|
|
| Author |
Message |
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:20 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
Peter Moran wrote:
| Quote: | awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149645887.232863.59750@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Steph wrote:
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44850ac7$0$6395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149566422.274569.41580@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Moran wrote:
Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my request
for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the
facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there I
will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have already
advised
me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
You have attempted to discredit the Revici study on butanol, but you
have not said a word about the Lyall report as to its worthiness as a
study. Nor have you spoken to the photos in comparison to Lyall's
report.
The butanol study pretended to be a controlled trial, but was nowhere
near
it by modern standards, as I have repeatedly explained. Even the 1950
peer reviewer of the study criticised it for not running the series
being
compared concurrently. I have pointed out other serious defects such
as
that the researchers could easily warp the results by deciding whether
to
"attribute" death to haemorrhage or not in these terminal cancer
patients.
Look, I don't know whether this drug can stop haemorrhage or not.
There
is no obvious biochemical reason why it should, that I can see, but all
I
am saying is that your evidence is crap and any scientist would think
so
too. I also think that anyone who writes a lot on medical subjects
should
know that.
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? Do you wish to claim that the patients
shown in the photo should have been included in the series? If so
produce
(at last) what evidence you have that this was the case, and also state
what it is that you want to deduce if that was true. So far we have
been
unable to get from you a single date or even a biopsy report.
Your evasiveness does not inspire any confidence that you have
confirmatory data, or for that matter, that anything that we get out
of
you now will be trustworthy. The world is awash with such photos as
the
result of conventional treatments of cancer.
We don't yet know for sure that that lesion was cancer. My first
impression was that it could be a cyst, but it is probably a tumour of
some kind (Steph, any thoughts?). It is certainly a very unusual
lesion.
But you would not know that.
Before and after picture after and before?
It's certainly not like any other scalp cancer I've ever seen.
The tumor was a metasteses from a lymphoma that began in the patient's
tear duct.
Then this patient could not possibly have been part of the Lyall et Al
trial. Only cases "not amenable to conventional therapy" were considered
for that study. A lymphoma would have been treated by radiotherapy or
chemotherapy.
Also the study protocol says "Types of cancer that are notorious for
unpredictable growth rates, such as *lymphoma* or hypernephroma, and
carcinoma of the breast and ovary, were also excluded". (my emphasis)
Peter Moran
|
OMG!! Now Moron is taking the word of Lyall as the gospel truth...as if
anything Lyall wrote in his report could be trusted!!
The trial criteria was not whether any patient could be treated by
radiation or chemo.
The SOLE criteria was TUMOR SHRINKAGE. They weren't testing radiation
or FDA-approved chemo...they were testing the efficacy of Revici's
medications in their ability to shrink tumors...and Revici's
medications were the only treatment provided to those patients!
Also the PROTOCOL did NOT say that lymphoma, hypernephroma, and
carcinoma of the breast and ovary were excluded!! LYALL falsely claimed
that after the fact...AFTER the study was over...AFTER his first draft
was circulated and shot down!
Lyall was apty named. He lied repeatedly in the space of two pages.
But the Moron, who loves to highlight the littlest flaws in research
studies has decided to swallow hook, line and sinker the utterances of
a physician who was so bad that one of his peers wrote a paper
decribing the many ethical lapses of Lyall while the trial was in
progress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:46 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
cathyb wrote:
| Quote: | awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
Steph wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149645887.232863.59750@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Steph wrote:
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44850ac7$0$6395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149566422.274569.41580@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Moran wrote:
Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my request
for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the
facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
I point out to him that it is his claims that are under examination,
not
mine. As it now stands all we know for sure is that Lyall and eight
others
(including some of those using the Revici treatment) examined 33
cancer
cases treated by Revici "or his appointed deputy" under what to
present
knowledge is a most implausible and quite completely unsubstantiated
method
of classifying cancer patients into groups requiring quite different
treatments. .
22 died. 8 left the study because they were unimproved by the
treatment.
At the close of the study 15 months later only 3 patients were still
under
Revici's care but all had signs of tumour progression.
