Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / March 2006
"The Doctor Who Cures Cancer": The MOVIE?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 09 Mar 2006 20:04 GMT Remember me? If you were here in the 1990's and still here now, I made a lot of posts back then.
Well, there's some potential great news in the pipeline. Specifically, I received a call for someone who had read my book a couple times. He was calling me to option the movie rights to the story.
Will there be a movie? Only time will tell...and the process can be a long one. Perhaps one out of ten books that get optioned ever make it to the screen, so it's still a long shot...but the life story of Dr. Emanuel Revici was quite extraordinary and inspirational...so the odds might be reduced a bit.
Simon Wigzell - 11 Mar 2006 01:39 GMT And your point is that you wish to get rich by selling false hope to people dealing with cancer?
I have heard the term "cancer nazis" applied to some extremists who think they know everything about it and YOU MUST DO IT MY WAY, EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG" and now we have a new candidate - the "cancer vampire" - one who seeks to get rich off the illness of others, sad.
> Remember me? If you were here in the 1990's and still here now, I made > a lot of posts back then. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Emanuel Revici was quite extraordinary and inspirational...so the odds > might be reduced a bit. awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 11 Mar 2006 03:34 GMT > And your point is that you wish to get rich by selling false hope to people > dealing with cancer? It's my fondest hope that Dr. Revici's life...or a portion thereof...be made into a major motion picture. By bringing attention to his discoveries, the movie could result in helping a lot of people and in changing the direction of medicine...not overnight, but as quickly as that butchering, poisoning behemoth can be made extinct.
> I have heard the term "cancer nazis" applied to some extremists who think > they know everything about it and YOU MUST DO IT MY WAY, EVERYONE ELSE IS > WRONG" and now we have a new candidate - the "cancer vampire" - one who > seeks to get rich off the illness of others, sad. What in the world are you blabbering about? This is a free society...people get to choose..if you want to choose chemo and the rest of it, knock yourself out...just because I happen to think you'd be incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant to make that choice doesn't remove your ability to make it.
I started writing about Dr. Revici online about nine or 10 years ago. It breaks my heart to say that quite a few of the people who fought me tooth and nail back then are no longer here to say hello. The long term survovors of this newsgroup are more likely to be the ones who have led the sheep to slaughter. Those leaders might not have done it maliciously...I can't believe a single one would do it maliciously...but out of ignorance.
This news group is a tiny venue for trying to let the world know about Dr. Revici. A major motion picture would hopefully cause quite a stir...and lead to far better treatment for cancer patients.
Too few people are aware that there can be a better way. A movie would change that dramatically.
> > Remember me? If you were here in the 1990's and still here now, I made > > a lot of posts back then. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Emanuel Revici was quite extraordinary and inspirational...so the odds > > might be reduced a bit. clifto - 11 Mar 2006 08:40 GMT > Too few people are aware that there can be a better way. A movie would > change that dramatically. You know what would really change that dramatically? Hearing from thousands of successfully cured people.
 Signature All relevant people are pertinent. All rude people are impertinent. Therefore, no rude people are relevant. -- Solomon W. Golomb
Emily - 11 Mar 2006 13:30 GMT clifto@gmail.com said...
> > Too few people are aware that there can be a better way. A movie would > > change that dramatically. > > You know what would really change that dramatically? Hearing from thousands > of successfully cured people. OK, I'll start the ball rolling. Let me know if I use insufficient exclamation marks. I don't have cancer!!!!!!!!! I didn't have chemo!!!!!! Whoop de do!!!!!!!!!!!!! <Calms down> Howzat?
 Signature Em, who didn't have cancer in the first place (but whose mother does)
alex - 11 Mar 2006 17:30 GMT > OK, I'll start the ball rolling. Let me know if I use insufficient > exclamation marks. I don't have cancer!!!!!!!!! I didn't have > chemo!!!!!! Whoop de do!!!!!!!!!!!!! <Calms down> Howzat? I don't think those "cured" patients had cancer either.
