Re: Yet more cancer disucssion


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

Peter, Here's a friendly tip...with google you can click on the blank
star next to the subject line to record the thread as a favorite. Then
the next time you visit, you can click on the yellow star and it will
pull up all of your 'starred' threads.

To remove a thread from your favorites, just click on the yellow star
and it will be removed automatically.

If you're not using google, they might also have a way to keep track of
your favorites.

PS. YOUR ADDRESS ARRIVED. I'll go to the post office Tuesday. No
telling how long it'll take to get to the upsidedown part of the world.
;-)

<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?

And do you remember that I told you they only give the speakers 5
minutes to speak... and cut them off at 5:01? Those events such as the
OTA are basically for show...to make it look like the government is
doing something.

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.

The Revici Method is still being used, but that's despite continued
efforts to put it out of business by the medical board.

Doctors take great risk to implement treatments like Revici's.

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.

That's because the conventional studies have been shown time and again
to be deeply flawed...in the Lyall case, not just flawed but criminally
fraudulent.

You don't seem to grasp how the idea of conducting a prospective study
gets laughed at, when the previous experience was so obviously
'cooked.' Time and again, the foes of Revici have spread lies and
deception about his work and results. This was done by JAMA three
times, the American Cancer Society at least three times, and the state
of New York at least twice.

Do you know the expression: "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice,
shame on me." Your side has lost all credibility...it simply isn't
trustworthy.

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.

Answered above.

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.

N one connected with Revici would ever allow themselves to be abused
like they have been abused repeatedly by the folks with all the
publicity weapons to destroy their reputation once again.

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.

By looking at the photos you will see a tumor going away. It is the
same series of photos that Lyall had acess to. It's clear that Lyall
lied through his teeth when he saw those photos yet claimed there was
no tumor shrinkage in any patient. He wrote it three times.

The photo are of only one patient. There were other photos with similar
improvement. Another series shows a tumor protruding from the patient's
rectum. (I wisely chose not to put that one on the cover.) The tumor
rapidly shrinks and disapears.

While I don't expect you to conclude from one series of photos that
Revici's treatment was effective, you can see that Lyall's two page
report was bogus.

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.

It was the October 18, 1965 issue of JAMA (or Journal of the American
Medical Assocation as it was called then), Vol. 194 No. 3 pp.165-166.

It's a scurrilous little piece. Lyall's treatment is nothing like what
is done in most studies. It's an embarassment, really...how it ever
made it through the peer review process is simply a mystery...but it
accomplished its intended mission...to create for all time a written
dismissal of the Revici Method in a leading peer review journal.

Furthermore, Lyall even spends the first part of the attack piece
discussing Revici's national origin, as if that had anything to do with
the study at hand whatsoever. (Readers at that time...a different time
in the US... were likely to read between the lines that Revici was a
non-German Jew, since he is described as being a Rumanian, and left
France in 1941. In any case, the mere mention of his birthplace had
nothing to do with the study.)

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: Cancer therapy based on anatomical location may soon be obsolete
    ... they saw that whether the tumor was, for instance, a breast tumor, lung ... standard anticancer drug. ... Their findings suggest that traditional cancer treatments -- which have ... Treatment choice would be determined by how each patient's tumor ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • Re: Yet more cancer disucssion
    ... absolute proof that they are excellent cancer treatments and doctors are ... after the extravagant claims and treating thousands of patients.. ... who used the treatment had zero incidents of 7th day bleeding. ... By looking at the photos you will see a tumor going away. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Yet more cancer disucssion
    ... the photos on the dust jacket. ... helluva lot of people died from cancer in 1965...about 1,000 people ... She didn't have any other treatment that I know of. ... The sole protocol for the study's success was tumor shrinkage. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: On The Top Ten List Of Things...
    ... use for a cancer drug currently used on a different type of tumor. ... My sister is in Denver and has an agressive breast cancer. ... She is on a chemo treatment that MDAnderson was trialing... ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: "...when you see the x-rays of bones eaten away by cancer and then returning to normal...
    ... cancer patients whose diseases were reversed. ... the treatment used makes it superior to the treatment used ... With treatment, the tumor gradually ... Dr. Burns had looked into patients of Revici's prior to that night's ...
    (misc.health.alternative)