|
|
| Author |
Message |
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:37 am Post subject:
Brenner's views on the Revici method
|
|
|
<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.
| 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 |
|
 |
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:08 am Post subject:
Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method
|
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:33 am Post subject:
Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method
|
|
|
<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 |
|
|
pmoran@bordernet.com.au
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:58 am Post subject:
Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method
|
|
|
<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 |
|
|
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:57 am Post subject:
Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method
|
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:12 am Post subject:
Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method
|
|
|
<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
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:48 am Post subject:
Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method
|
|
|
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
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:31 am Post subject:
Re: Brenner's views on the Revici method
|
|
|
<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
wheelch |
| | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
diseases
»
cancer
