapper) who offers a 3-month trial period, no questions asked when a customer wishes to return their zapper.

My impression of David Etheredge through his comments on curezone.com is that he is a practiced manipulator. He uses the zapper forum to promote his agenda (which is obviously commercial -- which he always denies). He belittles and demeans others who do not agree with him by patronizing and bullying them. It appears that he thinks of the forum as his own personal bully-pulpit. Others see through him very well and many people have posted scathing criticisms of him on the forum. I refer to these criticisms in my postings on the forum. David Etheredge loves bashing others but he hates to be bashed. In my opinion he deserves all the criticism that he receives. He invites it. If he expects others to take his comments lying down he had better think twice. David Etheredge does not own the curzone.com zapper forum.

Issue number 8.

ParaZapper is "marketing-dense". While I have been content to maintain one site for the past 18 years [with a recent mirror site added] David Etheredge has created at least a dozen sites. They all market the same products. On his "pet-zapper" site he talks about "Stabilized output". Here's what he has to say about wave stabilization: "All of our zappers have it but, While some zapper makers claim that this is great, we do not see any significant gains. It only adds low frequency signal and this is not important (his emphasis)." I believe this is disingenuous. David Etheredge claims to have added a stabilized wave to all his zapper models (he offers no visual proof on this site -- but I do for The Ultimate Zapper), having done so only after I talked about the benefits of wave stabilization on my site. Why in the world would he add a feature to his zappers that he thought was "not important"? I certainly would not go to all the trouble and expense of doing such a thing. This makes no sense at all to me. But there are a lot of things about David Etheredge and his many sites, and his many pronouncements on Curezone, that make no sense to me. He says I must have made up all 628 testimonials on my site that my customers sent in. And he vociferously supports Kevin Trudeau (convicted and jailed for larceny), who, not coincidently, mentioned ParaZapper in one of his books. David Etheredge has never replied to my criticism of his support for Kevin Trudeau. Does he have any credibility at all?


Here is David Etheredge's favorite testimonial, according to him. It was submitted by David Etheredge himself.

"Possibly the strangest Testimonial ever"

"Since we started zapping and selling zappers about 4 years ago, we have had many calls and testimonials from a lot of folks about a lot of strange things. Possibly the strangest may have been my own experience. I have kept tropical fish since I was about 13 years old and have seen many of them succumb to various illnesses over the years. I currently have a 40 gallon tank with a number of fish including a school of Brilliant Rasboras. Recently, we were very busy for a few days and I did not have the time to thoroughly inspect my fish for a few days. As I sat down next to the aquarium on a Friday night, I noticed that one of the Rasboras had grown a beard. Looking closer, I discovered that it was a horrible fungal infection that had taken over the entire lower jaw. Sadly, there was not much jaw left and I started to dispose of the poor fellow. Luckily for the little guy, I noticed my zapper on the table and decided to see if it could help him. I made 2 special copper paddles and suspended each on opposite sides of a jar filled with water from the tank. The fish was placed in the jar and zapped a full session and returned to the tank. In the morning, I noticed that a lot of the fungus was gone and that there was almost no lower jaw left. I zapped the fish again for 2 more days and most of the fungus was gone. It is now 4 weeks later and the little fish is still swimming around although he has extreme difficulty eating and has lost a lot of weight because of this. He now has a gaping hole for a mouth and you can see clear down his throat but he is learning a new way to eat and swims with the rest of the school. I did start using an antifungal medicine in the tank after the 3rd day to keep it from spreading to the other fish.

Beat this one if you can.

David Etheredge (the maker of ParaZapper)"

[Comment from Ken Presner: Yes, beat this one if you can, indeed. There are 628 testimonials on my site. All of them were submitted by satisfied users of The Ultimate Zapper. Real people. Sorry, no fish stories.]


I no longer post to Curezone because it has finally admitted what I have long maintained. That it is corrupt. The forum has always pretended that it is a non-commercial forum. Its rules forbid using the forum for commercial purposes, yet it has always allowed David Etheredge of ParaZapper to flaunt the rules. He has taken advantage of this privilege for many years. This privilege was granted to him alone. To test the forum's rules I started to talk about The Ultimate Zapper's merits on the forum. I was denounced by forum participants and the forum's moderator for using the forum for commercial purposes. David Etheredge has been denounced by only me and "Darkgatherer" for using the forum for commercial purposes. The conspiracy of silence surrounding David Etheredge and his promotion of ParaZapper on the forum reveals the hypocricy of both the forum's moderator and David Etheredge. My attempts to expose this hypocricy have been met not only by silence when no other effective alternative was left to the forum's moderator and David Etheredge in the face of my direct comments, but also by a combination of derision and bold-faced lies on their part.

I note that the forum posting where David Etheredge, admits the forum's rules have been "relaxed" for him so that he can use it for commercial purposes has conveniently been removed from the forum by the forum's moderator. Here is an excerpt of my final posting to Curezone.

From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1215514

" ... I note the rules have been "relaxed" for you [ParaZapper] on the Zapper Support Forum, according to you. How convenient, which explains the refusal of the rules committee to respond directly to my questions about this recently. So much for honesty ... just be helpful enough and you can join the second tier, the upper class of the forum. Thanks, but no thanks. I won't play that game. I leave that sort of things to others ... To quote Rett Butler, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" ... I am just glad that the truth finally came out, which was obvious before you made the admission [that you have been given preferential treatment on the forum by being allowed to use it for commercial purposes]. I don't aspire to being a "sound bite helper", chasing ambulances on the forum to rustle up a bit of business, saying anything to put down the competition, anything at all to try to influence the gullible, trying to manipulate people to make a few extra sales. No, I don't need that and I don't want that ... David Etheredge [ParaZapper] ... the person who benefits more than any other person commercially from the forum, has to bring the news about duplicity to me [rather than the rules committee or the forum moderator to whom I addressed my questions about the rules]? Forget it. I need the forum like a hole in the head. With that kind of dishonesty going on I won't be posting to the forum again ... "

Try playing this game with Google. Let me know how it works out.

Here is the link to my original posting requesting clarification of the forum's rules:


When my posting was not answered I followed up with this posting:



Here are the links to five postings to the curezone.com zapper support forum that I made in 2007 and 2008 in response to postings made by David Etheredge a.k.a ParaZapper. Such were the lies and deception in his postings that they prompted me to respond and to lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of The Curezone Helper who signs off with his commercial name, ParaZapper, instead of his real name, David Etheredge, in spite of Curzone's stated regulations of zero tolerance for promotion or advertising. He is the only poster to the Zapper Support Forum who refuses to abide by this basic rule which has yet to be enforced in his case. He has been only too willing to point out the rules to me while at the same time willfully ignoring them himself. It need not be stated that hypocrisy is a normal part of day-to-day life on the forum.

Oh, by the way, I'm not the only one to have made these observations about life with ParaZapper on the Zapper Support Forum. 'Darkgatherer' made some very accurate observations about ParaZapper in a posting on the forum in February 2006. It looks like nothing has changed in the interim, not surprisingly. I have added the 'Darkgatherer' link here.

Curezone Posting #1 -- Dec. 2007

from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1095357

Curezone Posting #2 -- Jan. 2008

from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1040261

Curezone Posting #3 -- June, 2008

from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1199958

Curezone Posting #4 -- June, 2008

from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1204296

Curezone Posting #5 -- July, 2008

from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1207083

Curezone Posting #6 -- July 9, 2008

from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1210584

Darkgatherer Posting

from http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=653103

Here is a testimonial from a customer about my exchanges with David Etheredge a.k.a. ParaZapper on the curezone.com Zapper Suppport forum.

"Hi Mr. Presner,

Just wanted to let you know that the Ultimate Zapper I ordered arrived here just fine. I've been using it daily for a week now (started on Friday, January 25). I'm impressed with the appearance and quality of the unit ... I read the debate you had at Curezone with the fellow who makes the ParaZapper. The fact that I purchased YOUR unit, tells you who I thought won the debate. I appreciated your knowledge, your logic, and how articulate you are."

Ronn G.
Jan. 31, 2008.

click here


From: http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1040261

Hello David,

This will be a long message that I hope will answer your questions. It will also expound on the major concerns I have with your postings and your site. To make it easier for people to follow the various subjects in question I have grouped my comment into 9 categories which address many of the subjects we have been discussing recently on this forum: global concerns, your most recent "cut-and-paste", your website, misleading health information, testimonials, unfair criticism and false statements about The Ultimate Zapper, claims by David Etheredge, David Etheredge the altruist, criticism of David Etheredge and the ParaZapper. Throughout this long posting my comments will be in red and all other comments in black, for easy dialogue identification.


Ken Presner: You should expect some stiff response when you claim not to have any commercial motivation on this forum. You only want to help people get information, according to you. If this is true, why do you never sign off as David Etheredge? You always sign off as ParaZapper. You want people to see the name ParaZapper and remember it. The name David Etheridge would not leave the same impression. It would not leave a commercial impression. You want to leave the impression that you are just providing information on this forum but it is very clear that you are promoting your zapper here. I think that the following series of postings by you on this forum, beginning with a commercial announcement by you, should put an end to deception on your part, once and for all.

David Etheredge: "Since their beginning in May of 2000, the developers of the ParaZapper line of products have increased their position in the parasite zapper market, achieving top brand position in December 2004 according to Overture search results. Prior to that time, Terminator Zapper had been the leader. I suspect that we are also very close to number 1 in sales if not already there ... The important point is that as we have only been on the market for 4 years, we have reached the point of being the most requested name brand... Sounds like self promotion and free advertisement ... I guess maybe it might to some, but it should be considered a newsworthy change in the industry otherwise ..." Comment by a forum participant: Not to shock you, but it really is NOT some sort of "nice change" to see self- promotion on here. This is for exchange of ideas and information. You'll probably say it is informative in regard to your zapper, but his is really not the place - as has already been mentioned.

Ken Presner: You often have a patronizing, know-it-all tone which belies your statement that you are only here to help people get information (information that you want them to have, of course). You clearly have an ax to grind. We all do, so let's not pretend that there is no commercial motivation behind your postings. I make no such pretense. You compare the ParaZapper with the others to show it in its best light, just as I do regarding The Ultimate Zapper. It is clear that your intent is to manipulate people. You make the false assumption that readers cannot read the lines, and between the lines?

Ken Presner: Nearly every time you respond to my postings, and those longer postings of others, you conveniently cut and paste the parts you choose to respond to, enabling you to avoid the issues you don't want to respond to. We see this manipulative tactic of yours time and again in this forum. While you are selective in your responses I am comprehensive in my replies. I never cut and paste to avoid any issues. You use this "cut-and-paste" tactic to try to control the agenda on this forum and to try to dominate the forum with your opinions, delivered with a tone of authority. There is no authority in the zapper business and there is no one who speaks with the voice of authority on this forum. There are only individuals expressing their opinions and voicing their ideas. We should allow everyone to do so freely. This forum is not yours to control or dominate but you have been trying mighty hard for a long time to do so because you devote so much time to it. It is clear that you are not principally motivated by altruism and that there is a strong commercial motivation behind the high profile you spend so much time maintaining here.

