Non-Homeopathic Belladonna

[fls]

Yes, because the affidavit was very specific. It did not say: "One of Aime's doctors told me she would not live much longer, which he said had been the case with others in her condition." Rather, the affidavit specified Dr. Hoppe and was also specific that Hoppe informed Dietrich that "only nine cases of this peculiar type were reported in Medical Records, and every one of these had proved fatal. He told us that nothing could be done, except to give her good care, as her case was hopeless and she would die soon in one of these attacks." It's not plausible to me that Hoppe said nothing of the sort and somehow Dietrich imagined that he did.

You misunderstood me if you think I am implying that Hoppe said nothing of the sort and Dietrich imagined it.

We remember the exact meaning, rather than the exact words. The same words may have a different meaning to two different people, especially when one person uses them to convey an exact medical meaning and the other (without knowing what that exact medical meaning is) draws out the common meaning.

I'm not saying that Hoppe definitely said something different. I'm just saying that the affidavit will reflect what Dietrich thought was the meaning of the words, rather than the exact words. And it is possible that he did accurately capture the meaning of what Hoppe said, and Hoppe was simply wrong. As I said before, medical science would not have been advanced enough to understand this case. So Hoppe would have been unable to determine whether Aime really did represent another example of the nine cases reported in medical records (or whether those nine cases even represented a common process).

Yes, but the affidavit earlier stated: "Convulsions returned, at irregular intervals,with increasing severity. She would fall just like she was shot, her body would become perfectly rigid, the spells lasting from one to two minutes. This went on for two years, or until she was four years old." Presumably, things worsened from there, culminating two years later in what appeared to Dr. Hoppe to be a hopeless condition.

The "until she was four years old" is followed by a description of visits to other doctors, not a description of worsening symptoms. And the diagnosis was a type of "nervousness", hardly something that represents a severe condition.

This is an example of what I mentioned before. Dietrich's words allow for various, quite different interpretations, depending upon what you want the story to mean.

I don't think there is any room for interpreting Dietrich's affidavit to mean that Aime was really not in that bad shape when Cayce became involved.

I agree.

But don't you think it's rather amazing that Cayce's intervention coincided with Aime being cured?

But the timing of the intervention and the course of the disease are not independent. I already explained why the timing of Cayce's intervention is what I would expect. If the usual course of an illness is progressive worsening until the illness is checked by natural processes, which leads to progressive recovery, you will have some people who only become mildly ill and then begin to recover, some who become very ill and then begin to recover, and some who die as the natural processes did not check the disease soon enough. The magical healer is unlikely to be called in when the disease is only mild or moderate. It is usually those cases that continue to progress to the point that the disease is severe where the patient/family become desparate enough to start looking for magic. And it is at that point that the patient will either start to recover due to natural processes or die. As I mentioned earlier, deaths will be easily ignored, so all that's left are those that recover.

Let's put it this way: If you can demonstrate that osteopathic adjustments could not possibly have cured Aime of seizures or delayed development, that would go a long way to discrediting Cayce. Wouldn't that be worthwhile?

I have not seen any evidence that demonstrating anything to you leads to those results. I am skeptical that it would be worthwhile.

Linda

[Rodney]

You misunderstood me if you think I am implying that Hoppe said nothing of the sort and Dietrich imagined it.

We remember the exact meaning, rather than the exact words. The same words may have a different meaning to two different people, especially when one person uses them to convey an exact medical meaning and the other (without knowing what that exact medical meaning is) draws out the common meaning.

I'm not saying that Hoppe definitely said something different. I'm just saying that the affidavit will reflect what Dietrich thought was the meaning of the words, rather than the exact words. And it is possible that he did accurately capture the meaning of what Hoppe said, and Hoppe was simply wrong. As I said before, medical science would not have been advanced enough to understand this case. So Hoppe would have been unable to determine whether Aime really did represent another example of the nine cases reported in medical records (or whether those nine cases even represented a common process).
Again, I have a great deal of difficulty getting around what Dietrich wrote in the affidavit. It is possible that Aime's condition differed from the nine previous cases that Dietrich says Hoppe referenced, but I would have thought Hoppe would have been a little more cautious if he was unsure about their relevance.

The "until she was four years old" is followed by a description of visits to other doctors, not a description of worsening symptoms. And the diagnosis was a type of "nervousness", hardly something that represents a severe condition.
In view of what later happened, it appears that the "nervousness" diagnosis was simply way off base.

This is an example of what I mentioned before. Dietrich's words allow for various, quite different interpretations, depending upon what you want the story to mean.
Again, I don't see that.

I agree.
One out of six ain't bad. ;)

But the timing of the intervention and the course of the disease are not independent. I already explained why the timing of Cayce's intervention is what I would expect. If the usual course of an illness is progressive worsening until the illness is checked by natural processes, which leads to progressive recovery, you will have some people who only become mildly ill and then begin to recover, some who become very ill and then begin to recover, and some who die as the natural processes did not check the disease soon enough. The magical healer is unlikely to be called in when the disease is only mild or moderate. It is usually those cases that continue to progress to the point that the disease is severe where the patient/family become desparate enough to start looking for magic. And it is at that point that the patient will either start to recover due to natural processes or die. As I mentioned earlier, deaths will be easily ignored, so all that's left are those that recover.
Interesting scenario, but all reports of the Aime Dietrich case indicate that her recovery began as soon as Layne had properly performed the osteopathic adjustments. Still could have been a coincidence, but unlikely.

I have not seen any evidence that demonstrating anything to you leads to those results. I am skeptical that it would be worthwhile.

Linda
Okay, but it's not just me, it's many people who find convincing Kirkpatrick's book and other books about Cayce. And I think many of these people are not "true believers", but folks who still have open minds.

[Mojo]

Okay, but it's not just me, it's many people who find convincing Kirkpatrick's book and other books about Cayce. I sense a business opportunity.

[fls]

Again, I have a great deal of difficulty getting around what Dietrich wrote in the affidavit. It is possible that Aime's condition differed from the nine previous cases that Dietrich says Hoppe referenced, but I would have thought Hoppe would have been a little more cautious if he was unsure about their relevance.

How do you know he wasn't?

In view of what later happened, it appears that the "nervousness" diagnosis was simply way off base.

Why? What precludes the possibility that she had what it was reported that the doctors said she had - a milder affliction that affected her only as described (occasional spells) and then a "brain infection" when she was six characterized by change in mental status and seizures from which she recovered. Her father put the two together as the same illness, but the doctors didn't. Why assume he was right and the experts were wrong?

Again, I don't see that.

You hadn't noticed that you and I are extracting very different versions of the events even though we are both reading the same affidavit?

Interesting scenario, but all reports of the Aime Dietrich case indicate that her recovery began as soon as Layne had properly performed the osteopathic adjustments. Still could have been a coincidence, but unlikely.

All reports?

What was reported was that Layne treated her for three weeks. She began to show improvement after eight days and was fully recovered after three months. This would also be a typical timeline for recovery in the absence of intervention.

Okay, but it's not just me, it's many people who find convincing Kirkpatrick's book and other books about Cayce. And I think many of these people are not "true believers", but folks who still have open minds.

So "open minds" means "passively ignorant" as opposed to the active ignorance of closed minds?

Linda

[fls]

Still could have been a coincidence, but unlikely.

Here you are expressing surprise that Cayce may have the characteristic which was used for selecting him as special in the first place. It's like having a room full of people each throwing five dice and declaring that the first person to throw all sixes has magical powers. When asked for proof that she/he has magical powers, you cite the fact that five dice coming up all sixes is very unlikely.

There have been and are many medical mediums. There have been and are many people that go into trances. With all that activity going on, events that are "unlikely" as a one-of affair, become likely when given a thousand opportunities. Even I occasionally throw a Yahtzee on the first toss of the dice.

Linda

[Rodney]

How do you know he wasn't?
I would think with all of the publicity given to Aime Dietrich's recovery, Dr. Hoppe would have come forward to set the record straight, if what he said had been unfairly characterized.

Why? What precludes the possibility that she had what it was reported that the doctors said she had - a milder affliction that affected her only as described (occasional spells) and then a "brain infection" when she was six characterized by change in mental status and seizures from which she recovered. Her father put the two together as the same illness, but the doctors didn't. Why assume he was right and the experts were wrong?
Maybe because Aime was afflicted by seizures and delayed development for four years under the care of the "experts" and then promptly recovered after Cayce's reading and Layne's osteopathic adjustments?

You hadn't noticed that you and I are extracting very different versions of the events even though we are both reading the same affidavit? I attribute that to you being hopelessly biased. ;)

All reports?
By "all reports", I mean that there are several reports of the Dietrich case going back to at least the October 9, 1910 NY Times article about Cayce, and all tell about the same story. Where are any newspaper articles or books presenting evidence that this story has been told incorrectly?

What was reported was that Layne treated her for three weeks. She began to show improvement after eight days and was fully recovered after three months. This would also be a typical timeline for recovery in the absence of intervention.
So you can cite other cases where a seizure-ridden and developmentally-delayed child recovered spontaneously after four years?

So "open minds" means "passively ignorant" as opposed to the active ignorance of closed minds?

Linda
I don't agree that they're "passively ignorant", they're just looking at the best available evidence.

[Rodney]

Here you are expressing surprise that Cayce may have the characteristic which was used for selecting him as special in the first place. It's like having a room full of people each throwing five dice and declaring that the first person to throw all sixes has magical powers. When asked for proof that she/he has magical powers, you cite the fact that five dice coming up all sixes is very unlikely.

There have been and are many medical mediums. There have been and are many people that go into trances. With all that activity going on, events that are "unlikely" as a one-of affair, become likely when given a thousand opportunities. Even I occasionally throw a Yahtzee on the first toss of the dice.

Linda
Can you name another medical medium with a record as documented as Cayce's?

[fls]

I would think with all of the publicity given to Aime Dietrich's recovery, Dr. Hoppe would have come forward to set the record straight, if what he said had been unfairly characterized.

He couldn't. To do so would violate patient confidentiality. Physicians cannot set the record straight when patients mischaracterize their care publicly.

Maybe because Aime was afflicted by seizures and delayed development for four years under the care of the "experts" and then promptly recovered after Cayce's reading and Layne's osteopathic adjustments?

Lovely example of the fallacy of circular reasoning.

I attribute that to you being hopelessly biased. ;)

I do recognize that I am hopelessly biased towards the objective evaluation of information. It pains me that this is generally considered a "bias" rather than SOP, but I am learning to deal with it.

By "all reports", I mean that there are several reports of the Dietrich case going back to at least the October 9, 1910 NY Times article about Cayce, and all tell about the same story. Where are any newspaper articles or books presenting evidence that this story has been told incorrectly?

We already know that the NY Times article about Cayce was inaccurate - articles and books have already presented evidence that he was not illiterate, for example. The newspaper articles can not be considered independent sources of information, since they are simply repeating (and changing) the story from the original source of the information.

So you can cite other cases where a seizure-ridden and developmentally-delayed child recovered spontaneously after four years?

Yes.

I don't agree that they're "passively ignorant", they're just looking at the best available evidence.

No worries then. If they are looking at the best available evidence, then they already know that Layne couldn't have cured Aime of epilepsy.

Linda

[fls]

Can you name another medical medium with a record as documented as Cayce's?

Ask yourself what was documented and why.

Linda

[Rodney]

He couldn't. To do so would violate patient confidentiality. Physicians cannot set the record straight when patients mischaracterize their care publicly.
How would it have violated patient confidentiality for Dr. Hoppe to have said: "I cannot discuss the specifics of any of my cases but, if Professor Dietrich thought I told him that his daughter's case was hopeless, he misunderstood what I told him"?

Lovely example of the fallacy of circular reasoning. Depends on your perspective. ;)


I do recognize that I am hopelessly biased towards the objective evaluation of information. It pains me that this is generally considered a "bias" rather than SOP, but I am learning to deal with it. See my second response above.

We already know that the NY Times article about Cayce was inaccurate - articles and books have already presented evidence that he was not illiterate, for example. The newspaper articles can not be considered independent sources of information, since they are simply repeating (and changing) the story from the original source of the information.
The "illiterate" claim was wrong, but how do you know that the Times did no independent verification of Cayce?

Yes.
And that case is . . . ?


No worries then. If they are looking at the best available evidence, then they already know that Layne couldn't have cured Aime of epilepsy.

Linda
So you say, but I'm still looking for proof of your contention.

[Rodney]

Ask yourself what was documented and why.

Linda
I have, and I'm impressed. You're obviously not, but I'd still like to hear about any other medical medium who was documented as well as Cayce was.

[fls]

How would it have violated patient confidentiality for Dr. Hoppe to have said: "I cannot discuss the specifics of any of my cases but, if Professor Dietrich thought I told him that his daughter's case was hopeless, he misunderstood what I told him"?

Even confirming that someone is your patient is violating patient confidentiality. And you would be unable to respond to the inevitable counter-claims, making the initial denial useless as a way to stop the misinformation.

The "illiterate" claim was wrong, but how do you know that the Times did no independent verification of Cayce?

We were talking about independent verification of the Aime Dietrich case. The article was based on fourth-hand information only for the Dietrich case - hardly an example of "independent verification".

And that case is . . . ?

What a strange question. I haven't the foggiest idea what you think you are asking for.

So you say, but I'm still looking for proof of your contention.

There are many good medical textbooks that include physiology and pathophysiology. Any one of them should do.

Linda

[fls]

I have, and I'm impressed. You're obviously not, but I'd still like to hear about any other medical medium who was documented as well as Cayce was.

Why does documentation of what Cayce said impress you? What does it mean that lots of documentation is available on Cayce? What is the nature of those documents?

Linda

[Rodney]

Even confirming that someone is your patient is violating patient confidentiality. And you would be unable to respond to the inevitable counter-claims, making the initial denial useless as a way to stop the misinformation.
So if a patient or parent of a patient slanders or libels a physician, the physician has no recourse?

We were talking about independent verification of the Aime Dietrich case. The article was based on fourth-hand information only for the Dietrich case - hardly an example of "independent verification". I don't know whether the Times talked with Dietrich, but they did talk with Dr. Ketchum, who had verified the facts with Dietrich. So, at worst, it was second-hand information from a doctor.

What a strange question. I haven't the foggiest idea what you think you are asking for.
Very simple: I asked: "So you can cite other cases where a seizure-ridden and developmentally-delayed child recovered spontaneously after four years?" You responded: "Yes." I then responded: "And that case is . . . ?" So, I am looking for a case similar to the Dietrich case that has been verified, such as by having it described in a medical journal article.

There are many good medical textbooks that include physiology and pathophysiology. Any one of them should do.

Linda
How do textbooks prove that osteopathic adjustments cannot, under any circumstances, cure a child of seizures and developmental delays?

[Rodney]

Why does documentation of what Cayce said impress you? What does it mean that lots of documentation is available on Cayce? What is the nature of those documents?

Linda
There are thousands of pages of documents on file at the A.R.E. in Virginia Beach, VA, most of which are now available on the computer. Many of those documents seem to verify Cayce's diagnoses and treatments. It is not plausible to me that Cayce was making it up as he went along, but you might want to check that out for yourself. One interesting area where recent developments suggest Cayce may have been accurate is the treatment of psoriasis. See post #20 by Lurking on this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1518201#post1518201

[Mojo]

One interesting area where recent developments suggest Cayce may have been accurate is the treatment of psoriasis. See post #20 by Lurking on this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1518201#post1518201


Where in that post (a second-hand account of something an unnamed but "incredibly educated and accomplished" doctor may or may not have said) does it say anything about the "accuracy" of Cayce's treatment of psoriasis? First off, (as you can see) I'm new to this forum. I came across it while Googling "Mannatech" as I know someone being scammed and I'm compiling evidence.

For the past 20 years I've worked in the medical field. For 8 of those years I worked for one of the top rheumatologists in the world. He was not only my employer, but eventually became my treating physician when I was diagnosed with crippling arthritis (psoriatic arthritis mutilans, which as the name implies has a psoriatic component).

I'm the curious type who reads just about everything I can get my hands on. I found a copy of Cayce's book at the used bookstore so picked it up.

When I read to my physician/employer (who is incredibly educated and accomplished; he had a 41-page CV then which is no doubt even longer now) the section on the origins of psoriasis from Cayce's book, you should have seen his face! He was completely floored, and immediately asked me where I had gotten that information. (Dr. N is a big a skeptic as you would ever meet.) After I told him he said nothing.

Later I learned about the underlying cause of psoriasis, a gut disorder known as LGS (leaky gut syndrome). LGS can manifest as all kinds of problems, not just psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis. So... the bottom line is, psoriasis does indeed begin in the gut. So in that respect, at least, Cayce was not wrong. (One can Google LGS and read the works of Walt Stoll, M.D., Leo Gallaland, M.D. etc.)

Since I haven't read the entire book I can't comment on his other "treatments" or descriptions of maladies, only the psoriasis.

[Rodney]

Where in that post (a second-hand account of something an unnamed but "incredibly educated and accomplished" doctor may or may not have said) does it say anything about the "accuracy" of Cayce's treatment of psoriasis?
Lurking's post implies strongly that his/her doctor thought the Cayce material on psoriasis was accurate, but what I actually said was: "One interesting area where recent developments suggest Cayce may have been accurate is the treatment of psoriasis." I referenced Lurking's post because I thought it was a good place to start. And, if you read post #297 on this thread --
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1660125&highlight=psoriasis#post1660125 -- you will note that Cayce's seemingly strange notion that "psoriasis affects the lymph circulation" was confirmed in the mid-1980s.

[fls]

So if a patient or parent of a patient slanders or libels a physician, the physician has no recourse?

The physician has legal recourse. I believe that in the case of slander/libel, the burden of proof is on the defendant - the patient/parent would be required to present the doctor/patient interaction as evidence in their defense and thereby effectively waive privilege.

I don't know whether the Times talked with Dietrich, but they did talk with Dr. Ketchum, who had verified the facts with Dietrich. So, at worst, it was second-hand information from a doctor.

But that's what I mean. It's not new or independent information, it's simply the same information we already have from Dietrich and his affidavit, except that now it has been filtered through two more people (Ketchum and the reporter).

Very simple: I asked: "So you can cite other cases where a seizure-ridden and developmentally-delayed child recovered spontaneously after four years?" You responded: "Yes." I then responded: "And that case is . . . ?" So, I am looking for a case similar to the Dietrich case that has been verified, such as by having it described in a medical journal article.

Cases like the Dietrich case don't get published in medical journals. A case-report gets published when there is some unique or bizarre component to the case, or (more often) it is used to illustrate a more in-depth study. The recovery of Aime would fall under information about the natural history of various diseases (such as epilepsy, encephalitis, post-traumatic seizures, pseudoseizures), which reflects many cases. As spontaneous recovery from any of those illnesses is well-documented and part of most physicians' experience, it doesn't illustrate anything unique to show that it happens.

How do textbooks prove that osteopathic adjustments cannot, under any circumstances, cure a child of seizures and developmental delays?

The mention of textbooks was meant to be a stand-in for the extent of our current knowledge. It is the details of what we already know that constrains the possibilities of what we don't know.

Linda

[fls]

Lurking's post implies strongly that his/her doctor thought the Cayce material on psoriasis was accurate, but what I actually said was: "One interesting area where recent developments suggest Cayce may have been accurate is the treatment of psoriasis." I referenced Lurking's post because I thought it was a good place to start. And, if you read post #297 on this thread --
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1660125&highlight=psoriasis#post1660125 -- you will note that Cayce's seemingly strange notion that "psoriasis affects the lymph circulation" was confirmed in the mid-1980s.

Consulting my old medical texts, it was already known that psoriasis was the skin manifestation of a systemic inflammatory disease in Cayce's time. Also, the link to GI disorders (but not the mechanism) was recognized.

Linda

[Rodney]

Cases like the Dietrich case don't get published in medical journals. A case-report gets published when there is some unique or bizarre component to the case, or (more often) it is used to illustrate a more in-depth study. The recovery of Aime would fall under information about the natural history of various diseases (such as epilepsy, encephalitis, post-traumatic seizures, pseudoseizures), which reflects many cases. As spontaneous recovery from any of those illnesses is well-documented and part of most physicians' experience, it doesn't illustrate anything unique to show that it happens.
But I'm talking about a spontaneous recovery from seizures and developmental delays after conventional treatment had produced no results during a 4-year period. You're saying that type of recovery wouldn't be written up in a medical journal?

[Rodney]

Consulting my old medical texts, it was already known that psoriasis was the skin manifestation of a systemic inflammatory disease in Cayce's time. Also, the link to GI disorders (but not the mechanism) was recognized.

Linda
Can you supply a reference?

[Mojo]

And, if you read post #297 on this thread --
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1660125&highlight=psoriasis#post1660125 -- you will note that Cayce's seemingly strange notion that "psoriasis affects the lymph circulation" was confirmed in the mid-1980s.


Do you have a reference for Cayce saying "psoriasis affects the lymph circulation"? In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2069306#post2069306) you said that "Cayce's psoriasis treatment always centered on the circulatory system". You went on to claim that the circulatory system is "a synonym for the immune system", but this is, of course, not the case.

By the way, has Cayce's notion that psoriasis is infectious, referred to in the post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1660125&highlight=psoriasis#post1660125) you linked to, been confirmed yet?

[fls]

But I'm talking about a spontaneous recovery from seizures and developmental delays after conventional treatment had produced no results during a 4-year period. You're saying that type of recovery wouldn't be written up in a medical journal?

Yes, I'm saying it wouldn't be written up unless some other feature of the case was unique.

Linda

[fls]

Can you supply a reference?

For example, "The Home Physician and Guide to Health", Canadian Watchman Press, 1924.

Linda

[Mojo]

Yes, I'm saying it wouldn't be written up unless some other feature of the case was unique.


But if, as Rodney suggests, the Dietrich and House cases were unusual in that in each case an apparently long-standing and intractable condition was cured by a novel treatment, then would they be likely to have been written up?

[fls]

But if, as Rodney suggests, the Dietrich and House cases were unusual in that in each case an apparently long-standing and intractable condition was cured by a novel treatment, then would they be likely to have been written up?

I think particularly at that time, they would have been written up. A case-report or case-series to suggest a novel treatment would have been useful at a time when the field was fairly wide open (truly effective treatments were few and far between). Also, it builds (to a somewhat limited degree) on an understanding of what can happen, and how disease can be classified. As knowledge in those areas progresses, then individual cases become less useful unless they truly push the boundaries of what has already been observed.

I should add that this applies to conventional medical journals. Publications in non-conventional journals depend heavily upon case-reports and case-series since the results of systematic, good-quality studies tend to disappoint their audience. ;)

Linda

[BillyJoe]

Perhaps we cannot ever be certain of the details of the Amie Dietrich case, but assuming that what has been documented is correct and, in the absence of a documented case study in the medical literature which mimics it, I wonder if anyone can come up with a reasonable hypothetical case history that mimics that of Amie Dietrich?

Perhaps Rodney could first provide a reasonably detailed summary of her case.

[Mojo]

I think particularly at that time, they would have been written up. A case-report or case-series to suggest a novel treatment would have been useful at a time when the field was fairly wide open (truly effective treatments were few and far between). Also, it builds (to a somewhat limited degree) on an understanding of what can happen, and how disease can be classified. As knowledge in those areas progresses, then individual cases become less useful unless they truly push the boundaries of what has already been observed.

I should add that this applies to conventional medical journals. Publications in non-conventional journals depend heavily upon case-reports and case-series since the results of systematic, good-quality studies tend to disappoint their audience.


Sounds like a cue for you to go off and do a spot of research into the literature, Rodney.

[fls]

Sigh. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17005348)

Linda

[Rodney]

Do you have a reference for Cayce saying "psoriasis affects the lymph circulation"? In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2069306#post2069306) you said that "Cayce's psoriasis treatment always centered on the circulatory system". You went on to claim that the circulatory system is "a synonym for the immune system", but this is, of course, not the case.

By the way, has Cayce's notion that psoriasis is infectious, referred to in the post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1660125&highlight=psoriasis#post1660125) you linked to, been confirmed yet?

In reading 943-17, given January 21, 1932, Cayce stated: "As is known, psoriasis is - itself - an infectious condition that affects the emunctory and lymph circulation, and causes an improper coordination of the eliminating forces of the system, as in this body."

[Rodney]

Perhaps we cannot ever be certain of the details of the Amie Dietrich case, but assuming that what has been documented is correct and, in the absence of a documented case study in the medical literature which mimics it, I wonder if anyone can come up with a reasonable hypothetical case history that mimics that of Amie Dietrich?

Perhaps Rodney could first provide a reasonably detailed summary of her case.
According to -- http://www.are-cayce.com/edgar-cayce2.html --

"One of the earliest readings was for a five-year-old girl, named Aime Dietrich, who had been seriously ill for three years. At the age of two, after an attack of influenza, which doctors then called the grippe, her mind had stopped developing. Since that time her tiny body had been racked with convulsions. Her mind was nearly a blank and, though doctors and specialists had been consulted, she had only gotten worse instead of better. In order to see if he could be of assistance, Cayce put himself to sleep while Layne conducted the reading and wrote down everything that was said. While in the sleep state Cayce stated that Aime's real problem had actually begun a few days before catching the grippe. Apparently, she had fallen and injured her spine while getting down from a carriage. According to the reading, because of the trauma the influenza germs had settled in her spine and the convulsions had begun. Aime's mother verified the accident.

"To cure the condition, Edgar Cayce recommended some osteopathic adjustments that were to be carried out by Layne. Layne made the adjustments on the little girl's spine and got a check reading. The sleeping Cayce told Layne he had made the adjustments incorrectly and provided further instructions. After several attempts, Layne was able to carry out the suggestions to the exact specifications of the sleeping photographer. Several days later, Aime recognized a doll she had played with before getting sick and called it by name. As the weeks passed, her mind recognized other things as well, she suddenly knew her parents, and finally the convulsions stopped completely. Within three months, Aime's mind was able to catch up where it had left off, and she became a normal, healthy, five-year-old girl."

Professor Dietrich's affidavit confirms a good deal of this account, although there are some differences, such as the fact that he says Aime was six when she was cured.

[Mojo]

In reading 943-17, given January 21, 1932, Cayce stated: "As is known, psoriasis is - itself - an infectious condition..."


So has it been confirmed that it is infectious?

[Mojo]

Cayce's seemingly strange notion that "psoriasis affects the lymph circulation" was confirmed in the mid-1980s.
In reading 943-17, given January 21, 1932, Cayce stated: "As is known, psoriasis is - itself - an infectious condition that affects the emunctory and lymph circulation, and causes an improper coordination of the eliminating forces of the system, as in this body."Emphasis mine.

It's not much of a prediction if it was known at the time. Or was Cayce wrong about that as well?

[Rodney]

Sigh. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17005348)

Linda
Thanks for the reference. That's a fascinating case, although still not the same as the Aime Dietrich case. The conclusion here is that "the disappearance of intractable epileptic seizures following acute viral infections might be related to the inflammatory or immunologic processes associated with viral infections." In his affidavit, Aime's father does not report that Aime was experiencing a new medical problem at the time Cayce prescribed osteopathic adjustments for her.

[Mojo]

Aime's father does not report that Aime was experiencing a new medical problem at the time Cayce prescribed osteopathic adjustments for her.


But have you ruled out the possibility?

[Rodney]

So has it been confirmed that it is infectious?
You're beating a dead horse. "Infectious" may have been a slip of the tongue, or Cayce might have been using it in a different sense than the word is used today.

[Mojo]

You're beating a dead horse. "Infectious" may have been a slip of the tongue...

Perhaps "lymph circulation" was a slip of the tongue. Perhaps "osteopathic adjustments" was a slip of the tongue. Perhaps "almonds" was a slip of the tongue.

...or Cayce might have been using it in a different sense than the word is used today.


Or perhaps Cayce may have been using all of the words he used in "a different sense" than they are used today. If you assume that he didn't mean what he said you can retrofit anything to his pronouncements.

[Mojo]

You're beating a dead horse. "Infectious" may have been a slip of the tongue, or Cayce might have been using it in a different sense than the word is used today.


Perhaps when Cayce appeared to go into a trance he was just pretending.

Perhaps when he said "those who would eat two to three almonds each day need never fear cancer" he actually meant "I am a total fraud and I'm just making all this stuff up".

[Mojo]

"Infectious" may have been a slip of the tongue


But seriously, Rodney, if you can dismiss his errors as "a slip of the tongue", how can you know that his "hits" were not also slips of the tongue?

[fls]

Thanks for the reference. That's a fascinating case, although still not the same as the Aime Dietrich case. The conclusion here is that "the disappearance of intractable epileptic seizures following acute viral infections might be related to the inflammatory or immunologic processes associated with viral infections." In his affidavit, Aime's father does not report that Aime was experiencing a new medical problem at the time Cayce prescribed osteopathic adjustments for her.

His description also fits with that of a relatively acute problem superimposed upon a longstanding, gradually progressive condition. The reported diagnoses provided by the doctors also fit with that scenario. Then again, the description also fits with several quite different case-reports. I merely choose to link to the first one.

However, it does illustrate the pointlessness of you asking for case reports. Why would the details of any particular case (of a nature that would even get it published in the first place) exactly coincide with the details that have been made up for the Dietrich case? Especially since with multiple retellings there are now multiple versions of the story, and you are inclined to make any suggestions not fit, so as to preserve your amazement - something that is easy to accomplish with such scanty details available (they don't force any particular constraints). Rather than cases, it is more useful to know about various diseases, and from there determine what possibilities (if any) are excluded based on a more thorough understanding than can be gleaned from a single (or few) case(s).

Linda

[BillyJoe]

Thanks for the reference. That's a fascinating case...


Actually, Rodney, I thought you'd be completely floored by that case report. The similarities are absolutely amazing in my opinion. I was really keen to read your response.

...although still not the same as the Aime Dietrich case. The conclusion here is that "the disappearance of intractable epileptic seizures following acute viral infections might be related to the inflammatory or immunologic processes associated with viral infections." In his affidavit, Aime's father does not report that Aime was experiencing a new medical problem at the time Cayce prescribed osteopathic adjustments for her.


How many viral infections does a 2 to 6 year old child have. Many have up to one a month. Maybe he didn't bother reporting any viral infections she might have had. After all, you wouldn't have expected him to think that a viral infection could possibly be the cause of her other illness resolving. Would you, Rodney, before you read that case?

[BillyJoe]

Why would the details of any particular case...exactly coincide with the details that have been made up for the Dietrich case? Especially since with multiple retellings there are now multiple versions of the story, and you are inclined to make any suggestions not fit, so as to preserve your amazement - something that is easy to accomplish with such scanty details available (they don't force any particular constraints).


I just thought that perhaps if Rodney could read similar case histories to Amie's and see how they resolved spontaneously (or as a result of known mechanisms as in the case you linked to), he might be less inclined to believe absolutely that, in Amie's case, the resolution was achieved by the spinal adjustments recommended by Cayce whilst in a trance.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sigh. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=17005348)

Linda

Yeah, yeah... Try to explain this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6645555.stm) with medical knowledge:

Friar Galvao is remembered for producing Latin prayers written on tiny balls of paper that, when swallowed, had the apparent effect of curing a range of ailments.

After taking one of these pills, Ms Almeida, who had a uterine malformation that should have made it impossible for her to carry a child for more than four months, gave birth to Enzo.

Friar Galvao is also certified by the Church as healing a four-year-old girl said to have been considered incurable by doctors.

:D

[Rodney]

Actually, Rodney, I thought you'd be completely floored by that case report. The similarities are absolutely amazing in my opinion. I was really keen to read your response.
Let's compare the two cases: According to her father's affidavit, Aime Dietrich "was perfectly strong and healthy until Feb. 1899, when she had an attack of La Grippe, followed by two violent convulsions, each of twenty minutes duration." Aime was 2 at that time. She was treated by four doctors, but by age 6, she was "getting worse, had as many as twenty convulsions in one day, her mind was a blank, all reasoning power was entirely gone." She was then taken to a fifth doctor, who "told us that nothing could be done, except to give her good care, as her case was hopeless and she would die soon in one of these attacks."

In the case that Linda linked to, a 5-month old female "developed intractable brief tonic spasms" . . The seizures were uncontrollable with conventional therapy . . . At the age of three years, the intractable seizures disappeared after a febrile rash illness due to human herpesvirus 7 (HHV-7) infection, without changes in anti-epileptic drugs."

So, in Aime's case, her seizures began after she contracted the flu. While the affidavit does not say so, "An American Prophet" says that Aime "had received an injury to her spine before becoming sick." Thus, her seizures seemed to be related to those major events in her young life. Further, Aime later became severely developmentally-impaired, and her case was pronounced hopeless. By contrast, in the other case, it would appear that there was no obvious precipitating event for the seizures, the child did not become developmentally delayed, and the case was never thought to be hopeless.

How many viral infections does a 2 to 6 year old child have. Many have up to one a month. Maybe he didn't bother reporting any viral infections she might have had. After all, you wouldn't have expected him to think that a viral infection could possibly be the cause of her other illness resolving. Would you, Rodney, before you read that case?
No, but I still no evidence that a viral infection can resolve developmental delays. Further, under your scenario, Cayce has got to be amazingly lucky. Five doctors fail to help Aime at all, with the fifth pronouncing her case hopeless. Cayce is then called in, prescribes some osteopathic adjustments, and by a coincidence that would stagger even Carl Jung, Aime gets better not because of those adjustments, but because she actually simultaneously contracted an unreported viral infection. Does that scenario make sense to you?

[Mojo]

Let's compare the two cases: According to her father's affidavit, Aime Dietrich "was perfectly strong and healthy until Feb. 1899, when she had an attack of La Grippe, followed by two violent convulsions, each of twenty minutes duration." Aime was 2 at that time. She was treated by four doctors, but by age 6, she was "getting worse, had as many as twenty convulsions in one day, her mind was a blank, all reasoning power was entirely gone." She was then taken to a fifth doctor, who "told us that nothing could be done, except to give her good care, as her case was hopeless and she would die soon in one of these attacks."

In the case that Linda linked to, a 5-month old female "developed intractable brief tonic spasms" . . The seizures were uncontrollable with conventional therapy . . . At the age of three years, the intractable seizures disappeared after a febrile rash illness due to human herpesvirus 7 (HHV-7) infection, without changes in anti-epileptic drugs."

So, in Aime's case, her seizures began after she contracted the flu. While the affidavit does not say so, "An American Prophet" says that Aime "had received an injury to her spine before becoming sick." Thus, her seizures seemed to be related to those major events in her young life. Further, Aime later became severely developmentally-impaired, and her case was pronounced hopeless. By contrast, in the other case, it would appear that there was no obvious precipitating event for the seizures, the child did not become developmentally delayed, and the case was never thought to be hopeless.


But some of Dietrich's account may have been slips of the tongue, or Dietrich might have been using words in a different sense than the words are used today. See here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2595929#post2595929) for someone who feels this could apply to statements significantly more recent than Dietrich's affidavit, for example.

[BillyJoe]

Well, Rodney, if you are determined to believe that Amie's case had features that can only be explained by Cayce going into a trance and unknowingly giving an osteopath the treatment for curing her, then I guess you are never going to believe otherwise.

The thing is that every person is probably unique in the way a particular ilness manifests itself, progresses, and resolves (or leads to death). We cannot be obsessive about the exact details about a particular case. Don't you agree? For example, the same virus might lay me up for five days with headache, fever and sore throat, but cause you a minor inconvenient cough. For someone else it might prove fatal. That was what Linda meant when she said:

Rather than cases, it is more useful to know about various diseases, and from there determine what possibilities...are excluded based on a more thorough understanding than can be gleaned from a single...case.

[fls]

So, in Aime's case, her seizures began after she contracted the flu. While the affidavit does not say so, "An American Prophet" says that Aime "had received an injury to her spine before becoming sick." Thus, her seizures seemed to be related to those major events in her young life. Further, Aime later became severely developmentally-impaired, and her case was pronounced hopeless. By contrast, in the other case, it would appear that there was no obvious precipitating event for the seizures, the child did not become developmentally delayed, and the case was never thought to be hopeless.

Developmental delay is a feature of West Syndrome and resistance to treatment gives a poor prognosis (i.e. this case would be considered otherwise hopeless).

No, but I still no evidence that a viral infection can resolve developmental delays.

The case-report represented a viral infection resolving developmental delay, although whether or not it does so in that circumstance depends upon the underlying cause of the developmental delay (e.g. primary or secondary).

Please note that the case-report was not adding to the understanding that West Syndrome or other types of epilepsy have spontaneously resolved after various viral infections, but rather adding to the understanding of HHV-7 infection in humans.

Further, under your scenario, Cayce has got to be amazingly lucky. Five doctors fail to help Aime at all, with the fifth pronouncing her case hopeless. Cayce is then called in, prescribes some osteopathic adjustments, and by a coincidence that would stagger even Carl Jung, Aime gets better not because of those adjustments, but because she actually simultaneously contracted an unreported viral infection. Does that scenario make sense to you?

It would be an amazing coincidence. And as I was attempting to get at earlier, that alone doesn't mean anything, since it may be the only reason that it was Cayce that was remembered 100 years later, rather than some other medium. With thousands of opportunities for medium intervention to coincide with spontaneous recovery, occasionally it will happen. And it is the medium that happens to be in that lucky situation that will subsequently be hailed as having real powers. And the proof of those real powers? That it was unlikely for spontaneous recovery to coincide with the medium's intervention if that particular situation is assumed a priori. Of course, everybody conveniently forgets that they have violated one of the assumptions of their hypothesis testing, since the situation was not, in fact, assumed a priori. And how many readings did Cayce give? Tens of thousands? He should have been swimming in amazing coincidences, even without taking the strong confirmation and attribution biases into effect.

However, it may not even be an amazing coincidence, as the events could easily be confounded and not independent. Viral infections usually make epilepsy worse, so even if eventual resolution of the viral infection leads to eventual resolution of the seizures, it would be expected that they could get worse before they get better. And it was that Aime was "getting worse" that led to calling in Cayce - i.e. the same thing that could have led to Aime's worsening and then subsequent resolution was the same thing that led to the desparate attempt to try anything.

And that a viral infection wasn't reported by Dietrich may have been that it was unnoticed or that Dietrich didn't understand the significance of what the doctor said. For example, the majority of HHV-7 infections seem to be asymptomatic or sub-clinical. Which is why a report of an acute manifestation of HHV-7 is worth a case-report. A sub-clinical infection (for many viruses) can smoulder for months, and recovery certainly fits with with the time course reported in the affadavit.

However, I realize that none of this necessarily applies to Cayce, since we simply to not have enough information on anything that has been claimed to say "this is what must have happened." All we can say is "this is what could have happened." And the scientific approach is to assume a naturalistic explanation exists (even if currently undetermined) until proven otherwise, mostly because this assumption has lead to amazing progress and because no exceptions have yet been discovered. Your approach seems to be to assume a supernaturalistic explanation when encountering the unknown until proven otherwise; an assumption that leads to stagnation and continual exceptions.

Linda

[Rodney]

But some of Dietrich's account may have been slips of the tongue, or Dietrich might have been using words in a different sense than the words are used today. See here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2595929#post2595929) for someone who feels this could apply to statements significantly more recent than Dietrich's affidavit, for example.
By your logic, since Linda in post #219 of this thread said "nineteenth century" when she meant "twentieth century" nothing else she has ever said can offset this egregious error. Again, to give the context of what Cayce said on January 21, 1932: "As is known, psoriasis is - itself - an infectious condition that affects the emunctory and lymph circulation, and causes an improper coordination of the eliminating forces of the system, as in this body." He never said in any reading that psoriasis can be spread from person to person.

[fls]

By your logic, since Linda in post #219 of this thread said "nineteenth century" when she meant "twentieth century" nothing else she has ever said can offset this egregious error. Again, to give the context of what Cayce said on January 21, 1932: "As is known, psoriasis is - itself - an infectious condition that affects the emunctory and lymph circulation, and causes an improper coordination of the eliminating forces of the system, as in this body." He never said in any reading that psoriasis can be spread from person to person.

Cayce's description of Psoriasis is like rubber-sheet topology. Through judicious pulling and stretching, it can be made to fit around what we now know about Psoriasis. But it could just as easily* fit a variety of shapes, and in the absence of knowledge, assumes a nondescript form resembling a blob.

Also, your continued reference to a period in my life I'd rather put behind me, wounds deeply. You don't want to make a mother cry on Mothers' Day, do you?

Linda

*That's a lie. It would far more easily fit around incomplete or misshapen descriptions of Psoriasis.

[Mojo]

By your logic...


It's your logic, Rodney.

He never said in any reading that psoriasis can be spread from person to person.


Yes he did: he said it was infectious.

[Rodney]

Developmental delay is a feature of West Syndrome and resistance to treatment gives a poor prognosis (i.e. this case would be considered otherwise hopeless).

The case-report represented a viral infection resolving developmental delay, although whether or not it does so in that circumstance depends upon the underlying cause of the developmental delay (e.g. primary or secondary).

Please note that the case-report was not adding to the understanding that West Syndrome or other types of epilepsy have spontaneously resolved after various viral infections, but rather adding to the understanding of HHV-7 infection in humans.
Okay. I was relying on Wikipedia for my information, which seems to suggest that West Syndrome does not necessarily involve developmental delays. See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_syndrome

It would be an amazing coincidence. And as I was attempting to get at earlier, that alone doesn't mean anything, since it may be the only reason that it was Cayce that was remembered 100 years later, rather than some other medium. With thousands of opportunities for medium intervention to coincide with spontaneous recovery, occasionally it will happen. And it is the medium that happens to be in that lucky situation that will subsequently be hailed as having real powers. And the proof of those real powers? That it was unlikely for spontaneous recovery to coincide with the medium's intervention if that particular situation is assumed a priori. Of course, everybody conveniently forgets that they have violated one of the assumptions of their hypothesis testing, since the situation was not, in fact, assumed a priori. And how many readings did Cayce give? Tens of thousands? He should have been swimming in amazing coincidences, even without taking the strong confirmation and attribution biases into effect.

However, it may not even be an amazing coincidence, as the events could easily be confounded and not independent. Viral infections usually make epilepsy worse, so even if eventual resolution of the viral infection leads to eventual resolution of the seizures, it would be expected that they could get worse before they get better. And it was that Aime was "getting worse" that led to calling in Cayce - i.e. the same thing that could have led to Aime's worsening and then subsequent resolution was the same thing that led to the desparate attempt to try anything.

And that a viral infection wasn't reported by Dietrich may have been that it was unnoticed or that Dietrich didn't understand the significance of what the doctor said. For example, the majority of HHV-7 infections seem to be asymptomatic or sub-clinical. Which is why a report of an acute manifestation of HHV-7 is worth a case-report. A sub-clinical infection (for many viruses) can smoulder for months, and recovery certainly fits with with the time course reported in the affadavit.

However, I realize that none of this necessarily applies to Cayce, since we simply to not have enough information on anything that has been claimed to say "this is what must have happened." All we can say is "this is what could have happened." And the scientific approach is to assume a naturalistic explanation exists (even if currently undetermined) until proven otherwise, mostly because this assumption has lead to amazing progress and because no exceptions have yet been discovered. Your approach seems to be to assume a supernaturalistic explanation when encountering the unknown until proven otherwise; an assumption that leads to stagnation and continual exceptions.

Linda
You make some valid points, but my main disagreement with you is that it's not just the Dietrich case that made Cayce famous. We've already discussed the Tommy House case and there are several others. So, I find the coincidence argument strained. Further, the way Cayce operated was just the opposite of the way a charlatan would have operated. Finally, there are still many medical unknowns, such as the causes of psoriasis, and many Cayce pronouncements fall into a gray area, where they have neither been proven nor disproven. So, I would hope that you would keep an open mind regarding whether his readings had any validity.

[Rodney]

Cayce's description of Psoriasis is like rubber-sheet topology. Through judicious pulling and stretching, it can be made to fit around what we now know about Psoriasis. But it could just as easily* fit a variety of shapes, and in the absence of knowledge, assumes a nondescript form resembling a blob.
I'm still unclear what was known about psoriasis in Cayce's time. Are you saying that his psoriasis readings just recycled the conventional wisdom of the early part of the 20th (not to be confused with the 19th ;)) Century?

Also, your continued reference to a period in my life I'd rather put behind me, wounds deeply. You don't want to make a mother cry on Mothers' Day, do you?

Linda
Absolutely not. Happy Mother's Day, Linda! (And I hope your children called, if only to say that they're a little short of cash at the moment.)

[BillyJoe]

I don't think Linda's children called. They are too little. But hopefully old enough for breakfast in bed. And all of the fun that involves. :)

[fls]

Okay. I was relying on Wikipedia for my information, which seems to suggest that West Syndrome does not necessarily involve developmental delays. See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_syndrome

Yes, not necessarily (one does not need all three terms in the triad for the diagnosis). But it is present in most (up to 95%).

You make some valid points, but my main disagreement with you is that it's not just the Dietrich case that made Cayce famous. We've already discussed the Tommy House case and there are several others. So, I find the coincidence argument strained.

It was my understanding that the Dietrich case sorta started the ball rolling - that it was the first (or one of the first) readings he did for others and that word spread because of the result?

I think the idea of coincidence seems an intuitive strain because all the focus is on the few cases where coincidence would be (a priori) very unlikely (if independent). If you were reading in context, though, you would get a better feel for the variability and range. The few cases would seem less remarkable when read against a background of hundreds/thousands of more mundane cases. Just like my run of ten heads in a row seems less remarkable when you watch me flip a coin every day, all day, for a week.

Further, the way Cayce operated was just the opposite of the way a charlatan would have operated.

I don't think Cayce was a charlatan. I think he was a bit disingenuous about the extent to which he absorbed, rather than read, books. But otherwise I get the impression that he was sincere in the use of his abilities.

Finally, there are still many medical unknowns, such as the causes of psoriasis, and many Cayce pronouncements fall into a gray area, where they have neither been proven nor disproven. So, I would hope that you would keep an open mind regarding whether his readings had any validity.

I've already agreed that he did impart useful medical information. The part I disagree with and what I think you mean, when you talk about validity, is that he had a special way of knowing (i.e. seemingly in contradiction to the laws of nature).

Taking the statements on Psoriasis as an example...they do just seem to be recycled conventional wisdom based on what was known at that time. And if interpreted in a way that could be useful - i.e. that he was using the words as though they had a specific meaning - the statements are wrong. It is only by allowing the use of the words to be vague and non-specific, that one can extract meaning from them. But only after one already knows what meaning they have to fit. That is, his words are incapable of providing new information. If they are used to refer to something specific, they cannot be assumed to be correct unless confirmed (using conventional means). And if they are used in a non-specific manner, they could mean any one of a number of different things. And there is no way to figure out which one of those things can be assumed to be correct until you already know (using conventional means) which one (if any) is correct.

Linda

[fls]

Absolutely not. Happy Mother's Day, Linda! (And I hope your children called, if only to say that they're a little short of cash at the moment.)

My children are all still school-age, so rather than requests for cash, I was presented with hand-made pottery (very nicely done, I should add :)).

Linda

[Rodney]

Yes, not necessarily (one does not need all three terms in the triad for the diagnosis). But it is present in most (up to 95%).
Thanks for the clarification. I would think that the summary would have mentioned it if the child was developmentally-delayed, but perhaps I'm wrong.

It was my understanding that the Dietrich case sorta started the ball rolling - that it was the first (or one of the first) readings he did for others and that word spread because of the result?
Yes, although I don't think that case was widely-known outside of Kentucky and Tennessee until the 1910 NY Times article.

I think the idea of coincidence seems an intuitive strain because all the focus is on the few cases where coincidence would be (a priori) very unlikely (if independent). If you were reading in context, though, you would get a better feel for the variability and range. The few cases would seem less remarkable when read against a background of hundreds/thousands of more mundane cases. Just like my run of ten heads in a row seems less remarkable when you watch me flip a coin every day, all day, for a week.
Yes, but if the analysis done by Cayce's son was accurate, Cayce had a good batting average even on the mundane cases.

I don't think Cayce was a charlatan. I think he was a bit disingenuous about the extent to which he absorbed, rather than read, books. But otherwise I get the impression that he was sincere in the use of his abilities.
Your take on Cayce distinguishes you from most skeptics. ;)

I've already agreed that he did impart useful medical information.
But doesn't that distinguish Cayce from other alleged psychics?

The part I disagree with and what I think you mean, when you talk about validity, is that he had a special way of knowing (i.e. seemingly in contradiction to the laws of nature).
Yes, that's what I mean.

Taking the statements on Psoriasis as an example...they do just seem to be recycled conventional wisdom based on what was known at that time. And if interpreted in a way that could be useful - i.e. that he was using the words as though they had a specific meaning - the statements are wrong.
Can you give me an example, other than Mojo's favorite "infectious" one?

It is only by allowing the use of the words to be vague and non-specific, that one can extract meaning from them. But only after one already knows what meaning they have to fit. That is, his words are incapable of providing new information. If they are used to refer to something specific, they cannot be assumed to be correct unless confirmed (using conventional means). And if they are used in a non-specific manner, they could mean any one of a number of different things. And there is no way to figure out which one of those things can be assumed to be correct until you already know (using conventional means) which one (if any) is correct.

Linda
I still haven't seen documentation that psoriasis was known in Cayce's time to be a circulatory problem.

[Mojo]

I still haven't seen documentation that psoriasis was known in Cayce's time to be a circulatory problem.It was a bit of a stretch to get that to fit, wasn't it? It does seem to me that conventional medicine is becoming more holistic; for example, in Cayce's time, conventional psoriasis treatment centered on skin creams, and now it centers on the immune system. However, Cayce's psoriasis treatment always centered on the circulatory system, which I think can be taken as a synonym for the immune system.

[BillyJoe]

I suppose, then, that the circulatory system is also a synonyn for the pituitary gland.

[fls]

Yes, but if the analysis done by Cayce's son was accurate, Cayce had a good batting average even on the mundane cases.

It may influence you to see that more than half of the cases have no follow-up or are equivalent to telling someone to take an aspirin when they complain of a headache.

But doesn't that distinguish Cayce from other alleged psychics?

Psychics make valid statements all the time. The point is that simply coming up with a valid statement does not mean that there was an anomalous source of information.

Can you give me an example, other than Mojo's favorite "infectious" one?

Pretty much the whole quote is incorrect.

As is known, psoriasis is - itself - an infectious condition that affects the emunctory and lymph circulation, and causes an improper coordination of the eliminating forces of the system, as in this body.

Psoriasis does not affect the lymph circulation or the umenctory systems. It does not involve the improper co-ordination of anything that could reasonably be called part of the "eliminating forces". In order to make a statement like "affects the...lymph circulation" correct, it would have to apply to any disease which involves any sort of immune response - i.e. almost everything. By that reasoning, epilepsy is a "heart problem" because the heart pumps blood to the brain.

I still haven't seen documentation that psoriasis was known in Cayce's time to be a circulatory problem.

Psoriasis is not known to be a circulatory problem, unless your use of "circulatory problem" is so non-specific as to make any disease with a systemic component "circulatory". That is, it's a meaningless statement because it can be made to apply to everything.

Linda

[ChristineR]

Psoriasis, like many skin conditions, is typically worse on the extremities because of the lower blood circulation to those areas. I would assume this was known in Cayce's time.

So if you use that broad definition of "circulatory problem" then Cayce would have known this, if you use a narrow definition Cayce was wrong.

[Rodney]

It may influence you to see that more than half of the cases have no follow-up or are equivalent to telling someone to take an aspirin when they complain of a headache.
How do you think the greatest physicians of all time would be rated by their patients?

Psychics make valid statements all the time.
Careful now, Linda. Randi may excommunicate you from His Holy Church of Skepticism. ;)

The point is that simply coming up with a valid statement does not mean that there was an anomalous source of information. Not necessarily, but you have to show that the information was available through normal means.

Pretty much the whole quote is incorrect.

Psoriasis does not affect the lymph circulation or the umenctory systems. It does not involve the improper co-ordination of anything that could reasonably be called part of the "eliminating forces". In order to make a statement like "affects the...lymph circulation" correct, it would have to apply to any disease which involves any sort of immune response - i.e. almost everything. By that reasoning, epilepsy is a "heart problem" because the heart pumps blood to the brain.

Psoriasis is not known to be a circulatory problem, unless your use of "circulatory problem" is so non-specific as to make any disease with a systemic component "circulatory". That is, it's a meaningless statement because it can be made to apply to everything.

Linda
So how does your position square with (the unparalleled wisdom of) post #297 of this thread? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1660125&highlight=psoriasis#post1660125
In particular, do you agree or disagree that: "A major breakthrough in understanding psoriasis occurred in the mid '80s, when it was identified as an immune disorder"?

[MRC_Hans]

Just piping in on this:

Careful now, Linda. Randi may excommunicate you from His Holy Church of Skepticism. ;)

Not necessarily, but you have to show that the information was available through normal means.

Wrong. They (they being proponents of paranormal means) will have to show that it was not optained through normal means.

We (we being skeptics) can basically just assume it was.

You know, burden of proof rests on the claimant. If you claim an unknown phenomenon exists, then you must provide the evidence.

Hans

[Mojo]

So how does your position square with (the unparalleled wisdom of) post #297 of this thread? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1660125&highlight=psoriasis#post1660125
In particular, do you agree or disagree that: "A major breakthrough in understanding psoriasis occurred in the mid '80s, when it was identified as an immune disorder"?Why don't you link to the post to which you are referring?

How does the "unparallelled wisdom" of your post #297 of that thread square with your statement that "Cayce's psoriasis treatment always centered on the circulatory system"?

[fls]

How do you think the greatest physicians of all time would be rated by their patients?

I think they would be rated very highly.

Careful now, Linda. Randi may excommunicate you from His Holy Church of Skepticism. ;)

Randi himself has made this point on numerous occasions.

Not necessarily, but you have to show that the information was available through normal means.

The assumption is that information is available through normal means unless the possibility has been excluded. This particular standard has never been met.

So how does your position square with (the unparalleled wisdom of) post #297 of this thread? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1660125&highlight=psoriasis#post1660125
In particular, do you agree or disagree that: "A major breakthrough in understanding psoriasis occurred in the mid '80s, when it was identified as an immune disorder"?

That statement is meant to convey information about a complex topic in a simplified manner and it is not correct for you to interpret it the way that you have. When you try to explain a topic in non-technical terms, simplification necessarily introduces error. Or as Niels Bohr said, "there is an uncertainty relationship between truth and clarity."

What was occurring in the '80s was an explosion in the understanding of the details of how the immune system worked. Which led to a more detailed understanding of the different ways that the immune system was involved in those diseases which we had already realized somehow involved the immune response.

Linda

[Rodney]

Why don't you link to the post to which you are referring?
I never previously bothered to figure out how to do that, but here you go: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1652844&postcount=297

How does the "unparallelled wisdom" of your post #297 of that thread square with your statement that "Cayce's psoriasis treatment always centered on the circulatory system"?
The point is that the modern explanation of psoriasis as an immune disorder is consistent with what Cayce had to say about it. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, during Cayce's time psoriasis was treated basically as a skin problem, to which creams and ointments should be applied. If Cayce was simply cribbing from the conventional wisdom of his era, please direct me to a publication of that era that essentially says what he said.

[Mojo]

The point is that the modern explanation of psoriasis as an immune disorder is consistent with what Cayce had to say about it. If you assume that he was using his terms "in a different sense than the word[s are] used today", or so vaguely that they could mean almost anything (for example by saying (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2069306#post2069306) things like "the circulatory system, which I think can be taken as a synonym for the immune system") or assume that anything he said that doesn't appear to fit is "a slip of the tongue", you can retrofit his pronouncements to almost anything. If you look at what he actually said, he appears simply to have been wrong in an unconventional manner.

[fls]

The point is that the modern explanation of psoriasis as an immune disorder is consistent with what Cayce had to say about it.

That is incorrect. If you read what Cayce had to say about Psoriasis, he was clearly focussed on the introduction of toxins through the digestive tract related to inadquate function of the lymphatics. The lymphatic system is not synonymous with the immune system. Rather part of the lymphatic system contains part of the immune system. But another funtion of the lymphatic system is the absorption of fats from the digestive tract which are passed through the thoracic duct into the general circulation. His continued focus on the intestine means that he was specifically not referring to the immune system when he was referring to lymph circulation. The lymphatic system has several functions, only one of which involves the immune system, and none of what he said could be taken as corresponding to that component of the lymphatic system.

On the other hand, as far as I can tell, during Cayce's time psoriasis was treated basically as a skin problem, to which creams and ointments should be applied. If Cayce was simply cribbing from the conventional wisdom of his era, please direct me to a publication of that era that essentially says what he said.

From the text I referenced earlier (The Home Physician):

"Associated with psoriasis, and possibly a causative factor, are rheumatic and gouty conditions, as well as digestive disturbances."

"Local treatment seems not to produce any permanent effect, unless the habits of the patient are materially changed." - followed by a list of dietary changes plus a recognition that systemic conditions (such as gout or rheumatic conditions) must be treated to effect a recovery from psoriasis.

"The condition is believed to be due to the action of a toxin produced...in another part of the body."

From the 1910 EB:

"The treatment is hygienic, constitutional and local. "

"The internal administration of small doses of vinum antimoniale, in acute cases, or of arsenic (in gradually increasing doses of the liquor arsenicalis) in chronic cases, is undoubtedly beneficial."

Clearly it was already recognized as the skin manifestation of a systemic disease, that the digestive system was somehow involved, and that while local treatments could help, systemic treatments may provide a more complete effect.

Linda

[Rodney]

That is incorrect. If you read what Cayce had to say about Psoriasis, he was clearly focussed on the introduction of toxins through the digestive tract related to inadquate function of the lymphatics. The lymphatic system is not synonymous with the immune system. Rather part of the lymphatic system contains part of the immune system. But another funtion of the lymphatic system is the absorption of fats from the digestive tract which are passed through the thoracic duct into the general circulation. His continued focus on the intestine means that he was specifically not referring to the immune system when he was referring to lymph circulation. The lymphatic system has several functions, only one of which involves the immune system, and none of what he said could be taken as corresponding to that component of the lymphatic system.
When did physicians first start using the term "immune system"?

From the text I referenced earlier (The Home Physician):

"Associated with psoriasis, and possibly a causative factor, are rheumatic and gouty conditions, as well as digestive disturbances."

"Local treatment seems not to produce any permanent effect, unless the habits of the patient are materially changed." - followed by a list of dietary changes plus a recognition that systemic conditions (such as gout or rheumatic conditions) must be treated to effect a recovery from psoriasis.

"The condition is believed to be due to the action of a toxin produced...in another part of the body."
I have to admit that sounds somewhat like Cayce. Still, it's quite a bit different than Cayce's Reading 289-1, given March 2, 1933:

"Q. Please give me the cause and cure for the so-called psoriasis with which I am troubled.

"A. The cause is the thinning of the walls of the intestinal system, which allows the escaping of poisons - or the absorption of same by the muco-membranes which surround same, and becomes effective in the irritation through the lymph and emunctory reactions in the body.

"An effective cure for same is first being mindful of the diet, during the periods when these necessary elements would be given for creating those activities within the system to close such conditions:

"In the system we would use elm water and saffron water. These would be taken in the ordinary drinking water, during periods of one, two to three weeks at a time. All the drinking water, carrying, then, either a small quantity of elm or the Saffron. For this adds to the assimilating system those properties that become effective to the aiding of building within the system itself those conditions that will overcome such activities in the system.

"The diet during such periods should be more of vegetables than of meats or sweets, so that there are those reactions that make for better unification in the membranes' reaction within the body."

From the 1910 EB:

"The treatment is hygienic, constitutional and local. "

"The internal administration of small doses of vinum antimoniale, in acute cases, or of arsenic (in gradually increasing doses of the liquor arsenicalis) in chronic cases, is undoubtedly beneficial."
Cayce never recommended vinum antimoniale or arsenic as a treatment for psoriasis.

Clearly it was already recognized as the skin manifestation of a systemic disease, that the digestive system was somehow involved, and that while local treatments could help, systemic treatments may provide a more complete effect.
Linda
Okay, perhaps there was more understanding than I thought there was in Cayce's era that psoriasis involved more than a skin problem, but still, it seems that Cayce was recommending a fundamentally new approach. For example, where do you suppose he came up with the idea of "thinning of the walls of the intestinal system"?

[Mojo]

For example, where do you suppose he came up with the idea of "thinning of the walls of the intestinal system"?


where do we suppose he came up with the idea of "thinning of the walls of the intestinal system, which allows the escaping of poisons"? Perhaps he got the idea from a work like the Home Physician, as referenced by Linda: "The condition is believed to be due to the action of a toxin produced...in another part of the body." By the way, I thought you were claiming that Cayce said it was to do with the immune system, not "poisons".

[fls]

When did physicians first start using the term "immune system"?

I don't know. I do know that the term was already in use when Cayce gave his reading. My 1931 medical dictionary describes antibodies produced by the white blood cells that were formed from lymphoid tissue under the heading "immune system".

I have to admit that sounds somewhat like Cayce. Still, it's quite a bit different than Cayce's Reading 289-1, given March 2, 1933:

"Q. Please give me the cause and cure for the so-called psoriasis with which I am troubled.

"A. The cause is the thinning of the walls of the intestinal system, which allows the escaping of poisons - or the absorption of same by the muco-membranes which surround same, and becomes effective in the irritation through the lymph and emunctory reactions in the body.

"An effective cure for same is first being mindful of the diet, during the periods when these necessary elements would be given for creating those activities within the system to close such conditions:

"In the system we would use elm water and saffron water. These would be taken in the ordinary drinking water, during periods of one, two to three weeks at a time. All the drinking water, carrying, then, either a small quantity of elm or the Saffron. For this adds to the assimilating system those properties that become effective to the aiding of building within the system itself those conditions that will overcome such activities in the system.

"The diet during such periods should be more of vegetables than of meats or sweets, so that there are those reactions that make for better unification in the membranes' reaction within the body."

It doesn't sound that different to me. The idea that toxins can enter the body through the digestive tract and cause disease was very common - I find multiple references to this idea for various diseases of the skin. The diet is the same one that is mentioned in several of my books, as are systemic treatments consisting of different types of water (e.g. "lime water").

Cayce never recommended vinum antimoniale or arsenic as a treatment for psoriasis.

So?

Okay, perhaps there was more understanding than I thought there was in Cayce's era that psoriasis involved more than a skin problem, but still, it seems that Cayce was recommending a fundamentally new approach. For example, where do you suppose he came up with the idea of "thinning of the walls of the intestinal system"?

From his a**.

What on earth do you see as a fundamentally new approach here? Psoriasis was already considered a systemic disease that at least sometimes was related to absorbed toxins causing an inflammatory reaction. The treatment included prevention by following the same diet that Cayce recommended and ingested medicines as well as local treatments. It also very much fits with the ideas as to cause, prevention and treatment of other constitutional diseases of the skin from that time period. And a lot of what he said was simply wrong.

Linda

[Rodney]

where do we suppose he came up with the idea of "thinning of the walls of the intestinal system, which allows the escaping of poisons"? Perhaps he got the idea from a work like the Home Physician, as referenced by Linda: "The condition is believed to be due to the action of a toxin produced...in another part of the body."
Please explain how that quote from the Home Physician has anything whatever to do with "thinning of the walls of the intestinal system."


By the way, I thought you were claiming that Cayce said it was to do with the immune system, not "poisons".
I'm claiming both. The Cayce "Overview of Psoriasis" states:

"According to the readings, substances can 'leak' out of the intestine and be picked up by blood and lymph circulation.

"The body has four primary routes of eliminating toxins from the body: the colon, kidneys, lungs, and skin. In psoriasis, the other eliminating routes are not able to completely eliminate the toxicity. Thus, the skin pathology associated with psoriasis represents the body's desperate attempt to cleanse itself."

[Rodney]

What on earth do you see as a fundamentally new approach here? Psoriasis was already considered a systemic disease that at least sometimes was related to absorbed toxins causing an inflammatory reaction. The treatment included prevention by following the same diet that Cayce recommended and ingested medicines as well as local treatments. It also very much fits with the ideas as to cause, prevention and treatment of other constitutional diseases of the skin from that time period.The big difference is Cayce's emphasis on the role of the body's circulatory system in psoriasis.

And a lot of what he said was simply wrong.

Linda
What, exactly, aside from the word "infectious"?

[fls]

The big difference is Cayce's emphasis on the role of the body's circulatory system in psoriasis.

Except that the body's circulatory system does not have any more of a role in psoriasis than it does for any other disease - i.e. his emphasis is either meaningless or wrong.

What, exactly, aside from the word "infectious"?

This question was asked and answered already here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2604301#post2604301).

Linda

[Mojo]

Please explain how that quote from the Home Physician has anything whatever to do with "thinning of the walls of the intestinal system." pehaps Linda was right then.

I'm claiming both. The Cayce "Overview of Psoriasis" states:

"According to the readings, substances can 'leak' out of the intestine and be picked up by blood and lymph circulation.

"The body has four primary routes of eliminating toxins from the body: the colon, kidneys, lungs, and skin. In psoriasis, the other eliminating routes are not able to completely eliminate the toxicity. Thus, the skin pathology associated with psoriasis represents the body's desperate attempt to cleanse itself."


Is this now thought to be the cause of psoriasis?

[BillyJoe]

"According to the readings, substances can 'leak' out of the intestine and be picked up by blood and lymph circulation."


I don't quite get this.
Does he mean leak out - meaning into the lumen of the intestine?
If so, it cannot get from there into the lymph or blood without leaking back in again.
Or does he mean leak in - meaning into the wall of the intestine.
If so, it certainly can get from there in to the lymph and blood.
But then why does he say leak out?

[Rodney]

Except that the body's circulatory system does not have any more of a role in psoriasis than it does for any other disease - i.e. his emphasis is either meaningless or wrong.

This question was asked and answered already here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2604301#post2604301).

Linda
I think the authors of this article (http://www.meridianinstitute.com/psorias4.html) would disagree with you, and so I'd like to get your comments on it.

[Rodney]

I don't quite get this.
Does he mean leak out - meaning into the lumen of the intestine?
If so, it cannot get from there into the lymph or blood without leaking back in again.
Or does he mean leak in - meaning into the wall of the intestine.
If so, it certainly can get from there in to the lymph and blood.
But then why does he say leak out?
Cayce didn't actually say that. According to the article that I just cited to Linda: " . . . various factors produce a 'thinning of the walls of the small intestine - specifically, the jejunum and the lower duodenum. This thinning allows toxic products to leak from the intestinal tract into the circulation; these eventually find their way into the superficial circulation and lymphatics and are eliminated through the skin, producing the plaques of psoriasis.'"

[fls]

I think the authors of this article (http://www.meridianinstitute.com/psorias4.html) would disagree with you, and so I'd like to get your comments on it.

The article is a hodge-podge of science, psuedoscience, non-science and nonsense.

Linda

[fls]

Cayce didn't actually say that. According to the article that I just cited to Linda: " . . . various factors produce a 'thinning of the walls of the small intestine - specifically, the jejunum and the lower duodenum. This thinning allows toxic products to leak from the intestinal tract into the circulation; these eventually find their way into the superficial circulation and lymphatics and are eliminated through the skin, producing the plaques of psoriasis.'"

That is an example of nonsense.

Linda

[Rodney]

The article is a hodge-podge of science, psuedoscience, non-science and nonsense.

Linda
Can you be more specific?

[Rodney]

That is an example of nonsense.

Linda
Okay, that's specific, but what makes it nonsense? Has it been conclusively disproven by medical research?

[Mojo]

The article is a hodge-podge of science, psuedoscience, non-science and nonsense.


Well, what do you expect from an organisation that says (http://www.meridianinstitute.com/purpose.htm) "the body of information that will be researched and used as a guide for directing our work will be the Edgar Cayce health readings".

ETA: TheMeridian Istitute has already been discussed elsewhere on the forum, for example after Rodney introduced them here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1407656#post1407656). Also here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1603277#post1603277). The "leaky gut/toxins/psoriasis" issue was also discussed.

[Mojo]

Basically, Rodney is claiming that Cayce's readings were correct because they are backed up by an organisation that bases its work on, er, Cayce's readings.

[Slimething]

Basically, Rodney is claiming that Cayce's readings were correct because they are backed up by an organisation that bases its work on, er, Cayce's readings.

Commonly known as a crap circle.

[fls]

Can you be more specific?

Autointoxication, while an old idea, has been discredited over the last century by advances in our knowledge of physiology and pathophysiology.

Toxins are not sent to the skin for elimination.

The relationship between psoriasis and other diseases is mis-characterized.

The real research that they refer to does not support the conclusions that they claim to draw from that research.

They make many errors in classification of disease.

They provide no evidence that a bowel pathology model provides a necessary, sufficient or useful addition to the current understanding of psoriasis.

They mis-characterize the nature of standard medical treatments.

There's more.

Linda

[fls]

Okay, that's specific, but what makes it nonsense? Has it been conclusively disproven by medical research?

Yes. That's what makes it nonsense.

Linda

[BillyJoe]

Integrative medicine emphasizes cooperation between health care professionals of conventional and alternative therapies. From a integrative medicine approach, natural therapeutics directed to internal cleansing and intestinal healing hold promise in the treatment of psoriasis, in addition to standard medical therapies for this condition.


And they all lived happily ever after?

Seems to me what we need is not conventional medicine, or alternative medicine or integrative medicine but.....Evidence Based Medicine!

[BillyJoe]

The term "comorbidity" has been used to describe the overlap of illnesses which tend to occur together.


co·mor·bid·i·ty (khttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/omacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifmôr-bhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifdhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif-thttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif)
n. A concomitant but unrelated pathological or disease process.

[Rodney]

Yes. That's what makes it nonsense.

Linda
Can you cite an article or two that conclusively refutes Cayce's idea that " . . . various factors produce a 'thinning of the walls of the small intestine - specifically, the jejunum and the lower duodenum. This thinning allows toxic products to leak from the intestinal tract into the circulation; these eventually find their way into the superficial circulation and lymphatics and are eliminated through the skin, producing the plaques of psoriasis.'"

[fls]

Can you cite an article or two that conclusively refutes Cayce's idea that " . . . various factors produce a 'thinning of the walls of the small intestine - specifically, the jejunum and the lower duodenum. This thinning allows toxic products to leak from the intestinal tract into the circulation; these eventually find their way into the superficial circulation and lymphatics and are eliminated through the skin, producing the plaques of psoriasis.'"

Rodney,

The whole idea is so contrary to everything we know about what happens when the walls of the intestinal tract are thinned, under what circumstances things "leak" from the intestine, what leaks and the effects on the body, and how the body eliminates substances, that it's as though you are asking me to cite an article that conclusively proves the adrenal gland do not pump blood throughout the body. Everything we know is proof against the idea.

Linda

[Rodney]

Rodney,

The whole idea is so contrary to everything we know about what happens when the walls of the intestinal tract are thinned, under what circumstances things "leak" from the intestine, what leaks and the effects on the body, and how the body eliminates substances, that it's as though you are asking me to cite an article that conclusively proves the adrenal gland do not pump blood throughout the body. Everything we know is proof against the idea.

Linda
So why do you think Eric Mein, one of the authors of the article I cited, takes Cayce's ideas about psoriasis seriously? Mein claims to be a medical doctor.

[Mojo]

Perhaps he's wrong. Are you contending that he must be right because he's a medical doctor? Perhaps you should examine his claims rather than his qualifications.

[fls]

So why do you think Eric Mein, one of the authors of the article I cited, takes Cayce's ideas about psoriasis seriously? Mein claims to be a medical doctor.

Being a medical doctor does not make one infallible - physicians are subject to the same biases as everyone else. Also, his listed specialty is Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, so there is no indication that he has expertise in this area.

Linda

[Rodney]

Being a medical doctor does not make one infallible - physicians are subject to the same biases as everyone else. Also, his listed specialty is Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, so there is no indication that he has expertise in this area.

Linda
Fine, but I'm unsure why you're so adamant that Cayce was flat out wrong about psoriasis. There is still uncertainty regarding what causes it, and today's conventional treatments are hit and miss. Further, Mein claims some successes by following Cayce's approach to psoriasis. So, I think the jury is still out on Cayce's approach.

[fls]

Fine, but I'm unsure why you're so adamant that Cayce was flat out wrong about psoriasis.

He simply didn't provide any information about psoriasis that was novel or useful and correct. I have already explained this and provided specific examples.

There is still uncertainty regarding what causes it, and today's conventional treatments are hit and miss.

Conventional treatments have demonstrated effectiveness even when the effects of chance and wishful thinking are removed, and/or are directed at the underlying mechanism of disease. We do not always know the trigger that leads to psoriasis (or to flares), but we know the constraints under which it must act.

Further, Mein claims some successes by following Cayce's approach to psoriasis.

Yes, by performing a non-controlled, non-blinded, non-randomized trial. And by keeping track in a non-systematic manner the course of a disease that naturally waxes and wanes upon which is superimposed his own attempts to alter that course. Under those circumstances, when confirmation and attribution bias are allowed free rein, it would be very difficult not to be able to identify a treatment as "effective". It is, after all, exactly how medicine was practised until 150 years ago and allowed us to confirm the effectiveness of bloodletting and heavy metal poisoning in the treatment of disease.

So, I think the jury is still out on Cayce's approach.

You weren't, perchance, a member of the jury for the O. J. Simpson trial, were you?

Linda

[Rodney]

He simply didn't provide any information about psoriasis that was novel or useful and correct. I have already explained this and provided specific examples.
I'm still looking for a journal article or textbook that debunks what Cayce had to say about psoriasis.

Conventional treatments have demonstrated effectiveness even when the effects of chance and wishful thinking are removed, and/or are directed at the underlying mechanism of disease. We do not always know the trigger that leads to psoriasis (or to flares), but we know the constraints under which it must act.

Except that, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation -- http://www.psoriasis.org/about/faq/ --

"Is there a cure for psoriasis?

"There is no cure, but many different treatments, both topical (on the skin) and systemic (throughout the body), can clear psoriasis for periods of time. People often need to try out different treatments before they find one that works for them.

"What treatments are the best for me?

"The unpredictable nature of psoriasis makes treatment challenging for many people. A wide range of treatments is available. No single psoriasis treatment works for everyone, but something will work for most people. It is hard to predict what will work for a particular individual; however, it is important to be open-minded and willing to work with your doctor to find a treatment that will work for you."

Yes, by performing a non-controlled, non-blinded, non-randomized trial. And by keeping track in a non-systematic manner the course of a disease that naturally waxes and wanes upon which is superimposed his own attempts to alter that course. Under those circumstances, when confirmation and attribution bias are allowed free rein, it would be very difficult not to be able to identify a treatment as "effective". It is, after all, exactly how medicine was practised until 150 years ago and allowed us to confirm the effectiveness of bloodletting and heavy metal poisoning in the treatment of disease.
Is there a peer-reviewed study showing that conventional treatment of psoriasis is more effective than Cayce's treatment?

You weren't, perchance, a member of the jury for the O. J. Simpson trial, were you?

Linda
No, and there's also little truth to the rumor that I drove the getaway car.

[Rodney]

Duplicate post.

[fls]

I'm still looking for a journal article or textbook that debunks what Cayce had to say about psoriasis.

Any textbook would do.

Except that, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation -- http://www.psoriasis.org/about/faq/

I didn't mean to imply that all treatments are always effective. The description you provided illustrates the point I was thinking of. It reads exactly like what you'd expect if the treatments had no effect on the disease, but just happened to coincide with natural remissions. I'd be skeptical that any of the treatments worked except that the effectiveness has been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

Is there a peer-reviewed study showing that conventional treatment of psoriasis is more effective than Cayce's treatment?

There are studies showing that conventional treatment of psoriasis is effective, and as far as I know there aren't any for Cayce's treatment. The simplest way for the supporters of Cayce's treatment to make their point would be to perform a trial. "Conventional treatment" is just "treatment for which evidence of effectiveness is available". There's no other particular distinguishing feature.

Linda

[Rodney]

Any textbook would do.
Perhaps in the same sense that a 19th Century science textbook would have led you to believe that heavier than air flight was impossible.

I didn't mean to imply that all treatments are always effective. The description you provided illustrates the point I was thinking of. It reads exactly like what you'd expect if the treatments had no effect on the disease, but just happened to coincide with natural remissions. I'd be skeptical that any of the treatments worked except that the effectiveness has been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.
But how much does the average psoriasis sufferer benefit from conventional treatment?

There are studies showing that conventional treatment of psoriasis is effective, and as far as I know there aren't any for Cayce's treatment. The simplest way for the supporters of Cayce's treatment to make their point would be to perform a trial.
I think Mein feels he has done a reasonable study, but I agree that a controlled study of Cayce's treatment would be preferable.

"Conventional treatment" is just "treatment for which evidence of effectiveness is available". There's no other particular distinguishing feature.

Linda
Is conventional treatment for any ailment effective?

[Aepervius]

Perhaps in the same sense that a 19th Century science textbook would have led you to believe that heavier than air flight was impossible.

Bull. What was thougth to not be possible at the time, was "engine propelled controlled" flight. Heavier than air flight was ALWAYS thougth to be possible or do you think scientific are idiot unable to weigh a bird and remark the density is greater than that of air ? And that they clearly do not function by beeing lighter than air (like a Montgolfier) ? Minus 100 point for you rodney to perpetuate myths.

What the wright brother did is profite from a few new invention in engine which made propelled flight do-able (as opposed to have coal based engine .... Which was not possible for propelled flight) and a few new innovation for the control.

They did not do out of THIN air. They asked a LOT of engineer and scientist before launching themselves in their adventure.

When I see this myth about "scientific were saying heavier than air flight was impossible for man" it make my blood boil. (rule 8) myth (rule 8 rule 8 rule 8) distortion.

[fls]

Perhaps in the same sense that a 19th Century science textbook would have led you to believe that heavier than air flight was impossible.

You are not distinguishing between facts/data/information and speculation/ideas/hypotheses explaining those facts. Textbooks are generally a source of facts and well-established hypotheses and theories. When Cayce first presented his ideas, knowledge about physiology was scant and there were potentially many ways to explain what was known. When information is crude, pretty much anything can fill in the blanks. When information is detailed, the blanks are tiny and what can fit in there is tightly constrained. Now that our understanding of physiology is exquisitely detailed, the facts directly contradict Cayce's explanation. And if you are trying to imply that any absence of information potentially allows for the presence of whatever one wants to believe, I suggest you ask any woman whether you can squeeze a size 18 body into a size 2 catsuit. My recommendation that you read a textbook was so that you could acquaint yourself with the multitude of facts that would have to be wrong in order for Cayce's explanation to be right, and the size and shape of the gaps into which Cayce's explanation would have to fit if you wished to rely solely upon the absence of information.

But how much does the average psoriasis sufferer benefit from conventional treatment?

67.2 percent.

Is conventional treatment for any ailment effective?

The answer would be yes, since that is one of the necessary components of evidence-based medicine (if I understand what you're asking), with an understanding that the specifics are ever-changing as information accumulates.

Linda

[Mojo]

67.2 percent.

Don't touch that statistic, Rodney; you don't know where it's been.

[BillyJoe]

Don't touch that statistic, Rodney; you don't know where it's been.


Aw, now you've done and spoiled it. :mad:

[Ivor the Engineer]

<removed all the unimportant stuff>
I suggest you ask any woman whether you can squeeze a size 18 body into a size 2 catsuit.

Linda

Well can you?:D

[BillyJoe]

Well can you?:D


And, if you can, can we watch you prove your claim? :)

[fls]

Well can you?:D

Despite the consistently negative results, you'd be surprised how often the experiment is attempted. ;)

Linda

[fls]

And, if you can, can we watch you prove your claim? :)

I worry about you sometimes.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm nowhere near a size 18.

Linda

[baskett_case]

Is it being claimed that Edgar Cayce was an illiterate hermit, off all alone with no contact with civilization? Cayce is purported to have finished eighth grade at least, so he would be more than able to read medical textbooks, etc. Further, he could talk to doctors and find out medical info, such as the properties of belladonna and amount prescribed. This

Is it unimaginable that Cayce was a sham, using medical info learned elsewhere as well as folksy, kooky ideas about Castor oil and such? One anecdote is not evidence... did other children experience this "cure" and because they were not cured, conveniently forgotten? I know many woo-woo practitioners that cherry-pick their anecdotes because it wasn't their fault the person on the receiving end didn't have the proper "spiritual intention" to bring about their own healing.

I am not even going into Cayce's many "prophetic" visions, such as Atlantis being found in 1958, etc.

[Rodney]

Bull. What was thougth to not be possible at the time, was "engine propelled controlled" flight. Heavier than air flight was ALWAYS thougth to be possible or do you think scientific are idiot unable to weigh a bird and remark the density is greater than that of air ? And that they clearly do not function by beeing lighter than air (like a Montgolfier) ? Minus 100 point for you rodney to perpetuate myths.

What the wright brother did is profite from a few new invention in engine which made propelled flight do-able (as opposed to have coal based engine .... Which was not possible for propelled flight) and a few new innovation for the control.

They did not do out of THIN air. They asked a LOT of engineer and scientist before launching themselves in their adventure.

When I see this myth about "scientific were saying heavier than air flight was impossible for man" it make my blood boil. (rule 8) myth (rule 8 rule 8 rule 8) distortion.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist

See http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/neverwrk.htm

[Rodney]

The answer would be yes, since that is one of the necessary components of evidence-based medicine (if I understand what you're asking), with an understanding that the specifics are ever-changing as information accumulates.

Linda
So conventional treatment for any ailment is always better than alternative treatment?

[quixotecoyote]

So conventional treatment for any ailment is always better than alternative treatment?

Uh OH, I think

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/trap.jpg

[Slimething]

Yes, a very dumb, obvious trap. Nobody ever acused rodney of reading with comprehension. If he would reread what Linda has posted, it's plainly obvious he's building a straw man. She's already written the answer to that one.

[BillyJoe]

I turned the page with nervous anticipation, but I was not disappointed. :)




...still I would rather have watched Linda doing it.

[Mojo]

Perhaps in the same sense that a 19th Century science textbook would have led you to believe that heavier than air flight was impossible.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicistWhich 19th century science textbook was that in?

[Aepervius]

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist

See http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/neverwrk.htm

So *one* guy which was possibly misquoted to hell is enough for you to sqay that the WHOLE science community was saying heavier than air is impossible ? Did you not say SCIENCE book above ? Can't you see the difference ? Furthermore it is eay to misquote. "God does not play with dice" was so often msiquoted that it ain't funny.
ETA: in another quote on that site lord Kelvin says something along the line that radio has no future. Which is IMHO quite a demopnstration that ANYWAY mr Kelvin was not only out of his expertise but also a man of very limited imagination in my humble opinion, or simply due to its his age, quite resistant to change (he was 70+).

[fls]

So conventional treatment for any ailment is always better than alternative treatment?

Well, if it turns out that an alternative treatment is better, then it becomes part of conventional, evidence-based treatment. I think what you are getting at is that there may be treatments that are currently classed as "alternative" on the basis of lack of evidence, that are actually effective (even more effective than current conventional treatments)? I would assume that that is probably true, especially since "alternative" includes herbal medicines. Since many of our medicines came from studying herbal medicines, it's reasonable to think that we will continue to find some of these effective for particular conditions.

"Alternative" is too much of a hodge-podge to really be able to make blanket statements about likelihood. It includes treatments with a lot of specific evidence against effectiveness, treatments (like herbals) with promise but where further research is needed to work out the details, and treatments that make no sense and contradict the laws of nature.

Linda

[Rodney]

Nobody ever acused rodney of reading with comprehension.Am I correct that nobody ever "acused" you of being a spelling expert? ;)

[Rodney]

Which 19th century science textbook was that in?
I'm not sure Kelvin wrote that in a textbook (although he was a prolific author), but I doubt if you will find anything supportive of the idea of heavier than air flying machines in 19th Century textbooks.

[Rodney]

Well, if it turns out that an alternative treatment is better, then it becomes part of conventional, evidence-based treatment. I think what you are getting at is that there may be treatments that are currently classed as "alternative" on the basis of lack of evidence, that are actually effective (even more effective than current conventional treatments)? I would assume that that is probably true, especially since "alternative" includes herbal medicines. Since many of our medicines came from studying herbal medicines, it's reasonable to think that we will continue to find some of these effective for particular conditions.
So why assume that following the current conventional wisdom is always the best path?

"Alternative" is too much of a hodge-podge to really be able to make blanket statements about likelihood. It includes treatments with a lot of specific evidence against effectiveness, treatments (like herbals) with promise but where further research is needed to work out the details, and treatments that make no sense and contradict the laws of nature.

Linda
I agree with you generally, but suspect that we may disagree on what treatments "contradict the laws of nature."

[fls]

So why assume that following the current conventional wisdom is always the best path?

Why assume that we should use the best available information to guide our decisions? What's the alternative - ignoring the information and tossing a die?

I agree with you generally, but suspect that we may disagree on what treatments "contradict the laws of nature."

<shrug>

Linda

[Slimething]

Am I correct that nobody ever "acused" you of being a spelling expert? ;)

Wel, yu got one rite, ladie. I wood rudder bee a bud speler dan an idjit, dough! :xtongue

[BillyJoe]

It would be a pity to see this thread decline into ad hominem.
As I see it, Rodney has been captured by the Cayce movement and Linda is trying her best to deprogram him. This is proving difficult because Rodney lacks the requisite knowledge, which is why I think he was captured by the movement in the first place.
(Really it all comes down to "Evidence Based Medicine". Without evidence of efficacy, there is no basis for using any treatments regardless of whether they are called "conventional", "alternative", "complimentary", or "integrative".)
Anyway, back to the fray...

[Rodney]

It would be a pity to see this thread decline into ad hominem.
As I see it, Rodney has been captured by the Cayce movement and Linda is trying her best to deprogram him.
The way I see it, Linda has been captured by the "Evidence Based Medicine" movement and I'm doing my best to deprogram her. ;)

This is proving difficult because Rodney lacks the requisite knowledge, which is why I think he was captured by the movement in the first place.
I didn't realize that investigating Cayce is being "captured by the movement."

(Really it all comes down to "Evidence Based Medicine". Without evidence of efficacy, there is no basis for using any treatments regardless of whether they are called "conventional", "alternative", "complimentary", or "integrative".)
How do you produce evidence of efficacy with no investigation of the facts?

[BillyJoe]

I'm not sure if I should get in to this.
Sometimes too many cooks spoil the broth.

The way I see it, Linda has been captured by the "Evidence Based Medicine" movement and I'm doing my best to deprogram her. ;)


Are you saying that basing treatment on evidence is the wrong way to go?

I didn't realize that investigating Cayce is being "captured by the movement."


I'm pretty sure that, on the other thread referenced in this thread a while back, you stated that you had joined the movement that seeks to confirm Cayce's theories and treatments. Am I wrong about that? I don't really have the time to read it all again.


How do you produce evidence of efficacy with no investigation of the facts?


You can't. But the facts that are of interest are the results of properly constructed clinical trials using treatments which are hypothesised as being of value in a particular condition. But to save us from having to trial every treatment that magically appears out of someone's @$$ (as Linda would say), the hypothesised treatment must be based on knowledge of the underlying pathology/physiology/biology/biochemistry. Sometimes the latter rule is broken because of the need to provide evidence, or lack thereof, of hypothesised treatments which have no known basis in fact but which have widespread popular appeal (eg homoeopathy).

[Mojo]

This is proving difficult because Rodney lacks the requisite knowledge...


Does he? Pretty much all of this territory has been covered in earlier threads, and he's repeatedly been provided with the information.

[fls]

As I see it, Rodney has been captured by the Cayce movement and Linda is trying her best to deprogram him. This is proving difficult because Rodney lacks the requisite knowledge, which is why I think he was captured by the movement in the first place.

It is not about knowledge, it's about perspective. To think that it's about knowledge gives the false impression that it can be changed with information, and devalues Rodney's position.

The way I see it, Linda has been captured by the "Evidence Based Medicine" movement and I'm doing my best to deprogram her. ;)

Fortunately, the leaders are not charismatic. Although...I am attracted to a wicked sense of humour (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7429/1442)...

Linda

[Rodney]

Are you saying that basing treatment on evidence is the wrong way to go?
No, but "evidence" is not the same as "Evidence Based Medicine." For example, I regard Cayce's cures of Aime Dietrich and Tommy House as evidence of Cayce's psychic powers, whereas Linda disagrees. Evidence Based Medicine, on the other hand, refers to a particular methodology. See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

I'm pretty sure that, on the other thread referenced in this thread a while back, you stated that you had joined the movement that seeks to confirm Cayce's theories and treatments. Am I wrong about that? I don't really have the time to read it all again.
What I said a while back is that I recently (December 2005) rejoined Cayce's organization, the Association for Research and Enlightenment, after having previously been a member and then letting my membership lapse. Anyone can join the Association by paying a $49 annual fee, and that permits on-line access to all archived Cayce readings. I have a major interest in investigating Cayce's theories and treatments.

[fls]

No, but "evidence" is not the same as "Evidence Based Medicine." For example, I regard Cayce's cures of Aime Dietrich and Tommy House as evidence of Cayce's psychic powers, whereas Linda disagrees.

The idea behind "evidence" is that it is sufficient to persuade a skeptic. Since the information you provided failed to persuade me, it shouldn't be called "evidence", unless you can show that my act of withholding my consent is unreasonable. For example - that it is unreasonable to think that Cayce may have been disingenuous when talking about the extent of his reading.

Evidence Based Medicine, on the other hand, refers to a particular methodology. See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

But they are still talking about the same thing. Evidence-Based Medicine is the idea that recommendations/decisions should be based on evidence. The methods are simply a set of guidelines for weighing that evidence relevant to medicine.

Linda

[Slimething]

Anyone can join the Association by paying a $49 annual fee

:dl:

[Rodney]

The idea behind "evidence" is that it is sufficient to persuade a skeptic.

According to whom? According to The American Heritage Dictionary, evidence is: "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis."

Since the information you provided failed to persuade me, it shouldn't be called "evidence", unless you can show that my act of withholding my consent is unreasonable. For example - that it is unreasonable to think that Cayce may have been disingenuous when talking about the extent of his reading.
This just emphasizes the subjective nature of evaluating evidence. I may be convinced by something that doesn't convince you and you may be convinced by something that doesn't convince me.

But they are still talking about the same thing. Evidence-Based Medicine is the idea that recommendations/decisions should be based on evidence.
I think you will have a hard time finding anybody who disagrees with the idea that "recommendations/decisions should be based on evidence."

The methods are simply a set of guidelines for weighing that evidence relevant to medicine.

Linda
But the guidelines are necessarily subjective. If they weren't, there would be no disagreement.

[fls]

According to whom? According to The American Heritage Dictionary, evidence is: "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis."

As has already been demonstrated on this forum, one can have endless arguments about the definition of "evidence". However, in this particular setting, what I am talking about is information that leads to a specific conclusion, mostly by excluding the possibility of any other explanation. And that is really what we have been talking about all along. The information you have presented on Cayce allows for multiple explanations, so it is unable to persuade someone to switch from one explanation to another.

The "evidence" in evidence-based medicine refers to just that. The value in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is not that it provides confirmation. It is that the set-up excludes any other explanation for the confirmation.

All you have really done is look for information that confirms your pre-conceived ideas - a notoriously unreliable way to find the truth.

This just emphasizes the subjective nature of evaluating evidence. I may be convinced by something that doesn't convince you and you may be convinced by something that doesn't convince me.

It isn't so much that the process of evaluating evidence is subjective, but rather that the starting points are subjective. A scientific approach starts with the assumption of a naturalistic explanation until the possibility is excluded. You are assuming a supernatural explanation until the possibility is excluded. It simply shifts the burden of what kind of evidence is necessary, which is why we find different things convincing.

I think you will have a hard time finding anybody who disagrees with the idea that "recommendations/decisions should be based on evidence."

You are quite mistaken about this, but that's a whole different discussion.

But the guidelines are necessarily subjective. If they weren't, there would be no disagreement.

What disagreement?

Linda

[Rodney]

As has already been demonstrated on this forum, one can have endless arguments about the definition of "evidence". However, in this particular setting, what I am talking about is information that leads to a specific conclusion, mostly by excluding the possibility of any other explanation. And that is really what we have been talking about all along. The information you have presented on Cayce allows for multiple explanations, so it is unable to persuade someone to switch from one explanation to another.

The "evidence" in evidence-based medicine refers to just that. The value in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is not that it provides confirmation. It is that the set-up excludes any other explanation for the confirmation.
So why is it that we often hear in the media that a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has proven something or other, only to have that finding contradicted down the road by another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial?

All you have really done is look for information that confirms your pre-conceived ideas - a notoriously unreliable way to find the truth. Your subjective opinion is noted.

It isn't so much that the process of evaluating evidence is subjective, but rather that the starting points are subjective. A scientific approach starts with the assumption of a naturalistic explanation until the possibility is excluded. You are assuming a supernatural explanation until the possibility is excluded. It simply shifts the burden of what kind of evidence is necessary, which is why we find different things convincing.
Okay, but what is your threshold -- that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?


You are quite mistaken about this, but that's a whole different discussion. Can you name a well-known person who disagrees with the idea that "recommendations/decisions should be based on evidence"?

What disagreement?

Linda
For example, the Wikipedia article on Evidence Based Medicine states: "Critics of EBM say lack of evidence and lack of benefit are not the same, and that the more data are pooled and aggregated, the more difficult it is to compare the patients in the studies with the patient in front of the doctor — that is, EBM applies to populations, not necessarily to individuals. In The limits of evidence-based medicine, Tonelli argues that 'the knowledge gained from clinical research does not directly answer the primary clinical question of what is best for the patient at hand.' Tonelli suggests that proponents of evidence-based medicine discount the value of clinical experience."

[fls]

So why is it that we often hear in the media that a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has proven something or other, only to have that finding contradicted down the road by another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial?

Do we? Can you provide an example?

Your subjective opinion is noted.

Well, you've never provided evidence to the contrary despite being asked numerous times....

Okay, but what is your threshold -- that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

I contributed (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2516219#post2516219) to this in a thread a little while ago. Basically, all claims require the same evidence. It's just that ordinary claims already have an extraordinary amount of evidence to back them up.

Can you name a well-known person who disagrees with the idea that "recommendations/decisions should be based on evidence"?

Isn't your wikipedia quote from below an example of that?

For example, the Wikipedia article on Evidence Based Medicine states: "Critics of EBM say lack of evidence and lack of benefit are not the same, and that the more data are pooled and aggregated, the more difficult it is to compare the patients in the studies with the patient in front of the doctor — that is, EBM applies to populations, not necessarily to individuals. In The limits of evidence-based medicine, Tonelli argues that 'the knowledge gained from clinical research does not directly answer the primary clinical question of what is best for the patient at hand.' Tonelli suggests that proponents of evidence-based medicine discount the value of clinical experience."

I can see why the neutrality of that section is disputed.

I think this (http://www.cebm.net/?o=1014) is a better description of EBM. The subjective component relates to the individual patients and doctors. The guidelines are meant to be an objective, consistent way to evaluate the evidence relevant to individual situations.

Linda

[Mojo]

So why is it that we often hear in the media that a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has proven something or other, only to have that finding contradicted down the road by another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial?


Because "the media" are often not very good at reporting science.

[Rodney]

Do we? Can you provide an example?
I recall various studies seeming to show that eggs and coffee contributed to a variety of health problems. More recently, some studies claimed that coffee can prevent colorectal cancer. And now, there's an article that takes issue with those studies. See -- http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/163/7/638


Well, you've never provided evidence to the contrary despite being asked numerous times.... What kind of "evidence" are you looking for?


I contributed (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2516219#post2516219) to this in a thread a little while ago. Basically, all claims require the same evidence. It's just that ordinary claims already have an extraordinary amount of evidence to back them up.
I disagree with your latter statement. In some cases, "ordinary claims" prove false. Also, I note that on the thread that you reference, you express your strong opinion about the Michelson-Morley experiment. For an alternative opinion, see http://www.alternativescience.com/ether.htm


Isn't your wikipedia quote from below an example of that?
I don't think so because, again, you have to distinguish between "evidence" and "Evidence Based Medicine."

I can see why the neutrality of that section is disputed.
But doesn't that prove my point about subjective opinions?

I think this (http://www.cebm.net/?o=1014) is a better description of EBM. The subjective component relates to the individual patients and doctors. The guidelines are meant to be an objective, consistent way to evaluate the evidence relevant to individual situations.

Linda
I understand the intent, but don't think EBM always produces optimal results.

[Slimething]

I recall various studies seeming to show that eggs and coffee contributed to a variety of health problems. More recently, some studies claimed that coffee can prevent colorectal cancer. And now, there's an article that takes issue with those studies. See -- http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/163/7/638

So, Rodney, exactly what part of either the original study or this later reanalysis employed double-blind, randomized exposure to the suspected toxicant or, in this case, safener? Take your time.


Also, I note that on the thread that you reference, you express your strong opinion about the Michelson-Morley experiment. For an alternative opinion, see http://www.alternativescience.com/ether.htm


For land's sake, Rodney, this article is as much hogwash as anyone could stand. The Michelson-Morley experiment was run to prove the existence of aether (http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/archives/archive53/newposts/415/topic415745.shtm), not disprove it. But, disprove it, it did. Ain't science grand? The adoption of facts over "tradition" or commonly accepted beliefs? Even Maxwell, the physicist who unknowingly proved that light propagation needed no medium through his published mathematics, believed in aether. Some errors die hard.

Rodney, I have no idea what kind of person you are but you really are over your head in dealing with science. You can't seem to comprehend what evidence is critical and can be easily verified from BS foisted by people who want to sell you stuff, like your $49 membership to a group that should be revolutionizing health care if its main tenets were true.

I understand the intent, but don't think EBM always produces optimal results.

Of course not! You don't understand science, do you? Science is not some unalterable, know-everything body of knowledge that always comes up with the right answer. Science survives on research and investigation of facts, not made-up, untestable crapola like Cayce's visions. However, I will take evidence based medicine over anything your or your woo buddies ever concoct as I know I stand a much better chance with science.

[fls]

I recall various studies seeming to show that eggs and coffee contributed to a variety of health problems. More recently, some studies claimed that coffee can prevent colorectal cancer. And now, there's an article that takes issue with those studies. See -- http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/163/7/638

I said "randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial".

What kind of "evidence" are you looking for?

Addressing the disconfirming evidence that is presented to you.

I disagree with your latter statement. In some cases, "ordinary claims" prove false.

I don't think you understood what I meant, then. Of course ordinary claims can be false. I'm saying that it's a quite different matter to convince my neighbour that I have a cat than it is to convince her that I have a unicorn because the background evidence necessary to prove the claim of "cat" has already been established.

Also, I note that on the thread that you reference, you express your strong opinion about the Michelson-Morley experiment. For an alternative opinion, see http://www.alternativescience.com/ether.htm

What am I supposed to get from that? I already know that that the internet allows people free rein to demonstrate their ignorance.

You never answered my previous question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2634575#post2634575) ("What's the alternative - ignoring the information and tossing a die?") so maybe I'll ask it here. Once I decide to abandon a rational approach to evaluating ideas, how do I choose which ideas to consider valid? Toss a die?

I don't think so because, again, you have to distinguish between "evidence" and "Evidence Based Medicine."

But the argument that he is presenting is that non-evidentiary knowledge should also be incorporated into clinical decision-making. The deficiency/criticism he has of EBM is based on the fact that it depends upon evidence.

But doesn't that prove my point about subjective opinions?

No, because the criticisms aren't directed at the evaluation of evidence, but rather the degree to which evidence should play a role. And my comment about neutrality was really referring to the mischaracterization about what EBM says on this point.

I understand the intent, but don't think EBM always produces optimal results.

Rodney, I sincerely doubt that you understand EBM.

If EBM doesn't produce optimal results, it is on the basis of whether adequate evidence exists (the points Tonelli was making as well), not because the evaluation of the existing evidence is subjective.

Linda

[Mojo]

I said "randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial".


As did Rodney, in case he's forgotten.

[fls]

As did Rodney, in case he's forgotten.

Twice! :)

Linda

[Mongrel]

I think this (http://www.cebm.net/?o=1014) is a better description of EBM. The subjective component relates to the individual patients and doctors. The guidelines are meant to be an objective, consistent way to evaluate the evidence relevant to individual situations.

Linda

I've also found this one (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/ebm.pdf) to be very informative (and slightly easier to read - but that's me)

[fls]

I've also found this one (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/ebm.pdf) to be very informative (and slightly easier to read - but that's me)

It doesn't bug you that it's a commercial?

Linda

[Mongrel]

It doesn't bug you that it's a commercial?

Linda

Whilst the examples are based around the sponsoring companies drugs it doesn't invalidate the lesson.

[Rodney]

I said "randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial".
Okay, so let's look at one of your favorite topics: OTC cough medicines. According to the article "Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of over the counter cough medicines for acute cough in adults" -- http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/324/7333/329?ijkey=0c5c011fec4139e59ee4dd03a3731c5f0787b1db&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha --

"Included studies: All randomised controlled trials that compared oral over the counter cough preparations with placebo in adults with acute cough due to upper respiratory tract infection in ambulatory settings and that had cough symptoms as an outcome.

"Results: 15 trials involving 2166 participants met all the inclusion criteria. Antihistamines seemed to be no better than placebo. There was conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of antitussives, expectorants, antihistamine-decongestant combinations, and other drug combinations compared with placebo."

Addressing the disconfirming evidence that is presented to you. What, exactly, is that disconfirming evidence?

I don't think you understood what I meant, then. Of course ordinary claims can be false. I'm saying that it's a quite different matter to convince my neighbour that I have a cat than it is to convince her that I have a unicorn because the background evidence necessary to prove the claim of "cat" has already been established. But your claim of having a cat is no more evidential than your claim of having a unicorn. Similarly, a research finding that establishes at the 1% level of statistical significance that a non-controversial hypothesis is correct should be treated no differently than a research finding that establishes at the 1% level of statistical significance that a controversial hypothesis is correct.

What am I supposed to get from that? I already know that that the internet allows people free rein to demonstrate their ignorance.What you're supposed to get is that what you were taught in school about the Michelson-Morley experiment was inaccurate: Michelson and Morley did not in fact obtain a null result in their original experiment, nor did that experiment irrefutably establish that there is no ether.

You never answered my previous question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2634575#post2634575) ("What's the alternative - ignoring the information and tossing a die?") so maybe I'll ask it here. Once I decide to abandon a rational approach to evaluating ideas, how do I choose which ideas to consider valid? Toss a die?
No, but a rational approach does not, in my opinion, mean throwing out evidence from 100 years ago on the basis that credible individuals were all mistaken or that a spontaneous healing must have occurred. Rather, a rational approach means broadly examining all evidence, even if it has not been tested in a laboratory or, indeed, is not even amenable to being tested in a laboratory.

But the argument that he is presenting is that non-evidentiary knowledge should also be incorporated into clinical decision-making. The deficiency/criticism he has of EBM is based on the fact that it depends upon evidence.

No, because the criticisms aren't directed at the evaluation of evidence, but rather the degree to which evidence should play a role. And my comment about neutrality was really referring to the mischaracterization about what EBM says on this point.

Rodney, I sincerely doubt that you understand EBM.

If EBM doesn't produce optimal results, it is on the basis of whether adequate evidence exists (the points Tonelli was making as well), not because the evaluation of the existing evidence is subjective.

Linda
I think I can better address your points if you answer this question: If you were Tommy House's doctor in February 1909, would you have administered Cayce's recommended treatment?

[Slimething]

Okay, so let's look at one of your favorite topics: OTC cough medicines. According to the article "Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of over the counter cough medicines for acute cough in adults" -- http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/324/7333/329?ijkey=0c5c011fec4139e59ee4dd03a3731c5f0787b1db&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha --

"Included studies: All randomised controlled trials that compared oral over the counter cough preparations with placebo in adults with acute cough due to upper respiratory tract infection in ambulatory settings and that had cough symptoms as an outcome.

"Results: 15 trials involving 2166 participants met all the inclusion criteria. Antihistamines seemed to be no better than placebo. There was conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of antitussives, expectorants, antihistamine-decongestant combinations, and other drug combinations compared with placebo."

So, what's your point? Where is one randomized, double-blind study specifically contradicting another? "Conflicting evidence" means that the null hypothesis was not proven to the target confidence level. The language of that article (not in a journal, by the way) does not even come close to supporting your argument that double-blind studies contradict each other. If that were true, this very expensive practice would be dropped overnight.


Similarly, a research finding that establishes at the 1% level of statistical significance that a non-controversial hypothesis is correct should be treated no differently than a research finding that establishes at the 1% level of statistical significance that a controversial hypothesis is correct.


You're finally getting it. So, what does that have to say about Cayce? Why does no one but your Cayce Society take him seriously? Methinks you just gave us a reason.

What you're supposed to get is that what you were taught in school about the Michelson-Morley experiment was inaccurate: Michelson and Morley did not in fact obtain a null result in their original experiment, nor did that experiment irrefutably establish that there is no ether.

Yes, it did. Your point to prove. If you can't prove, move on. What does it have to do with Cayce anyway?


No, but a rational approach does not, in my opinion, mean throwing out evidence from 100 years ago on the basis that credible individuals were all mistaken or that a spontaneous healing must have occurred. Rather, a rational approach means broadly examining all evidence, even if it has not been tested in a laboratory or, indeed, is not even amenable to being tested in a laboratory.


Where have you been? The evidence has been considered and rejected. Linda has patiently and painstakingly guided you through that process. So you expect medical science to repeat all they've done to debunk these claims again for your personal satisfaction.

And, Rodney, if it can't be tested, it's not worth the time of day. Unfalsifiability is key to science. Deal with it.

If you were Tommy House's doctor in February 1909, would you have administered Cayce's recommended treatment?

No.

[fls]

Whilst the examples are based around the sponsoring companies drugs it doesn't invalidate the lesson.

Maybe the authors chose to focus on randomized controlled trials as the epitome of evidence (when in fact they would be a poor source of information when asking other types of questions) because they thought their target audience was mostly interested in evidence as it relates to treatment and not so they could focus on an example that would serve as an advertisement for their sponsor. It's possible. And I might even agree that it doesn't matter except that several times I have been quite inappropriately asked for a "randomized controlled trial" to back up my assertions. And when I try to explain that an RCT is the wrong kind of evidence and provide a link to better evidence, I'm not believed. So I wouldn't mind a link that explains the whole picture instead of perpetuating the myth the RCT's are the answer. I admit that I don't really know if this is a significant issue, since I realize that some people refuse to believe anything that contradicts their own opinion and may just be looking for an excuse. And I also admit that my link is harder to read (and aimed at a different audience) and so may not get read at all (something less than ideal is still better than nothing?). And that I am overly sensitive about ridding physicians of the notions that it is okay to let drug companies heavily subsidize educational matters and that we aren't being subtly influenced in thousands of ways by their involvement.

Linda

[Mojo]

So, what's your point? Where is one randomized, double-blind study specifically contradicting another? "Conflicting evidence" means that the null hypothesis was not proven to the target confidence level. The language of that article (not in a journal, by the way) does not even come close to supporting your argument that double-blind studies contradict each other. If that were true, this very expensive practice would be dropped overnight.


Well, not quite. Every now and then you may get a single properly conducted study that produces a false positive or false negative; it's just down to the way stats work (Linda explained this at some length in the "homeopathic cough medicine" thread, I think). This is why it is important that the results can be replicated by other similar studies.

But Rodney wasn't asking, in this thread, about contradictory results from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. He was asking about media reporting of the results of trials: So why is it that we often hear in the media that a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has proven something or other, only to have that finding contradicted down the road by another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial?


This opens up a whole different can of worms. "The media" are not very good at reporting science. Many journalists who report "science" stories appear ill-qualified to do so. Studies that are not particularly conclusive, or that haven't been replicated, are reported as if they're proof of something. Non-issues get blown up out of all proportion; solid science goes unreported if it's not considered sensational enough. If you want to read more about "the media" and science reporting, I can recommend Ben Goldacre's Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/) blog.

Needless to say, Rodney considers newspaper reports of medical matters (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1889597#post1889597) to be completely reliable, especially if they were written the best part of a century ago and supported (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1891600#post1891600) by affidavits given years after the event by people with no medical qualifications.

Note also how in the first link he's using the newspaper story to support the reliability of the affidavit, while in the second link he says the affidavit was given to support the newspaper story. Neat, huh?

[BillyJoe]

...a research finding that establishes at the 1% level of statistical significance that a non-controversial hypothesis is correct should be treated no differently than a research finding that establishes at the 1% level of statistical significance that a controversial hypothesis is correct.


If my neighbour told me she saw a cat run over in the shopping mall car park, the distressed look on her face would be sufficient to convinve me that it happened. If she told me, with a similar distressed look, that she saw an alien spaceman run over in the shopping mall car park, I would need a just a little more evidence.

[fls]

Okay, so let's look at one of your favorite topics: OTC cough medicines. According to the article "Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of over the counter cough medicines for acute cough in adults" -- http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/324/7333/329?ijkey=0c5c011fec4139e59ee4dd03a3731c5f0787b1db&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha --

"Included studies: All randomised controlled trials that compared oral over the counter cough preparations with placebo in adults with acute cough due to upper respiratory tract infection in ambulatory settings and that had cough symptoms as an outcome.

"Results: 15 trials involving 2166 participants met all the inclusion criteria. Antihistamines seemed to be no better than placebo. There was conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of antitussives, expectorants, antihistamine-decongestant combinations, and other drug combinations compared with placebo."

None of those studies are an example of "a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has proven something or other, only to have that finding contradicted down the road by another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial?" If you think that any one of those studies contradicts any of the others, specify which ones.

What, exactly, is that disconfirming evidence?

You (very conveniently) provide an example in the paragraph below.

But your claim of having a cat is no more evidential than your claim of having a unicorn.

Right. I need 100 points to establish both claims. 99 of those 100 are already available for the cat, so I only need to provide one more point. None are available for the unicorn, so I need to provide all 100.

Similarly, a research finding that establishes at the 1% level of statistical significance that a non-controversial hypothesis is correct should be treated no differently than a research finding that establishes at the 1% level of statistical significance that a controversial hypothesis is correct.

I agree that a research finding at the 1% level of statistical significance is independent of whether or not the underlying hypothesis is controversial or not. But I have already explained to you (in detail) that the use of that bit of information to establish whether or not a hypothesis is correct is a completely separate step. Ivor the Engineer recently started a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82896) on this very issue. And it is well-established and non-controversial that these are two separate steps. The controversy is only over the extent to which researchers are aware of and make a distinction between these two steps when reporting their conclusions.

And this is an example of you failing to address disconfirming evidence. I have explained to you in detail the difference between the two and provided links to supplementary information. You even had an independent statistician (Beth) weigh in on the subject who confirmed this. Yet you continue to completely ignore it, even though it is one of the most crucial pieces of evidence against the paranormal/supernatural.

What you're supposed to get is that what you were taught in school about the Michelson-Morley experiment was inaccurate: Michelson and Morley did not in fact obtain a null result in their original experiment, nor did that experiment irrefutably establish that there is no ether.

I was never taught that in the first place. None of that supports the author's conclusions.

No, but a rational approach does not, in my opinion, mean throwing out evidence from 100 years ago on the basis that credible individuals were all mistaken or that a spontaneous healing must have occurred. Rather, a rational approach means broadly examining all evidence, even if it has not been tested in a laboratory or, indeed, is not even amenable to being tested in a laboratory.

I agree. Do you have any reason to think that I don't do that?

I think I can better address your points if you answer this question: If you were Tommy House's doctor in February 1909, would you have administered Cayce's recommended treatment?

My answer to that question will not allow you to address my points since 1) the EBM movement has had almost no influence on how I practice medicine (so my response cannot be taken as an example of EBM), and 2) you are perpetuating the same mischaracterization of EBM that the wikipedia article promotes and the article I linked to tries to counteract.

I realize that you wish to establish that the insistence on the use of evidence in medicine will lead to negative outcomes, as Tommy would have died under those circumstances. And whether or not it's true in Tommy's case doesn't matter because it has already been established to be true. There are occasions where decisions based on the best evidence available have turned out to be wrong and harmful. We can strive towards perfection, but a complex system imposes limits. Again I ask, what is your alternative? And do you have any reasonable justification for abandoning this system and for adopting your alternative?

Linda

[Rodney]

None of those studies are an example of "a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has proven something or other, only to have that finding contradicted down the road by another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial?" If you think that any one of those studies contradicts any of the others, specify which ones. I don't have the time at the moment to analyze these studies, but if there was "conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of antitussives, expectorants, antihistamine-decongestant combinations, and other drug combinations compared with placebo," doesn't that indicate the studies were contradictory?

I agree that a research finding at the 1% level of statistical significance is independent of whether or not the underlying hypothesis is controversial or not. But I have already explained to you (in detail) that the use of that bit of information to establish whether or not a hypothesis is correct is a completely separate step. Ivor the Engineer recently started a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82896) on this very issue. And it is well-established and non-controversial that these are two separate steps. The controversy is only over the extent to which researchers are aware of and make a distinction between these two steps when reporting their conclusions.

And this is an example of you failing to address disconfirming evidence. I have explained to you in detail the difference between the two and provided links to supplementary information. You even had an independent statistician (Beth) weigh in on the subject who confirmed this. Yet you continue to completely ignore it, even though it is one of the most crucial pieces of evidence against the paranormal/supernatural.
I don't have time to read the other thread right now, but I assume you're referring to the "pre-study odds" idea addressed in the John Ioannidis article "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." To me, that idea is just a way of discrediting hypotheses that challenge the conventional wisdom. And I think Beth came down somewhere in the middle between your position and mine.

I was never taught that in the first place. None of that supports the author's conclusions.
You were taught something different than me. ;)

I agree. Do you have any reason to think that I don't do that? Not you personally, perhaps, but I think EBM is based on ignoring anecdotal evidence.

My answer to that question will not allow you to address my points since 1) the EBM movement has had almost no influence on how I practice medicine (so my response cannot be taken as an example of EBM), and 2) you are perpetuating the same mischaracterization of EBM that the wikipedia article promotes and the article I linked to tries to counteract.

I realize that you wish to establish that the insistence on the use of evidence in medicine will lead to negative outcomes, as Tommy would have died under those circumstances. And whether or not it's true in Tommy's case doesn't matter because it has already been established to be true. There are occasions where decisions based on the best evidence available have turned out to be wrong and harmful. We can strive towards perfection, but a complex system imposes limits. Again I ask, what is your alternative? And do you have any reasonable justification for abandoning this system and for adopting your alternative?

Linda
Again, I believe that the "best evidence available" includes more than just randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. My alternative is to look at evidence as broadly as possible and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

[Slimething]

Well, not quite. Every now and then you may get a single properly conducted study that produces a false positive or false negative; it's just down to the way stats work (Linda explained this at some length in the "homeopathic cough medicine" thread, I think). This is why it is important that the results can be replicated by other similar studies.

Perhaps. I couched my comment with the conclusions delivering the target statistical confidence. But, you are right, especially in the case where a source of bias was not identified in the first study but controlled in the second.

But Rodney wasn't asking, in this thread, about contradictory results from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. He was asking about media reporting of the results of trials

Thank you. That escaped me. Yes, he was remarking about reading that stuff in newspapers, not the subject itself. I took his complaint for sloppy writing. :wink: Maybe we should press him to cite one of these newspaper stories. So far, he's turned up a couple of non-starters on the web. Maybe he can send in his many clippings from the National Enquirer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer).

This opens up a whole different can of worms. "The media" are not very good at reporting science. Many journalists who report "science" stories appear ill-qualified to do so. Studies that are not particularly conclusive, or that haven't been replicated, are reported as if they're proof of something. Non-issues get blown up out of all proportion; solid science goes unreported if it's not considered sensational enough. If you want to read more about "the media" and science reporting, I can recommend Ben Goldacre's Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/) blog.

You are absolutely right. Science reporting in the national media is usually subpar. There are notable exceptions, though, but these are generally recognized scientists, not reporters. I've even caught gaffes in the weekly mag from the American Chemical Society and that really shook my confidence in them.

There's a lot of bad reporting. Some of it is in the study reports themselves! From time to time, I've been assigned the task of reviewing studies whose reported conclusions are contradictory to known fact and I've found that most such assertions are unsupported by the data and only a reflection of the investigator's bias. So, peer review and confirmation are two of science's saving graces.

Needless to say, Rodney considers newspaper reports of medical matters (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1889597#post1889597) to be completely reliable, especially if they were written the best part of a century ago and supported (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1891600#post1891600) by affidavits given years after the event by people with no medical qualifications.

Note also how in the first link he's using the newspaper story to support the reliability of the affidavit, while in the second link he says the affidavit was given to support the newspaper story. Neat, huh?

Rodney is truly a phenomenon. Whatever logic he applies to situations escapes me. Circular reasoning (as you've pointed out), denial of fact, selection of only confirmatory evidence, and so on are his hallmarks. Linda's patience is truly remarkable!

Thanks!

[Mashuna]

Again, I believe that the "best evidence available" includes more than just randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. My alternative is to look at evidence as broadly as possible and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

But would you agree that "best evidence available" would include DBRPC trials, and that you would not apply the same weighting to anecdotal evidence as you would to the trial evidence?

[Mojo]

But would you agree that "best evidence available" would include DBRPC trials, and that you would not apply the same weighting to anecdotal evidence as you would to the trial evidence?Ah, but you're forgetting that (to quote Rodney) "we often hear in the media that a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has proven something or other, only to have that finding contradicted down the road by another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial", while anecdotes, being reports of single uncontrolled events, cannot possibly be contradicted. ;)

[Mashuna]

Ah, but you're forgetting that (to quote Rodney) "we often hear in the media that a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has proven something or other, only to have that finding contradicted down the road by another randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial", while anecdotes, being reports of single uncontrolled events, cannot possibly be contradicted. ;)

Well, it's true that if something is reported by the media, then it's gospel truth. :)

[fls]

I don't have the time at the moment to analyze these studies, but if there was "conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of antitussives, expectorants, antihistamine-decongestant combinations, and other drug combinations compared with placebo," doesn't that indicate the studies were contradictory?

It could indicate a lot of things. If you really want to know, you need to look at the details of the actual results.

I'm not going to give you the answer, because it is my hope that if you actually look at the studies with a specific question in mind, you will learn something in the process. If you don't have time to do so, that is unfortunate. But you would have been unable to support your original claim, no matter how much time you had, anyway.

I don't have time to read the other thread right now, but I assume you're referring to the "pre-study odds" idea addressed in the John Ioannidis article "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." To me, that idea is just a way of discrediting hypotheses that challenge the conventional wisdom. And I think Beth came down somewhere in the middle between your position and mine.

Beth was uncertain how to go about quantifying pre-study odds in that particular situation, but she confirmed the principle of the separation of significance testing and hypothesis testing.

The John Ioannidis paper isn't relevant, though (although his paper is an offshoot of these principles). The other thread is short, but the meat is in the several good/excellent papers referenced in the thread which would take longer to read. If you don't have time now, you should make note of the papers for later.

But your comment about discrediting hypotheses that challenge the conventional wisdom is not only wrong, but hypocritical. You are the one that proposed that scientists were too eager to accept Einstein's claim of special relativity - a hypotheses that was a much greater challenge to conventional wisdom than anything Cayce proposed. You cannot on the one hand claim that scientists discredit hypotheses that challenge conventional wisdom so they can ignore them, and then turn right around and claim they give them too much credit, based solely (it seems) on which one you feel like believing.

Not you personally, perhaps, but I think EBM is based on ignoring anecdotal evidence.

The "rules" for evaluating evidence were not developed by some old boys club trying to keep you out. They are rules that have been gradually revealed to us through empirical study, similar to the laws of nature. What you are implying is that it is unreasonable for scientists to make the rule that gravity varies inversely with the square of the distance between two objects, because it devalues your evidence that distant planets influence human personality traits.

Again, I believe that the "best evidence available" includes more than just randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. My alternative is to look at evidence as broadly as possible and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

That still doesn't explain why you propose randomly harming large numbers of people by recommending they ingest untested substances or by neglecting effective treatment (in addition to the opportunity costs).

Linda

[Rodney]

But would you agree that "best evidence available" would include DBRPC trials, and that you would not apply the same weighting to anecdotal evidence as you would to the trial evidence?
Certainly yes to the first question, but there is no set answer to the second question. In some cases, yes; in other cases, no. It depends on what the specific facts are.

[Rodney]

It could indicate a lot of things. If you really want to know, you need to look at the details of the actual results.

I'm not going to give you the answer, because it is my hope that if you actually look at the studies with a specific question in mind, you will learn something in the process. If you don't have time to do so, that is unfortunate. But you would have been unable to support your original claim, no matter how much time you had, anyway.
Thanks for the zinger. ;)

Beth was uncertain how to go about quantifying pre-study odds in that particular situation, but she confirmed the principle of the separation of significance testing and hypothesis testing.

The John Ioannidis paper isn't relevant, though (although his paper is an offshoot of these principles). The other thread is short, but the meat is in the several good/excellent papers referenced in the thread which would take longer to read. If you don't have time now, you should make note of the papers for later.
Okay, but I'm still trying to figure out how estimating pre-study odds is consistent with an objective scientific investigation.

But your comment about discrediting hypotheses that challenge the conventional wisdom is not only wrong, but hypocritical. You are the one that proposed that scientists were too eager to accept Einstein's claim of special relativity - a hypotheses that was a much greater challenge to conventional wisdom than anything Cayce proposed. Now really, Linda, do you truly, cross your heart and hope to die, believe that?

You cannot on the one hand claim that scientists discredit hypotheses that challenge conventional wisdom so they can ignore them, and then turn right around and claim they give them too much credit, based solely (it seems) on which one you feel like believing.

The "rules" for evaluating evidence were not developed by some old boys club trying to keep you out. They are rules that have been gradually revealed to us through empirical study, similar to the laws of nature. What you are implying is that it is unreasonable for scientists to make the rule that gravity varies inversely with the square of the distance between two objects, because it devalues your evidence that distant planets influence human personality traits. Aren't you the least bit troubled that the history of science involves the establishment ridiculing ideas that are too far outside the mainstream?

That still doesn't explain why you propose randomly harming large numbers of people by recommending they ingest untested substances or by neglecting effective treatment (in addition to the opportunity costs).

Linda
When have I ever proposed either of those? My point about the Tommy House case is that, if there was a medical consensus that he was going to die in a matter of hours, trying a radical treatment from an unconventional source that had been accurate before seemed to be the best way to go.

[Aepervius]

Aren't you the least bit troubled that the history of science involves the establishment ridiculing ideas that are too far outside the mainstream?

As far as I can tell from the part of the history of science I know of, the earliest part involve the people wanting to burn scientist for their non-mainstream theory, and the latest a lot of people not understanding/misusing theory (quantum physic) or downright rejecting them on personal ground (evolution for example, some aprt of the medicine by some religion etc...).

Note that I use the word theory here. Which is downright different than speculation. An example
of theory is the theory of :
* relativity
* newtonian gravity
* evolution
* quantum physic

An example of speculation is :
* telepathy is the brain using a sort of EM wave
* cayce healed people using belladona. Just kidding ;).
* alien land on earth on regular basis for anal probe and cattle slaying
* skeptic disturb most ESP by their negativism

How to tell the difference ?
A theory is something falsifiable based on existing phenomenon. While a speculation is an attempt of explaining a phenomenon which has not been proved to exist to begin with (note that using this definition what some qualify as scientific theory, are indeed more speculation than anything else. I know that and indeed I think they are).

What most people say about non-mainstream idea not being accepted by scientific are IN REALITY pure speculation on non-reproducible phenomenon (and I am generous here, most would say "non-existing" phenomenon).

IMHO your explanation (the way you present it) is speculation, because you have no idea what the illness of the child was to begin with, and thus you cannot falsify anything there. On the other hand if you have the hypothese that some illness (insert list) can be healed by (insert list) then please organize a double blind experiment for it. It does not matter whether this is mainstream or not (IMHO, we should avoid "mainstream" as this is mostly used by woo to prop up their own "woo" theory and paint themselves as martyr ignored by science). But until such a DB study is done you ahve NOTHING except speculation and mythos.

[BillyJoe]

(IMHO, we should avoid "mainstream" ...


You have to use the word "mainstream" because not all mainstream medicine is evidence based. The thing is to separate Evidence Based Medicine from Mainstream, Alternative, Complementary, and Integrative medicine.

The second thing is to decide what sort of evidence to admit.
Rodney obviously has a different idea to Linda on that issue.

[fls]

Thanks for the zinger. ;)

Just trying to be altruistic. :)

It's not like I don't know this stuff inside and out, and don't already know what would be the best you could possibly come up with (and that it would be insufficient to support the premise).

Okay, but I'm still trying to figure out how estimating pre-study odds is consistent with an objective scientific investigation.

Well, you've been provided with a lot of reference material, and I've done a lot of explaining myself. I'm certainly willing to help you work through stuff you don't understand, but I really get the impression that the reason you don't understand it is because you wish to deny it.

Now really, Linda, do you truly, cross your heart and hope to die, believe that?

We are talking about his medical suggestions, right? Some of the other stuff he came up with (the Atlantis-related stuff, for example) is certainly out there. But suggesting some novel substances to try or novel situations in which to try standard substances, is a fairly mainstream idea. And individual stories of success are also an established source of inspiration for further investigation. Overturning our conception of spacetime and our perception of reality seems to be much more of a challenge than that.

Aren't you the least bit troubled that the history of science involves the establishment ridiculing ideas that are too far outside the mainstream?

It used to be, and it seems like it should be the obvious reaction. I have seriously considered this issue and read a lot of different perspectives. I used to consider it one of the flaws of the system, but I'm coming around to the idea that it is a strength - or at least considering that the argument for this is legitimate. Because it is the process of overcoming ridicule that filters out those ideas which have merit. And if you actually look at the ideas that are ridiculed and those that are not, the degree to which they are outside of the mainstream does not determine the degree of ridicule. It is the degree to which they are supported by evidence that determines the ridicule.

For example, the idea that gastric ulcers could be caused by an infectious agent was originally ridiculed because the evidence for the idea was weak. But the idea that various diseases can be caused by infectious agents, and that some of these connections are as yet undiscovered, is a solidly mainstream idea. As soon as evidence (i.e. information of the kind that not only confirmed the connection, but excluded reasonable alternate explanations) was presented, the idea was accepted. Compare that to String Theory, where the underlying idea is far, far away from the mainstream, yet the idea has been accepted as a legitimate field of exploration within mainstream physics because of the exquisite accuracy of the results and the ability of the idea to connect otherwise unconnected explanations. And it is String Theory's inability to provide proof that is now leading to ridicule among the physics community.

Most paranormal phenomena are simply phenomena without evidence for their existence. That that is the reason for their ridicule, not that the ideas surrounding them are not mainstream. Science has accepted, without ridicule, ideas far less mainstream than those which parapsychologists have proposed, on the basis of proof.

I realize that it is possible that ideas have died because their proponents did not have the fortitude to gather the evidence necessary to overcome ridicule. But I don't really know if it's a legitimate concern.

When have I ever proposed either of those? My point about the Tommy House case is that, if there was a medical consensus that he was going to die in a matter of hours, trying a radical treatment from an unconventional source that had been accurate before seemed to be the best way to go.

The proposal you provide above is an example. Which "radical treatment" that is proposed will depend upon happenstance. Sure Cayce happened to be the one present, so the proposed treatment was belladonna. But under slightly different circumstances, it could have been the medical medium next door to Cayce, or the faith healer passing through town, or the witch in the next county, or any one of hundreds of unconventional sources. And since the recommended treatment would be solely subjective and depend upon who you asked, rather than upon information that had been gathered in a more objective manner, the choice of treatment would depend upon chance. As the information available on these substances is inadequate to tell you what harm or what benefit could be expected, you can't exclude the possibility that you would be doing the patient more harm than good. And you are grossly over-estimating the existence of situations where the outcome is certain - where concerns over harm are negligible.

Also, as a systemic recommendation, it leads to a waste of opportunity. Useful information cannot arise as a result of these random experiments, so it does not add to the body of knowledge. And it encourages the existence of a system that as far as we can tell is a huge waste of time and money - time and money that could better be spent elsewhere.

And your suggestion that the occasional utterance of accurate statements is sufficient to suggest that all (or most, or some) future statements will be accurate is not only not supported by the evidence; the evidence shows this suggestion to be wrong.

Linda

[Rodney]

Just trying to be altruistic. :)

It's not like I don't know this stuff inside and out, and don't already know what would be the best you could possibly come up with (and that it would be insufficient to support the premise).
So what's your bottom line on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Should they be trusted: (a) always (b) almost always (c) usually, or (d) sometimes?

Well, you've been provided with a lot of reference material, and I've done a lot of explaining myself. I'm certainly willing to help you work through stuff you don't understand, but I really get the impression that the reason you don't understand it is because you wish to deny it.
I still haven't seen an answer as to how pre-trial study odds are objectively determined.

We are talking about his medical suggestions, right? Some of the other stuff he came up with (the Atlantis-related stuff, for example) is certainly out there. But suggesting some novel substances to try or novel situations in which to try standard substances, is a fairly mainstream idea. And individual stories of success are also an established source of inspiration for further investigation. Overturning our conception of spacetime and our perception of reality seems to be much more of a challenge than that. If you believe that Cayce could tap into some sort of universal wisdom when he was unconscious, I think that undermines the scientific perception of reality more than anything Einstein ever did.


It used to be, and it seems like it should be the obvious reaction. I have seriously considered this issue and read a lot of different perspectives. I used to consider it one of the flaws of the system, but I'm coming around to the idea that it is a strength - or at least considering that the argument for this is legitimate. Because it is the process of overcoming ridicule that filters out those ideas which have merit. And if you actually look at the ideas that are ridiculed and those that are not, the degree to which they are outside of the mainstream does not determine the degree of ridicule. It is the degree to which they are supported by evidence that determines the ridicule.

For example, the idea that gastric ulcers could be caused by an infectious agent was originally ridiculed because the evidence for the idea was weak. But the idea that various diseases can be caused by infectious agents, and that some of these connections are as yet undiscovered, is a solidly mainstream idea. As soon as evidence (i.e. information of the kind that not only confirmed the connection, but excluded reasonable alternate explanations) was presented, the idea was accepted. Compare that to String Theory, where the underlying idea is far, far away from the mainstream, yet the idea has been accepted as a legitimate field of exploration within mainstream physics because of the exquisite accuracy of the results and the ability of the idea to connect otherwise unconnected explanations. And it is String Theory's inability to provide proof that is now leading to ridicule among the physics community.

Most paranormal phenomena are simply phenomena without evidence for their existence. That that is the reason for their ridicule, not that the ideas surrounding them are not mainstream. Science has accepted, without ridicule, ideas far less mainstream than those which parapsychologists have proposed, on the basis of proof.

I realize that it is possible that ideas have died because their proponents did not have the fortitude to gather the evidence necessary to overcome ridicule. But I don't really know if it's a legitimate concern.
I don't know how many ideas have died because of a failure of the scientific establishment to take them seriously, but I think acceptance has been significantly delayed in many cases. With regard to Cayce's medical treatments, I think we would have some definite answers by now as to their efficacy if they had been thoroughly investigated during his lifetime.

The proposal you provide above is an example. Which "radical treatment" that is proposed will depend upon happenstance. Sure Cayce happened to be the one present, so the proposed treatment was belladonna. But under slightly different circumstances, it could have been the medical medium next door to Cayce, or the faith healer passing through town, or the witch in the next county, or any one of hundreds of unconventional sources.
Yes, but in many cases, there is no good reason to believe the medical medium or faith healer has actually healed anybody.

And since the recommended treatment would be solely subjective and depend upon who you asked, rather than upon information that had been gathered in a more objective manner, the choice of treatment would depend upon chance. As the information available on these substances is inadequate to tell you what harm or what benefit could be expected, you can't exclude the possibility that you would be doing the patient more harm than good. And you are grossly over-estimating the existence of situations where the outcome is certain - where concerns over harm are negligible.

Also, as a systemic recommendation, it leads to a waste of opportunity. Useful information cannot arise as a result of these random experiments, so it does not add to the body of knowledge. And it encourages the existence of a system that as far as we can tell is a huge waste of time and money - time and money that could better be spent elsewhere.

And your suggestion that the occasional utterance of accurate statements is sufficient to suggest that all (or most, or some) future statements will be accurate is not only not supported by the evidence; the evidence shows this suggestion to be wrong.

Linda
What evidence are you referring to?

[fls]

So what's your bottom line on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Should they be trusted: (a) always (b) almost always (c) usually, or (d) sometimes?

I'm presuming that what you mean by that question is that the conclusions that can be drawn from the results are likely to be true. The answer is b) - i.e. the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from RDBPCT can almost always be trusted. But that statement is essentially a tautology, as apparent exceptions will almost always be due to people attempting to draw conclusions that are not reasonably supported by the results.

I still haven't seen an answer as to how pre-trial study odds are objectively determined.

I don't understand exactly where your confusion lies on this issue, as it looks like you are asking for a course in epistemology, but I don't think that's what you mean. The short answer would be from the results of previous trials and other types of pre-existing information which (hopefully) lead to a convergence.

If you believe that Cayce could tap into some sort of universal wisdom when he was unconscious, I think that undermines the scientific perception of reality more than anything Einstein ever did.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Wouldn't we just be interested in whether or not his ideas were useful before we starting worrying about where they came from? Other scientists have claimed weird sources of inspiration along the way.

I don't know how many ideas have died because of a failure of the scientific establishment to take them seriously, but I think acceptance has been significantly delayed in many cases.

Can you give an example where the delay wasn't due to the collection of evidence which would serve as proof?

With regard to Cayce's medical treatments, I think we would have some definite answers by now as to their efficacy if they had been thoroughly investigated during his lifetime.

I agree. And the same could be said about any other medical medium. So the question becomes, given that there are finite resources to dedicate to the pursuit of knowledge, what do we lose and what do we gain by following the leads provided by Cayce instead of those provided by the usual scientific methods? The results from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine shows hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity.

Yes, but in many cases, there is no good reason to believe the medical medium or faith healer has actually healed anybody.

How do you distinguish Cayce from them, other than publicity?

What evidence are you referring to?

The many statements made my Edgar Cayce that are wrong would be evidence. Another example would be Robert Lancaster's examination of Sylvia Browne's claims. The JREF newletters largely consists of examples of this evidence.

Linda

[Rodney]

I'm presuming that what you mean by that question is that the conclusions that can be drawn from the results are likely to be true. The answer is b) - i.e. the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from RDBPCT can almost always be trusted. But that statement is essentially a tautology, as apparent exceptions will almost always be due to people attempting to draw conclusions that are not reasonably supported by the results.
Has anyone ever done a statistical analysis of RDBPCT; e.g., examining what such trials found in the 1970s and comparing them to what is now known?

I don't understand exactly where your confusion lies on this issue, as it looks like you are asking for a course in epistemology, but I don't think that's what you mean. The short answer would be from the results of previous trials and other types of pre-existing information which (hopefully) lead to a convergence. With regard to parapsychology, there is a wide difference of opinion as to what has been established. For example, some parapsychologists believe that Ganzfeld studies have largely proven the existence of extrasensory perception, while others disagree. So what pre-trial odds would you use with respect to a forthcoming Ganzfeld trial?

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Wouldn't we just be interested in whether or not his ideas were useful before we starting worrying about where they came from? Other scientists have claimed weird sources of inspiration along the way.
Yes, but my point was that in many cases, there is no documentation at all for what is claimed.

Can you give an example where the delay wasn't due to the collection of evidence which would serve as proof?
No, but the problem lies in the willingness of the scientific establishment to collect and examine the evidence. For example, at the turn of the 19th Century, the Frence Academy of Sciences ridiculed the idea of meteorites and did not seriously investigate this phenomenon until there was a fortuitous nearby meteor shower.


I agree. And the same could be said about any other medical medium. So the question becomes, given that there are finite resources to dedicate to the pursuit of knowledge, what do we lose and what do we gain by following the leads provided by Cayce instead of those provided by the usual scientific methods? The results from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine shows hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity. Can you link to those results?

How do you distinguish Cayce from them, other than publicity?
The fact that everything he said in trance from 1923 on was written down.

The many statements made my Edgar Cayce that are wrong would be evidence.
Everyone is wrong sometimes. Have you examined the entire record?

Another example would be Robert Lancaster's examination of Sylvia Browne's claims. The JREF newletters largely consists of examples of this evidence.
Again, the entire record must be examined in an objective manner.

[fls]

Has anyone ever done a statistical analysis of RDBPCT; e.g., examining what such trials found in the 1970s and comparing them to what is now known?

Yes, although not in the way that you are suggesting (i.e. as a sort of single, broad study). The validity of the information obtained by an RDBPCT is continually tested and retested as we add to the body of knowledge. And the use and design of the methods of obtaining information (including RCT's) is also re-examined and refined.

With regard to parapsychology, there is a wide difference of opinion as to what has been established. For example, some parapsychologists believe that Ganzfeld studies have largely proven the existence of extrasensory perception, while others disagree. So what pre-trial odds would you use with respect to a forthcoming Ganzfeld trial?

What does one do when direct information is unavailable? That's an important question (and certainly beyond the scope of this forum). We do know that the assumption of even odds is almost always likely to be wrong, though. Even a "ballpark" estimation is more useful, and there are techniques for using estimates.

The "effect" measured in the Ganzfeld trials has not yet been provably shown to be different from "bias", and the results continue to converge towards "no effect" as some attempts are made to eliminate the effects of bias. When you also consider that pre-existing information independent of the Ganzfeld trials also converges towards "no effect", it suggests that at best the odds are "low".

No, but the problem lies in the willingness of the scientific establishment to collect and examine the evidence. For example, at the turn of the 19th Century, the Frence Academy of Sciences ridiculed the idea of meteorites and did not seriously investigate this phenomenon until there was a fortuitous nearby meteor shower.

Yes, the ridicule depended upon the lack of evidence, and stopped once there was sufficient evidence collected. There is no "scientific establishment" that acts as a single body and is responsible for the collection and examination of evidence. Rather, it is whatever the result happens to be when individuals act on their own interests. Sure, whether or not something is investigated depends upon whether or not someone is interested in doing so. But curiosity seems boundless and without a priori constraints.

Can you link to those results?

Here is the site for NCCAM research results (http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/). And here is the PubMed search for NCCAM-funded publications (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&term=AT+%5Bgr%5D+or+NCCAM+%5Bgr%5D&doptcmdl=Abstract).

The fact that everything he said in trance from 1923 on was written down.

Everyone is wrong sometimes. Have you examined the entire record?

Again, the entire record must be examined in an objective manner.

How much time and money should continue to be wasted on this?

There is no opportunity to investigate most claims. But when the opportunity is there, and investigation always leads to something mundane, at what point can we say, "this is fruitless"?

We ask for evidence to back of claims of accuracy from Sylvia Browne. And it isn't just that it is possible to find examples where she is wrong or only trivially correct. It's that every time that we find it possible to know whether she is right or wrong, she is wrong.

Same thing happens when we investigate medical mediums and healers. We hear wondrous claims, yet somehow that has never produced a single documented case. You can ask us to examine Cayce's entire record, but that won't really help, as the information available is inadequate to come to any conclusions (as demonstrated by the cases you've presented here).

I'm just saying that evidence is what gets other people interested. There's no point in whining about how conventional medicine doesn't take this or that seriously. All you have to do to be taken seriously is to come up with evidence that's roughly equivalent to that supporting conventional therapies. Quit presenting crappy evidence and then complaining that we are unreasonable when we say it stinks.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

What does one do when direct information is unavailable? That's an important question (and certainly beyond the scope of this forum). We do know that the assumption of even odds is almost always likely to be wrong, though. Even a "ballpark" estimation is more useful, and there are techniques for using estimates.

Where can I get more information on this?

[fls]

Where can I get more information on this?

I'm not sure. Partly because it covers a wide area (stuff like frequency and dependent probabilities, cognitive biases), and partly because my own education has been from a variety of sources and I tend to figure out stuff on my own. I don't know if there's a reference that puts it all together and/or gives a good overview. It seems to be one of those things that gets dealt with in bits and pieces relevant to a particular subject. For example, it's very important to clinical decision-making, so a discussion there would cover the application of clinical experience (including cognitive biases), prevalence statistics (frequency), and research reports.

Are you able to be more specific about what you are looking for, and how rigorous you want to be?

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm not sure. Partly because it covers a wide area (stuff like frequency and dependent probabilities, cognitive biases), and partly because my own education has been from a variety of sources and I tend to figure out stuff on my own. I don't know if there's a reference that puts it all together and/or gives a good overview. It seems to be one of those things that gets dealt with in bits and pieces relevant to a particular subject. For example, it's very important to clinical decision-making, so a discussion there would cover the application of clinical experience (including cognitive biases), prevalence statistics (frequency), and research reports.

Are you able to be more specific about what you are looking for, and how rigorous you want to be?

Linda

Don't worry about it. I was just wondering if you knew of a source with some good examples. I'll continue looking;)

[Rodney]

Yes, although not in the way that you are suggesting (i.e. as a sort of single, broad study). The validity of the information obtained by an RDBPCT is continually tested and retested as we add to the body of knowledge. And the use and design of the methods of obtaining information (including RCT's) is also re-examined and refined.
But without a study, how do you know that RDBPCT are as accurate as you seem to think?

What does one do when direct information is unavailable? That's an important question (and certainly beyond the scope of this forum). We do know that the assumption of even odds is almost always likely to be wrong, though. Even a "ballpark" estimation is more useful, and there are techniques for using estimates.

The "effect" measured in the Ganzfeld trials has not yet been provably shown to be different from "bias", and the results continue to converge towards "no effect" as some attempts are made to eliminate the effects of bias. When you also consider that pre-existing information independent of the Ganzfeld trials also converges towards "no effect", it suggests that at best the odds are "low".
So, if I understand your position, if a well-designed Ganzfeld experiment were to show positive results at the 0.000001 significance level, you would factor in the low pre-study odds to evaluate those results?

Yes, the ridicule depended upon the lack of evidence, and stopped once there was sufficient evidence collected. There is no "scientific establishment" that acts as a single body and is responsible for the collection and examination of evidence. Rather, it is whatever the result happens to be when individuals act on their own interests. Sure, whether or not something is investigated depends upon whether or not someone is interested in doing so. But curiosity seems boundless and without a priori constraints.I strongly disagree that there is no scientific establishment, although, fortunately, there are usually mavericks willing to challenge that establishment. However, the establishment can significantly delay acceptance of valid new ideas.

Here is the site for NCCAM research results (http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/). And here is the PubMed search for NCCAM-funded publications (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&term=AT+%5Bgr%5D+or+NCCAM+%5Bgr%5D&doptcmdl=Abstract).
Thanks, although I was hoping to find an overview study showing "hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."

How much time and money should continue to be wasted on this?

There is no opportunity to investigate most claims. But when the opportunity is there, and investigation always leads to something mundane, at what point can we say, "this is fruitless"?

We ask for evidence to back of claims of accuracy from Sylvia Browne. And it isn't just that it is possible to find examples where she is wrong or only trivially correct. It's that every time that we find it possible to know whether she is right or wrong, she is wrong.

Same thing happens when we investigate medical mediums and healers. We hear wondrous claims, yet somehow that has never produced a single documented case. You can ask us to examine Cayce's entire record, but that won't really help, as the information available is inadequate to come to any conclusions (as demonstrated by the cases you've presented here).

I'm just saying that evidence is what gets other people interested. There's no point in whining about how conventional medicine doesn't take this or that seriously. All you have to do to be taken seriously is to come up with evidence that's roughly equivalent to that supporting conventional therapies. Quit presenting crappy evidence and then complaining that we are unreasonable when we say it stinks.

Linda
With regard to Cayce, what evidence would convince you that he was for real?

[digithead]

Not speaking for Linda or anyone else, but your questions are easily answered...

how do you know that RDBPCT are as accurate as you seem to think?
By the underlying statistical theory that's been developed over the past 100 or so years. Check out any research methods textbook and you'll see that RDB clinical trials are at the top of food chain when it comes to methodology because they are able to control experimental conditions to eliminate the influence of outside factors and reduce the variance components to solely the outcome, treatment and measurement errors...

So, if I understand your position, if a well-designed Ganzfeld experiment were to show positive results at the 0.000001 significance level, you would factor in the low pre-study odds to evaluate those results?
Practical significance is what's important here, not statistical significance. Statistical significance can be reached just by sample size alone. What matters is the difference that poses a practical difference to the human condition. Even if there is a true difference, if it's too small then it has no practical relevance to the human condition...

I strongly disagree that there is no scientific establishment, although, fortunately, there are usually mavericks willing to challenge that establishment. However, the establishment can significantly delay acceptance of valid new ideas.
Actually, I think you're right here, it's called peer review. A new theory has to withstand examination from outsiders and be repeatable before it's accepted as valid within a given discipline. It helps keep the kooks and dilettantes out...


Thanks, although I was hoping to find an overview study showing "hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."
So trading a viable, proven medical therapy for an unproven alternative procedure that results in death is not a "large loss in opportunity"?


With regard to Cayce, what evidence would convince you that he was for real?
Same as everyone else, his results should be replicable by anyone that tries them. Since Cayce has no medical treatments that have stood the test of time, he should be viewed merely as a sociological curiosity rather than a medical savior...

[fls]

But without a study, how do you know that RDBPCT are as accurate as you seem to think?

I didn't mean to imply that RCT's have not been studied in the manner you suggested, just not the exact comparison you suggested (it wouldn't be as useful as other comparisons).

So, if I understand your position, if a well-designed Ganzfeld experiment were to show positive results at the 0.000001 significance level, you would factor in the low pre-study odds to evaluate those results?

Yes. But it isn't only pre-study odds that influences the evaluation. Bias and power are also important. And that is why the results of the Ganzfeld aren't generally accepted, not because of the pre-study odds and the signficance level.

I strongly disagree that there is no scientific establishment, although, fortunately, there are usually mavericks willing to challenge that establishment. However, the establishment can significantly delay acceptance of valid new ideas.

I didn't say that there is no scientific establishment. I was talking about the flow of ideas - a bottom-up rather than top-down model.

Thanks, although I was hoping to find an overview study showing "hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."

The list provided was meant to give you an opportunity to search for some actual gain. Do you need me to look up the budget for the NCCAM, too?

With regard to Cayce, what evidence would convince you that he was for real?

RCT's showing that Cayce's suggested treatments for specific conditions were effective, and that these suggestions were novel rather than treatments that had been previously suggested or could be readily inferred.

Linda

[Mojo]

I was hoping to find an overview study showing "hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."


You were?

[Rodney]

I didn't mean to imply that RCT's have not been studied in the manner you suggested, just not the exact comparison you suggested (it wouldn't be as useful as other comparisons).
And where might I find an overall (useful) analysis of RCT's?

Yes. But it isn't only pre-study odds that influences the evaluation. Bias and power are also important. And that is why the results of the Ganzfeld aren't generally accepted, not because of the pre-study odds and the signficance level.
So what would it take for you to accept the results of Ganzfeld trials?

I didn't say that there is no scientific establishment. I was talking about the flow of ideas - a bottom-up rather than top-down model. I understand, but I still maintain that, throughout history the scientific establishment has done its best to thwart new ideas that it finds too far out of the mainstream, and nothing has changed recently.

The list provided was meant to give you an opportunity to search for some actual gain. Do you need me to look up the budget for the NCCAM, too? I'm not sure what the relevance of that would be, but I'm still looking for evidence to support your claim that the "results from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine shows hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."

RCT's showing that Cayce's suggested treatments for specific conditions were effective, and that these suggestions were novel rather than treatments that had been previously suggested or could be readily inferred.Are you saying that you would be willing to accept, for example, RCT's of Cayce's recommended psoriasis treatment, if they showed his treatment was superior to placebo?

[fls]

And where might I find an overall (useful) analysis of RCT's?

The Cochrane Collaboration (http://www.cochrane.org/index.htm) would be a good start. The review on each topic essentially consists of an analysis of the relevant RCT's.

So what would it take for you to accept the results of Ganzfeld trials?

I think a study design that included a control group, and highly powered trials performed by researchers that weren't heavily invested in obtaining a positive result would go a long way towards giving me confidence that there is something worth pursuing if significant results are reproducibly found.

I understand, but I still maintain that, throughout history the scientific establishment has done its best to thwart new ideas that it finds too far out of the mainstream, and nothing has changed recently.

I explained why and provided examples for my idea that the rejection of new ideas is much better explained by the degree of evidence associated with the idea than by its distance from the mainstream. What am I supposed to do when you simply repeat your initial assertion (without providing any support) instead of addressing what I said?

I'm not sure what the relevance of that would be, but I'm still looking for evidence to support your claim that the "results from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine shows hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."

Money spent on research at the NCCAM is money that is taken away from pursuing other areas of research (the budget would provide a dollar amount for the loss in opportunity). The publications show a paucity of useful information, and I provided the list so you could see this directly. Of course, I can't force you to actually look at the publications on the list (or even look at the list), but it's hardly fair for you to claim that you are still waiting for evidence simply because you refuse to look at or don't understand what I have handed to you.

Are you saying that you would be willing to accept, for example, RCT's of Cayce's recommended psoriasis treatment, if they showed his treatment was superior to placebo?

Yes, that is the kind of thing I am talking about. Along with a demonstration that his recommended treatment was not something that was already being used or could be readily inferred (e.g. that it was not a treatment that was being used for other types of skin disease).

Linda

[Mojo]

I'm not sure what the relevance of that would be, but I'm still looking for evidence to support your claim that the "results from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine shows hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity."


Early this morning, I fell into a trance. While in this trance it was revealed to me by my spirit guide, Dr. Wesley Hokum, that Edgar Cayce gave a reading in which he said, "between the years of 1987 and 2008 a power called Encam will arise, but it will show hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity". He appears to have given this reading in the early years of the 20th century, before Cayce employed a secretary, which is why there has been no record of this until now.

What more evidence can you possibly want?

[Rodney]

The Cochrane Collaboration (http://www.cochrane.org/index.htm) would be a good start. The review on each topic essentially consists of an analysis of the relevant RCT's.
But I'm looking for an analysis of how RCT results have held up over time.

I think a study design that included a control group, and highly powered trials performed by researchers that weren't heavily invested in obtaining a positive result would go a long way towards giving me confidence that there is something worth pursuing if significant results are reproducibly found.
When you say, "if significant results are reproducibly found," how dissimilar can the results be, and still be valid, in your opinion?

I explained why and provided examples for my idea that the rejection of new ideas is much better explained by the degree of evidence associated with the idea than by its distance from the mainstream. What am I supposed to do when you simply repeat your initial assertion (without providing any support) instead of addressing what I said?
You're missing the point that, when an idea is too far from the mainstream, it is ridiculed, rather than investigated. How can evidence be developed for an idea when the scientific establishment refuses to investigate it and disbelieves "anecdotes"?

Money spent on research at the NCCAM is money that is taken away from pursuing other areas of research (the budget would provide a dollar amount for the loss in opportunity). The publications show a paucity of useful information, and I provided the list so you could see this directly. Of course, I can't force you to actually look at the publications on the list (or even look at the list), but it's hardly fair for you to claim that you are still waiting for evidence simply because you refuse to look at or don't understand what I have handed to you.
I just checked out the NCCAM web page and find that the first two articles listed are:

"(1) Tai Chi Boosts Immunity to Shingles Virus in Older Adults
The study is the first rigorous clinical trial to suggest that a behavioral intervention, alone or together with a vaccine, can help protect older adults from the varicella virus, which causes both chickenpox and shingles.

"(2) Study compares year-long effectiveness of four weight-loss plans
The Atkins diet may contribute to greater weight loss than higher carbohydrate plans without negative effects such as increased cholesterol."

Do those study results support or contradict the prior conventional medical wisdom?

Yes, that is the kind of thing I am talking about. Along with a demonstration that his recommended treatment was not something that was already being used or could be readily inferred (e.g. that it was not a treatment that was being used for other types of skin disease).

Linda
Hey, we agree on something. Now if we can get someone to fund those RCT's . . .

[Rodney]

Early this morning, I fell into a trance. While in this trance it was revealed to me by my spirit guide, Dr. Wesley Hokum, that Edgar Cayce gave a reading in which he said, "between the years of 1987 and 2008 a power called Encam will arise, but it will show hardly any gain for a large loss in opportunity". He appears to have given this reading in the early years of the 20th century, before Cayce employed a secretary, which is why there has been no record of this until now.

What more evidence can you possibly want?
How about some quantification of this elusive "large loss in opportunity"?

[Slimething]

How about some quantification of this elusive "large loss in opportunity"?

Brilliant argument, rodney. It's tantamount to proving a negative because you're asking someone to predict what would have happened if whatever prevented it had never existed. Oh, I forgot you believe in psychics. :eek:

You seem to be bobbing and weaving at this point in the thread, rodney. That's a nice stalling tactic but it can't last forever. Even you don't have an endless supply of facile questions.

Why haven't you answered any questions with something other than "because I believe it's true"? For example, what would you propose to be superior to double-blind random testing? Why don't you get funding to try it? I'm sure you and your fellow believers can put your collective minds together and devise a simple experiment to test your new system. Or, how would you propose that the scientific establishment is organized and how do they reject something like peach bark and belladonna while embracing quantum mechanics and nuclear physics. (There really is nothing more mind-bending than those two subjects. The simplest predictions from those two areas of study leave anything Cayce ever said in the dust.)

So, please, make our day. Say something constructive or credible or testable (falsifiable). Or, put your money where your mouth is. For $49 per year, all ten of the members of Dupes for Cayce should be able to find a simple experiment (proof of concept) that would justify listening to you.

[Mojo]

How about some quantification of this elusive "large loss in opportunity"?


How about some quantification of the elusive "measured dose of belladonna" administered to Tommy House?

Anyway, aren't you prepared to take Edgar Cayce's word for it that the loss of opportunity was "large"?

[Mongrel]

I understand, but I still maintain that, throughout history the scientific establishment has done its best to thwart new ideas that it finds too far out of the mainstream, and nothing has changed recently.

So what about Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html)?

[Rodney]

Brilliant argument, rodney. It's tantamount to proving a negative because you're asking someone to predict what would have happened if whatever prevented it had never existed. Oh, I forgot you believe in psychics. :eek:
Linda is the one who brought up the "large loss in opportunity" argument. I'm simply asking her to document it.

You seem to be bobbing and weaving at this point in the thread, rodney. That's a nice stalling tactic but it can't last forever. Even you don't have an endless supply of facile questions.

Why haven't you answered any questions with something other than "because I believe it's true"? For example, what would you propose to be superior to double-blind random testing? Why don't you get funding to try it? I'm sure you and your fellow believers can put your collective minds together and devise a simple experiment to test your new system.
I support double-blind random testing; however, I think bias can still creep in, which is why I would like to see a study of how accurate such testing has been historically.

Or, how would you propose that the scientific establishment is organized and how do they reject something like peach bark and belladonna while embracing quantum mechanics and nuclear physics. (There really is nothing more mind-bending than those two subjects. The simplest predictions from those two areas of study leave anything Cayce ever said in the dust.) "Mind-bending" is not the same as "is inconsistent with the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establishment."

So, please, make our day. Say something constructive or credible or testable (falsifiable). Or, put your money where your mouth is. For $49 per year, all ten of the members of Dupes for Cayce should be able to find a simple experiment (proof of concept) that would justify listening to you.
Unfortunately for you, I think you'll find that there are more members of Cayce's organization than Randi's. ;) Again, however, I would like to see Cayce's remedies scientifically examined.

[Rodney]

So what about Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html)?
Very interesting work, but again, not inconsistent with the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establishment.

[Rodney]

How about some quantification of the elusive "measured dose of belladonna" administered to Tommy House?
If I am eventually able to quantify it I will, but I haven't been able to obtain that information.

Anyway, aren't you prepared to take Edgar Cayce's word for it that the loss of opportunity was "large"?
Please clarify what you mean.

[Mojo]

Please clarify what you mean.http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2670200#post2670200

[Mojo]

I support double-blind random testing; however, I think bias can still creep in, which is why I would like to see a study of how accurate such testing has been historically.


Nobody denies that bias (whether conscious or unconscious) can "creep in" to any study if given a chance. That is precisely what double blinding is designed to prevent: if the people recording the results and processing the data don't know which sets of results are supposed to positive and which are not, they can't bias the results towards what they want, even unconsciously.

[Slimething]

Linda is the one who brought up the "large loss in opportunity" argument. I'm simply asking her to document it.

I don't believe you. What I do believe is that you're at an end of your information and have decided to worry at phraseology. You are now quibbling over semantics. If you can't understand the concept of losing an opportunity to study for the math test because you decided to go to the movies, then you really don't belong in an intelligent discussion. Basically, that's all it is. Pumping money into the study of phenomena whose mere existence is questionable denies the use of those same funds into verifiable phenomena. In addition, having invested money into that nonsense to begin with encourages the belief of many of the duped in that phenomenon. What is so difficult to understand about that, rodney?

I support double-blind random testing; however, I think bias can still creep in, which is why I would like to see a study of how accurate such testing has been historically.

Again, you are being disingenuous. You now admit that there is currently no better system at testing therapeutic effect than double-blind testing. OTOH, you are questioning its validity. Bias is the Achilles' Heel of every testing system. People from all walks of life spend years learning techniques and devising testing protocols to minimize bias. DBT is the culmination of these efforts with regard to tests where placebo and nocebo effects threaten to introduce considerable bias.

I find it very strange that a member in good standing of Cayce International is here requesting historical accounting of any type of scientific testing. If such an organization has doubts about the ways any branch of science tests its hyptheses, they have every opportunity to examine the historical record and produce a report suggesting uncontrolled sources of bias or better methods of testing. Cayce International, founded in 1931, has been silent on this issue for 76 years now. Perhaps, rodney, instead of bothering another group to do your organization's research for them, you should instead impose on CI to answer your questions. Get something for those $48 per year other than a royal dumbing-down.

"Mind-bending" is not the same as "is inconsistent with the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establishment."

OK, rodney, please explain to me how Einstein's work on relativity extended the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establishment at the time. Do the same for Niels Bohr. How about Rutherford? Pasteur? Galileo was nearly burned alive for extending the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establisment?

You seem to want to rewrite history, rodney. It's a free country so, you may. However, I regret to inform you that your publication will be limited to yourself and anyone else suffering from the same delusions.

Unfortunately for you, I think you'll find that there are more members of Cayce's organization than Randi's. ;)

Evidence, rodney?

Again, however, I would like to see Cayce's remedies scientifically examined.

As I've written before, that's easy. You and your formidable Cayce International merely have to put up the funds. Given the tremendous membership you claim for CI, that should be no trouble at all. PM me when you have the funds together if you need advice on where to find capable research facilities for these tests.

[Rodney]

I don't believe you. What I do believe is that you're at an end of your information and have decided to worry at phraseology. You are now quibbling over semantics. If you can't understand the concept of losing an opportunity to study for the math test because you decided to go to the movies, then you really don't belong in an intelligent discussion. Basically, that's all it is. Pumping money into the study of phenomena whose mere existence is questionable denies the use of those same funds into verifiable phenomena. In addition, having invested money into that nonsense to begin with encourages the belief of many of the duped in that phenomenon. What is so difficult to understand about that, rodney?
Neither you, Mojo, or Linda has offered a shred of evidence that investigating alternative medicine has somehow been detrimental to the progress of conventional medicine. If you can find a study that shows that, please supply a link to it.

Again, you are being disingenuous. You now admit that there is currently no better system at testing therapeutic effect than double-blind testing. OTOH, you are questioning its validity. Bias is the Achilles' Heel of every testing system. People from all walks of life spend years learning techniques and devising testing protocols to minimize bias. DBT is the culmination of these efforts with regard to tests where placebo and nocebo effects threaten to introduce considerable bias.
The point is that, as valuable as DBTs are, you can't simply assume that a DBT is the last word on a subject.

I find it very strange that a member in good standing of Cayce International To be in good standing requires that you pay the $48 annual fee -- even a Randi Foundation member can join Cayce's organization. ;)

is here requesting historical accounting of any type of scientific testing. If such an organization has doubts about the ways any branch of science tests its hyptheses, they have every opportunity to examine the historical record and produce a report suggesting uncontrolled sources of bias or better methods of testing. Cayce International, founded in 1931, has been silent on this issue for 76 years now. Perhaps, rodney, instead of bothering another group to do your organization's research for them, you should instead impose on CI to answer your questions. Get something for those $48 per year other than a royal dumbing-down.
From my perspective, it would be nice if Cayce's organization would fund medical research, but they prefer to fund other types of research, such as archeological.

OK, rodney, please explain to me how Einstein's work on relativity extended the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establishment at the time. Do the same for Niels Bohr. How about Rutherford? Pasteur? Galileo was nearly burned alive for extending the fundamental assumptions of the scientific establisment?
Galileo is a great example of how the scientific establishment tries to block ideas that contradict the conventional wisdom. Back in his time, that establishment was the Church, now it's the anti-Church.


Evidence, rodney?
According to -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Research_and_Enlightenment --
"Founded in 1931, the A.R.E. now boasts several tens of thousands of members, and probably many more who participate in its activities in some way. While most of its members are American, the A.R.E. is represented in more than 60 other countries."

Maybe someone here knows how many Randi Foundation members there are.

[fls]

But I'm looking for an analysis of how RCT results have held up over time.

Yes, and each of those would be an example.

When you say, "if significant results are reproducibly found," how dissimilar can the results be, and still be valid, in your opinion?

A distribution that is different from that expected by chance.

You're missing the point that, when an idea is too far from the mainstream, it is ridiculed, rather than investigated. How can evidence be developed for an idea when the scientific establishment refuses to investigate it and disbelieves "anecdotes"?

I understand that was your point. You are implying that a scientific establishment, acting as a single body, determines what particular subjects and areas will be investigated and scientists follow their assignments - a top down approach. I am suggesting that it follows more of a bottom up approach - that individual scientists and researchers pursue areas that they find interesting and potentially fruitful. And that it is the gathering of evidence that gradually increases the interest level of more and more scientists and researchers (which leads of course to more and more evidence, presumably). It is up to those who are initially interested in the idea to get others interested. And the surest way to get scientists and other researchers interested is to actually gather compelling information, not whining about how nobody else is interested in doing the work for you.

I just checked out the NCCAM web page and find that the first two articles listed are:

"(1) Tai Chi Boosts Immunity to Shingles Virus in Older Adults
The study is the first rigorous clinical trial to suggest that a behavioral intervention, alone or together with a vaccine, can help protect older adults from the varicella virus, which causes both chickenpox and shingles.

"(2) Study compares year-long effectiveness of four weight-loss plans
The Atkins diet may contribute to greater weight loss than higher carbohydrate plans without negative effects such as increased cholesterol."

Do those study results support or contradict the prior conventional medical wisdom?

They reiterate what is already known, or cover areas that are already investigated through conventional research. The information from these studies is not uniquely stimulated by the process of following suggestions from CAM. For example, we already know that programs involving physical activity and flexibility improve the health of older adults. To take a program that incorporates those features, and test it for a series of different outcomes is hardly groundbreaking work, regardless of how the NCCAM wants to puff it up.

Linda

[Slimething]

Neither you, Mojo, or Linda has offered a shred of evidence that investigating alternative medicine has somehow been detrimental to the progress of conventional medicine. If you can find a study that shows that, please supply a link to it.

No, rodney, there are not studies that demonstrate that a dollar can't be spent twice. That is what we call a trivial observation, some might even call it common sense. I also can't produce a study that concludes that an object won't ever fall away from a gravitational field or that fruit don't dance around when you close the refrigerator door. Do you have a study you can cite that demonstrates how unique resources can be used for two diametrically opposed purposes at the same time?

But, in a way, you can prove yourself wrong, rodney. Think of this this way. Two therapies are tested. The one that wins is then "conventional" and the one that loses is "alternative". Pretty neat concept, huh? Discredited therapies don't simply disappear after a thorough debunking. They still have the credulous asking dumb questions on forums long afterward.


The point is that, as valuable as DBTs are, you can't simply assume that a DBT is the last word on a subject.


Good point, rodney. No one ever has stated that DBT is the "last word" in testing. Even you admitted that it's the best we have right now. That's why I asked you to post a better system, remember? You couldn't. Deal with it.


From my perspective, it would be nice if Cayce's organization would fund medical research, but they prefer to fund other types of research, such as archeological.


Why is that, rodney? If Cayce International can't be bothered to challenge the medical professoin for giving Cayce the attention he so richly deserves, why do you feel comfortable asking skeptics to do it? Skeptics go with the evidence. If CI can't be bothered to produce any, I would conclude that such a battle is very low on their agenda. As it is with ours.

Galileo is a great example of how the scientific establishment tries to block ideas that contradict the conventional wisdom. Back in his time, that establishment was the Church, now it's the anti-Church.

Wow, you really have your head turned around, rodney. Not only do you not know medical science, the scientfic method or logic but now you're accusing whomever you think of being your amorphous "scientific establishment" to be a conniving bunch of anti-religious activists. I won't even ask you for evidence on this one because I know you don't have a shred of it.

Regardless, why was it rejected at first, rodney? That was my question. Why? I know about this case in history but you haven't told anyone why Galileo's hypothesis was rejected. Please do so.

Maybe someone here knows how many Randi Foundation members there are.

Still using skeptics to do your research, I see. Nothing ever changes for the intellectually lazy. Let me point out to you that even if Randi himself told you that the membership was, say, 22,000, that would still not answer the question. "Tens of thousands" could be 20,000.

Rodney, cayce is bunk. Sorry. Since 1931, cayce's followers have not been able to demonstrate any systematic knowledge concerning medicine that rivals what is used today. And, they keep getting further and further behind in this field. If you don't like it, suggest to the board at CI that they mount a challenge. Hell, you've paid your $48, right? In the meantime, stop wasting other people's time.

[Rodney]

Yes, and each of those would be an example.
How so? If someone wants to demonstrate that 48-hour weather forecasts for, say, Vancouver, British Columbia, have almost always been accurate over the past 20 years, the entire 20-year record must be examined. It won't do to show that only selected forecasts have been accurate.

A distribution that is different from that expected by chance.
Most ganzfeld experiments have produced results that differ significantly from chance. According to p. 120 of Dean Radin's "Entangled Minds": "From 1974 through 2004 a total of 88 ganzfeld experiments reporting 1,008 hits in 3,145 trials were conducted. The combined hit rate was 32% as compared to the chance-expected rate of 25%."

I understand that was your point. You are implying that a scientific establishment, acting as a single body, determines what particular subjects and areas will be investigated and scientists follow their assignments - a top down approach. I am suggesting that it follows more of a bottom up approach - that individual scientists and researchers pursue areas that they find interesting and potentially fruitful. And that it is the gathering of evidence that gradually increases the interest level of more and more scientists and researchers (which leads of course to more and more evidence, presumably). It is up to those who are initially interested in the idea to get others interested. And the surest way to get scientists and other researchers interested is to actually gather compelling information, not whining about how nobody else is interested in doing the work for you. That's fine for most areas of scientific research, but not for scientific research into the paranormal. That goes over about as well with the current scientific establishment as challenging geocentrism did with the Middle Ages' establishment.

They reiterate what is already known, or cover areas that are already investigated through conventional research. The information from these studies is not uniquely stimulated by the process of following suggestions from CAM. For example, we already know that programs involving physical activity and flexibility improve the health of older adults. To take a program that incorporates those features, and test it for a series of different outcomes is hardly groundbreaking work, regardless of how the NCCAM wants to puff it up.

Linda
Assuming what you say is true (which I don't ;)), I'm still trying to figure out how society would be better off today if this unconventional research had not been done. If we had put the money spent on this research into conventional research, would we have cured cancer, the common cold, acid indigestion, or what?

[Slimething]

How so? If someone wants to demonstrate that 48-hour weather forecasts for, say, Vancouver, British Columbia, have almost always been accurate over the past 20 years, the entire 20-year record must be examined. It won't do to show that only selected forecasts have been accurate.

Following your "logic", if the first year of forecasts in the last 20 years where grossly inaccurate, that would completely invalidate whatever came afterwards? Despite significant technological advancements? Apples and oranges, rodney.


That's fine for most areas of scientific research, but not for scientific research into the paranormal. That goes over about as well with the current scientific establishment as challenging geocentrism did with the Middle Ages' establishment.


You're absolutely wrong here, rodney. All you have to do to have any topic considered is to do the research. All you need is the funding. For enough moolah, you can have geocentrism researched. All you need is the backing. The going rate is about $1000/tech-day. As I wrote you before, get Cayce International to foot the bill. Stop complaining to us that your own organization doesn't care enough about your delusions to back them up with research.

[qyote]Assuming what you say is true (which I don't ;)), I'm still trying to figure out how society would be better off today if this unconventional research had not been done. If we had put the money spent on this research into conventional research, would we have cured cancer, the common cold, acid indigestion, or what?[/quote]

Or determine how many angels would dance on the head of a pin? Seriously, rodney, you can't expect most people to care if the followers of Cayce don't care. If they did, they would fund the research. The rest of us know that what you believe is beneficial is absolute bull. Prove us wrong.

[BillyJoe]

If we had put the money spent on this research into conventional research, would we have cured cancer, the common cold, acid indigestion, or what?

Off the top of my head, some of these have already been achieved...


cancer:

- childhood leukaemia can be cured;
- cancer of the kidney can be cured (even if you have a metastasis in the lung) - you lose your kidney but you get to keep your life.
- lung cancer if caught early enough.
- bowel cancer can be prevented by removing polyps via colonoscopy (if you have a family history)

common cold:

- nope. The bloody thing keeps changing its spots!

acid indigestion:

- 95% are caused by an organism discovered by a couple of Australian medical researchers. It can be cured with a course of treatment in one week.


Who knows what else could have been achieved if funds devoted to alt med (eg homoeopathy) had have been available for evidence based medical research?

[Mojo]

Neither you, Mojo, or Linda has offered a shred of evidence that investigating alternative medicine has somehow been detrimental to the progress of conventional medicine.


Yes I have (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2670200#post2670200). ;)

[fls]

How so? If someone wants to demonstrate that 48-hour weather forecasts for, say, Vancouver, British Columbia, have almost always been accurate over the past 20 years, the entire 20-year record must be examined. It won't do to show that only selected forecasts have been accurate.

Exactly! The systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration are reviews of the entire record on any particular subject, rather than selected records.

Most ganzfeld experiments have produced results that differ significantly from chance. According to p. 120 of Dean Radin's "Entangled Minds": "From 1974 through 2004 a total of 88 ganzfeld experiments reporting 1,008 hits in 3,145 trials were conducted. The combined hit rate was 32% as compared to the chance-expected rate of 25%."

Yes. As far as we can tell, it's an accurate measure of the degree of bias present in the field of Ganzfeld research. Bias is not a paranormal effect. I'm suggesting that instead of measuring bias, the researchers make a concerted effort to eliminate bias to see if anything is left.

That's fine for most areas of scientific research, but not for scientific research into the paranormal. That goes over about as well with the current scientific establishment as challenging geocentrism did with the Middle Ages' establishment.

Can you give an example of paranormal research that has been unjustly rejected - i.e. the evidence supporting the idea is similar to that supporting some conventional idea?

Assuming what you say is true (which I don't ;)),

Yes, that is a good example of the difference between you and me. I don't choose to assume that things are true or not true based on wishful thinking (or at least I try very hard not to and feel contrite (rather than proud) if it happens).

I'm still trying to figure out how society would be better off today if this unconventional research had not been done. If we had put the money spent on this research into conventional research, would we have cured cancer, the common cold, acid indigestion, or what?

See, you do understand! Money spent on conventional research leads to things like cures for cancer, cures for gastric ulcers and acid-reflux disease, and maybe cures for the common cold. So far, money spent following ideas based on stories and wishful thinking hasn't accomplished anything even remotely close to that.

Linda

[Rodney]

Exactly! The systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration are reviews of the entire record on any particular subject, rather than selected records.
Do these systematic reviews include analyzing all RDBPCTs of the possibly harmful effects of consuming coffee and eggs? If so, please direct me to those reviews.

Yes. As far as we can tell, it's an accurate measure of the degree of bias present in the field of Ganzfeld research. Bias is not a paranormal effect. I'm suggesting that instead of measuring bias, the researchers make a concerted effort to eliminate bias to see if anything is left.
On what basis do you conclude that the Ganzfeld trials have been biased?

Can you give an example of paranormal research that has been unjustly rejected - i.e. the evidence supporting the idea is similar to that supporting some conventional idea?
How about the Ganzfeld trials? :)

Yes, that is a good example of the difference between you and me. I don't choose to assume that things are true or not true based on wishful thinking (or at least I try very hard not to and feel contrite (rather than proud) if it happens). I will humbly strive for such perfection in the future.

See, you do understand! Money spent on conventional research leads to things like cures for cancer, cures for gastric ulcers and acid-reflux disease, and maybe cures for the common cold. So far, money spent following ideas based on stories and wishful thinking hasn't accomplished anything even remotely close to that.

Linda
According to -- http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/cancer-gate.php -- "Award-winning author, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., whose 1978 book The Politics of Cancer shook the political establishment by showing how the federal government had been corrupted by industrial polluters, has written a book that is sure to be of equal consequence. Cancer-Gate: How to Win The Losing Cancer War is a groundbreaking new book. It warns that, contrary to three decades of promises, we are losing the winnable war against cancer, and that the hand-in-glove generals of the federal National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the private “nonprofit” American Cancer Society (ACS) have betrayed us. These institutions, Epstein alleges, have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars primarily targeting silver-bullet cures, strategies that have largely failed, while virtually ignoring strategies for preventing cancer in the first place. As a result, cancer rates have escalated to epidemic proportions, now striking nearly one in every two men, and more than one in every three women. This translates into approximately 50 percent more cancer in men, and 20 percent more cancer in women over the course of just one generation."

[Slimething]

According to -- http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/cancer-gate.php -- "Award-winning author, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., whose 1978 book The Politics of Cancer shook the political establishment by showing how the federal government had been corrupted by industrial polluters, has written a book that is sure to be of equal consequence. Cancer-Gate: How to Win The Losing Cancer War is a groundbreaking new book. It warns that, contrary to three decades of promises, we are losing the winnable war against cancer, and that the hand-in-glove generals of the federal National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the private “nonprofit” American Cancer Society (ACS) have betrayed us. These institutions, Epstein alleges, have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars primarily targeting silver-bullet cures, strategies that have largely failed, while virtually ignoring strategies for preventing cancer in the first place. As a result, cancer rates have escalated to epidemic proportions, now striking nearly one in every two men, and more than one in every three women. This translates into approximately 50 percent more cancer in men, and 20 percent more cancer in women over the course of just one generation."

Ah, the famous Daniel Epstein. Why am I not surprised that you are also a fan of his? This is the cancer expert who tells people that turning their blood alkaline will cure or prevent cancer. The one who wants everyone to believe that the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society are in cahoots with everyone he doesn't like. He holds these positions despite the unparalleled success of modern science in the past thirty years.

Of course, one can't tell Dr. Epstein that cancer is a disease mostly of the aged and that its occurence has increased due to the also unparalleled increase in the median life expectancy. No, such details do not insterest Dr. Epstein. He would rather ride the wave of paranoia about big industry and shamelessly promote himself. (Rodney, check out who's behind preventcancer.com.) I'd also like to know which awards Epstein has earned as I've been able to find no list.

Rodney, take my advice. If you ever get cancer, don't go with Eptein or Cayce. Your odds are much better with real medicine. Indulge your fantasies now but you should stop if you ever get in this type of bind.

[fls]

Do these systematic reviews include analyzing all RDBPCTs of the possibly harmful effects of consuming coffee and eggs? If so, please direct me to those reviews.

You've lost me on this. Why are you going on about coffee and eggs?

On what basis do you conclude that the Ganzfeld trials have been biased?

I've read descriptions of the methods and they allow for the presence of bias. Parapsychologists have described the presence of bias in the Ganzfeld studies (examples - Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman, Louie Savva). And Ray Hyman demonstrated through simulation that even just a few of these flaws (of the amount and kind found in these studies) can lead to the appearance of an effect equivalent to that demonstrated by the metanalyses.

