Re: Yet more cancer discussion


Peter Moran wrote:

Sheesh, I provided the publication: Angiology, December 1953...yet you
"suspect." Just because the results you're used to seeing are nothing
like those accomplished by Revici has no bearing on the facts.

Let me repeat them for you:
Those untreated with butanol if needed...18 severe bleeding incidents =
12 deaths.
Those treated with butanol if needed...300 severe bleeding incidents =
1 death.

It's hard to mistake a death.

That makes no more sense. It also does not correspond to your "17 times"
claim. The phrase "if needed" suggests extreme arbitrariness in the study
design. I defy you to put the actual journal abstract up, if you have it.
.This sounds like a retrospective review rather than a proper prospective
controlled trial..

I'll do you one better. Since I was unable to make it to the post
office yesterday, I'll send you a copy of the study along with a
previous letter of acceptance from the journal "CANCER: A Journal of
the American Cancer Society."

After the ACS accepted the article, they sat on it for three years.
Revici and Ravitch went to "Angiology: The Journal of Vascular
Diseases" and had it published there.

I'll be going to the post office Thursday.




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.

The primary objective of medical research is to save lives and to find
cures for diseases, not to create some idealistic research format.

When you understand them a bit better you will want to withdraw this
statement.

Everyone thought that bleeding the very ill saved lives until Jean Pierre
Louis looked at the problem mathematically and showed it probably didn't.
This was in the early 1800s

No one could decide whether a new serum treatment saved lives from
diphtheria until Fibiger published what was probably the first ever
randomised controlled trial in 1898.

Recall a time when your patient is vomiting 'coffee grounds' and blood.
You give her an injection and her, "Vomiting, nausea, belching and
retching stops almost at once, and there is no further evidence of
bleeding for the next 36 hours."

If that has no impact on your research, then whay are you even doing
research?

Here's why.

Since patients swallowing blood, or even those having gastric haemorrhage,
vomit blood intermtiittently and often quite infrequently or not at all
when
the bleeding is less severe, it is impossible to deduce when the
bleeding
stopped from the vomiting alone. This is naive crap (and this is a
surgeon
speaking from a whole career of experience).

All you are demonstrating is the fact that the tools you had weren't as
good as Revici's.
BTW, his 70-year career as a physician exceeds yours by several
decades.


What tools? We are simply talking about the vomiting of blood not
necessarily reflecting the current state of the bleeding. Any clinican
will know this.

You might have trouble deducing when the bleeding stops, but it's not
so hard to determine that someone is dead.

True. The end point is OK, the question is whether the study is free from
bias and artefact, through such things as retrospective selection of cases.
And I still find a 4% death rate from bleeding excessive in the presumed
control group..

It is also post hoc ergo propter hoc again. When 95+% cases of bleeding
after ENT surgery will stop spontaneously and the medical staff may be
using
various measures all the while to try and stop it, it is inevitable that
there will sometimes be the illusion of a therapeutic effect on this
basis.
The only way we can decide if it IS ever a therapeutic effect is to
perform
a well-designed prospective trial.

I agree that the nasal surgery outcome is not as dramatic as the
spontaneous bleeding cancer cases. The 2,000 patients were not given
antibiotics, so the comparison of the incidence of bleeding ought to be
compared to patients not given antibiotics.

Dr. Sher's study is simply another example of the n-butanol being used
to positive effect with 2,000 consecutive patients since all the
patients were given n-butanol instead of antibiotics.

Cancer is every different because most kinds of cancer are extremely
predictable in their behaviour. We don't have 95% of patients getting
better on their own. Each patient can thus serve as their own control,
with only a few sources of potential error . This is why anecdotal
data
can have more force.

<snip>
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.

Naw, having your Method of treatment called "Negative Results" in JAMA
and having the ACS and Quackwatch refer to that study for anyone who
would look up Revici's name, would have little effect... ARE YOU
KIDDING!! You going to have to get more realistic.

Have it your own way. Your obviously prefer to have something to whine
about, and to be able to bluster righteously about alternative medicine's
designated evils,

You would probably support a mugger over a victim who 'whined' about
being mugged.

I've posted facts you don't like...too bad for you.

than to take positive steps to get the Revici treatment
recognised in the much more favourable environment that exists today.

There is little or no evidence that the environment is one bit better
than that forced upon the defenders of the status quo.