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 12 Mar 2006 02:55 GMT > > OK, I'll start the ball rolling. Let me know if I use insufficient > > exclamation marks. I don't have cancer!!!!!!!!! I didn't have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't think those "cured" patients had cancer either. Not withstanding their biopsies.
Simm Webb - 12 Mar 2006 17:22 GMT >>>OK, I'll start the ball rolling. Let me know if I use insufficient >>>exclamation marks. I don't have cancer!!!!!!!!! I didn't have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not withstanding their biopsies. Since I have watched your intellectial laundry blitz before, I have every reason to doubt you or your credentials. As a matter of fact, didn't I refer to you as anthrax before?
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 13 Mar 2006 04:59 GMT > >>>OK, I'll start the ball rolling. Let me know if I use insufficient > >>>exclamation marks. I don't have cancer!!!!!!!!! I didn't have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > every reason to doubt you or your credentials. As a matter of fact, > didn't I refer to you as anthrax before? You would know better than I if you resorted to name calling.
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 11 Mar 2006 15:58 GMT > > Too few people are aware that there can be a better way. A movie would > > change that dramatically. > > You know what would really change that dramatically? Hearing from thousands > of successfully cured people. Why would it take "thousands?" How many "thousands" do you need to be convinced?
They don't use thousands of cured people to approve FDA-approved drugs for cancer.
Heck, I went the the much ballyhooed highly publicized cancer survivor rally in Washington D.C. years ago. It was sponsored by seveal drug companies. They must have spent millions of dollars promoting that with General Schwartskopf (sp?), Cindy Crawford, VP Al Gore, etc in attendance.
The organizers expected several hundred thousand people because they'd set up magnotrons all over the place.
About 500 people showed up.
There weren't enough survivors even after all these years. So much for the success of chemo, radiation and surgery...they still don't have thousands of successfully cured people who are well enough to attend a rally.
J - 11 Mar 2006 19:26 GMT > Heck, I went the the much ballyhooed highly publicized cancer survivor > rally in Washington D.C. years ago. It was sponsored by seveal drug [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > thousands of successfully cured people who are well enough to attend a > rally. Never even heard about the rally..*big yawn* Haven't you heard? Cancer survivors are out there enjoying their lives, rowing, hiking, mountain climbing, attending local rallys and fund raising, raising their families, working and getting on with life (and yes, dying of other causes0.. That's what we tell them here, as well (get on with life) and there's many cancer survivors, all over various other newsgroups. And there's millions who don't have computers or never heard of newsgroups. They're out there and they're telling people they survived, the conventional ways. So movie? *big yawn*..
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/MMWRCancerSurvivorship Posted: 06/24/2004 Number of Cancer Survivors Growing According to New Report
There are 9.8 million cancer survivors in the United States, according to a new report released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). A cancer survivor is defined as anyone who has been diagnosed with cancer, from the time of diagnosis through the balance of his or her life. The findings are published in the June 25 issue of CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, "Cancer Survivorship - United States, 1971 - 2001."
"Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease. The number of cancer survivors in this country has increased steadily over the past three years for all cancers combined. We expect the number of survivors to increase as improvements are made in cancer detection, treatment and care and as the population ages," said HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson.
The report was produced by NCI in partnership with CDC. The authors used incidence and follow-up data from NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program to estimate annual cancer prevalence - the number of people living following a diagnosis of cancer - and trends in cancer survivorship.
The data show that:
* 64 percent of adults whose cancer is diagnosed today can expect to be living in five years; * Breast cancer survivors make up the largest group of cancer survivors (22 percent) followed by prostate cancer survivors (17 percent) and colorectal cancer survivors (11 percent); * The majority (61 percent) of cancer survivors are aged 65 and older; * An estimated one of every six people over age 65 is a cancer survivor; * Seventy-nine percent of childhood cancer survivors will be living five years after diagnosis and nearly 75 percent will be living 10 years following diagnosis. /quote/
And those millions of survivors are for the US alone (not counting all other countries, in the world).
