Re: "...when you see the x-rays of bones eaten away by cancer and then returning to normal...
- From: awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 14 Apr 2006 06:59:11 -0700
Peter Moran wrote:
<awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144982881.170318.95630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter Moran wrote:
<awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144906105.092608.11610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Whether you are a medical or a non-medical person, when you hear the
stories of these cases, when you see the x-rays of bones eaten away by
cancer and then returning to normal, how can one but believe? I hope we
can get more medical people to see the light and put this treatment
into practice." Louis E. Burns, M.D. 1955
The occasion of those remarks was the presentation of 18 advanced
cancer patients whose diseases were reversed.
There is not a doctor in the US or in the world who by relying on
radiation, chemo or surgery that has achieved this type of success in
the year 2006 or in their lifetime of practice.
Not even Steph, "J" or Moran have achieved anything close to the
results presented in 1955. Nor do they know anyone who has done so. Nor
is there a single published paper of any doctor who has done so.
Therefore, the treatment used makes it superior to the treatment used
by all those other doctors.
Here is a typical case as it was presented to guests and reporters:
Francis had developed cancer of the tongue in 1942. No surgery, chemo
or radiation was performed. With treatment, the tumor gradually
disappeared. Thirteen years later the lesion had not reapeared.
Here's another: Robbie was diagnosed with Hodgkins disease in 1947.
Revici: We asked several pathologists to review the microscopic slides
in order to see what their diagnosis would be, in view of the unusual
evolution in this case after treatment. It was entirely confirmed by
everyone as typical Hodgkin's disease. Now there is no trace of the
disease."
Yet another: After surgery in January of 1950 for his stomach cancer,
Irving lost 36 pounds. Narcotics were ineffective in relieving the
pain. Irving was admitted to various hospitals, but was discharged from
each with a diagnosis of terminal cancer. The metasteses has spread to
the lung and liver.
With lipid treatments his pain was relieved. Five years later the lung
involvement is gone based on serial x-rays. The patient regained 55
pounds. The patient continues to take his drops.
One more: In 1951, Mae was found to have cancer in her bowel, uterus,
liver and throughout her abdomen. The tumor was not removed, except for
a biopsy. With lipid treatment, Mae was entirely relieved of her pain.
The large abdominal tumor disappeared.
Dr. Burns commented, "I am convinced that no other method has offered
as much medically. Whether you are a medical or a non-medical person,
when you hear the stories of these cases, when you see the x-rays of
bones eaten away by cancer and then returning to normal, how can one
but believe? I hope we can get more medical people to see the light and
put this treatment into practice."
Yet another case presented on the same night (each patient appeared as
well.): In March of 1952, Dennis came to the Institute with cancer of
the stomach. The back wall of the pancreas was involved with a rapidly
growing mass, with glands near the liver, and along the aorta. He
experienced nausea, vomiting, cachexia, and abdominal pain.Again, only
a biopsy was performed.
Lipid therapy commenced, He progressed excellently, his symptoms
relieved, he gained back the 50 pounds he had lost, and returned to his
job for more than two years as a construction foreman.
Dr. Burns had looked into patients of Revici's prior to that night's
events at the request of a Mr. Van Alen. In a letter to Van Alen, he
wrote in part, "[I] find it beyond my wildest expectations....His
results are amazing...What a happy group of patients, too."
Each and every one of the 18 patients were biopsied.
At the event, Dr. Leonard Goldman, a radiation oncologist, noted,
"There is almost no spontaneous disappearance of cancer. I cannot
recall any case where there was a spontaneous disappearance of a tumor,
and have seen about 10,000 cancer patients. There is always a reason
for a tumor disappearing. They don't disappear spontaneously. There
must be some chemical change that accounts for it."
More than fifty years later, Peter Moran...who has admitted that he's
never seen a lung with bone mets case go into remission...wants a
prospective study.
