|
|
| Author |
Message |
Peter Moran
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 109
|
 Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject:
Revici amd Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
| Quote: | He's < referring to me --PM > not dead...just in mourning. There's a
chance that on his desk
there are those photos with the shrinking tumor staring back at him.
And on the other side of his desk is the bogus Lyall report published
in JAMA that says no tumors shrank. So his head is spinning back and
forth and making him dizzy.
|
I was not stunned, merely away from home on unexpected family matters.
So that everyone can make their own minds up as to the worth of Kelley's
writings concerning the Revici cancer treatment, I have put a scan of the
photos up on my web site.
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm (with apologies
to anyone who cares about a copyright on them - not usual in medical
research).
I invite Eidem to tell us once again what the pictures show, and what they
prove. This will save me having to rummage through month-old discussions
for his exact words.
Those interested should compare the quality of the information he provides
regarding this case with what I have suggested should be the minimum needed
to attract interest in an alternative claim at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Showing_it_works_2.htm . I
give a very detailed account of why.
Note the emphasis there on producing *contemporary* data. I believe the
claim to be able to cure cancer is too important to too many people for it
to hang upon information that we cannot go and check. There are dozens of
cancer cure claims hanging upon material we cannot go check.. .
I have also obtained a copy of the Lyall et Al 1965 report and can advise
about that once we hear what Eidem has to say.
I also obtained a copy of the 1953 Angiology paper that Kelley refers to
concerning the anti-haemorrhagic effects of n-butanol in advanced cancer
patients As I predicted (considering its vintage, the very first ever
properly randomised clinical trial only being performed in about 1949)),
this is an extremely poor quality uncontrolled trial in which there was
ample room for the bias of the investigators to manipulate the results.
Typical of the era, there is no attempt at statistical analysis. It is not
even clear how the groups being compared were gathered. Haemorrhage is a
very common terminal or near-terminal event in cancer patients, often from
the gastrointestinal tract. . The results here depended on whether death
was "attributed to" haemorrhage by the researchers, and that can be a very
subjective judgement.
Of course, to Kelley, that is just the inevitable nit-picking of those who
have chosen not to BELIEVE. You will just have to make your own minds up,
folks. .
Peter Moran
www.cancerwatcher.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:04 am Post subject:
Re: Revici amd Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
Peter Moran wrote:
| Quote: | He's < referring to me --PM > not dead...just in mourning. There's a
chance that on his desk
there are those photos with the shrinking tumor staring back at him.
And on the other side of his desk is the bogus Lyall report published
in JAMA that says no tumors shrank. So his head is spinning back and
forth and making him dizzy.
I was not stunned, merely away from home on unexpected family matters.
So that everyone can make their own minds up as to the worth of Kelley's
writings concerning the Revici cancer treatment, I have put a scan of the
photos up on my web site.
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm (with apologies
to anyone who cares about a copyright on them - not usual in medical
research).
|
You have violated copyright by posting the dustjacket to my book
without permission. The dustjacket is MY copyright, by the way.
| Quote: |
I invite Eidem to tell us once again what the pictures show, and what they
prove. This will save me having to rummage through month-old discussions
for his exact words.
|
Your response is one of the most disengenuous responses in a very long
time. I have repeatedly stated what the photos show...and you've had
access to them all along...meanwhile, the photos speak for
themselves...it is YOUR turn to let us in on what YOU see.
| Quote: |
Those interested should compare the quality of the information he provides
regarding this case with what I have suggested should be the minimum needed
to attract interest in an alternative claim at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Showing_it_works_2.htm . I
give a very detailed account of why.
Note the emphasis there on producing *contemporary* data. I believe the
claim to be able to cure cancer is too important to too many people for it
to hang upon information that we cannot go and check.
|
More disingenuous generalities...you have a series of photos depicting
a tumor right in front of you...the NOTION that you can't check it is
patently absurd.
| Quote: | There are dozens of
cancer cure claims hanging upon material we cannot go check.. .
|
We're talking about this one...the one pertaining to the pictures you
have in front of you. Try to stay focused.
| Quote: |
I have also obtained a copy of the Lyall et Al 1965 report
|
You should have it!...I gave you the pertinent info needed to look it
up.
| Quote: | and can advise
about that once we hear what Eidem has to say.
|
I've stated numerous times in a miriad of ways my opinion on Lyall. We
are waiting to hear what YOU think about his report on
Revici...particularly since you are such a big advocate of proper peer
review publishing standards.
| Quote: |
I also obtained a copy of the 1953 Angiology paper that Kelley refers to
|
YOU obtained it?? By golly, how did you manage that! My, my...you
'OBTAINED' it because I mailed it to you first class!
| Quote: | concerning the anti-haemorrhagic effects of n-butanol in advanced cancer
patients As I predicted (considering its vintage, the very first ever
properly randomised clinical trial only being performed in about 1949)),
this is an extremely poor quality uncontrolled trial in which there was
ample room for the bias of the investigators to manipulate the results.
Typical of the era, there is no attempt at statistical analysis. It is not
even clear how the groups being compared were gathered. Haemorrhage is a
very common terminal or near-terminal event in cancer patients, often from
the gastrointestinal tract. . The results here depended on whether death
was "attributed to" haemorrhage by the researchers, and that can be a very
subjective judgement.
|
[I don't have the paper with me at the moment] The objective criteria
is that 17 or 18 out of 25 bleeding episodes died in the group that
didn't receive the butanol... yet only ONE person died while bleeding
in the group that DID receive the
butanol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... although they had 300 episodes
of the bleeding since the butanol usually controlled the bleeding for
one to three days at a time.
If they weren't visibly bleeding and they died, then the death isn't
attributable to bleeding...if they were visibly bleeding, and they died
while doing that, then the death is attributable to the bleeding. Gawd!
for being a supposed doctor, you sure are one dumb human being...
....I take that back...it isn't dumbness...it's a stubborn unwillingness
to admit the obvious because you can't handle it psychologically.
It hard to fake death!! As the case studies indicate, even patients
with "coffee ground" expulsions of blood, stopped bleeding in mere
minutes AND STAYED ALIVE. Patients with uncontrolled bleeding died
| Quote: |
Of course, to Kelley, that is just the inevitable nit-picking of those who
have chosen not to BELIEVE. You will just have to make your own minds up,
folks. .
|
You've made up your mind, all right...and you STILL haven't gone on
record publicly on the PHOTOS....do you remember the photos?? Let's
hear what YOU have to say, so that the public can see where YOU are
coming from.
Let's see you point to the changing tumor, and tell us how that lines
up with Lyall's statements. (Lyall's "Report" is one heck of a doozie
isn't it! Come on...tell us what you think of his report in terms of
your own standards of medical studies!! How DARE you criticize the
Revici butanol study without a word about Lyall's piece of garbage!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steph
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:24 am Post subject:
Re: Revici amd Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149390252.550306.203830@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
You have violated copyright by posting the dustjacket to my book
without permission. The dustjacket is MY copyright, by the way.
|
Pulled any good teeth lately? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:50 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Free Ringtones | Fast Loans | Mortgages | Mobile Phones | Car salvage
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
electronics forum,
Science forum
Unix/Linux blog
Unix/Linux documentation
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
diseases
»
cancer
