Re: Empirical tests of Hulda Clark's Zapper


Researcher wrote:

> Again and again and again... No scientific data, no scientific
> approach... ONLY SHOOTING IN THE DARK. Always the same fake
> arguments...
>
> Which damage. With each time that a subject can become interesting for
> the whole world, it always wedged brain there to repeat the same
> sentences continuously, and without never being wearied.
>
> But real facts continue to show :
> I still do not know if the zapper of Hulda Clark modified something on
> the level of the diabetes of my mother... But she had had for a few
> months a bump on an arm and a doctor intended it for a surgical
> operation.
> Since one week that she zaps, the bump decreased... I point out the
> facts, in one week:
> 1- She was zapping irregularly (not 3x7 minutes, spaced by 20min)
> 2- The following day, she was tired the whole day
> 3- The third day (or maybe before but she did not told us) : A moving
> pain in the right of her body, then left, then next to the heart...
> 4- The fourth day (or around) : She starts to zap normally (3x7min,
> spaced by 20min)
> 5- The moving pain was nearly entirely gone; She zaps every morning
> (3x7)
> 6- Now the pain is entirely gone
> 7- The bump on her arm is decreasing slowly
>
> ... UNTIL NOW, ONLY POSITIVE EFFECTS ... GOOD DOCTORS SHOULD SAY THAT
> IT IS A COOL THING... BUT HERE DOCTORS WILL SAY IT IS DANGEROUS ...
> BIZARRE, DON'T YOU THINK ? I DON'T KNOW BUT... WE'LL SEE...

Do you reallly think that giving us a blow-by-blow account of the
progression of a bump on your Mum's arm is a scientific approach?!

>
>
> In any event she continues her official drugs and continuous to see
> doctors allopathic and homeopathic for the follow-up, it is important

Well, yes. It also makes risible your assumption that the fraud Hulda
Clark's device is responsible for anything that has happened to your
mother . Wittering on about the scientific approach while claiming that
your sample of n=1 (with that sample also taking other medication)
recovering from a "bump on her arm" is evidence that Clark's magic
zapper works is about as far from a scientific approach as you can get.

Claiming "POSITIVE EFFECTS" simply makes you look foolish, since no-one
will ever know whether the, er, bump, would have gone spontaneously or
was affected by some other factor in her life.

That's why there are medical trials with large populations, and
allowances made for confounding factors. Something Hulda Clark has
failed ever to carry out.

Wonder why.

Anyway, please don't presume to lecture others about the scientific
approach until you can demonstrate a basic understanding of it.

Cathy

PS I'd be interested to know why you're not demanding that Clark
produce any scientific data to back up her frauds, something she has
notably failed to do.

>
>
>
> Tim Campbell a écrit :
>
> > Mark Probert wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Of those I have spoken with who have tried the Zapper far more than 50%
> > > > report positive results; the majority do.
> > >
> > > That is because they believed that the gizmo would do something.
> >
> >
> > I'm still waiting for you to present the evidence that the placebo
> > effect is repeatedly demonstrable.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading