Open letter to BeWell Kell
Jeff Forman
Roda and the like have driven him from the newsgroup? People came here
looking for straight answers and Dr. Roda gave it to them. Your disdain for
anything but your book and your alternative treatments manifests in a selfish
whining way that drives not only men like Dr. Roda away, but also people who
have nowhere else to go. Again, I hope you feel satisfied, you have saved
people from obtaining the knowledge of a generous man like Dr. Roda. But at
least they're now safe, right?
If you truly gave a damn, you would respond with an open letter to Dr. Roda
and an open letter telling people what alternative newsgroup you will be
posting in so that those who do what to consider your theories and your
theories alone will have a place to do so and those who want allopathic
information can get it here. I suspect that your agenda will not include
allowing those who want Dr. Roda's help to get it. But I thought I'd ask.
This is not a rejection of your theories - so please don't spout a defensive
reply. It is merely an observation that you have brow-beaten those who give
the information requested to the point of their leaving. That, sir, is
selfish.
Jeff Forman
BeWelKel
Date: Sat, Aug 22, 1998 4:37 PM EDT
Message-id: <B_FD1.3582$0o.47...@news.rdc1.md.home.com>
>>Thanks for nothing. Do you feel satisfied that
>>you and those who flamed Dr. Roda and the like have >>driven him from the
newsgroup?
Yours and Roda's misdirection play reminds me of the Roman emperor Nero,
who blamed the Christians for a fire he might have had set himself.
What a sap you and others are to fall for Roda's fanciful blaming of his
computer crash on people who oppose his viewpoints.
For your information, I'm not afraid of anything Roda might say. I have
no reason to foul up his computer, nor do I know how to do such a thing.
I rather enjoy his presence because it provides me with lots of
opportunities to let people know there is a far better way to treat cancer.
His decisons to retire are his own. He has given you a web site where you
can continue falling for his outmoded method for treating cancer. If you
prefer procedures that make people deathly ill and rarely work, I suggest you
go there.
I know alot of people get trapped in the whole medical nightmare and then
run to Roda to find out what they can do to make things right again. And he is
able to provide whatever help he can within the severe limitations that common
medicine has to offer. For some, that is enough. They go away happy, if not
healed.
My messages are often blunt, because I won't kiss the ring of common
medicine. So, it might be a shock to some who sincerely believe in the rotten
bill of goods they've been sold by the Nightly News.
Meanwhile, I will continue to bring the good news to anyone who is wants
to hear it. Those who don't want to read what I have to say, can learn how to
use the delete key.
- Kelley
--------------------
William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer" To order, call
1-800-717-2669 (1-800-717-BOOX)
Arianna54
>From: for...@home.com (Jeff Forman)
>Date: 8/22/98 1:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>hanks for nothing. Do you feel satisfied that you and those who flamed Dr.
>Roda and the like have driven him from the newsgroup?
Jeff, I think that by doing what he does he is pretty much digging his own
grave. I think most of what he writes and says backfires on him. I am in
favor of some forms of alternative medicine if integrated with western
medicine. However, I must say that after reading his posts and his venomous
attacks on people and the medical establishment in general, I would never try
any of his methods.
He used to post and probably still does in the America Online breast cancer
board too (a VERY active board with hundreds on new breast cancer posts every
day) and he was getting the same reaction there. I think the best way to deal
with people like that is to ignore them.
Needless to say I, like you, am so sorry Dr. Roda has left us.
Bye
Arianna (2 1/2 year breast cancer survivor)
BeWelKel
This is a public forum. Get used to it or get out.
If you don't like what I say, read something else.
I'm sure if you saw my message on a real live bulletin board, you'd be the
type of person who would remove it. You can't do that here, and that drives
you nuts.
You can continue to call me names to your heart's content. People no
better than yourself have done that repeatedly, and I'm still here. It's been
said that when someone calls you a name it tells you something about them.
Everyone can see the irony in your remarks when you say *I'm* mean, that *I*
spew venom.
As long as people are unaware of the choices available to them, I will
continue to put out the good news: cancer can be treated successfully without
making you sicker than you already are.
If you don't like my message, that is your problem.
.Peter Moran
> As long as people are unaware of the choices available to them, I will
>continue to put out the good news: cancer can be treated successfully
without
>making you sicker than you already are.
But you are not offering people an honest choice, merely unsubstantiated
promises. You have been doing it regularly for at least six months that I
know of, without quoting any results from the current application of the
treatments you support. I guess it must sell your books.
How many patients with cancer have you personally treated?
What is the five year survival rate rate with Stage C colorectal cancer, or
any other common cancer with the Revici method?
On what basis have you made the blanket statement on another newsgroup to
all cancer patients "you can be cured".
Even Revici didn't make any such claim, but he thought some patients were
responding to his treatment. Even sympathetic supporters allowed that he
didn't cure many people.
Unless you can answer such questions with current data that can be
independently verified (and without having to buy your book), you have no
right to be making such promises. You are either dangerously deluded by
wishful thinking, or an evil person, as someone else has suggested..
Incidentally what are the "unnucleated cancer cells" you mention in your
absurd account of the Revici system, which in other ways displays the
extraordinarily primitive nature of your understanding of cancer..
Pathologists have been looking at specimens of cancer under the microscope
and have not yet found a cancer cell which survives without a nucleus. Your
comment about multinucleated cells is also ignorant-- these usually occur in
undifferentiated and aggressive tumours.
Peter Moran
Karen Gann
<<snip>>
Your disdain for
> anything but your book and your alternative treatments manifests in a selfish
> whining way that drives not only men like Dr. Roda away, but also people who
> have nowhere else to go. Again, I hope you feel satisfied, you have saved
> people from obtaining the knowledge of a generous man like Dr. Roda. But at
> least they're now safe, right?
Unfortunately Jeff, I think it's us that don't get it. This has
nothing to do with anything other than ego - Bewelkill.jerk has the
power to disrupt this newgroup; to taunt people reaching out for
information and a little hope. You see, it's all about getting his
jollies.
I personally think we should leave him to it. Let's see how much "fun"
he has playing with himself!
Bye folks, it's been fun. Belwelkill and those of your ilk - may you
find yourselves in a similar situation. In a work, PISS OFF!
KG
________________________________________________________________________
Karen Gann http://jkgann.com/kitchen/ Knoxville, TN, USA
BeWelKel
Date: Sun, Aug 23, 1998 3:11 AM EDT
Message-id: <6roh2s$ov...@iccu9.ipswich.gil.com.au>
Belwelkel says--
> As long as people are unaware of the choices available to them, I will
>continue to put out the good news: cancer can be treated successfully
without
>making you sicker than you already are.
>>But you are not offering people an honest choice, merely >>unsubstantiated
promises.
Wrong. I'm not a cancer expert, so I rely on experts who have examined
the record. Dr. Seymour Brenner, a board certified radiation oncologist with
43 years experience was one of them. He unequivocally wrote, "Dr. Revici has
cured many people of cancer who were otherwise considered incurable."
>> Your comment about multinucleated cells is also >>ignorant-- these usually
occur in
>>undifferentiated and aggressive tumours.
Thank you for the correction. I've reversed the connection between
aggressive immature cells and nucleation. I apologize for any confusion my
error might have caused.
.Peter Moran
any old newsgroup here. This bastard responds to the posts of persons who
may know little of medicine and less about computers by giving them the most
ignorant advice around. He has on occasions viciously attacked doctors
giving honest advice to such, and has attempted to frighten cancer sufferers
away from effective treatments by horrifically exaggerated descriptions of
the consequences of conventional treatment..
Doctors and others of this group have every right to feel protective of
cancer sufferers and their relatives who are anxiously seeking advice. If
they were specifically asking about unproven treatments, this would be OK,
but these posters don't know enough to post to the alternative newsgroups..
Do you understand, nameless one?
--
P Moran
Fe...@FILTEREDnewsreader.org wrote in message
<1998082322...@replay.com>...
>Hey Guys! Ever hear of a NEWS FILTER? Why not GROW UP
>and IGNORE trash which has no value? Are you people
>trying to LEARN or WIN? People like BeSick Kell
>thrive on ATTENTION. Like FIVE-YEAR OLDS they
>throw tantrums expecting mommy to rush to hug
>poor little baby. IGNORE HIS TRASH, filter him out,
>and maybe Dr. Roda, doing the same, will resume
>his valuable contributions. NEWSGROUPS are nothing
>but a stream of messages. DISCUSSIONS are created
>only when you participate. It takes less than a
>minute to generate a rule in your newsreader
>which will cause BeSick Kell to disappear from
>your screen forever. If you don't know how to
>use your newsreader, take the few minutes to
>look at HELP and find out! GEEZ!
>GROW UP AND SEE WHAT IS IMPORTANT HERE!
>
>CommonSenseGuy in L.A.
>
>
Chuck Bloch
BeWelKel <bewe...@aol.com> wrote:
> Wrong. I'm not a cancer expert, so I rely on experts who have examined
>the record. Dr. Seymour Brenner, a board certified radiation oncologist with
>43 years experience was one of them. He unequivocally wrote, "Dr. Revici has
>cured many people of cancer who were otherwise considered incurable."
Even the worst doctor cures some of his patients. It is irrelevant to
talk only about Dr. Revici's successes. The real question is what is
his batting average? Let's see the numbers for _all_ of his patients.
--
# Charles Bloch, Ph.D. http://nike.iucf.indiana.edu/~cbloch/ #
# Proton Radiation Center (812) 855-5191 (FAX: 6645) #
# 2401 Milo B. Sampson Lane cbl...@iucf.indiana.edu #
# IUCF, Bloomington IN 47408 blo...@indiana.edu #
D.M. Gómez Sánchez
This is : obsesive graphorrhea.
Some well known listmates suffer it in advanced stage .
Treatment is very easy ;but longlasting.
It is: Let they burn themselves. Cure rate is 100%
Warning: May be contagiouse.
D. Gómez M.D.
Graphorrhea: the writing of a long succesion of meanigiless and unconnected
words. (Dorland Dictionary)
.Peter Moran escribió:
> Belwelkel says--
> > As long as people are unaware of the choices available to them, I will
> >continue to put out the good news: cancer can be treated successfully
> without
> >making you sicker than you already are.
>
> But you are not offering people an honest choice, merely unsubstantiated
> promises. You have been doing it regularly for at least six months that I
> know of, without quoting any results from the current application of the
> treatments you support. I guess it must sell your books.
>
> How many patients with cancer have you personally treated?
> What is the five year survival rate rate with Stage C colorectal cancer, or
> any other common cancer with the Revici method?
> On what basis have you made the blanket statement on another newsgroup to
> all cancer patients "you can be cured".
>
> Even Revici didn't make any such claim, but he thought some patients were
> responding to his treatment. Even sympathetic supporters allowed that he
> didn't cure many people.
>
> Unless you can answer such questions with current data that can be
> independently verified (and without having to buy your book), you have no
> right to be making such promises. You are either dangerously deluded by
> wishful thinking, or an evil person, as someone else has suggested..
>
> Incidentally what are the "unnucleated cancer cells" you mention in your
> absurd account of the Revici system, which in other ways displays the
> extraordinarily primitive nature of your understanding of cancer..
> Pathologists have been looking at specimens of cancer under the microscope
> and have not yet found a cancer cell which survives without a nucleus. Your
> comment about multinucleated cells is also ignorant-- these usually occur in
> undifferentiated and aggressive tumours.
>
> Peter Moran
--
#
# Netscape Fonts Catalog File
#
# Architect: Suresh Duddi <d...@netscape.com>
#
# This file stores all data about font displayers and the kind of fonts
# they server. This will be used to optimize loading of font displayers
#
# #####################################################################
# THIS FILE IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED. DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE.
# #####################################################################
# Copyright Netscape Communications Corp (C) 1996, 1997
Version = 1.0
displayer = {
type = dynamic
dlm = C:\ARCHIVOS DE PROGRAMA\NETSCAPE COMUNICATOR
4.03\PROGRAM\dynfonts/nstdfp32.dll;873397560;206336;
name = TrueDoc
description = Bitstream's TrueDoc Portable Font Displayer
mimeString = application/font-tdpfr:pfr:TrueDoc producer testing font
streaming:enable;
deleted = 0
disabled = 0
catalog = {
} // End of catalog
} // End of displayer
SWill48
>From: bewe...@aol.com (BeWelKel)
>Date: Sun, Aug 23, 1998 00:36 EDT
>Message-id: <199808230436...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>
>Dear Jeff,
> This is a public forum. Get used to it or get out.
>If you don't like what I say, read something else.
This sort of arrogant and pompous comment might be more reasonably accepted on
a newsgroup dealing with car repair or alien invasions from outer space, but
not on a newsgroup devoted to CANCER.
A REASONABLE and DECENT man would take the suggestion of Jeff and others and
create his own bully pulpit.....website. A REASONABLE and DECENT man would
decide that if his presence here so offended people he would leave.
snip
> It's
>been
>said that when someone calls you a name it tells you something about them.
Perhaps someone would be good enough to repost some of the 'name-calling'
Kelley has engaged in. I seem to recall his doing a fair amount of that sort
of thing to not only Dr. Roda but also TD Laing for example.
.
> As long as people are unaware of the choices available to them, I will
>continue to put out the good news: cancer can be treated successfully without
>making you sicker than you already are.
> If you don't like my message, that is your problem.
Sometimes Kelley said cancer can be TREATED successfully by his benefactor, the
Revici clinic. Other times he tells us that clinic can CURE cancer. And yet
other times he claims that AT LEAST it relieves terminal patients of pain. He
sometimes seems unsure of the very treatment he recommends. He has ZERO
data....oh, CURRENT data that is. ;-) When asked specifically for data, he
claims it was lost in a fire or was that lost at sea? :-)
He resents any science professional. His hatred is not limited to MD's. He
seems to also have a problem with researchers, PhD's, chemists and other
professionals. Hmm, maybe it's the word 'professional' that has him all wound
up. After all, the poor guy wrote a book about a clinic in NYC that has been
reportedly FAILED to cure cancer. His publisher found ZERO market for his
nonsense and now he's come here to sell that book. He must be finding it
rough to face the fact HE is not a professional.
I think it is important to challange Kelleys grand promises so that frightened
patients do not waste precious time on any treatments that cannot be supported
with current data.
BTW, I am all in favor of trying alternative treatments such as vitamins, herbs
and so on...with the full knowledge and approval of my oncologist. I think
few oncologists would argue against healthy diets, vitamins and some herbs.
But care needs to be taken not to combine drugs that could hurt versus help.
We only get one chance to do this cancer thing right and for me, that means
going with what can be demonstrated to be most effective. Kelley wants to
sell a book. Period.
Susan
> - Kelley
>
>--------------------
>William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer" To order, call
>1-800-717-2669 (1-800-717-BOOX)
></PRE></HTML>
SWill48
> Wrong. I'm not a cancer expert, so I rely on experts who have examined
>the record. Dr. Seymour Brenner, a board certified radiation oncologist with
>43 years experience was one of them. He unequivocally wrote, "Dr. Revici has
>cured many people of cancer who were otherwise considered incurable."
Believe me, no one has ever mistaken you for a cancer expert. :-) I presume
Dr. Brenner is now retired. WHEN did he say this? WHERE did he write this?
What figure was he referring to when he said "many people" were cured? HOW
MANY? During what period of time where they 'cured?" HOW MANY during the
same period of time were NOT cured?
BTW, the comments of one person do NOT 'data' make.
Susan
SWill48
>with people like that is to ignore them.
>Needless to say I, like you, am so sorry Dr. Roda has left us.
>Bye
>Arianna (2 1/2 year breast cancer survivor)
Arianna,
Good post! :-)
I used to feel that way too. But the tragedy is that some people will come
here, read his silly posts and BELEIVE him. Some will risk their lives based
on false or unproven information. Our silence could possibly lead them to
believe he is spouting truth, versus trying to sell his BOOK!
As for your 2.5 years cancer free...CONGRATULATIONS and God bless.
