Re: Yet more cancer disucssion

[snip]

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.

No. They are routinely *alleged* to be flawed by the protagonists, who are
obviously not going to quietly admit that their methods don't work, not
after the extravagant claims and treating thousands of patients..

In the US, there have been five published results of the Revici Method.
Four were positive and appeared in Angiology and in Otolaryngology in
the early 1950's (by Dr. Bernard Welt). The Angiology study
demonstrated how one of Revici's treatments followed 600 consecutive
patients to see if the medicine stopped severe spontaneous bleeding in
cancer patients. (Dec. 1953)

18 bleeder patients NOT treated with n-butanol* resulted in 12 deaths
from bleeding.

25 bleeder patients treated with n-butanol* resulted in only 1 death
from bleeding. The injected treatment would typically stop bleeding for
three days. This group experienced episodes of bleeding over 300 times,
but only one death resulted from the bleeding.

*n-butanol was a patented form of butanol with a different physical
chemistry than the other three forms of n-butanol. According to Revici,
the other forms were only minimally effective if at all.

The Otolaryngology studies were for migraines, vertigo, and
post-surgical head and neck pain.

There was another study by a Dr. Sher. I don't recall if it was
published. It was for stopping and preventing post surgical 7th day
bleeding from nasal surgery in 2,000 consecutve patients, where
antibiotics were not used. That study was also quite positive. Those
who used the treatment had zero incidents of 7th day bleeding.

Despite the extraordinarily positive results from those studies, they
have had no impact. Nor does the ACS refer to those studies when they
decide to smear Revici.

The ONLY negative STUDY was Lyall's travesty. All the other negative
articles were not studies, but opinion pieces, including a letter to
JAMA written by someone who spent about two hours at Revici's Clinic in
Mexico to observe.

The results of conventional studies happen to be strongly supported by the
data we can glean from alternative practitioner's own records, when we are
allowed access to them, as I show on my web site. There I largely ignore
the studies that doctors have done on alternative methods (for this very
reason) and concentrate on the information available from alternative
sources themselves. Moreover, the same conclusions could be reached from
the sheer paucity of good quality anecdotal evidence within the marketing
material of alternative practitioners and promoters. I have been looking
at the testimonials and case reports for over ten years now.

You claim that Revici is an exception this extremely strong recurring
pattern. I doubt it, but a previous point of mine still holds ---this is
why the protagonists need to do their own ground work. Let them produce
convincing *contemporary* best cases, or a simple case series wherein
measurable cancer is clearly shown to remit at a measurable rate. As you
say, living and breathing examples of the remission of otherwise incurable
or otherwise untreated cancer cannot be disregarded (so long as they are of
sufficient numbers and/or of cancer types where spontaneous remission is
infrequent).

It made no difference when the studies with positive results were
contemporary. But when JAMA and the ACS get behind a fraudulent
negative study, the impact has been overhwelming.

If a person contacts the ACS today Regarding Revici, they will get the
same negative bs that they've been spouting for 40 years.


Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com

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: Need advice on clinical trials
    ... Foundation is applying it to many patients for malaria. ... Malaria is not cancer, so quit trying to squeeze more out of this fact ... Do you have any better evidence to present? ... artesunate treatment was started on 01/22/2001. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • Re: Yet more cancer disucssion
    ... helluva lot of people died from cancer in 1965...about 1,000 people a ... She didn't have any other treatment that I know of. ... The sole protocol for the study's success was tumor shrinkage. ... By looking at the photos you will see a tumor going away. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Need advice on clinical trials
    ... Foundation is applying it to many patients for malaria. ... say that it kills cancer in the same way it kills the malaria parasite. ... Do you have any better evidence to present? ... artesunate treatment was started on 01/22/2001. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • Re: Yet more cancer disucssion
    ... absolute proof that they are excellent cancer treatments and doctors ... after the extravagant claims and treating thousands of patients.. ... from bleeding. ... who used the treatment had zero incidents of 7th day bleeding. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Yet more cancer disucssion
    ... absolute proof that they are excellent cancer treatments and doctors ... after the extravagant claims and treating thousands of patients.. ... from bleeding. ... who used the treatment had zero incidents of 7th day bleeding. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)