Re: Peter Moran FINALLY finds an alternative cancer study without apparent problems


Martin <why@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9eie82lu49k7atkbpmu9akoat1r0gk4p18@xxxxxxxxxx
On 7 Jun 2006 10:47:19 -0700, "PeterB" <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Peter Moran wrote:
<awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149645650.731707.316910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter Moran is having difficulty finding a single problem with a
cancer
study:

"The Lyall et al study was a simple prospective case series looking
for
an
anti-cancer effect of the Revici treatment and it found no effect
in 33
cases. What is wrong with it?"

The real question should be, "What is wrong with Peter Moran?"

The dolt has already been informed that the ONLY meetings of the
'listed' authors took place at the International Press Club, where
the
bar tab indicates huge amounts of alcohol being consumed.

He also has in his possession photographic evidence of a tumor
disappearing. In an email to me he discribed the tumor that was 2.5
inches and shrunken to a pimple, as being reccuring. There is
absolutely no evidence of reccurance, which would require a prior
photo
of no tumor followed by the 'pimple.' In other words, Moran made up
his
description...truly shameful.

Next the doltish clown questions the validity of whether the
patient
was a patient in the study...he's suspicious about the photo...he's
suspicious that the patient was part of the study...but he has NO
suspicions about the drunken Lyall two-page report.

No suspicions despite the fact that Moran is aware that Dr. Robert
Fishbein wrote his own expose on Lyall's shenanigans because
Fishbein
was so incensed by Lyall's atrocious behavior during the trial.

In order to provide the flavor of Lyall's outrageous so-called
report
here are three sentences from the second paragraph of that Report:

"Dr. Revici, a native of Rumania, emigrated to Paris in 1936, to
Mexico
in 1941, and to the United States in 1947....Generous support has
been
given by a number of organizations and groups. It appears that over
the
years a sum in excess of $2 million has been expended."

Mind you that this 'report' which was a mere two pages long
[actually
only one-and-a-half pages] was supposed to focus on a treatment for
cancer, not to be a biography.

I challenge Peter Moran to provide another cancer study published
in
JAMA that spends its time devoted to a history of the doctor whose
method is being analyzed. If he finds one, it will be yet another
alternative doctor that the author is trying to treat pejudicially.

BTW, describing a Rumanian as an emigre who leaves France (occupied
by
Nazis at that time) for Mexico in 1941 sends a signal to the JAMA
readers of that time of Revici's Jewish heritage. While Peter Moron
screams for duoble blind studies, he can't find a fault with
Lyall's
odd biographical description of Revici.

What nonsense! Most clinical studies will include a little of the
history
and background to the matter being examined.

What bulls***! The matter at hand was not Revici's emigre status, his
implicated religious heritage, nor the amount of monies "expended" in
previous years! If Peter isn't going to be serious, why in the hell
should anybody listen to him.

I doubt anyone does. But if they do, they won't learn much.

And where have I ever screamed for double blind studies?. The double
blind
is mainly need when examining subjective outcomes (it frustrates me
enormously to be talking to someone so ignorant of the basics of
clinical
research) I explain quite clearly on my web site that these are not
necessary with cancer and why
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Showing_it_works_1.htm

. I am prepared to look at anecdotal material but it needs to be
*good
quality* anecdotal material.


PS. As laughable as Moron's behavior in all of this is this simple
fact. Peter Moron has pictures of a 2.5 inch tumor shrinking down
to a
pimple. Yet his focus is not on, "How was this accomplished!!"
No...his
focus is on trying to find a way to discount the result, as if the
tumor wasn't shrunken down at all. He can't face the central
matter...the shrunken tumor...so he is spending his nuttiness
on...well, nuttiness.

Another abusive post, rather than supplying the information previously
requested about a dozen times . There is no evidence on the table
showing
that this patient was not treated by conventional means. There is no
evidence showing that it was ever part of the Lyall study.

When will Moran address the quality of Lyall's report? When will Moran
apply the same standard of scepticism about Lyall when we have on
record Dr. Fishbein's report on Lyall's aggregious behavior during the
trial...and when we have bar tabs of the large amounts of liquor
consumed at the supposed meetings to discuss the patients in the trial?

