From: Mark Probert on
The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
> Kelly,
>
> Why are you STILL talking about Revici? Dr Moran has already proven
> that his "evidence" is worthless and that you're a dolt for holding on
> to this delusion. Instead of wasting the rest of your life on this
> fixation, get out of the house and live, son! Go learn something
> useful, like how to use a scanner or how science works.
>
> Don't spend the rest of your life as a usenet kook, unless that is the
> very best you can do with your life.

Brighty is a TRUE~BELIEVER and, as such, will never change its "mind".
From: brightwinger on
On Aug 30, 8:49 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> brightwinger wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 7:18 am, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> >> brightwinger wrote:
> >>> On Aug 28, 11:38 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> brightwinger wrote:
> >>>>> [snipped for space]
> >>>>>>> It's a distinction without a difference. Well, that's not quite true.
> >>>>>>> The big difference is that you have a record of being a money grubber,
> >>>>>>> which got you disbarred. Just because your record is shameful, it
> >>>>>>> doesn't mean everyone else is like you.
> >>>>>> Like I told you back in February, I do not respond the claptrap of
> >>>>>> people who stalk and harass me. I have a UDP in place and will not
> >>>>>> violate it.
> >>>>> What is a UDP? Usenet Death Penalty?
> >>>>> No one is stalking you...
> >>>> Are you really that stupid? Personal information, including a
> >>>> residential address, phone number, etc., that people believe pertains to
> >>>> me, is being posted. If that is not stalking, then you are Einstein.
> >>>> Note that you are not Einstein.
> >>>> but you wish to stalk Dr. Kramer. I won't
> >>>>> help you in that endeavor.
> >>>> I have no intent of stalking anyone.our paranoid delusion notwithstanding.
> >>>>>> Take your cheap shots, I can handle it. Obviously you cannot.
> >>>>> It's not a cheapshot to point out how it's your past behavior that
> >>>>> colors your reckless accusations.
> >>>> It is a cheap shot when I tell you that I will not respond to that cheap
> >>>> shot, as I have responded more times than necessary.
> >>> A cheap shot is "do you still beat your wife?"
> >> No, asswipe, a cheap shot is when you take it against someone who has
> >> told you that they will not respond.
>
> > That's the definition of a true shot. I mean, what can you say other
> > than it's true. There's nothing cheap about being a disbarred lawyer.
> > Add to that a disbarred lawyer whose mission in life is to delicense
> > physicians, well the psychosis is rich.
>
> You introduced this ad hominem attack to divert from the fact that YOU
> FAILED TO PROVE Revici saves lives.
>
> Where are the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of cure patients?
> Why are they not marching on the FDA, Congress, etc. to demand that the
> treatment be recognized?

In fact they did storm the OPMC hearings. You can read about it in my
book.

> Where are they?

Several years ago there was a rally on the Mall in Washington, D.C.
The highly publicized event had General Arnold Schwartzkopf (sp?), the
Vice President, and other luminaries.

The rally was supposed to be attended by the survivors of cancer who
were treated with FDA approved treatments. After lots of free
publicity, and spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of
dollars for the planned massive rally, with jumbotrons spaced out for
the anticipated throngs, about one to two thousand curious onlookers
showed up.

You could barely find an actual cancer survivor in the entire group,
at least among those I asked.


> >> As for your buddy, let's see what the OPMC has to say.
>
> > Ah yes, the Star Chamber proceeding where John Shae, the prosecuting
> > attorney, said out loud, no less:
>
> There is no star chamber. Your hyperbole is absurd.
>
> > "After all is said and done for the 33 patients, even if it is shown
> > that the Journal [JAMA] articles are false, so what? We believe by
> > it's publication in the Journal, it is true, the conclusions are
> > true."
>
> Where are the case studies of those 33 patients? Where are they?

Shae was referring to the fraudulent JAMA report. He knew it wasn't
true, so he tried to claim that little detail didn't matter.

I've placed a photo series of the tumor of the scalp metasteses. There
is also the protruding rectal tumor which disappeared which is not
included due to issues of grossing out lay viewers.

http://snipurl.com/cancerbeforeandafter

Dr. Robert Fishbein discussed several cases in his report.


