Group: sci.med.diseases.cancer
Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of cancer.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
2,000 visits (continued)
2,000 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),"
- 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.
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
"Kelley Eidem" <awthrawthr@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
> "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.
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
"Kelley Eidem" <awthrawthr@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
> "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.
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
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
On May 17, 6:23 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "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.
>
> 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-
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.
On May 17, 6:23 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "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.
>
> 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-
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.
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
On May 17, 3:16 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 17, 6:23 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> >news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > > "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.
>
> > 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-
>
> 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.
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.
On May 17, 3:16 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 17, 6:23 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> >news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > > "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.
>
> > 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-
>
> 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.
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.
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
On May 17, 11:52 pm, Kelley Eidem <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On May 17, 3:16 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 6:23 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> > >news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > > > "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.
>
> > > 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-
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
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
> 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.
Wrong conclusion. There were no true Revici survivors to show up.
On May 17, 11:52 pm, Kelley Eidem <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On May 17, 3:16 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 6:23 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> > >news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > > > "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.
>
> > > 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-
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
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
> 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.
Wrong conclusion. There were no true Revici survivors to show up.
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
On May 17, 4:16 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail,com > wrote:
> 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
On May 17, 4:16 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail,com > wrote:
> 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
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
On May 18, 1:44 pm, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 17, 4:16 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > 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...
>
> 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)
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?
On May 18, 1:44 pm, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 17, 4:16 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > 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...
>
> 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)
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?
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
On May 17, 5:23 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
>
>
>
> > "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.
>
> 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?
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
> 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
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.
On May 17, 5:23 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
>
>
>
> > "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.
>
> 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?
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
> 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
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.
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
"Kelley Eidem" <awthrawthr@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:6be4c377-c2d1-4aa0-8966-9c22d82bbc2c@l64g2000hse.googlegroups,com ...
> On May 17, 5:23 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "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.
>>
>> 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?
>
> 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
>> 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
>
> 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.
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
"Kelley Eidem" <awthrawthr@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:6be4c377-c2d1-4aa0-8966-9c22d82bbc2c@l64g2000hse.googlegroups,com ...
> On May 17, 5:23 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "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.
>>
>> 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?
>
> 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
>> 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
>
> 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.
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
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
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 -
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 ass 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 -
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 ass eluding a foul smelling gas.
DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
<drceephd@insightbb,com > wrote in message
news:98f62161-cf3c-434c-a373-9a8e1c7e6007@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
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
<drceephd@insightbb,com > wrote in message
news:98f62161-cf3c-434c-a373-9a8e1c7e6007@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
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
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
On May 20, 10:27 pm, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
> <drcee...@insightbb,com > wrote in message
>
> news:98f62161-cf3c-434c-a373-9a8e1c7e6007@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
> 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
Do not insult the truly loopy by referring to Chuckie as loopy.
On May 20, 10:27 pm, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
> <drcee...@insightbb,com > wrote in message
>
> news:98f62161-cf3c-434c-a373-9a8e1c7e6007@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
> 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
Do not insult the truly loopy by referring to Chuckie as loopy.
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
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."
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."
Re: 2,000 visits (continued)
On May 18, 1:00 am, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on,net > wrote:
> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> news:6be4c377-c2d1-4aa0-8966-9c22d82bbc2c@l64g2000hse.googlegroups,com ...
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 5:23 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> >> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> >>news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
>
> >> > "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.
>
> >> 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?
>
> > 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
> >> 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
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
On May 18, 1:00 am, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on,net > wrote:
> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> news:6be4c377-c2d1-4aa0-8966-9c22d82bbc2c@l64g2000hse.googlegroups,com ...
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 5:23 am, "Rod" <deniecer...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> >> "Kelley Eidem" <awthraw...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> >>news:9ddcec39-56c7-40cf-8f23-2c324e44cd77@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
>
> >> > "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.
>
> >> 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?
>
> > 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
> >> 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
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
