Almost everyone who uses or has used zappers is amazed at how well they work with fighting some Viral infections such as colds and flu yet it is hard to understand why zappers do not appear to be as effective with some other viral illnesses such as HPV, HEP-c, Hep-B, and HIV. The difference is mostly in the speed of replication of the Virus as well as the period of activity.

Colds and flu usually come on quickly in waves and generally only last a few days or possibly a couple of weeks in extreme cases.

The problem with using a zapper with HIV,HEP-C, HEP-B, HSV, or similar viral infections is that most of these tend to be slower progressing and also tend to persist over longer periods of time. It is mostly a matter of the dynamics of the viral infection and this varies between different types of virus.

Once a virus has invaded cells and has hijacked the biological pathways for replication to make new virus, the virus is normally produced continuously around the clock, some being produced at a faster rate and others being slower. There is a period of latency where the virus is busy reprogramming the cellular functions to build the various parts that are needed to build new virus. A zapper can only work when it is on and producing an electrical output and when the virus is outside of the cell. When the zapper is operational, it is the varying electrical field ( LVPEF ) that contracts and expands the external structure of the bacteria, protozoa, virus, or other microbes. It is the rigidity of the microbial structure that causes it to fracture and break apart under the influence of the electrical vibration. For the same reasons, cells of higher organisms are not damaged by the LVPEF due to the higher flexibility of the cell membranes.

When the frequency is removed and there is not any further electrical vibration the virus is free to move about, find a suitable receptor site on a cell, invade the new cell, and start a new process of replication. Additional new virus particles are then being produced and this creates additional spread of infection.

The continuous application of frequency 24 hours a day, 7 days a week over a long period of time might theoretically disrupt new infection, destroying all ( or most ) of the released virus particles. The problem here is that there is a slight variation in the virus produced over time so that some of the new virus might be resistant to the frequency that is being applied unless there are several different frequencies applied. This is where multi-frequency zappers succeed and a regular zapper fails. A zapper that destroys the slightly different virus in addition to the most common forms will be more likely to succeed in stopping the spread of the virus and thereby reducing the extent of the illness. Viral disease such as HIV are well known to have significant variability which is a big part of why single frequency zappers just do not work as well.

Alternately, antiviral drugs have been shown in rare cases to stop this replication of virus by blocking metabolic pathways but this is not shown to be as effective in many cases. In some cases, these metabolic inhibitors will slow the progress of the disease by reducing the viral load through slowing down the production of new viral particles.

In the case of the AIDS virus ( HIV ), the determination of AIDS is based on the viral load being high ( above a certain level ) and also a significant reduction of T4 cells. T4 cells are part of the immune system and develop from stem cells in the bone marrow but are matured in the thymus where they are taught or trained to respond to specific stimuli or antigens. When the T4 cells are measured or counted, a normal reading is 500 to 1500 cells per cubic millimeter. The HIV virus is  detrimental to the survival  of CD4 cells and as the viral load increases, the CD4 cells are destroyed and the count drops. When the number of CD4 cells drops below 200 per cubic mm, the patient is defined and having developed AIDS. The absence of sufficient CD4 cells reduces the ability of the immune system to fight infections. ARVs are given to reduce the viral load and hopefully help the immune system to recover.

In one study, the researchers found that "Median CD4 count increased from 270 cells/mm3 pre-ART to an estimated 556 at three years and 532 cells/mm3 at seven years after starting ART in analyses ignoring treatment discontinuations; and to 570 and 640 cells/mm3, respectively, had all patients continued ART. However, even had ART been continued, an estimated 25%, 9%, 3% and 2% of patients with pre-treatment CD4 counts of ≤ 200, 201–350, 351–500, and >500 cells/mm3 would have had CD4 counts ≤350 cells/mm3 after seven years".  From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018341/  The number of CD4 cells continues to decrease over time despite the use of ARV's.

In other words, ART does not always provide a solution to low CD4 or T4 counts. As this is the main cause of immunity loss, it should be considered to be critical. More about this later.

