FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » diseases » cancer
Brenner's views on the Revici method
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [15 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:06 am    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

Peter Moran wrote:
Quote:
"Vakker" <Vakker@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Eesjg.14518$iF6.261@pd7tw2no...


And you now say it is MY fixation on the Lyall paper? I have not
mentioned
the Lyall paper recently yet you keep on coming back to my supposed
laxity
in reviewing it (which is quite false, by the way, there is nothing
internal
to the paper that indicates any wrong doing or laxity, and you have
never,
ever pointed out any that I should be able to find - you simply make
allegations about the paper that may be based upon no more than rumour or
gossip, and again without producing any documented external evidence to
support your claims ).
Why is it you accept the Lyall report as being above suspicion of
wrongdoing. What is it about it that you find so correct and upright that
you don't so much as bat your eyes at it????

Fair enough question.

Do you understand the difference between a case series and a controlled
clinical trial? The 1950s n-butanol study of Eidem's that I criticised
was a unsatisfactorily designed (non-concurrent controls, non-blinded,
apparently restrospective) purportedly controlled study, but it did not even
state how the hundreds of patients being compared were obtained.

This provides a wonderful example of how some doctors place the
sanctity of a trial above the patients' well being.

Revici noticed that butanol stopped spontaneous bleeding in cancer
patients merely by being observant. When a patient suddenly stops
hemmorhaging, and this is seen more than once, it would be morally
reprehensible to set up a concurrent trial.

The study speaks for itself...patients were 25 times more likely to
hemmorhage to death without butanol.

Quote:
Nevertheless it was about average quality for the research of its day..
This is all over Eidem's head and he thinks I am just making it up. .He
presumably thinks we doctors want to suppress good treatments for
haemorrhage too.

No. I think you place an arbitrary sanctity on "the trial" while
refusing to see the obvious. And maybe because you don't like being
called names, or maybe because you've been obstinately blinded before I
came along, you look for reasons to reject based on your prejudice,
and to accept whatever serves that same prejudice.

Quote:

The Lyall et Al study was an extremely simple prospective (planned) case
series, essentially a Phase ll study of the type that every alternaitve
cancer practitioner should perform and publish themselves before they even
started making major public claims. There is no need for controls, or
blinding or elaborate protocols in such a study. The paper describes how
they selected 33 patients with cancer, excluding certain types that can be
unpredictable in their behaviour. They allowed Revici or his deputy to
treat them, and found none of them responded to the treatment.

For god's sake, man!...there were 38 thirty-EIGHT patients, not
thrirty-THREE patients...Lyall LIED about the number of patients in the
trial...try to get that through your thick skull! All five of those
patients had significant, measurable tumor shrinkage/disappearance of
their tumors. Some of those who died also had the same type of results
although they died due to the complications of being terminal patients.

Dr. Fishbein wrote his own paper about the unethical behavior of
Lyall...the son-of-a-b***h attempted to persuade patients to drop out
of the trial. He also attempted to include a patient who was NOT part
of the trial in the first draft of his paper.

In all, Lyall committed 100 breeches of medical ethics! The FUCKING
monthly meetings took place at a restaurant for crying out loud! The
bar tabs indicate that each participant drank between three and seven
alcoholic beverages!

And despite these facts... AND MANY MORE!!... you pretend as if the
Lyall report is worth considering. You ACCEPT Lyall's false claim that
certain types of cancer were were to be excluded!

You accept death of these terminal patients as the criteria for
determining the validity of the treatment, even though you've been
informed that tumor shrinkage was the ONLY criteria! You should know
that in a trail of this nature that tumor shrinkage is the ONLY
objective measure..which makes your placing your trust in Lyall all the
more shameful.

Quote:
Apparently that is not disputed.

I need to swear to emphasize my point because that statement is just
Fucking BULLSHIT!! I absolutely do dispute your erroneous assumption.

But Eidem is claiming that there should
Quote:
have been more patients in the study, and that the authors excluded the
remission of the lymphoma patient after the fact. While that would not
necessarily change the conclusions of the trial much, since low-grade
lymphomas have quite a high spontaneous remission rate, it would be very,
very naughty of the authors to do that.

*And they would obviously not say so in their published paper! *

So, even if Eidem's claim was true *there is no way I can expected to
determine that from reading the paper*. Eidem has never even stated what
errors he expects me to have found in the paper, nor will he produce
convincing independent evidence in support of his claims.

1) Can you spell disingenuous? Since when have you ever needed someone
to point out the flaws in a paper before. The onus was and is on you,
but at first you would make no comment on it...and then when pressed
about it act like it's the Holy Grail. (lightening storm here...got to
go!)

2) I have pointed out to you BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN SO BLIND ABOUT IT the
long paragraph discussing Revici's place of birth, his emigre status,
the amounts he expended in dollars in prior years, etc., as a huge red
flag of the bias in the paper.


Quote:
I think major skullduggery is unlikely for various reasons, but I cannot
prove it did not happen. There is no doubt that in those days there was a
lot more overt bias against alternative practitioners. I also think the
medical profession was often arrogant and heavy-handed with them, but
without necessarily being wrong when they concluded that their methods were
useless.

So I am prepared to look at any evidence of biased behaviour in these
authors, if Eidem will produce it. Half-heartedly, as I don't think it
would change anything much. Showing that some doctors were pigs does not
prove Revici had an effective treatment method. It is still necessary to
show a lot of cancers going away, and surely Eidem would have produced them
by now if they existed.. I have indicated a number of other grounds for
having little confidence in the Revici method..

I even tried to get Eidem (in private correspondence) to get any current
practitioners of the Revici method to produce some cured patients. I was
staggered to find that he was not even clear who might still be using the
method. I think he wants to keep on stirring an old pot rather than
truly advance the method.

Peter Moran.

Www.cancerwatcher.com


b

.




Listen, I know you are sincere and have invested a lot of yourself into
the
Revici matter. But you are making very important claims that you *will
not*
back up with evidence. Apart from the major importance of the material
to
cancer sufferers, these are scientific claims. Any scientist has to
expect
forthright debate on any claims he makes, and has to be prepared to back
them up.

Why then didn't they give Dr Brenner more than 5 minutes to make his case
for the efficaciousness of Revici's cancer treatments??? Where then was
the
forthright "debate" on Brenner's claim that Revici may very well indeed
have
very efficacious treatments for cancer which conventional treatments
couldn't match!!!



Your engagement in diversion, insults, verbal abuse,

You just kind of bring that out of people. I don't suppose your doing it
on
purpose are you?

and a
ridiculous coyness about submitting data

Hasn't he sent you an whole bunch of it which you poohed poohed as being
"falsified"??? Can't you think it's the truth??? Why would he falsify this
info he sent you???

when it is your own claims that are
under assault demonstrates that you should not be engaged in this kind of
activity.

Claims such as the Lyall report being a sham??? Again, why do you find
nothing wrong with the Lyall report??? Why are you defending it so much by
trying to discredit those who claim it was a sham???


You know far too little about medicine, about cancer, about
clinical investigations and about the mores of normal scientific enquiry.

This from a man who's defending the methodology of the Lyall report!!!!
Incredible.



.

You can have the last word, so long as you choose to be honest and only
minimally abusive in what you say. . Then let the readers make up their
minds.

He's had the best words so maybe you can have the last ones but
personally
speaking I think you're about the last person who should speak of honesty
when you've demonstrated so little of it yourself.

Vakker.




Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com



Yet the moron has fixated his narrow
vision on a case that would have created a huge amount of defensiveness
among the medical establishment had he presented it.




He wrote the foreword to your book didn't he? Explain to us again
why
this
poorly documented 26-year-old lymphoma case was not suitable for his
purposes, yet you have been prepared to castigate us time and time
again
for daring to query its significance..

The lymphoma case is significant merely in that it proves Lyall lied.
It was no more important that many other successes Revici achieved.
Brenner didn't want to piss people off...that wasn't his
personality...he wanted to move the ball forward.

Btw, Brenner became interested due to a patient of his returning to see
him. From there he investigated cases where he could call the
physicians to verify biopsies, etc. It is quite possible that he wasn't
aware of the Lyall debacle, because his interest was in seeing cases
presented to him by Revici.

Revici introduced living patients to him in person...two pancreatic
patients and a malignant brain tumor patient on his first visit, for
instance...that is always more impressive than old paperwork.

The next time you want me to "explain [it] to us again," reread this
answer.

Peter Moran

He didn't use Dr. Robert
Fishbein either, a 1962-63 patient with a brain tumor who is still
alive today. What's funny about the moron's silly question is that
in
his mind, he actually thinks his hair-brained presumptions sink the
validity of all things pertaining to Revici.

In a similar vein, he told the German pharmacist who lives in
Denmark,
Heinrich Schulze, that he was my alter ego. Why? Because the moron
imagined that Heinrich and I were the same person...his imagination
made it true for him.

Meanwhile, the moron trusts EVERY word of the Lyall report as if it
were the inspired word of God.