Ken Presner: Your response "sorry, got no time to answer all your concerns" does not ring true at all. You have devoted a lot of time over a period of many years, day in and day out, to be all over this forum, so you obviously do have the time to answer whatever you wish to answer. You respond only to the questions and comments you choose to respond to, avoiding the issues you wish to avoid, especially those that may put you in a bad light. This is part of the art of maintaining a high profile and a good impression that you carefully cultivate here.

Ken Presner: Perhaps because you have been around here for so many years you assume that the role of authority falls to you, by default, and that the role of moderator has become your natural role in this forum. You gave this very strong impression when you recently declared, "Time for users to weigh in." Why is it time for users to weigh in? Because you say so? Calling the troops to the front line fell flat on its face. There was not a single response to your "call to arms". This clearly shows that those contributing to this forum, possibly to your chagrin, are not as susceptible to your influence as you might like them to be. Your "call to arms" backfired resoundingly.


[This is a cut and paste of my words by you from my previous posting.] Ken Presner: ** By inference you are finally admitting here that many of your pages are empty of content.

David Etheredge: Again, falsely stated. I have stated before that I was legally forced to remove some claims from a couple of pages on my website. Only a couple of pages are lacking in the information that I would prefer to be posted.

Ken Presner: Frankly, I find this a sad comment about the level of your knowledge in the area of health. All of the health-oriented pages on your site are woefully lacking in health information and have that "cookie-cutter" look, repeating the same stock phrases on each page while offering no insightful information at all. That your readers may be satisfied with this level of "information", according to you, is irrelevant, in my opinion. My object in providing health information on my site is to provide the most accurate and complete information that I can, not to provide information that the customer may find helpful "enough". This falls under the category of pandering, in my opinion. I will comment more on this matter in the category "your website", below. There are 3 categories to your health-related pages: those pages that provide survey results and stock phrases, and sometimes testimonials, creating what I categorize as harmless pages; those pages that provide only stock phrases and no survey information, also creating harmless pages; and those pages that provide misleading information, could be potentially harmful. I will comment on the misleading pages below. The bulk of the "information" on many of your health-related pages is created by the reporting of your survey results. By your own admission your survey results are merely anecdotal and do not constitute proof of effectiveness. Yet you present them as proof of effectiveness. This is contradictory. The testimonials presented on other sites are merely anecdotal, according to you, whereas your testimonials are "scientific data" and are proof of effectiveness. The upshot of all this is that your approach shows both your lack of knowledge and your desire to project an image as being knowledgeable. This contradiction can only be resolved by doing some research, putting some real information on those pages or by taking them down.

[This is a cut and paste of my words by you from my previous posting.]

Ken Presner: >- are not your unpublished testimonials likewise anecdotal?

David Etheredge: I quote from our testimonials page: we feel that testimonials are not a reliable source of information as they are one-sided. I have never seen a site that published a negative testimonial, but I can guarantee that they exist, even for the best products such as penicillin and aspirin.

Ken Presner: Does that mean that the testimonials on your site (and the unpublished ones referred to on your site) are likewise unreliable?

Ken Presner: Does that mean that there are negative testimonials about the ParaZapper? If so, why are you hiding them?

Ken Presner: If testimonials are not a reliable source of information why do you rely on them so heavily on your health-related pages? They are the core of your "survey" results, but they are merely anecdotal, the same as the testimonials on other sites are merely anecdotal. You cannot have it both ways, although you try very hard to do so.

Ken Presner: You have never seen a negative testimonial on a site? I think you can make that statement about your site with complete accuracy.

Ken Presner: It looks like you have not searched my site closely. There is a noteworthy negative testimonial on the FAQ page on my site which I discuss at length. I guess you didn't look closely enough at my site before making this bold declaration. David Etheredge: Statistical data presents a more accurate view of results, so we present some of that here following the testimonials.

Ken Presner: On your site, with a bit of alchemy, testimonials are transmuted into "statistical data" which magically changes them from being anecdotal and unreliable into being scientific and reliable. You are constantly citing testimonials on your site as proof of effectiveness. The so-called "statistical data" is merely a compilation of testimonials which, by your own admission, "are not a reliable source of information". You are trying to convince readers that, what you admit as an unreliable source of information is actually reliable because you now call it "data". The testimonials on your site are qualified to be presented as data, but the testimonials on my site are not equally qualified. Because they are yours, that's the only difference, which belies your claim to being solely an information-provider with no commercial or ulterior motive. We all have a commercial motive. The only difference is that I admit it and you do not.

[This is a cut and paste of my words by you from my previous posting.]

Ken Presner: >- found that you were making unfair and inaccurate comments about The Ultimate Zapper and about my site David Etheredge: Please list these claims here.

Ken Presner: You make a number of unfair and inaccurate comments about The Ultimate Zapper in this forum. The comments relate to features of The Ultimate Zapper that include the footpads, clips and AC adapter as well as comments related to testimonials and "hype". All of these matters are discussed in this posting.

3. YOUR WEBSITE [The following 2 quotation are taken from the health-related pages on your site.]

"Recent medical evidence shows that many people have significant numbers of parasites living inside of themselves and that these parasites may be causing or aggravating your yeast infections. Other frequent symptoms of these parasite infections are low resistance to illnesses such as colds and flu, asthma, allergies, colitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, infections such as candida, and malaise as well as pains." "People around the world are infested with parasites including many from countries previously thought to be reasonably free of intestinal parasites including the United States. Recent medical studies indicate that American men live shorter lives of up to 4 years because of parasites. Other medical studies find that the average male carries up to 2 lbs of parasites inside of his body."

Ken Presner: You tack these 2 paragraphs to page after page of your health pages, plugging in the required disease or ailment name in the appropriate slot, as though providing important health information were just a matter of disease-name substitution. You refer to candida yeast on some of these pages while making no mention at all that candida is attracted to mercury which is deposited in the tissues by "silver amalgam" fillings which are 50% mercury. In the overwhelming majority of candida cases that have been brought to my attention over these past 11 years dental mercury has been a significant factor in the pathological picture. Without dealing with the dental mercury issue it is very difficult for people to deal successfully with the candida problem by zapping alone. You mention nothing at all about this on your site. You concentrate on zapping alone, to the exclusion of other toxicity factors, as though zapping will solve all problems for all people. It will not. I am honest and up front about this all over my site, starting with the front page.

Ken Presner: This is what I mean when I talk about doing real research and providing really useful health information for people, not just cutting and pasting the names of ailments and diseases into the same slot all the way down the line, while stating "people find this information useful and that seems to be good enough for them so it's good enough for me". This is a very sloppy approach, indeed, for someone who claims to be professionally trained. I'll have more to say about your site below.


Ken Presner: There are a number of pages on your site containing misleading information. These pages include the MS page, the fibromyalgia page, the IBS and colitis page and the intestinal parasites page. Your very narrow approach to pathology is shown by your exclusive concern with parasites and parasite killing, as though killing parasites were the beginning and the end of the chain of pathology. This is clearly not the case. The chain of pathology is far more complex than this and Dr. Hulda Clark who invented the original zapper is among those who talks about this complexity. She talks about chemical and metal toxins, as I do on my site. Here is a quote from the front page of my site that explains my approach:


I was paralyzed by Multiple Sclerosis in 1989. I nearly died from Crohn's disease in 1994. Both diseases were caused by mercury poisoning from my silver amalgam fillings. I guarantee you will never feel the same way about the American Dental Association and about visiting the dentist after reading The Big Dental Lie and The ADA Lies thru their teeth. Silver amalgams are 50% mercury. Watch this movie of dental mercury causing brain neuron damage. Mercury leaches into the organs and attracts parasites and bacteria. My zapper played a vital role at the end of my recovery by killing parasites and bacteria attracted to mercury in the brain and intestines and by its electroporation therapy. Today I am fit as a fiddle. I did not recover my health by accident. My Recovery Protocol explains how to detoxify and rebuild the immune system. It includes The Ultimate Liver Cleanse, a powerful detoxifier. See The Ultimate Liver Cleanse page with testimonials, photos and discussion. Many illnesses are caused by parasites, bacteria and viruses alone. But many are caused by mercury or other metals or chemicals that act as a magnet for parasites, bacteria and viruses. In both cases people often get quick results with The Ultimate Zapper. Many people, including me, have experienced its deep penetration into organs like the bowel that Dr. Clark says zappers cannot reach."

Ken Presner: I could spend a lot of time expounding on these matters here but I will leave it to the readers of this forum to take time to look over the 30+ health oriented pages on my site to discover more. The four specific pages I refer to above about your site do not take into account the factors of metal and/or chemical toxicity in pathology. So, they are not only fragmentary, they are also misleading. These 4 pages refer to diseases I am intimately aware of, having been paralyzed with Multiple Sclerosis in 1989 and having nearly died from Crohn's disease in 1994. When I referred to MS specifically in an earlier posting you brushed aside my personal experience with talk of someone you know who claims MS is caused by a virus, yada, yada. I would never have responded in kind if I had information about a specific disease on my site that was misleading and this were pointed out to me by a competitor who obviously knew more about it that I did because of their own personal experience. I would either update my information or take the page down, and I would certainly not patron that person in the process. This attitude of yours belies your claim of wanting to get useful information to the readers of this forum. It is abundantly clear that if that useful information comes from me it cannot be classified as useful, according to you.

Ken Presner: More misleading information from some cut-and-paste pages on your site: "How does ParaZapper work? The following have been suggested and are under investigation. By killing other parasites living in your body that distract your immune system. By interfering the entry of viruses into the host cells which allows the immune system time to catch them. By alerting the immune system to their presence which allows the immune system to eliminate them quicker."

Ken Presner: This "cut-and-paste" appears on the shingles page and on the cold and flu page on your site. It is as though killing parasites alone will take care of the immune system, according to you. Nothing could be further from the truth if dental mercury is in the picture, which is the case with about 80% of the adult population in the U.S.A. and many other countries. Dental mercury suppresses the immune system, even after the removal of "silver amalgam" fillings and going through the process of DMSA chelation, which brings the body burden of mercury to very low levels. There is a way to rejuvenate the immune system which I talk about in My Recovery Protocol at http://zap.intergate.ca/recovery.html My own immune system, with lab tests as proof, strengthened by over 50% in just over a year after using 2 natural therapies.

