Non-Homeopathic Belladonna

[Rodney]

In the March 16, 2007 Swift, Randi quotes Reader Dana Turgeon, of Regina, Saskatchewan, as stating: "I guess it's a lucky thing that it's all a bunch of homeopathic hooey – who'd want to give an infant an actual, real dose of belladonna?"

Randi Forum participants might be interested to know that Sidney Kirkpatrick begins his book "Edgar Cayce: An American Prophet" with the story of 3-month-old Tommy House, Jr. who, in February 1909, was on the verge of death, suffering from convulsions every 20 minutes. The infant's father was an M.D. who concluded, along with two other doctors, that there was no hope for Tommy Jr. Cayce prescribed a measured dose of belladonna, to be followed by wrapping the infant in a hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree. Dr. House consented to this seemingly absurd (and dangerous) treatment only because he thought there was no hope for his son and because his wife insisted that Cayce's treatment be tried. The bottom line: The treatment cured Tommy -- he made a complete recovery and never had a convulsion again. He and his father spent the rest of their lives promoting Cayce. Tommy became the manager of a company that produced health care remedies based on Cayce's readings, and lived until 1972.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Some people have survived gunshot wounds to the head and lived to tell about it. Would you prescribe it for a brain tumour?

[Zep]

In the March 16, 2007 Swift, Randi quotes Reader Dana Turgeon, of Regina, Saskatchewan, as stating: "I guess it's a lucky thing that it's all a bunch of homeopathic hooey – who'd want to give an infant an actual, real dose of belladonna?"

Randi Forum participants might be interested to know that Sidney Kirkpatrick begins his book "Edgar Cayce: An American Prophet" with the story of 3-month-old Tommy House, Jr. who, in February 1909, was on the verge of death, suffering from convulsions every 20 minutes. The infant's father was an M.D. who concluded, along with two other doctors, that there was no hope for Tommy Jr. Cayce prescribed a measured dose of belladonna, to be followed by wrapping the infant in a hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree. Dr. House consented to this seemingly absurd (and dangerous) treatment only because he thought there was no hope for his son and because his wife insisted that Cayce's treatment be tried. The bottom line: The treatment cured Tommy -- he made a complete recovery and never had a convulsion again. He and his father spent the rest of their lives promoting Cayce. Tommy became the manager of a company that produced health care remedies based on Cayce's readings, and lived until 1972.

An anecdote nearly 100 years old does not make it any less an anecdote. But let's look at it anyway...

...measured dose of belladonna......means how big a dose, and at what strength, exactly? Or did he just use a ruler?

If it was a genuinely potent dose of belladonna, where does "homeopathy" come into the picture at all? In fact, the description of the Cayce treatment does not accord with homeopathic treatment in any way at all. So what's the connection?

Was there any diagnosis of what caused the convulsions in the first place? What did the three M.D's actually come up with?

What treatments were used prior to Cayce's treatment? Describe them fully, including the child's medical history.

How soon after them did Cayce take his shot?

Can you please describe what effects "a hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree" might have on an infant? Nothing? Something? If so, what?

What ELSE was done to the child during and after the Cayce medication?


In short, you have an AWFUL long way to go to proving Cayce was administering homeopathic anything, and that he or it was responsible for the infant's recovery.

[Rodney]

Some people have survived gunshot wounds to the head and lived to tell about it. Would you prescribe it for a brain tumour?
With regard to certain folks here, even without a brain tumour. ;)

[zombiebex]

Darn. I'm trying to post what Wiki has to say about belladonna, but I'm a noob.

enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Belladonna#Modern_medicine

enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Atropine

Belladonna contains atropine. The description of what atropine does has lots of big words and has left me utterly confused. "Generally, atropine lowers the "rest and digest" activity of all muscles and glands."

So... it causes tremors and fits?

