Re: A good question - why not use Revici?
- From: "Peter Moran" <pmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:38:10 +1000
<awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145062563.468379.104290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter Moran wrote:
"Max C." <maxc246@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145047366.013286.151460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
First, I want to make it clear that I am not familiar with the
specifics of Revici's methods. I just took a quick peek at the general
description at http://www.cancure.org/revici_life_science_center.htm
But here's my question. Whether you believe Revici's methods helped
cure his patients or not, what do you have to lose by trying them? So
you up the fatty acids of the patient? What's that going to hurt? You
administer selenium. From what I can find, you have to give some
pretty high doses to start getting side effects. And if you're NOT
giving doses high enough to see side effects, it's a great way to rid
the body of any possible mercury floating around. You make "dietary
changes." I don't know the specifics on this one, but if the patient
is already fighting cancer, what's that going to hurt?
It just seems to me that, on the face of it, this system is safe. Why
fight it as though it's a proven failure? Why not learn the specifics
of it and apply them to a few patients to see what happens? Nothing I
just wrote about would cause negative side effects. It seems to me the
worst thing that could happen is that the cancer doesn't go away. What
do you have to lose?
Max.
Great question!!! There is actually nothing to stop patients trying
this,
and I think most oncologists these days would not try to discourage them,
in
the realisation that many or most are going to try various alternative
methods anyway.
There are several other important issues, which are largely outside the
perspective of the individual cancer patient.
One is about the science of it - how can you know when a cancer
treatment
works, and what does it mean when we have extravagant claims regarding
dozens of alternative cancer treatments, but when we come to test them
they
don't work noticeably? This has applied with oral vitamin C, shark
cartilage, Laetrile, and many others. Clearly those promoting
alternative
cancer treatments need to be held to a higher standard of evidence than
the
often appallingly weak patient testimonial, or the cherry picking a few
unusual cases out of very large numbers where the method just did not
work.
That is marketing, not science. That is my main message.
Secondly, tolerance of inferior standards of scientific behaviour is
clearly fostering fraud and deceptive marketing practices. It is too
easy
to rustle up a few testimonials that will impress the laity. Patients
may
not be done any physical harm but they can waste a lot of precious time
and
exhaust family resources in pursuing crap methods.
Thirdly, most cancer patients still accept conventional methods and don't
rely on alternatives to any great degree. They deserve reassurance that
they are probably not missing out on much -- that it is possible to
calmly
and rationally look at the evidence for alternative methods and to show
quite clearly that the claims being made for them are at least grossly
exaggerated.
But there is often a little uncertainty. How should the medical
profession
react to that? I have addressed this question on my web site -----
"As an aside, cancer sufferers might reasonably ask: "why be so strict
with
the evidence, when many of us are mortally ill? Why not use anything
that
might help?" Part of the answer is that once one method was accepted on
dubious evidence, it would be impossible to resist all the others. They
can all marshal about the same levels of public support and anecdote.
The
mainstream would soon be encumbered with the same frustrating
uncertainties
and toss-a-coin choices that afflict the alternative scene. Cancer
sufferers would be justifiably clamouring for often expensive and complex
regimes. No health care system could cope.
Note a regrettable clash of perspectives. The cancer sufferer can afford
to give alternatives considerable benefit of the doubt, when acting at
their
own expense and risk.. Doctors, on the other hand, must be reasonably
sure
something works before endorsing it for routine medical care. "
First, you've said something we can agree on.
There is even case law in the US at the appeals level where the court
ruled that the patient has the right to pick which type of treatment he
wants. This is true whether the practitioner is a physician or not.
It's called "Assumption of Risk."
I would feel more comfortable about this if there was also some system in
place to document what happens to such patients. Cancer sufferers
desperately need such feedback. Alternative sources are heavily slanted
towards aggrandising anything that looks like it could be a success, but
quietly burying or explaining away the many failures. Those taking
advantage of such legislation are not making free choices unless they are
privy to ALL the information relevant to their options, and the true
success/failure rates of alternatives are a closely guarded secret (for
what I believe are fairly obvious reasons).
For example, suppose a woman thinks she may have early breast cancer. She
can be cured permanently of this in, say, conservatively, at least fifty
per cent of cases, depending on the details, with surgery alone. What are
her cure prospects if she keeps the cancer and decides to use alternatives
instead?
No one can tell her this. Why? I think it is near zero. So you may
understand why surgeons and oncologists may not meet such legislation with
enthusiasm. We will have yet more cases where we have to try and clean up
the mess later on, when chances of cure have dramatically declined. A
series of about six such cases was recently presented by Australian
oncologists at one of their meetings.
Yes, there are certainly many cases where it will not matter either way in
terms of survival, although usually conventional medicine has the edge when
it comes to palliative care. Alternative medicine may sometimes be more
nurturing, but has no monopoly on that.
The patient should be allowed, according to the court, to assume the
risk of their treatment choices.
The problem with the US, and I suspect in Australia and Europe, is that
the government and medical societies try to establish a monopoly on
medical treatment. There are laws that forbid diagnosing and treating
patients without a medical license.
For very sound reasons, I might add. Fully qualified doctors make enough
mistakes. I shudder to think what happens when anyone can hang up a
shingle.. We may yet find out, and repeat the history that led to the
restrictions that you find oppressive being introduced in the first place.
Politicians don't care and in general know nothing about medicine.
By analogy, if I want to buy a car, I can choose between a Chevy and a
Rolls-Royce. But in medicine, the medical community says that we can
only buy Rolls-Royces or the practitioner loses his license, goes to
jail, etc.
Some people prefer to use only FDA-approved drugs. But those of us who
prefer natural cures should not be punished by the government for it by
jailing our doctor of choice. Nor should the practioner be punished for
it either. This is where assumption of risk is involved. The patient
should be allowed to sign a paper that says the patient takes
responsibility of his health choices, without the government conducting
raids.
There is a federal bill called the "Access to Medical Treatment Act"
that allows patients to use natural cures prescribed by doctors...the
patient signs an assumption of risk agreement. At least six states
already have laws like this.
The FDA and doctors could continue to promote their perceived
advantages...but let the consumer decide. If the patints want chemo and
radiation, they can choose that. If they want herbs and oils, they can
choose that, knowing that they are taking a 'risk'.
I would feel confident that the Revici Method would spread, slowly at
first, but more rapidly as word spread from cured patients.
With an equal playing field, the best methods would gain while the onesthat people didn't care for would wither.
That has never applied so far with the alternative treatments of cancer.
Name one treatment that has ever been wholly discarded. I have been
watching for some years now, and the most popular methods are clearly
dictated by fashion and "keeping up with the Jones's", or sometimes by the
results of conventional research (e.g. Artemisinin, flavonoids ) rather
than anything else. Don't doubt that I would be delighted if better
treatments did surface from within alternative medicine. I might have egg
on my face if it is one that I have discounted, but I will wear that.
Peter Moran
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A good question - why not use Revici?
- From: vernon
- Re: A good question - why not use Revici?
- References:
- A good question - why not use Revici?
- From: Peter Moran
- Re: A good question - why not use Revici?
- From: awthrawthr
- A good question - why not use Revici?
- Prev by Date: Re: A good question - why not use Revici?
- Next by Date: Free e book on Back Pain
- Previous by thread: Re: A good question - why not use Revici?
- Next by thread: Re: A good question - why not use Revici?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