Eidem, if you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there I
will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have already
advised
me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
You have attempted to discredit the Revici study on butanol, but you
have not said a word about the Lyall report as to its worthiness as a
study. Nor have you spoken to the photos in comparison to Lyall's
report.
The butanol study pretended to be a controlled trial, but was nowhere
near
it by modern standards, as I have repeatedly explained. Even the 1950
peer reviewer of the study criticised it for not running the series
being
compared concurrently. I have pointed out other serious defects such
as
that the researchers could easily warp the results by deciding whether
to
"attribute" death to haemorrhage or not in these terminal cancer
patients.
Look, I don't know whether this drug can stop haemorrhage or not.
There
is no obvious biochemical reason why it should, that I can see, but all
I
am saying is that your evidence is crap and any scientist would think
so
too. I also think that anyone who writes a lot on medical subjects
should
know that.
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? Do you wish to claim that the patients
shown in the photo should have been included in the series? If so
produce
(at last) what evidence you have that this was the case, and also state
what it is that you want to deduce if that was true. So far we have
been
unable to get from you a single date or even a biopsy report.
Your evasiveness does not inspire any confidence that you have
confirmatory data, or for that matter, that anything that we get out
of
you now will be trustworthy. The world is awash with such photos as
the
result of conventional treatments of cancer.
We don't yet know for sure that that lesion was cancer. My first
impression was that it could be a cyst, but it is probably a tumour of
some kind (Steph, any thoughts?). It is certainly a very unusual
lesion.
But you would not know that.
Before and after picture after and before?
It's certainly not like any other scalp cancer I've ever seen.
The tumor was a metasteses from a lymphoma that began in the patient's
tear duct.
Lymphomas don't really metastasise.
If you're going to play semantic games, at least learn how to spell the
word.
If you're referring to "metastasise", that's certainly an accepted UK
spelling. Unlike your own "metasteses", which is simply wrong.
|
It's too bad you don't grasp what a conditional sentence is. The
criticism of his spelling is based on his determination to change this
into a semantic game. I mispell/mistype words frequently. So my
criticism of Steph is his childish attempt to score points on a
semantic difference.
I have written on several ocassions that the tumor had spread from the
tear duct. I think most people can grasp that the tear duct and the
crown of one's head are two different locations for the tumor.
I was describing that fact. The most important fact to take away for
the discusssion is that the crown tumor shrank from 2.5 inches down to
a pimple.
If you wish to conitnue discussing spelling errors, take it up with
your high school English teacher.
| Quote: |
Having said that, spontaneous regression is well documented, and even small
doses of radiotherapy or chemotherapy will induce a dramatic response.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to show another 2.5 inch tumor
regressing over 16 months spontaneously...
In the case described, no radiation or poisonous chemo was used...but
the tumor regressed while being treated with Dr. Revici's lipid
medications. The patient was accepted into the trial...so any attempt
afterwards to try to change the rules by claiming that a regression was
spontaneous defeats the purpose of accepting the patient into the trial
in the first place.
But that's what Lyall and you are trying to do. It was a lie then and
doesn't smell a whole lot better today when you flail away like this. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:55 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
Steph wrote:
| Quote: | awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149652778.180551.278990@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Steph wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149645887.232863.59750@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Steph wrote:
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44850ac7$0$6395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149566422.274569.41580@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Moran wrote:
Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my
request
for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the
facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
I point out to him that it is his claims that are under
examination,
not
mine. As it now stands all we know for sure is that Lyall and
eight
others
(including some of those using the Revici treatment) examined 33
cancer
cases treated by Revici "or his appointed deputy" under what to
present
knowledge is a most implausible and quite completely
unsubstantiated
method
of classifying cancer patients into groups requiring quite
different
treatments. .
22 died. 8 left the study because they were unimproved by the
treatment.
At the close of the study 15 months later only 3 patients were
still
under
Revici's care but all had signs of tumour progression.
Eidem, if you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there
I
will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have
already
advised
me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
You have attempted to discredit the Revici study on butanol, but
you
have not said a word about the Lyall report as to its worthiness as
a
study. Nor have you spoken to the photos in comparison to Lyall's
report.