Susan
SWill48
attention junkie. :-) BUT what do we do about those folks who come here
unaware that he is just looking to sell his book? Sure we are not our
brother's keeper...but there is a bond between cancer patieints and I
personally feel it would be irrisponsible to let him ply his trade on
unsuspecting folks. This is a Catch22 of sorts. Ignore him and save ourselves
some time and aggrevation but risk someone getting killed because of his false
promises.
Susan
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Open letter to BeWell Kell
>From: Fe...@FILTEREDnewsreader.org
>Date: Sun, Aug 23, 1998 13:04 EDT
>Message-id: <1998082317...@replay.com>
Don Sterner
>Common Sense Guy in LA makes some very valid points. Widdle bitty Kelley IS an
>attention junkie. :-) BUT what do we do about those folks who come here
>unaware that he is just looking to sell his book? Sure we are not our
>brother's keeper...but there is a bond between cancer patieints and I
>personally feel it would be irrisponsible to let him ply his trade on
>unsuspecting folks. This is a Catch22 of sorts. Ignore him and save ourselves
>some time and aggrevation but risk someone getting killed because of his false
>promises.
>
>Susan
I'm glad there are those who understand why some of us feel that
we must respond to these twerps.
Dr. Roda, I am truely sorry that you felt it necessary to leave.
I wish you well and thank you for all of the good you have done
here.
d.
BeWelKel
>>He has on occasions viciously attacked doctors
>>giving honest advice to such,
For the record, Roda quit when he was asked for certain types of patients
he'd treated that had been CANCER FREE for five years and couldn't produce.
All he had were several cancer MANAGED patients, and maybe one cancer free
patient.
No one has confronted Roda in such a particular way to clearly demonstrate
the worthlessness of common medicine. The emperor (common medicine) has no
clothes.
Now he's quit. Maybe it's just a coincidence.
Now he can run his web site where people like me can't ask the hard
questions.
P Moran wrote:
>>and has attempted to frighten cancer sufferers
>>away from effective treatments by horrifically >>exaggerated descriptions of
>>the consequences of conventional treatment..
Exaaggerated??
I've said common treatments often result in loss of sexual, urinary, and
bowel function. Is that an exaggeration?
I've said common medicine often causes heart, lung, kidney, nerve, and /or
liver damage. Is that an exaggeration?
I've said that chemo can make you vomit until you have the dry heaves and
beyond. Is that untrue?
I've said that common cancer treatments can leave you in a fetal position,
and in a zombie-like state with nightmares.
Is any of that untrue.
I've told you the truth, but it feels like an exaggeration because the
truth doesn't match up with the baloney being served.
If you like baloney, the web site should be to your taste. Maybe it'll
tell you tell you how to MANAGE your cancer.
BeWelKel
Date: Mon, Aug 24, 1998 12:28 AM EDT
Message-id: <6rqq5e$t0e$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>
In article <199808231751...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
BeWelKel <bewe...@aol.com> wrote:
> Wrong. I'm not a cancer expert, so I rely on experts who have examined
>the record. Dr. Seymour Brenner, a board certified radiation oncologist with
>43 years experience was one of them. He unequivocally wrote, "Dr. Revici has
>cured many people of cancer who were otherwise considered incurable."
Bloch wrote:
>>Even the worst doctor cures some of his patients.
Apparently not true. Roda was asked for examples of certain types of
cancer patients he's treated who have been CANCER FREE for at least 5 years.
He could barely come up with one. He's not alone. I dare you to find me
a doctor who has two lung cancer with mets who are five years CANCER FREE. If
you do find one, ask him for two Stage III or IV pancreatic patients who are
CANCER FREE for 5 years or more. Then for good measure, ask him for two colon
cancerwith liver mets patients who are 5 years CANCER FREE.
Then just for fun have him produce one glioblastoma multiforme patient who
is cancer free for 5 years.
Cancer MANAGED doesn't count.
>>It is irrelevant to talk only about Dr. Revici's successes.
That just shows you how blind you are to learning anything about how to
cure cancer.
The late Dr. Revici had lots of successes -- far beyond the number than
the entire Sloan-Kettering has.
>>The real question is what is his batting average? Let's >>see the numbers
for _all_ of his patients.
I'll compare Revici's batting average with Sloan-Kettering anytime. Or,
if you prefer since you are at the Univ. of Indiana, we could compare Revici's
batting average with your university hospital.
We could start with glioblastoma multiforme. How many cases do they have
that are CANCER FREE for 5 years? And how many have they treated?
You can go back as far as you'd like. Wanna bet you don't have five
patients out of the entire med school's history? You might not have three.
T.D. Laing
bewe...@aol.com (BeWelKel) wrote:
> Cancer MANAGED doesn't count.
So Dr. Revici's patients who were treated for cancer don't count, do
they? After all, one can't unequivocally say one is cured of cancer until
one dies from another disease. But hey, we don't know what happened to
the majority of Revici's patients, do we?
> >>It is irrelevant to talk only about Dr. Revici's successes.
>
> That just shows you how blind you are to learning anything about how to
> cure cancer.
> The late Dr. Revici had lots of successes -- far beyond the number than
> the entire Sloan-Kettering has.
It is irrelevant to talk of successes without also talking of the
failures. You say lots. We want numbers. Of both successes *and*
failures. Let's say the success is based on 5-year survival. Until you
can provide such verifiable and unbiased information we can't take you
seriously.
> >>The real question is what is his batting average? Let's >>see the numbers
> for _all_ of his patients.
>
> I'll compare Revici's batting average with Sloan-Kettering anytime. Or,
> if you prefer since you are at the Univ. of Indiana, we could compare Revici's
> batting average with your university hospital.
Sure, let's do the comparison, on a level playing field. That means the
followup data regarding 5-year survival for *all* the patients of the
Revici institute. I'm certain Univ. of Indiana can provide that
information for all their patients. But oops, that's rather lacking for
Revici's patients, isn't it. And remember, it has to be *verifiable*, and
not based on numbers of patients who call the clinic on occasion.
T.
--
T.D. Laing
tdl...@dres.dnd.ca
Remove "nospam" from my e-mail address in the header to reply.
All the standard disclaimers apply.
Clcwalker
"I dare you to find me a doctor who has two lung cancer with mets who are five
years CANCER FREE. If you do find one, ask him for two Stage III or IV
pancreatic patients who are CANCER FREE for 5 years or more. Then for good
measure, ask him for two colon cancerwith liver mets patients who are 5 years
CANCER FREE.
Then just for fun have him produce one glioblastoma multiforme patient who
is cancer free for 5 years."
Okay, Kel, give us names, addresses, dates and diagnosis of the patients your
Dr. Revici
cured. Specifics, Kel, specifics so that we can check them out for ourselves.
Connie Walker
T.D. Laing
bewe...@aol.com (BeWelKel) wrote:
> For the record, Roda quit when he was asked for certain types of patients
> he'd treated that had been CANCER FREE for five years and couldn't produce.
> All he had were several cancer MANAGED patients, and maybe one cancer free
> patient.
But isn't Revici therapy just another form of cancer management? Because
there has been no careful followup, we cannot believe you when you say it
is successful in curing cancer because you just don't know. Strange that
only a few patients take the time to contact the clinic. I'd think *all*
his patients would be letting the clinic know of their successes out of
sheer gratitude, not just a few--unless the majority died after the
therapy. We don't know either way--so it's still anecdotal, no matter
which way you slice it.
> No one has confronted Roda in such a particular way to clearly
demonstrate
> the worthlessness of common medicine. The emperor (common medicine) has no
> clothes.
> Now he's quit. Maybe it's just a coincidence.
> Now he can run his web site where people like me can't ask the hard
> questions.
Or maybe (more true) Dr. Roda left because he can no longer see the point
in debating lead walls like Kelley. Kelley has presented us with a nice
Catch-22: either debating him or ignoring him risks giving him
credibility. Maybe we can consider his posts a cancer on this newsgroup?
> I've said common treatments often result in loss of sexual, urinary, and
> bowel function. Is that an exaggeration?
> I've said common medicine often causes heart, lung, kidney, nerve,
and /or
> liver damage. Is that an exaggeration?
> I've said that chemo can make you vomit until you have the dry heaves and
> beyond. Is that untrue?