From: Mark Probert on
brightwinger wrote:
> On Aug 30, 8:49 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>> brightwinger wrote:
>>> On Aug 30, 7:18 am, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>>>> brightwinger wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 28, 11:38 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> brightwinger wrote:
>>>>>>> [snipped for space]
>>>>>>>>> It's a distinction without a difference. Well, that's not quite true.
>>>>>>>>> The big difference is that you have a record of being a money grubber,
>>>>>>>>> which got you disbarred. Just because your record is shameful, it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean everyone else is like you.
>>>>>>>> Like I told you back in February, I do not respond the claptrap of
>>>>>>>> people who stalk and harass me. I have a UDP in place and will not
>>>>>>>> violate it.
>>>>>>> What is a UDP? Usenet Death Penalty?
>>>>>>> No one is stalking you...
>>>>>> Are you really that stupid? Personal information, including a
>>>>>> residential address, phone number, etc., that people believe pertains to
>>>>>> me, is being posted. If that is not stalking, then you are Einstein.
>>>>>> Note that you are not Einstein.
>>>>>> but you wish to stalk Dr. Kramer. I won't
>>>>>>> help you in that endeavor.
>>>>>> I have no intent of stalking anyone.our paranoid delusion notwithstanding.
>>>>>>>> Take your cheap shots, I can handle it. Obviously you cannot.
>>>>>>> It's not a cheapshot to point out how it's your past behavior that
>>>>>>> colors your reckless accusations.
>>>>>> It is a cheap shot when I tell you that I will not respond to that cheap
>>>>>> shot, as I have responded more times than necessary.
>>>>> A cheap shot is "do you still beat your wife?"
>>>> No, asswipe, a cheap shot is when you take it against someone who has
>>>> told you that they will not respond.
>>> That's the definition of a true shot. I mean, what can you say other
>>> than it's true. There's nothing cheap about being a disbarred lawyer.
>>> Add to that a disbarred lawyer whose mission in life is to delicense
>>> physicians, well the psychosis is rich.
>> You introduced this ad hominem attack to divert from the fact that YOU
>> FAILED TO PROVE Revici saves lives.
>>
>> Where are the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of cure patients?
>> Why are they not marching on the FDA, Congress, etc. to demand that the
>> treatment be recognized?
>
> In fact they did storm the OPMC hearings. You can read about it in my
> book.

Thanks...I would prefer some independent verification.

>
>> Where are they?
>
> Several years ago there was a rally on the Mall in Washington, D.C.
> The highly publicized event had General Arnold Schwartzkopf (sp?), the
> Vice President, and other luminaries.
>
> The rally was supposed to be attended by the survivors of cancer who
> were treated with FDA approved treatments. After lots of free
> publicity, and spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of
> dollars for the planned massive rally, with jumbotrons spaced out for
> the anticipated throngs, about one to two thousand curious onlookers
> showed up.
>
> You could barely find an actual cancer survivor in the entire group,
> at least among those I asked.

This sounds like something that you could post verifiable proof. Please
do it.

BTW, you have yet to post about the thousands of people who were cured
by Revici. One would think that you would have no problems doing so,
considering they are your buddies.


>>>> As for your buddy, let's see what the OPMC has to say.
>>> Ah yes, the Star Chamber proceeding where John Shae, the prosecuting
>>> attorney, said out loud, no less:
>> There is no star chamber. Your hyperbole is absurd.
>>
>>> "After all is said and done for the 33 patients, even if it is shown
>>> that the Journal [JAMA] articles are false, so what? We believe by
>>> it's publication in the Journal, it is true, the conclusions are
>>> true."
>> Where are the case studies of those 33 patients? Where are they?
>
> Shae was referring to the fraudulent JAMA report. He knew it wasn't
> true, so he tried to claim that little detail didn't matter.
>
> I've placed a photo series of the tumor of the scalp metasteses. There
> is also the protruding rectal tumor which disappeared which is not
> included due to issues of grossing out lay viewers.

So you say. Those pictures are really not proof of anything in the
context you post.

>
> http://snipurl.com/cancerbeforeandafter
>
> Dr. Robert Fishbein discussed several cases in his report.
>
>
From: mainframetech on
On Aug 26, 12:23 am, Mark Probert <markprob...(a)lumbercartel.com>
wrote:


Mark Probert,
It appears you have fouled up on this one. Dr. Kramer is my
nephrologist whom I visit regularly, and he takes insurance, namely
Horizon BC/BS. I can't speak to NY one way or the other, but you
certainly made up baloney about the NJ office.

Chris

From: mainframetech on

>BTW, the reason he does not accept insurance, Medicaid and Medicare is
>not as you claimed. If he did, his billing would undergo scrutiny by
>people who look for unorthodox treatment and that would call attention
>to his activities. Furthermore, his treatments would not be covered.

Mark Probert,
You have made a mistake. Dr. Kramer is my nephrologist and I visit
him regularly at his NJ location. He takes insurance from Horizon
Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which I use. Where you come up with your
facts is now a matter of concern to me, and puts your other statements
in doubt.

Chris