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others
have
said
and done.
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a
study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent
research
has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers
can
be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his
unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have
examined
the
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces,
I'm
not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't
even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall
report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so
your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims,
expecting
me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner
and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the
Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html
but
with
a fuller version at
http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and
what
he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the
best
of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival
after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient,
because
it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years,
and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four
patients
was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with
virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to
the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its
prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make
mistakes
and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling
thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is
patients
that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed
up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar
reason
his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most
convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go
away
with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not
mention
that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than
any
of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor
documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the
scepticism
about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that
modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner
goes
on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici
can
cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar
alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the
time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have
said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven
year
old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was
she
had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me,
"Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if
Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure
her,
but
I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their
lives
and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back
on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact,
I've
seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated
by
them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate
them
in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open
your
doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you
do
open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give
you
the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a
little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the
protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at
Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be
treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the
side."
He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the
patient

went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative.
Seven
years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering.
Operated
on
in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely
respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition
progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She
was
seen
by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a
wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two
babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a
cane.
A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for
ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were
performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on
chemotherapy,
which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic
tumor
with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the
diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today,
she
is
in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left
lung.
Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went
to
see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in
this
room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years
on
no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death
to
a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the
knee
for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy
for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5
centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous
pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously,
he's
well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew
Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival
after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in
patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative
radiotherapy.
Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com





Back to top
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:N4Ajg.20886$Mn5.2351@pd7tw3no...
Quote:

"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:448e7d0a$0$18550$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Vakker" <Vakker@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Eesjg.14518$iF6.261@pd7tw2no...


And you now say it is MY fixation on the Lyall paper? I have not
mentioned
the Lyall paper recently yet you keep on coming back to my supposed
laxity
in reviewing it (which is quite false, by the way, there is nothing
internal
to the paper that indicates any wrong doing or laxity, and you have
never,
ever pointed out any that I should be able to find - you simply make
allegations about the paper that may be based upon no more than rumour
or
gossip, and again without producing any documented external evidence to
support your claims )..

Why is it you accept the Lyall report as being above suspicion of
wrongdoing. What is it about it that you find so correct and upright
that
you don't so much as bat your eyes at it????

Fair enough question.

Do you understand the difference between a case series and a controlled
clinical trial? The 1950s n-butanol study of Eidem's that I criticised
was a unsatisfactorily designed (non-concurrent controls, non-blinded,
apparently restrospective) purportedly controlled study, but it did not
even state how the hundreds of patients being compared were obtained.
Nevertheless it was about average quality for the research of its day..
This is all over Eidem's head and he thinks I am just making it up. .He
presumably thinks we doctors want to suppress good treatments for
haemorrhage too.

The Lyall et Al study was an extremely simple prospective (planned) case
series, essentially a Phase ll study of the type that every alternaitve
cancer practitioner should perform and publish themselves before they
even started making major public claims. There is no need for
controls, or blinding or elaborate protocols in such a study. The paper
describes how they selected 33 patients with cancer, excluding certain
types that can be unpredictable in their behaviour. They allowed Revici
or his deputy to treat them, and found none of them responded to the
treatment.

Apparently that is not disputed. But Eidem is claiming that there
should have been more patients in the study, and that the authors
excluded the remission of the lymphoma patient after the fact. While
that would not necessarily change the conclusions of the trial much,
since low-grade lymphomas have quite a high spontaneous remission rate,
it would be very, very naughty of the authors to do that.

*And they would obviously not say so in their published paper! *

So, even if Eidem's claim was true *there is no way I can expected to
determine that from reading the paper*. Eidem has never even stated
what errors he expects me to have found in the paper, nor will he produce
convincing independent evidence in support of his claims.

I think major skullduggery is unlikely for various reasons, but I cannot
prove it did not happen. There is no doubt that in those days there was
a lot more overt bias against alternative practitioners. I also think
the medical profession was often arrogant and heavy-handed with them,
but without necessarily being wrong when they concluded that their
methods were useless.

So I am prepared to look at any evidence of biased behaviour in these
authors, if Eidem will produce it. Half-heartedly, as I don't think
it would change anything much. Showing that some doctors were pigs
does not prove Revici had an effective treatment method. It is still
necessary to show a lot of cancers going away, and surely Eidem would
have produced them by now if they existed.. I have indicated a number
of other grounds for having little confidence in the Revici method..

I even tried to get Eidem (in private correspondence) to get any current
practitioners of the Revici method to produce some cured patients. I was
staggered to find that he was not even clear who might still be using the
method. I think he wants to keep on stirring an old pot rather than
truly advance the method.

Peter Moran.

Www.cancerwatcher.com




Peter,
I'm breathless at your patience

It's something I believe in. Most of our cancer patients get swamped with
this kind of material these days. They, and anyone else who is unsure what
to believe, deserves to see precisely how things look from the other side.
I am not fool enough to think I can change other minds.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com
Quote:

Back to top
Steph
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 504

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

"Peter Moran" <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:448e7d0a$0$18550$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Quote:

"Vakker" <Vakker@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Eesjg.14518$iF6.261@pd7tw2no...


And you now say it is MY fixation on the Lyall paper? I have not
mentioned
the Lyall paper recently yet you keep on coming back to my supposed
laxity
in reviewing it (which is quite false, by the way, there is nothing
internal
to the paper that indicates any wrong doing or laxity, and you have
never,
ever pointed out any that I should be able to find - you simply make
allegations about the paper that may be based upon no more than rumour
or
gossip, and again without producing any documented external evidence to
support your claims )..

Why is it you accept the Lyall report as being above suspicion of
wrongdoing. What is it about it that you find so correct and upright that
you don't so much as bat your eyes at it????

Fair enough question.

Do you understand the difference between a case series and a controlled
clinical trial? The 1950s n-butanol study of Eidem's that I criticised
was a unsatisfactorily designed (non-concurrent controls, non-blinded,
apparently restrospective) purportedly controlled study, but it did not
even state how the hundreds of patients being compared were obtained.
Nevertheless it was about average quality for the research of its day..
This is all over Eidem's head and he thinks I am just making it up. .He
presumably thinks we doctors want to suppress good treatments for
haemorrhage too.

The Lyall et Al study was an extremely simple prospective (planned) case
series, essentially a Phase ll study of the type that every alternaitve
cancer practitioner should perform and publish themselves before they even
started making major public claims. There is no need for controls, or
blinding or elaborate protocols in such a study. The paper describes how
they selected 33 patients with cancer, excluding certain types that can be
unpredictable in their behaviour. They allowed Revici or his deputy to
treat them, and found none of them responded to the treatment.

Apparently that is not disputed. But Eidem is claiming that there should
have been more patients in the study, and that the authors excluded the
remission of the lymphoma patient after the fact. While that would not
necessarily change the conclusions of the trial much, since low-grade
lymphomas have quite a high spontaneous remission rate, it would be very,
very naughty of the authors to do that.

*And they would obviously not say so in their published paper! *

So, even if Eidem's claim was true *there is no way I can expected to
determine that from reading the paper*. Eidem has never even stated what
errors he expects me to have found in the paper, nor will he produce
convincing independent evidence in support of his claims.

I think major skullduggery is unlikely for various reasons, but I cannot
prove it did not happen. There is no doubt that in those days there was a
lot more overt bias against alternative practitioners. I also think the
medical profession was often arrogant and heavy-handed with them, but
without necessarily being wrong when they concluded that their methods
were useless.

So I am prepared to look at any evidence of biased behaviour in these
authors, if Eidem will produce it. Half-heartedly, as I don't think
it would change anything much. Showing that some doctors were pigs does
not prove Revici had an effective treatment method. It is still
necessary to show a lot of cancers going away, and surely Eidem would have
produced them by now if they existed.. I have indicated a number of
other grounds for having little confidence in the Revici method..

I even tried to get Eidem (in private correspondence) to get any current
practitioners of the Revici method to produce some cured patients. I was
staggered to find that he was not even clear who might still be using the
method. I think he wants to keep on stirring an old pot rather than
truly advance the method.

Peter Moran.

Www.cancerwatcher.com




Peter,
I'm breathless at your patience
Back to top
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:53 am    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

"Vakker" <Vakker@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Eesjg.14518$iF6.261@pd7tw2no...
Quote:


And you now say it is MY fixation on the Lyall paper? I have not
mentioned
the Lyall paper recently yet you keep on coming back to my supposed
laxity
in reviewing it (which is quite false, by the way, there is nothing
internal
to the paper that indicates any wrong doing or laxity, and you have
never,
ever pointed out any that I should be able to find - you simply make
allegations about the paper that may be based upon no more than rumour or
gossip, and again without producing any documented external evidence to
support your claims )..

Why is it you accept the Lyall report as being above suspicion of
wrongdoing. What is it about it that you find so correct and upright that
you don't so much as bat your eyes at it????

Fair enough question.

Do you understand the difference between a case series and a controlled
clinical trial? The 1950s n-butanol study of Eidem's that I criticised
was a unsatisfactorily designed (non-concurrent controls, non-blinded,
apparently restrospective) purportedly controlled study, but it did not even
state how the hundreds of patients being compared were obtained.
Nevertheless it was about average quality for the research of its day..
This is all over Eidem's head and he thinks I am just making it up. .He
presumably thinks we doctors want to suppress good treatments for
haemorrhage too.