The butanol study pretended to be a controlled trial, but was
nowhere
near
it by modern standards, as I have repeatedly explained. Even the
1950
peer reviewer of the study criticised it for not running the series
being
compared concurrently. I have pointed out other serious defects
such
as
that the researchers could easily warp the results by deciding
whether
to
"attribute" death to haemorrhage or not in these terminal cancer
patients.
Look, I don't know whether this drug can stop haemorrhage or not.
There
is no obvious biochemical reason why it should, that I can see, but
all
I
am saying is that your evidence is crap and any scientist would
think
so
too. I also think that anyone who writes a lot on medical subjects
should
know that.
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? Do you wish to claim that the
patients
shown in the photo should have been included in the series? If so
produce
(at last) what evidence you have that this was the case, and also
state
what it is that you want to deduce if that was true. So far we
have
been
unable to get from you a single date or even a biopsy report.
Your evasiveness does not inspire any confidence that you have
confirmatory data, or for that matter, that anything that we get
out
of
you now will be trustworthy. The world is awash with such photos
as
the
result of conventional treatments of cancer.
We don't yet know for sure that that lesion was cancer. My first
impression was that it could be a cyst, but it is probably a tumour
of
some kind (Steph, any thoughts?). It is certainly a very unusual
lesion.
But you would not know that.
Before and after picture after and before?
It's certainly not like any other scalp cancer I've ever seen.
The tumor was a metasteses from a lymphoma that began in the patient's
tear duct.
Lymphomas don't really metastasise.
If you're going to play semantic games, at least learn how to spell the
word.
Don't be so parochial. Spelling wasm't invented in the US.
|
No I guess it 'wasm't' ROFL...but you're apparently trying to reinvent
it.
| Quote: |
Having said that, spontaneous regression is well documented, and even
small
doses of radiotherapy or chemotherapy will induce a dramatic response.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to show another 2.5 inch tumor
regressing over 16 months spontaneously...
I've seen many lymphomas bigger that 2.5 cm regressing spontaneously in
weeks, not months.
|
Tumors don't shrink spontaneously...it takes a cause...just like
chemical reactions don't take place spontaneously...they follow
chemical laws. If you saw a tumor shrink in weeks time, it was caused
by something.
Similarly, the tumor in question shrank because of some biochemical
reaction, namely the treatment she received.
| Quote: |
In the case described, no radiation or poisonous chemo was used...but
the tumor regressed while being treated with Dr. Revici's lipid
medications. The patient was accepted into the trial...so any attempt
afterwards to try to change the rules by claiming that a regression was
spontaneous defeats the purpose of accepting the patient into the trial
in the first place.
But that's what Lyall and you are trying to do. It was a lie then and
doesn't smell a whole lot better today when you flail away like this.
Give us the data, not the noise.
|
Go take a look at Lyall's report...Mr. Moron can send it to you. Then
tell me how it compares to any study you've ever seen. You won't
believe how bad it is...breathtakingly extraordinary in its cruddiness.
The friggin' thing starts out with a discussion of Revici's birthplace
for crying out loud! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steph
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:01 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149746122.697436.142340@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Steph wrote:
Don't be so parochial. Spelling wasm't invented in the US.
No I guess it 'wasm't' ROFL...but you're apparently trying to reinvent
it.
|
You were the one who childishly commented on spelling, sonny, even though
your complaint displayed nothing other than parochialism. And you've just
done it again.
| Quote: | Having said that, spontaneous regression is well documented, and even
small
doses of radiotherapy or chemotherapy will induce a dramatic response.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to show another 2.5 inch tumor
regressing over 16 months spontaneously...
I've seen many lymphomas bigger that 2.5 cm regressing spontaneously in
weeks, not months.
Tumors don't shrink spontaneously...it takes a cause...just like
chemical reactions don't take place spontaneously...they follow
chemical laws. If you saw a tumor shrink in weeks time, it was caused
by something.
|
Lymphomas often shrink spontaneously. It doesn't mean there isn't a cause,
just that there isn't an identifiable one.
| Quote: | Similarly, the tumor in question shrank because of some biochemical
reaction, namely the treatment she received.
|
As if you know that.
| Quote: |
In the case described, no radiation or poisonous chemo was used...but
the tumor regressed while being treated with Dr. Revici's lipid
medications. The patient was accepted into the trial...so any attempt
afterwards to try to change the rules by claiming that a regression was
spontaneous defeats the purpose of accepting the patient into the trial
in the first place.
