 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / June 2008Meet some patients of the Revici Method
I sent an email to Dr. Radu Kramer last night, and he replied by sending me a link to a series of videos of some patients who have improved while being treated with the Revici method. The 4th video is Charlotte Louise. She had a combination of oat cell lung cancer and ovarian cancer 27 years ago. She remains cancer free. Her original prognosis was 6 months or less. (I wrote about her in my book.) The 5th video is a man who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 1999. He remains cancer free. The take away from the first three videos is the lack of side effects the patients have experienced. http://www.aimcenters.net/testimonials.html Kelley Eidem >I sent an email to Dr. Radu Kramer last night, and he replied by > sending me a link to a series of videos of some patients who have [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Kelley Eidem I refuse to watch promotional videos on principle, and deplore the current tendency to try and present important medical claims in this format. The claim to be able to cure cancer is an extremely important one to many people. Evaluating such a claim depends upon having a great deal of information about the patients, along with the leisure to examine the data (biopsy reports, lab results, scans, dates) carefully, and the ability to check that the information supplied is accurate by going to primary sources, if necessary. Most people know (or should learn) the things to look for in a cancer case report or testimonial, such as biopsy results, and clear evidence of persistent cancer after other treatments, but it is too easy for the makers of a video to distract the mind from such critical matters, and to either leave out key information or make finding it tedious. Video thus has no more significance than any other kind of testimonial. It is designed to influence the treatment choices or beliefs of persons of persons having little or no medical knowledge. Presumably details and original sources are available about the man who had pancreatic cancer in 1999. Has this case been published anywhere in detail? If not. why not? In either case, I would be very happy to look at that case if supplied with the above material. And who is Radu Kramer? (Not that a few cases scattered over some decades apart can prove anything with any certainty. Cancer is never 100% predictable. We need a cluster of unusual results with established, predictable types of cancer, within the recent experience of the one clinic or treatment method) PM > >I sent an email to Dr. Radu Kramer last night, and he replied by > > sending me a link to a series of videos of some patients who have [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > PM So why don't you share with us how many oat cell lung cancer patients combined with ovarian cancer where the patient is looking healthy 28 years later? There are clusters of cases in my book. Glioblastoma multiforme, highly undifferentiated brain tumor, astrocytoma with 15 to 20 lesions. Lung cancer. Pancreatic cancer. Etc, etc. BTW, it's okay if you don't look. Many others will look, and understand. You'll be in the dark, and they'll be in the know. They'll be impressed with the fact that the patients don't experience any suffering as is so common with mistreatments such as chemo and radiation. Kelley Eidem >> >I sent an email to Dr. Radu Kramer last night, and he replied by >> > sending me a link to a series of videos of some patients who have [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > Kelley Eidem But Kelley, you have proved that you know little about cancer and you are providing third or fourth hand information from a time when medical technology was primitive in many ways.. I have offered to look at the pancreatic cancer case because I assume the data is fresh and confirmable. What about it? PM > >> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > providing third or fourth hand information from a time when medical > technology was primitive in many ways.. Now you're playing the role of liar. The videos come from Dr. Radu Kramer's office. The patients are providing first-hand information. Dr. Kramer is sitting right there with them. Was medical technology primitive in in 1980?? In 1999?? You're partly correct, the medical technology you relied on was primitive because you mistreated cancer, a metabolic disorder, with a knife. > I have offered to look at the pancreatic cancer case because I assume the > data is fresh and confirmable. What about it? Why don't you contact Kramer's office and find out! Why would you keep asking me when you perceive me to be a know-nothing possessing third- and fourth-hand information. Sheesh! They aren't even my videos...they are Dr. Kramer's! Go to the source if you're sincere. But of course you're not. You have dismissed out of hand an oat cell lung/ovarian cancer cure of 28 years duration by automatically assuming that 1980 was the dark ages. You have zero basis for making that preemptive conclusion, except that you've made up your mind....talk about a primitive approach...you give new meaning to primitive thinking. >> >> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > Was medical technology primitive in in 1980?? In 1999?? I was clearly referring to your book, which mainly deals with earlier cases of Revici's, cases that it was difficult get specific details such a biopsy results out of you, let alone being able to confirm them directly. >You're partly > correct, the medical technology you relied on was primitive because [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why don't you contact Kramer's office and find out! Why are you so coy about telling me about that case? Is there something fishy about it? And why is this doctor promoting himself like a quack with testimonial videos? I freely admit I am intensely biased against any doctor who claims toi be curing cancer, but cannot or will not produce cases for independent evaluation by publishing them in medical journals or even undere the public gaze of the media. LATER -- OK Against my better judgment I had a look at a couple of videos and it is just as I thought. The man with a supposed pancreatic tumour goes on for some minutes with irrelevant material before he reveals that he also had radiation and chemotherapy, no biopsy result is given, and the video is undated so we cannot know how long he survived. This is bullshit stuff.. The breast cancer woman appears to have had adequate recent conventional treatment for an early breast cancer but believes that Revici treatment has cured her and you have to watch a long