The Lyall et Al study was an extremely simple prospective (planned) case
series, essentially a Phase ll study of the type that every alternaitve
cancer practitioner should perform and publish themselves before they even
started making major public claims. There is no need for controls, or
blinding or elaborate protocols in such a study. The paper describes how
they selected 33 patients with cancer, excluding certain types that can be
unpredictable in their behaviour. They allowed Revici or his deputy to
treat them, and found none of them responded to the treatment.

Apparently that is not disputed. But Eidem is claiming that there should
have been more patients in the study, and that the authors excluded the
remission of the lymphoma patient after the fact. While that would not
necessarily change the conclusions of the trial much, since low-grade
lymphomas have quite a high spontaneous remission rate, it would be very,
very naughty of the authors to do that.

*And they would obviously not say so in their published paper! *

So, even if Eidem's claim was true *there is no way I can expected to
determine that from reading the paper*. Eidem has never even stated what
errors he expects me to have found in the paper, nor will he produce
convincing independent evidence in support of his claims.

I think major skullduggery is unlikely for various reasons, but I cannot
prove it did not happen. There is no doubt that in those days there was a
lot more overt bias against alternative practitioners. I also think the
medical profession was often arrogant and heavy-handed with them, but
without necessarily being wrong when they concluded that their methods were
useless.

So I am prepared to look at any evidence of biased behaviour in these
authors, if Eidem will produce it. Half-heartedly, as I don't think it
would change anything much. Showing that some doctors were pigs does not
prove Revici had an effective treatment method. It is still necessary to
show a lot of cancers going away, and surely Eidem would have produced them
by now if they existed.. I have indicated a number of other grounds for
having little confidence in the Revici method..

I even tried to get Eidem (in private correspondence) to get any current
practitioners of the Revici method to produce some cured patients. I was
staggered to find that he was not even clear who might still be using the
method. I think he wants to keep on stirring an old pot rather than
truly advance the method.

Peter Moran.

Www.cancerwatcher.com


b

.


Quote:


Listen, I know you are sincere and have invested a lot of yourself into
the
Revici matter. But you are making very important claims that you *will
not*
back up with evidence. Apart from the major importance of the material
to
cancer sufferers, these are scientific claims. Any scientist has to
expect
forthright debate on any claims he makes, and has to be prepared to back
them up.

Why then didn't they give Dr Brenner more than 5 minutes to make his case
for the efficaciousness of Revici's cancer treatments??? Where then was
the
forthright "debate" on Brenner's claim that Revici may very well indeed
have
very efficacious treatments for cancer which conventional treatments
couldn't match!!!



Your engagement in diversion, insults, verbal abuse,

You just kind of bring that out of people. I don't suppose your doing it
on
purpose are you?

and a
ridiculous coyness about submitting data

Hasn't he sent you an whole bunch of it which you poohed poohed as being
"falsified"??? Can't you think it's the truth??? Why would he falsify this
info he sent you???

when it is your own claims that are
under assault demonstrates that you should not be engaged in this kind of
activity.

Claims such as the Lyall report being a sham??? Again, why do you find
nothing wrong with the Lyall report??? Why are you defending it so much by
trying to discredit those who claim it was a sham???


You know far too little about medicine, about cancer, about
clinical investigations and about the mores of normal scientific enquiry.

This from a man who's defending the methodology of the Lyall report!!!!
Incredible.



.

You can have the last word, so long as you choose to be honest and only
minimally abusive in what you say. . Then let the readers make up their
minds.

He's had the best words so maybe you can have the last ones but
personally
speaking I think you're about the last person who should speak of honesty
when you've demonstrated so little of it yourself.

Vakker.




Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com



Yet the moron has fixated his narrow
vision on a case that would have created a huge amount of defensiveness
among the medical establishment had he presented it.




He wrote the foreword to your book didn't he? Explain to us again
why
this
poorly documented 26-year-old lymphoma case was not suitable for his
purposes, yet you have been prepared to castigate us time and time
again
for daring to query its significance..

The lymphoma case is significant merely in that it proves Lyall lied.
It was no more important that many other successes Revici achieved.
Brenner didn't want to piss people off...that wasn't his
personality...he wanted to move the ball forward.

Btw, Brenner became interested due to a patient of his returning to see
him. From there he investigated cases where he could call the
physicians to verify biopsies, etc. It is quite possible that he wasn't
aware of the Lyall debacle, because his interest was in seeing cases
presented to him by Revici.

Revici introduced living patients to him in person...two pancreatic
patients and a malignant brain tumor patient on his first visit, for
instance...that is always more impressive than old paperwork.

The next time you want me to "explain [it] to us again," reread this
answer.

Peter Moran

He didn't use Dr. Robert
Fishbein either, a 1962-63 patient with a brain tumor who is still
alive today. What's funny about the moron's silly question is that
in
his mind, he actually thinks his hair-brained presumptions sink the
validity of all things pertaining to Revici.

In a similar vein, he told the German pharmacist who lives in
Denmark,
Heinrich Schulze, that he was my alter ego. Why? Because the moron
imagined that Heinrich and I were the same person...his imagination
made it true for him.

Meanwhile, the moron trusts EVERY word of the Lyall report as if it
were the inspired word of God.

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others
have
said
and done.
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a
study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent
research
has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers
can
be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his
unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have
examined
the
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces,
I'm
not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't
even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall
report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so
your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims,
expecting
me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner
and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the
Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html
but
with
a fuller version at
http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and
what
he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the
best
of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival
after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient,
because
it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years,
and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four
patients
was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with
virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to
the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its
prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make
mistakes
and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling
thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is
patients
that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed
up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar
reason
his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most
convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go
away
with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not
mention
that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than
any
of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor
documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the
scepticism
about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that
modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner
goes
on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici
can
cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar
alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the
time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have
said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven
year
old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was
she
had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me,
"Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if
Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure
her,
but
I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their
lives
and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back
on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact,
I've
seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated
by
them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate
them
in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open
your
doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you
do
open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give
you
the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a
little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the
protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at
Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be
treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the
side."
He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the
patient

went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative.
Seven
years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering.
Operated
on
in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely
respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition
progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She
was
seen
by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a
wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two
babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a
cane.
A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for
ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were
performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on
chemotherapy,
which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic
tumor
with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the
diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today,
she
is
in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left
lung.
Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went
to
see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in
this
room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years
on
no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death
to
a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the
knee
for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy
for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5
centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous
pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously,
he's
well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew
Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival
after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in
patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative
radiotherapy.
Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com





Back to top
Vakker
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:41 am    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

Quote:
And you now say it is MY fixation on the Lyall paper? I have not
mentioned
the Lyall paper recently yet you keep on coming back to my supposed laxity
in reviewing it (which is quite false, by the way, there is nothing
internal
to the paper that indicates any wrong doing or laxity, and you have
never,
ever pointed out any that I should be able to find - you simply make
allegations about the paper that may be based upon no more than rumour or
gossip, and again without producing any documented external evidence to
support your claims )..

Why is it you accept the Lyall report as being above suspicion of
wrongdoing. What is it about it that you find so correct and upright that
you don't so much as bat your eyes at it????

Quote:

Listen, I know you are sincere and have invested a lot of yourself into
the
Revici matter. But you are making very important claims that you *will
not*
back up with evidence. Apart from the major importance of the material to
cancer sufferers, these are scientific claims. Any scientist has to
expect
forthright debate on any claims he makes, and has to be prepared to back
them up.

Why then didn't they give Dr Brenner more than 5 minutes to make his case
for the efficaciousness of Revici's cancer treatments??? Where then was the
forthright "debate" on Brenner's claim that Revici may very well indeed have
very efficacious treatments for cancer which conventional treatments
couldn't match!!!



Quote:
Your engagement in diversion, insults, verbal abuse,

You just kind of bring that out of people. I don't suppose your doing it on
purpose are you?

and a
Quote:
ridiculous coyness about submitting data

Hasn't he sent you an whole bunch of it which you poohed poohed as being
"falsified"??? Can't you think it's the truth??? Why would he falsify this
info he sent you???

when it is your own claims that are
Quote:
under assault demonstrates that you should not be engaged in this kind of
activity.

Claims such as the Lyall report being a sham??? Again, why do you find
nothing wrong with the Lyall report??? Why are you defending it so much by
trying to discredit those who claim it was a sham???


Quote:
You know far too little about medicine, about cancer, about
clinical investigations and about the mores of normal scientific enquiry.

This from a man who's defending the methodology of the Lyall report!!!!
Incredible.



Quote:
.

You can have the last word, so long as you choose to be honest and only
minimally abusive in what you say. . Then let the readers make up their
minds.

He's had the best words so maybe you can have the last ones but personally
speaking I think you're about the last person who should speak of honesty
when you've demonstrated so little of it yourself.

Vakker.



Quote:

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com



Yet the moron has fixated his narrow
vision on a case that would have created a huge amount of defensiveness
among the medical establishment had he presented it.




He wrote the foreword to your book didn't he? Explain to us again why
this
poorly documented 26-year-old lymphoma case was not suitable for his
purposes, yet you have been prepared to castigate us time and time
again
for daring to query its significance..

The lymphoma case is significant merely in that it proves Lyall lied.
It was no more important that many other successes Revici achieved.
Brenner didn't want to piss people off...that wasn't his
personality...he wanted to move the ball forward.