> I've said that common cancer treatments can leave you in a fetal
position,
> and in a zombie-like state with nightmares.
> Is any of that untrue.
> I've told you the truth, but it feels like an exaggeration because the
> truth doesn't match up with the baloney being served.
> If you like baloney, the web site should be to your taste. Maybe it'll
> tell you tell you how to MANAGE your cancer.
Oncologists freely admit the side effects of conventional therapy. They
tell the truth about the side-effects and they don't mince words. Cancer
is a serious disease but Kelley thinks it's nothing more than a walk
through a bramble-bush. That's the most dangerous attitude of all and
that is the definition of a true snake-oil salesman: promising something
that can't be delivered.
Kelley claimed first that Revici therapy cured cancer in a majority of
patients. When asked to give specific numbers, he hemmed and hawed. When
I looked at the available most complete data for comparison (a
retrospective case cohort over 15 years) based on Revici institute data
itself) and pointed out the inconsistencies of his claims, he changed his
tune to say that well, it relieves symptoms. Curious that he backed away
from his cure claims. I've even seen him claim it can cure everything
from AIDS to drug addiction. He says that because only a few patients
contact the clinic later that it appears to be anecdotal evidence. Why
would a clinic not do a careful followup assessment of all their patients
after an experimental therapy? If I were a member of that clinic I'd be
actively searching for all my former patients to learn their fates. He
claims it's too expensive. I say it's at least sloppy and at worst, an
attempt to hide something.
This is a person who has expressly called me and others liars for
insisting on pointing out the inconsistencies between his claims and the
data. This is a person who gloats over driving away expert and honest
professional opinion. Yet he can't face it when the mirror is turned back
on himself. This is a person who refuses to give straight answers when
asked, and who refuses to give sources for others to check out. This is a
person who, when you get right down to it, only has something to sell, and
he is the only regular poster who does. Even John Scudamore does/did not
expressly offer anything to sell. Maybe that in itself is the real trick
here--he is using the debate as a free promotional blitz. Perhaps in the
end we should leave him shouting in the dust and move on.
Finally, I strongly suggest that if there is not a specific charter for
the aims of this newsgroup, that one be drawn up immediately, voted on and
posted regularly for new readers, setting the clear aims and objectives of
the newsgroup. Other unmoderated newsgroups have such charters, so it's
entirely feasible here. Is anyone up for it?
Don Sterner
>P moran wrote:
>>>He has on occasions viciously attacked doctors
>>>giving honest advice to such,
>
> For the record, Roda quit when he was asked for certain types of patients
>he'd treated that had been CANCER FREE for five years and couldn't produce.
>All he had were several cancer MANAGED patients, and maybe one cancer free
>patient.
For the record sir, you are a lying SOB. Dr. Roda quit after
months of harrassment and contending with you interfering with
his communication. His leaving had nothing to do with your
questions. You give yourself far too much credit.
You are interested in selling a book. Dr. Roda did everything in
his power to save lives. You hindered that in every way possible.
You should be placed in jail, although I think that'd be too
kind.
BeWelKel
Date: Tue, Aug 25, 1998 1:26 PM EDT
Message-id: <tdlaing-2508...@cwbinc.dres.dnd.ca>
>>Cancer is a serious disease but Kelley thinks it's nothing >>more than a walk
through a bramble-bush.
What an assinine lie.
>>That's the most dangerous attitude of all and
>>that is the definition of a true snake-oil salesman: >>promising something
that can't be delivered.
TDLaing is just plain reckless. She has no first hand knowledge of the
Revici Method, so she doesn't know what it can accomplish.
It is frustrating to respond to someone like laing who makes up some new
untruth in almost every sentence. Whatever suits her argument is likely to
show up.
She complains that I'm the only one to call her a liar, yet her posts are
directed towards me and contain statements I know to be false.
Her problem appears to be that as one immersed in the morass of common
medical research, she has absolutely no experience in the truly innovative
cancer treatments. Like a true flat earther, she swears there is nothing at
the end of the ocean except a dragon.
To her, it just can't be true.
So the terminal cancer patients who are now cancer free must all be under
the influence of mass hypnosis.
BeWelKel
Date: Tue, Aug 25, 1998 11:25 AM EDT
Message-id: <tdlaing-2508...@cwbinc.dres.dnd.ca>
In article <199808250455...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
bewe...@aol.com (BeWelKel) wrote:
> I'll compare Revici's batting average with Sloan-Kettering anytime. Or,
> if you prefer since you are at the Univ. of Indiana, we could compare
Revici's
> batting average with your university hospital.
Laing wrote
>>Sure, let's do the comparison, on a level playing field. >>That means the
followup data regarding 5-year survival >>for *all* the patients of the Revici
institute. I'm >>certain Univ. of Indiana can provide that
>>information for all their patients. But oops, that's >>rather lacking for
Revici's patients, isn't it.
Great. I think we can all agree that Indiana University (IU) has treated
more Stage III and IV glioblastoma patients by far than has the Revici Clinic.
Furthermore, they would have easier access and far more resources to
following up their patients.
Let's see who has more cancer free glioblastoma patients in absolute
numbers. Since IU has amuch larger base of patients, this gives them a more
than fair chance to surpass Revici's Method -- if their method works better.
Laing wrote:
>>And remember, it has to be *verifiable*, and
>>not based on numbers of patients who call the clinic on >>occasion.
Since not all patients stay in touch with the Revici clinic, this factor
aought to provide IU with an even greater potential advantage in a comparison
with the Revici Method. My bet is that despite the far larger base of
patients, the Revici Method will have more CANCER FREE glioblastoma multiforme
patients in ABSOLUTE numbers than IU. I'll even throw in Sloan-Kettering's
cancer-free glio. multi. patients on top of the IU totals. S-K is a huge
first-rate cancer facility.
With both combined, it won't equal the Revici Method successes. After
we get done with the glio. multi., we can then do metastatic pancreatic,
metastatic lung, and colon to the liver. Cancer free patients only need apply.
BeWelKel
your Dr. Revici
>>cured. Specifics, Kel, specifics so that we can check >>them out for
ourselves.
When Bloch or Laing provides their numbers, you'll have mine.
In the meantime, you can call the Revici Life Science Center in Manhattan.
212-246-5122.
Richard Harvey
<199808252215...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> When Bloch or Laing provides their numbers, you'll have mine.
Always the slacker, eh? You have nothing; you never did.
Rich
BeWelKel
> For the record, Roda quit when he was asked for certain types of patients
>he'd treated that had been CANCER FREE for five years and couldn't produce.
>All he had were several cancer MANAGED patients, and maybe one cancer free
>patient.
DSterner wrote:
>>For the record sir, you are a lying SOB. Dr. Roda quit >>after months of
harrassment and contending with you >>interfering with his communication.
I never interfered with his messages. His messages appeared along side
mine. Surely we have different points of view. That is allowed, you know.
>>His leaving had nothing to do with your
questions. You give yourself far too much credit.
Oh really? Then we anxiously await for his report of 5-year cancer free
patients who were previously afflicted with advanced cancers.
So far, out of the probable hundreds if not thousands he's treated, only
one, if that, meets the criteria.
That rather puts the lie to the lovely lyin'tific statistics doesn't it?
He's not alone in that failing.
I'll betcha all of Sloan-Kettering doesn't have two Stege III or IV
glioblastoma multiforme patients who have been CANCER FREE for 5 years.
D.M. Gómez Sánchez
promoted in this group.
It is : Obsesive graphorrhea.
Some well known listmates suffer it in advanced stage.
longlasting.
Warning : May be contagious.
Magic ointments sellers and also enciclopedic and book sellers
suffered from verborrhea. They don´t had net facilities.
D.Gómez M.D.
Don Sterner escribió:
>
> On 25 Aug 1998 04:37:34 GMT, bewe...@aol.com (BeWelKel) wrote:
>
> >P moran wrote:
> >>>He has on occasions viciously attacked doctors
> >>>giving honest advice to such,
> >
> > For the record, Roda quit when he was asked for certain types of patients
> >he'd treated that had been CANCER FREE for five years and couldn't produce.