And you "rest your laurels" on one small old cohort... http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110#R49-7 Revici Like Di Bella multitherapy, Revici treatment is named after the physician who developed and provided the method of treatment. Emanuel Revicis therapy is based on an unusual theory of pathophysiology: all conditions, including cancer, result from an imbalance of metabolism. Patients may either have a "catabolic" or "anabolic" type imbalance and are treated with antianabolic or anticatabolic agents, for the most part regardless of presenting signs and symptoms. The type of imbalance is determined by analysis of urine, blood, and body temperature. For example, high urine pH, low serum potassium, and high body temperature are associated with anabolic imbalance; low urine surface tension, low blood calcium, and low body temperature are associated with an imbalance of the catabolic type. The agents used by Revici are quite unlike those used in traditional oncology, including glycerol, n-butyl alcohol, and sulfurated vegetable oil. In 1965, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a cohort study of 33 patients with histologically-confirmed, advanced solid tumors who received treatment from Revici.5 Twenty-two of these patients died while receiving treatment, eight left the trial, and three remained under Revicis care at the end of the study. Of the eight who left the trial, four died and two were lost to follow-up. The researchers claimed that no patient exhibited evidence of objective tumor response and that all three patients still under treatment by Revici showed signs of tumor progression. Although Revici disputed the tumor response data, it is clear that only 15% of patients survived until the end of the trial. This contradicts the claim that, in the words of a favorable book, Revici is the "doctor who cures cancer." /quote/
So 33 minus 22 died, minus 4 died, leaves 7 and not one has showed (anywhere), that they can be questioned as to what happened next.. Leaving Revici with zippo.. *big yawn*
J
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 12 Mar 2006 04:24 GMT > > Heck, I went the the much ballyhooed highly publicized cancer survivor > > rally in Washington D.C. years ago. It was sponsored by seveal drug [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Never even heard about the rally..*big yawn* It was all over the morning talk shows, etc. Yet it was a HUGE flop for simple reason...I mean you can get more than 500 people to the D.C. Mall for a Frisbee exhibition....too many were either dead or too sick to come.
> Haven't you heard? Cancer survivors are out there enjoying their lives, rowing, > hiking, mountain climbing, attending local rallys and fund raising, raising their [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, "Cancer Survivorship - United States, 1971 > - 2001." That includes skin cancers, and it includes tons of people who were diagnosed this morning. It's not much of an achievement to claim that a huge number of people are alive when cancer aflicts so many people.
> "Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States after heart > disease. The number of cancer survivors in this country has increased steadily > over the past three years for all cancers combined. We expect the number of > survivors to increase as improvements are made in cancer detection, treatment and > care and as the population ages," said HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. Thank God for the DSHEA law! Now more people than ever are using natural supplements to either augment their treatment or to cure their disease. THAT is why for the first time in 70 years, the stats are improving!
> The report was produced by NCI in partnership with CDC. The authors used
> incidence and follow-up data from NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End > Results (SEER) program to estimate annual cancer prevalence - the number of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > * 64 percent of adults whose cancer is diagnosed today can expect to be > living in five years; This includes basal skin cancers! They changed the criteria, which altered the outcomes.
> * Breast cancer survivors make up the largest group of cancer survivors (22 > percent) followed by prostate cancer survivors (17 percent) and colorectal cancer [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > patients with histologically-confirmed, advanced solid tumors who received > treatment from Revici. The JAMA Lyall Report conducted ALL its monthly meetings at the International Press Club...the restaurant bills indicated a heavy consumption of hard liquor and wine....anywhere from an average of 3 to 7 alcoholic beverages were served per attendee at each meeting!
Only two of the eight authors saw more than one patient. At least five of the eight co-authors NEVER saw a patient...they relied on the drunken meetings at the Press Club for their info. No medical documents were brought to the drunken meetings.
> 5 Twenty-two of these patients died while receiving > treatment, eight left the trial, and three remained under Revici's care at the > end of the study. The report is wrong...there were 38 patients, not 33! Lyall excluded 5 patients whose results were astoundingly positive.
