Appliances with better internal protection were not damaged.
Apparently a few with protection compromised by 'how transient found
earth ground' were damaged. Far more appliances survived even without
surge protectors. Leythos did 'selective data sampling' to ignore
those unprotected and undamaged appliances. For his conclusion to be
accurate, those other undamaged appliances must have 'invisible'
protectors. But then this has been posted to Leyhos tens of times. I
don't expect Leythos to acknowledge any of this. This post again
demonstrated how junk science recommends plug-in protectors.

Leythos claims protectors did what they don't even claim to do. Wild
speculation is not based in junior high school science principles.
Leythos observed something, ignored other undamaged appliances, and
then made a classic junk science decree. Based upon Leythos
conclusion, we have just proved the existence of 'invisible'
protectors.

Simple answer and it requires no electrical knowledge: either
'invisible' protectors have been discovered , or Leythos has
performed classic junk science reasoning using 'selective data
sampling'. Leythos insists those plug-in protectors performed what
even numerical specifications do not claim. Leythos demonstrates why
some recommend ineffective protection for that DSL modem. Some just
know - using observation, 'selective data sampling', and 'invisible'
protectors. Using junk science, anything becomes simple. Reality
requires more than a soundbyte. Protection requires earth ground.

Leythos wrote:
It's simple w_tom, it's not junk science, as it's factual, it's
repeatable, it's easy to see the results. So, now explain why two of the
same device (actually more than two in most cases) one protected and one
not protected, why the protected devices don't get damaged when there is
damage to the unprotected devices.

I await your simple answer.