Re: Yet more cancer disucssion


<awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145328714.374263.29330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Peter Moran wrote:
<awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145281089.156525.55310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[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.

No go. Such historical material (about conditions that are either
subjective or much more variable than cancer) is useless for your
purpose
because of the generally poor quality of such scientific research in
those
times. The first ever controlled trial where patients were properly
randomised and the randomisation concealed was performed in 1948 and
that
was in England, which was then somewhat ahead of the rest of the world,
including America.

Dying from spontaneous bleeding from a lesion is not a subjective
result. The study came from exactly 600 CONSECUTIVE patients.

I said "subjective" OR "much more variable". This is the second time you
have chosen to misread such a statement of mine. And the issue is not
whether they were consecutive, it is whether they were properly randomised.
It is also irrelevant to the claims we were discussing.


Either the patients received the n-butanol or they didn't. In fact, it
was the first group of approximately 300 consecutive patients who were
not given the n-butanol. The rest were given the n-butanol.

Sounds odd. That would not be a properly controlled trial even by the
standards of the time.. The first trial to ever use randomisation at all
was back in 1898 and that used the method of allocating patients admitted
on alternate days . That would be infinitely preferable to what you
describe.


The results were 17 times more favorable for the n-butanol group for a
non-subjective outcome, death from severe bleeding.

And where do you get off declaring that the studies I've suggested are
useless because the studies were generally of "poor quality?"

Don't take my word for it Ask any person well-informed about standards of
clinical research and their evolution. They will agree that clinical
trials are even now continuing to evolve so as to be more reliable and less
prone to bias and experimental artefact.

I was
demonstrating that JAMA and the ACS have refused to mention any of the
positive studies when they smeared Revici.

It's one thing to argue that a study that found a 17-fold improvement
in the outcome of death isn't worthwhile...but it's another agenda
entirely repeatedly write articles as the ACS has done that fail to
mention their existence while smearing him.


This paper shows how studies not meeting even those requirements can give
grossly unreliable results. They will almost invariably do so when
enthusiasts or the biased are involved, as has been shown in many studies
of
both conventional and alternative methods. .
Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical

comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials.

BMJ 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1185-90

OBJECTIVE: To summarise comparisons of randomised clinical trials and

non-randomised clinical trials, trials with adequately

concealed random allocation versus inadequately concealed random

allocation, and high quality trials versus low quality trials

where the effect of randomisation could not be separated from the

effects of other methodological manoeuvres.

RESULTS: Failure to use random allocation and concealment of allocation

were associated with relative increases in estimates of effects of 150%

or more, relative decreases of up to 90%, inversion of the estimated

effect and, in some cases, no difference. On average, failure to use

randomisation or adequate concealment of allocation resulted in larger

estimates of effect due to a poorer prognosis in non-randomly selected

control groups compared with randomly selected control groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Failure to use adequately concealed random allocation can

distort the apparent effects of care in either direction, causing the

effects to seem either larger or smaller than they really are. The size

of these distortions can be as large as or larger than the size of the

effects that are to be detected.



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.

I have sent for Lyall's paper. One thing I want to know is whether the
patient you describe was even part of Lyall's study. His panel is
described as not looking at Revici's practice overall, but merely a
series
of selected patients sent to Revici for treatment. If so, he cannot be
blamed for anything to do with patients outside that study.


Yes, the patient was one of the patients in the trial. According to
Fishbein, she was doing well and she continued to be treated by Dr.
Revici after the trial ended (12/31/64.)

What was her identifying number in the study?

treatment commenced for that patient. The patient was accepted by both
parties.

According to the JAMA report...more than two years after the patient
was accepted by Lyall, he falsely claimed that lymph cancer patients
were not included. It was yet another one of Lyall's lies. Dr. Fishbein
wrote about her in his separate report as well.

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.


Times have changed. There is money money money for the investigation of
alternatives and a lot of people wanting to see that happen. But most
of
those holding the purse strings will be a bit like me, wanting to see the
cured patients with their own eyes and wanting to be able to examine the
cases in a detail which is appropriate to the magnitude of the claim
(that
incurable cancer is being cured).

You might like to believe that ther's lots of money for research into
alternative treatments. Maybe you have in mind Dr. Clegg, who has
received money from 11 different drug companies who was then paid to
study glucosamine/chondroitin.

First, he used the wrong form of glucosamine. And then it goes donwhill
from there. No, Clegg didn't do as bad a job as Lyall...but then who
has the balls to be that bad!

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


Is what I am saying "negative bs"? I am sure I look at it all much the
same as any other experienced cancer person would.

You don't look at it at all like Drs. Burns, Goldman, Maislin,
Fishbein, Brenner or Falk looked at it. All of them were experienced in
treating cancer.

And I am not? And you are? Come on! We have been through the argument
from authority bit before. I have given you sound and detailed reasoning
for everything I say. All you have offered is blind trust in those you
choose to regard as as reliable authorities.

Peter Moran

Perhaps it is you that
needs to understand the other side better. The medical profession of
those days may have had poor PR, to go along with some undoubted heavy
handedness and arrogance, but you have yet to show that they were
wrong.

Are you kidding? The medical profession has a top-notch, amazing public
relations machine. They feed the news media with free videos for the
national news every night.

And back then they had JAMA and the ACS making sure every doctor 'knew'
Revici was to be avoided at all costs. They are still doing it! The ACS
still refers to the JAMA/Lyall study.

I'm sure you believed it, too. JAMA used its perceived credibility to
sink Revici in the eyes of those who would be most likely to control
the future of cancer treatment.

So you keep on saying. That doesn't make it so.

Peter Mroan



Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com



.