[ChristineR]

Atropine is a useful drug found in belladonna. For people who don't have access to pharmaceutical atropine, belladonna might make sense, or it might have made sense once upon a time in human history. Atropine can act as an anti-spasmotic. It inhibits involuntary muscle action, which I suppose you could call the "rest and digest" muscles.

It's impossible to tell what the child in the OP suffered from, or if the atropine was helpful, or even if the story is remotely true at all.

I think we can interpret Turgeon's comment as meaning that atropine should only be administered in purified form and only when it is justified by a medical examination.

[kellyb]

It really wouldn't surprise me if some of the things used in homeopathy might turn out to be useful sometimes when given in non-homeopathic doses.

I basically agree with Christine. We'll never know.

[Rodney]

An anecdote nearly 100 years old does not make it any less an anecdote. But let's look at it anyway...

...means how big a dose, and at what strength, exactly? Or did he just use a ruler?

If it was a genuinely potent dose of belladonna, where does "homeopathy" come into the picture at all? In fact, the description of the Cayce treatment does not accord with homeopathic treatment in any way at all. So what's the connection?

Was there any diagnosis of what caused the convulsions in the first place? What did the three M.D's actually come up with?

What treatments were used prior to Cayce's treatment? Describe them fully, including the child's medical history.

How soon after them did Cayce take his shot?

Can you please describe what effects "a hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree" might have on an infant? Nothing? Something? If so, what?

What ELSE was done to the child during and after the Cayce medication?

In short, you have an AWFUL long way to go to proving Cayce was administering homeopathic anything, and that he or it was responsible for the infant's recovery.
You misunderstood my post. I was saying that, according to "An American Prophet", Cayce prescribed a non-homeopathic dose of belladonna. Specifically, at p. 6: " . . . the sleeping Cayce had prescribed an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade. Even if the peachtree poultice could somehow leach the poison out of the infant's system, administering such a large dose of belladonna to a child as small and weak as Tommy House Jr. was tantamount to murder."

However, according to "An American Prophet" at p.8, Cayce's treatment immediately cured Tommy. Regarding the diagnosis, the book states at p.4: "The infant had been suffering convulsions since his premature birth three months earlier. The convulsions had become so frequent that they now occurred every twenty minutes, leaving the helpless child too weak to nurse from his mother's bosom or to wrap his tiny hands around her fingers. Tommy House was on the verge of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, a diagnosis confirmed by the child's father, a doctor, and by the family's two personal physicians, Dr. Jackson, a general practitioner in Hopkinsville, and Dr. Haggard, a pediatric specialist from Nashville who had been attending the child since birth."

This summary obviously does not answer all of your questions, but I think it's more than a garden variety anecdote, particularly when you consider that Tommy's father later ran Cayce's hospital in Virginia Beach, Virginia and Tommy went on to design medical equipment based on Cayce's readings.

[Zep]

You misunderstood my post. I was saying that, according to "An American Prophet", Cayce prescribed a non-homeopathic dose of belladonna. Specifically, at p. 6: " . . . the sleeping Cayce had prescribed an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade. Even if the peachtree poultice could somehow leach the poison out of the infant's system, administering such a large dose of belladonna to a child as small and weak as Tommy House Jr. was tantamount to murder."

However, according to "An American Prophet" at p.8, Cayce's treatment immediately cured Tommy. Regarding the diagnosis, the book states at p.4: "The infant had been suffering convulsions since his premature birth three months earlier. The convulsions had become so frequent that they now occurred every twenty minutes, leaving the helpless child too weak to nurse from his mother's bosom or to wrap his tiny hands around her fingers. Tommy House was on the verge of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, a diagnosis confirmed by the child's father, a doctor, and by the family's two personal physicians, Dr. Jackson, a general practitioner in Hopkinsville, and Dr. Haggard, a pediatric specialist from Nashville who had been attending the child since birth."

This summary obviously does not answer all of your questions, but I think it's more than a garden variety anecdote, particularly when you consider that Tommy's father later ran Cayce's hospital in Virginia Beach, Virginia and Tommy went on to design medical equipment based on Cayce's readings.You're right - I misread the OP. Apologies!