Btw, Brenner became interested due to a patient of his returning to see
him. From there he investigated cases where he could call the
physicians to verify biopsies, etc. It is quite possible that he wasn't
aware of the Lyall debacle, because his interest was in seeing cases
presented to him by Revici.

Revici introduced living patients to him in person...two pancreatic
patients and a malignant brain tumor patient on his first visit, for
instance...that is always more impressive than old paperwork.

The next time you want me to "explain [it] to us again," reread this
answer.

Peter Moran

He didn't use Dr. Robert
Fishbein either, a 1962-63 patient with a brain tumor who is still
alive today. What's funny about the moron's silly question is that in
his mind, he actually thinks his hair-brained presumptions sink the
validity of all things pertaining to Revici.

In a similar vein, he told the German pharmacist who lives in
Denmark,
Heinrich Schulze, that he was my alter ego. Why? Because the moron
imagined that Heinrich and I were the same person...his imagination
made it true for him.

Meanwhile, the moron trusts EVERY word of the Lyall report as if it
were the inspired word of God.

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others have
said
and done.
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a
study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent
research
has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers
can
be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his
unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have
examined
the
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces,
I'm
not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't
even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so
your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims,
expecting
me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner
and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the
Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html
but
with
a fuller version at
http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and
what
he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the
best
of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival
after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient,
because
it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years,
and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four
patients
was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with
virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to
the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its
prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make mistakes
and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling
thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is
patients
that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed
up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar reason
his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most
convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go
away
with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not
mention
that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than
any
of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor
documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the
scepticism
about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that
modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner
goes
on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici
can
cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar
alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the
time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have
said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven
year
old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was
she
had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me,
"Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if
Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure
her,
but
I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their
lives
and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back
on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact, I've
seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated
by
them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate
them
in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open
your
doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you
do
open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give
you
the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a
little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the
protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at
Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be
treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the
side."
He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the patient

went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative.
Seven
years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering.
Operated
on
in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely
respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition
progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She was
seen
by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a
wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two
babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a
cane.
A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for
ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were
performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on chemotherapy,
which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic
tumor
with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the
diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today, she
is
in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left
lung.
Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went
to
see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in
this
room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years
on
no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death
to
a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the
knee
for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy
for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5
centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous
pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously,
he's
well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew
Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival
after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in
patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative
radiotherapy.
Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com



Back to top
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:54 am    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

Peter Moran wrote:
Quote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150073853.565073.171260@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149988121.774955.29440@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
With the moron, it appears to be necessary to repeat the same answer
several times...yet he still won't get it...even though Brenner refers
to it in his own comments.

He had 5 minutes. I have commented also at an NIH hearing similar to
the Office of Technology Assessment. You get 5 minutes..not five
minutes and ten seconds.

Brenner was attempting to use the time to make it more than a mere
listing of cases. SO HE HIT A FEW HIGHLIGHTS.

Well, I suggest that with only five minutes he would take great care to
present his very, very best cases. And he was clearly not conveying to
this committee that he had proof that Revici can cure cancer patients, as
per the impression Eidem has been trying to create all along.

Since Eidem prefers to ignore it, I once again draw readers attention
to
my main point, that even Dr Seymour Brenner, Eidem's favourite authority
was unable to produce any unmistakable instances of cancer remitting with
Revici's treatment.

Peter Moran

It is so funny how willing the moron is to analyze and parse Dr.
Brenner's 5 minutes with the OTA but can't find ANYTHING wrong with the
Lyall travesty.

It never occurred to the moron that maybe Brenner didn't want to stir
the pudding by focusing on ATTACKING Lyall and JAMA in his 5 minutes.
Brenner, who I met in person, was trying to move the ball forward.
Making accusations in that situation would not have helped. Of ocurse
what he didn't realize, being a physician and not a political person,
is that the OTA 5-minute presentations were window dressing, as are all
5-minute public comments

They are required. But that doesn't mean the panel is the least bit
interested. It's a Kabooki (sp?) dance...nothing more.

In the moron's mind (term used loosely), whether Brenner presented a
particular case makes or breaks the moron's decision making process
whether to consider the validity of Revici. That approach is called
grasping at straws.


Ignoring the usual abusive language, I think all I need do is restate what
the above was supposed to be responding to.

"Well, I suggest that with only five minutes he would take great care to
present his very, very best cases. And he was clearly not conveying to
this committee that he had proof that Revici can cure cancer patients, as
per the impression Eidem has been trying to create all along.

Since Eidem prefers to ignore it, I once again draw readers attention to
my main point, that even Dr Seymour Brenner, Eidem's favourite authority
was unable to produce any unmistakable instances of cancer remitting with
Revici's treatment."

Peter Moran


The moron wants a five-minute proof, ROFL!...Dr. Brenner wanted to
create interest among the panel to back a plan he had in mind...Brenner
didn't grasp the Kabuki nature of the hearing...therefore the moron
concludes that since Brenner didn't present a proof to his
satisfaction, Revici didn't have a cure for cancer.

Meanwhile the moron is still waiting for a cured metastatic lung
patient to walk into his office...after a lifetime of waiting and not
ever having it happen even once.

Quote:



thought the panel would take a look at the cases AND DO SOMETHING.

But in the end it makes no difference...those five minute comment
periods are a formality that mean NOTHING except to PRETEND outsiders
have input.

Finally, the moron wants to know why Brenner didn't use a patient from
1964 in a 1990 hearing (26 years later!!)

SO that patients How would anyone know that it was a 1964 patient?

He didn't use Dr. Robert
Fishbein either, a 1962-63 patient with a brain tumor who is still
alive today. What's funny about the moron's silly question is that in
his mind, he actually thinks his hair-brained presumptions sink the
validity of all things pertaining to Revici.

In a similar vein, he told the German pharmacist who lives in Denmark,
Heinrich Schulze, that he was my alter ego. Why? Because the moron
imagined that Heinrich and I were the same person...his imagination
made it true for him.

Meanwhile, the moron trusts EVERY word of the Lyall report as if it
were the inspired word of God.

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others have
said
and done.
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a
study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent
research
has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers
can
be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his
unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have
examined
the
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces, I'm
not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't
even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so
your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims,
expecting
me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner
and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the
Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html
but
with
a fuller version at
http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and
what
he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the
best
of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival
after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient,
because
it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years,
and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four
patients
was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with
virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to
the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make mistakes
and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling
thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is patients
that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar reason
his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most
convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go away
with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not mention
that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than any
of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor
documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the scepticism
about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner
goes
on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici can
cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the
time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven
year
old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was she
had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me,
"Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if
Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure her,
but
I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their
lives
and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact, I've
seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated by
them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate
them
in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open your
doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you do
open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give you
the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a
little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the
protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at
Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be
treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the side."
He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the patient
went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative. Seven
years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering. Operated
on
in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely
respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition
progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She was
seen
by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a
wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a
cane.
A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were
performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on chemotherapy,
which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic
tumor
with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today, she
is
in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left
lung.
Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went to
see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in this
room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years on
no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death to
a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the knee
for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5
centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous
pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously, he's
well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew
Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival
after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in
patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy.
Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com

Back to top
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

I've told the moron that he disqualified himself from further serious
consideration by his inability to recognize the travesty of the Lyall
report.

He refuses to grasp that any discusssion of Revici's birthplace, his
emigre status from the Nazis, and how much money he had expended in
previous years places the paper in the questionablre category.

The photo series that flatly contradicts Lyall's false statements is a
"smoking gun."

Dr. Fishbein's report on Lyall's repeated misbehavior is yet another
smoking gun. Despite these facts, Lyall has decided to accept the paper
as being without flaw...a first since every paper has flaws. But in the
moron's mind, he's discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls of cancer research
in the Lyall paper.

Meanwhile, with NO corroborating evidence, he has flatly rejected a
minipresentation by Dr. Brenner due to the imaginations that the moron
has conjured. What's funny is that the moron still thinks he's an
objective observor with this type of track record.

That dog just won't hunt.

Peter Moran wrote:
Quote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150087696.734012.217990@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149988121.774955.29440@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
With the moron, it appears to be necessary to repeat the same answer
several times...yet he still won't get it...even though Brenner refers
to it in his own comments.

He had 5 minutes. I have commented also at an NIH hearing similar to
the Office of Technology Assessment. You get 5 minutes..not five
minutes and ten seconds.

Brenner was attempting to use the time to make it more than a mere
listing of cases. SO HE HIT A FEW HIGHLIGHTS. He probably naively
thought the panel would take a look at the cases AND DO SOMETHING.

But in the end it makes no difference...those five minute comment
periods are a formality that mean NOTHING except to PRETEND outsiders
have input.

Finally, the moron wants to know why Brenner didn't use a patient from
1964 in a 1990 hearing (26 years later!!)

Huh?! You dill, you expected us to give full value to this case, one put
forward by you as THE conclusive evidence, indeed YOUR "smoking gun",
but
you excuse Brenner for not using it because the case was 26 years old?

