I have not found any consensus. My opinion is that pulsed DC is not as
fast-acting as straight DC. The reason being that the current is
switched off half the time, and on half the time. The effects on HIV
were experimentally determined to be based on the level of current
times the time the current is "on". That is a virus, of course. Other
things may be different. So far, DC seems to behave that way with
bacteria and to a lesser extent, fungus.

The effects of AC square wave may be somewhere inbetween the two. Its
current is on "most" of the time, but is going in opposite directions
in a balance of 50-50. What this does is not established in terms of
time vs the effects. From our experiment with Hep-c, a person used
such a Beck device for 1 year, an hour a day. His count remained
steady at 2 million RNA strand per CC. On using the godzilla DC
device, the count dropped 99.3% in 15 weeks without changing anything
(no drugs taken in either period, etc, everything the same). The count
dropped from 2.2 million to 14.3 thousand. This was dramatic and
convincing. I had to conclude that AC square wave 4 hertz might
be "undoing" the effects of the DC current by reversing and nullifying
these effects as soon as they were created, leaving a "net charge zero"
on many of these microbes. But, it's only a hypothesis. Something has
to explain the vast difference in outcomes, and it can't be just time
or intensity.

bG

--- In microelectricitygermkiller2@yahoogroups.com, "martin7730"
<martin7730@y...> wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me what the general concensus on whether the use of
> pulsed frequencies specific to what you are trying to treat is better
> then using DC current for five minutes alternating polarity like the
> Godzilla.
>
> John
>