But that's what Lyall and you are trying to do. It was a lie then and
doesn't smell a whole lot better today when you flail away like this.
Give us the data, not the noise.
Go take a look at Lyall's report...Mr. Moron can send it to you. Then
tell me how it compares to any study you've ever seen. You won't
believe how bad it is...breathtakingly extraordinary in its cruddiness.
The friggin' thing starts out with a discussion of Revici's birthplace
for crying out loud!
|
Get an education, then come back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Howard McCollister
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 243
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims The Winner is Dr. Moran!
|
|
|
Peter Moran wrote:
| Quote: | Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my request for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
I point out to him that it is his claims that are under examination, not
mine. As it now stands all we know for sure is that Lyall and eight others
(including some of those using the Revici treatment) examined 33 cancer
cases treated by Revici "or his appointed deputy" under what to present
knowledge is a most implausible and quite completely unsubstantiated method
of classifying cancer patients into groups requiring quite different
treatments. .
22 died. 8 left the study because they were unimproved by the treatment.
At the close of the study 15 months later only 3 patients were still under
Revici's care but all had signs of tumour progression.
Eidem, if you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there I will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have already advised
me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
|
I have been reading the exchanges in this string.
I hereby declare Dr. Moran the winner, by virtue of his logic and expertise.
j. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims The Winner is Dr. Moran!
|
|
|
You smiled, you spoke, and I believed wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Moran wrote:
Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my request for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
I point out to him that it is his claims that are under examination, not
mine. As it now stands all we know for sure is that Lyall and eight others
(including some of those using the Revici treatment) examined 33 cancer
cases treated by Revici "or his appointed deputy" under what to present
knowledge is a most implausible and quite completely unsubstantiated method
of classifying cancer patients into groups requiring quite different
treatments. .
22 died. 8 left the study because they were unimproved by the treatment.
At the close of the study 15 months later only 3 patients were still under
Revici's care but all had signs of tumour progression.
Eidem, if you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there I will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have already advised
me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
I have been reading the exchanges in this string.
I hereby declare Dr. Moran the winner, by virtue of his logic and expertise.
j.
|
Moran has no expertise in the Revici Method, which means you have no
logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vakker
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149744000.730792.191880@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149645887.232863.59750@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Steph wrote:
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44850ac7$0$6395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149566422.274569.41580@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Moran wrote:
Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my
request
for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment
received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the
facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there I
will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have
already
advised
me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
You have attempted to discredit the Revici study on butanol, but
you
have not said a word about the Lyall report as to its worthiness
as a
study. Nor have you spoken to the photos in comparison to Lyall's
report.
The butanol study pretended to be a controlled trial, but was
nowhere
near
it by modern standards, as I have repeatedly explained. Even the
1950
peer reviewer of the study criticised it for not running the series
being
compared concurrently. I have pointed out other serious defects
such
as
that the researchers could easily warp the results by deciding
whether
to
"attribute" death to haemorrhage or not in these terminal cancer
patients.
Look, I don't know whether this drug can stop haemorrhage or not.
There
is no obvious biochemical reason why it should, that I can see, but
all
I
am saying is that your evidence is crap and any scientist would
think
so
too. I also think that anyone who writes a lot on medical subjects
should
know that.
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? Do you wish to claim that the
patients
shown in the photo should have been included in the series? If so
produce
(at last) what evidence you have that this was the case, and also
state
what it is that you want to deduce if that was true. So far we
have
been
unable to get from you a single date or even a biopsy report.
Your evasiveness does not inspire any confidence that you have
confirmatory data, or for that matter, that anything that we get
out
of
you now will be trustworthy. The world is awash with such photos
as
the
result of conventional treatments of cancer.
We don't yet know for sure that that lesion was cancer. My first
impression was that it could be a cyst, but it is probably a tumour
of
some kind (Steph, any thoughts?). It is certainly a very unusual
lesion.