Secondly the terms of the trial were tumor shrinkage and tumor shrinkage only. Since each and every patient was terminal or nearly terminal, a high death rate was to be expected.
>Of the eight who left the trial, four died and two were lost to > follow-up. The researchers claimed that no patient exhibited evidence of > objective tumor response and that all three patients still under treatment by > Revici showed signs of tumor progression. Photographic evidence of external tumors that disappeared demonstrate that Lyall's report was a fraud perpetrated on the readers of JAMA.
>Although Revici disputed the tumor > response data, it is clear that only 15% of patients survived until the end of > the trial. This contradicts the claim that, in the words of a favorable book, > Revici is the "doctor who cures cancer." /quote/ Actually the numer was 8 out of 38 terminal or nearly patients survived, and were showing demonstrable signs through tumor measurement of shrinking or disappeared tumors. That result was quite extraordinarily positive considering the patient pool.
> So 33 minus 22 died, minus 4 died, leaves 7 and not one has showed (anywhere), > that they can be questioned as to what happened next.. > Leaving Revici with zippo.. It was 8 out of 38...an extraordinarily positive achievement. This does not include Dr. Robert Fishbein, M.D., a brain tumor patient who was helping Revici during the trial. Although he was expected to live only 2 months, he was alive and cancer free the last time I spoke with him several months ago...more than 40 years after the trial!
Like the recent South Korean cloning scandal, the Lyall scandal published in JAMA was no better.
> *big yawn* Catching flies?
> J Steph - 12 Mar 2006 07:32 GMT >> The data show that: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This includes basal skin cancers! They changed the criteria, which > altered the outcomes. Er, no, anth, that excludes all non-melanoma skin cancers. The 64% (or 62%, depending on the study) is teh commonest 22 adult cancers which constitute 90+% of all adult cancers. You can't make things up and get away with it you know........
I hate to see people posting lies here, and you are an expert at is
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 12 Mar 2006 16:39 GMT > >> The data show that: > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > which constitute 90+% of all adult cancers. > You can't make things up and get away with it you know........ I'll accept your correction because I don't have time to look it up at the moment. In previous reports all skin cancers were included in the 5-year survival rates. It was that change that created the so-called 'improvement' in 5-year survival rates from 1/3 to 1/2.
The excusion of some of the rarer types of cancer also tends to skew the data because they can be the deadliest.
> I hate to see people posting lies here, and you are an expert at it Yes, I am an expert at seeing people posting lies here, Steph. You and others have told plenty of lies about Revici, for instance.
I do hope you enjoy the movie if it does indeed get made.
alex - 12 Mar 2006 18:29 GMT >> I hate to see people posting lies here, and you are an expert at it > > Yes, I am an expert at seeing people posting lies here, Steph. You and > others have told plenty of lies about Revici, for instance. > > I do hope you enjoy the movie if it does indeed get made. Obviously 6 people thought he was responsible for one women's death after a trial. http://www.ralphmoss.com/revici2.html "Cancer pioneer Emanuel Revici, M.D. suffered a legal setback in a New York Federal court July 24, 1989: a six-person jury found him guilty of malpractice in the death of a Connecticut woman. Ms. Cecilia Zyjewski had a cancer of the rectum and was informed by her orthodox physicians she had a 70 percent chance of survival with surgery and chemotherapy. But she rejected these in favor of Revici¹s non-toxic therapy, which involves restoring the biochemical balance of the body. Ms. Zyjewski seemed to improve but then died on November 16, 1983 after, Revici claims, being denied access to his medications."
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 13 Mar 2006 04:50 GMT > >> I hate to see people posting lies here, and you are an expert at it > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > improve but then died on November 16, 1983 after, Revici claims, being > denied access to his medications." The patient's family members took her medications from her. So surprise, surprise, her cancer got worse. She died, not from cancer, but from an infection from radiation burns. According to the complaint that was supposedly filed by her, it was signed by her when she was in a coma...an agregious violation of legal ethics since it is obvious that she did not sign anything while the attorney claimed he got the signature.