There is plenty of such evidence, but you choose to live in the past, to
wallow in self-pity, paranoia and complaint, rather than take practical
steps to have the matter reopened. The only way to do that is to get any
pracitioners currently using Revici's methods to produce cured patients. If
that cannot happen, as you seem to now be claiming, then you should ask why
a method with such strong medical backing should ever die out.. Perhaps
the people you name became less convinced with further esperience. That can
happen.

Methods that have been the subject of at least equivalent "suppression" by
the medical profession have not faded out like Revici. Look at all the
negative trials on Laetrile and Vitamin C. They never caused those methods
to be abandoned within alternative circles.

Perhaps one factor with Revici is that the whole catabolic and anabolic
thing never had any worthwhile esperimental support. Still, that never
stopped Warburg's and Pauling's theories persisting, and even more
nonsenical material holding sway within alternative medicine..

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com

The most recent
example of this is Dr. Clegg [king of the conflict of interest?], as I
pointed out earlier. It's more of the same, over and over again.

While such childish ("I'm convinced, why aren't you?") and wimpish behav
iour dominates alternative medical thought it is not likely to ever
successfully propagate useful treatments even if it produces some.

Look at how your mind slip-slides away from uncomfortable facts. It
wasn't me...it was Dr. Brenner, FACR, who was convinced. And Dr. Rudy
Falk. And Dr. Louis Burns. And Dr. Maitlin. And Dr. Goldberg. And Dr.
Fishbein.




Each of them satisfied themselves that Revici's method was more
effective.

You are aware, aren't you, that Dr. Jonas Salk got acceptance for his
polio vaccine by having film on network TV of children protected by his
vaccine. When America's mothers saw the news, they demanded access to
his vaccines.

Prior to that, the defenders of the status quo had dug in their heels.

The peer review process has a scam aspect to it when it comes to
evaluating natural cures. Lyall's crime is too large to trust the
scamsters. Furthermore, studies mean nothing as far as what is
practiced when it comes to natural cures.

A few years back a major study indicated that selenium reduced lung,
prostate and colon cancer deaths by about 50%. So, do doctors prescribe
selenium to their lung, prostate and colon cancer patients? Hell no.

The fact is that it is publicity that creates interest - not studies.
That's why JAMA sends videos to TV stations all across the country each
and every week.

If a study on Vitamin "D" says it reduces colon cancer risk by 50%, it
has almost no effect on visitors to my store. But a paragraph in
Women's Day advocating coconut oil brings them in for weeks.

That's reality.

It would of course be very risky for you to be urging Revici (or various
lipid) practitioners to open up their books or publish something.

They did both...do I really need to mention Dr. Brenner's name...or the
names of the others...again?? PS. Don't try to feed me that "appeal to
authority" manure again. They were experts WHO EXAMINED THE RECORDS. If
you disqualify every person who is qualified, then you've set up a
situation where NO ONE can speak.

What if
you were wrong, after investing so much of yourself in this?

As a retired surgeon, you have a far greater investment in this than I
do. You've bought into the scamsters storyline...and it would break
your heart to realize that 40 years ago you could have had access to
something far more effective....after cutting so many people open only
to see them die from their disease.

In comparison, I've met people who were terminal, but who ended up
being cancer free. One had previously been in a coma she was so far
gone with a brain tumor. You've never seen that in your whole life,
have you?

And you never will allow yourself to see it, because your sanity
requires it.

That's your psychological defense mechanism operating on all cylinders.

For 40 years the ACS has continued to this day to spread the Lyall
lies. They knew better even before the study took place. When it comes
to natural cures, the peer review process is rigged. I would never
advocate letting the peer review scamsters to give them another
opportunity to commit another crime.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A message for Peter Moran, et al
    ... natural cures is due to monetary greed...although certainly the ... to maim patients for their money. ... Every cancer doctor hopefully has one patient he ... of practice...so he went to see Revici himself to find out what was ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: The cancer discussion continues
    ... the foreword to the book "The Man Who Cures Cancer." ... the tactic has been to whinge and whine about the doctors. ... Revici had more terminal patients cured than every doctor in the US ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Yet more cancer disucssion
    ... after the extravagant claims and treating thousands of patients.. ... cancer patients. ... from bleeding. ... The first trial to ever use randomisation at all ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: American Cancer Society & NY Health Commisioner all say you are talking bullshit, awthrawthr
    ... Dr. Revici - The Real Story ... that Dr. Revici could cure breast cancer without surgery. ... on the doctor in the lawsuits that were filed by families of patients. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • 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)