How about the Ganzfeld trials? :)

What conventional idea are you comparing it to? What conventional idea do you think is unquestioned, even though it is supported by a reasonably equivalent amount of information, just because the idea does not challenge conventional wisdom?

According to -- http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/cancer-gate.php -- "Award-winning author, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., whose 1978 book The Politics of Cancer shook the political establishment by showing how the federal government had been corrupted by industrial polluters, has written a book that is sure to be of equal consequence. Cancer-Gate: How to Win The Losing Cancer War is a groundbreaking new book. It warns that, contrary to three decades of promises, we are losing the winnable war against cancer, and that the hand-in-glove generals of the federal National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the private “nonprofit” American Cancer Society (ACS) have betrayed us. These institutions, Epstein alleges, have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars primarily targeting silver-bullet cures, strategies that have largely failed, while virtually ignoring strategies for preventing cancer in the first place. As a result, cancer rates have escalated to epidemic proportions, now striking nearly one in every two men, and more than one in every three women. This translates into approximately 50 percent more cancer in men, and 20 percent more cancer in women over the course of just one generation."

Disregarding the validity (or lack thereof) of Epstein's ideas, what does that have to do with what we were talking about? Where do you think the knowledge about preventable causes has come from, if not through conventional research?

Linda

[BillyJoe]

Do these systematic reviews include analyzing all RDBPCTs of the possibly harmful effects of consuming coffee and eggs? If so, please direct me to those reviews.


I bloody well hope not. I love eggs. And I love coffee. Or do you mean "coffee and eggs"?

On what basis do you conclude that the Ganzfeld trials have been biased?


"Regression towards the mean", "selection bias", "sensory leakage", "randomisation errors", "documentation errors", "statistical flaws"

"Award-winning author, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., whose 1978 book The Politics of Cancer...


Is there an update? Or has there been no change in 30 years?

It warns that, contrary to three decades of promises, we are losing the winnable war against cancer...


So he says it is winnable. Is he saying that it is winnable through Altmed, rather than through EBM?

...virtually ignoring strategies for preventing cancer in the first place.


Prevention of cancer is a separate issue from treatment of cancer.
Anyway, in the last thirty years, there is mammographic screening, colonoscopic screening, blood pressure screening, cholesterol screening, diabetes screening, dietary advice, advice regarding exercise, stress reduction.

As a result, cancer rates have escalated to epidemic proportions, now striking nearly one in every two men, and more than one in every three women. This translates into approximately 50 percent more cancer in men, and 20 percent more cancer in women over the course of just one generation."


ST has already provided the answer to that one.
Ironically, it is because of the success of treating and preventing other forms of disease, that cancer deaths have risen. Look at the rise in life expectancy. A hundred years ago it was 58, now its 80. Sure cancer's on the rise.

[Rodney]

You've lost me on this. Why are you going on about coffee and eggs?
According to -- http://www.mercola.com/2003/dec/10/coffee.htm --
"Although coffee is one of the most heavily researched commodities and studies have spanned decades, there is still much controversy surrounding its ill effects, or lack thereof, on health. Study after study is performed--often with conflicting results--and it seems there is always a new study out to discount the last one."

And, according to -- http://www.thecardioblog.com/2006/07/11/eggs-bad-or-not-bad-for-heart-health-which-is-it/ -- "In the 60's, scientists made the discovery of a link between high blood cholesterol levels and heart disease. Because diet can affect blood cholesterol levels, and eggs can raise this level, it was advised people eat fewer eggs to keep the cholesterol levels down. Twenty years later, along comes the Framingham Dietary Study that questioned that eating eggs had any effect at all on blood cholesterol levels."

I've read descriptions of the methods and they allow for the presence of bias. Parapsychologists have described the presence of bias in the Ganzfeld studies (examples - Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman, Louie Savva). And Ray Hyman demonstrated through simulation that even just a few of these flaws (of the amount and kind found in these studies) can lead to the appearance of an effect equivalent to that demonstrated by the metanalyses.
All of your "parapsychologists" are avowed skeptics of paranormal phenomena. How about the opinions of folks like Dick Bierman, Daryl Bem, and Richard Broughton?

What conventional idea are you comparing it to? What conventional idea do you think is unquestioned, even though it is supported by a reasonably equivalent amount of information, just because the idea does not challenge conventional wisdom?
For example, there is an antiparasitic treatment for cows that is designed to increase milk production. However, studies over many years show highly variable results. See -- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBK-4C4DY64-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F14%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e2fe3434616793266e1f73a7362fe74b

Disregarding the validity (or lack thereof) of Epstein's ideas, what does that have to do with what we were talking about? Where do you think the knowledge about preventable causes has come from, if not through conventional research?

Linda
My point is that countless billions of dollars have been spent on conventional cancer research since President Nixon declared a "War on Cancer" in 1971, and yet we are still a long way from eradicating cancer. Yes, there has been some progress, but the cost/benefit ratio seems exceedingly high. Where would we be now if a tiny portion of this research had focused on Cayce's unconventional ideas regarding cancer, such as that eating almonds can help prevent it? Unfortunately, we don't know, but some of us would like to find out.

[fls]

According to -- http://www.mercola.com/2003/dec/10/coffee.htm --
"Although coffee is one of the most heavily researched commodities and studies have spanned decades, there is still much controversy surrounding its ill effects, or lack thereof, on health. Study after study is performed--often with conflicting results--and it seems there is always a new study out to discount the last one."

And, according to -- http://www.thecardioblog.com/2006/07/11/eggs-bad-or-not-bad-for-heart-health-which-is-it/ -- "In the 60's, scientists made the discovery of a link between high blood cholesterol levels and heart disease. Because diet can affect blood cholesterol levels, and eggs can raise this level, it was advised people eat fewer eggs to keep the cholesterol levels down. Twenty years later, along comes the Framingham Dietary Study that questioned that eating eggs had any effect at all on blood cholesterol levels."

It should be assumed that anything on the Mercola site is wrong until confirmed independently.

It would help if you would make the effort to understand the difference between a cohort study and a randomized controlled trial.

All of your "parapsychologists" are avowed skeptics of paranormal phenomena. How about the opinions of folks like Dick Bierman, Daryl Bem, and Richard Broughton?

Non-skeptical parapsychologists do not deny the existence of bias, only the idea that it can account for all the effects. The purpose of Hyman's simulation was to demonstrate that it can.

Also, two of the parapsychologists I listed did not start out as skeptics.

For example, there is an antiparasitic treatment for cows that is designed to increase milk production. However, studies over many years show highly variable results. See -- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBK-4C4DY64-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F14%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e2fe3434616793266e1f73a7362fe74b

What component of this is unquestioned?

My point is that countless billions of dollars have been spent on conventional cancer research since President Nixon declared a "War on Cancer" in 1971, and yet we are still a long way from eradicating cancer. Yes, there has been some progress, but the cost/benefit ratio seems exceedingly high. Where would we be now if a tiny portion of this research had focused on Cayce's unconventional ideas regarding cancer, such as that eating almonds can help prevent it? Unfortunately, we don't know, but some of us would like to find out.

Okay. Which areas of research would you like to drop in order to fund your studies? Better methods of mammography? Treatment of childhood leukemia? Smoking-cessation programs?

Linda

[Slimething]

Ah, rodney, you're back! Good cuz you owe me some stuff. Namely:
1. The membership numbers for the JREF and Cayce International.
2. Evidence that Einstein's hypotheses were fully compliant with physics prior to his publishing them.
3. Evidence of uncontrolled bias in randomized double-blind testing.
4. Evidence of a monolithic scientific establishment.
5. The reason Galileo's hypothesis was rejected.

Maybe you forgot these debts but I didn't. How do you justify asking all your various questions of us but fail to honor your tacit obligation to respond to ours?

[Rodney]

It should be assumed that anything on the Mercola site is wrong until confirmed independently.

It would help if you would make the effort to understand the difference between a cohort study and a randomized controlled trial.
I think you should direct your educational efforts toward the media, which tends to report all study results similarly. In any event, I'm still looking for an overall analysis of RDBPCTs.


Non-skeptical parapsychologists do not deny the existence of bias, only the idea that it can account for all the effects. The purpose of Hyman's simulation was to demonstrate that it can.

Also, two of the parapsychologists I listed did not start out as skeptics. That's what Blackmore claims, but I have my doubts. As far as Savva goes, it's pretty clear he changed his position in a heartbeat. At one point, he believed that a spirit could attack someone, then suddenly he was debunking psi research at the ripe old age of 28.

What component of this is unquestioned?
I would think the fact that this antiparasitic treatment has been used for so many years is a good indication that it is accepted as being productive. Perhaps "unquestioned" is too strong, but it's certainly placed in a different box than psi research by the scientific establishment


Okay. Which areas of research would you like to drop in order to fund your studies? Better methods of mammography? Treatment of childhood leukemia? Smoking-cessation programs?

Linda
I don't think it's a question of ceasing all funding in any of these areas, although I find smoking cessation advertising to be a complete waste of money. If you can arrange to put me in charge, I'll get the studies done in not time with no cutback in true conventional research. ;)

[Rodney]

Ah, rodney, you're back!
When was I away? ;)

Good cuz you owe me some stuff. Namely:
1. The membership numbers for the JREF and Cayce International.
"Anecdotal" evidence suggests the JREF membership is considerably lower than that of the Association for Research and Enlightenment (as opposed to "Cayce International", which doesn't exist, as far as I know). However, I am willing to listen to "non-anecdotal" evidence that will prove me wrong.

2. Evidence that Einstein's hypotheses were fully compliant with physics prior to his publishing them.
I never said that, but I did say that those hypotheses were much more consistent with the worldview of the scientific establishment than the hypothesis that Cayce could somehow tap into some type of universal wisdom.

3. Evidence of uncontrolled bias in randomized double-blind testing.
I'm still looking for an analysis that supports Linda's belief that randomized double-blind testing is "almost always" accurate. That doesn't mean that I'm against such testing -- to the contrary, I support it. Nonetheless, bias can creep in, which is essentially Linda's criticism of psi research.

4. Evidence of a monolithic scientific establishment.
I did not use the word "monolithic", but there clearly is a bias toward the mechanistic, materialistic worldview among mainstream scientists in our era, just as there used to be a bias against that worldview in the Middle Ages.

5. The reason Galileo's hypothesis was rejected.
For the same reason that the psi hypothesis is rejected now: It was too far outside the existing scientific worldview.

Maybe you forgot these debts but I didn't. How do you justify asking all your various questions of us but fail to honor your tacit obligation to respond to ours?
As you desired, Master. :)

[Slimething]

When was I away? ;)

You answered several of Linda's posts before you decided to tackle mine. And there was an all-too-brief period when you didn't post at all. Raise my hopes...


"Anecdotal" evidence suggests the JREF membership is considerably lower than that of the Association for Research and Enlightenment (as opposed to "Cayce International", which doesn't exist, as far as I know). However, I am willing to listen to "non-anecdotal" evidence that will prove me wrong.


Is anecdotal evidence your sole specialty? Don't you ever have direct evidence for anything you say? Anyway, care to post said anecdotal evidence?

I used Cayce International to designate the worldwide ARE organization. Strange that you would demand non-anecdotal evidence from me while you are perfectly satisfied by foisting anything you (*&)(& well please on me, rodney.

I never said that, but I did say that those hypotheses were much more consistent with the worldview of the scientific establishment than the hypothesis that Cayce could somehow tap into some type of universal wisdom.

No, that's not what you wrote. This is whay I meant by your bobbing and weaving. You claimed that a scientific establishment exists that refuses to consider hypothesis that do not conform with their current beliefs. Here is the non-anecdotal evidence:

Post 406:
Aren't you the least bit troubled that the history of science involves the establishment ridiculing ideas that are too far outside the mainstream?


Post 412: No, but the problem lies in the willingness of the scientific establishment to collect and examine the evidence. For example, at the turn of the 19th Century, the Frence Academy of Sciences ridiculed the idea of meteorites and did not seriously investigate this phenomenon until there was a fortuitous nearby meteor shower.


Just to be fair, here's some classic backtracking from #417: I strongly disagree that there is no scientific establishment, although, fortunately, there are usually mavericks willing to challenge that establishment. However, the establishment can significantly delay acceptance of valid new ideas.

From 421: I understand, but I still maintain that, throughout history the scientific establishment has done its best to thwart new ideas that it finds too far out of the mainstream, and nothing has changed recently.

And so on and so on and so on... Seems you like to claim there is a scientific star chamber when it suits you and not at other times. So which one is it? No, never mind. Just explain to me how Einstein's hypothesis that distance and time were variable was in any way more shocking than some faker spouting already-known medical treatment?

I'm still looking for an analysis that supports Linda's belief that randomized double-blind testing is "almost always" accurate. That doesn't mean that I'm against such testing -- to the contrary, I support it. Nonetheless, bias can creep in, which is essentially Linda's criticism of psi research.

And I've already told you that's a moot point. As you can propose no better system, all you have to know is that RDBT is the gold standard right now. You don't have to understand it and it isn't Linda's duty to educate you. Willingly or not, you put your life into the hands of RDBT every single day. If you don't like that or don't believe it, go back to school and study up good.

I did not use the word "monolithic", but there clearly is a bias toward the mechanistic, materialistic worldview among mainstream scientists in our era, just as there used to be a bias against that worldview in the Middle Ages.

Monolithic was the word I used. Tell me how a scientific establishment could so effectively quash your hero's "contributions" if it were not monolithic. And, yes, science has settled into the comfortable practice of dealing with provable fact. Deal with it. It ain't gonna change until you prove us wrong. Let me reiterate that cuz I like it so: YOU PROVE US WRONG. Got it? It's up to you and whatever support you can muster to provide evidence that cayce had anything of value to offer, not the other way around. Science owes you nothing.

For the same reason that the psi hypothesis is rejected now: It was too far outside the existing scientific worldview.

Linda has been very patient with you on this point. No, that's not the reason. The reason is, rodney, that a hypothesis is the very incipient stage of a theory. At the time they are proposed, there is insufficient evidence for hypotheses to command acceptance from scientists. That is the reason Gailieo's hypothesis was not accepted and it is also the reason for Einstein's hypothesis not being accepted. By and by, evidence in favor of successful hypotheses mounts to the point that they are accepted. Cayce's hypotheses have not been accepted because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest they are true. Simple, no?

[Mojo]

5. The reason Galileo's hypothesis was rejected. For the same reason that the psi hypothesis is rejected now: It was too far outside the existing scientific worldview.


Actually, the problem was that it was too far outside the existing religious worldview. And taking the piss out of the Pope didn't help, either. The existing "scientific worldview", such as it was (Copernicus, William Gilbert?) didn't have any real problem with it.

[fls]

I think you should direct your educational efforts toward the media, which tends to report all study results similarly.

I think you should make an effort to educate yourself, using people who know what they are talking about as sources.

In any event, I'm still looking for an overall analysis of RDBPCTs.

I think this is a lie. You have demonstrated over and over and over again that you will reject any information that I provide to you, regardless of how perfectly it fulfills your criteria. For example, in the Homeopathic Cough Medicine thread, first you asked for evidence that cough medicine was effective. When that was provided, then it was "but I want evidence that particular 'mixtures' are effective." When that was provided, then it was, "but I want evidence that particular brand name formulations of particular mixtures are effective." When that was provided, you simply dropped that part of the thread, waiting for enough time to pass for you to simply go back to repeating your initial assertions as though no contradictory information had already been presented to you.

Knowing that you are ultimately going to reject any information I provide on the overall accuracy of RCT's, I think you actually much prefer the opportunity to reject it at an early stage.

That's what Blackmore claims, but I have my doubts. As far as Savva goes, it's pretty clear he changed his position in a heartbeat. At one point, he believed that a spirit could attack someone, then suddenly he was debunking psi research at the ripe old age of 28.

Have you never had an epiphany?

However, to make you happy, I will rephrase my sentence.

"Parapsychologists have described the presence of bias in the Ganzfeld studies (examples - Charles Honorton, Ray Hyman, Dean Radin)."

I would think the fact that this antiparasitic treatment has been used for so many years is a good indication that it is accepted as being productive. Perhaps "unquestioned" is too strong, but it's certainly placed in a different box than psi research by the scientific establishment

The reason it is placed in a different box is because the evidence supporting it is dramatically different. The studies looking at milk production as an outcome are the final step in a long series of research understanding the physiology of milk production, parasitology, and therapeutics. It is the tip of an iceberg. On the other hand, none of that kind of information underlies the Ganzfeld studies, so the only evidence for the effect is contained within the studies - no independent evidence exits. It is like a rowboat floating on the surface. The tip of the iceberg and the rowboat my occupy the same volume above the surface of the water, but the total volume of the iceberg and the rowboat are quite different.

I don't think it's a question of ceasing all funding in any of these areas, although I find smoking cessation advertising to be a complete waste of money. If you can arrange to put me in charge, I'll get the studies done in not time with no cutback in true conventional research. ;)

If money is spent on your research, then it is not available to be spent on other research, despite your pretense otherwise. If your drug is tested, that means a drug that may treat childhood leukemia is not tested. These sorts of trade-offs have to be made all the time, but at least they are usually directed by the strength of the evidence underlying the idea in conventional research - i.e. the ideas that are more likely to be fruitful are the ideas that are more likely to be tested.

Linda

[fls]

I'm still looking for an analysis that supports Linda's belief that randomized double-blind testing is "almost always" accurate.

Did you miss the part where I said that my answer was nonsensical because it's a tautology?

That doesn't mean that I'm against such testing -- to the contrary, I support it. Nonetheless, bias can creep in, which is essentially Linda's criticism of psi research.

Woohoo, another tautology.

Linda

[Rodney]

Is anecdotal evidence your sole specialty? Don't you ever have direct evidence for anything you say?
Please define "direct evidence."

Anyway, care to post said anecdotal evidence?
I already cited the Wikipedia article. And I never said I had conclusive proof that the A.R.E. has more members than the JREF, but there are 37 Edgar Cayce Centers around the world and I don't see anything comparable in the JREF.

I used Cayce International to designate the worldwide ARE organization. Strange that you would demand non-anecdotal evidence from me while you are perfectly satisfied by foisting anything you (*&)(& well please on me, rodney.
You can use whatever you want, but I've never heard the A.R.E. refer to its worldwide organization as Cayce International.

No, that's not what you wrote. This is whay I meant by your bobbing and weaving. You claimed that a scientific establishment exists that refuses to consider hypothesis that do not conform with their current beliefs. Here is the non-anecdotal evidence:

Post 406:

Post 412:

Just to be fair, here's some classic backtracking from #417:

From 421:

And so on and so on and so on... Seems you like to claim there is a scientific star chamber when it suits you and not at other times. So which one is it? No, never mind.
That's okay, I'll explain it again anyway: There is a scientific establishment that is extremely biased against evidence for the paranormal because accepting that evidence would shatter the establishment's prevailing worldview. Fortunately, however, the establishment doesn't have as much control as it would like, and so ideas outside that worldview are promulgated.

Just explain to me how Einstein's hypothesis that distance and time were variable was in any way more shocking than some faker spouting already-known medical treatment?
It wasn't in any way more shocking because it wasn't inconsistent with the mechanistic, materialistic worldview of the scientific establishment.

No, that's not the reason. The reason is, rodney, that a hypothesis is the very incipient stage of a theory. At the time they are proposed, there is insufficient evidence for hypotheses to command acceptance from scientists. That is the reason Gailieo's hypothesis was not accepted and it is also the reason for Einstein's hypothesis not being accepted. By and by, evidence in favor of successful hypotheses mounts to the point that they are accepted. Cayce's hypotheses have not been accepted because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest they are true. Simple, no?
So when was the right time to accept Galileo's and Einstein's hypotheses? Please give me the year that you would have accepted each hypothesis.

[Rodney]

I think you should make an effort to educate yourself, using people who know what they are talking about as sources.
So how does one determine which credentialed authority knows what (s)he is talking about?

I think this is a lie. You have demonstrated over and over and over again that you will reject any information that I provide to you, regardless of how perfectly it fulfills your criteria. For example, in the Homeopathic Cough Medicine thread, first you asked for evidence that cough medicine was effective. When that was provided, then it was "but I want evidence that particular 'mixtures' are effective." When that was provided, then it was, "but I want evidence that particular brand name formulations of particular mixtures are effective." When that was provided, you simply dropped that part of the thread, waiting for enough time to pass for you to simply go back to repeating your initial assertions as though no contradictory information had already been presented to you. Except that a number of medical authorities are on record as stating that cough medicines are generally ineffective.

Knowing that you are ultimately going to reject any information I provide on the overall accuracy of RCT's, I think you actually much prefer the opportunity to reject it at an early stage.
No, I'm just trying to determine how accurate RCTs actually are.

Have you never had an epiphany?
Not in the way Louie Savva seems to be claiming. It seems more logical to me that something disillusioned him, rather than him having an epiphany.


However, to make you happy, I will rephrase my sentence.

"Parapsychologists have described the presence of bias in the Ganzfeld studies (examples - Charles Honorton, Ray Hyman, Dean Radin)."
But, of the three, only Hyman doubts the overall findings of Ganzfeld studies.

The reason it is placed in a different box is because the evidence supporting it is dramatically different. The studies looking at milk production as an outcome are the final step in a long series of research understanding the physiology of milk production, parasitology, and therapeutics. It is the tip of an iceberg. On the other hand, none of that kind of information underlies the Ganzfeld studies, so the only evidence for the effect is contained within the studies - no independent evidence exits. It is like a rowboat floating on the surface. The tip of the iceberg and the rowboat my occupy the same volume above the surface of the water, but the total volume of the iceberg and the rowboat are quite different.
By that logic, you will never accept the findings of Ganzfeld studies, no matter how airtight they are.

If money is spent on your research, then it is not available to be spent on other research, despite your pretense otherwise. If your drug is tested, that means a drug that may treat childhood leukemia is not tested. These sorts of trade-offs have to be made all the time, but at least they are usually directed by the strength of the evidence underlying the idea in conventional research - i.e. the ideas that are more likely to be fruitful are the ideas that are more likely to be tested.

Linda
Do you really think all of the money spent on conventional cancer research has been well-spent? And how about the money spent on anti-smoking ads? Has that been well-spent?

[Slimething]

Please define "direct evidence."

Non-anecdotal, relevant, en pointe facts directly corroborative of claim.

I already cited the Wikipedia article. And I never said I had conclusive proof that the A.R.E. has more members than the JREF, but there are 37 Edgar Cayce Centers around the world and I don't see anything comparable in the JREF.

So, what was your point in bringing it up? BTW, the JREF is not a bilking organization. Hence, no need to franchise collection points.


You can use whatever you want, but I've never heard the A.R.E. refer to its worldwide organization as Cayce International.


I told you that I used the term to refer to the international version of the ARE. Are you a few bricks short of a load?

That's okay, I'll explain it again anyway:

No, what you mean is that, now challenged, you will change it to a less falsifiable claim.

There is a scientific establishment that is extremely biased against evidence for the paranormal because accepting that evidence would shatter the establishment's prevailing worldview. Fortunately, however, the establishment doesn't have as much control as it would like, and so ideas outside that worldview are promulgated.

Here we go again. Please, pretty please with a cherry on top, reveal to us. O rodney, any evidence existing for the paranormal. BTW, if it ever existed, the worldview of any scientific establishment has been shattered many times before so they're probably used to it. I'll also let you in on a little secret in that I'm a scientist and have no clue whatever of any such entity. Do you have a mailing address for them? If it's as effective in keeping crap like cayce out of modern medicine, I would love to join.

Insofar as non-scientific ideas are promulgated, that doesn't take much, as you have already proven repeatedly. All one needs to do is ignore all facts and believe whatever one wants. Pretty easy. Even you can do that!

It wasn't in any way more shocking because it wasn't inconsistent with the mechanistic, materialistic worldview of the scientific establishment.

Again, please post direct evidence that the notion of relative timespace was accepted in physics prior to Einstein's hypothesis. You keep on repeating that it was consistent but, you see, you're wrong!! ;) So, please enlighten us with anything that will support your statement.

So when was the right time to accept Galileo's and Einstein's hypotheses? Please give me the year that you would have accepted each hypothesis.

When my reservations had been adequately addressed. Can't give you the dates because I wasn't there at the time. Maybe cayce was? Ask him.

[BillyJoe]

So how does one determine which credentialed authority knows what (s)he is talking about?


Global Warming is a case in point. You would rely on the consensus position of experts in the area of climatology and related fields. They will always qualify their certaintly in the conclusion. For example, the evidence for and against anthropogenic global warming, comes out in favour with a probability of about 10% that this conclusion is incorrect. If you are not going to rely on these experts to give you the odds, who are you going to rely on.

Except that a number of medical authorities are on record as stating that cough medicines are generally ineffective.


This was my point in that thread, but I have since assimilated the difference between public policy and the what the actual results of clinical trials tell us. The results of clinical trials can be confusing and contradictory to the lay person (though not for a scientist trained to evaluate and compare clinical trials). The public needs a safe, take home message. An unfortunate side-effect is incomplete knowledge of the details.

No, I'm just trying to determine how accurate RCTs actually are.


Probably what you need is a comparison between anecdotal evidence and RCTs. There is really no comparison. RCTs, by their very nature, win hands down.

Do you really think all of the money spent on conventional cancer research has been well-spent?


Probably not at present. But you do not know that before you start out. The thing is that the effort needed and needs to be made. The accumulated research could lead, in the furture, to a generic cure. An analogy would be pure (so called, by some, "useless") research in the physical sciences which have led to pretty well everything you see around and in front (your computer!) of you.


And how about the money spent on anti-smoking ads? Has that been well-spent?


Who can tell for sure? In Australia, there is an intensive effort to advertise against smoking and to ban adds promoting cigarettes (on tv, radio, billboards, sporting venues), and to ban smoking in restaurants, workplaces etc. Cigarette boxes must carry a picture graphically illustrating the harmful effects of smoking and a message about the harmfull effects of smoking. All of these measure, and probably others have resulted in a reduction of smoking rates from 58% males in 1964 to 21% males in 2001 (female smoking peaked at 33% in 1976, but has fallen to 21% in 2001)

[fls]

So how does one determine which credentialed authority knows what (s)he is talking about?

That's a whole 'nother topic, and one of great interest to me. It is one of the essays in my queque (if I ever get my act together).

However, in this case, I'm talking about eschewing the lay press as a source of expert information, and instead going to regular educational sources, such as textbooks, for basic information/education on things like "what is a cohort study?"

Except that a number of medical authorities are on record as stating that cough medicines are generally ineffective.

Exactly. Trying to summarize a wealth of information into a single sentence means that you will necessarily be wrong. It is silly to cling to the simplified version when you have the opportunity to understand the details and move closer to a more accurate understanding.

No, I'm just trying to determine how accurate RCTs actually are.

The weighing of the evidence indicates that statement is false. Or in other words, I'll believe it when I see it.

But, of the three, only Hyman doubts the overall findings of Ganzfeld studies.

Yes. Accepting that the findings represent psi depends upon belief, rather than reason.

By that logic, you will never accept the findings of Ganzfeld studies, no matter how airtight they are.

I have specifically stated otherwise.

Do you really think all of the money spent on conventional cancer research has been well-spent?

I don't know. Much progress has been made. I'm sure some of the studies performed were not useful, as it is inevitable and even necessary that some of the areas explored will be dead-ends. If you're not making mistakes, you are missing opportunities.

And how about the money spent on anti-smoking ads? Has that been well-spent?

What's that got to do with it?

Linda

[Mojo]

So how does one determine which credentialed authority knows what (s)he is talking about?


By looking at the evidence, rather than making appeals to authority.

[Mojo]

I already cited the Wikipedia article. And I never said I had conclusive proof that the A.R.E. has more members than the JREF, but there are 37 Edgar Cayce Centers around the world and I don't see anything comparable in the JREF.


If you want Cayce's treatments investigated, perhaps you could suggest that this vast organisation with its 37 Edgar Cayce Centers around the world provides the funding. After all, if the treatments work it must be in their interest to demonstrate this. Get that money you spent on your membership working!

[digithead]

snip

No, I'm just trying to determine how accurate RCTs actually are.

snip


RDBCT's accuracy is defined by both the significance level (the probability of finding a difference given none exists) and the power (the probability of finding a difference given it really exists). Both of these are set a priori to performing the trial with the latter defined by your sample size and clinically relevant difference...

But there are also different types of clinical trials depending on what the goal is. Phase I studies generally determine if there is a clinical effect, the safety of the treatment and other clinically relevant features. If a treatment passes phase I, then phase II studies determine the appropriate levels of treatment and efficacy. If a treatment passes phase II, then phase III trials compare the treatment vs. control or placebo to determine its effectiveness and identify any contraindications that may arise. Phase IV studies occur after a drug or treatment has gone to market to identify any interaction or adverse reactions that may occur...

So do you think any of Cayce's purported treatments could make it through all the phases of a clinical trial?

How come none of Cayce's purported treatments are generally accepted by the medical field? Things like aspirin and other such folk remedies have lasted and have been refined, wouldn't Cayce's treatments also last if they were effective regardless of any conspiracy by Big Pharma or the METSAUST (Monolithic Establishment That Suppresses All Unconventional Scientific Thought)?

[Rodney]

So do you think any of Cayce's purported treatments could make it through all the phases of a clinical trial? There's only one way to find out.