But you would not know that.
Before and after picture after and before?
It's certainly not like any other scalp cancer I've ever seen.
The tumor was a metasteses from a lymphoma that began in the patient's
tear duct.
Then this patient could not possibly have been part of the Lyall et Al
trial. Only cases "not amenable to conventional therapy" were
considered
for that study. A lymphoma would have been treated by radiotherapy or
chemotherapy.
Also the study protocol says "Types of cancer that are notorious for
unpredictable growth rates, such as *lymphoma* or hypernephroma, and
carcinoma of the breast and ovary, were also excluded". (my emphasis)
Peter Moran
OMG!! Now Moron is taking the word of Lyall as the gospel truth...as if
anything Lyall wrote in his report could be trusted!!
The trial criteria was not whether any patient could be treated by
radiation or chemo.
The SOLE criteria was TUMOR SHRINKAGE. They weren't testing radiation
or FDA-approved chemo...they were testing the efficacy of Revici's
medications in their ability to shrink tumors...and Revici's
medications were the only treatment provided to those patients!
Also the PROTOCOL did NOT say that lymphoma, hypernephroma, and
carcinoma of the breast and ovary were excluded!! LYALL falsely claimed
that after the fact...AFTER the study was over...AFTER his first draft
was circulated and shot down!
Lyall was apty named. He lied repeatedly in the space of two pages.
But the Moron, who loves to highlight the littlest flaws in research
studies has decided to swallow hook, line and sinker the utterances of
a physician who was so bad that one of his peers wrote a paper
decribing the many ethical lapses of Lyall while the trial was in
progress.
|
Can Peter Moran really be that stupid? I mean that's really really stupid
thinking!
Vakker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vakker
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims The Winner isDr. Moran!
|
|
|
You smiled, you spoke, and I believed <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:9cXhg.42300$fb2.38705@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
| Quote: | Peter Moran wrote:
Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my request for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
I point out to him that it is his claims that are under examination, not
mine. As it now stands all we know for sure is that Lyall and eight
others
(including some of those using the Revici treatment) examined 33 cancer
cases treated by Revici "or his appointed deputy" under what to present
knowledge is a most implausible and quite completely unsubstantiated
method
of classifying cancer patients into groups requiring quite different
treatments. .
22 died. 8 left the study because they were unimproved by the
treatment.
At the close of the study 15 months later only 3 patients were still
under
Revici's care but all had signs of tumour progression.
Eidem, if you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there I will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have already
advised
me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
I have been reading the exchanges in this string.
I hereby declare Dr. Moran the winner, by virtue of his logic and
expertise.
j.
|
I hereby declare you an idiot, by virtue of your idiocy. Idiot.
Vakker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PeterB
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 384
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims The Winner is Dr. Moran!
|
|
|
You smiled, you spoke, and I believed wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Moran wrote:
Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my request for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
I point out to him that it is his claims that are under examination, not
mine. As it now stands all we know for sure is that Lyall and eight others
(including some of those using the Revici treatment) examined 33 cancer
cases treated by Revici "or his appointed deputy" under what to present
knowledge is a most implausible and quite completely unsubstantiated method
of classifying cancer patients into groups requiring quite different
treatments. .
22 died. 8 left the study because they were unimproved by the treatment.
At the close of the study 15 months later only 3 patients were still under
Revici's care but all had signs of tumour progression.
Eidem, if you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there I will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have already advised
me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
I have been reading the exchanges in this string.
I hereby declare Dr. Moran the winner, by virtue of his logic and expertise.
j.
|
Moran's expertise is in evasive maneuvers, so he wins on everything but
virtue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Wright
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 750
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:08 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims The Winner is Dr. Moran!
|
|
|
In article <1149796650.528795.258170@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
You smiled, you spoke, and I believed wrote:
Peter Moran wrote:
Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my request for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
I point out to him that it is his claims that are under examination, not
mine. As it now stands all we know for sure is that Lyall and eight others
(including some of those using the Revici treatment) examined 33 cancer
cases treated by Revici "or his appointed deputy" under what to present
knowledge is a most implausible and quite completely unsubstantiated method
of classifying cancer patients into groups requiring quite different
treatments. .
