Which Devices Produce Free Radicals?Science has proven that direct current through the body produces free radicals.*
So which type devices produce direct current in the body?
3 Types Of Electromedicine Devices That Were Tested-
DC Electrifier, Beck style Microbe Electrifier, Clark Zapper (+12v peak, 30,000Hz)
3 Types of voltage output waveforms-
The DC Electrifier outputs pure DC (direct current). The Clark Zapper outputs switched DC. The Microbe Electrifier outputs AC (alternating current, positive and negative voltage waves).
Here's my test set-up to show the differences between these devices as far as the average amount of directional current that is received. The voltmeter was set on DC volts across a 1000 ohm resistor in series with the output of each device going to the wrists. This will show the average amount of voltage drop across the resistor which will be zero if the average direct current is zero. A perfect AC output will cause zero direct current. The calculated amount of average direct current from each device is determined by dividing the volts that the meter shows by 1000 (the resistor value). Ideally a Microbe Electrifier would show zero if the positive volt times were exactly equal to the negative volt times but due to manufacturing tolerances in the electronic components there is always a slight imbalance. Any way in this test the Clark Zapper shows 705 times the amount of average direct current that the Microbe Electrifier shows, and the DC Electrifier shows 16 times that of the Clark Zapper. This is important because direct current in the body creates free radicals which can damage human cells. Science has proven that. The maker of Thundervolt has claimed that its high frequency of 30,000 hertz (cycles per second) is too high to cause directional current but this 30,000 hertz Clark Zapper I tested has disproven his claim.
Here's the readout with the DC Electrifier. 2.237 volts across 1000 ohms equals 2.237 milliamps. It can easily output 50% more current (to 3 milliamps) using water soaked cotton electrodes. These sticky electrodes have too much resistance to current flow for the DC Electrifier.
Here's the Clark Zapper setup. This Zapper creates 141mv across a 1000 ohm resistor for a final current of .14mA (.14 milliamp). The direct current would be less than this for an old style Clark Zapper that output a peak of 5 volts. This ones peak is 12 volts.
Here's the readout with the Microbe Electrifier which is about as close to zero direct current as is possible. That is why Beck chose to design his device to output AC instead of DC because he knew from experience that DC was bad for the blood. The voltage readout is .2mv whichs means .0002mA with this setup.
Validation from my experience: Back when I had the viral form of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome I first tried the classic Clark Zapper and all it did was made me feel worse, probably by creating more free radicals in my body. Then I tried the Beck blood electrifier and was free of the virus after 90 hours of treatment over 2 months.
Many years later I investigated pure direct current treatment, not realizing that I had already done so with the Clark Zapper since both pure and switched DC have the same effects. Beck never offered any evidence or scientific studies proving that DC blood electrification was bad and so I wanted to verify for myself that what he said was true. I thought DC would be a cheap solution in poor coutries and so I made a DC blood electrifier and used it an hour every day. After about a month I went downtown and then upon returning became extremely sick as if my blood had turned toxic. It was so bad I started giving instructions to my workers there in case I died. I eventually recovered but I learned the hard way that Beck was right when he said that direct current wrecks the blood.
So applying it to wrist electrodes over arteries was a definite no-no. But later I found scientific studies showing that DC was effective against localized infections. By that term I mean an infection in one spot of the body, not a bacteria or virus circulating in the blood. So for example if you got tetanus from stepping on a rusty nail you could apply direct current to the infected area and the current would kill the bacteria there. It would do it by creating free radicals and by changing the PH which can kill microbes when too far off from the normal body PH. So DC has its place in the electromedicine arsenal. As you can see the direct current from my DC Electrifier is at least 16 times as powerful as the DC from a high powered Clark Zapper. So a Clark Zapper produces harmful free radicals but often not enough to completely kill localized infections. And its frequency therapy has never been scientifically proven. I've had dozens of people tell me they failed to get results with different new style Clark Zappers. It's a failure with frequency therapy (as are Rife machines) and it's too weak as a DC Electrifier. And it is producing free radicals in your body which you only want when the elecrodes are on both sides of an infected area but most people don't use Zappers that way. If you have a systemic infection then you need the Microbe Electrifier. If you have a localized infection then you need the DC Electrifier or the combo Microbe Electrifier / DC Electrifier.
Examples of localized infections: gastritis, hepatitis, kidney infection, bladder infection, sinus infection, toenail fungus, foot fungus, infected tooth, fungal lung infection, apendicitis
* scientific validation that direct current produces free radicals:
“Sperm subjected to direct electric stimulation in vitro exhibited a significant twofold decrease in percent motility and percent viability.
These studies indicate that in vitro and in vivo electrical stimulation generate reactive oxygen species and affect SOD activity, which in part are responsible for decreased sperm motion and viability.” [“reactive oxygen species” is a type of free radical. reference]
Notice that report is talking about direct current. Clark Zappers and similar units output direct current switched on and off at the output frequency.
Free Radicals in Chemistry and Biology by Milan Lazar
Electrolytic Generation of Free Radicals
"At the heterolytic dissociation of the molecule two ions are formed with opposite charges. If a direct electric current passes through the system, anions move towards the positive electrode-anode, whereas cations move to the negative electrode-cathode. At the anode, anions are oxidized so that they transmit the electron to the electrode and are transformed to radicals. At the cathode, cations accept the electrons and are reduced to radicals. Electrolysis of potassium acetate in water is one of the best-known electrode reactions. Acetate anions are oxidized there to acetoxy radicals.”