Recent comments
Psiram/Esowatch
- Bruno Gröning zu Gast beim Deutschen Roten Kreuz June 2, 2019
- Homöopathie grotesk May 25, 2019
- Immun gegen Fakten – Die wundersame Welt der Impfgegner May 4, 2019
Respectul Insolence
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Science-Based Medicine
- Professor Gives Grades to Alternative Medicine September 17, 2019
- Federal “right-to-try” over a year later: Still a failure and still about the money (and weakening the FDA) September 16, 2019
- New Florida law forces physicians to endorse pseudoscience September 12, 2019
Edzard Ernst
- Does placebo research boost pseudoscience? September 18, 2019
- Journals of chiropractic are not a reliable source of information September 17, 2019
- Discussing with a homeopath is like playing chess with a pigeon September 16, 2019
Pathology.org
Advertisements
To be more precise he claims only partial regression of the liver lesion and almost complete regression of the pulmonary lesions. But it´s still a good exercise in spotting wrongful (and possibly deceitful) claims. I´m a bit curious to see if any Simoncini proponent will spot the errors.
We stand corrected, thank you!
🙂
Okay since nobody else wants to take a crack at this I will start. And let us disregard that the CAT-scans of the lungs and liver have been switched around.
1) The Pulmonary CAT-scans are taken at different levels.
2) The patient identity of the CAT-scan supposedly showing regression of the pulmonary metastasis is hidden (in contrast to the other scans).
3) There is not a substantial regression of the liver tumor. Maybe this “misunderstanding” comes from the misconception of his that cancers are black on CAT-scans. The darkest area in the centre of the liver tumor is actually necrosis. On the first scan the actual cancer is slightly darker
than the normal liver. Again the scans are not taken at the exact same level.
It would be interesting to know if anybody spotted something else 🙂
Hi jli,
Well… it just seems you’ve got them all, including the fact that the scans have been mixed up, which I think is very sloppy, to say the least.
We’ll give it a few more days, and when no one comes up with anything else, you might just be the winner!
What about the dates on the scans?
In my opinion the dates are meaningless, because we have no way of determining whether the scans are of the same patients. Very clever of you to spot this!
Very well spotted :-). I don´t know if it is common practice to do a CT-scan of the abdomen alone as part of the diagnostic proces. That could explain the different dates on the pretreatment scans.