|
|
| Author |
Message |
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject:
Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steph
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:33 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
|
By the way, if anyone wants to speculate how Eidem earns his keep, have a
look at
http://boston.backpage.com/services/classifieds/ViewAd?oid=oid%3A208176&name=health%2Fwellness%20services
Some interesting history about his own issues there, too.
Here's another
http://boston.backpage.com/services/classifieds/ViewAd?oid=oid%3A208176&name=health%2Fwellness%20services
He also sells sinus sprays
http://boston.backpage.com/services/classifieds/ViewAd?oid=oid%3A208176&name=health%2Fwellness%20services
and fertility treatments
http://www.fertilityovulation.info/articles/How_Five_Years_of_Infertility_Ended_in_Three_Weeks_for_6_99.htm
Is there no end to his talents? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:00 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
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
|
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.
Isn't it amazing, you have over the years, wasted no time trying to
discredit studies by pointing to 'flaws' yet when it comes to the Lyall
report, you are utterly SILENT.
SILENT.
PS. How coy of you to ask my permission to remove the copyright
violation you committed. You don't need my permission...YOU ARE ALREADY
ON NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:05 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
Steph wrote:
| Quote: | "Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4484a757$0$29269$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
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
By the way, if anyone wants to speculate how Eidem earns his keep, have a
look at
http://boston.backpage.com/services/classifieds/ViewAd?oid=oid%3A208176&name=health%2Fwellness%20services
Some interesting history about his own issues there, too.
Here's another
http://boston.backpage.com/services/classifieds/ViewAd?oid=oid%3A208176&name=health%2Fwellness%20services
He also sells sinus sprays
http://boston.backpage.com/services/classifieds/ViewAd?oid=oid%3A208176&name=health%2Fwellness%20services
and fertility treatments
http://www.fertilityovulation.info/articles/How_Five_Years_of_Infertility_Ended_in_Three_Weeks_for_6_99.htm
Is there no end to his talents?
|
Thanks for the promos, Steph, although who would listen to you?
I have nothing to hide about my previous health challenges...if you
find my health challenges to be funny to you, maybe you laugh at your
patients before you radiate them to death, too...it doesn't surprise me
that you'd be callous...in fact it's been all too obvious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:55 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149566422.274569.41580@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| 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
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.
Peter Moran
www.cancerwatcher.com
| Quote: |
Isn't it amazing, you have over the years, wasted no time trying to
discredit studies by pointing to 'flaws' yet when it comes to the Lyall
report, you are utterly SILENT.
|
| Quote: |
SILENT.
PS. How coy of you to ask my permission to remove the copyright
violation you committed. You don't need my permission...YOU ARE ALREADY
ON NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steph
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:20 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44850ac7$0$6395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| Quote: |
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.
| Quote: | Peter Moran
www.cancerwatcher.com
Isn't it amazing, you have over the years, wasted no time trying to
discredit studies by pointing to 'flaws' yet when it comes to the Lyall
report, you are utterly SILENT.
SILENT.
PS. How coy of you to ask my permission to remove the copyright
violation you committed. You don't need my permission...YOU ARE ALREADY
ON NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:08 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:11ahg.246973$P01.233206@pd7tw3no...
| Quote: |
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44850ac7$0$6395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
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 last of the series (and I am prepared to accept that they are in the
proper order) suggested to me the possibility of a recurrence at the edge of
an irradiated area (note the small lesion highlighted by a white circle).
Yet there are no clear indications of radiotherapy effects in the earlier
pictures. It would be nice to have full clinical details, as stuff like
this can become part of alternative medical lore no matter how weak the
provenance and documentation..
(We are talking about the pictures at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm )
Peter Moran
www.cancerwatcher.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steph
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4485380a$0$25129$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| Quote: |
"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:11ahg.246973$P01.233206@pd7tw3no...
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44850ac7$0$6395$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
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 last of the series (and I am prepared to accept that they are in the
proper order) suggested to me the possibility of a recurrence at the edge
of an irradiated area (note the small lesion highlighted by a white
circle). Yet there are no clear indications of radiotherapy effects in the
earlier pictures. It would be nice to have full clinical details, as
stuff like this can become part of alternative medical lore no matter how
weak the provenance and documentation..
(We are talking about the pictures at
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Revici.htm )
Peter Moran
www.cancerwatcher.com
|
Without some details like pathology, it's impossible to say what they show.
It certainly does not look like a BCC, SCC or melanoma.............looks
more like NHL or a sarcoma of some kind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:04 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
Steph wrote:
| Quote: | "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.
| Quote: |
Peter Moran
www.cancerwatcher.com
Isn't it amazing, you have over the years, wasted no time trying to
discredit studies by pointing to 'flaws' yet when it comes to the Lyall
report, you are utterly SILENT.
SILENT.
PS. How coy of you to ask my permission to remove the copyright
violation you committed. You don't need my permission...YOU ARE ALREADY
ON NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steph
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:59 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149645887.232863.59750@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
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.
Having said that, spontaneous regression is well documented, and even small
doses of radiotherapy or chemotherapy will induce a dramatic response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:59 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
Steph 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
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.
| 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 |
|
|
cathyb
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:26 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
| 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 |
|
|
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:46 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149645887.232863.59750@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
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.
|
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
www.cancerwatcher.com
| Quote: |
Peter Moran
www.cancerwatcher.com
Isn't it amazing, you have over the years, wasted no time trying to
discredit studies by pointing to 'flaws' yet when it comes to the
Lyall
report, you are utterly SILENT.
SILENT.
PS. How coy of you to ask my permission to remove the copyright
violation you committed. You don't need my permission...YOU ARE
ALREADY
ON NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steph
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:56 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149652778.180551.278990@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
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.
| 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.
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steph
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:58 am Post subject:
Re: Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims
|
|
|
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4486765a$0$10288$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
| 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
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.
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
www.cancerwatcher.com
|
You couldn't make Eidem's crap up if you tried, could you, Peter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:10 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Download movies | Chat Php Scripts | McDonalds | Credit Cards | Mortgage
|
|
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