Yes indeed. The art of diagnosis and follow-up of cancer has been
transformed in the last fifty years. We as a result now know that some
kinds of cancer undergo spontaneous remission quite often, and that
staging
errors and errors in histological diagnosis can contribute to faulty
assumptions of cancer cure.
We're waiting for you to show us where ADVANCED cancer goes into
remission quite often. The last time you tried with a handful of
cases...out of the millions of cancer patients who have died...we found
out the first 'spontaneous remission' patient was ingesting fish oil
and vegetable capsules! Spontaneous remission my foot!
But you were too tired at the time to read all the the other cases, and you
have apparently not looked at my site where instances of from 6-30% rates of
remission of certain types of cancer are described. A more common
misleading influence than spontaneous remission in many types of cancer may
well be faulty diagnosis, staging, or simply the extremes of cancer
behaviour. Did you read emough of my site to find where 7% of patients
having palliative (i.e. assumed incomplete) operations for bowel cancer were
still alive five and ten years later? Or were you too busy then?
I've looked at the other cases in the pdf file. In most cases there is
no evidence that the patients were even ASKED if they had used any
natural treatments. In one case, the patient used meditation and his
tumor did not grow for seven months, before he got scared and had
surgery. In another the patient forced himself to eat and to perform
heavy labor....in other words, he did things that altered his
metabolism.
All in all, you've provided a worthless report on a handful of
so-called 'spontaneous remissions."
Accepting lesser standards of evidence has simply multiplied the claims
without producing certainty about a single one.
Each patient was biopsied...all 18 of them.
You say this, but it was not stated in the case histories.
It was stated in the report itself that ALL 18 patients had been
biopsied.
Was the tongue
cancer biopsied? I don't see a pathology report and I am not obliged going
to accept this case without one, and certainly not from someone trying to
push Revici's barrow as hard as you are.. This was at a time when
tuberculosis and syphillis would have been occasional causes of tongue
lesions. Can you also explain to me anatomically how the "back wall of the
pancreas was involved with a rapidly growing mass" in a case of stomach
cancer? And what were the rest of these eighteen cases? Only a few are
listed.
All 18 are described in "The Man Who Cures Cancer." You can find used
copies at Amazon.com
This might be good data, but how are we ever to know?
How about using the brain God gave you, and recognize that the types of
terminal cases Revici cured over and over again demonstrate the
effectiveness of the method?
How many do you suppose
were erroneous? Dr. Louis Burns was blown away by the results. But then
he was there, and you weren't, which might explain why he was wrong,
and you are right.
Which approach serves the
needs of cancer sufferers better? It is ridiculous to keep trying to
validate something with weak anecdotal and historical material when that
has
never worked in the past.
And you know they were "weak anecdotal" cases because you have the
advantage of not being there.
All that is involved in prospective study of a cancer trreatment is that
the
practitioner selects out those patient who would make a good test of his
treatment, i.e. those with a measurable cancer state, for special
study.
He makes sure each case is well-documented and using no other recent
treatment of known effectiveness. He follows them up well. He
publishes
the results *whatever they show*.
This was done in 1963-4.
No it wasn't. A prospective study would include those patients entered into
the study where the treatment failed, so that we can end up with some idea
how often the treatment works. That is critical to any decision that the
specific treatment was the likely source of any good outcomes and nothing
else.
The 1963-64 study was a prospective study. it is the one Lyall lied
about in 1965.
And then David Lyall wrote a fraudulent report
in the Journal of the American Medical Association that was published
October 18, 1965. Forty years later that fraudulent study continues to
be the favorite reason that researchers and physicians use for
rejecting the value of Revici's Method.
How do YOU know it was fraudulent.
(A) I've seen photographs of externally exposed tumors that
disappeared.
(B) I've seen medical reports of patient progress.
(C) Dr. Fishbein was an eyewitness to Lyall's antics because he was
helping Dr. Revici during that time period. He was so disgusted, he
wrote his own report of what Lyall was doing.
(D) I have seen some of the the bar bills from the International Press
Club where Lyall held his meeting with the other "Co-authors" who never
saw a single patient.