It is rich that Moron would be uber-suspicious about the photos yet he
hasn't questioned for one second Lyall's report.

The idea that Revici would have treated his patients with poison is so
preposterous that it just doesn't merit a response. How extreme will
Moron go with his pschological denial!

If Revici had given people haircuts during treatment, Moran would be
more agreeable. You see, it's ok to treat people with poisonous chemo
drugs, but how do you know it's working if it doesn't make your hair
fall out?


It is not clear what such a single case would mean anyway, without
more
information. Some kinds of lymphoma are very prone to spontaneous
remission. So are kidney cancer secondaries and melanoma. Some
cancers
are hormonally sensitive and are actually responding to conventional
hormonal influences without those ever figuring in the quack
testimonials or
case reports.

The patient was accepted into the study. If there were a problem with
spontaneous remission, the patient would not have been accepted into
the study.

Moran will say that spontaneous remission only happens when not being
treated with standard oncology. Since he defines cancer as the absence
of oncology, he could conceivably give someone cancer just by not
operating on them.

Ah, the definition of cancer. I recall reading your definition of
cancer some time ago, in a discussion about vitamin C (your favorite
subject I think). I remember it well, because it was so inane, reading
it almost turned my brain into jello. For those who have forgotten,
here it is:
Cancer is caused by damaged DNA. Our DNA is being damaged constantly,
therefor, everybody has cancer, all the time (that's what PeterB said,
really). Oh, and since vitamin C is implicated in the repair mechanism
for damaged DNA, vitamin C cures (yes, *cures*, not prevents!) cancer.

That's PeterB's definition of cancer for you. And his idea of a cure
for cancer.

Here's a question for Moron that will prove his absurd lie: "When
patients have those so-called types of lymphoma, do doctors recommend
no treatment because "some kinds of lymphoma are VERY PRONE to
spontaneous remission?"

The patient's "spontaneous remission" took SIXTEEN MONTHS all while she
was being treated by Revici with his medications.

Even most cancer drugs aren't tested for that long, as Moran well
knows. We can't expect him to think about where a patient will be a
whole year down the road.

It is, for these and other reasons, rare for any alternative
modality
treating hundreds of cases yearly over some decades as Revici did NOT
to
have a few suggestive cases with certain types of cancer. So I am
not at
all phased by this case in the way that you suggest. I have stated
quite
clearly on my web site what kind of evidence would spark my interest
in an
alternative method and it is obvious that this case fails to measure
up in
at least three respects.

So far as the question of local recurrence is concerned, why is there
a
white ring highlighting the pinkish patch in the last photograph?
This
area was obviously of importance to the clinical photographer.

How stupid is that question!! The circle was put there to be
objective...to show that there was still a tiny bit of the tumor still
there. The clinical photographer was Revici!

To demonstrate recurrence one would need a evidence of no tumor
followed by its return. There was no evidence of return followed by
recurrence. Moron made up that sequence in his nutty head.


You have been unable to answer any reasonable questions as to the
provenance
and nature of this case, even though you started off this whole
debate by
making it out to have some importance. I say it doesn't. I have
produced
some of the evidence available that shows the Revici method doesn't
work
noticeably. Without a lot more evidence, and, indeed, a lot more
cases, and
a better quality of case, this one means little.

Peter Moran.

Moron has not produced a scintilla of evidence that Revici's treatment
doesn't work. He has not validated anything in the Lyall report, if he
is trying to claim that is his evidence.

He probably won't claim that, even though it's all he's got. He hasn't
been particularly honest in his responses in the past, so I wouldn't be
too hopeful.

He has failed miserably...he hasn't even attempted to point out what
makes Lyall's report worthy of consideration. Nor has he pointed out
potential weaknesses in Lyall's report. He can't because the Lyall
report is more like The New York Post's "Page Six" gossip column.
Lyall's report bears no resemblance to an actual study.

And Moron's reaction bears no resemblance to anything but the spin of a
wobbly top.

He's old school. If it doesn't remind him of something from one of his
aging textbooks, it can't possibly be true. What's bizarre is that he
tries sell his ideas in a newsgroup devoted to the alternatives.



.