Ken Presner: Here is more misleading information, from the candida page on your site: "If you want to successfully kill candida, you need a zapper that produces a lower frequency such as 2500 Hz. Also, the zapper should use a CMOS 555 timer as this will produce the strongest output with least battery drain. Additionally, the best results are obtained when using copper tube hand paddles and copper plate footpads."

Ken Presner: This paragraph begins with the words "if you want to". You are thus assuming that the zapper will kill candida. You build this assumption into the way you construction this sentence. You are thus making a strong medical claim that I place in the "know-it-all" category and is obviously misleading for the reasons stated above, the link with dental mercury being completely ignored by you. This sentence serves a clear commercial purpose but you do not provide any proof in the least for its veracity. This is another in a long series of "sloppy non-science" that appears on your site. You point a finger at my site and talk about claims that I supposedly make while at the same time refusing to look in the mirror. You live in a glass house. You should not be throwing stones unless you are willing to accept the consequences.

Ken Presner: The quotation, below, is from a posting on this forum where the reader caught you contradicting yourself, once again: Forum poster: >- How is it "effective against intestinal candida", when you yourself said zappers have a very hard time getting into the intestine?

David Etheredge: ParaZapper CCa with copper paddles and copper footpads was excellent against intestinal candida mostly because the CCa was tuned to maximize the output to the body when using footpads and paddles together. Also, that combination put the signal effectively throughout the body rather than arm to arm or point to arm.

Ken Presner: You don't answer the question at all. You simply side step the contradiction. And there is no mention of dental mercury here, or anywhere else on your site.

[The following quotation is cut and pasted from a previous posting on this forum]

Forum poster: >- What do you think is the best zapper devise i should get for a diabetic person like me? If I were diabetic, I would probably choose the ParaZapper CCa with copper paddles and footpads. The CCa is designed to provide the power needed for these accessories and the combination provides a better signal to the abdominal area than any other zapper. The Pancreas is located in this area and is responsible for the regulation of sugar in the body. Do not expect the zapper or any other device to cure your diabetes. These devices can help you on the road to recovery but eating and drinking the right things and cleansing your system of the things that cause your problems is the ultimate goal.

Ken Presner: This information about diabetes is clearly false. My father died from the complications of Type II diabetes and my brother died from the complications of Type I diabetes. I lived with diabetics all my life and I have done some research on the subject. May I say, with all due respect, that you appear to know very little about the complex diseases (Type I and Type II) called diabetes, as well as Multiple Sclerosis, intestinal diseases and other serious illnesses. The information you provide is misleading and could possibly be harmful. That zapping can help at all with any serious aspect or complication of diabetes is totally misleading and irresponsible. My unsolicited advice to you is to take those pages down and refrain from talking about subjects you know little or nothing about. In addition, zapping may be able to help with some factors associated with MS and Crohn's disease, as I point out on my site, but not in the way you present it. No wonder why the FDA has been after you. You leave yourself wide open to legal action in talking about serious illness in the wishy-washy, casual and unscientific way that you do. Anyone who listens to your health advice should be very, very careful.


Ken Presner: The testimonial page on my site offers over 100 testimonials [now over 300 -- June, 2009] that cover 14 different categories [now 24] and dozens of diseases and illnesses. The best you have to offer is 9 testimonials on your testimonial page, 3 of which are one-liners. You claim to have 100's of testimonials in a hidden archive and that the FDA is preventing you from publishing them. Yet you do publish 9 testimonials on your testimonial page. If the FDA is preventing you from publishing testimonials then why do you publish 9 testimonials? If you are acting in defiance of the FDA are these the most impressive testimonials you have with which to defy them, with the most impressive testimonial, in your opinion, being the testimonial about fish fungus? Are you really acting in defiance of the FDA or is your statement about being restricted by the FDA less than truthful?

Ken Presner: Here is a compendium of quotations from your site showing clearly the process of alchemy where testimonials become "interesting data" and "statistical data". What I find really interesting is how the testimonials on my site are anecdotal and unreliable, according to you, whereas yours are transmuted into "interesting data" and "statistical data", by virtue of their being on your site and being compiled. You claim only to be providing objective information for forum readers here. You claim to have no commercial interest and that you do not sell zappers. And, up until very recently, you have been eliciting support from readers of your site in the battle to be able to sell and promote zappers freely.

David Etheredge: The best testimonial we can provide is the following. Many of our customers after getting great results from out ParaZappers call back and order additional ParaZappers for the rest of their family and for their friends! Nearly 50% of our customers buy from us because they have seen the results that a friend or a relative has had from using ParaZapper.

Ken Presner: What customers? How can you have customers if you don't sell zappers? The obviously contradictory nature of your comments is clear from the quotations, below. You want to have it both ways so you sit on whichever side of the fence is convenient for you to sit on when you pontificate.

David Etheredge: "We feel that testimonials are not a reliable source of information as they are one-sided."

Ken Presner: The above statement is clearly contradicted by the following statements that you make on your site: "I can only tell you what customers who have responded to our surveys have told us." "True, not a blind study but definitely interesting data." "Hope that this helps." "This and other statistical data is reported on our website. No other zapper manufacturer, Rife manufacturer, or Beck manufacturer collects and reports data in this manner."

Ken Presner: The latter statement is true. I present unsolicited testimonials from customers in their raw form so that people can judge for themselves. This makes them even more credible and powerful, in my opinion. These testimonials are categorized and indexed in the archive so that people can find the relevant information easily. I do not solicit information through surveys and I do not compile statistics. The fact that you do so belies your claim of having no commercial interest. The "data" you provide is clearly self-serving and promotional.

David Etheredge: If you want to see more info about our data, see http://www.paradevices.com/?mv_pc=curezone&zsubj=testimony"_ParaZapper Testimonials

Ken Presner: The above link does not exist.

David Etheredge: Even the worst products in existance [sic] can find some good testimonials to publish.

Ken Presner: The above statement is clearly self-serving and is a negative catch-all. It is not a statement designed to provide information for the sake of information, as you claim to be doing on this forum. It is essentially manipulative. It does not address why there are so many positive testimonials for The Ultimate Zapper, for example. It addresses the issue by using a negative, which can never be proven. It is a manipulative use of debate tactics.

Ken Presner: The following is an exchange between you and a forum poster that points out your lack of scientific approach. You point a finger at my site and its lack of scientific proof, while at the same time being totally incapable of providing any scientific proof yourself on your own site. All data concerning all zappers, including The Ultimate Zapper and the ParaZapper, is empirical. There is no data regarding any zapper that meets scientific standards.

Forum poster: >- showing the wave form as evidence of greater effectiveness is meaningless without any real hard data that shows that a particular wave will be that much more effective

David Etheredge: As I stated before, the data is there if you took the time to look. We post actual percentage of improvement data reported by customers. There is a difference and it dioes {sic] corrospond [sic] to the quality of the signal that the customer receives.

Ken Presner: I am not the only one to have caught you in your web of contradictions on this forum. The following exchange from this forum is between you and a forum poster: Forum Poster: "In one breath you say "we feel that testimonials are not a reliable source of information as they are one-sided. I have never seen a site that published a negative testimonial, but I can guarantee that they exist, even for the best products such as penicillin and aspirin."... in the next you say "We tell them what other customers tell us about what does work and what does not work when it comest [sic] to zapping."

David Etheredge: "The CCa is only available from ParaZapper and it produces a distintively noticable difference in results according to our users"

Forum Poster: This information is not according to any independent studies but "according to our users" even though you just stated that testimonials are unreliable. Now, either you don't except testimonials as reliable or you base your statements on them, which is it? I think the hypocrisy is yours alone.

Ken Presner: I could not have stated this more clearly myself. The forum posting, above, gets to the crux of the entire matter.

Ken Presner: Below, is another exchange between David Etheredge and a forum poster who has caught David Etheredge in yet another contradiction.

Forum Poster: >- How is the zapper supposed to kill intestinal parasites, such as f. buskii, if it cannot penetrate the gut? The standard 30 kHz frequency does not penetrate to the gut very well but it does some, especially when the copper paddles and footpads are used together. The 2.5 kHz frequency does penetrate better and is also aided by using the copper paddles and copper footpads together. The combination forces the signal to pass through the gut rather than just from arm to arm across the top of the chest.

Ken Presner: Below is an exchange from this forum between judyflorida and David Etheredge (ParaZapper) who uses the term "rigorous testing" when referring to testimonials in order to try to elevate their status, once again: 

David Etheredge: Hi judyflorida! There are, of course, no guarantees except a money back guarantee but of those who use ParaZapper CCa with copper paddles and footpads, 80 percent report positive improvement ( better than 30 percent improvement ). 50 % report better than 50 % improvement in 2 to 6 months. Please note that these results are for arthritis in general and not all arthritis problems are parasite related.

judyflorida: >- maybe zapperplans feels that handholds work good enough for anybody

David Etheredge: That might be, but it is awful arrogant to make such assumptions, especially without rigorous testing. That is why I survey our customers, because it is their opinion that really counts.

[Ken Presner: That's a bit much, calling this poster arrogant because she expresses an opinion different from yours, David]

[Ken Presner: What's wrong with judyflorida's opinion? Does it deserve to be slapped aside in the offhanded manner with which you do so? Not in my opinion. Your comment shows your lack of respect for this poster. Even if you do not agree with her that does not give you the right to demean her and to assume the "voice of authority" in the manner you so often do on this forum. Your tone and your attitude are unacceptable, in my opinion, and you should be prepared to hear some stiff opposition to it, which you have called bashing, in the past, and which you indulge in gratuitously and freely yourself whenever you so choose, as readers of this forum who follow your postings can readily observe.]


Ken Presner: "... you were making unfair and inaccurate comments about The Ultimate Zapper and about my site ..."

David Etheredge: Please list these claims here.

Ken Presner: There are a number specific issues I will discuss, below, in this regard. They are in addition to the issues of the patronizing tone that David Etheredege regularly indulges in on this forum, and his hypocrisy concerning the matter of testimonials which I have already devoted much time to in this posting.

a) David Etheredge repeatedly bashes the use of testimonials on my site yet he uses his own testimonials freely as proof of effectiveness on his own site. He is a hypocrite. He should look in his own mirror.

b) As I have already stated, we have compared to the standard Clark zapper. As for Ken Pressner's ultimate zapper [That should read Ken Presner's Ultimate Zapper, I always get the spelling of David Etheredge's name correct and I always spell the name of the ParaZapper correctly] ( which I tried with a 9v battery ) I have not complained about it. [This statement is clearly false as we can read, below.]

c) David Etheredge (ParaZapper): "As far as I can see, I have only disparaged one zapper product the ZP]." [This statement is clearly false as we can read, below.]

d) David Etheredge (ParaZapper): Unfortunately, Ken has not figuered [sic] out the right way to use the footpads."

