 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 20082,000 visits (continued)
"See...which actually looks at your favorite quack's best cases (Revici)," - Pete Mora n My favorite quack is you, Peter. You are a quack. Using a knife to try to cure a metabolic disorder is the height of quackery. It's also quackery to take a five minute presentation before a government agency (and it case you don't know, they don't let you testify for five minutes and five seconds...it's five minutes, period.) as your basis for evaluating Brenner's findings. He was merely attempting to peek their interest. You've been informed about the severe limitations of that format, yet you continue to rely on it for your refutation. You behavior looks like a case of severe obstinence at best. It's as if you were watching an orchestra warming up and tuning their instruments, and then walking out declaring, "They're no good!" Everyone else in the audience experiences the actual performance, and thereby comes to an entirely different conclusion. In this thread, I told you about Dr. Fishbein's "highly undifferentiated brain tumor." The man is still alive 46 years later outliving the best estimates at the time by 45 years and eight months. Get it?..."Highly undifferentiated." His slides were read by a Dr. Zimmerman, who was considered to be the father of neural pathology. " If you don't get it, it's because you don't want to get it. But that's okay because with the internet your stubborn blindness holds little influence any more. > "See...which > actually looks at your favorite quack's best cases (Revici)," [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > But that's okay because with the internet your stubborn blindness > holds little influence any more. Kelley, You published your book around 1996/7, so we can assume that it has been in circulation for just over 10 years. From what I have read Revici also published a book back in 1961 which is 47 years ago. I understand that Revici and Brenner have passed on. Not sure about Fishbein except that he retired. My questions to you are as follows. 1. If Dr Fishbein was cured by Revici and confirmed by Dr Zimmerman then why did not Dr Fishbein and Dr Zimmerman continue on with Revici's work? 2. Your book has been published for over 10 years and I would expect that you have received a great deal of acknowledgement from cancer patients trying your books recommendations or the Revici methods in curing their cancers. One would expect that as your book sells for up to $570 ( $250 for an autographed copy by yourself) that you must have received 100's if not 1000's of confirmations from "Cured Cancer Patients". Kelley, exactly how many people have written to you expressing their gratitude for the contents of your book which has given cause to them being cancer free? (You could break this down to sufferers, immediate family and Doctors or Alternative practitioners.) Have you categorised them into the different Cancer categories so that we can all follow what you have written and continue to espouse, is correct ? (A concern relates to updated information beyond 1949) Kelley it is most important to have these facts correct otherwise we may be accused of being deceptive and misleading and as you appreciate that is against most laws of civilised countries. Apart from that there are Moral and Ethical issues at stake which need to be respected. Please answer the questions put to you. Cheers, Rod > > "See...which > > actually looks at your favorite quack's best cases (Revici)," [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Cheers, Rod- Good questions. If Revici worked as claimed, where are all of the cured patients? Why are they not lining up to write testiMOANials on The Method? Where are their thousands of web pages worshipping The Method. The only inference a logical mind can make is that they do not exist. "Mark S Probert" Merrick, NY > > "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > The only inference a logical mind can make is that they do not exist. When Revici was alive, they did line up for him, so much so that a hearing was moved from the original room to a much larger one to accomodate his former patients. OTOH, when there was an attempt to hold a rally in Washington, DC for the survivors of chemo, millions of dollars were spent to promote the rally. Jumbo trons were spaced out across the Mall. I was there, and barely anyone showed up. Maybe 1,000 people showed up if that. The absence of people told the story. The chemo victims were either dead or too sick to come out. > > > "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > hearing was moved from the original room to a much larger one to > accomodate his former patients. Care to document that? Something verifiable not from a Revici source? > OTOH, when there was an attempt to hold a rally in Washington, DC for > the survivors of chemo, millions of dollars were spent to promote the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if that. The absence of people told the story. The chemo victims were > either dead or too sick to come out. Wrong conclusion. There were no true Revici survivors to show up. > The only inference a logical mind can make is that they do not exist. Excuse me? The ONLY logical inference?? Who is this logic amateur I'm replying to? Oh no CRAP! I just responded to a Mark Probert post... His comments are completely useless (side thought: well not completely, hmmm, one could print them out and use as substitute toilet paper, or for wrapping up fish... no... ruining a perfectly good piece of computer paper with comments from Mark, no... that does not work either) I've done it AGAIN!!!!! Ban reinstituted. Citizen Jimserac > > The only inference a logical mind can make is that they do not exist. > > Excuse me? The ONLY logical inference?? Exactly. The absence of cured living patients leads one to only one possible conclusion, i.e. that there are no cured living patients. I know that logic is not one of your strong skills, just like using facts and real science. > Who is this logic amateur I'm replying to? Far from an amateur. > Oh no CRAP! That is what you posted. I just responded > to a Mark Probert post... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with comments from Mark, > no... that does not work either) You seem to have a rectal fixation. Is that because it is where you keep your head? > I've done it AGAIN!!!!! As you should. Your inane drivel proves the paucity of your arguments. > Ban reinstituted. Awww....why do I not believe that? > > "See...which > > actually looks at your favorite quack's best cases (Revici)," [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > 1. If Dr Fishbein was cured by Revici and confirmed by Dr Zimmerman then why > did not Dr Fishbein and Dr Zimmerman continue on with Revici's work? Dr. Fishbein has advanced Parkinson's disease. Dr. Zimmerman was a neuro- pathologist who had no connection with Dr. Revici. > 2. Your book has been published for over 10 years and I would expect that > you have received a great deal of acknowledgement from cancer patients [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Cheers, Rod The rest are nonsense questions. I was the biographer. I moved from Maryland to Arkansas and then to Florida. Readers and patients would not have known how to get in touch with me. It might surprise you, but the Revici story is not the only part of my life. There are far more than enough cases in the book to answer any questions someone might have as to the efficacy of the treatment. Revici practiced medicine for 70+ years, but that is not enough for you. You want more cases, even though you haven't read the book. You can make false accusations and assumptions all day long just as you've done here. The volume of your false assertions don't make them any less wrong. >> > "See...which >> > actually looks at your favorite quack's best cases (Revici)," [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > you've done here. The volume of your false assertions don't make them > any less wrong. The fact remains that the Revici method didn't catch on even within an alternative cancer industry that hardly ever gives any method up. . I know you are sincere in your belief that it worked and I respect you for that, but you have shown in our conversations that you are a poor person to be making that judgment. You don't know enough about cancer, its behavior and the importance of detail in relation to such claims. PM www.cancerwatcher.com You don't know enough about cancer, its > behavior and the importance of detail in relation to such claims. > > PMwww.cancerwatcher.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The problem that I see is that you claim to be surgeon, the highest of the high priests of the the modern medical religion. You, therefore, bow to nobody and expect everyone to bow to you and anything that drivels out of your mouth. In truth, you know very little about what cancer really is. You know very little about the behavior of cancer. As to knowledge of detail, you have none. Cancer, normally contrived cancer, is a body defense mechanism. All others are induced cancer, induced by carcinogens, radiation, and trauma. You, sir, have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about. You, therefore, are an a.s eluding a foul smelling gas. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. On May 18, 2:00 am, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote: You don't know enough about cancer, its > behavior and the importance of detail in relation to such claims. > > PMwww.cancerwatcher.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - >>Cancer, normally contrived cancer, is a body defense mechanism. All >>others are induced cancer, induced by carcinogens, radiation, and >>trauma. Completely loopy > <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Completely loopy Do not insult the truly loopy by referring to Chuckie as loopy. In misc.health.alternative drceephd@insightbb.com wrote: : Cancer, normally contrived cancer, is a body defense mechanism. All : others are induced cancer, induced by carcinogens, radiation, and : trauma. I know that you couldn't bring yourself to answer my question about whether you think that smoking is detrimental to health, so I figure that I'll add another question to the list of ones that you won't answer: how do you propose to determine whether a given substance is carcinogenic? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > >> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > PMwww.cancerwatcher.com ROFL! When you try to destroy the messenger to make your case, it reveals the weakness of your argument. Actually, I'm doing a pretty fair job spreading the word, and letting people decide for themselves. Meanwhile, today there were 1,200 visits to my website and several hundred more to other sites where my information is located. Viewers are deciding for themselves. Here's a quote from an email I received today, "OK, my friend. I will do my part to beat the drum. I promise you!" He is putting a link on his website to my website. Others are emailing their buddy list. It just keeps growing. The army is growing. Meanwhile, your pals Barrett and others are not doing too well these days. And you, who claims to know so much about cancer, still argue for using a knife to treat a metabolic disorder. That's like saying a rock is the best treatment for auto repair. > You can make false accusations and assumptions all day long just as > you've done here. The volume of your false assertions don't make them > any less wrong. They are very good at doing that here, don't worry about it. Your comments are the first I've heard about him and this is one of my areas of interest so I will certainly get a copy and read your book. Many thanks Citizen Jimserac Student of Chinese Herbology, Acupuncture and Classical Chinese Language >> > "See...which >> > actually looks at your favorite quack's best cases (Revici)," [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > you've done here. The volume of your false assertions don't make them > any less wrong. Where are all the citations for the past 10 years Kelley? You don't have any and its not because you got run out of town or changed addresses as the publisher would have passed them on. Facts are Kelley you have not had anyone confirm that they cured their cancer due to your book except for yourself with your stage 4 hives attack. > >> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > Facts are Kelley you have not had anyone confirm that they cured their > cancer due to your book except for yourself with your stage 4 hives attack. You're not making any sense, Rod. I'm the author of a book about Dr. Revici. The two editions came out in 1996 and 1997 respectively. Revici died in 1998 at the age of 101 after a most incredibly productive life in medicine. His 70+ years of practicing medicine provides far more accomplishments than any 100 doctors of the 20th Century. I don't keep the medical records of the Revici clinic. As you must surely be aware, medical records are private. It requires written permission from patients to gain access to them. Since I'm not writing another book on the topic, there is no reason for me to seek permission for access to any patients records. It is fascinating that you would require the period AFTER the book was written as your sole criteria as to the success of the Revici Method, asking me, the author to provide the answers to your questions when I am not involved with the clinic in any way, shape or form. Meanwhile, you have not read the book. But you're sure nonetheless. It's as if you walked into a men's clothing store and insisted that the man who retired from there 10 years ago measure your waist. Your request here is no less stupid. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.