Steph - 13 Mar 2006 06:52 GMT alex wrote:
> >> I hate to see people posting lies here, and you are an expert at it > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > improve but then died on November 16, 1983 after, Revici claims, being > denied access to his medications." The patient's family members took her medications from her. So surprise, surprise, her cancer got worse. She died, not from cancer, but from an infection from radiation burns. According to the complaint that was supposedly filed by her, it was signed by her when she was in a coma...an agregious violation of legal ethics since it is obvious that she did not sign anything while the attorney claimed he got the signature.
+++ You know, to call you pathetic would be an insult to pathetic people
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 13 Mar 2006 18:30 GMT > alex wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > +++ You know, to call you pathetic would be an insult to pathetic people Steph's patients don't "die"...no, they get on with their lives...a prouder euphemism has never been written.
Emily - 13 Mar 2006 21:44 GMT awthrawthr@yahoo.com said...
> Steph's patients don't "die"...no, they get on with their lives...a > prouder euphemism has never been written. Don't be more stupid than you can help. Of course Steph's patients die. Some of them may even die from cancer. But at least what Steph does helps those whose disease can be helped to have a more meaningful and a happier life than if they hadn't had the treatment he can offer. All you're doing is offering people bugger all except hot air and platitudes - and we can get those in adequate measure from our elected politicians.
Steph - 12 Mar 2006 20:00 GMT >> Er, no, anth, that excludes all non-melanoma skin cancers. >> The 64% (or 62%, depending on the study) is teh commonest 22 adult [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 5-year survival rates. It was that change that created the so-called > 'improvement' in 5-year survival rates from 1/3 to 1/2. You'll accept it, mate, because it's true and you are a nutter. non-elanoma skin cancer survival rates have always been reported seperately in US, UK, CAnadian, Australian and every other major western country's cancer registry.
> The excusion of some of the rarer types of cancer also tends to skew > the data because they can be the deadliest. It doesn't skew the data precisiely because they are so rare. Not a clue, do you? The commonest 22 adult cancers make up 95% or more of all adult cancers.
>> I hate to see people posting lies here, and you are an expert at it > > Yes, I am an expert at seeing people posting lies here, Steph. You and > others have told plenty of lies about Revici, for instance. You have always been an idiot and still are
> I do hope you enjoy the movie if it does indeed get made. I'd rather stick needles in my eyeballs.
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 12 Mar 2006 22:45 GMT > >> Er, no, anth, that excludes all non-melanoma skin cancers. > >> The 64% (or 62%, depending on the study) is teh commonest 22 adult [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > I'd rather stick needles in my eyeballs. A fitting punishment, perhaps, for your 'advice.' Where oh where are the cancer patients from 10 years ago who followed your advice here?
Steph - 13 Mar 2006 06:50 GMT >> >> Er, no, anth, that excludes all non-melanoma skin cancers. >> >> The 64% (or 62%, depending on the study) is teh commonest 22 adult [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > A fitting punishment, perhaps, for your 'advice.' Where oh where are > the cancer patients from 10 years ago who followed your advice here? They are getting on with their lives
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 13 Mar 2006 18:28 GMT > >> >> Er, no, anth, that excludes all non-melanoma skin cancers. > >> >> The 64% (or 62%, depending on the study) is teh commonest 22 adult [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > They are getting on with their lives ...or their Last Wills. It's is interesting how the mind works to create denial...you tell yourself they've got on with their lives.
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 13 Mar 2006 01:36 GMT > > The excusion of some of the rarer types of cancer also tends to skew > > the data because they can be the deadliest. > > It doesn't skew the data precisiely because they are so rare. Not a clue, do > you? > The commonest 22 adult cancers make up 95% or more of all adult cancers. If 95% of cancers have a 64% 5-year survival, and the remaining 5% have a 10% 5-year survival rate, then the percentage is reduced to 61.3%. Sixty-four is not sixty-one. Considering all the other flaws that is just one example of the rosie scenario Steph lives by:
Because cancers are diagnosed earlier and earlier, the 5-year survival clock starts sooner.
