Yet more cancer disucssion

Getting impossible to find old conversations. Why does this list attract so
much irrelevant material?

<awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145147086.701152.213540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Peter Moran wrote:
<awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145071484.483432.170810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-snipped for space



We also have two quite incompatible viewpoints, with someone (me)
prepared
to look at good quality *contemporary* cases of remission of proven
cancer
of any kind (not just advanced), so long as they are ones that he can
check
up on personally.

Again, the photos on the dust jacket.

But I am not prepared to give full face value to cases
I cannot check, especially those diagnosed and staged by the vastly
inferior
standards that applied half a century ago.

Gee, that provides you with a handy escape clause, doesn't it! A
helluva lot of people died from cancer in 1965...about 1,000 people a
day in the US. They even did biopsies 'way' back then.

Well, it so happens I was already in surgical training back then so I am
very familiar with what diagnosing cancer was like. I have already noted
that Brenner (like his contemporary Gerson) appears to have assumed some
patients had progressive cancer on clinical grounds, without offering any
documentation of that fact. For obvious reasons.. He did not have
access
to CT scans or MRI etc.

It's probably somewhat confusing because we've jumped back and forth.
Brenner did his follow-ups beginning in 1985 rather than 1965. Brenner
did have access to CT scan reports, MRI's, etc. And he was board
certified in radiation oncology. His other board certification was in
diagnosis or something like that...I just don't recall what it was
called.

The quote regarding bones growing back was from Dr. Burns and was in
1955.

So even though there may have been biopsy-proven cancer at some stage of
these person's illnesses I am sure that many of the cases will fail to
produce conclusive evidence that cancer later disappeared while on
Revici's
treatment.

That's flat out ridiculous. It's as if you think prior to CT scans, you
can't prove that someone is in remission. If that were the case, there
would have been no reason to publish any attempt to cure cancer prior
to the invention of CT scans.

This constant moving of the goal posts is interesting to observe.

What moving of the bar? This is entirely consistent with my definition of
what constitutes good quality anecdotal evidence as described on my web site
long before you ever started posting

http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Showing_it_works_1.htm

Brenner does not mention having CT scans and MRIs in the patients he
describes to the OTA. He merely implies that they had advanced cancer and
says that they were well later. I have said before that this makes them
low to medium quality anecdotal material -- remember?


Pleas allow me to make an observation at this point. When I was a
little kid, I wanted a pony. Maybe you did too. But I never got the
pony, and I realized as I got a little older that I had to let it go.
It wasn't meant to be, though.

Your desire for a prospective study of Revici's work is one of your
'ponies.' As much as you might want that pony, you aren't going to get
it. It wasn't meant to be.

Why not? Is no one at all using the Revici method? If not, why not, if
the results were so convincing to the doctors you mention below? It is
very rare for any alternative method to completely die out, even those
methods that don't seem to work at all or that are quite silly.

None of that matters. Nor does ANY assault from conventional medicine.
In fact, in the someone twisted logic of alternative medicine that is
absolute proof that they are excellent cancer treatments and doctors are
simply protecting their turf. Even conventional studies showing they
don't work has little effect.

So why would Revici not still be being used? And so long as someone is
using it then a simple prospective phase ll study is possible.

Thank goodness there were physicians with expertise, such as Burns,
Maislin, Brenner, Falk and Fishbein who looked into it and determined
that Revici's Method was more effective than chemo, radiation, and
surgery.

If Lyall hadn't lied in JAMA, you would have had your pony. I'm sorry.

See above.

snip>
Dr. Brenner already did that. After you've seen the dust jacket photos
and reply to the photos and its impact on the Lyall's JAMA report, we
can see what the next step will be.

I'd be interested, but can you not scan it and send it by email? Do
you
also have a biopsy report and some history, especially as to whether
other
treatments were used? What kind of cancer is it?

I wish I could scan it, but I don't have that capability.

I don't have the biopsy report for that patient, but she was biopsied.
Her lymph cancer was seen in her tear duct and spread to the top of her
head.

She didn't have any other treatment that I know of. Also, the tumor was
gradually reduced over a period of 16 months, during which time her
only treatment was Revici's treatment. It took several months before
much shrinkage took place...and shrank more rapidly only in the lattter
months.

You'll see that in the final photo, there is only a pimple-sized lesion
remaining. The original matasteses was about two to two-and-a-half
inches across.

The sole protocol for the study's success was tumor shrinkage. This
example is one of several where tumor shrinkage was accomplished, but
Lyall said there weren't any.

I will look, but without a biopsy and further history I don't see how I can
reach any firm conclusions, especially on just the one case. If it is a low
grade lymphoma there is an especially high incidence of spontaneous
remission. These are often temporary, so that it would be desirable to
also know how the patient was some years later.

I will send you an address. Do you also have Lyall's paper? Or a
reference for it? I do find exploring such old material interesting.

Peter Moran


To get the dustjacket photos, you can email me at
awthrawthr-AT-yahoo-DOT-com with an address that works for you.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "...when you see the x-rays of bones eaten away by cancer and then returning to normal...
    ... helluva lot of people died from cancer in 1965...about 1,000 people a ... Brenner did his follow-ups beginning in 1985 rather than 1965. ... good cases, but not enough to constitute proof that his treatment works, ... I don't have the biopsy report for that patient, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Greedy Doctors
    ... finding "noteworthy cases of survival" among cancer patients using the ... Hoxsey herbal treatment. ... The face of cancer treatment may soon become almost ... alternative-medicine movement in American history. ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Re: Cancer "curers" miss out again
    ... Chemotherapy is one of three main treatment protocols of conventional medicine, one which millions of people worldwide have been put through. ... Lately, a recent study in Britain has raised serious questions about chemotherapy, in particular the role it plays in hastening and even causing the death of late-stage cancer sufferers. ... The study had been carried out by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Deaths in Britain, whose members are mostly taken from British medical royal colleges. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Hippocratic Oath
    ... finding "noteworthy cases of survival" among cancer patients using the ... Hoxsey herbal treatment. ... The face of cancer treatment may soon become almost ... alternative-medicine movement in American history. ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
  • Re: Greedy Doctors
    ... finding "noteworthy cases of survival" among cancer patients using the ... Hoxsey herbal treatment. ... The face of cancer treatment may soon become almost ... alternative-medicine movement in American history. ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)