Ken Presner: David Etheredge (Mr. Authority) not only makes an inaccurate statement here (I have given the answer to this at length in a precious posting) he somehow needs to make his statement with a patronizing tone, which is so often observable on this forum. This belies his statements that his role is only that of an information provider on this forum. It appears clear that he considers this forum his bully-pulpit.

e) Ken Presner: Below is another statement showing David Etheredge's inability to state a point without adding a patronizing tone.

David Etheredge: >- these clips are just pathetic. For that reason, ParaZapper products have soldered connections. No corrosion, no connectors slipping off, better electrical properties.

Ken Presner: The fact is that The Ultimate Zapper's clips are solid copper.

f) Ken Presner: Here is another cheap shot from David Etheredge, below:

David Etheredge: ">- footpads came in (could have got those at Home Depot) Just curious, how much do they charge for those cheaply made footpads? Are they pure C11000 copper or an alloy? Are they a solid 0.032 thickness or thin stuff?

Ken Presner: The footpads that are shipped with The Ultimate Zapper are the highest quality solid footpads made from pure copper.

g) Ken Presner: >- Anyone truly concerned about the health of people would not engage in taking shots at others in order to sell a product.

David Etheredge: I agree, but I have only take shots at one product that I consider to be seriously inferior and it is strictly due to the CMOS chip that they use in their product.

Ken Presner: This statement is clearly false, as you can read in the exchanges, above. David Etheredge never admits fault. The "Voice of Authority" from the bully-pulpit is omnipresent on this forum.

h) Ken Presner: Here is my original reply on this forum to David Etheredge regarding his disparaging comments about The Ultimate Zapper:

Hello, I have just become aware of your posting. The fact is that what works for one person does not necessarily work for all. I am keenly aware of this fact having been selling my zapper for 11 years [now over 13 years]. My return rate is less than 2%. If people were not getting satisfactory results that rate would be much higher. The often astounding testimonials on my site tell the same tale. Yes, I am very aware that there are many different configurations that one can use to get good results with my zapper. I always suggest that people experiment to see what works best for them. The particular configuration you mention may indeed work well for some people. I actually figured that out all by myself a while back but I don't often get involved in posting to curezone. This is only the second time that I have done so, once again at the specific request of a customer. I have put the finishing touches to a second diagram that will be uploaded to my site at the end of the month. I suggest you choose your words a bit more carefully and show a bit more respect when you post regarding me and my site in future. The "pathetic" clips you are referring to are now stainless steel clips [they are now solid copper, recently upgraded]. With all due respect you have no idea what are you talking about when you refer to my footpads. You should be careful when you talk about my footpads being "cheaply made footpads". The footpads are solid, rigid copper plates and come directly from my supplier. They are the most expensive component of the zapper package that I ship. They cost $12.45 each and because of the extra weight they are actually shipped below cost. They are shipped at the same price as a simple zapper without footpads. In fact, every order I ship is shipped below cost so that I can keep prices affordable for the customer. So the next time you post about me and my site I suggest a different, more respectful tone would be more appropriate. Have a close look at my site. If you read between the lines it will give you a very good idea who you are dealing with when you choose to make inaccurate or disparaging comments about my zapper. You may be aware that I have 2 long pages on my site devoted to The Competition. I discuss 5 issues with your zapper and your website at


Two very obvious problems with your zapper and your site are:

1. You write absolute nonsense about Multiple Sclerosis.

2. You have a VERY punitive returns policy.

Sincerely, Ken Presner http://zap.intergate.ca

i) David Etheredge: There is not any other zapper out there with CCa technology built in, so they may produce a similar but not identical output. There is not any other zapper out there that offers augmentation footpads, and no other zapper provides a thorough users manual. These make a definite difference.

David Etheredge: Sadly, ParaZapper is the only zapper that offers the augmentation footpads. While we have suggested this to other manufacturers, they have not offered these so far.

Ken Presner: Sadly, these statement are completely false. The Ultimate Zapper offers solid copper footpads and has done so for years. It also comes with a free user's manual that is also available online.

David Etheredge: Also, the stronger the model they used, the better the results.

Ken Presner: Which, according to David Etheredge's own criteria, means that The Ultimate Zapper with footpads produces the best results of any zapper on the market because it is, by far, the strongest zapper available.


Ken Presner: The ParaZapper is the only zapper I know of whose maker claims that the user's manual is an important zapper feature. I would never even think of making such a ridiculous statement. A user's manual in no way can be considered a feature of an electronic device. It is an aid to its use. The features of a device are those built into the electronic circuitry.

Ken Presner: Below, is an exchange between a forum poster and David Etheredge regarding the user's manual:

Forum poster: >- You always say that the parazapper is not the average zapper and I was interested to find out what made it better and I have seen absolutely nothing in the specs.

David Etheredge: The specifications are there, you just chose to ignore them to make your point [Ken Presner: David Etheredge's patronizing tone rears its head, once again]. You obviously missed the greatest specification: A real users manual. This is the main reason why our customers report better success. We tell them what other customers tell us about what does work and what does not work when it comest [sic] to zapping.

Ken Presner: The Ultimate Zapper has 11 electronic features [ now 12 features -- with added features for QE1 and QE2] that make it the most effective zapper available. The user's manual is not included in those features, let alone even considered its "greatest specification". If the user's manual is the "greatest specification" of the ParaZapper this obviously begs the question about the relatively lesser importance of its other features.

Ken Presner: To compound this state of affairs David Etheredge states "The second most important specification that you missed is actual published data giving the customer a fair and reasonable expectation are to what kind of results that they can achieve." A user's manual is a specification? Published data is a specification? These statements come from David Etheredge who claims to be a qualified engineer yet apparently does not even know the meaning of the word specification. David Etheredge: Also, according to users, the Augmentation footpads almost double the effectiveness of the zapper. ParaZapper is the only zapper company that currently offers these. This is despite the fact that I have called and personally talked to several of our competitors about this. They are not interested because the cost too much and are not profitable.

Ken Presner: Does David Etheredge think if he repeats this false statement often enough that people will believe him? The Ultimate Zapper has been offering footpads for years. I have never received a call from Mr. Etheredge.

Ken Presner: Here is the excellent rebuttal of David Etheredge by this forum poster who catches David Etheredge in yet another contradiction: Its really ridiculous to claim that I haven't read all your material just because you don't like the conclusions that I reached from reading it (so every time you are about to write that I missed something, please refer to this sentence ... I haven't missed a page on your site, my conclusions are just not the ones you would like me to draw). I know the site inside and out because I always read your statements and wanted to learn about the parazapper and it seems I have learned quite enough to know that it is nothing special. Now lets discuss this "innovative technology" lol ... From the parazapper site "The CCa has an internal device that senses the current flowing out to the body and if it is not sufficient, the circuit adapts to increase the current until the correct level is reached (if possible )." Followed directly by "Also, because it can deliver a stronger signal, it has a control for you to adjust if it gets too strong." Why would one need to adjust the current if the device is able to adjust to apply "correct level" automatically? It should not be needed because it couldn't get too strong if it is sensing the amount of current and applying it exactly. If a zapper outputs the correct current in the first place then this is a pretty meaningless feature and in the contradicting statements just noted it makes one wonder if it even works as advertised. This is not a advanced technological advance it is a smoke and mirrors technique to attempt to make the zapper standout in the croud, kind of like Crofts use of pennies for electrodes. Lets get get to the next technological advancement ... footpads may be more effective but that is still not a reason to buy the parazapper, as footpads can be connected to ANY GOOD ZAPPER, can they not? Since they can be connected to any good zapper and bought for a few bucks at any hardware store, they are not a reason to claim that the parazapper is better zappers because you offer them as an accessory. That's like saying one ipod is better then the other mp3 players because it has headphones, when one can easily connect them to any mp3 player. So the headphones are not a reason to buy an ipod. They are an accessory not a part of an advanced device. Let me inform you that copper pads made in the shape of feet are not a "technological advancement" LOL ... it is another smoke attempt to make it seem as though it is vastly different when the truth is it is not. Footpads are just another means of applying the output to the body. What if I came out with a zapper that had an entire copper suit that one could wear, would that be a technological advancement because it is able to apply the signal to more areas of the body? If you are just attempting to apply the signal to as much of the body as we can then my copper suit would be far better then footpads lol. But in no way would my patented copper zapping suit be a technological advancement or make the zapper more then the average zapper any more then footpads. Nothing mentioned on the parazapper site or in your response qualifies (in the mind or any sane person) as a "major innovation." A major innovation would be to truly discover the mechanism at work in effecting the bodies when zapping is concerned and finding another method (other then electrical current) to apply a treatment with a near 100% success rate. That would be a major innovation. But there is still a debate about what the mechanism for healing is and there is no conclusive proof as to which side of the debate is correct.

Ken Presner: Here is a succinct comment on the user's manual by this same forum poster: If your only selling point is the better instruction manual then that is a sad statement to make ... there are many free, thorough, and comprehensive zapping articles on the net which require no purchase from a ill person who needs there money for other ...

Ken Presner: Here is a stinging criticism of David Etheredge and his ParaZapper from this same forum poster: You said "I am seeking to protect the person who needs a good zapper from ignorance." The only ignorance you are protecting people from is the ignorance of where provide there credit card numbers to purchase the parazapper. Because that is the only product you provided such valuable info on. You say that you have tried a "dozen other zappers" as well ... wow that's an amazing coincidence that you just happen to work for the company of the best zapper you've ever tried. That is the definition of bias, is it not? Those who have only used one zapper may be limited in their scope but at least their experiences are not blatantly motivated by anything other then caring for others. As for the $10 zapper, the chip may be inferior but if people who have used it are satisfied with the results they have received, then who are you to downplay their testimonials in favor of your own biased counter testimonial? I said "Any other zapper that is mentioned on this forum is the specific pages where this claim is made."

Ken Presner: Here is another pointed criticism of David Etheredge by this same forum poster in reply to another disparaging comment about The Ultimate Zapper made by David Etheredge in his inimical backhanded style: A few sentence before this you said "As for Ken Pressner's ultimate zapper ( which I tried with a 9v battery ) I have not complained about it. I do not like it plugged into the wall though." In the same sentence as saying you have not complained about it you come out and complain about it. A properly engineered product that is plugged into the wall has not been shown to be more dangerous or ineffective then using a 9 volt battery but you have to take every opportunity to take shots at any other products in order to make the parazapper appear superior.

Ken Presner: This same forum poster challenges David Etheredge once again: You said "There is not any other zapper out there with CCa technology built in, so they may produce a similar but not identical output." No two zappers, even built by the same company, are going to produce the exact same output just because of the variations in individual parts so "similar" is about as close as one can get. You said "Even our shoebox zapper produces better results than the standard Clark zapper." According to whom? I have not seen any competent independent lab studies showing this to be the case.