[shaking my head at the utter foolishness of the moron] The scalp
lymphoma case is a "smoking gun" merely because it helps to demonstrate
the flat out lies Lyall was putting forth. The case was no more
spectacular as far as a cure is concerned than many, many cases Revici
cured.

Why didn't Brenner use the metastatic breast cancer featured in his
book, where at least 11 bones "grew back", with photos of x-rays
verifying the results? Or why didn't Brenner use Dr. Fishbein's, highly
undifferentiated brain tumor case? Or the 18 cases presented back in
1955?

The list could go on and on.

So you say, and keep on saying, without producing any evidence. The fact is
that the cases Brenner was able to find to present to the OTA did not even
show established cancer regressing, as the old lymphoma case was supposed to
show.

And you now say it is MY fixation on the Lyall paper? I have not mentioned
the Lyall paper recently yet you keep on coming back to my supposed laxity
in reviewing it (which is quite false, by the way, there is nothing internal
to the paper that indicates any wrong doing or laxity, and you have never,
ever pointed out any that I should be able to find - you simply make
allegations about the paper that may be based upon no more than rumour or
gossip, and again without producing any documented external evidence to
support your claims )..

Listen, I know you are sincere and have invested a lot of yourself into the
Revici matter. But you are making very important claims that you *will not*
back up with evidence. Apart from the major importance of the material to
cancer sufferers, these are scientific claims. Any scientist has to expect
forthright debate on any claims he makes, and has to be prepared to back
them up. Your engagement in diversion, insults, verbal abuse, and a
ridiculous coyness about submitting data when it is your own claims that are
under assault demonstrates that you should not be engaged in this kind of
activity. You know far too little about medicine, about cancer, about
clinical investigations and about the mores of normal scientific enquiry.
.

You can have the last word, so long as you choose to be honest and only
minimally abusive in what you say. . Then let the readers make up their
minds.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com



Yet the moron has fixated his narrow
vision on a case that would have created a huge amount of defensiveness
among the medical establishment had he presented it.




He wrote the foreword to your book didn't he? Explain to us again why
this
poorly documented 26-year-old lymphoma case was not suitable for his
purposes, yet you have been prepared to castigate us time and time again
for daring to query its significance..

The lymphoma case is significant merely in that it proves Lyall lied.
It was no more important that many other successes Revici achieved.
Brenner didn't want to piss people off...that wasn't his
personality...he wanted to move the ball forward.

Btw, Brenner became interested due to a patient of his returning to see
him. From there he investigated cases where he could call the
physicians to verify biopsies, etc. It is quite possible that he wasn't
aware of the Lyall debacle, because his interest was in seeing cases
presented to him by Revici.

Revici introduced living patients to him in person...two pancreatic
patients and a malignant brain tumor patient on his first visit, for
instance...that is always more impressive than old paperwork.

The next time you want me to "explain [it] to us again," reread this
answer.

Peter Moran

He didn't use Dr. Robert
Fishbein either, a 1962-63 patient with a brain tumor who is still
alive today. What's funny about the moron's silly question is that in
his mind, he actually thinks his hair-brained presumptions sink the
validity of all things pertaining to Revici.

In a similar vein, he told the German pharmacist who lives in Denmark,
Heinrich Schulze, that he was my alter ego. Why? Because the moron
imagined that Heinrich and I were the same person...his imagination
made it true for him.

Meanwhile, the moron trusts EVERY word of the Lyall report as if it
were the inspired word of God.

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others have
said
and done.
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a
study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent
research
has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers
can
be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his
unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have
examined
the
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces, I'm
not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't
even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so
your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims,
expecting
me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner
and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the
Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html
but
with
a fuller version at
http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and
what
he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the
best
of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival
after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient,
because
it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years,
and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four
patients
was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with
virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to
the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make mistakes
and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling
thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is patients
that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar reason
his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most
convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go away
with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not mention
that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than any
of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor
documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the scepticism
about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner
goes
on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici can
cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the
time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven
year
old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was she
had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me,
"Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if
Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure her,
but
I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their
lives
and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact, I've
seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated by
them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate
them
in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open your
doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you do
open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give you
the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a
little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the
protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at
Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be
treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the side."
He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the patient
went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative. Seven
years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering. Operated
on
in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely
respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition
progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She was
seen
by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a
wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a
cane.
A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were
performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on chemotherapy,
which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic
tumor
with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today, she
is
in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left
lung.
Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went to
see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in this
room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years on
no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death to
a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the knee
for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5
centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous
pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously, he's
well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew
Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival
after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in
patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy.
Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com

Back to top
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:31 am    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150087696.734012.217990@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149988121.774955.29440@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
With the moron, it appears to be necessary to repeat the same answer
several times...yet he still won't get it...even though Brenner refers
to it in his own comments.

He had 5 minutes. I have commented also at an NIH hearing similar to
the Office of Technology Assessment. You get 5 minutes..not five
minutes and ten seconds.

Brenner was attempting to use the time to make it more than a mere
listing of cases. SO HE HIT A FEW HIGHLIGHTS. He probably naively
thought the panel would take a look at the cases AND DO SOMETHING.

But in the end it makes no difference...those five minute comment
periods are a formality that mean NOTHING except to PRETEND outsiders
have input.

Finally, the moron wants to know why Brenner didn't use a patient from
1964 in a 1990 hearing (26 years later!!)

Huh?! You dill, you expected us to give full value to this case, one put
forward by you as THE conclusive evidence, indeed YOUR "smoking gun",
but
you excuse Brenner for not using it because the case was 26 years old?

[shaking my head at the utter foolishness of the moron] The scalp
lymphoma case is a "smoking gun" merely because it helps to demonstrate
the flat out lies Lyall was putting forth. The case was no more
spectacular as far as a cure is concerned than many, many cases Revici
cured.

Why didn't Brenner use the metastatic breast cancer featured in his
book, where at least 11 bones "grew back", with photos of x-rays
verifying the results? Or why didn't Brenner use Dr. Fishbein's, highly
undifferentiated brain tumor case? Or the 18 cases presented back in
1955?

The list could go on and on.

So you say, and keep on saying, without producing any evidence. The fact is
that the cases Brenner was able to find to present to the OTA did not even
show established cancer regressing, as the old lymphoma case was supposed to
show.

And you now say it is MY fixation on the Lyall paper? I have not mentioned
the Lyall paper recently yet you keep on coming back to my supposed laxity
in reviewing it (which is quite false, by the way, there is nothing internal
to the paper that indicates any wrong doing or laxity, and you have never,
ever pointed out any that I should be able to find - you simply make
allegations about the paper that may be based upon no more than rumour or
gossip, and again without producing any documented external evidence to
support your claims )..

Listen, I know you are sincere and have invested a lot of yourself into the
Revici matter. But you are making very important claims that you *will not*
back up with evidence. Apart from the major importance of the material to
cancer sufferers, these are scientific claims. Any scientist has to expect
forthright debate on any claims he makes, and has to be prepared to back
them up. Your engagement in diversion, insults, verbal abuse, and a
ridiculous coyness about submitting data when it is your own claims that are
under assault demonstrates that you should not be engaged in this kind of
activity. You know far too little about medicine, about cancer, about
clinical investigations and about the mores of normal scientific enquiry.
..

You can have the last word, so long as you choose to be honest and only
minimally abusive in what you say. . Then let the readers make up their
minds.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com



Quote:
Yet the moron has fixated his narrow
vision on a case that would have created a huge amount of defensiveness
among the medical establishment had he presented it.


Quote:


He wrote the foreword to your book didn't he? Explain to us again why
this
poorly documented 26-year-old lymphoma case was not suitable for his
purposes, yet you have been prepared to castigate us time and time again
for daring to query its significance..

The lymphoma case is significant merely in that it proves Lyall lied.
It was no more important that many other successes Revici achieved.
Brenner didn't want to piss people off...that wasn't his
personality...he wanted to move the ball forward.

Btw, Brenner became interested due to a patient of his returning to see
him. From there he investigated cases where he could call the
physicians to verify biopsies, etc. It is quite possible that he wasn't
aware of the Lyall debacle, because his interest was in seeing cases
presented to him by Revici.

Revici introduced living patients to him in person...two pancreatic
patients and a malignant brain tumor patient on his first visit, for
instance...that is always more impressive than old paperwork.

The next time you want me to "explain [it] to us again," reread this
answer.

Peter Moran

He didn't use Dr. Robert
Fishbein either, a 1962-63 patient with a brain tumor who is still
alive today. What's funny about the moron's silly question is that in
his mind, he actually thinks his hair-brained presumptions sink the
validity of all things pertaining to Revici.

In a similar vein, he told the German pharmacist who lives in Denmark,
Heinrich Schulze, that he was my alter ego. Why? Because the moron
imagined that Heinrich and I were the same person...his imagination
made it true for him.

Meanwhile, the moron trusts EVERY word of the Lyall report as if it
were the inspired word of God.

