Two of Revici's therapeutic compounds for cancer, amyl selenide and tri-thioformaldehyde (TT), tested positive in trials conducted in the late 1970s by the National Cancer Institute and Roswell Park Memorial Institute.9 Another selenium compound that Revici developed showed activity against four tumor systems in tests conducted in England. However, the dose at which antitumor activity was found was "fairly close to the toxic dose," and further studies of the compound were recommended.

An unpublished study of the 1,047 cancer patients treated with the Revici regimen between 1946 and 1955 was made by Robert Ravich, M.D., who worked closely with Revici. Most of the patients were far advanced or terminal, and most had prior conventional treatment. Of the 1,047 cases, Ravich found that 100 had favorable response (objective and subjective); 11 had objective response only; 95 had subjective response only; 296 showed no response; and 545 had equivocal or undetermined response (380 of this last group were treated for less than three months).10

The only published clinical study of Revici's treatment for cancer appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association JAMA) in 1965. It was written by a panel of nine New York physicians after Revici himself requested that a scientific panel review his cancer-management program. After two years of observation, the panel concluded that the Revici therapy was "without value." The authors reported that 22 of the 33 patients in the study died of cancer or its complications while on the Revici treatment and 4 more died after discontinuing the regimen. None of the 33 showed signs of objective tumor regression, according to the authors.

Dr. Revici wrote a detailed rebuttal in which he stated that the panel had ignored evidence indicating several tumor remissions, multiple reductions in tumor size, and relief of pain in many advanced patients. He noted that of the nine physicians on the panel, only two had actually seen the patients during the entire two-year study. He further commented that he had requested the study in the "hope that the demonstration of positive results in even a few of these advanced cases would excite sufficient interest to lead to a large-scale study of our approach.... To conclude from a limited study, such as this, that the method should be discontinued, in all cancers, is to say that since surgery and radiation have failed in these same terminal patients, these 'recognized' methods should also be discontinued, not only in these types of cancer but in all cancers in general." Although Dr. Revici submitted substantiating pathological data in his lengthy rebuttal,JAMA refused to publish it.

It is now more than forty years since Revici developed his nontoxic chemotherapy. An open-minded, unbiased evaluation of it is long overdue.

1. Gerhard N. Schrauzer, Ph.D., letter to the Board of Regents, Department of Education, State of New York, 14 February 1986.
2. Barry Bryant, Cancer and Consciousness (Boston: Sigo Press, 1990), p. 147.
3. The Cancer Chronicles, vol. 2, no. 1, Summer 1990, p. 2; and Seymour Brenner, M.D., letter to Guy V. Molinari, 24 March 1988.
4. Dwight L. McKee, M.D., Emanuel Revici MD.: A Review of His Scientific Work (New York: Institute of Applied Biology, 1985), p. 14.
5. Richard A. Passwater, Cancer and Its Nutritional Therapies (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing, 1983), p. 149.
6. Marcus A. Cohen, "On Emanuel Revici, M.D.," unpublished manuscript, 1988.
7. Ibid., pp. 1, 6.
8. Ibid., p. 12.
9. Ibid., pp. 4, 14.
10. Robert Ravich, "Revici Method of Cancer Control. Evaluation of 1047 Patients With Advanced Malignancies Treated From 19461955," unpublished manuscript, undated.