Ken Presner: This same forum poster exposes the flawed logic that David Etheredge often indulges in on this forum: You said "If our customers were dissatisfied, you would be hearing from a lot of them here. You do not!" I have also never seen any customers praising your products either, so that is blatantly false/ flawed argument.

Ken Presner: This same forum poster points out an important false claim made by David Etheredge for his ParaZapper: You said "Based on the same circuit but with definite improvements. First, the chip that we use is far better. You in no way provide any info on how this chip is better in terms of its effect on a patient. You can not be so certain of its superiority as there is still the debate about what the mechanism is that is causing the positive effects on user's health. You said "First, Dr. Clark does not have the time or you would see her here providing information." Yes this is true, she would be giving info on her protocols not attempting to steer people toward a zapper manufactured for her profit. In fact as far as I know she does not have a line of zappers that she profits from. You said "From what I have seen, you definitly have presented a biased hypocritical viewpoint."

Ken Presner: This same forum poster exposes David Etheredge's use of manipulation, his bullying approach and his obvious commercial intent: LoL, how to you ever call anyone biased...you have some nerve don't you. I have no interests in the use or lack in of any product (so that rules out bias) and my statements have in no way been hypocritical (as I never objected to having business, just to disgusting methods of bias profiteers like yourself) but yours on the other hand have been clearly shown to be so. You said "I do not know what your problem is but I work 12 to 16 hours a day 6 to 7 days a week looking for improvements and trying to help people get better. I do know one thing though. You have not tried the ParaZapper CCa because if you had, you would not have written this."

Ken Presner: Once again, this same forum poster hits the nail on the head: Well if you are spending that much time trying to find improvements then it truly has not been a very fruitful search because their have not been any major improvements as I've said. Are you saying that no one who has used a parazapper product has sent it back or been dissatisfied with the results? You said earlier that there were negative testimonials. So I think those people, having used it would agree with what I wrote. So to say that no one who ever used the product would ever write anything critical is an absolute fallacy. I was opened to using the parazapper when I first came on this site but after seeing your sleazy methods and your blatantly unsupported statements, I wouldn't spend one cent the parazapper products and think they should be ashamed of the way there product is being marketed. The parazapper may be a good zapper (though I see nothing that makes it superior to the crowd) but the form of ambulance chasing that you engage in on this site reflects very poorly on the company and its product. If I were your employer you would be out on your ass and no longer be a "salaried employee." I had to write this because it sickens me to see people who are sick and frightened, looking for help having to deal with people with vested interests.

Ken Presner: More false logic from David Etheredge:

David Etheredge: It is my opinion that if a person were to buy a zapper for this particular problem, they should use a lower frequency zapper and that they should use augmentation footpads as they can produce additional benefit. Whether or not they buy from us is mute [Ken Presner: He means "moot", not mute.] because at this time we are not selling zappers. I still have not seen any proof that anything else will produce better results. As I have said repeatedly, show me the data.

Ken Presner: All proof for all zappers is empirical. Data is not proof. It is just a collection of statistics that comes from testimonials that are, according to David Etheredge, unreliable, unless the data is collected according to scientific principles, which is not the case for the data collected by David Etheredge. He has, once again, put his foot in his mouth. He would like to have it both ways, but this is not possible.


Ken Presner: David Etheredge as "the helper". His comments need no comment from me. They speak for themselves, in my opinion:

David Etheredge: I would be negligent if I just let them rule the day and not speak out. It is important for potential users to know that there are alternatives and that it makes a difference. The truth is most of the people on this forum already have zappers so the information that I post here does not produce many sales anyhow. I am seeking to protect the person who needs a good zapper from ignorance.


Ken Presner: Here are excellent comments critical of David Etheredge and his ParaZapper from an insightful forum poster:

a) Parazapper, Anyone truly concerened about the health of people would not engage in taking shots at others in order to sell a product. Attempting to always belittle every other zapper that is even brought up in discussion is a sad statement. I think its great when a user of a product says "hey this worked for me" but to actually have someone with a financial interest in the sale of the product to be attempting to promote their product to sick people is just the same as what the drug companies do, with doctors as their agents usually. You always say that the parazapper is not the average zapper and I was interested to find out what made it better and I have seen absolutely nothing in the specs. that make it anything more then the average zapper. It has a little more current then some but less then others...the frequencies that they use are widely available among other zappers. In fact there is absolutely nothing that is innovative about the parazapper products except the hype. There are many excellent zappers that have made their reputation based on effectiveness and not on a sleazy sales pitch. If your zapper can stand on its own reputation then let it do so and don't push its use in every question asked by anyone about anything.

b) Any other zapper that is mentioned on this forum is immediately attacked by Parazapper as being inferior when many of these products produce the identical output. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE DESIGN OF THE PARAZAPPER THAT PUTS IT ANYWHERE ABOVE THE ORIGINAL CLARK ZAPPER BUILT IN A SHOEBOX! It is based on the same circuit...in fact there haven't been any significant advances in the zapper since the original design was published. So whether you use the original design or one of the many based on it it really doesn't make much of a difference, none of them are far superior as some would claim.

c) Parazapper lurks in here and jumps on anyone who asks a question about their serious health issue in order to pounce on them and give them his sales pitch.

d) There are people with serious health problems who come here for the objective help of others, not a sales pitch. Someone needed to finally say what so many are thinking in this forum.

e) Ok now let me respond to the half truths and outright lies... At no point did I ever say it was wrong to run a business and make a profit, what I was criticizing was your overall sleazy method of attempting to lead sick people to your product in a forum where they should be able to get many opinions and not one that is clearly biased and suspect in the opinion of many on these forums.

Ken Presner: This sums up how I feel about David Etheredge and his postings on this forum. I also feel that there is nothing special about his ParaZapper whereas it is clear that The Ultimate Zapper's features do make it a very special and unique zapper.

(posted February, 2008)


From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1199958

Hello David,

Because I am very busy working on projects and don't check in on this forum much anymore I will respond here to only one part of your lengthy response

(to my long posting at htttp://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1095357 ):

You state, above:

"Yes, you went to my site once, found a few pages down and was happy to post that for years without ever going back and checking. This in addition to above is proof enough that you falsify and distort the information to promote your product. Based on that, how can anyone trust your testimonials? How does anyone know that you did not write every single one of them?"

That's an absolute crock of shit. You're a bald-faced liar. When I posted this on my site you let me know the links were back, I checked, found you were right, and quickly made the correction on my site. That is a fact.

I falsify nothing at all on my site. The report about Dr. Loyd is absolutely true as presented to me By Dr. S., word for word. If you don't like how I present the facts that's your problem. But don't you ever call me a liar. If you do you'll hear from me.

The fact is that you are trying to sow doubt in people's minds about the veracity of the testimonials on my site, inferring the testimonials on my site have been created by me. Your inference is a total lie. The testimonials are cut and pasted from the emails I receive from customers. I state that on my site. This is not only an insult to me it is an insult to those my zapper has helped. You talk about ME "falsifying and distorting". You've got a goddamn nerve you manipulative bastard.

The fact that the testimonials tell a story of the great success people have obtained by using The Ultimate Zapper probably does not go down very well with you. I can understand that. Because that's the bottom line, the amazing results people are getting with The Ultimate Zapper. You don't like to hear the truth, too bad for you. But you had better watch what you say about me, my site, my work and my zapper, and my customers. I have worked too hard and too long to let someone like you get away with lying about me. You can dominate this forum all you want and lie about me and my customers all you want. But when I check in and catch you lying you'll hear from me, I promise you.

Ken Presner
(posted June, 2008)


From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1204296

[this is the second posting link, the first one is no longer available due to curezone censorship]

This posting was made to curezone on June 29, 2008. The censored posting was made a few days earlier.

Hi David,

Please note that I have numbered our respective responses, below, so that everyone can follow this string more easily.

Ken Presner comment 1: I do not know how long the links were down. I checked your site and many of them were not there. I counted them and published this information. You denied that links were ever down on your site, which was not true. Now you admit that they were. When this matter came up and it was brought to my attention that the links were back up I made the change quickly as I always do when errors are pointed out to me.

David Etheredge comment 1: A few of the links were down for a few hours when they were first beiong installed. There have also been times when the internet has been slowed to a crawl due to "denial of service" attacks against other sites which makes some sites come up as missing for periods of time ( a few hours). The point is that either due to your lack of knowlege about the internet

Ken Presner comment 2: I have had my site for the past 12 years [now 13 years] and I think that forum readers can fairly assume that I know at least one or 2 things about the Internet by now, even if you don't.

David Etheredge comment 1: or just plain willingness to do so, you did not bother to check back for many months.

Ken Presner comment 2: That's not true. It may have been a few weeks, at most. My list of priorities dictates my schedule. In any case my apologies for the delay. The point is that once I recognized that the links were back up I made the change immediately on my site and I acknowledged that the links were back up. But that is now a moot point. Please read below.

Ken Presner comment 2: I note that you have now removed all references to MS on your Multiple Sclerosis page after I pointed out a few things about MS in an earlier posting on this forum. Forum readers may remember that I actually had MS and Crohn's disease and recovered from both of these "incurable diseases". I have clicked through a few of the "health" pages on your site today and they are just carbon copies of your front page. In effect you have no health links and no health information on your site at all anymore although your margin makes it appear that you do, unlike the links on the margin on my site. Each link on my site leads to a unique page with specific information that refers to the name of that. Your site may now have links in place, lots of links, but they are "empty" links and this is highly misleading. Why don't you remove the "empty" links from your margin? There are over 30 "health" links on my site and there is not one "empty" link or "carbon copy" link on my site.

David Etheredge comment 1: Also, each page that does come up has a contact e-mail that you did not bother with either.

Ken Presner comment 2: What was I supposed to "bother with"? What is this supposed to mean? Do you expect me to email you every time I find something wrong with your site?

David Etheredge comment 1: I have a service that monitors my sites

Ken Presner comment 2: So do I, incidentally.

David Etheredge comment 1: and there have not been any pages missing for any length of time (more than a few hours).

Ken Presner comment 2: This may be true. I have no way of knowing since I don't monitor your site on a regular basis. I think we can put this one to rest. We're flogging a dead horse. What I do know is that your site appears to be a corporate site with no information except for ordering information. The so-called links on your site are carbon copies of your front page. That is clear for all to see.

David Etheredge [comment from the previous string that you left out so that it makes it difficult to understand the context my comment]: "ParaZapper: On top of that you obviously chose an unreliable source for your information,"

Ken Presner comment 2: I did not choose the source. That is clearly an inaccurate statement. Dr. Mondo S. volunteered the information to me in an unsolicited email. I did not choose him, he chose to email me. How do you know he is unreliable? That is what you are inferring here. Did you contact him? If so, what did he have to say? Did he deny the content of his report to me? Did he say I was lying?