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others have
said
and done.
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a
study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent
research
has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers
can
be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his
unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have
examined
the
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces, I'm
not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't
even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so
your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims,
expecting
me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner
and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the
Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html
but
with
a fuller version at
http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and
what
he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the
best
of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival
after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient,
because
it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years,
and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four
patients
was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with
virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to
the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make mistakes
and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling
thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is patients
that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar reason
his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most
convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go away
with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not mention
that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than any
of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor
documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the scepticism
about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner
goes
on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici can
cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the
time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven
year
old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was she
had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me,
"Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if
Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure her,
but
I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their
lives
and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact, I've
seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated by
them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate
them
in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open your
doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you do
open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give you
the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a
little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the
protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at
Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be
treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the side."
He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the patient
went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative. Seven
years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering. Operated
on
in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely
respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition
progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She was
seen
by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a
wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a
cane.
A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were
performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on chemotherapy,
which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic
tumor
with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today, she
is
in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left
lung.
Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went to
see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in this
room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years on
no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death to
a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the knee
for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5
centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous
pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously, he's
well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew
Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival
after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in
patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy.
Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com

Back to top
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:48 am    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

Peter Moran wrote:
Quote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149988121.774955.29440@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
With the moron, it appears to be necessary to repeat the same answer
several times...yet he still won't get it...even though Brenner refers
to it in his own comments.

He had 5 minutes. I have commented also at an NIH hearing similar to
the Office of Technology Assessment. You get 5 minutes..not five
minutes and ten seconds.

Brenner was attempting to use the time to make it more than a mere
listing of cases. SO HE HIT A FEW HIGHLIGHTS. He probably naively
thought the panel would take a look at the cases AND DO SOMETHING.

But in the end it makes no difference...those five minute comment
periods are a formality that mean NOTHING except to PRETEND outsiders
have input.

Finally, the moron wants to know why Brenner didn't use a patient from
1964 in a 1990 hearing (26 years later!!)

Huh?! You dill, you expected us to give full value to this case, one put
forward by you as THE conclusive evidence, indeed YOUR "smoking gun", but
you excuse Brenner for not using it because the case was 26 years old?

[shaking my head at the utter foolishness of the moron] The scalp
lymphoma case is a "smoking gun" merely because it helps to demonstrate
the flat out lies Lyall was putting forth. The case was no more
spectacular as far as a cure is concerned than many, many cases Revici
cured.

Why didn't Brenner use the metastatic breast cancer featured in his
book, where at least 11 bones "grew back", with photos of x-rays
verifying the results? Or why didn't Brenner use Dr. Fishbein's, highly
undifferentiated brain tumor case? Or the 18 cases presented back in
1955?

The list could go on and on. Yet the moron has fixated his narrow
vision on a case that would have created a huge amount of defensiveness
among the medical establishment had he presented it.

Quote:

He wrote the foreword to your book didn't he? Explain to us again why this
poorly documented 26-year-old lymphoma case was not suitable for his
purposes, yet you have been prepared to castigate us time and time again
for daring to query its significance..

The lymphoma case is significant merely in that it proves Lyall lied.
It was no more important that many other successes Revici achieved.
Brenner didn't want to piss people off...that wasn't his
personality...he wanted to move the ball forward.

Btw, Brenner became interested due to a patient of his returning to see
him. From there he investigated cases where he could call the
physicians to verify biopsies, etc. It is quite possible that he wasn't
aware of the Lyall debacle, because his interest was in seeing cases
presented to him by Revici.

Revici introduced living patients to him in person...two pancreatic
patients and a malignant brain tumor patient on his first visit, for
instance...that is always more impressive than old paperwork.

The next time you want me to "explain [it] to us again," reread this
answer.

Quote:
Peter Moran

He didn't use Dr. Robert
Fishbein either, a 1962-63 patient with a brain tumor who is still
alive today. What's funny about the moron's silly question is that in
his mind, he actually thinks his hair-brained presumptions sink the
validity of all things pertaining to Revici.

In a similar vein, he told the German pharmacist who lives in Denmark,
Heinrich Schulze, that he was my alter ego. Why? Because the moron
imagined that Heinrich and I were the same person...his imagination
made it true for him.

Meanwhile, the moron trusts EVERY word of the Lyall report as if it
were the inspired word of God.

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others have said
and done.
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent research
has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers can
be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his
unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have
examined
the
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces, I'm not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims, expecting
me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html but
with
a fuller version at
http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and what
he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the best
of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient, because
it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years, and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four patients
was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with
virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make mistakes and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is patients
that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar reason his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most
convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go away
with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not mention
that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than any of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor
documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the scepticism
about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner goes
on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici can
cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven year
old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was she had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me, "Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure her, but
I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their lives
and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact, I've seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated by
them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate them
in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open your
doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you do
open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give you the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a
little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the
protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be
treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the side." He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the patient went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative. Seven
years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering. Operated on
in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely
respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She was seen
by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a
wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a cane.
A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were
performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on chemotherapy,
which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic tumor
with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today, she is
in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left lung.
Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went to
see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in this
room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years on no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death to a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the knee
for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5 centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous
pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously, he's
well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy.
Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com
Back to top
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:12 am    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150073853.565073.171260@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149988121.774955.29440@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
With the moron, it appears to be necessary to repeat the same answer
several times...yet he still won't get it...even though Brenner refers
to it in his own comments.

He had 5 minutes. I have commented also at an NIH hearing similar to
the Office of Technology Assessment. You get 5 minutes..not five
minutes and ten seconds.

Brenner was attempting to use the time to make it more than a mere
listing of cases. SO HE HIT A FEW HIGHLIGHTS.

Well, I suggest that with only five minutes he would take great care to
present his very, very best cases. And he was clearly not conveying to
this committee that he had proof that Revici can cure cancer patients, as
per the impression Eidem has been trying to create all along.

Since Eidem prefers to ignore it, I once again draw readers attention
to
my main point, that even Dr Seymour Brenner, Eidem's favourite authority
was unable to produce any unmistakable instances of cancer remitting with
Revici's treatment.

Peter Moran

It is so funny how willing the moron is to analyze and parse Dr.
Brenner's 5 minutes with the OTA but can't find ANYTHING wrong with the
Lyall travesty.

It never occurred to the moron that maybe Brenner didn't want to stir
the pudding by focusing on ATTACKING Lyall and JAMA in his 5 minutes.
Brenner, who I met in person, was trying to move the ball forward.
Making accusations in that situation would not have helped. Of ocurse
what he didn't realize, being a physician and not a political person,
is that the OTA 5-minute presentations were window dressing, as are all
5-minute public comments

They are required. But that doesn't mean the panel is the least bit
interested. It's a Kabooki (sp?) dance...nothing more.

In the moron's mind (term used loosely), whether Brenner presented a
particular case makes or breaks the moron's decision making process
whether to consider the validity of Revici. That approach is called
grasping at straws.


Ignoring the usual abusive language, I think all I need do is restate what
the above was supposed to be responding to.

"Well, I suggest that with only five minutes he would take great care to
present his very, very best cases. And he was clearly not conveying to
this committee that he had proof that Revici can cure cancer patients, as
per the impression Eidem has been trying to create all along.

Since Eidem prefers to ignore it, I once again draw readers attention to
my main point, that even Dr Seymour Brenner, Eidem's favourite authority
was unable to produce any unmistakable instances of cancer remitting with
Revici's treatment."

Peter Moran

Www.cancerwatcher.com

Quote:


thought the panel would take a look at the cases AND DO SOMETHING.

But in the end it makes no difference...those five minute comment
periods are a formality that mean NOTHING except to PRETEND outsiders
have input.

Finally, the moron wants to know why Brenner didn't use a patient from
1964 in a 1990 hearing (26 years later!!)

SO that patients How would anyone know that it was a 1964 patient?

He didn't use Dr. Robert
Fishbein either, a 1962-63 patient with a brain tumor who is still
alive today. What's funny about the moron's silly question is that in
his mind, he actually thinks his hair-brained presumptions sink the
validity of all things pertaining to Revici.

In a similar vein, he told the German pharmacist who lives in Denmark,
Heinrich Schulze, that he was my alter ego. Why? Because the moron
imagined that Heinrich and I were the same person...his imagination
made it true for him.

Meanwhile, the moron trusts EVERY word of the Lyall report as if it
were the inspired word of God.

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others have
said
and done.
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a
study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent
research
has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers
can
be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his
unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have
examined
the
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces, I'm
not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't
even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so
your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims,
expecting
me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner
and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the
Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html
but
with
a fuller version at
http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and
what
he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the
best
of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival
after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient,
because
it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years,
and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four
patients
was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with
virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to
the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make mistakes
and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling
thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is patients
that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar reason
his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most
convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go away
with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not mention
that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than any
of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor
documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the scepticism
about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner
goes
on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici can
cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the
time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven
year
old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was she
had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me,
"Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if
Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure her,
but
I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their
lives
and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact, I've
seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated by
them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate
them
in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open your
doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you do
open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give you
the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a
little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the
protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at
Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be
treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the side."
He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the patient
went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative. Seven
years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering. Operated
on
in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely
respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition
progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She was
seen
by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a
wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a
cane.
A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were
performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on chemotherapy,
which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic
tumor
with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today, she
is
in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left
lung.
Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went to
see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in this
room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years on
no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death to
a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the knee
for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5
centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous
pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously, he's
well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew
Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival
after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in
patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy.
Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com

Back to top
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:57 am    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

Peter Moran wrote:
Quote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149988121.774955.29440@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
With the moron, it appears to be necessary to repeat the same answer
several times...yet he still won't get it...even though Brenner refers
to it in his own comments.