> >All he had were several cancer MANAGED patients, and maybe one cancer free
> >patient.
>
> For the record sir, you are a lying SOB. Dr. Roda quit after
> months of harrassment and contending with you interfering with
> his communication. His leaving had nothing to do with your
> questions. You give yourself far too much credit.
>
> You are interested in selling a book. Dr. Roda did everything in
> his power to save lives. You hindered that in every way possible.
> You should be placed in jail, although I think that'd be too
> kind.
--
SWill48
>> That just shows you how blind you are to learning anything about how
>to
>> cure cancer.
THIS from a second rate wannabe author of a book about a cancer quack! A book
that never sold enough to earn him a paycheck, so he ADVERTIZES it here on a
cancer newsgroup! Yeah, HE's an authority!! LOL
>> The late Dr. Revici had lots of successes -- far beyond the number
>than
>> the entire Sloan-Kettering has.
Is that right!
YOU are the one making the reckless statements so YOU prove it first, big-shot!
Put your money where your mouth is. Oops, you don't have any money cuz you
never were able to get the publisher of your'book' to pay you any money. (hee,
hee)
T.D.Laing wrote to Bewelkel:
>Sure, let's do the comparison, on a level playing field. That means the
>followup data regarding 5-year survival for *all* the patients of the
>Revici institute. I'm certain Univ. of Indiana can provide that
>information for all their patients. But oops, that's rather lacking for
>Revici's patients, isn't it. And remember, it has to be *verifiable*, and
>not based on numbers of patients who call the clinic on occasion.
Oh dear! Kelley will have to whine now and remind you that the Revici Clinic
cannot afford to CALL PATIENTS ON THE PHONE to check on them and see if they
are STILL ALIVE!
Susan
SWill48
>Cancer
>is a serious disease but Kelley thinks it's nothing more than a walk
>through a bramble-bush.
Actually, based on one of his earlier posts this week, Kelley thinks cancer is
a red pimple on his butt! :-)
People should re-read this post by T...it's excellent! Kelley spouts off, all
full of bravado. But when challenged, he backs off..big time! The fact he
cannot provide verifiable data to support his outrageous claims should be
enough for a reasonable person to conclude he is supporting a treatment for no
reason but to SELL HIS BOOK.
> Other unmoderated newsgroups have such charters, so it's
>entirely feasible here. Is anyone up for it?
Count me in!
Susan
SWill48
> TDLaing is just plain reckless. She has no first hand knowledge of the
>Revici Method, so she doesn't know what it can accomplish.
She doesn't NEED 'first hand knowledge." She has asked for DATA on multiples
occasions. That's all she needs..DATA.
> It is frustrating to respond to someone like laing who makes up some new
>untruth in almost every sentence.
It certainly must be frustrating for a second rate author to try to debate a
SCIENTIST. Please point out any specific "untruths!"
Whatever suits her argument is likely to
>show up.
Uh, Kel...are you by any chance standing in front of a mirror? LOL
> So the terminal cancer patients who are now cancer free must all be
>under
>the influence of mass hypnosis.
How many patients? Where were they diagnosed? When? What conventional
treatment did they get? Where? When did they begin at Revici? What stage was
their cancer? What kind of cancer? How long were they treated at Revici? Have
they been seen by conventional doctors to verfiy they are now 'cancer free?"
How long have they been free of cancer? How many patients were treated who did
NOT get this 'cure?' Break it down by male/female and age too.
Thanks,
Susan
>
>
new...@my-dejanews.com
percentages of long-term survivors are low, but there are some with
conventional treatment. Not many, but some. There are, of course, none with
the Revici Method. Zip. Nada. Zero. Looks like we're left once again with
nothing but with Kelley's empty assertions. Surprise, surprise.
In article <199808252215...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
bewe...@aol.com (BeWelKel) wrote:
> When Bloch or Laing provides their numbers, you'll have mine.
> In the meantime, you can call the Revici Life Science Center in Manhattan. 212-246-5122.
Nobody's asking for Bloch or Laing to provide numbers; legitimate treatments
are already in the public domain. Kelley, our Medical Microsoft, is the only
one hiding numbers (his cancer treatment vaporware). Why should we call the
Revici Center? If they won't publish their findings in reputable journals,
why should we believe anything we hear over the phone? Ah, yes, the Great
Anti-Cure Conspiracy; all that miraculous data they really, truly want to
publish being axed by evil editors just to enrich Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer,
et al.! How could I forget about the Pharmaceutical Police out there
suppressing The One True Way?
Newhov
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Angel31247
No one else is responding or posting except him.
Just an observation. How do we get our ng back?
Angel...@AOL.com (Angela M. Sissons)
Chuck Bloch
BeWelKel <bewe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Okay, Kel, give us names, addresses, dates and diagnosis >>of the patients
>your Dr. Revici
>>>cured. Specifics, Kel, specifics so that we can check >>them out for
>ourselves.
>
> In the meantime, you can call the Revici Life Science Center in Manhattan.
Bloch isn't going to provide "his" numbers because
a) he isn't affiliated with any hospital on which to report, and
b) he hasn't made any ridiculous claims to back up.
BWK won't provide his numbers either, since he doesn't have any.
Chuck Bloch
BeWelKel <bewe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>DSterner wrote:
>>>For the record sir, you are a lying SOB. Dr. Roda quit >>after months of
>harrassment and contending with you >>interfering with his communication.
>
No, you didn't interfere with his messages. You interfered with his
communication, just like the original poster stated.
BeWelKel
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 1998 12:33 AM EDT
Message-id: <6s036l$36o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Newhov wrote:
>>Sure enough, the percentages of long-term survivors are >>low, but there are
some with
>>conventional treatment. Not many, but some.
There is a huge difference between a "survivor" and someone who is cancer
free. Common medicine starts the clock when the diagnosis is made. The clock
runs whether the patient's cancer is eliminated or not. If the tumor is
stablized, but the same size five years later, he is considered a "cure." In
other words, the patient might have had three or four brain surgeries with the
tumor returning each time. Perhaps radiation is also used to reduce the
tumor's size.
I challenge any physician to produce two glioblastoma patients who has
been CANCER FREE for 5 years.
I challenge Sloan-Kettering to do the same.
T.D. Laing
bewe...@aol.com (BeWelKel) wrote:
> From: tdl...@nospam.dres.dnd.ca (T.D. Laing)
> Date: Tue, Aug 25, 1998 1:26 PM EDT
> Message-id: <tdlaing-2508...@cwbinc.dres.dnd.ca>
>
> >>Cancer is a serious disease but Kelley thinks it's nothing >>more than
a walk
> through a bramble-bush.
>
> What an assinine lie.
That's how your attitude comes across to me, and I call it as I see it,
Kelley.
> TDLaing is just plain reckless. She has no first hand knowledge of the
> Revici Method, so she doesn't know what it can accomplish.
First-hand knowledge can be incredibly biased because it's far too easy to
read things into it that are not actually there. Only by backing off and
looking at things objectively can one see things as they truly are. You
bet it can be difficult, but it has to be done--I certainly know what it's
like to want something to be unequivocally true when the evidence suggests
otherwise. Likewise for Revici therapy. If its claims can't stand up to
objective scrutiny then one has to question it. It's simple, really:
don't make claims the data can't warrant and always question what claims
are made.
> It is frustrating to respond to someone like laing who makes up some new
> untruth in almost every sentence. Whatever suits her argument is likely to
> show up.
Here we go again, calling my opinions lies. I call things as I see them.
I'm not forcing them down anyone's throat. I have nothing to gain--I'm
not the one with a book ad at the end of my .sig. If you don't like it,
you can leave anytime.
> She complains that I'm the only one to call her a liar, yet her posts are
> directed towards me and contain statements I know to be false.
I e-mailed you at bewe...@aol.com with information re my sources for
5-year survival. I received no error messages saying my mail didn't go
through, but no reply either. In case you didn't receive said e-mail, the
gist was: my 2/3 figure comes from 1990 American Cancer Society
statistics (1/3 would be cancer-free at 5 years and 1/3 would be surviving
with cancer at 5 years). The Canadian Cancer Society recently stated that
over 50% of all cancer patients can now expect to live cancer-free 5 years
or more, up from 30% 20 years ago.