David Etheredge comment 1: Once you were notified of the error, did you bother to contact Dr. Lloyd and get the correct information?

Ken Presner comment 2: What error? Dr. Loyd has never contacted me to report an error. It is you who were objecting to the content of the report. I was simply reporting what Dr. Mondo S. related from Dr. Loyd. That is very clearly stated on my site. That's not an error, it's a report from Dr. Mondo S.

David Etheredge comment 1: Before I post anything written by someone else (Dr. Thiel, and Wayne Green, for example) I check it out, verify that the information is correct, and get permission to post.

Ken Presner comment 2: Trying to take the high moral ground on this forum will clearly be a losing game for you. When you say "I check it out" this is not a true statement at all. Did you contact me about the correctness of the information in the testimonial archive on my site before you made the allegation that the testimonials are untrue and that I made them all up out of my head? Did you "check it out"? No, you did not contact me. By the way, there is an email link on each page of my site and it's not hard to find me. So, please do not say that you verify information before posting because that is clearly not true. You say what you feel like saying whether it has any relation to the truth or not, as long as it serves your purpose, which in this case is to make me look bad and to make you look good. What else is new, eh? You state your opinions authoritatively, with a patronizing tone that is clear for all to see and hear. This does not create the truth where there is none. You may be able to put one over on a newcomer to this forum but I doubt if you will succeed with anyone who has been around here for a while and who is aware of your proclivity for manipulation and innuendo, and worse.

David Etheredge [comment from the previous string that you left out so that it makes it difficult to understand the context of my comment]:

"ParaZapper: For example, your claim that ParaZapper products did not have stabilized output was and is a misrepresentation. The better ones do"

Ken Presner comment 1: I don't remember you having stated this before. I have just made this correction on the Comparison Charts on my site. David, you are full of contradictions. You downplay the importance of the Super Stabilized wave in The Ultimate Zapper then you play up its importance in your own zappers. By implying that your better models have a stabilized wave implies that those models without out it are not so good. Then you say, below, "it did not produce any better results". So, the better ones have it but they don't produce better results? These statements are totally illogical. We see this kind of illogic from you time and again on this forum. Then you say customers "felt it too strong", further compounding this string of mystifying statements. Your explanations only serve to confuse, not to make things clear for people. You have to be a mind-reader to figure out that the heck you're trying to say on this forum.

David Etheredge comment 1: You are digging for excuses. I never posted it before, because I did not consider it to be an important improvement. You harp as if it is the greatest thing since sliced bread and then bash my product as not having it. Yes, I post it now to show that you are wrong. Even my cheapest zapper has it now (since Feb. 2008 ). I have even upgraded old customers who wanted to have it done.

Ken Presner comment 2: I am digging for nothing at all. I am merely commenting on what you say on the forum and on your site and I am commenting on the many contradictions in your statements and the untruths that seem quite obvious. What you seem to be saying is that I should have read your mind to know that you put a stabilized wave in your zappers, because it was never stated on your site. And because I didn't read your mind I created a problem according to your convoluted way of thinking. And what you are now saying is that you have put the stabilized wave in all your zappers but you "do not consider it an important improvement". Well, I consider this very odd indeed. Why go to all the trouble and expense and all the confusing explanations. I make improvements because they have proven to be important and then I explain those improvements clearly on my site. I do not make insignificant improvements, improvements that I know are unimportant, then back track and double talk to explain that I might just as well not have made them at all. This makes no sense, it really doesn't. It is a game with so many twists and turns that it's hard to keep track of them all and impossible to really know what you're trying to say and why you are making specific changes to your zappers.

And then there is the matter of your unadvertised models whose merits and specifications we are supposed to know, also by some psychic process, I presume. "Didn't you know that my xyz unadvertised model already has the xyz feature?" is a favorite tactic of yours previously seen on this forum. Then there are all the excuses, "I have the data but I can't publish them" and "my lawyers tell me not to say anything." There are so many screens you hide behind that it is a wonder if anyone can figure out your products, your site and your statements. They all appear to hide the facts through smoke and mirrors, not to elucidate them, which is exactly the opposite of what I do on my site. I am clear, concise and to the point. Whether or not you agree with the statements on my site is a different matter. I really don't expect competitors to agree with what I say because if they did they would have to acknowledge the superiority of The Ultimate Zapper. So they have to find ways to deny what I say, plain and simple, which is what you have been trying to do for years on this forum, unsuccessfully I may add, because the amazing results people obtain with The Ultimate Zapper speak for themselves and word of mouth is very powerful. It's just that simple.

Ken Presner comment 1: You have neatly sidestepped the inference you clearly made on the Zapper Support Forum recently that I made them all 170 of the testimonials on my site up out of my head, effectively calling both me and my customers liars.

David Etheredge comment 1: Interesting, you did not provide a quote or link to that statement. If I made any statement that all of your testimonials were not valid, I should not have. I know that you should have at least some valid testimonials.

Ken Presner comment 2:

I would like to know 2 things:

1. Are you denying that you ever made the statement at the end of the last long string I participated in on this forum a few months ago (on page 92 of this forum), inferring that statements on my site misrepresent facts so that you cannot trust that the testimonials on my site are true and were not made up by me?

2. Does the censor of this forum claim that this posting never appeared at the end of the above-mentioned string on this forum and that he did not remove it from this forum? Since you did in fact make the statement and since it has apparently been removed from the string in the past couple of days by this forum's censor (I cannot find it anywhere, am I mistaken?) any denial by you and by this forum's censor would be a denial of the facts. Period.

This forum's readers should have the answers to these questions from both you and this forum's censor so they can judge for themselves. Any inference that I am lying about the testimonials on my site is totally false. Period.

Any statement or inference to the effect that the testimonials on my site are not cut and pasted from unsolicited emails sent in by customers is a lie, plain and simple. Each and every testimonial is a word for word report from the person who sent in that testimonial. Period. I "should have at least some valid testimonials" according to you? Do you mean some of the testimonials on my site are not truthful? You are making a sly inference here, in your inimitable sly manner, I might add. We have seen this kind of thing from you many times before on this forum. If you're calling me a liar, just come out and say it straight out so that everyone can see it and read it and understand it loud and clear. If I say 100% of the testimonials are cut and pasted from unsolicited emails that customers send me, I mean 100%. That should be clear enough for everyone to understand, even you. Do you get my message loud and clear? Would you like to make another sly comment? Would you like to make another sly inference? Go ahead, make my evening. It seems clear that you have a strong need to make me look bad on this forum which impels you to crowd out the truth by the constant use of inference, innuendo and outright false statements. Coupled with a patronizing, ever-authoritative tone and a slyness that is becoming increasingly evident it is clear that your efforts are designed to control the opinions and ideas of the readers of this forum. The pretense of being an objective observer is a complete charade. It appears that you will do anything and everything to deny the truth about The Ultimate Zapper, my work, my site, my postings on this forum and now even my customers. If that's not having a strong axe to grind I don't know what is. You're just a "helper" here? Yah sure, and my name's Eleanor Roosevelt.

If you don't like how I present the information on my site, OK, that's your right, you have the right to your opinions and I have the right to my opinions. You think I exaggerate and I definitely think you exaggerate. But when you start calling me a liar and you start making sly inferences, that's an entirely different matter. That I will never allow. You have crossed the line. Do you understand? You have crossed the line. You are impugning my integrity. I will never allow that to pass without the most vociferous response. Never.

Ken Presner comment 1: According to you The Ultimate Zapper is full of placebo effects and only has the 10.4 volts in its favor. It's 10.5 volts by the way and, to correct another of your famous spelling mistakes my last name is spelled Presner not Pressner, I think I got your last name right it's Etheredge, isn't it?

David Etheredge comment 1: My apologies for the spelling error. Otherwise, I have some customers who correlate effectiveness with the feeling that they get. However, when surveyed for actual changes in condition, the ones who had the stronger output actually had statistically a slightly lower improvement.

Ken Presner comment 2: Apology accepted. If you read the 170 testimonials on my site closely you will see that people are talking about results, not feelings. This is very clear. I'm not interested in feelings and neither are the people who are looking for relief. I'm interested in results, which is what my customers are interested in.

Ken Presner comment 1: Oh, isn't this cute. Another one of your "I got the evidence but I can't show it to you" games. Of course you really expect all the people getting great results with The Ultimate Zapper to email you about it, don't you? I imagine there are "enough of" those not getting great results with your models, but you don't seem anxious to publish "enough of" this information. You said a while back you have never seen a negative testimonial on any site. I guess that includes yours. Of course I get returns, about 2%. That makes 98% satisfied customers. Not bad, eh?

David Etheredge comment 1: A 2 % returns rate is very good, my return rate is lower (about 1 %) but that is not a very significant difference.

Ken Presner comment 2: That's because you don't have a 3-month trial offer advertised on your site. If you did your return rate would undoubtedly be higher. It just stands to reason.

David Etheredge comment 2: Like I said, the only UZ customers that I have hard from are those who did not like their UZ for some reason but that is to be expected.

Ken Presner comment 2: What is to be expected? That my customers are emailing you to complain about The Ultimate Zapper? And if some of your customers email me complaining about your zappers, is that something worthy of note with a total of 1% or 2% returns? It's not even worth mentioning. I don't publicize information about the people who write to me who didn't like the ParaZapper. What's the point? Do I want to become a nit-picker? As far as The Ultimate Zapper is concerned we're talking about thousands of satisfied customers over a period of 12 years [now 13 years] with a handful of customers who were not satisfied. That's hardly worth mentioning, especially with a 3-month trial offer that has been in place for years.

David Etheredge comment 1: Why would they need to contact me otherwise. I agree that there are going to be some customers that will never be satisfied and that there are also customers who do not get benefit from a product because they do not really need it. This small percentage is often the most vocal group.

Ken Presner comment 2: This is really nit picking. It's a non-issue.

Ken Presner comment 1: Perhaps you'd better watch what you say about me and my customers a bit more carefully in the future, David, so that I don't have to call you a liar again. Just a suggestion.

David Etheredge comment 1: The same to you Ken.

Ken Presner comment 2: I have never said that the testimonials on your site were invented by you. Frankly, it never even occurred to me that this might be the case. And it never would have occurred to me to publish a statement to this effect.

David Etheredge comment 1: As I have shown previously, you have made extensive unreliable claims about other zapper sellers and manufacturers as well as about ParaZapper.