22 died. 8 left the study because they were unimproved by the treatment.
At the close of the study 15 months later only 3 patients were still under
Revici's care but all had signs of tumour progression.
Eidem, if you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there I will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have already advised
me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
I have been reading the exchanges in this string.
I hereby declare Dr. Moran the winner, by virtue of his logic and expertise.
j.
Moran's expertise is in evasive maneuvers, so he wins on everything but
virtue.
|
And if there's anyone here who's qualified to judge evasiveness, it's
PeterB.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
betsyb
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:21 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4484a757$0$29269$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| Quote: | Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my request for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
I point out to him that it is his claims that are under examination, not
mine. As it now stands all we know for sure is that Lyall and eight
others (including some of those using the Revici treatment) examined 33
cancer cases treated by Revici "or his appointed deputy" under what to
present knowledge is a most implausible and quite completely
unsubstantiated method of classifying cancer patients into groups
requiring quite different treatments. .
22 died. 8 left the study because they were unimproved by the
treatment. At the close of the study 15 months later only 3 patients were
still under Revici's care but all had signs of tumour progression.
Eidem, if you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there I will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have already
advised me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
After reading thru this whole messy conversation, and finding no suckers, |
isn't it time you moved on into greener pastures to toss your bull S___? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steph
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims The Winner is Dr. Moran!
|
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149792086.415319.164980@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
You smiled, you spoke, and I believed wrote:
Peter Moran wrote:
Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my request for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
I point out to him that it is his claims that are under examination,
not
mine. As it now stands all we know for sure is that Lyall and eight
others
(including some of those using the Revici treatment) examined 33 cancer
cases treated by Revici "or his appointed deputy" under what to present
knowledge is a most implausible and quite completely unsubstantiated
method
of classifying cancer patients into groups requiring quite different
treatments. .
22 died. 8 left the study because they were unimproved by the
treatment.
At the close of the study 15 months later only 3 patients were still
under
Revici's care but all had signs of tumour progression.
Eidem, if you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there I
will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have already
advised
me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
I have been reading the exchanges in this string.
I hereby declare Dr. Moran the winner, by virtue of his logic and
expertise.
j.
Moran has no expertise in the Revici Method, which means you have no
logic.
|
You have no expertise in the Revici Method either. In fact your level of
knowledge is that of a redundant school bus driver.
Wonder why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:08 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims The Winner is Dr. Moran!
|
|
|
Steph wrote:
| Quote: | awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149792086.415319.164980@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You smiled, you spoke, and I believed wrote:
Peter Moran wrote:
Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my request for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
I point out to him that it is his claims that are under examination,
not
mine. As it now stands all we know for sure is that Lyall and eight
others
(including some of those using the Revici treatment) examined 33 cancer
cases treated by Revici "or his appointed deputy" under what to present
knowledge is a most implausible and quite completely unsubstantiated
method
of classifying cancer patients into groups requiring quite different
treatments. .
22 died. 8 left the study because they were unimproved by the
treatment.
At the close of the study 15 months later only 3 patients were still
under
Revici's care but all had signs of tumour progression.
Eidem, if you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there I
will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have already
advised
me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
I have been reading the exchanges in this string.
I hereby declare Dr. Moran the winner, by virtue of his logic and
expertise.
j.
Moran has no expertise in the Revici Method, which means you have no
logic.
You have no expertise in the Revici Method either. In fact your level of
knowledge is that of a redundant school bus driver.
Wonder why?
|
You know, I drove a bus for five years and never killed or injured
anyone doing it......it's too bad you can't go a week without being
able to make the same claim in your 'profession.'
Driving a bus, and writing a book at the same time, and learning enough
to run rings around you and the moron with one hand tied behind my
back.
Before I came here, you two guys ruled the roost. Since my arrival,
you've had your asses handed to you time after time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:16 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
Steph wrote:
| Quote: | awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149746122.697436.142340@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Steph wrote:
Don't be so parochial. Spelling wasm't invented in the US.