(E) I've seen the protocol for what was supposed to be measured in the
patient population of terminal and other advanced cancer patients. (It
was expected that most of the patients would probably die due to the
advanced condition of the patients.) The only criteria was tumor
shrinkage. Lyall reported instead on patient mortality. And then he
lied about the tumor shrinkage, and he lied about the number of
patients in the study in order to avoid five of the patients who were
cured, and the disappearance of visible tumors!
Criminal fraud.
The reason that Lyall was assigned was due to the previous scurrilous
mentions of Revici in JAMA previously...the idea was to have a third
party do it so that the results would be believed. And then Lyall flat
out lied about the results.
Elsewhere, Rose has provided an excellent description of the MANY ways
the so-called study is used to mislead and come up with negative
results. With Revici, Lyall went one better and lied about the actual
outcomes.
So you can take your stinking prospective study crap and set fire to
it. Revici's patients stand on their own without the rope-a-dope
prospective study garbage.
Good attitude, I don't think. . Leaves cancer patients with exactly same
the take it or leave it "this is what I will let you know" attitude that the
alternative cancer industry has been offering cancer sufferers for the last
fifty years.
Ironically it was the Lyall/JAMA attitude of "this is what I will let
you know" that has poisoned the well. JAMA and the peer review industry
CANNOT be trusted. Period. Over and over again they have jimmied
studies to produce false outcomes. They did it with fake laetrile, and
many others, most recently using glucosamine Hydrochoride instead of
the sulfate form in an arthritis GAIT study published in NJM.
This is what the cancer patient wants.
No they don't. They want to be cured.
Yes, but they want to know what to choose out of some dozens of methods
with the same claims as Revici.
Let them choose. The problem in the US is that the medical profession
crushes doctors who try to choose for themselves.
They know, deep down, that there
is something not quite right with being required to choose treatments on
the
basis of testimonial and other rather rare accounts of success. They
want
to know what *usually* happens to patients who use each method.
Which is exactly what happened that night when 18 advanced patients
were presented with 17 appearing in person and with their cases
discussed.
There could have been many more longterm cures if Revici hadn't left
Mexico and France (due to WWII.)
Producing
that information unfortunately goes against the self-interest of those
involved in the alternative cancer industry.
Horse puckey. It is your side that does everything it can to smear,
destroy and prejudice the medical community against the likes of Revici
and others.
I don't talk to the medical community. I am trying to get people to think
differently about how someone with a useful cancer treatment should go about
validating it. Using testimonial and uncheckable case reports (i.e.
marketing tools) as an industry standard of evidence has clearly failed to
separate any useful treatments from the dross.
You might not talk ot the medical Community, but JAMA sure does,
hundreds of thousands of them each week.
Peter Moran
You admit never seeing the type of patient that walked into Dr.
Brenner's office. You never saw the 18 advanced cancers presented back
in 1955. Which makes you an expert on declaring they were weak cases.
You're an outsider to the facts. God forbid you pick up the phone to
find out more.
.Meanwhile, between ten and 25 million cancer
patients have died in the US alone while Moran waits...without picking
up the phone.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- "...when you see the x-rays of bones eaten away by cancer and then returning to normal...
- From: awthrawthr
- Re: "...when you see the x-rays of bones eaten away by cancer and then returning to normal...
- From: Peter Moran
- Re: "...when you see the x-rays of bones eaten away by cancer and then returning to normal...
- From: awthrawthr
- Re: "...when you see the x-rays of bones eaten away by cancer and then returning to normal...
- From: Peter Moran
- "...when you see the x-rays of bones eaten away by cancer and then returning to normal...
- Prev by Date: Question for Dr. Moran
- Next by Date: Re: Russel L Blaylock MD
- Previous by thread: Re: "...when you see the x-rays of bones eaten away by cancer and then returning to normal...
- Next by thread: Re: "...when you see the x-rays of bones eaten away by cancer and then returning to normal...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