How come none of Cayce's purported treatments are generally accepted by the medical field? Things like aspirin and other such folk remedies have lasted and have been refined, wouldn't Cayce's treatments also last if they were effective regardless of any conspiracy by Big Pharma or the METSAUST (Monolithic Establishment That Suppresses All Unconventional Scientific Thought)?
Cayce's treatments have lasted -- many people worldwide use them today, more than 62 years after his death. The conventional medical field doesn't have any incentive to investigate those treatments, and will not accept them as valid unless they are investigated and conclusively proven. So, it's sort of a vicious cycle, don't you think?

[Mojo]

Cayce's treatments have lasted -- many people worldwide use them today, more than 62 years after his death. The conventional medical field doesn't have any incentive to investigate those treatments, and will not accept them as valid unless they are investigated and conclusively proven. So, it's sort of a vicious cycle, don't you think?


Not really: the mighty A.R.E. (what does the "R" stand for again?), with its 37 Edgar Cayce Centers worldwide, could investigate them and prove that they work.

[fls]

Cayce's treatments have lasted -- many people worldwide use them today, more than 62 years after his death. The conventional medical field doesn't have any incentive to investigate those treatments, and will not accept them as valid unless they are investigated and conclusively proven. So, it's sort of a vicious cycle, don't you think?

This is what I have been getting at with the NCCAM.

There are thousands (millions?) of these purported treatments backed by "people have used them successfully for dozens/hundreds/thousands of years" which have not risen to the level of serious consideration. And that was one of the reasons given for the creation of the NCCAM - to provide a more systematic way of looking at these treatments in case truly useful methods were being missed. However, I suspect it's not that the conventional medical field has ignored folk remedies, but rather that there is a filtering process going on. Those folk remedies that looked like they were actually helping, in the eye of an expert, were the ones that got investigated through conventional channels. Some of them were found to have real effects and were incorporated into conventional medicine. And this still continues to some degree, but it looks like all the good stuff has already been picked out. Purposely dredging through the remainder has failed to yield any treasures (i.e. the NCCAM results).

In order to have Cayce's treatments investigated, they need to stick out from the mud, somehow. Which usually involves interested parties making the effort to gather the kind of evidence that makes it different from all the rest - evidence of effectiveness with some attempt to eliminate the effects of chance and wishful thinking.

It's not that conventional medicine a priori decided to ignore information coming from particular sources. It's that the need to ration led us to discover those sources which are usually fruitless and those which are fruitful. If Cayce's treatments were picked up by the filter, then they'd be investigated.

Linda

[digithead]

Cayce's treatments have lasted -- many people worldwide use them today, more than 62 years after his death.
But they're not accepted or prescribed by the medical community. Many quack therapies persist despite no evidence that they work or clear evidence that they don't work. We still have snake oil salesmen peddling things that have no proven efficacy (e.g. AirBorne), no reason why they should work (e.g. Enzyte), or clear evidence that they don't work (e.g. Head On) yet these products make millions. If lots of people do a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing...

The conventional medical field doesn't have any incentive to investigate those treatments, and will not accept them as valid unless they are investigated and conclusively proven. So, it's sort of a vicious cycle, don't you think?
No incentive?!? Do you realize how much money is in medicine if a drug therapy or treatment actually works? There's no vicious cycle, you're appealing again to some larger conspiracy that doesn't exist. There has to be some known physical mechanism or clear relationship between treatment and cure for science and medicine to investigate therapies. Cayce's treatments have neither of these and hence hold no interest for those in medical research...

Linda and Mojo are correct, if you think Cayce's treatments are viable and deserve testing, then you should persuade A.R.E. to do it...

[Rodney]

. . . or clear evidence that they don't work (e.g. Head On) yet these products make millions.
Can you cite the "clear evidence" that Head On does not work?

No incentive?!? Do you realize how much money is in medicine if a drug therapy or treatment actually works?
Drug therapy, yes, but that's not what Cayce prescribed. Rather, he focused on diet and lifestyle changes. Where is the money to be made there?

There's no vicious cycle, you're appealing again to some larger conspiracy that doesn't exist. There has to be some known physical mechanism or clear relationship between treatment and cure for science and medicine to investigate therapies.
So how does conventional medicine determine if there is a "known physical mechanism or clear relationship between treatment and cure" if it doesn't investigate the treatment?

Cayce's treatments have neither of these and hence hold no interest for those in medical research...
Where may I find the study that proves that "Cayce's treatments have neither of these"?

Linda and Mojo are correct, if you think Cayce's treatments are viable and deserve testing, then you should persuade A.R.E. to do it...
I think it should be a joint effort between believers and skeptics, but I don't think either side sees that effort as the best use of its resources.

[digithead]

Can you cite the "clear evidence" that Head On does not work?Are you serious? It's a homeopathic substance so by homeopathic theory, it's basically wax. Do you really think rubbing wax on your head will "cure" headaches". If so, speculate on the reason on how it could possible work? Placebo?

Better yet, how about Enzyte?

Drug therapy, yes, but that's not what Cayce prescribed. Rather, he focused on diet and lifestyle changes. Where is the money to be made there?How about Jenny Craig, Body for Life, et al...

So how does conventional medicine determine if there is a "known physical mechanism or clear relationship between treatment and cure" if it doesn't investigate the treatment?Sigh...


Where may I find the study that proves that "Cayce's treatments have neither of these"?Indeed, I'm as puzzled as you are...


I think it should be a joint effort between believers and skeptics, but I don't think either side sees that effort as the best use of its resources.

Since we're on 12 pages now, maybe we should return to your original post, id est Cayce's use of belladonna. I had forgotten that belladonna is the folk precurser to atropine, which has clear and convincing evidence of its usefulness. However, Cayce is not attributed to this discovery and I couldn't find who originally discovered its efficacy.

Nonetheless, how many people know the names of Salk (polio vaccine) or Fleming (penicillin) who have saved millions of people by their respective discoveries? If Cayce came up with anything like those two, it should stand out, don't you think?

[Mojo]

Linda and Mojo are correct, if you think Cayce's treatments are viable and deserve testing, then you should persuade A.R.E. to do it...
I think it should be a joint effort between believers and skeptics...


Why should it be a joint effort between believers and skeptics? Are the believers not capable of doing the work themselves?

...but I don't think either side sees that effort as the best use of its resources.


Why would the A.R.E. not consider determining whether or not Cayce's treatments actually work to be a good use of its resources?

[Rodney]

Are you serious? It's a homeopathic substance so by homeopathic theory, it's basically wax. Do you really think rubbing wax on your head will "cure" headaches". If so, speculate on the reason on how it could possible work? Placebo?
So the "clear evidence" that Head On does not work is not a controlled study of its efficacy but rather your opinion that "it's basically wax"?

How about Jenny Craig, Body for Life, et al...
Yes, but the A.R.E. does not have a subsidiary such as Jenny Craig or Body for Life.

Since we're on 12 pages now, maybe we should return to your original post, id est Cayce's use of belladonna. I had forgotten that belladonna is the folk precurser to atropine, which has clear and convincing evidence of its usefulness. However, Cayce is not attributed to this discovery and I couldn't find who originally discovered its efficacy.

Nonetheless, how many people know the names of Salk (polio vaccine) or Fleming (penicillin) who have saved millions of people by their respective discoveries? If Cayce came up with anything like those two, it should stand out, don't you think?
Not to the orthodox medical community, because Cayce's recommended measured dose of belladonna for Tommy House has not been proven to have cured Tommy from an apparently fatal condition.

[Rodney]

Why should it be a joint effort between believers and skeptics? Are the believers not capable of doing the work themselves?
Believers are convinced that Cayce's treatments work and many put their money where their mouths are by using those treatments. In general, believers don't see the need to spend money on studies.

Why would the A.R.E. not consider determining whether or not Cayce's treatments actually work to be a good use of its resources?
Again, most A.R.E. officials are convinced that Cayce's treatments do work and many use those treatments. However, I think there is a faction that would like to fund studies of those treatments, but they don't have the votes.

[fls]

Are you serious? It's a homeopathic substance so by homeopathic theory, it's basically wax. Do you really think rubbing wax on your head will "cure" headaches". If so, speculate on the reason on how it could possible work? Placebo?

It was talked about in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70655). Some of the non-active ingredients listed can have a counter-irritant effect in certain amounts, which theoretically could relieve some headache pain. Can't tell if that applies, though, since the amount of a non-active ingredient doesn't have to be specified on the label.

Linda

[Slimething]

Rodney, either you just don't get it or you are acting intentionally thick.

So the "clear evidence" that Head On does not work is not a controlled study of its efficacy but rather your opinion that "it's basically wax"?

One cannot prove a negative. Either the substance works or it does not. Note that clinical studies do not test mixtures but, rather, the specific chemicals that are claimed to be effective. You would have us believe, rodney, that wax relieves headache pain. I now challenge you to produce such study or any evidence you can muster. Ain't it great how science really works?

Yes, but the A.R.E. does not have a subsidiary such as Jenny Craig or Body for Life.

Again you miss the point, either intentionally or because you have nothing going on between the ears. You wrote:
Rather, he focused on diet and lifestyle changes. Where is the money to be made there?

So, you got a reply that, yes, diet and lifestyle management is a HUGE business reaping colossal amounts of profits per year for the successful vendors. Instead, you try to weasel out of being so easily proved wrong by saying that ARE does not offers such a service. That was not the point, rodney. Cayce could have made millions making people healthier by teaching them about propser nutrition and exercise. Perhaps Ra was much like Browne's Francine, feeding Cayce bad information for comic relief. IOW, why did this seer not see the market potential in the fitness craze?

Not to the orthodox medical community, because Cayce's recommended measured dose of belladonna for Tommy House has not been proven to have cured Tommy from an apparently fatal condition.

Here you've said it yourself. There is NO evidence that cayce was onto anyting, even in your OP.

[Rodney]

Rodney, either you just don't get it or you are acting intentionally thick.

One cannot prove a negative. Either the substance works or it does not. Note that clinical studies do not test mixtures but, rather, the specific chemicals that are claimed to be effective. You would have us believe, rodney, that wax relieves headache pain. I now challenge you to produce such study or any evidence you can muster. Ain't it great how science really works?
Yes, it is. And that means there must be a controlled study of the efficacy of Head On, not an unsupported assertion that there is "clear evidence" that it does not work.

Again you miss the point, either intentionally or because you have nothing going on between the ears. You wrote:

So, you got a reply that, yes, diet and lifestyle management is a HUGE business reaping colossal amounts of profits per year for the successful vendors. Instead, you try to weasel out of being so easily proved wrong by saying that ARE does not offers such a service. That was not the point, rodney.
It wasn't? I wrote: "Drug therapy, yes, but that's not what Cayce prescribed. Rather, he focused on diet and lifestyle changes. Where is the money to be made there?" The point that you don't seem to understand is that Cayce did not say to his clients: "And, if you just take this little pill that my organization can sell to you for a very reasonable price, you'll be better in no time." Rather, he told them to use certain generic products, such as almonds, as well as to change their lifestyles, such as by getting more exercise.

Cayce could have made millions making people healthier by teaching them about propser nutrition and exercise. I think you'll find that Cayce's recommendations about nutrition and exercise were not all that different than what most health organizations recommend today.

Perhaps Ra was much like Browne's Francine, feeding Cayce bad information for comic relief.
Ra fed Cayce bad information? Please explain what you're talking about.

IOW, why did this seer not see the market potential in the fitness craze?
Cayce didn't worry about the "market potential" of anything, as far as I can tell.

Here you've said it yourself. There is NO evidence that cayce was onto anyting, even in your OP.
You may not think Cayce was on to anything, but I think the evidence says otherwise.

[Slimething]

Yes, it is. And that means there must be a controlled study of the efficacy of Head On, not an unsupported assertion that there is "clear evidence" that it does not work.

Rodney, I'm very disappointed. I've just got done telling you that commercial products are not tested this way. IOW, I could no sooner provide you a study on Bufferin (R) than I could on Head On (R). So, that means that there is no evidence that Head On works and that is the question, not that there is evidence that it doesn't work. I know the facts can be confusing at times but try to remember that the burden of proof is on the claimant, not their target. Head On has made claims that it "works through the nerves" but has no evidence for this. (Actually, this claim is contravened by much of what we know concerning pharmacology.) Also, none of the ingredients in Head On are in sufficient concentration to administer a therapeutic dose. Only wax, a fairly inert substance, is left. So, again, I challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever of the therapeutic effects of wax on headache pain. That is the scientific approach. If you want to take a different approach, don't bug me.

It wasn't? I wrote: "Drug therapy, yes, but that's not what Cayce prescribed. Rather, he focused on diet and lifestyle changes. Where is the money to be made there?" The point that you don't seem to understand is that Cayce did not say to his clients: "And, if you just take this little pill that my organization can sell to you for a very reasonable price, you'll be better in no time." Rather, he told them to use certain generic products, such as almonds, as well as to change their lifestyles, such as by getting more exercise.

First you recap a statement that has been thoroughly refuted and then you post a non-sequitur as an example. You have been told now by two different people the gold mine that is lifestyle and weight management. The bounty being reaped by the successful services is plain to anyone who can see. Then, instead of admitting that cayce missed an opportunity, you post about, not lifestyle management, but pharmaceutical fraud. Selling people magic pills is not lifestyle management, rodney. Are you really aware of the nuances surrounding this topic or is this another example of your annoying attempts at avoiding intelligent discourse?

I think you'll find that Cayce's recommendations about nutrition and exercise were not all that different than what most health organizations recommend today.

But you just wrote the cayce did not involve himself in lifestyle management! Either he did or he didn't. Can't have it both ways. Which was it? Suppose you could post some of cayce's lifestyle management advice?

Ra fed Cayce bad information? Please explain what you're talking about.

IIRC, Ra was the spirit that cayce channeled, much like Saliva Browne and Francine. Instead of telling cayce all about DNA repair, interferon and cellular poisioning, ra was telling cayce to wrap kids in tree bark and lather them with peach goo. Nice. That's what I meant. Do you want it in Spanish?

Cayce didn't worry about the "market potential" of anything, as far as I can tell.

Ha! Yeah, he hated publicity, too!

You may not think Cayce was on to anything, but I think the evidence says otherwise.

What evidence? You have no evidence. If you did, the pharma world would be all over themselves trying to get rights to cayce quackery. Instead, it's a no sale. If you have real evidence, bring it.

[Rodney]

Rodney, I'm very disappointed. I've just got done telling you that commercial products are not tested this way. IOW, I could no sooner provide you a study on Bufferin (R) than I could on Head On (R). So, that means that there is no evidence that Head On works and that is the question, not that there is evidence that it doesn't work. I know the facts can be confusing at times but try to remember that the burden of proof is on the claimant, not their target. Head On has made claims that it "works through the nerves" but has no evidence for this. (Actually, this claim is contravened by much of what we know concerning pharmacology.) Also, none of the ingredients in Head On are in sufficient concentration to administer a therapeutic dose. Only wax, a fairly inert substance, is left. So, again, I challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever of the therapeutic effects of wax on headache pain. That is the scientific approach. If you want to take a different approach, don't bug me.
You're ignoring the point, which is that you're running buddy digithead claimed to have "clear evidence" that Head On doesn't work. In fact, he has zero evidence.

First you recap a statement that has been thoroughly refuted and then you post a non-sequitur as an example. You have been told now by two different people the gold mine that is lifestyle and weight management. The bounty being reaped by the successful services is plain to anyone who can see.
You have not produced a scintilla of evidence that the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries. Do you have any?

Then, instead of admitting that cayce missed an opportunity, you post about, not lifestyle management, but pharmaceutical fraud. Selling people magic pills is not lifestyle management, rodney. Are you really aware of the nuances surrounding this topic or is this another example of your annoying attempts at avoiding intelligent discourse?
As far as I can tell, Cayce never tried to make a dime out of either lifestyle management or recommending pharmaceuticals.

But you just wrote the cayce did not involve himself in lifestyle management! Either he did or he didn't. Can't have it both ways. Which was it? Suppose you could post some of cayce's lifestyle management advice?
I've already told you that Cayce was big on diet and exercise. He generally told people to eat more fruits and vegetables, eat less red meat, and get more exercise. However, he didn't make any money from his advice, as far as I can tell.

IIRC, Ra was the spirit that cayce channeled, much like Saliva Browne and Francine. Instead of telling cayce all about DNA repair, interferon and cellular poisioning, ra was telling cayce to wrap kids in tree bark and lather them with peach goo. Nice. That's what I meant. Do you want it in Spanish?
Now, you're revealing what you actually know about Cayce, which is practically nothing. Ra was whom Cayce said directed the building of the Great Pyramid, not some spirit that Cayce channeled. Cayce said that, while he had several sources of information, most of his information came from his ability to tap into a universal unconscious, rather than from disembodied spirits.

Ha! Yeah, he hated publicity, too!
If he had a good business manager, he would have received vastly more publicity, particularly early in his life.


What evidence? You have no evidence. If you did, the pharma world would be all over themselves trying to get rights to cayce quackery. Instead, it's a no sale. If you have real evidence, bring it.
The evidence lies in the many people that Cayce cured after conventional medicine had failed them.

[Slimething]

You're ignoring the point, which is that you're running buddy digithead claimed to have "clear evidence" that Head On doesn't work. In fact, he has zero evidence.

I'm not missing any point, you are. I'm not addressing Digithead's point. I'm trying to teach you how science answers questions of pharmaceutical efficacy. Try to follow. The only substance in HeadOn in a concentration sufficient to have a therapeutic effect is wax. Each pharmacological study concentrates on the efficacy of one substance at a time. If you want to argue that HeadOn works, go ahead. It only makes you look stupid. To argue effectively for such a belief, you would have to produce evidence that wax has analgesic value. Do you have it? Can you find it? Do you get it yet?


You have not produced a scintilla of evidence that the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries. Do you have any?


You must be joking. :confused:


As far as I can tell, Cayce never tried to make a dime out of either lifestyle management or recommending pharmaceuticals.


Careful what you claim. Belladonna is a pharmaceutical. So is yogurt if it had any physiological effect. If I cared to look into it, I am sure that I could prove that cayce made a dime from recommending pharmaceuticals.


I've already told you that Cayce was big on diet and exercise. He generally told people to eat more fruits and vegetables, eat less red meat, and get more exercise. However, he didn't make any money from his advice, as far as I can tell.


I don't doubt that. Diet and exercise are lifetyle management, rodney. And, I betcha he made money from this advice. "As far as I can tell" doesn't cut the mustard with me, rodney. If you can't tell, don't hazard a guess. Just makes you look ignorant.

Now, you're revealing what you actually know about Cayce, which is practically nothing. Ra was whom Cayce said directed the building of the Great Pyramid, not some spirit that Cayce channeled. Cayce said that, while he had several sources of information, most of his information came from his ability to tap into a universal unconscious, rather than from disembodied spirits.

Rodney, I have no time for cayce. He's just another bunko artist. I know about science and you don't. I came upon something on the web recently where someone wrote that cayce channeled some person named ra. I'm not going to find it again because I really don't care about cayce or his claims. If he had the ability to tap into anything, he would have done a heck of a lot more for humanity than left us with a bunch of unconnected, useless medical advice and the hypothesis that a huge continent was swallowed by the ocean (a cataclysm which left absolutely no geological evidence on any other continent) and would be found by anyone willing to believe that BS. Got it? If he channeled a universal consciousness, that consciousness knew no more than humans did. So, even if cayce told the truth, it's useless. Deal with it.

If he had a good business manager, he would have received vastly more publicity, particularly early in his life.

Cry me a river.

The evidence lies in the many people that Cayce cured after conventional medicine had failed them.

Like I said, if you have evidence, bring it. The best you've been able to do is Tiny Tom and that evidence is incomplete, nonsensical and thoroughly speculative. Got anything better? Got anything systematic?

[Mojo]

You have not produced a scintilla of evidence that the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries. Do you have any?


Nobody has claimed that the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries; merely that it is lucrative. What you have posted here is the type of argument known as a strawman.

[Rodney]

I'm not missing any point, you are. I'm not addressing Digithead's point. I'm trying to teach you how science answers questions of pharmaceutical efficacy. Try to follow. The only substance in HeadOn in a concentration sufficient to have a therapeutic effect is wax. Each pharmacological study concentrates on the efficacy of one substance at a time. If you want to argue that HeadOn works, go ahead. It only makes you look stupid. To argue effectively for such a belief, you would have to produce evidence that wax has analgesic value. Do you have it? Can you find it? Do you get it yet?
The issue at hand is whether there is "clear evidence" that Head On does not work. Is there?

You must be joking. :confused:
Why do you think the lifestyle and weight management industry is a ticket to riches? It's just another industry, with limited barriers to entry.

Careful what you claim. Belladonna is a pharmaceutical. So is yogurt if it had any physiological effect. If I cared to look into it, I am sure that I could prove that cayce made a dime from recommending pharmaceuticals.
Ah, but you just can't spare the time. ;) Let me note that Cayce did not always recommend belladonna (or any other product) -- in some cases, he recommended against using it. And he did not say that belladonna or any other product must be obtained from a company in which he had a financial interest.

I don't doubt that. Diet and exercise are lifetyle management, rodney. And, I betcha he made money from this advice. "As far as I can tell" doesn't cut the mustard with me, rodney. If you can't tell, don't hazard a guess. Just makes you look ignorant. I'm not guessing; I've studied Cayce carefully and have never seen any evidence to indicate that he profited from his diet and exercise recommendations.

Rodney, I have no time for cayce. He's just another bunko artist. I know about science and you don't. I came upon something on the web recently where someone wrote that cayce channeled some person named ra. I'm not going to find it again
A wise choice because your source didn't know what (s)he was talking about.

Like I said, if you have evidence, bring it. The best you've been able to do is Tiny Tom and that evidence is incomplete, nonsensical and thoroughly speculative. Got anything better? Got anything systematic? How about Cayce's cure of Aime Dietrich?

[Rodney]

Nobody has claimed that the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries; merely that it is lucrative.
Where is the evidence that it is lucrative?

What you have posted here is the type of argument known as a strawman.
No, it's the type of argument known as trying to establish the facts.

[Slimething]

The issue at hand is whether there is "clear evidence" that Head On does not work. Is there?

No, you don't. Trying to redefine the issue midstream is not going to work on me, rodney. I am trying to convey unto you how to deal with these issues in a scientific manner. Do you or do you not have a DB test where wax has analgesic properties? Follow that thread and you will be able to tell whether or not HeadOn works. I've already told you that no one runs pharmacological studies on mixtures for efficacy.

Why do you think the lifestyle and weight management industry is a ticket to riches? It's just another industry, with limited barriers to entry.

Where did I write that, rodney? Are you running out of ideas already so you have to create strawmen?


Ah, but you just can't spare the time.


Believe me, rodney, if there were any merit to your claims, I would make the time. I love learning new things and, if you were right about cayce, research on his ideas would proceed at a fever pitch. They aren't. NOBODY CARES!! I'm only indulging you because you are so damned ignorant about science that you are like a vacuum in nature. People like you bother me.

Let me note that Cayce did not always recommend belladonna (or any other product) -- in some cases, he recommended against using it. And he did not say that belladonna or any other product must be obtained from a company in which he had a financial interest.

You are backtracking. Earlier, you claimed that cayce never made a dime on recommending pharmaceuticals. So, you are telling us that he was never paid for these services. Now, you also tell us that he recommended against using pharmaceuticals sometimes, meaning sometimes he did recommend them.

I'm not guessing; I've studied Cayce carefully and have never seen any evidence to indicate that he profited from his diet and exercise recommendations.

Since when does "as far as I can tell" mean the same as "I can absolutely establish that"? Yes, you are guessing. You are also again bobbing and weaving. First you tell us that cayce did not participate in lifestyle management, then you say he did but now you tell us that he did but did not make any money from it. Next, you'll be telling us that he was a breatharian so he didn't need money. Exactly when are you going to start being truthful with us or with yourself?


A wise choice because your source didn't know what (s)he was talking about.


Or that I care. When your life is built on bunk, others can make up bunk about it and no one will be the wiser.

How about Cayce's cure of Aime Dietrich?

We've been through that one, rodney. Got anything worth the time?

[Mojo]

What you have posted here is the type of argument known as a strawman. No, it's the type of argument known as trying to establish the facts.


Why did you complain that nobody had provided evidence that "the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries" when nobody had claimed this?

[Rodney]

Why did you complain that nobody had provided evidence that "the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries" when nobody had claimed this?
In post #474 on this thread, Slimething claimed that "diet and lifestyle management is a HUGE business reaping colossal amounts of profits per year for the successful vendors." Because the average industry does not reap "colossal amounts of profits per year for the successful vendors", a logical inference of this statement is that the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries.

[Mojo]

That isn't the claim being made there: no attempt was made to compare it to "other industries". And for your assertion to be a logical inference, even by your logic, you need to establish that "the average industry" does not reap "colossal profits". You haven't provided any evidence for your assertion.

[Slimething]

In post #474 on this thread, Slimething claimed that "diet and lifestyle management is a HUGE business reaping colossal amounts of profits per year for the successful vendors." Because the average industry does not reap "colossal amounts of profits per year for the successful vendors", a logical inference of this statement is that the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries.

Rodney, in total honesty, I am floored by your lack of general knowledge and logical thinking. Also, your laziness. You don't appear to be willing to answer any questions put to you yet you whine incessantly that skeptics are not answering your questions. Here you have completely anihilated any suspcions I ever had that you had the intelligence, aptitude or ability to understand the knowledge that was being offered to you.

So, I have to do the work for you to prove that (1) the fitness industry attracts a considerable amount of money and (2) that there are industries that deal with lower amounts of money. Most people would consider this a trivial point, not really worth discussing, but you think it's some type of grand mystery that has anything to do with your hero being clairvoyant.

So, here goes. Find a general listing of the general value of industries here (http://www.bizstats.com/marketsizes.htm). They are arranged by NAICS codes (what the US government uses to abbreviate industries for organizational purposes). Now, all you need is find out the specific industries contained in each NAICS classification, right? Go here (http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naicod02.htm#N71)for that. Just in case, you're too lazy to do the legwork, the NAICS code you're looking for is 713940. Maybe you want me to read it to you as well?

Rodney, I have gotten a distinct feeling that you're here because no one else, ARE or otherwise, will give you the time of day. Why are you here? If you are here to learn or discuss with the possibility of reaching a mutual agreement, fine. If you are here to tell me that science has missed an opportunity that is being offered to it ad nauseam by people like yourself, go away. That would be just plain presumptive and ignorant and, if you are of that ilk, no one here can help you.

[Rodney]

That isn't the claim being made there: no attempt was made to compare it to "other industries". And for your assertion to be a logical inference, even by your logic, you need to establish that "the average industry" does not reap "colossal profits". You haven't provided any evidence for your assertion.
"Colossal" means gigantic or enormous; i.e., far above normal. So, by definition, "colossal profits" are far above normal and can't be made in the average industry.

[Rodney]

Rodney, in total honesty, I am floored by your lack of general knowledge and logical thinking. Also, your laziness. You don't appear to be willing to answer any questions put to you yet you whine incessantly that skeptics are not answering your questions. Here you have completely anihilated any suspcions I ever had that you had the intelligence, aptitude or ability to understand the knowledge that was being offered to you. On the other hand, I do know how to spell "annihilated." ;)

So, I have to do the work for you to prove that (1) the fitness industry attracts a considerable amount of money and (2) that there are industries that deal with lower amounts of money. Most people would consider this a trivial point, not really worth discussing, but you think it's some type of grand mystery that has anything to do with your hero being clairvoyant.

So, here goes. Find a general listing of the general value of industries here (http://www.bizstats.com/marketsizes.htm). They are arranged by NAICS codes (what the US government uses to abbreviate industries for organizational purposes). Now, all you need is find out the specific industries contained in each NAICS classification, right? Go here (http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naicod02.htm#N71)for that. Just in case, you're too lazy to do the legwork, the NAICS code you're looking for is 713940. Maybe you want me to read it to you as well?
You're confusing large revenues with large profits. An industry can be large, but not particularly profitable. In any event, you still haven't produced any evidence that Cayce made money by steering clients to particular products or companies.


Rodney, I have gotten a distinct feeling that you're here because no one else, ARE or otherwise, will give you the time of day. Why are you here? If you are here to learn or discuss with the possibility of reaching a mutual agreement, fine. If you are here to tell me that science has missed an opportunity that is being offered to it ad nauseam by people like yourself, go away. That would be just plain presumptive and ignorant and, if you are of that ilk, no one here can help you.
I'm here to exchange ideas -- no one has all the answers.

[Slimething]

On the other hand, I do know how to spell "annihilated." ;)

Be proud of yourself that you can do something any grade schooler can do, rodney. Do you think you're worth my spell-checking? Take that as another bit of evidence of the high esteem in which I hold you.

You're confusing large revenues with large profits. An industry can be large, but not particularly profitable.

No one is confusing anything. There are also sites where you can get the average ROI for different industries. You find them. So, you can multiply the ROI by the monetary valuation to get profits yes? Do it and stop bothering me over stupidities. But you don't really have to do that to know it's a highly profitable industry. Now, how would you tell otherwise, rodney?


In any event, you still haven't produced any evidence that Cayce made money by steering clients to particular products or companies.


Where did I make that claim, genius speller?

I'm here to exchange ideas -- no one has all the answers.

Rodney, I'm wondering if you have ANY answers. You've arrived here spouting credulous wonderment at phenomena that have been explained without the need for clairvoyance. You've been asked many questions and have answered none of them. When challenged on your claims, you retreat and try to obfuscate the issues by posing assinine questions such as what the magnitude and profitability of the fitness industry in the US is. Unless you start answering questions and stop playing intellectual possum, I think you're going to find yourself very alone.

Now, do you have anything that would convey a systematic approach by cayce towards then-insoluble health problems? Answer this or go away.