I had never seen that theory before. I guess the questions is, does that theory support the facts, which are:
If you increase the Beck device to 30 KHZ it does not work. If you make the Clark zapper use a bipolar rather than a unipolar wave, it does not work. At this time I do not see any reason why they would not work if you do that with that theory, but could be missing something. Marshall "Jonathan B. Britten" wrote: > Hi, Marshall, > > Good questions. My understanding, as a layman relying on a variety > of sources, was based on a different theory of the mechanism of > action. One theory, supposedly based on dark field microscopy of > live blood, is that the Beck device and other blood electrification > methods work by improving the efficacy of white blood cells. The > related hypothesis is that these cells (macrophages I believe) work > not just by devouring the pathogens, in a Pac Man sort of attack, but > by first electrocuting the invaders! I think this concept derived > from the work of Gaston Naessens. > > I do not know which theory is correct. You know a lot about the DNA > theory, which I do not know well. > > Perhaps other list members have ideas. > > My own experiences leave me with no reason to favor one hypothesis > over the other at the moment. > > JBB > > On Monday, Oct 27, 2003, at 23:21 Asia/Tokyo, Marshall Dudley wrote: > > > "Jonathan B. Britten" wrote: > > > >> Hi, Richard, > >> > >> Soon SOTA will support only the Beck Pulser. They will drop the > >> Clarke > >> Zapper. > >> > >> You have gotten one of the last Clarke Zappers to be sold by SOTA. > >> They now offer a second device for half price if you buy one. > >> > >> They sell both Beck and Clarke devices at present. Your device is a > >> Clarke Zapper, which is not related to Beck's protocol. It puts out > >> 12 volts as opposed to 31 volts. Both devices use 9 volt batteries. > > > > Everyone I know uses the Clark Zapper in place of the Beck device when > > doing > > the beck protocol, and have had very good success with it. > > > >> > >> > >> I am glad if the Clarke Zapper works for you. > >> > >> I think the Beck Pulser (blood electrification) protocol is more > >> plausible, but I have no direct experience with either device. I > >> use > >> a TENS device (Omron) to experiment with blood electrification. > >> > > > > Why do you say it is more plausible? As far as I can tell they work > > exactly > > the same way. > > > > They both do the same thing: > > > > 1. Send a fast rise time pulse of current through the body. > > 2. This fast rise time pulse causes the dna of pathogens to ring at > > their > > resonance, causing them to break apart. (This is like a lightning bolt > > causing static on a AM radio. The radio picks up across all > > frequencies > > since they are in the fourier transform of the pulse). > > 3. The pulse does not break apart the human dna because there is so > > much of > > it, there is insufficient power at the resonant frequency of human dna > > to > > affect it. > > 4. There is an electric field to cause the dna to pull apart once it is > > broken. This can be in the form of an average electric field in the > > Clark > > zapper, or by using a pulse width of milliseconds for the Beck Device. > > Without the field, the dna repairs itself with no lasting damage. > > > > Now the Beck device switches 100 times a second if I remember right > > and has > > no offset. The leading edge breaks apart the dna and the the long > > pulse > > provides the field to pull the dna apart sufficiently so it cannot > > recombine. > > > > The Clark device pulses 30,000 times a second. If the pulses had an > > average > > value of 0, that is if they were bipolar, then the dna would split > > apart, > > then recombine, accomplishing nothing. But the pulse is unipolar (and > > thus > > has a 4.5 volt average value), which provides the electric field to > > pull the > > dna fragments apart. > > > > Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. > > > > Clark Zapper > > Advantages, 30,000 hits a second for more shaking of the dna and more > > pumping > > of the resonance. > > It does not cause the blood cells to open causing the potential for > > poisoning > > with toxins in the body > > > > Disadvantages > > Discrete frequencies in the fourier are every 30,000 hertz, which may > > fall > > outside of a pathogen's resonance sufficiently to not couple well > > > > Beck device > > Advantages - Discrete frequencies are every 100 cycles, so you are > > always > > within 50 htz of a resonance for better coupling. > > > > Disadvantages - frequency is so low that there is little likelihood of > > resonance pumping, that is one pulse does not add to the ringing from > > the > > previous pulse. > > Causes blood electrophoriation (sp? not in my dictionary). > > > > So I am wondering, on what basis you you base your statement on that > > the Beck > > device is more plausible? > > > > Marshall > > > > > > -- > > The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal > > silver. > > > > Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org > > > > To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com > > > > Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com> > >