The bogus 5-year survival standard also lacks much meaning. They are often alive with new cancers and in terrible shape.
Last but not least, since DSHEA many more cancer patients are adding natural supplements to their protocol.
> >> I hate to see people posting lies here, and you are an expert at it > > > > Yes, I am an expert at seeing people posting lies here, Steph. You and > > others have told plenty of lies about Revici, for instance. > > You have always been an idiot and still are Shouldn't you be apologizing for all the patients who have died after seeking your advice instead of striking out like you tend to do?
> > I do hope you enjoy the movie if it does indeed get made. > > I'd rather stick needles in my eyeballs. alex - 12 Mar 2006 18:07 GMT "> Er, no, anth, that excludes all non-melanoma skin cancers.
> The 64% (or 62%, depending on the study) is teh commonest 22 adult cancers > which constitute 90+% of all adult cancers. > You can't make things up and get away with it you know........ > > I hate to see people posting lies here, and you are an expert at is This makes no sense to me. Who is the expert? Alex
clifto - 12 Mar 2006 23:15 GMT > steph wrote: >> The 64% (or 62%, depending on the study) is teh commonest 22 adult cancers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This makes no sense to me. Who is the expert? Alex If I were to pick an expert, it would be the person you were just talking to.
 Signature All relevant people are pertinent. All rude people are impertinent. Therefore, no rude people are relevant. -- Solomon W. Golomb
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 13 Mar 2006 01:19 GMT > > steph wrote: > >> The 64% (or 62%, depending on the study) is teh commonest 22 adult cancers [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If I were to pick an expert, it would be the person you were just talking to. Steph is an expert, all right...but what happened to all those cancer patients he gave advice to 10 years ago?
> -- > All relevant people are pertinent. > All rude people are impertinent. > Therefore, no rude people are relevant. > -- Solomon W. Golomb Simm Webb - 13 Mar 2006 18:12 GMT >>>steph wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Steph is an expert, all right...but what happened to all those cancer > patients he gave advice to 10 years ago? I for one, had cancer a couple of years ago, and after a rather intense depression, came here and asked for advice. Steph, among others guided me, and as of last month, I still am cancer free. What are you trying to talk about? It's obvious you never have had cancer.
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 13 Mar 2006 18:45 GMT > >>>steph wrote: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > me, and as of last month, I still am cancer free. What are you trying > to talk about? It's obvious you never have had cancer. Stage IV seven years ago. I cured myself with a super strength tincture of habeneros peppers, freshly grated garlic and fish oil. It worked like a charm...half-dollar sized lesions on both calves, thighs, hips, lower and upper back all vanished.
It was easy. No sleep lost worrying...no depression...no throwing up...no hair loss...just a sense of adventure in watching the lesions go away...twice, because I stopped the treatment after the first disappearance. I only continued with the fish oil after they went away the first time.
Emily - 13 Mar 2006 21:44 GMT awthrawthr@yahoo.com said...
> > I for one, had cancer a couple of years ago, and after a rather intense > > depression, came here and asked for advice. Steph, among others guided [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > like a charm...half-dollar sized lesions on both calves, thighs, hips, > lower and upper back all vanished. Did you have the forethought to take any photographs of the transformation? If so, why don't you put them up on a website so we can all judge for ourselves? What fish, by the way?
J - 13 Mar 2006 21:53 GMT > awthrawthr@yahoo.com said... > > Stage IV seven years ago. I cured myself with a super strength tincture [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > transformation? If so, why don't you put them up on a website so we can > all judge for ourselves? And copies of the pathology reports... Along with CT scans, MRI, PET, bone scans (reports), whatever proves that he had Stage IV and shows what cancer. J
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 15 Mar 2006 02:25 GMT > awthrawthr@yahoo.com said... > > > I for one, had cancer a couple of years ago, and after a rather intense [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > transformation? If so, why don't you put them up on a website so we can > all judge for ourselves? What fish, by the way? Emulsified cod liver oil from TwinLab.
Figgertoes - 14 Mar 2006 07:27 GMT >> >>>steph wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > worked like a charm...half-dollar sized lesions on both calves, > thighs, hips, lower and upper back all vanished. .
