Re: The cancer discussion continues
- From: awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 10 Apr 2006 21:36:13 -0700
Peter Moran wrote:
<awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144674944.267538.241950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Firstly, I only have your word for it that such a case exists. You have
produced no source material for it.
You can find Dr. Brenner's statement and description of the patient in
the foreword to the book "The Man Who Cures Cancer." I've already
excerpted his comments in earlier either in this thread or the other
one in the other newsgroup.
Brenner, to whom you refer constantly
as your source of information and your sole authority doesn't mention
such
a case in his talk to the OTA, which I find very telling if it is such a
spectacular case as you want to make it here.
It's a spectacular case because you yourself admit that you've never
seen one COMBINED with the fact that Brenner had never seen one
previously either.
It's also spectacular because you can't find me a doctor who has seen
one either.
Secondly, it would be very surprising if such cases don't exist. My not
having seen one and Brenner not having seen one proves nothing at all.
Then put up or shut up. Find me a doctor you know who has seen one.
Certainly cases of lung cancer with metastases have been reported as
undergoing spontaneous remission. See
http://www.noetic.org/research/sr/files/chapter3.pdf .
I don't have time to read every case, but did you notice that the very
first example was a patient who took halibut capsules for an extended
period? And some vegetable tablets?
It sure is a co-inky-dink that his choice was a catabolic lipid and
some catabolic tablets. How amazing is that...Revici used catabolic
lipids too! And what happened...my oh my yet another 'spontaneous'
remission!
But much more common than spontaneous remissions are other reasons why
cancer "sometimes doesn't behave as expected". Faulty staging is
common,
due to misinterpretation of radiological findings. We have already
mentioned the occasional unusually good response to palliative
treatments,
such as palliative radiotherapy for inoperable lung cancer (another study
found 61 such cases). The histological diagnosis can be wrong, or the
wrong kind of cancer diagnosed, changing everything.
And you think I am wacky.
Yes, your logic is wacky when you say advanced cancers behave in an
unexpected manner when the one thing that never happens is its complete
remission.
By th way did you notice that the number of so-called spontaneous
remissons grew from one in 1960 to 25 in 1990? Natural cures became
more popular during that time period. Another co-inky-dink, I'm sure.
Let's see. For nearly a century now we have had
alternative supporters like yourself giving those with dubious cancer
cures
the benefit of the doubt.
Brenner didn't give them the benefit of the doubt. Nor did Dr. Falk.
They checked it out. You know...biospy reports...before and after CT
scans...that sort of thing.
Instead of pushing the claimants to produce cured
cases in convincing numbers and of reasonable quality in the orthodox
way,
the tactic has been to whinge and whine about the doctors.
Who is whining?? Dr. Brenner did what any curious doctor might do.
How many cancer cures has this validated? Yes, exactly none,
Brenner validated quite a few. Revici validated more in his book.
Last night Dr. Robert E. Fishbein, M.D., called me on the phone. He was
the Yale medical school grad who developed an undifferentiated brain
tumor at the age of 29. His prognosis was 2 to 4 months. That was in
December of 1962. Dr. Harry Zimmerman, the recognized as 'the father of
neuropathology', interpreted his biopsy.
For 43 years, Fishbein is yet another example of the unheard of
remission.
even while
more and more quacks, villains and the hopelessly deluded have been
encouraged to enter the alternative cancer marketplace. It is so easy to
do
so and there is an instant band of supporters and defenders for you.
Now,
that's wacky.
You won't look, so you don't see. Brenner looked, and he saw. Falk
looked, and he saw. Fishbein looked, and he lived.
PM What do you want from me? I have several times pointed out that one case
means very little.
Yes, you've answered the question: unlike Dr. Brenner you would not
have picked up the phone to find out more. I think it is helpful for
people to see your thought processes expressed. As you'll point out
below, you place more faith in studies than you do in extraordinary
case studies.
Sir Alexander Fleming saw only one petry dish with mold and noticed
that bacteria wouldn't grow near it. That single example pushed Fleming
to check it out. Not every scientist would have taken it to the next
step.
Even a handful of cases arising out of a practice that
must have treated thousands of cases can mean little, because of the
variables I have mentioned.
Revici had more terminal patients cured than every doctor in the US
combined. That stat might be "little" in your mind. It is not little in
the minds of other doctors who took the next step.
The most that would arise out of a few impressive cases would be the advice
to the claimant to perform a small *prospective* (planned) study on
well-documented patients as I suggest below and on my web site.
Here we see again your preference for a prospective study in order to
convince you. That is not going to happen...no prospective study is
going to be done.
In this case your hurdle is unecessary. Because the existence of many
cured patients who were incurable approaches odds that exceed any
calculator's capacity.
We doctors
are looking for a practical treatment that can be used in routine patient
care, not some complicated or arduous routine that might work once in a
blue moon and that apparently never even reached a stable format in the case
of Revici..
That description of Revici's treatment method is a canard. It typically
arises from a 'negotiation' where the two parties could not agree on
what would constitute a study. The other party wanted to limit the
treatment to a test of drugs when Revici insisted that it was the
Method that was important.
The other party didn't want to allow switching the medication whe it
was indicated by the daily analysis. and they wanted to limit the
number of medications to a number that was inadequate.
Revici's method required the option to change the prescriptions based
on the daily analysis of urine pH, surface tension etc. The analysis
was the key...if the patient's metabolism changed but the medication
was left unchanged, it would impact the patient negatively.
Anyone, and I do mean *anyone*, who treats cancer will accumulate a few
impressive cases over time.
That is of course nonsense...at least not impressive in the way that
Revici's cases were impressive.
This is precisely why there are about sixty
different alternative cancer "cures" extant, some of them completely
implausible and some offering quite conflicting advice.