However, why homeopathy had to be mentioned in regard to this case, I'm not sure. If you leave it out of the story, you get a dose of belladonna/atropine involved, at Cayce's recommendation. As seen above, it MAY have been instrumental in assisting the child's recovery, maybe not.

As for the hot poultice, I would suspect that the application of heat by any means would have been the contributing factor, one way or another.

Note also that young children can have convulsions simply by being too overheated.

[Rodney]

You're right - I misread the OP. Apologies!

However, why homeopathy had to be mentioned in regard to this case, I'm not sure. If you leave it out of the story, you get a dose of belladonna/atropine involved, at Cayce's recommendation. As seen above, it MAY have been instrumental in assisting the child's recovery, maybe not. I just found it ironic that Dana Turgeon asked: "Who'd want to give an infant an actual, real dose of belladonna?" The answer, apparently, is, no doctor would, but Cayce would.

Note also that young children can have convulsions simply by being too overheated.
Yes, but according to Kirkpatrick: "The infant had been suffering convulsions since his premature birth three months earlier. The convulsions had become so frequent that they now occurred every twenty minutes . . ."

[Zep]

And this was in 1909, when appendicitis was considered a deadly affliction, drugs of addiction were only just being controlled, when antibiotics were decades into the future, when most home kitchen medicine cabinets contained laudanum (opium tincture in alcohol), and when medical quackery was pretty much rife and unchecked. It was also when most average doctors knew less about medicine than most educated adults today.

A perfect environment for the Cayces of the world to operate in.

according to Kirkpatrick: "The infant had been suffering convulsions since his premature birth three months earlier. The convulsions had become so frequent that they now occurred every twenty minutes . . ."That's merely a description, not a diagnosis. WHY did the infant have convulsions? Is that information available to us now?

[Spiro]

from OP "The bottom line: The treatment cured Tommy -- he made a complete recovery and never had a convulsion again."

Here's the main problem. The facts are that Tommy was given a strange treatment and that Tommy recovered. There's not one piece of evidence to show that the two are directly related. The real reason Tommy recovered is more probably because his mother stood on one leg for 10 minutes when Tommy was most ill, or because Cayce had invoked the spirit of a long-dead Inca chieftain without bothering to mention it.

The reason why medicine depends on prospective, double-blinded trials for SCIENTIFIC proof of efficacy is precisely because correlation is NOT the same thing as cause and effect.

[Rodney]

from OP "The bottom line: The treatment cured Tommy -- he made a complete recovery and never had a convulsion again."

Here's the main problem. The facts are that Tommy was given a strange treatment and that Tommy recovered. There's not one piece of evidence to show that the two are directly related. The real reason Tommy recovered is more probably because his mother stood on one leg for 10 minutes when Tommy was most ill, or because Cayce had invoked the spirit of a long-dead Inca chieftain without bothering to mention it.

The reason why medicine depends on prospective, double-blinded trials for SCIENTIFIC proof of efficacy is precisely because correlation is NOT the same thing as cause and effect.
So, if you were Tommy's parent, would you have allowed the belladonna to be administered?

[BillyJoe]

So, if you were Tommy's parent, would you have allowed the belladonna to be administered?I am Tommy's parent (well, not that Tommy), and I would not have allowed it.

Atropine can induce convulsions so, from the point of view of a Homoeopath, it would make sense to give Atropine in a homoeopathic dose. But it was given in a therapeutic dose (or was it a lethal dose?). Why? Or are you saying that it was not intended to be a homoeopathic treatment?

[Zep]

I would suggest that this story is about fifth or sixth hand, and that a significant amount of detail has been left out, with the remainder being transmuted in time and detail to suit the writer's desire to find evidence to support Cayce (obviously).

To be frank, it reeks, and scores zero on my credibilitometer.