Ken Presner comment 2: This is not true. This is your opinion, to which you have the right. The problem is that you present your opinions as the gospel truth but they are not, they're just your opinions. I stand by the statements that I have made about your zappers and about other zappers. I am not the only one who has made direct observations about your zappers on this forum. I have pointed out some of these 3rd party comments in the 2 long postings I made previously on this forum. You are aware of this fact. Passing your opinions off as facts is a tactic you continually use on this forum. Unfortunately, your opinions require a lot more proof to turn them into facts, as others have also pointed out on this forum.

David Etheredge comment 1: You just assume that because there is not a posted claim that a product does not have it and this is just wrong. I am sorry if it bothers you, but I do not perceive any particularily high level of integrity on the part of your claims about others, so why would I think any better of the testimonials that you post?

Ken Presner comment 2: The quality of your reasoning is horrendous, I'm not afraid to say. It is obviously designed to be self-serving.

1. You disagree with my statements about your zapper and other zappers. Fine, you have the right to express your opinions. But instead of expressing them as your opinions you express them as gospel fact.

2. A priori, because according to you, you have revealed the facts, this means that the veracity of the testimonials on my site is automatically brought into doubt. What kind of cockeyed reasoning is this? You have a perfect right to disagree with what I say about your zapper and other zappers. We agree to disagree. But to claim your opinions as fact and then to call me a liar about the testimonials on my site by inference from those "facts" totally destroys your credibility on this forum. You have come to a totally false conclusion based on nothing else but your desire to see me as a liar and to have the readers on this forum see me as a liar. You have just shot yourself in the foot. By impugning my honesty and integrity you have, ipso facto, impugned your own honesty and integrity, because I have stated the truth. You have used total illogic to create a false statement and a false impression because of the need to make me look bad and to make yourself look good. Plain and simple. This is the worst kind of thing that you do here, and you have done it repeatedly, masked always by self-righteousness. I will not mince my words. Frankly, I find this kind of behavior abominable.

David Etheredge comment 1: The real proof is in the pudding. You are completely unwilling to accept a 3rd party testing / evaluation / comparison. I have always been willing to put my products up against anyone who was willing.

Ken Presner comment 2: I would be more than willing to put my products up against those of other zapper makers under correct conditions but, as I point out below, this is truly a moot point. I will never allow anyone to dictate the terms of a comparison study. That is the point I am making and it is the most important point in this debate. The whole matter of 3rd party testing and double blind testing is a house of cards and I will explain why very clearly. The only real zapper verification that can be done is specification verification, like Geoff Clark used to do until too many people used it as an "approval" marketing tool, and he put a stop to that because they were just using Dr. Clark's name to sell their products. Specifications can be verified and I have no reason not to trust that what each maker advertises on his site reflects the true output of his product. I would never question the veracity of your advertised specifications or those of any other zapper maker. My production people verify each zapper before shipping and I assume your production people do the same thing.

Next, there is the matter of double blind testing. It is impossible to do double blind testing with zappers even for very obvious ailments such as warts or melanoma or other visible complaints that could be quantified and easily verified for results because all complaints are subject to a whole host of factors and variables that make zapper results a very individual matter and which would also make this approach problematic. I have more comments below about this subject. Any testing would have to be done with hundreds of subjects, at the very least, for any meaningful statistical results to be culled from such a study. Who will pay for this testing? I imagine every zapper maker who would like to participate would want a trusted representative present during the testing process to monitor the results. I certainly would. Who would pay for the services of all these representatives and for their expenses? I certainly don't have the financial resources to pay for a representative. We are talking about controlled testing procedures here. How could the representatives of each zapper maker do the rigorous monitoring that would create the necessary standard so that the study could qualify as a serious study? How could they monitor each person who is zapping to make sure they are following the required protocol every day at the same time of day, making sure of the number of minutes zapped, making sure of the number of minutes for each break, making sure the electrodes and contacts are in place, verifying the output of the equipment, making sure the handhold covering is of uniform dampness, monitoring any side effects and any progress? We are talking about hundreds of test participants here. They would require hundreds of representatives from each zapper maker for proper monitoring. Who would pay for their services and their expenses? If all the study's participants were brought together for the study who would pay for their expenses for a period of weeks or months? How could they abandon their occupations and families for that extended period of time? And what about footpads? Would the zapper makers who sell footpads, such as The Ultimate Zapper and ParaZapper, forgo the use of footpads during testing or should they require other zapper makers to use footpads during testing? How would it be possible to monitor test results using the handholds only, the footpads only and the handholds and footpads used at the same time? Who would pay for the hundreds of sets of equipment from each zapper maker and the hundreds of oscilloscopes that would be necessary to conduct the study?

That's just for starters. The next set of problems is even greater in complexity. The only truly accurate measure for the effectiveness of each zapper with each participant would be to use each zapper according to an agreed-upon protocol with each person, then the person would have to be brought back by some miraculous process to their original state of ill-health and the process would have to be repeated with a different zapper. The reason for this methodology is that this is the only possible way to make direct comparisons between zappers because each case of zapping is very individual and depends on many factors. Each person who zaps has a unique biochemical and bio-electric profile and a unique receptivity. Mental and spiritual factors also have to be taken into consideration. They affect the aura and can play a vital role in the ability to respond to therapy. Age and general state of health are also important factors. These are never the same from one person to another. It's not like lining up a group of subjects and having them pop an aspirin if they all have the same kind of headache at the same time to see if the pill will get rid of the headache after 6 hours. In a rigorous zapper study the individual pathology "fingerprint" of each person, their individual biochemical and bio-electric backgrounds, the zapping protocol and the effectiveness of the formula of each zapper all combine to determine the outcome.

One example: The Ultimate Zapper is so powerful that a high percentage of people using it need only one minute of zapping to get the desired results. How can you compare this to other zappers? Do you make everyone zap for 7 minutes no matter what zapper they are being tested with and when someone feels unwell with The Ultimate Zapper because of they are detoxifying too quickly (die-off) an observer concludes that The Ultimate Zapper has a defect and is injuring people? Or do you make all zapper makers zap at only one minute which is insufficient time for the vast majority of zappers to show any meaningful results? Who develops the criteria that will be used for the study? Who makes the judgments? How could one ever create a level playing field and uniform criteria agreed upon by all zapper makers? I believe it is clear that the challenges posed by a zapper study militate against a practical study being undertaken. The zapper studies done by Dr. Clark were not comparative studies. They were done with her zapper only, in her clinic, and the results were reported empirically and anecdotally with no apparent uniform standards and no apparent rigorous methodology. This is evident when reading the material she has published.

One example: If a 57-year-old female had 15 years of exposure to pesticides from living downwind from an agricultural area, is in a weakened state of health and had to quit working 2 years previously, has 6 mercury fillings (known in the dental business as "silver amalgams"), a history of candida and gastro-intestinal pain in the area of the ileosecal valve, experiencing some visual irregularities and peripheral numbness in the toes, has multiple food allergies and chemical sensitivities, how could you possibly duplicate the individuality of this case and compare it with any other? It's impossible. If The Ultimate Zapper worked to relieve this person of the candida and abdominal pain how would you ever be able to say if another zapper would or would not have been able to accomplish the same results? Each person is like a finger print and has a unique set of problems with a unique history? Only "identical testing" would be comparative and "identical testing" is virtually impossible with zappers. Even if it were theoretically possible to find 2 people with the exact same sets of problems and the exact same history you would be able to compare only 2 zappers, using one on each person. What about the other zapper makers in the study? How would they feel about this? Who would choose which 2 zappers to use in this case? And who will pay to find these "identical" subjects. Who is going to judge that they are in fact "identical"? Who is going to organize a truly valid study with hundreds of people that will produce reliable and credible comparative results? No one has the money or the manpower in the zapper industry to take on this kind of project because it is clear that this project would cost millions of dollars to implement professionally.

The fact is that comparative testing for zappers would be impossible even if those huge financial resources were at the disposal of the zapper industry for the reasons stated above. The alternative to such a controlled study would be specification testing but specification testing tells nothing about the synergy or interaction of the various features produced by various zappers and the effect that this synergy has on creating therapeutic results for the wide variety of illnesses, conditions and complaints for which zappers are used. It is very clear that specification testing is not able to predict results. It can only measure a set of output criteria. In the end, all of this is of no consequence at all because all that matters to people who purchase zappers are results. The only thing we have to go on when it comes to looking for proof of effectiveness is the empirical data, the results that people are actually obtaining and reporting with each zapper, as reported by each zapper maker, and as reported by Dr. Hulda Clark, the inventor of the original zapper. I have no doubt that your zappers and the zappers of other makers help people. That's what zappers are designed to do. What I am saying is that I have never seen the consistently remarkable kinds of reports from any other zapper maker that The Ultimate Zapper has elicited from users over a period of 12 years [now 13 years], both in terms of the quality of the results as well as the speed of results. It is clear that The Ultimate Zapper produces superior results. There is no way anyone can deny that fact without resorting to falsification.

You can talk all you want about your opinions about The Ultimate Zapper's specifications, that 10.5 volts is the only thing you see that could make any difference; that the Super Stabilized wave makes no difference, though you have gone to the trouble to put in all of your models now, even the cheaper ones, besides it's just a placebo effect (for my zapper but not for yours, of course); that the 100% positive pulses are just a placebo effect (though I seem to remember a while back that one of your unadvertised models had a variable positive wave, which would, of course not produce a placebo effect because it was in your zapper, not mine); that the lower frequency makes no difference for my zapper (it must be another placebo effect), but you added the lower frequency to your own zappers to create the "dual frequency zapper" so that makes a positive difference for yours (no placebo effect here); that the harmonics make no difference; that the undistorted wave makes no difference and that the constant current makes no difference. You can talk all you like about how you feel the specifications of The Ultimate Zapper are unremarkable, you can pretend to be an objective observer on this forum which you most assuredly are not (you're just here to "help", how very kind of you). The fact is you are just another zapper salesman using this forum, and trying to dominate it, to promote your own zappers. It might as well be called the ParaZapper Promotion Forum. If you signed off as David Etheredge, calling this forum the David Etheredge Promotion Forum would not have the same impact, would it?

The one thing you have tried to dismiss, but are unable to do successfully without falsification, are the amazing results people have obtained with The Ultimate Zapper as reported in the unsolicited testimonials. You infer that I made up those reports, which is untrue, and in case they may be true, to your chagrin, you minimize their importance by saying they are no better than the results of any other zapper, which is clearly untrue. You have put yourself between a rock and a hard place. If you recognize that the testimonials are true then, ipso facto, you have to accept their content and then The Ultimate Zapper can't be all that bad a zapper after all, in fact it starts to look like a superior zapper when you read the testimonials.

