Re: About cancer anecdote
- From: "Peter Moran" <pmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:36:10 +1000
<awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144899214.837444.153060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter Moran wrote:
"Vakker" <Vakker@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jbZ_f.4571$P01.4293@xxxxxxxxxxx
<snip a lot>
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Not so. History shows that hardly anyone with cancer know-how isimpressed
by retrospective picking of the cherries out of cases that couldYou
number
in
the thousands, nor by being required to give full face value to
historical
material that they are unable to examine personally or double check.
are not dealing here only with the AMA or the FDA or other bete-noirsmethod.
of
American parochialism. Is even one scientist or doctor worldwide
sufficiently impressed by Revici's work to be now following it up?
Gonzales did a small prospective study of a mere eleven patients with
pancreatic cancer and there is now a 1.3 million dollar trial of his
Does that tell you anything?evidence
You unreasonable demand has lost its impact. Flesh and blood results
beat your theoretical demands every time.
Do you even have the slightest comprehension of what I mean by a
simple
planned prospective study looking for objective responses of cancer?
There is nothing theoretical about it. It simply ensures that the
is of the highest standard, that it is publishable in the best places,that
it will stand up to any examination, and so long as the good casesrates
are
occurring with sufficient frequency it allows the probability of a
true
treatment effects to be clearly demosntrated.
I will tell you why such studies are NOT done. Most of the time these
methods don't work, and the proponents don't want to reveal that.
The
hordes of dead patients are unseen, buried.
Other alternative proponents have claimed fifty per cent or more cure
with supposedly incurable cancer. Yet when you look at their trueDoes Peter Moran still say that a patient's testimony about his/her
results
you find that at least most fo the time the methods don't work. See
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Alternative_studies.htm
I suspect that if we were able to examine Revici's cases we would find
a
similar pattern - in fact that is what doctors have found when they
have
looked, according to the information I posted previously.
I think we have exhausted the subject. I am exhausted, certainly.
Peter Moran
own
health is only anecdotal therefore useless in evaluating whether a
treatment
has cured that patient? If you have 100 or 1000 such patient
testimonials
about a certain treatment's efficaciousness you will not accept it
because
it's "ONLY" anecdotal-(in which you're saying patients don't whether or
not
they've been cured) and has not been studied, tested - not according to
correct methodology though - and results printed in some pharma owned
journal?
The person coming into your office cured from lung cancer with
mets ------
you would not even pick up the phone to check out how he got cured from
the
incurable because there has not been a study done on this treatment
which
has been published in some journal which has a big conflict of interest
due
to it's being maintained solely by pharma ads and grants????
This is what you have admitted to here. You wouldn't so much as lift
your
finger to find out what happened to this patient who should be dead but
is
there alive right before your eyes. Such a fellow as you is not to be
listened to. I wouldn't want you for my Doctor.
This is a complete mischaracterisation of what I was saying, or at least
intended. Unlike many sceptics, I believe anecdotal information can
carry
considerable weight where cancer remission or cure is concerned. I
explain
why at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Showing_it_works_1.htm
There are two main problems with it.
Firstly, it can be of extremely variable quality. The lung cancer case
of
the anonymous one is of very low quality because he cannot document that
such a case ever existed.
Now you're lying. I told you before. Dr. Brenner discussed the incident
in the foreword of the books, "The Man/Doctor Who Cures Cancer." He
wrote the foreword. The fact that you failed to respond to it except to
repeat the same lie that the 1980 case was the same as the 1985 case.
It appears that at minimum it did not in the
context in which I am being asked to respond to it.
It occured exactly like I described it. I quoted his words describing
the incident directly from the foreword. To imply otherwise is a lie.
The brain tumour case is of low to medium quality because we are not
told
what surgery was done, many brain tumours are very slowly growing, and
the
story depends upon assumptions as to prognosis rather than the frank and
obvious disappearance of established cancer, as applies in high quality
anecdote.. Get my drift?
Yes, your drift is the grift of a liar. I have previously pointed out
that the tumor was identified as being "highly undifferentiated" by
Harry Zimmerman, M.D. and as a "virulent neoplasm" by another one of
Fishbein's doctors.
These are also opinions, being relayed to me at third or fourth hand by via
persons with their own unknown biases. If this is going to now be an
"argument from authority" I can point to the countless thousands of doctors
and scientists, undoubtedly of equal eminence, who remain unconvinced by
such cases even when presented by Brenner, and even after going and looking
at Revici's cases at his clinic
Let me show you something ---
http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html
Five cases are mentioned here in Brenner's address to the OTA. One is the
inoperable lung cancer patient treated by radiotherapy. That has been
shown, even in palliative doses, to produce at least a 1% long term
survival. Brenner may not have been aware of that. That case can be
largely discounted because dozens of such cases have been reported..
The histories of the other four patients are rather skimpy, but it appears
that in none of them was shown to have frank cancer disappearing.
Perhaps Brenner left out some information, but I am damned sure that if he
had any cases where frank demonstrable cancer was there at the time Revici
first started his treatment and it then disappeared he would have produced
them and spelt it out in no uncertain terms.
This is why these cases are anecdotal evidence of at best medium quality.
The ovarian cancer case is probably the best quality one but we are not
specifically advised whether she had any other treatment than Revici. The
skimpy information available regarding these cases makes them rather low
quality in terms of this discussion.