[BillyJoe]

Stories fresher than that have suffered worse, so I don't doubt you are right.
(Well, I do, but you know what I mean)

[Rodney]

I am Tommy's parent (well, not that Tommy), and I would not have allowed it.
So would you have done nothing and hoped for the best?

Atropine can induce convulsions so, from the point of view of a Homoeopath, it would make sense to give Atropine in a homoeopathic dose. But it was given in a therapeutic dose (or was it a lethal dose?). Why? Or are you saying that it was not intended to be a homoeopathic treatment?
Cayce recommended a radical (presumably unheard of) non-homeopathic dose of belladonna.

[ChristineR]

Belladonna is hardly unheard of. It's been used for centuries.

[BillyJoe]

So would you have done nothing and hoped for the best?That's right. I would not try a remedy that someone pulled out of their @$$. Similarly, if I get cancer, I'm not going chasing rainbows in Mexico. I'm not going to have mistletoe injections. And I'm not going to drink Noni juice "just in case".

[zombiebex]

Belladonna is hardly unheard of. It's been used for centuries.
.. to kill people.

[Rodney]

Belladonna is hardly unheard of. It's been used for centuries.
I didn't say that. What I said was: "Cayce recommended a radical (presumably unheard of) non-homeopathic dose of belladonna."

[Rodney]

That's right. I would not try a remedy that someone pulled out of their @$$. Similarly, if I get cancer, I'm not going chasing rainbows in Mexico. I'm not going to have mistletoe injections. And I'm not going to drink Noni juice "just in case".
If you had been Tommy's father and the following is an accurate depiction of the facts, would your position still be the same?

"Although the three doctors disagreed about what treatment they should provide, all agreed that Tommy House Jr. had little or no chance of living through the night." "An American Prophet" at 4.

[fls]

If you had been Tommy's father and the following is an accurate depiction of the facts, would your position still be the same?

"Although the three doctors disagreed about what treatment they should provide, all agreed that Tommy House Jr. had little or no chance of living through the night." "An American Prophet" at 4.

Assuming any of that is true (a big "if"), taking into consideration the state of medicine at that time, it would be a fallacy to assume that because three doctors stated he had little or no chance of living through the night that his chance of living through the night was small. The ability to prognosticate under those circumstances would be poor. Even now, with vastly greater knowldege and tools at our disposal, negation of a (best) guess does not serve as proof of an effective intervention.

Or even considering the intervention was effective....are you suggesting that random experimentation causing untold harm is justified by occasionally guessing right?

Linda

[Mojo]

If you had been Tommy's father and the following is an accurate depiction of the facts, would your position still be the same?

"Although the three doctors disagreed about what treatment they should provide, all agreed that Tommy House Jr. had little or no chance of living through the night." Even if it is accurate, it hardly justifies poisoning the poor little sod. Actually, the fact that he was strong enough to survive Cayce's murderous ministrations suggests that the doctors were wrong.

[ChristineR]

What I meant was that Belladonna was used in legitimate medical applications at least since Galen (c. 200 AD). Atropine was first isolated in 1893.

This is from a medical manual from 1898 (http://www.henriettesherbal.com/eclectic/kings/atropa.html):

We employ minute doses of belladonna with confidence in congestive disorders. Throbbing, congestive, or nervo-congestive headaches are quickly relieved by it; or it may be a dull, heavy headache, with a drowsy feeling, as if, were it not for the pain, the patient would drop off to sleep. While it is a remedy for blood stasis, due to dilated capillaries in any part, its operation is perhaps more pronounced in impairment of circulation in the nerve-centers. In cerebral or spinal congestion, as evidenced by dullness and coma, it is the first remedy to be selected. In chronic brain diseases, with dizziness, drowsiness, and dull, heavy aching, with a sense of fullness in the head, its effects are pronounced, and when the dull eye, with dilated pupil and drowsiness, are present in threatened apoplexy this remedy should be selected.

In other words, Cayce either prescribed a useless homeopathic dose, or he prescribed--more or less at random--a fairly standard drug that was used to suppress the sort of symptoms the boy was experiencing. It wasn't unheard of and it isn't anything anyone with access to modern medicine would ever want to try.