> Her problem appears to be that as one immersed in the morass of common
> medical research, she has absolutely no experience in the truly innovative
> cancer treatments. Like a true flat earther, she swears there is nothing at
> the end of the ocean except a dragon.
> To her, it just can't be true.
I want to see the steak behind the sizzle before investing my belief.
What would be my steak? Solid numbers from the most unbiased studies that
can be done. That goes for any therapy, whether it be called
"alternative" or "conventional". So far you've given only the sizzle.
Now, where's that data re 5-year survival for *all* of the patients who
have undergone the Revici method?
> So the terminal cancer patients who are now cancer free must all be under
> the influence of mass hypnosis.
I'm still waiting for the data, Kelley. You've been asked countless times
to produce it.
Pudge
T.D. Laing
swi...@aol.com (SWill48) wrote:
> TDLaing wrote to Bewelkel:
>
> >Cancer
> >is a serious disease but Kelley thinks it's nothing more than a walk
> >through a bramble-bush.
>
> Actually, based on one of his earlier posts this week, Kelley thinks cancer is
> a red pimple on his butt! :-)
Heh.
> People should re-read this post by T...it's excellent! Kelley spouts off, all
> full of bravado. But when challenged, he backs off..big time! The fact he
> cannot provide verifiable data to support his outrageous claims should be
> enough for a reasonable person to conclude he is supporting a treatment for no
> reason but to SELL HIS BOOK.
Susan, you're too kind. But I suggest now that to prevent Kelley's free
ride in advertising, we stop engaging him. He'll never admit his
inconsistencies, he'll always lash out at those who reveal them. Why
waste such good bandwidth for his free ads?
> > Other unmoderated newsgroups have such charters, so it's
> >entirely feasible here. Is anyone up for it?
>
> Count me in!
The first thing to generate a charter is to decide what is appropriate and
not appropriate for the newsgroup. It in no way guarantees to stop anyone
from posting to an unmoderated newsgroup, but it would let new readers
know what is acceptable and what is not (like a FAQ). And of course it is
the readers of the group who should decide that, by consensus. I'm
willing to participate in forming a charter. If anyone has ideas, maybe
he/she can post them? Someone can then perhaps collate them into a FAQ or
charter.
John Carle
repeatedly demands hard numbers from others...
> He could barely come up with one. He's not alone. I dare you to find me
>a doctor who has two lung cancer with mets who are five years CANCER FREE. If
>you do find one, ask him for two Stage III or IV pancreatic patients who are
>CANCER FREE for 5 years or more. Then for good measure, ask him for two colon
>cancerwith liver mets patients who are 5 years CANCER FREE.
> Then just for fun have him produce one glioblastoma multiforme patient who
>is cancer free for 5 years.
evidently supposed to take as fact - when they're demanded of him.
>
> That just shows you how blind you are to learning anything about how to
>cure cancer.
>the entire Sloan-Kettering has.
>
>for _all_ of his patients.
>
So do it. Now. Post verifiable numbers for Revici and, if no one
better connected and/or more knowledgeable has the time, I'll see what
I can find out on S-K. No promises, as I'm not a health professional,
but I'll give it a shot if need be.
John
HD survivor, 1980-81
Chuck Bloch
T.D. Laing <tdl...@nospam.dres.dnd.ca> wrote:
>In article <199808260318...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>swi...@aol.com (SWill48) wrote:
>> TDLaing wrote to Bewelkel:
>>
>
>> >entirely feasible here. Is anyone up for it?
>>
I didn't see this thread when it first started, so I only have the
above out-of-context comments and they may be mis-attributed.
But for the record, this newsgroup does have a charter. It was
written a voted on when this group was formed (1994). The charter for
this group can be found at:
ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/sci/sci.med.diseases.cancer
I have included the important part of that archive below.
Unfortunately, much of what is posted here (he said...she said...)
does not belong here, according to the charter. I think people are
well aware of the digressions in the posts here. I believe it
detracts from the value of this newsgroup. I don't think people are
going to voluntarily start adhering to the charter just because I
posted it. I personally would like to see this group become a
moderated newgroup. That could happen if there was strong support for
it and a suitable moderator could be chosen. People should think
about the options (go on the way it has been, clean up our act
voluntarily, or bring in a town sheriff). If there is interest in
converting this to a moderated newsgroup, there are formal Usenet
procedures for doing this.
cb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARTER (culled from the Call for Votes)
The purpose of sci.med.diseases.cancer is discussions of the
treatment and diagnosis of all forms of cancer.
Sci.med.diseases.cancer is a forum for cancer patients, their
families and loved ones, medical professionals and cancer
researchers. Discussions of unconventional therapies are explicitly
allowed, however claims made of unconventional therapy should be
substantiated with references to at least the popular press if not
scientific literature. Unconventional therapy should be held to the
same scientific standard as conventional therapy. The group will
not be moderated.
Appropriate topics include:
* Diagnosis of cancer
* Treatment of cancer, including surgery, chemotherapy,
radiation, and immunotherapy
* Screening and detection of cancer.
* Prevention of cancer
* Nutritional aspects of cancer treatment and prevention
* Causes of cancer
* Experimental treatments
* Psychosocial aspects of cancer
SWill48
>The first thing to generate a charter is to decide what is appropriate and
>not appropriate for the newsgroup. It in no way guarantees to stop anyone
>from posting to an unmoderated newsgroup, but it would let new readers
>know what is acceptable and what is not (like a FAQ). And of course it is
>the readers of the group who should decide that, by consensus. I'm
>willing to participate in forming a charter. If anyone has ideas, maybe
>he/she can post them? Someone can then perhaps collate them into a FAQ or
>charter.
>
>T.
>
>--
>T.D. Laing
>tdl...@dres.dnd.ca
What recourse would be have if someone like Kelley begins atacking and flaming?
Susan
PS...T, get back to me! ;::smile::::
T.D. Laing
(Chuck Bloch) wrote:
> But for the record, this newsgroup does have a charter. It was
> written a voted on when this group was formed (1994). The charter for
> this group can be found at:
>
> ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/sci/sci.med.diseases.cancer
>
> I have included the important part of that archive below.
>
> Unfortunately, much of what is posted here (he said...she said...)
> does not belong here, according to the charter. I think people are
> well aware of the digressions in the posts here. I believe it
> detracts from the value of this newsgroup. I don't think people are
> going to voluntarily start adhering to the charter just because I
> posted it. I personally would like to see this group become a
> moderated newgroup. That could happen if there was strong support for
> it and a suitable moderator could be chosen. People should think
> about the options (go on the way it has been, clean up our act
> voluntarily, or bring in a town sheriff). If there is interest in
> converting this to a moderated newsgroup, there are formal Usenet
> procedures for doing this.
Thank you for posting this. Perhaps this charter should be posted
periodically (weekly perhaps?) to the newsgroup as a reminder for
everyone. I personally do not like moderated newsgroups, the most
important principle of any free society is debate, but I have seen what
happens when things get out of hand (for example, anti-abortion posts on
an unmoderated pregnancy loss newsgroup, that led to that group's eventual
moderation).
What about periodically posting a more detailed FAQ sheet for the
newsgroup listing some on-line resources, most common questions, etc.?
Conventional vs. unconventional therapy will be with us for a long time
and I can see the debate intensify (at least in N. America) because we
have a very large population (baby-boomers) moving into the "cancer
years". (Cancer is still after all far more common in older than younger
people.) I want to see unconventional therapies scrupulously examined and
then if they have benefit, added to the arsenal. For example I'm
thoroughly convinced that excellent nutritional status is key to treatment
success, but I'm not convinced the data show that nutritional therapies
alone (a la Gerson) are replacements for standard therapy. (If they were
then cancer may not have been so feared through the centuries when
nutritional and herbal treatments were the only things available.) But
the examination must be rigorous and that's where IMHO many unconventional
therapies currently fall apart. The same goes for conventional
therapy--rigorous analysis is necessary before it's adopted.
T.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CHARTER (culled from the Call for Votes)
>
> The purpose of sci.med.diseases.cancer is discussions of the
> treatment and diagnosis of all forms of cancer.