If someone can *really* cure cancer they should be able to demonstrate it
going away. This should be easy to do in most cases with modern technology.
You MUST begin to expect that kind of evidence from any claiming to have a
major cancer treatment.
Otherwise assumptions being made as to prognosis that are not capable of
sustaining sustain such weighty conclusions as that incurable cancer is
being cured.
I know this is all very frustrating for you, but there was no need to accuse
me of lying. There is stuff you don't know.. For example the bladder
cancer case may have been advised to have a total cystectomy because of the
development of multiple papillomata which had been repeatedly burnt off.
Something, even the Revici treatment may have stopped further papillomata
developing, but that is not the same thing as curing incurable cancer.
Does this help explain why I am reserving judgement?
The remainder of this is an attack on my person and yet more appeals to
authority.
Peter Moran
www.cancerwatcher.com
Revici was told it that his life expectancy was 2 to 4 months.
Do you even know who Harry Zimmerman, M.D., was?? He was a renowned
pathologist who was considered to be the father of neuropathology. Dr.
Wisoff, the neurosurgeon took out part of Fishbein's brain, but could
not remove all of the tumor without killing him.
But you keep lying about this...by saying these were low to medium
quality cases.
Most (but not all) patient testimonial is of very low quality, usually
because of obviously false assumptions as to prognosis or what it was
that
produced any beneficial effects.
Dr. Brenner, a Diplomate of Radiology who spent his entire career
treating cancer patients reviewed the CT scans, he reviewed the biopsy
reports, he called the pathologists to verify the biopsy reports.
Do you not yet understand the difference between a patient testimonial
(something described by a patient) and a case report (something offered by a
practitioner)?
Dr. Brenner became thoroughly convinced after that to write the
following, "As a Diplomate of Radiology, I have reviewed MANY CASES of
incurable cancer that Dr. Revici has cured. [capitalization added]
He also wrote: "The cases I reviewed at Dr. Revici's office were not
misdiagnosed. In my opinion, it's unlikely that the positive outcomes I
reviewed were the result of multiple spontaneous remissions."
It is obscene how you have lied and tried to diminish this.
If you cannot see that, it simply
reflects your lack of knowledge about cancer, its normal range of
behaviours
and its response to different treatments. Again I give examples on my web
site.
Yeah, Dr. Brenner's lack of knowledge about cancer...ROFL!!...his
offices saw well over 100 cancer patients every day. Why would anyone
look at your website after you've demonstrated your repeated false
statements?
The second difficulty is knowing how much significance to apply to small
numbers of anecdote, even if of good quality (which they invariably
aren't),
Repeating the same lie doesn't strengthen you case.
You don't have one doctor anywhere in the world using chemo and/or
radiation that has two cases of advanced cancers like I've presented
that ended up going into remission.
Brenner wrote that he'd seen, "many cases of incurable cancer that Dr.
Revici has cured." If you can't locate one doctor worldwide with two
cases, then the number "two" becomes a significant number.
Then why wasn;t
when drawn from a population of hundreds or thousands.
Then you should have no problem finding some doctor somewhere who has
two cases.
This is where
simple, even primitive, planned prospective studies (not elaborate
controlled trials) can make the very same cases carry far more weight.
Nope. Revici tried that. In 1965, the result was a huge fraud committed
against him published in JAMA.
So the ONLY way to defend against this type of travesty is to have the
patients walk into a highly respected cancer doctor's office and show
them how they are cancer free. This happened on many occasions. Dr.
Brenner was the latest hero who decided to do something about it.
They will be better documented and followed up and we may also by this
means
get to know that the treatment works at a *measurable rate*, not so
rarely
as to raise questions as to whether it played any role at all in the good
outcome. Cancer is mostly predictable, but not completely predictable.
That is all I am saying.
If that's the case, you should have NO TROUBLE finding a doctor on this
globe who has two such cases. But you don't...so much for your
'predictability' argument.
And of course 100 or 1000 reports *of good quality* would never be
ignored.
That is a ridiculous thing to say. In fact, on my web site I issue a
challenge for anyone to produce even two or three cases of
well-documented
cancer remission with certain types of cancer,
This is another one of your lies. You say "well documented" but when a
doctor of Brenner's stature presents cases or you learn about Dr.
Fishbein's case, you classify them as "low to medium." Your credibility
is in the toilet.
with the promise that they
will be taken seriously (spread the word about). So far no takers. I
wonder why? I also explain there why one case might spark some interest,
but not a lot on its own.
Who would waste their time with a liar on the liar's website??
I have listened to your viewpoint. Now try to understand mine better.
Look at my web site.
Why-oh-why haven't you responded to the fact that the first so-called
"spontaneous remission," on that pdf file you touted, took fish oil and
vegetable capsules....fish oil capsules!! You sure shoot your claim in
the foot by presenting that file.
After reading your latest response, with its many falsehoods, please
understand why visiting your website is not on my list of things to do.
.
- References:
- About cancer anecdote
- From: Peter Moran
- Re: About cancer anecdote
- From: awthrawthr
- About cancer anecdote
- Prev by Date: Re: Peter Moran admits he's never had it happen to him
- Next by Date: Re: About cancer anecdote
- Previous by thread: Re: About cancer anecdote
- Next by thread: Re: About cancer anecdote
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