[Blue Mountain]

Another problem I see with the story is the symptoms were described as life threatening ("on the verge of death, with convulsions every twenty minutes".) However, since the cause of the convulsions is not noted, it's difficult to state with confidence the situation was that dire.

I wonder if, in the 63 years that he lived, Tommy ever found out what may have been behind the medical crisis in his infancy?

[Rodney]

Assuming any of that is true (a big "if"), taking into consideration the state of medicine at that time, it would be a fallacy to assume that because three doctors stated he had little or no chance of living through the night that his chance of living through the night was small. The ability to prognosticate under those circumstances would be poor. Even now, with vastly greater knowldege and tools at our disposal, negation of a (best) guess does not serve as proof of an effective intervention.

Or even considering the intervention was effective....are you suggesting that random experimentation causing untold harm is justified by occasionally guessing right?

Linda
I'm suggesting when three medical doctors agree that a case is hopeless, it's time to go to Plan B, rather than wait for the patient to die. And, if Cayce was guessing, where did he come up with the information to arrive at his guess?

[Rodney]

Even if it is accurate, it hardly justifies poisoning the poor little sod. Actually, the fact that he was strong enough to survive Cayce's murderous ministrations suggests that the doctors were wrong.
So, if I understand your scenario: (1) Three medical doctors got it wrong when they thought Tommy's condition was hopeless and he wouldn't live through the night; (2) Cayce's treatment increased the probability that Tommy would die; and (3) Tommy promptly recovered because he was actually strong enough to survive Cayce's erroneous treatment.

[Mojo]

So, if I understand your scenario: (1) Three medical doctors got it wrong when they thought Tommy's condition was hopeless and he wouldn't live through the night; Yes, because he lived through the night. (2) Cayce's treatment increased the probability that Tommy would die; Quite possibly, because Cayce was a charlatan. and (3) Tommy promptly recovered because he was actually strong enough to survive Cayce's erroneous treatment.A poison administered by someone who hadn't the faintest idea what he was doing failed to kill the child.

[BillyJoe]

If you had been Tommy's father and the following is an accurate depiction of the facts, would your position still be the same?

"Although the three doctors disagreed about what treatment they should provide, all agreed that Tommy House Jr. had little or no chance of living through the night." "An American Prophet" at 4.If I was Tommy's father, if he really did have convulsions every 20 minutes, if three doctors really did say he would not survive the night, if they were not colluding in the prognosis, if they could give me a diagnosis, if they could give me reasons for their diagnosis, if Cayce could tell me why he thought the atropine would help in convulsions and not harm him instead.....

But lets bring this back to the present.
What are the possible causes of convulsions in a 3 month old?
Which of these causes can produce lethal convulsions?
Which of these can be cured be atropine?

It is entirely possible that the boy had a self limiting cause of convulsions that was compromised by atropine but that, in the end, by pure good fortune, it failed to kill him.
How do we know unless we have the answers to questions like the above?

In the mean time, if someone offers me $300 per week shark cartilege injections to cure my terminal bowel cancer without a shred of evidence, I'm going on a holiday instead.

What would you do?

[MRC_Hans]

You misunderstood my post. I was saying that, according to "An American Prophet", Cayce prescribed a non-homeopathic dose of belladonna. Specifically, at p. 6: " . . . the sleeping Cayce had prescribed an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade. Even if the peachtree poultice could somehow leach the poison out of the infant's system, administering such a large dose of belladonna to a child as small and weak as Tommy House Jr. was tantamount to murder."

However, according to "An American Prophet" at p.8, Cayce's treatment immediately cured Tommy. Regarding the diagnosis, the book states at p.4: "The infant had been suffering convulsions since his premature birth three months earlier. The convulsions had become so frequent that they now occurred every twenty minutes, leaving the helpless child too weak to nurse from his mother's bosom or to wrap his tiny hands around her fingers. Tommy House was on the verge of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, a diagnosis confirmed by the child's father, a doctor, and by the family's two personal physicians, Dr. Jackson, a general practitioner in Hopkinsville, and Dr. Haggard, a pediatric specialist from Nashville who had been attending the child since birth."