video to find out what could have been said in ten words. Any respectable doctor would be ashamed to use a case that proves nothing but is so blatantly promotional. This doctor is a quack, or is at least behaving like one in the way he is choosing to present himself.. PM > Why would you keep asking me when you perceive me to be a know-nothing > possessing third- and fourth-hand information. Sheesh! They aren't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > except that you've made up your mind....talk about a primitive > approach...you give new meaning to primitive thinking. > >> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > I was clearly referring to your book, which mainly deals with earlier cases > of Revici's, Sorry but your reference wasn't clear at all. The topic of conversation is the videos. > cases that it was difficult get specific details such a biopsy > results out of you, let alone being able to confirm them directly. You're supposed to be a doctor for cryin' out loud! If you want biopsy information go to the original source. I should have to be telling you this! You want 'proof' and you want the 'proof' from a source you don't trust - me. How nuts is that! > >You're partly > > correct, the medical technology you relied on was primitive because [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why are you so coy about telling me about that case? Is there something > fishy about it? For God's sake, Moran, I told you in the very first post that I'd sent an email to Dr. Kramer, and he replied that included a link to a series of videos. What would possess you to think I have the medical files! I have the same link you do and that's all. > And why is this doctor promoting himself like a quack with testimonial > videos? I freely admit I am intensely biased against any doctor who > claims toi be curing cancer, but cannot or will not produce cases for > independent evaluation by publishing them in medical journals or even undere > the public gaze of the media. That dog doesn't hunt, Moran. Revici got burned real bad by JAMA when it published a fraudulent report and never corrected it. Do you touch a hot stove twice? The journals cannot be trusted when it comes to Revici's work. So both Dr. Kramer and myself are independently going directly to the people. > LATER -- > > OK Against my better judgment I had a look at a couple of videos and it is > just as I thought. The man with a supposed pancreatic tumour goes on for > some minutes His entire video was 3 minutes and 37 seconds. About half way through he said he had both small amounts of chemo and radiation. You can't even get that right. >with irrelevant material before he reveals that he also had > radiation and chemotherapy, no biopsy result is given, and the video is > undated so we cannot know how long he survived. This is bullshit stuff.. So because he didn't present the biopsy in the 3 1/2 minute video, in your mind it's bullshit?? You must be joking, right! You're willing to toss out any possibility of it's accuracy because in the 3 1/2 minutes you weren't provided with exactly what you needed to satisfy you. So rather than contact the clinic to get your questions answered, you've preemptively declared it to be bullshit. Not because there is no biopsy, but because you didn't see one in the 3 1/2 minutes. The man also mentioned that he never lost his hair or got sick. And that the tumor had grown to 7 cm before it started to go away. Please tell us how many 7 cm pancreatic cancer patients you were able to cure in your lifetime. You and I both know that chemo and radiation mistreatments don't cure pancreatic cancer. They merely provide palliative mistreatment. So your idiotic notion that he was somehow cured with radiation and chemo when no one is ever cured of 7 cm pancreatic cancer with those mistreatments, is nauseating. Nauseating because you realize your implication is a bald faced lie. The tape was made a couple of months ago. The man was diagnosed in 1999. > The breast cancer woman appears to have had adequate recent conventional > treatment for an early breast cancer but believes that Revici treatment has > cured her and you have to watch a long video to find out what could have > been said in ten words. Her 'long' video as 5 minutes and 3 seconds. I'd already told you that the take away from the first three videos was the lack of suffering the patients experienced, so if you wasted 5 minutes, that was your choice. Any respectable doctor would be ashamed to use a > case that proves nothing but is so blatantly promotional. Look at you Moran - you have nothing to say about the oat cell cancer combined with ovarian cancer?? The woman has been cured for 27 -28 years. It turns out that what you DON'T talk about is as important as what you DO talk about. > This doctor is a quack, or is at least behaving like one in the way he is > choosing to present himself.. His contact information is listed right there on the website. But you'd rather smear the doctor's good name than to make any attempt to learn the facts that are so 'precious' to you. > PM > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > except that you've made up your mind....talk about a primitive > > approach...you give new meaning to primitive thinking. <snipp> >> >> I have offered to look at the pancreatic cancer case because I assume >> >> the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The journals cannot be trusted when it comes to Revici's work. So both > Dr. Kramer and myself are independently going directly to the people. And so it is OK to supply cancer patients with bullshit testimonials, like that of the woman who has no basis whatsover for asserting that Revici helped her with her breast cancer.? Why are cancer patients not entitled to information they can trust ? What does this tell us about this doctor? >> LATER -- >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > toss out any possibility of it's accuracy because in the 3 1/2 minutes > you weren't provided with exactly what you needed to satisfy you. It is a bullshit case because most of the time is spent on irrelevant material and vital information is not supplied. > So rather than contact the clinic to get your questions answered, > you've preemptively declared it to be bullshit. Not because there is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Please tell us how many 7 cm pancreatic cancer patients you were able > to cure in your lifetime. Without a biopsy we don't even know for sure that this was the usual pancreatic cancer. The man calls it a "tumour". It could have been a low-grade cystadenocarcinoma which has a much better prognosis than the normal pancreatic cancer. We dont; don't even whether he may have had suuery leading to a post-opertive pseudocyst of the pancreas. >You and I both know that chemo and radiation > mistreatments don't cure pancreatic cancer. They merely provide [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The tape was made a couple of months ago. Who says? >The man was diagnosed in > 1999. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > combined with ovarian cancer?? The woman has been cured for 27 -28 > years. So we are told, with not a scrap of supporting data, or information as to what treatment she received. Since they were apparently advising cerebral radiation it is likely that she had surgery for the lung cancer and they were going for cure themsleves. Cerbral radiation ia also unlikely to have been advised if she also had definite untreated ovarian cancer. It all does not add up. > It turns out that what you DON'T talk about is as important as what > you DO talk about. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you'd rather smear the doctor's good name than to make any attempt to > learn the facts that are so 'precious' to you. He is smearing his own good name by presenting such tripe to attract patients to what is almost certainly a useless tretament. This is classic quack behaviour. PM . > >> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > that of the woman who has no basis whatsover for asserting that Revici > helped her with her breast cancer.? Each person can make their own determination about the quality of each and every video. The only aspect of her testimony that had value for me was the fact that the Revici treatment didn't make her sick or go bald...especially since that positive benefit was echoed by the other patients in the other videos. She said she felt better than she ever had. That's a significant comment coming from someone who had cancer. Treatments that don't induce sickness are something to be desired. I have consistently heard and read that Revici's treatments either eliminate or reduce the pain. > Why are cancer patients not entitled to > information they can trust ? What does this tell us about this doctor? That's a false claim on your part. You have access to the office contact information on the web site. Contact the office if you want more information. > >> LATER -- > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It is a bullshit case because most of the time is spent on irrelevant > material and vital information is not supplied. The information is quite useful. The patients aren't physicians. They are providing their experiences. The VITAL information that is supplied is that the last four were all cancer free, including the 9- year pancreatic cancer patient and the 27-year oat cell/ovarian cancer patient. > > So rather than contact the clinic to get your questions answered, > > you've preemptively declared it to be bullshit. Not because there is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > normal pancreatic cancer. We dont; don't even whether he may have had > suuery leading to a post-opertive pseudocyst of the pancreas. Contact the office if you want more details. I've told you this over and over again, but you'd rather bitch about the length and content of the videos...and you do that in the midst of hearing a patient say she had oat cell and ovarian cancer and is still alive 27-28 years later, which speaks volumes regarding your true intent. > >You and I both know that chemo and radiation > > mistreatments don't cure pancreatic cancer. They merely provide [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Who says? I spoke with Dr. Kramer about 3 months ago on the phone. At that time he said he was about to put together a video for his website. > >The man was diagnosed in > > 1999. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > So we are told, with not a scrap of supporting data, or information as to > what treatment she received. If you don't trust what she said, contact the office. >Since they were apparently advising cerebral > radiation it is likely that she had surgery for the lung cancer and they > were going for cure themsleves. Cerbral radiation ia also unlikely to have > been advised if she also had definite untreated ovarian cancer. It all does > not add up. I interviewed Charlotte Louise when writing my book. The only surgery Charlotte had was to remove the ovarian tumor. She had three doses of chemo before quiting it because, "It was like a terrible flu to the hundredth degree." > > It turns out that what you DON'T talk about is as important as what > > you DO talk about. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > patients to what is almost certainly a useless tretament. This is classic > quack behaviour. Actually your behavior is quack behavior because you are smearing someone without evidence. Your previous quack behavior is that during your career, you mistreated patients through surgery for a metabolic condition. You screamed and screamed trying to get the real data from me, when it's obvious I don't control the medical records. But you will not lift a finger to gain access from the person who has the data. You should run for Congress...your duplicity would be well appreciated there. > You have dismissed out of hand an oat cell lung/ovarian cancer cure of > 28 years duration by automatically assuming that 1980 was the dark > ages. You have zero basis for making that preemptive conclusion, > except that you've made up your mind....talk about a primitive > approach...you give new meaning to primitive thinking. Moran is a HealthFraud list member, one of Barretts cronys and an Allopath The allopaths have been suppressing alt med for 100 yaers, and Barrett is at the front of that > I refuse to watch promotional videos on principle, That principle being... I might learn something. I have my head too, too, far up my a.s. Knowledge and informantion is inconsequential...indoctrination and brainwashing serves me better. Gheez, what a moron. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. On May 22, 8:08 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > I have my head too, too, far up my a.s. Finally, Chuckie acknowledges his problem. > I refuse to watch promotional videos on principle, and deplore the > current tendency to try and present important medical claims in this > format. You also refuse to see any cover-ups by conventional and organized medicine. Even when an MD KILLS and repeatedly and delibertly is guilty of wrong doings. Like MURDER. You are baised against CAM. Nuff said. <snip> |
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
|
©2009 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.