No I guess it 'wasm't' ROFL...but you're apparently trying to reinvent
it.
You were the one who childishly commented on spelling, sonny, even though
your complaint displayed nothing other than parochialism. And you've just
done it again.
Having said that, spontaneous regression is well documented, and even
small
doses of radiotherapy or chemotherapy will induce a dramatic response.
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to show another 2.5 inch tumor
regressing over 16 months spontaneously...
I've seen many lymphomas bigger that 2.5 cm regressing spontaneously in
weeks, not months.
Tumors don't shrink spontaneously...it takes a cause...just like
chemical reactions don't take place spontaneously...they follow
chemical laws. If you saw a tumor shrink in weeks time, it was caused
by something.
Lymphomas often shrink spontaneously. It doesn't mean there isn't a cause,
just that there isn't an identifiable one.
Similarly, the tumor in question shrank because of some biochemical
reaction, namely the treatment she received.
As if you know that.
|
Unlike you, I don't believe in magic. Nothing happens in the body
without a biochemical or bio-electrical cause.
| Quote: | In the case described, no radiation or poisonous chemo was used...but
the tumor regressed while being treated with Dr. Revici's lipid
medications. The patient was accepted into the trial...so any attempt
afterwards to try to change the rules by claiming that a regression was
spontaneous defeats the purpose of accepting the patient into the trial
in the first place.
But that's what Lyall and you are trying to do. It was a lie then and
doesn't smell a whole lot better today when you flail away like this.
Give us the data, not the noise.
Go take a look at Lyall's report...Mr. Moron can send it to you. Then
tell me how it compares to any study you've ever seen. You won't
believe how bad it is...breathtakingly extraordinary in its cruddiness.
The friggin' thing starts out with a discussion of Revici's birthplace
for crying out loud!
Get an education, then come back.
|
I'm doing just fine kicking your butt with what I know already...facts
which you've never learned because you've swallowed hook, line and
sinker the propaganda from medical school...that's why it's so easy to
top you time after time.
BTW, are you still looking for a physician who has CURED two colon
cancer with liver mets patients, or two glioblastoma multiforme? You
had years to produce just ONE and so far you've come up empty.
Loser. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cathyb
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:21 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims The Winner is Dr. Moran!
|
|
|
awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Steph wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149792086.415319.164980@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You smiled, you spoke, and I believed wrote:
Peter Moran wrote:
Eidem (awthrawthr@yahoo.com ) has responded abusively to my request for
information (e.g. dates, biopsy results, other treatment received,
subsequent progress, and, ideally, source documentation of the facts)
about the patient whose photographs are shown at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm
I point out to him that it is his claims that are under examination,
not
mine. As it now stands all we know for sure is that Lyall and eight
others
(including some of those using the Revici treatment) examined 33 cancer
cases treated by Revici "or his appointed deputy" under what to present
knowledge is a most implausible and quite completely unsubstantiated
method
of classifying cancer patients into groups requiring quite different
treatments. .
22 died. 8 left the study because they were unimproved by the
treatment.
At the close of the study 15 months later only 3 patients were still
under
Revici's care but all had signs of tumour progression.
Eidem, if you don't want the dustjacket of your book posted there I
will
take it off, but leave the forty-year old photos. You have already
advised
me that you don't know who owns copyright on them.
Peter Moran
I have been reading the exchanges in this string.
I hereby declare Dr. Moran the winner, by virtue of his logic and
expertise.
j.
Moran has no expertise in the Revici Method, which means you have no
logic.
You have no expertise in the Revici Method either. In fact your level of
knowledge is that of a redundant school bus driver.
Wonder why?
You know, I drove a bus for five years and never killed or injured
anyone doing it......it's too bad you can't go a week without being
able to make the same claim in your 'profession.'
Driving a bus, and writing a book at the same time, and learning enough
to run rings around you and the moron with one hand tied behind my
back.
Before I came here, you two guys ruled the roost. Since my arrival,
you've had your asses handed to you time after time.
|
LOL. Funny; that's not how it looks to anyone but you. Bless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:57 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Loans | 80s Clothes | Bankruptcy | Credit Cards | Remortgages
|
|
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