He had 5 minutes. I have commented also at an NIH hearing similar to
the Office of Technology Assessment. You get 5 minutes..not five
minutes and ten seconds.

Brenner was attempting to use the time to make it more than a mere
listing of cases. SO HE HIT A FEW HIGHLIGHTS.

Well, I suggest that with only five minutes he would take great care to
present his very, very best cases. And he was clearly not conveying to
this committee that he had proof that Revici can cure cancer patients, as
per the impression Eidem has been trying to create all along.

Since Eidem prefers to ignore it, I once again draw readers attention to
my main point, that even Dr Seymour Brenner, Eidem's favourite authority
was unable to produce any unmistakable instances of cancer remitting with
Revici's treatment.

Peter Moran

It is so funny how willing the moron is to analyze and parse Dr.
Brenner's 5 minutes with the OTA but can't find ANYTHING wrong with the
Lyall travesty.

It never occurred to the moron that maybe Brenner didn't want to stir
the pudding by focusing on ATTACKING Lyall and JAMA in his 5 minutes.
Brenner, who I met in person, was trying to move the ball forward.
Making accusations in that situation would not have helped. Of ocurse
what he didn't realize, being a physician and not a political person,
is that the OTA 5-minute presentations were window dressing, as are all
5-minute public comments

They are required. But that doesn't mean the panel is the least bit
interested. It's a Kabooki (sp?) dance...nothing more.

In the moron's mind (term used loosely), whether Brenner presented a
particular case makes or breaks the moron's decision making process
whether to consider the validity of Revici. That approach is called
grasping at straws.

Quote:


thought the panel would take a look at the cases AND DO SOMETHING.

But in the end it makes no difference...those five minute comment
periods are a formality that mean NOTHING except to PRETEND outsiders
have input.

Finally, the moron wants to know why Brenner didn't use a patient from
1964 in a 1990 hearing (26 years later!!)

SO that patients How would anyone know that it was a 1964 patient?

He didn't use Dr. Robert
Fishbein either, a 1962-63 patient with a brain tumor who is still
alive today. What's funny about the moron's silly question is that in
his mind, he actually thinks his hair-brained presumptions sink the
validity of all things pertaining to Revici.

In a similar vein, he told the German pharmacist who lives in Denmark,
Heinrich Schulze, that he was my alter ego. Why? Because the moron
imagined that Heinrich and I were the same person...his imagination
made it true for him.

Meanwhile, the moron trusts EVERY word of the Lyall report as if it
were the inspired word of God.

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others have said
and done.
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent research
has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers can
be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his
unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have
examined
the
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces, I'm not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims, expecting
me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html but
with
a fuller version at
http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and what
he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the best
of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient, because
it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years, and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four patients
was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with
virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make mistakes and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is patients
that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar reason his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most
convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go away
with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not mention
that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than any of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor
documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the scepticism
about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner goes
on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici can
cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven year
old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was she had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me, "Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure her, but
I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their lives
and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact, I've seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated by
them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate them
in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open your
doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you do
open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give you the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a
little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the
protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be
treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the side." He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the patient went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative. Seven
years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering. Operated on
in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely
respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She was seen
by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a
wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a cane.
A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were
performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on chemotherapy,
which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic tumor
with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today, she is
in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left lung.
Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went to
see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in this
room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years on no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death to a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the knee
for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5 centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous
pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously, he's
well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy.
Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com
Back to top
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:58 am    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149988121.774955.29440@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
With the moron, it appears to be necessary to repeat the same answer
several times...yet he still won't get it...even though Brenner refers
to it in his own comments.

He had 5 minutes. I have commented also at an NIH hearing similar to
the Office of Technology Assessment. You get 5 minutes..not five
minutes and ten seconds.

Brenner was attempting to use the time to make it more than a mere
listing of cases. SO HE HIT A FEW HIGHLIGHTS. He probably naively
thought the panel would take a look at the cases AND DO SOMETHING.

But in the end it makes no difference...those five minute comment
periods are a formality that mean NOTHING except to PRETEND outsiders
have input.

Finally, the moron wants to know why Brenner didn't use a patient from
1964 in a 1990 hearing (26 years later!!)

Huh?! You dill, you expected us to give full value to this case, one put
forward by you as THE conclusive evidence, indeed YOUR "smoking gun", but
you excuse Brenner for not using it because the case was 26 years old?

He wrote the foreword to your book didn't he? Explain to us again why this
poorly documented 26-year-old lymphoma case was not suitable for his
purposes, yet you have been prepared to castigate us time and time again
for daring to query its significance..

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com


Quote:
He didn't use Dr. Robert
Fishbein either, a 1962-63 patient with a brain tumor who is still
alive today. What's funny about the moron's silly question is that in
his mind, he actually thinks his hair-brained presumptions sink the
validity of all things pertaining to Revici.

In a similar vein, he told the German pharmacist who lives in Denmark,
Heinrich Schulze, that he was my alter ego. Why? Because the moron
imagined that Heinrich and I were the same person...his imagination
made it true for him.

Meanwhile, the moron trusts EVERY word of the Lyall report as if it
were the inspired word of God.

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others have said
and done.
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent research
has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers can
be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his
unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have
examined
the
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces, I'm not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims, expecting
me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html but
with
a fuller version at
http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and what
he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the best
of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient, because
it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years, and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four patients
was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with
virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make mistakes and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is patients
that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar reason his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most
convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go away
with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not mention
that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than any of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor
documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the scepticism
about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner goes
on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici can
cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven year
old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was she had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me, "Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure her, but
I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their lives
and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact, I've seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated by
them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate them
in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open your
doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you do
open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give you the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a
little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the
protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be
treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the side." He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the patient went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative. Seven
years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering. Operated on
in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely
respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She was seen
by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a
wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a cane.
A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were
performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on chemotherapy,
which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic tumor
with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today, she is
in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left lung.
Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went to
see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in this
room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years on no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death to a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the knee
for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5 centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous
pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously, he's
well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy.
Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com
Back to top
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:33 am    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149988121.774955.29440@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
With the moron, it appears to be necessary to repeat the same answer
several times...yet he still won't get it...even though Brenner refers
to it in his own comments.

He had 5 minutes. I have commented also at an NIH hearing similar to
the Office of Technology Assessment. You get 5 minutes..not five
minutes and ten seconds.

Brenner was attempting to use the time to make it more than a mere
listing of cases. SO HE HIT A FEW HIGHLIGHTS.

Well, I suggest that with only five minutes he would take great care to
present his very, very best cases. And he was clearly not conveying to
this committee that he had proof that Revici can cure cancer patients, as
per the impression Eidem has been trying to create all along.

Since Eidem prefers to ignore it, I once again draw readers attention to
my main point, that even Dr Seymour Brenner, Eidem's favourite authority
was unable to produce any unmistakable instances of cancer remitting with
Revici's treatment.

Peter Moran

Www.cancerwatcher.com


Quote:
thought the panel would take a look at the cases AND DO SOMETHING.

But in the end it makes no difference...those five minute comment
periods are a formality that mean NOTHING except to PRETEND outsiders
have input.

Finally, the moron wants to know why Brenner didn't use a patient from
1964 in a 1990 hearing (26 years later!!)

SO that patients How would anyone know that it was a 1964 patient?

Quote:
He didn't use Dr. Robert
Fishbein either, a 1962-63 patient with a brain tumor who is still
alive today. What's funny about the moron's silly question is that in
his mind, he actually thinks his hair-brained presumptions sink the
validity of all things pertaining to Revici.

In a similar vein, he told the German pharmacist who lives in Denmark,
Heinrich Schulze, that he was my alter ego. Why? Because the moron
imagined that Heinrich and I were the same person...his imagination
made it true for him.

Meanwhile, the moron trusts EVERY word of the Lyall report as if it
were the inspired word of God.

Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others have said
and done.
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent research
has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers can
be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his
unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have
examined
the
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces, I'm not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims, expecting
me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html but
with
a fuller version at
http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and what
he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the best
of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient, because
it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years, and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four patients
was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with
virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make mistakes and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is patients
that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar reason his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most
convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go away
with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not mention
that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than any of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor
documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the scepticism
about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner goes
on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici can
cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven year
old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was she had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me, "Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure her, but
I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their lives
and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact, I've seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated by
them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate them
in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open your
doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you do
open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give you the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a
little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the
protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be
treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the side." He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the patient went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative. Seven
years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering. Operated on
in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely
respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She was seen
by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a
wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a cane.
A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were
performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on chemotherapy,
which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic tumor
with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today, she is
in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left lung.
Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went to
see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in this
room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years on no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death to a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the knee
for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5 centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous
pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously, he's
well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy.
Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com
Back to top
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:08 am    Post subject: Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

With the moron, it appears to be necessary to repeat the same answer
several times...yet he still won't get it...even though Brenner refers
to it in his own comments.