> Sci.med.diseases.cancer is a forum for cancer patients, their
> families and loved ones, medical professionals and cancer
> researchers. Discussions of unconventional therapies are explicitly
> allowed, however claims made of unconventional therapy should be
> substantiated with references to at least the popular press if not
> scientific literature. Unconventional therapy should be held to the
> same scientific standard as conventional therapy. The group will
> not be moderated.
>
> Appropriate topics include:
>
> * Diagnosis of cancer
> * Treatment of cancer, including surgery, chemotherapy,
> radiation, and immunotherapy
> * Screening and detection of cancer.
> * Prevention of cancer
> * Nutritional aspects of cancer treatment and prevention
> * Causes of cancer
> * Experimental treatments
> * Psychosocial aspects of cancer
--
T.D. Laing
swi...@aol.com (SWill48) wrote:
> T.D.Laing wrote:
>
> >The first thing to generate a charter is to decide what is appropriate and
> >not appropriate for the newsgroup. It in no way guarantees to stop anyone
> >from posting to an unmoderated newsgroup, but it would let new readers
> >know what is acceptable and what is not (like a FAQ). And of course it is
> >the readers of the group who should decide that, by consensus. I'm
> >willing to participate in forming a charter. If anyone has ideas, maybe
> >he/she can post them? Someone can then perhaps collate them into a FAQ or
> >charter.
> What recourse would be have if someone like Kelley begins atacking and
flaming?
Attacks and flames are subjective IMHO--a flame to one person might be
shrugged off by someone else so it's hard to judge what exactly
constitutes a flame. If someone is being openly abusive in the
conventional sense of the word, enough complaints to the offender's system
administrator (with proof, i.e. including the offending posts) might lead
to loss of some internet privileges or the account. But in an unmoderated
newsgroup it's hard to judge what's abusive. I'm not bothered by net
attacks on me, I tend to shrug them off, but someone else might be
bothered enough by them to consider them abusive. Frankly I don't see
Kelley's attacks on me to be abusive. He argues from the strength of his
conviction--I admire that even though I don't share his conviction. He
has made some good points. Maybe (hopefully) thorough followups will be
done to show actual utility of the therapy because if it does work as well
as it's claimed, it must not be left languishing on the sidelines. We
need to know also if it doesn't work as well as it's claimed so that
precious resources (time and hope) are not wasted. Time will tell in the
end.
It's all a perception thing, I guess. The easiest thing to do is to
prevent the attacks and flames. Attacks and flames work only if you let
them affect you. If people can remain calm in the face of flame wars, the
flames extinguish themselves.
T.
SWill48
>them affect you. If people can remain calm in the face of flame wars, the
>flames extinguish themselves.
True enough. And I agree with the remainder of your post with regard to
testing alternative treatments as vigorously as traditional treatments.
But perhaps I posed my question incorrectly. I really don't get very upset by
personal attacks nearly as much as I am bothered by his misleading people who
may not be able to recognize the flaws in his statements and the fact they
remain unproven.
He has never provided data despite several requiests that he do so. However he
has started to DEMAND and challenge others like Sloane K. for THEIR data! The
unskilled reader could presume all sorts of things by reading his posts. BTW,
when someone pokes me with a stick I WILL poke back. :-)
snip
>He argues from the strength of his
>conviction--I admire that even though I don't share his conviction. He
>has made some good points.
I think right now Kelley should be feeling pretty vindicated and pleased that
he is getting such support despite his behavior. Frankly, I would not be
much interested in giving him any priase for what he's done or said RIGHT.
That's overlooking the harm he may have done. Reminds me of a case in NJ not
long ago where a man murdered a teenager. Friends and neighbors came to court
to speak on his behalf. They said what a great guy he was and how much he'd
contributed to the community. Seems he'd donated time and money to his small
town. He was a leader. They wanted to just look the other way given all the
RIGHT things he'd done. UGH! I on the other hand believe a *bad* thing
negates whatever good a person has done or whatever good 'points' someone
makes. When we lost Dr. Roda, regardless of what WE thing...it was because DR.
RODA was fed up with Kelley and Scudamore. So our loss is not made easier just
because Kelley has made a few good points.
Also, I don't admire his conviction. I'm not sure he *has* a conviction where
the actual treatment is concerned. I think he is here to sell books.
Otherwise when pressed about that issue, why wouldn't he have merely
eliminated the *ad* from his sig line? Because he has *told* us that he got no
money from the publisher and plans a suit. He *must* advertize here if he is
to ever get a few royalties for the time he must have invested in writing the
book. Regardless of how many good points he may have made, I do not respect
anyone that tells people to abandon their medical treatments...thereby risking
their LIVES!
For example, someone else came here talking about grapes as a cure. While I
am skeptical, I have to admit that the author seemed to be intelligent,
non-abusive and most of all had nothing to sell! I admire the convictions of
THAT man and many others who talk of various alternatives FAR more than I would
ever admire the 'convictions' of Kelley.
Let Kelley either present his data or move on. We should continue to demand
that IMHO.
>Attacks and flames are subjective IMHO--a flame to one person might be
>shrugged off by someone else so it's hard to judge what exactly
>constitutes a flame.
The fact people could *handle* attacks and flames differently doesn't mean we
all don't know one when we read it. :-) I'm pretty sure Dr. Roda knew an
attack when HE saw one. But right now it seems that we are almost ready to
have a pity-party for the abuse po-po Kelley has been subjected to. LOL
(GAG!)
Regarding nutrition as a preventative treatment...I wholeheartedly agree.
Also, my doctors are in agreement that diet is the best way to prevent many
cancers. They also feel that supplimental vitamins are a major benefit.
Well, we are now continuing to talk about Kelley. LOL He must be bursting
with pride!
Susan
BeWelKel
TDLaing wrote:
>>I e-mailed you at bewe...@aol.com with information re >>my sources for
5-year survival. I received no error >>messages saying my mail didn't go
>>through, but no reply either.
Did not see it.
>>In case you didn't receive said e-mail, the
>>gist was: my 2/3 figure comes from 1990 American >>Cancer Society
>>statistics (1/3 would be cancer-free at 5 years and 1/3 >>would be surviving
>>with cancer at 5 years).
That claim by the ACS would contradict every stastical evaluation ever
done -- including their own!
Perhaps they decided to include skin caner patients for that claim. It is
the only way that the per centage could be real. Of course by including skin
cancer patients, all they've done is to mislead people like yourself into
thinking cancer treatments have improved dramatically over all, when there is
no evidence of it.
The overall numbers are quite stable. We've discussed before lead-time
bias and the switch to life expectancy five year tables from absolute 5 year
survival tables. It is those factors and reduced smoking which has afected
incidence and mortality figures, NOT improved treatment.
>>The Canadian Cancer Society recently stated that
>>over 50% of all cancer patients can now expect to live >>cancer-free 5 years
or more, up from 30% 20 years ago.
It's easy to make claims about the future. But the fact is that nowhere
near that percentage are living CANCER FREE for five years today.
Noble County University Therapeutic Clinic
bitterness will go away. Nature derived drugs were once consitered
Alternative. So if it makes you feel better Flame away. I just want you to
feel better. you wount hurt my feelings.
Pinworld...@aol.com wrote in article
<35e3adf6...@news1.ibm.net>...
Chester878
>reply. It is merely an observation that you have brow-beaten those who give
>the information requested to the point of their leaving. That, sir, is
>selfish.
I second Jeff's posting.
Anita
Ruth Mott
leave the group that is their decision. I quite often disagree with what
others
have said about complimentary and traditional therapies, however, I continue
to come back knowing that debate is good for all.
Chester878 wrote in message
<199809051757...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
SWill48
>Don't see that you can place blame on BeWell Kell. If some have chosen to
>leave the group that is their decision. I quite often disagree with what
>others
>have said about complimentary and traditional therapies, however, I continue
>to come back knowing that debate is good for all.
First of all we are not talking about BeWelKel promoting any "complimentary"
therapies. We are all mostly in FAVOR of complimentary therapies that our
doctors are made aware of and bless. We are talking about his prescribing that
people ABANDON traditional medicine in FAVOR of the Revici treatment..which
coincidentally is what the book he tries to sell is all about!