This is also why
when the very same methods come to be tested in proper trials, as many now
have, they are found not to work noticeably. Revici seems to fit the
usual pattern, according to some material I quote below.
This is another reason why there will be no prospective study of
Revici...besides the fact that he is dead.
The 1965 JAMA study was a fraud on the same order as the recent Korean
clone fraud. It was completely fraudulent.
I am not here saying that none of these methods ever work. What I am trying
to do is to .hammer into some very thick skulls some idea as to how to show
that a cancer cure works. Everyone must stop accepting second-rate data,
even if desperate cancer patients may often be driven to do so by their sad
plight. Do this, put the onus back on the claimants, and the number of
quacks and frauds exploiting the desperate would halve overnight.
No the onus isn't on the claimant. Revici's record has been examined
numerous times by physicians. They were in awe of what they found.
Biopsy proof. Before and after CT scans. Patients who lived long
periods of time without evidence of any cancer. For Chrissakes, Dr.
Fishbein called my last night! He has outlived his undifferentiated
brain cancer by 43 years...Does that mean anything to you?
The optimal method of study is a prospective (not controlled) case series
similar to the phase l and ll studies performed in conventional oncology.
These should be within the capacity of anyone with enough nous and medical
knowledge to determine if they have a useful treatment in the first place.
I describe what is needed and why on my web site.
Another view of Revici from
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Revicis_Guided_Chemotherapy.asp?sitearea=ETO
Quote==
The American Cancer Society is not a reliable source. They relied on
snake oil quacks like Victor Herbert for their information to smear
Revici.
While some of Revici's ideas may still hold promise (for example, the use of
selenium to prevent or treat cancer
Ha! Promise!! They had to say that because of the study on selenium
published in JAMA.
and the use of lipid compounds to help
deliver chemotherapy more effectively),
Isn't it something how Revici keeps coming up with discoveries that get
accepted decades AFTER he came up with them. Attach that "promising
selenium" to a lipid compound...pure genius!
And isn't it amazing how Dr. John Clements 'discovered' lipoprotein
surfactants and the application of surface tension and won the Lasker
Award for it. How did Clements come up with that one? Easy. Gustave
Freeman, M.D., suggested the Revici idea of surface tension to
Clements. Clements told Freeman he credited Freeman for giving him the
idea. Freeman got it from Revici when he worked with him in the late
1940's.
And then there's the Nobel Prize to Bengt Samuelson (1983). Revici's
trienically conjugated fatty acids idea go back to at least 1950.
most of the cases he treated were
not well documented.
This is nonsense and goes back to Revici's stay in Mexico when the
records were in Spanish. The English records were not as complete as
the Spanish records.
In his 1961 book, Revici listed a large number of case
histories of patients he claimed had their cancers shrink or disappear
completely. Some of his patients also testified at a congressional hearing
in New York that Revici's treatment put their cancer in remission.
The only published clinical study of Revici's guided chemotherapy appeared
in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1965. It was done by a
group of 9 doctors known as the Clinical Appraisal Group. They studied 33
cancer patients referred to Revici for treatment after conventional therapy
failed. Twenty-two of the patients died of cancer while on Revici's therapy,
8 showed no improvement, and the remaining 3 showed signs of cancer
progression. The group concluded that Revici's method was without value.
Revici countered that the original protocol he had agreed to had not been
followed.
A complete fraud. Only Lyall and one other doctor saw the patients. The
meetings to 'discuss' the cases were held at the International Press
Club. The liquor bill for those meetings were substantial, between 3
and 7 alcoholic drinks per person.
The report itself was fraudulent in claiming that no patient saw
benefit either microscopically or macroscopically. Do not rely on the
Lyall Report...it is a criminally fraudulent piece of trash. Dr.
Fishbein assisted Dr. Revici during the trial, and noticed Lyall's
unprofessional behavior, including scaring patients and trying to
convince them to drop out of the trial. He also observed numerous
ethical breaches.
Studies of Revici's chemotherapy are hampered by the fact that each
formulation is different. A number of scientists who have offered to
evaluate his methods were not able to reach agreement with Revici about a
study protocol.
This goes back to what I mentioned above.
However, in 1945, a group of American doctors studied Revici's
treatment methods in Mexico and found no positive evidence to support their
value in treating cancer.
More doctors disagreed with the letter in JAMA, and wrote JAMA about
it. But JAMA refused to print it. The notorious Morris Fishbein
admitted that was the case in a speech he gave in April 1964 to the
International College of Surgeons Hall of Fame. It was printed in the
Winter 1965 edition of "Perspectives in Biology and Medicine."
In 1988, the American Cancer Society requested
that Revici provide documentation of his work, but never received a reply.
That's because the American Cancer Society is not a body to be
trusted...they have screwed over Revici several times.
They like to say that his records are incomplete, yet they had a copy
of his book with photographic x-ray proof of a remission in a breast
cancer patient with bone mets to 11 bones. The ACS is a joke, a cruel
joke.
Despite all that, doctors who saw his patients and saw the CT scans and
the biopsies have come away totally impressed.
You can ask for prospective studies until you are blue in the
face...but everyone understands the Brenner story. They understand the
Fishbein story. And the effect is quite simple.
You unreasonable demand has lost its impact. Flesh and blood results
beat your theoretical demands every time.
End quote
Peter Moran
www.cancerwatcher.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The cancer discussion continues
- From: Peter Moran
- Re: The cancer discussion continues
- From: Rich
- Re: The cancer discussion continues
- References:
- The cancer discussion continues
- From: Peter Moran
- The cancer discussion continues
- Prev by Date: Re: Double question.
- Next by Date: Re: Double question.
- Previous by thread: The cancer discussion continues
- Next by thread: Re: The cancer discussion continues
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
