NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later

In article .com,
wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:
wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
wrote:
Sdores wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

.................

Nor does he grasp how the explosion in supplement usage since the DSHEA
ACT was passed has anyhting to do with the first downturn in overall
death rates since records were kept. Far be it from me to explain that
to him...I'm still trying top document the sunrise.

Do try to actually prove that supplements affect the cure rate. Your
sunrise rant is merely a red herring.

Charles Simone, M.D. has done a meta-study of over 100 studies. It was
found that cancer patients who use dietary supplelements have TWICE the
survival rate as those who don't. Checkmate. (You sure did walk into
that one...did it hurt before the 'lights' went out?)

It is quite probable that using dietary supplements increase
survival rates, but the standard use of meta-analysis happens
not to be valid. Studies with "non-significant" conclusions
are not published. This cam SOMETIMES be treated, but not
many statisticians know how to do it if it can.

For a non-medical example, after it was found that there was
not conservation of parity in the decay of mu-mesons in air,
it was searched for in published emulsion data. The theory
stated that this should be 9-10%, and the emulsion data gave
15%. Both the theory and the data are correct.



--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news:%GpZg.3376$9z6.1205@trndny03...
wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
wrote:
Sdores wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Considering how wonderfully effective Revici's treatment is with
children, I wouldn't hesitate for one moment. He has cured children
of
deadly brain tumors without having to crack their head open, for
instance.

OTOH, I would NEVER, NEVER allow my child to be subjected to the
brutal
garbage of chemo, radiation or the blade. NEVER!

Cancer runs throughout my family. If it wasn't for chemo, radiation
and as
you put the blade, I wouldn't still have my mother. Cancer cures
have come
a long way.
No they haven't come a long way. They are still killing people with
the
same regularity as ever..
You seem to be claiming that cancer treatment kills people. If so, do
provide some real documentation of this.
[sarcasm alert] Oh my mistake...cancer 'treatments' don't kill people.
How do I know this? Because Probert, in his inimitable passive
aggressive fashion, has asked me to prove it does...and I'm unwilling
to cut and paste 500,000 pieces of evidence.
Didn't you mean to say that you are unable to find a single iota of
evidence. Sure you did. Just to let you know, I never expected a
straight answer from you.

[sarcasm alert] That's a good one, Mark! You want me to prove to you
that cancer treatments kill people. Tha'ts too funny, Mark! Who in
their right mind would ever think cancer treatments such as chemo,
radiation and surgery kill people...I've never heard of such a thing!

I also don't have handy the black box warning labels from the various
chemo concoctions that say be careful because this product could be
fatal.
The operative words are could be. After that, you need to prove causal
relationship. You can't, and you will continue to weasel.

[more sacrasm alert, which will continue throughtout] My goodness...are
you trying to claim that since chemo doesn't kill 100%, then the claim
that chemo can be fatal is false?? In that case, you are so
right...chemo fails to kill people 100% of the time...my mistake, it's
only some of the time that it kills them outright.

YOU made a specific claim...chemo kills outright...do prove that when used
properly, chemo kills outright. This should be easy for a great scholar
and researcher such as yourself, since all you need to do is to find a
verifiable case report showing that chemo kills outright. Only one case
report that shows that the immediate cause of death was chemo.

Just one.

Only one.

Yeah, it has no effects, if you are Superman.

Jeff wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeff wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
...

Considering how wonderfully effective Revici's treatment is with
children, I wouldn't hesitate for one moment. He has cured children of
deadly brain tumors without having to crack their head open, for
instance.

OTOH, I would NEVER, NEVER allow my child to be subjected to the brutal
garbage of chemo, radiation or the blade. NEVER!

Instead, you would take him to a treatment that doesn't work:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/co...erapy.asp?site
area=ETO

Relying on the American Cancer Society for an evaluation of any natural
cancer cure is about as worthwhile as relying on Osama Bin Laden for
flight plans. Both can get you killed.

Why don't you provide evidence that the treatments that the ACS supports are
worse than the alternatives?

Please don't cite your out-of-date book.

The earlier stats in my book help to demonstrate just how far ahead
Revici's contributions were...so rather than being out of date, they
serve to accentuate the difference.

For instance, when x-rays from 1949 show clear evidence of bones
growing back and the disappearance of tumors...and American Cancer
Society gets advanced copies of this evidence prior to the release of
Revici's book...and writes an article in response condemning Revici
without referring to the evidence they were given...then you know that
for over five decades that the ACS is willing to lie. Each passing year
adds to the condemnation. In fact, the ACS continues their lie, which
compounds the lie.

Real evidence, with scientific
backing, please.

How about untreatable tumors that are subsequently gone...is that
scientific enough for you! Naw, you pefer a number rather than the
actual forensic evidence.