And finally, a "debate" might be welcome IF BeWelkel would answer direct
questions and provide verifiable facts to support the claims HE came here
spouting. It's not a debate when he is referring to oncologists and
radiologists as "killers." And it's not a debate when he refuses to
acknowledge the scientific community as having any validity and chooses instead
to refer to them as the "lyin'tific" community. And it's not a debate when he
says the Revici method "can grow bones" yet when pressed for more information
and some data, he clams up. lol
The overwhelming majority of posters here want BeWelKel to stop offering his
particular brand of *help* since he seems clearly unable to support his claims.
Those claims could HURT or KILL someone.
Susan
Ruth Mott
man has
to say don't listen, filter him out, there really is no sense upsetting
yourself.
My comments are not pro or con BeWell Kell. I would prefer all advertisers
to go away and leave me alone. If I want his product I will find it.
My comments are pro choice, and pro speech. I am pro truth / reality, I do
not live with my head stuck in the sand. I am a cancer survivor.
I am a chemo survivor.
Let's see BeWell Kell can't support his claims, he has no statistical data
to support him. His treatment can hurt and even kill.
Can you show me the data that states that chemo and radiation
cures the majority of cancer. I don't think so. You can, and I am not
arguing, show me data for a limited number of cancers but not the vast
majority.
Does chemo and radiation hurt and sometimes kills, hell yes, even
the traditional medical community cannot deny this. 15 years later I
still suffer the physical and psychological effects of the chemo I took.
Did it cure me, doubt it, did I ever finish the recommended treatment,
hell no. Did the radiation that my mother took hurt her. I don't know
maybe you should talk to the surgeon who last operated and told us
it was a mess because of the scar tissue caused by the radiation.
Would I forget traditional medicine and just go with complimentary,
hell no, I would be dead without the surgery. I just could have done
without
the chemo. Do I recommend this for everyone? No, I recommend you
become an educated patient, you become your own best doctor.
SWill48 wrote in message
<199809101603...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Steph
Ruth Mott wrote in message
>hell no. Did the radiation that my mother took hurt her. I don't know
>maybe you should talk to the surgeon who last operated and told us
>it was a mess because of the scar tissue caused by the radiation.
>
What is very poorly understood by both patients, and, unfortunately,
surgeons, is that a large advanced cancer causes a lot of local tissue
damage and destruction. If radiation therapy or (less likely)chemotherapy
eradicates the tumour, the body will "heal" the area by "secondary
intention" which is surgeon-speak for "scarring". As this scarring follows
radiation therapy which has been successful at curing a tumour, the
radiation therapy usually gets the blame.
John Morrissey
http://www.cancer.org/statistics/cff98/graphicaldata.html#fyrsrad
As long as the spread is local the majority of people in the majority of cancers
survive 5 years. In fact in the cancer types listed, the majority (>50%)
survive 5 years under the all stages (13/19). This is data only until 1994, and
since then more chemotherapy drugs are available, and advances in vaccine and
immunotherapy have undoubtably made these numbers better.
Ruth Mott wrote:
>
>
> Can you show me the data that states that chemo and radiation
> cures the majority of cancer. I don't think so. You can, and I am not
> arguing, show me data for a limited number of cancers but not the vast
> majority.
>
> Does chemo and radiation hurt and sometimes kills, hell yes, even
> the traditional medical community cannot deny this. 15 years later I
> still suffer the physical and psychological effects of the chemo I took.
> Did it cure me, doubt it, did I ever finish the recommended treatment,
> hell no. Did the radiation that my mother took hurt her. I don't know
> maybe you should talk to the surgeon who last operated and told us
> it was a mess because of the scar tissue caused by the radiation.
>
SWill48
precious time on a treatment for which there is NO verifiable, current data
available.
Susan
>letter to BeWell Kell
>From: John Morrissey <jmor...@nospammutech.com>
>Date: Fri, Sep 11, 1998 10:22 EDT
>Message-id: <35F93224...@nospammutech.com>
BeWelKel
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 1998 10:22 AM EDT
Message-id: <35F93224...@nospammutech.com>
>>5 year survival rates by cancer by stage are located at
>>http://www.cancer.org/statistics/cff98/graphicaldata.h>>tml#fyrsrad
Sorry, but a survival rate has little relation to a five-year cure rate.
Survivors can have full blown cancer at the time of their fifth year
anniversery. They can also have crippling heart damage, lung, nerve or
digestive system as a result of their treatment. That's SOME survival!
- Kelley
--------------------
William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer" To order, go to
w...@amazon.com
SWill48
>From: John Morrissey <jmor...@nospammutech.com>
>Date: Fri, Sep 11, 1998 10:22 AM EDT
>Message-id: <35F93224...@nospammutech.com>
>
>>>5 year survival rates by cancer by stage are located at
>
>>>http://www.cancer.org/statistics/cff98/graphicaldata.h>>tml#fyrsrad
>
> Sorry, but a survival rate has little relation to a five-year cure rate.
>
>Survivors can have full blown cancer at the time of their fifth year
>anniversery. They can also have crippling heart damage, lung, nerve or
>digestive system as a result of their treatment. That's SOME survival!
>
>
And WITHOUT treatment most would not HAVE five years...they'd die in the first
year. But never mind the OBVIOUS, doofus...let's see the statistics for your
grampy's little shop..the Revici Clinic? LOL
Susah
BeWelKel
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 1998 7:42 PM EDT
Message-id: <199809112342...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
BeWelKel wrote
>From: John Morrissey <jmor...@nospammutech.com>
>Date: Fri, Sep 11, 1998 10:22 AM EDT
>Message-id: <35F93224...@nospammutech.com>
>
>>>5 year survival rates by cancer by stage are located at
>
>>>http://www.cancer.org/statistics/cff98/graphicaldata.h>>tml#fyrsrad
>
> Sorry, but a survival rate has little relation to a five-year cure rate.
>
>Survivors can have full blown cancer at the time of their fifth year
>anniversery. They can also have crippling heart damage, lung, nerve or
>digestive system as a result of their treatment. That's SOME survival!
>
>
swill wrote:
>>And WITHOUT treatment most would not HAVE five >>years...they'd die in the
first year.
That's not obvious at all. When Dr. Benjamin Cardin researched it for
the National Cancer Institute, he found that people live up to 4 times longer
if they don't go through treatment.
That's not surprising considering that chemo and radiation are dangerous
and toxic. If you poison a sick person they are more likely to die.
John Morrissey
BeWelKel wrote:
> That's not obvious at all. When Dr. Benjamin Cardin researched it for
> the National Cancer Institute, he found that people live up to 4 times longer
> if they don't go through treatment.
> That's not surprising considering that chemo and radiation are dangerous
> and toxic. If you poison a sick person they are more likely to die.
>
> - Kelley
>
> --------------------
> William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer" To order, go to
> w...@amazon.com
For Stage IV colon cancer the median survival is 8 months for all cases and 12
months for those that take chemotherapy, etc.
For stage III colon cancer after resection the chances of recurrance are 50%
without chemotherapy and 35% with.
In colon cancer chemotherapy can extend life and improve the quality of life.
Please provide the published reference for Dr. Cardin's research.
John (husband of stage IV CC patient)
Semicolon3
>
>For stage III colon cancer after resection the chances of recurrance are 50%
>without chemotherapy and 35% with.
patients is to reduce the recurrrence rate by about 35%. In one study I am
currently reading the relapse-free rate at 5 year was 0.74 whereas those who
had surgery alone had a relapse-free rate of.58. 62 out of 151 in the surgery
only group had a relapse (41%). In the chemotherapy group 43 of 158 had a
relapse (27%). These are not patients who are living in terrible pain, full of
cancer and waiting to die. These are patients who are free and any detectable
signs of cancer.
The study stopped entering new patients after 317 patients when it was clear
that patients who received chemotherapy fared far better than those who did
not. It is not ethical to withold treatment if it is clearly beneficial and
thus no more patients were entered into the trial. Presently, control groups in
phase III cllinical trials involving stage III patients receive chemotherapy
and new treatments are compared against those receiving the standard chemo.