The real concern about ART and ARV is that, as previously stated, these are metabolic pathway inhibitors and these metabolic pathways are not just for the virus. They are used by the body to maintain proper metabolism and cellular health. Blocking these metabolic pathways can lead to other unwanted problems such as cellular aging or loss of certain functionality that may lead in other ways to a reduction of lifespan.

Simply put there is a trade-off for these ARVs and ART and for some it is not entirely effective. However, there is an unapproved therapy that can be combined with these ARV therapies to produce not only a increased number of ND viral load cases in a group but also a notable increase in CD4 / T4 counts according to a one person study. A one person study is not sufficient to consider as either proof or scientific basis but is certainly a basis for considering additional investigation.

Often when relying on ARVs alone, the viral load will become low ( below 200 ) but not completely non-detectable. Some zapper users will use their multi-frequency zapper for several hours a day. Several have reported dropping their viral load to ND ( below 20  ) this way. I believe that it is better to use the zapper evenly spaced throughout the day rather than one continuous period of 12 hours.

You can test your self fairly simply. Before starting to zap, get a baseline test after using ARVs for a month or so. Then zap every day for a week at the same times of day. At the end of this period, have another viral load done and see what the difference is. Note that getting the viral load is not particularly reliable so it is possible for it to appear to increase or decrease on any day. I would venture to say that if zapping an hour every 2 hours, the viral load should certainly decrease. If you get a second test, you may have to pay out of pocket.

Below is a illustration of what one user provided me as their results from using alternately, the CC2, CC3, and the UZI-3 and HHO treatments as well.

Date      CD4 cells   viral load     Zapper used
11/2017   453        undetectable  Parazapper UZI-3
01/2018              undetectable  Parazapper UZI-3
03/2018              undetectable  Parazapper UZI-3
05/2018   549        undetectable  Parazapper UZI-3
09/2018              undetectable  Parazapper UZI-3
Note: Temporarily switched to non-pedestal offset zapper. CC2   It appears that both positive offset and pedestal offset ( UZI-3 ) have the best effect.
12/2018   526        28             Using mainly just HHO here
12/2019   516    
01/2020               undetectable
05/2020   619         43            Using mainly just HHO here
06/2020               undetectable
12/2020   541         28            Using mainly just HHO here
04/2021               85            hardly using the zapper and mostly just HHO, went back to UZI3 

Note: More proof the ParaZapper works.  I decided to try only using the HHO machine and not use the ParaZapper. Guess what?  The viral load went up to 85.

08/2021   413         undetectable  (even when taking large quantities of Activated Charcoal,  which was absorbing most of the HIV medicines.
01/2022   429         100           Using the Parazapper CC3, output 9 volts vs 10.6 volts

Note: I'm using the UZI3 now.  I did stop using after I was undetectable 5 times in a row, to see if the HHO was working against the virus.  
Note: It seems that only the Parazapper works against HIV.
 

04/2022  584         Undetectable again - UZI-3 works That doctor is probably freaking out.  She said she would be super surprised if this test result was great.
 

Note: I did 8 Hiv tests with the UZI3c and all were undetectable. So, it appears that the voltage boost to 10.6 volts and the pedestal offset, PLUS the other features are all needed to get the best results.
04/2023   645         55   UZI-3 not working partially due to broken battery wires.

The problem here is that this is the test results of only one person. Any one who does testing like this, please let me know by email how your results are, regardless of what zapper you use. A good database of this information could be helpful to many people.

You can further see that it is the combination of the higher voltage ( 10.6 volts ) and the Pedestal offset that gave the user "undetectable results" in this case. The UZI-3 has a special booster circuit in addition to pedestal offset and current control. These combine for optimum performance.

Stimulate your Thymus to Produce More T-cells

Antiviral Drug Warning

Cellect-Budwig advanced cancer protocol

Budwig Protocol

The error of Biopsy 

Is the zapper a cancer cure?