History of the PTD®
Health Tech Sciences, HTS, the developer of the PTD® supported the technology in establishing over 140 clinics in Scandinavia. Two biofeedback devices providing health restoration patterns were used therapeutically and with success.
The PTD® development process started from client requests to make treatment more easily accessible for a way to deal with the need to regular treatments more conveniently (w/o using another person) for a way to be able to treat an issue when needed (rather than wait for an appointment) to be effective (and have provable effects by accredited assessment devices) to support natural processes rather than intervene based upon the benefits of clinic device therapy and an understanding of the multitude of health insults to have a quality build, lightweight, portable user friendly, suitable for all ages, shareable, avoiding skin contact Pre-programmed with basic proven frequencies, user adaptable for other frequencies, durations, combinations.
| Date | Process |
| 2004 | Assessment of existing devices Theoretical reviews- existing knowledge & current technology |
| 2005-2006 | Experimental validation(frequencies, waveform, field strength, program sequence) |
| 2005-2007 | Prototype design/manufacture Prototype testing |
| Nov 2007 | Beta testing preproduction samples |
| Jan 2008 | First production batch (100 units) Batch Beta testing |
| Dec 2008 | Second Production Batch (900 units) |
| July 2010 | Sales to date 600 units Start of worldwide market release |
The Stages
A review of the application area of existing devices was undertaken including Pathogen Zappers, Lenyo and Deta general therapy systems devices, the Scenar/InterX. Whilst some of these were of good quality and effective they were deficient in one or more areas: they were specific e.g. Zappers for pathogens or they required a second person to use it or the build quality was poor (they failure rate was high) or they did not produce good results in clinical assessment using EIS Introspect/Oberon devices or from client feedback. or they did not mirror the successful professional devices in activity range.
Stage 2 was to develop a “wish list” which included: to work with the natural body processes, to support rather than forces them and avoid direct medical intervention philosophy comprehensive range of programs program suites that incorporated not only the issue but also major accompaniments facilities that allowed for incorporation of additional elements facility for user to program frequencies effective programs only using best available technology to create an effective device size, portability user friendliness quality manufacture.
Stage 3 was to review the available frequencies, waveforms and review their corroborated use. (There are many frequencies discussed and many do not have solid validation).
Stage 4 was to review the available methods and delivery methods, to achieve penetration to where the signal was needed but avoiding the necessity for skin contact. This led to the principle of an electromagnetic pattern, a well established delivery method.
Stage 5 was to build a prototype to tests and refine the principles. This was effectively a frequency generator system with a magnetic output amplifier. The EIS and Introspect devices were used for this evaluation. First frequencies were evaluated and then selected ones revalidated. Refinements, reflected in the PTD patent were to combine Low and High Frequencies first as separate emissions and then as an integrally combined pattern. This provided a significant improvement in treatment effectiveness over just low frequencies.
Stage 6 was to find a competent manufacturer for a prototype device and for subsequent manufacturer. A company very experienced in military technology electronics with a development team and the necessary ISO quality assurance programs.
Stage 7 evaluated the prototype including the programming aspects and user friendliness.
Stage 8 was to release devices for live subject beta testing.