I had most of those things for dinner last night, smothered in cheese & wrapped in a tortilla.
Fig
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 15 Mar 2006 02:34 GMT > >> >>>steph wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > worked like a charm...half-dollar sized lesions on both calves, > > thighs, hips, lower and upper back all vanished.
> I had most of those things for dinner last night, smothered in cheese & > wrapped in a tortilla. Good for you. However, habeneros tinctures might be too potent for most dishes...they'll make you hyperventilate.
Simm Webb - 14 Mar 2006 12:57 GMT >>>>>steph wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > disappearance. I only continued with the fish oil after they went away > the first time. I for one, refuse to argue further with a militant lying fool.
J - 14 Mar 2006 13:09 GMT > I for one, refuse to argue further with a militant lying fool. if spamfree is right (I got his real name), he cowrote the book (along with other books...). Let's quit with the subject line advertisement. J
Simm Webb - 12 Mar 2006 17:24 GMT >>>Heck, I went the the much ballyhooed highly publicized cancer survivor >>>rally in Washington D.C. years ago. It was sponsored by seveal drug [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Mall for a Frisbee exhibition....too many were either dead or too sick > to come. Most of our group have never heard of this fraud until now. Why not take your phony hopes somewhere else. By the way, what is the name of your doctor? Kevorkian?
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 12 Mar 2006 22:04 GMT > >>>Heck, I went the the much ballyhooed highly publicized cancer survivor > >>>rally in Washington D.C. years ago. It was sponsored by seveal drug [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Most of our group have never heard of this fraud until now. Why IS that most of the people visiting TODAY have not heard of Dr. Revici? Whatever happened to the cancer patients who were here ten years ago? Why we've got Steph, the perp who advocates radiation, chemo and surgery...but where are the victims of his advice?
Where ARE they?
>Why not > take your phony hopes somewhere else. By the way, what is the name of > your doctor? Kevorkian? Did Steph change his last name?
Figgertoes - 13 Mar 2006 04:03 GMT >> >>>Heck, I went the the much ballyhooed highly publicized cancer >> >>>survivor rally in Washington D.C. years ago. It was sponsored by [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Where ARE they? Many are, no doubt living healthy, happy lives - free from cancer. Why on earth would most jump in the car or onto planes to show up for a rally in DC? Makes no sense to me that they would unless they had something to sell.
plonk! Fig
Simm Webb - 13 Mar 2006 18:10 GMT > Why IS that most of the people visiting TODAY have not heard of Dr. > Revici? Whatever happened to the cancer patients who were here ten [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Did Steph change his last name? Why don't you take your medicine, and go back to your room?
Emily - 11 Mar 2006 13:26 GMT awthrawthr@yahoo.com said...
> > And your point is that you wish to get rich by selling false hope to people > > dealing with cancer? > > It's my fondest hope that Dr. Revici's life...or a portion thereof...be > made into a major motion picture. Excellent. I love a good comedy.
awthrawthr@yahoo.com - 11 Mar 2006 15:43 GMT > awthrawthr@yahoo.com said... > > > And your point is that you wish to get rich by selling false hope to people [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Excellent. I love a good comedy. He who laughs last, laughs best.
spamfree - 12 Mar 2006 01:11 GMT > I started writing about Dr. Revici online about nine or 10 years ago. > It breaks my heart to say that quite a few of the people who fought me > tooth and nail back then are no longer here to say hello. BeWelKell,
Being a happy long term survivor means not wasting time feeding the trolls.
J - 12 Mar 2006 12:00 GMT > <awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Being a happy long term survivor means not wasting time feeding the trolls. hey, good memory there. http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-223457.html
I know he's been a major pest on this newsgroup and then for a while on s.m.d.c.
So folks if you can block his posts (or the whole thread) do it, make it disappear from your newsreader. If you're just blocking him, his email address/screen name is at the top of this post.
Instructions on blocking threads or posters are here <http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaqhtm.htm> J
|
|
|