Your lack ability to reason clearly is one of the main problems you exhibit on this forum. You have created a very big problem by opening this can of worms, not for me because word of mouth has brought thousands of customers to The Ultimate Zapper over the past 12 years [now 13 years], the vast majority of whom are very satisfied with the results, but for yourself because your credibility is obviously brought into serious question by your false inferences, your use of innuendo, your false statements and by your patronizing tone and your ever-authoritative attitude that encourages the readers of this forum to accept your opinions as fact. All this adds up to one word, manipulation.

There is no doubt you will have trouble explaining away the testimonials on my site including the unsolicited testimonials from people who have used other zappers and have found The Ultimate Zapper superior to the others. If it were a matter of me making unsubstantiated claims I would be in a difficult spot trying to defend myself. But this is clearly not the case. So, in order to make me look bad and make yourself look good you either have to find a way to minimize the importance of the testimonials on my site, or question their veracity by inferring I am a liar, which is exactly what you have done on this forum. In the testimonial archive, besides the 12 categories devoted to specific kinds of illnesses and diseases, there are 2 additional categories of testimonials. There are 19 testimonials in the archive under the category "Satisfied Customers", customers reporting they are happy with the results without specifying what specific ailments they were zapping for. And there are 20 testimonials under the heading "Well-Being". These testimonials can only be brushed aside by someone with a very big axe to grind. I cite only 3 testimonials below from the testimonial archive on my site.


Ken I just received your wonderful product yesterday. I have had another zapper for four or five years now, but one minute of zapping with yours is superior to two hours of zapping with the old zapper I had (from a different company). You truly do have a superior product.

Geoffrey Sept. 9, 2006


Hi Ken, I have now tried your zapper for some months, and I would just like to tell you that your zapper is indeed by far the most effective zapper I have tried (I have three other brands also). I would like to inquire about becoming a distributor, and would like to order three zappers with footpads and transformers (220/240 AC-110DC).

Best regards, Geir (from Norway) Nov. 24, 2006


Dear Ken,


I'm functioning and well!! I can't believe it. Have been progressively getting worse for 10 years with Epstein-Barr virus/Mono. When I ordered the [Ultimate] Zapper I was not functioning ... sleeping 12 hours, waking up exhausted, laying in the chair all day, too tired to watch TV. Have been zapping faithfully since late October and am a normal human being again. There are no words ... I have my life back. So now I would like to be a distributor ... as I have owned two successful businesses I could crank it up ... Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks again, Janice Dec. 5, 2007

David Etheredge comment 1: As for testimonials, there are many thousands of testimonials posted for the standard original Clark zapper,

Ken Presner comment 2: That may be true but if you read them closely you will find a vast difference in the results posted for the original Clark Zapper and the results obtained with The Ultimate Zapper. Furthermore, if you read the testimonials in Dr. Clark's books carefully you will find that they refer to her detoxification program, not specifically to results obtained with her zapper. There is a very big difference. In fact I comment on the testimonials Dr. Clark has published in The Cure for All Cancers on the Dr. Hulda Clark page on my site at http://zap.intergate.ca/hulda.htm Here is a quote from that page: I base my comments on the following observations: the cover of The Cure for All Cancers [by Dr. Hulda Clark] 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:

16 worse: 1
dying: 3
died: 4
opted out: 1
started treatment: 4
no change: 4
progress unclear: 2
progress made: 23

David Etheredge comment 1: ... there are many [testimonials] for most other zappers. These claims are just as strong as the ones that you post.

Ken Presner comment 2: If this were so (it is clearly not true across the very wide range of ailments covered in the testimonial archive on my site), then it amounts to a de facto admission by you of the "strong" effectiveness of The Ultimate Zapper.

David Etheredge comment 1: There are not many for PZ for one specific reason. We told our customers not to send them. We did post a few from several years back but excluded any that claimed a cure or healing.

Ken Presner comment 2: Frankly, I would never ask customers not to send in testimonials. First of all, I like to hear how people are doing. After all is said and done that is my greatest reward, knowing that I am helping people. Second of all, if I choose not to publish them at the present time that does not mean that there might not come a time in the future when I would like to publish them. It is obvious that if I don't have those testimonials I can't publish them and I can't even comment on their content, except through the veil of memory.

David Etheredge comment 1: As a final note, you complain that I dominate this forum. Yes, I am frequently the only one who answers many of the questions. If it was not for my replies, many questions would be left unanswered. I do not see you here in a helpful way at all. The only concern that you show is for your product and for your customers.

Ken Presner comment 2: As I have stated before, I am not here to help. You are trying to impose the criteria of your self-appointed role on this forum on me and I reject it. I have discussed this in an earlier posting but since you would like to bring up the subject again I will be glad to reply once again. I only post here from time to time and I only do so to respond to specific issues that concern The Ultimate Zapper and to make sure it is not misrepresented and that my site and my work are not misrepresented. I hope that people find my postings helpful but I am not here in the role of a daily "helper" as you have chosen to be on this forum. I help people from my website and my other work, not with little forum sound bites to keep my profile high. Your claim of helping people here who would otherwise not be helped is what I will politely term a slight exaggeration. It not only exaggerates your ability to help others it also exaggerates the impression that people depend on this forum for your help and the help of others in solving their problems. The assumption you build into your response is that I should be seen as a helper here, like your self-styled role here, and if I am not doing the same thing as you claim to be doing then I am not doing what I'm supposed to be doing here, which makes you look really good and makes me look not so good. This is just one more example of how you subtly manipulate people on this forum. I think only a novice will be taken in by your postings. "Better, Better, Better", the new and creative marketing approach you have chosen for your site, and "electrical engineer", will never convince people you make a better zapper. And they cannot be convinced of your credibility and the veracity of your statements once they have read what you have to say in your spurious postings about The Ultimate Zapper on this forum.

Ken Presner     http://zap.intergate.ca
(posted June, 2008)


From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1207083

Hello forum readers,

I have noted recent comments on this forum about the rules and regulations. It has been noted recently by a forum poster that I have an agenda. This is correct. My agenda is to point out that the rules and regulations are not enforced equally on the forum for all participants. You may remember that the first posting I made on this forum was to defend my zapper. It was in response to a zapper maker who made negative, argumentative and untruthful, comments about The Ultimate Zapper - "pathetic clips and cheap-looking footpads", saying that he was merely quoting another poster. I could not allow that to pass without responding and I believe that is understandable. The following questions concern only the rules and regulations on this forum. They are not introduced as an argument or a debate. They are introduced as questions with the hope that they will be clarified. I believe they deserve to be answered clearly and in a straightforward manner so that everyone on the forum can understand them. I also believe that there is no reason for this string to be deleted from the forum because these questions deal strictly with the clarification of rules and regulations which should be a matter of interest to all who read and participate in this forum. They apply to one and all.

In posing these questions I make the assumption that zapper makers are allowed to ask questions on the forum about the forum's rules and regulations. I believe this is a reasonable assumption. Here are my rules-related questions:

a) Are zapper makers allowed to advertise and promote their zappers in any way, including "plugging", on the forum?

b) Is "plugging" recognized by the forum's rules committee as a synonym for "advertising and promotion"?

c) If a zapper maker were to explicitly state that he intended to "plug" his zapper on the forum, and then followed through, what would be the response of the forum's rules and regulations committee?

d) Are zapper makers allowed to make negative comments about other zapper makers, their sites or their products on this forum?

e) If zapper makers make negative comments about other zapper makers, their sites or their products on the forum either directly or by quoting someone else who does so, is this recognized by the forum's rules and regulations committee as being "argumentative" and provocative which is a violation of the forum's rules and regulations?

f) If zapper makers make negative comments about other zapper makers, their sites or their products on the forum either directly or by quoting someone else who does so, is this recognized by the forum's rules and regulations committee as a negative form of "advertising and promotion" and as a violation of the forum's rules and regulations against any form of "advertising and promotion"?

g) If zapper makers make negative comments about other zapper makers, their sites or their products on the forum either directly or by quoting someone else who does so, is this recognized by the forum's rules and regulations committee as being "argumentative" and provocative and a violation of the rules concerning being "helpful and supportive"?

h) Are zapper makers allowed to defend their products, their sites and their name against negative, untruthful or provocative comments made about them on the forum by other zapper makers?

i) Are zapper makers allowed to say, on the forum, that their zapper can kill cancer? Is this considered "advertising and promotion"?

j) Are zapper makers allowed to use the name of their zapper or the name of their website instead of their real name, or a pseudonym, to sign off their postings in order to get around the forum's ban against promoting zappers and zapper sites on the forum? Does the forum's rules and regulations committee recognize this as a violation of the rules and regulations against using the forum in any way for the "advertising and promotion" of any zapper or any zapper site?

The Ultimate Zapper
(posted July, 2008)


From http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1210584

Hello forum readers,

The rules committee did not respond to my request for rules clarification. I don't think this is a great surprise. They refused to clarify some simple questions about the rules, responding instead with one-liners. They are very frugal and it should be clear why. The users of this forum only have the right to know the rules that the rules committee allows them to know. But they do not have the right to know all the rules because the refusal to answer simple questions about the rules indicates that there are some rules that are hidden. Hidden things are interesting, aren't they? Why is the rules committee hiding behind a wall of silence? What are they hiding? What are they afraid of? Don't tell me, let me guess, the name of the game is making it look like the game is played according to the rules when it really isn't. The name of the game is CONTROL.

Anyway, keep those zapper questions coming. As long as they're about troublesome health problems and foot pads and handholds and parasites and other everyday zapper things, no problemo. You're in the clear. But if you like to look at really interesting things, uh oh, you're in trouble, you're "arguing and debating". What's the forum's rules committee gonna do about these interesting things? Absolutely nothing. Things like the use of the forum for commercial purposes which is supposed to be against the forum's rules but really isn't, exemplified by

1. The "news announcement" of the New Pathways article by ParaZapper (an article which is a hoax, as was the "news announcement", and which I talk about in earlier postings at length).

2. The "news announcement" of #1 in zappers sales by the #1 in zapper sales, ParaZapper.

3. The stated intention by ParaZapper on this forum to "plug" his zapper here.

4. The use of the ParaZapper name, the name of a commercial website selling a product by the same name, for signing off postings instead of a non-zapper name. "Mentioning of personal websites is not allowed", I was told in an earlier posting. Really?

Signing off with the name ParaZapper is a clearly a commercial "plug", it is advertising and promotion that is openly accepted on the forum, but advertising and promotion are supposed to be against the rules. They clearly aren't. What's the rules committee gonna do about all this? Absolutely nothing. When you come on the forum you don't talk about these things, that's one of the hidden rules, and you don't ask questions about these things. Then you're in the clear. But if you do talk about them and ask questions, aaaooooowww, you just stepped on somebody's toes, boy. Now, that's against the rules!

This sure is a great forum, eh?

The Ultimate Zapper

Read about my step-by-step program for detoxification and revitalizing the immune system in My Recovery Protocol.