He had 5 minutes. I have commented also at an NIH hearing similar to
the Office of Technology Assessment. You get 5 minutes..not five
minutes and ten seconds.

Brenner was attempting to use the time to make it more than a mere
listing of cases. SO HE HIT A FEW HIGHLIGHTS. He probably naively
thought the panel would take a look at the cases AND DO SOMETHING.

But in the end it makes no difference...those five minute comment
periods are a formality that mean NOTHING except to PRETEND outsiders
have input.

Finally, the moron wants to know why Brenner didn't use a patient from
1964 in a 1990 hearing (26 years later!!) He didn't use Dr. Robert
Fishbein either, a 1962-63 patient with a brain tumor who is still
alive today. What's funny about the moron's silly question is that in
his mind, he actually thinks his hair-brained presumptions sink the
validity of all things pertaining to Revici.

In a similar vein, he told the German pharmacist who lives in Denmark,
Heinrich Schulze, that he was my alter ego. Why? Because the moron
imagined that Heinrich and I were the same person...his imagination
made it true for him.

Meanwhile, the moron trusts EVERY word of the Lyall report as if it
were the inspired word of God.

Peter Moran wrote:
Quote:
awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others have said
and done.
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent research has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers can be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have examined
the
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces, I'm not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims, expecting me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html but with
a fuller version at http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and what he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the best of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient, because it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years, and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four patients was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make mistakes and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is patients that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar reason his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go away with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not mention that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than any of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the scepticism about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner goes on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici can cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven year old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was she had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me, "Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure her, but I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their lives and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact, I've seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated by them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate them in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open your doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you do open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give you the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the side." He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the patient went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative. Seven years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering. Operated on in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She was seen by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a cane. A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on chemotherapy, which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic tumor with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today, she is in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left lung. Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went to see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in this room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years on no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death to a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the knee for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5 centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously, he's well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy. Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com
Back to top
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:37 am    Post subject: Brenner's views on the Revici method Reply with quote

<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149918610.790166.182320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Quote:


PM >> All we have so far are your assertions as to what others have said
and done.
Quote:
You have offered no evidence. No documentation.
I have pointed out that such allegations are routine whenever a study
shows
that an alternative method did not work.

The method is implausible because fifty years of subsequent research has
failed to produce the slightest suggestion that cancer sufferers can be
classified as Revici did, and all he ever offered was his unsubstantiated
theories.

Enough, I think.

Kelley Eidem > I've provided the statements of physicians who have examined

the
Quote:
record, including Dr. Seymour Brenner.
You choose not to believe it.
Because your credibility as to bias has sunk below whale feces, I'm not
going to waste my time trying to meet your demands...you couldn't even
acknowledge the the obvious shortcomings of the Lyall report...you
couldn't find a SINGLE problem with it.

In contrast to Dr. Brenner et al, you have examined nothing...so your
'expertise' is exactly ZERO...your bias is 100.


Despite many requests Eidem won't document any of his claims, expecting me
to accept his biased second and third hand accounts of what Brenner and
others thought and said.

I found the text of a speech that Brenner gave to the OTA on the Revici
treatment in 1990. It is at http://www.ralphmoss.com/brenner.html but with
a fuller version at http://gerson-research.org/docs/OTA-1990-2/index.html

Let's see what kind of evidence Brenner was really working from and what he
really thought.

He mentions ten patients, but only describes five, presumably the best of
them. One was the lung cancer patient who had prolonged survival after
palliative radiotherapy. We can largely discount that patient, because it
is now known that over 1% of such patients will survive five years, and
many for ten [1,2].

While superficially impressive, in not one of the other four patients was
measurable cancer shown to regress! The cases, as applies with virtually
all alternative testimonials, depend upon assumptions either as to the
state of the cancer when taken over by Revici or as to its prognosis.
These are often reasonable assumptions but doctors can make mistakes and
cancer doesn't always behave as doctors expect.

A lot of such cases can carry some weight. But the most telling thing
about such evidence is *what is missing*. What is missing is patients that
had cancerous masses that are easily measured and easily followed up.
Revici must have had hundreds of such patients during the period of
Brenner's oversight. Are we to deduce that for some peculiar reason his
method never worked in the kind of case that would make the most convincing
test of the method?

Eidem's book implies that Revici could make measurable cancer go away with
the poorly provenanced photo on its cover. Brenner does not mention that
patient. I wonder why, when it would be much more impressive than any of
the cases he produced?. Or was he also concerned by the poor documentation,
or the well-known spontaneous remission rate of lymphoma?

This "missing kind of evidence" is the crux of most of the scepticism about
alternative cancer cures. . That especially applies now that modern
technology makes cancer so easy to demonstrate and follow up.

I list the five cases below, but I also want to include how Brenner goes on
in his speech. He does not seem to be wholly certain that Revici can cure
cancer, he is merely making a case for Revici and similar alternative
methods to be investigated further .

Quote---
"I have five more cases like that, but I don't want to use all the time.
Essentially, what I am saying to these people here and I've have said
before, and -- a woman came into my office last week. Twenty-seven year old
girl with a three year old child and her husband. Her problem was she had
carcinoma of the breast with brain metastases, and she said to me, "Will
you, please, don't let me die."

Now, I can't cure that lady. What do I do with her? I don't know if Dr.
Revici, or Dr. Burzynski, or Dr. Burton, or any of them can cure her, but I
am tired of watching people come to my office and plead for their lives and
I have nothing to offer them.

So, what I am saying to this committee is, let's not turn our back on
alternative methods. I'm not saying they are all good. In fact, I've seen
patients treated by these clinics that should not have been treated by them,
so I can tell you bad things about them.

So, what I think we should do, is set up a committee to investigate them in
a scientific, approved manner, and tell them, "If you don't open your doors
to our investigation, we'll use that to close you down. But, if you do open
the doors, and we find out that your method works, that will give you the
identity you're entitled to."

Unquote

I liked this. I agree with most of what he says. We just differ a little
on standards of evidence and plausibility issues and what the protagonists
of these methods should be doing off their own bat, if they seek
credibility..

The cases. The most impressive one is the ovarian cancer case.

a.. A 43-year-old male. Diagnosed with cancer of the bladder at Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. They said, "The only way you can be treated
is if we take your bladder out and give you a colostomy on the side." He
said no. He went to Dr. Revici in October, 1980 In 1987, the patient went
back to Memorial Hospital for a cystoscopy. Cystoscopy negative. Seven years
later, bladder in position, no cancer; cured.

a.. A 29-year-old female also from Memorial Sloan-Kettering. Operated on in
1983. Had a chordoma, a brain tumor. The tumor was incompletely respected,
followed by a course of radiation. The patient's condition progressively
worsened between the time of surgery and the next 12 months. She was seen by
Dr. Revici in 1984. At that time, the patient was confined to a wheelchair
with limited function. Since seeing Dr. Revici she has had two babies,
functions perfectly well Her only problem is that she walks with a cane. A
true miracle, as far as I am concerned.

a.. A 30-year-old woman operated on at New York University for ovarian
carcinoma. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and hysterectomy were performed
and all gross tumor was removed. Patient was placed on chemotherapy, which
she continued for six months.
In November, 1985, second surgery was performed. She had a pelvic tumor with
omental metastases. Biopsy only performed to establish the diagnosis.
Patient was seen in Dr. Revici's office in January, 1986. Today, she is in
good health.


a.. A 50-year-old man with unresectable adenocarcinoma of the left lung. Put
on radiation therapy. Unfortunately his condition worsened. He went to see
Dr. Revici in October, 1981. It's now 1990, and as any doctor in this room
knows, unresectable carcinoma of the lung does not live nine years on no
treatment, so something must have converted that patient from death to a
nine-year survivor.

a.. A 34-year-old man underwent amputation of the left leg at the knee for a
giant cell tumor of the femur. In 1979 he had a right thoracotomy for
removal of two nodules. In 1980, chest X ray showed a new 1.5 centimeter
nodule and several small nodules in the right lung. An intravenous pyelogram
(IVP) showed a 10 by 13 centimeter renal mass.
a.. In October, 1980, the patient went to Dr. Revici. Obviously, he's well
or I wouldn't talk about it.

End quote
References

1 Michael P. Mac Manus, Jane P. Matthews, Morikatsu Wada, Andrew Wirth,
Valentina Worotniuk, David L. Ball. Unexpected long-term survival after
low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non small cell lung cancer
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112303827/HTMLSTART

2 Quddus AM, Kerr GR, Price A, Gregor A. Long-term survival in patients
with non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative radiotherapy. Clin
Oncol. 2001; 13: 95-98.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [15 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:53 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » diseases » cancer
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Another small Revici success awthrawthr@yahoo.com cancer 0 Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:17 am
No new posts Jaw reconstruction method for oral cancer shows promise i... J cancer 0 Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:56 pm
No new posts Revici was right...Darwin was wrong awthrawthr@yahoo.com cancer 5 Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:51 pm
No new posts Revici's Corrollary Melissa Revici cancer 5 Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:48 pm
No new posts Revici and Kelley Eidem's claims pmoran@bordernet.com.au cancer 59 Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:51 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0736s ][ Queries: 20 (0.0026s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]