This summary obviously does not answer all of your questions, but I think it's more than a garden variety anecdote, particularly when you consider that Tommy's father later ran Cayce's hospital in Virginia Beach, Virginia and Tommy went on to design medical equipment based on Cayce's readings.It is an anecdote simply because it is a single case that cannot be verified. The diagnosis cannot be verified, the dosage cannot be verified. It cannot even be verified that the event ever happened. If you have ever (as I have) tried to verify events by reading different accounts of them, you will have been very surpised at how different such accounts can be, even on absolutely central points.

However, even if we take it on face value, it is relatively uninteresting. Belladonna is a powerful drug, and it might have some effect on convulsions. So it might have acted as described. We cannot, however, in any way extrapolate this account to other cases, not to mention other uses of belladonna.

Hans

[Mojo]

This summary obviously does not answer all of your questions, but I think it's more than a garden variety anecdote, particularly when you consider that Tommy's father later ran Cayce's hospital in Virginia Beach, Virginia...Right: an anecdote related by someone who ran Cayce's hospital.

[BillyJoe]

Belladonna is a powerful drug, and it might have some effect on convulsions. So it might have acted as described.It is difficult to see how. The problem is that a single dose of atropine allegedly stopped the child's convulsions permanently. Therefore is was used not as a symtomatic treatment but as a curative treatment.

[SomeGuy]

It is difficult to see how. The problem is that a single dose of atropine allegedly stopped the child's convulsions permanently. Therefore is was used not as a symtomatic treatment but as a curative treatment.

Humbug.

There are many symptoms newlyborns show that when temporarily repressed they will overgrow.

[BillyJoe]

Humbug.This is your reply to my "It is difficult to see how" ???

There are many symptoms newlyborns show that when temporarily repressed they will overgrow.So this three month infant is having convulsions every twenty minutes, he is given a dose of atropine, and he never has another convulsion again and you're saying he outgrew his convulsions in the space of 8 hours (or however long the effect of atropine lasts) ???
Don't know about you, SG, but I reckon they're claiming a cure.

BJ

[MRC_Hans]

It is difficult to see how. The problem is that a single dose of atropine allegedly stopped the child's convulsions permanently. Therefore is was used not as a symtomatic treatment but as a curative treatment.Well, this is where the "grain of salt" evaluation comes in. Perhaps the infant was temporarily relaxed by the medicine, was able yo feed and rest and overcame whatever was the reason for the ailment. Permanently could mean days, weeks, or whatever. .. Or just that it survived. Notice I say perhaps. We really don't know what happend, or even if something happened. The core of the matter, however, is that the claim is not particularly extraordinary:

- An infant was seriously ill.
- Medicine was administered that might have improved the situation, might have worsened the situation, or might have had no effect.
- Despite expectations, the infant recovered.

Hans

[fls]

I'm suggesting when three medical doctors agree that a case is hopeless, it's time to go to Plan B, rather than wait for the patient to die.

Out of the hundreds of possible "Plan B's", how do you choose one? Out of the hundreds of possible "Plan B's", how do you avoid the ones that are harmful (keeping in mind that we don't know if death is inevitable)?

And, if Cayce was guessing, where did he come up with the information to arrive at his guess?

There isn't any indication from what you've told us (other than a desire to present it as such) that there was anything particularly wonderful about his guess.

Linda

[Mojo]

Out of the hundreds of possible "Plan B's", how do you choose one? You decide that some ignoramus is an authority, and you do whatever he tells you.

[BillyJoe]

Out of the hundreds of possible "Plan B's", how do you choose one? Out of the hundreds of possible "Plan B's", how do you avoid the ones that are harmful (keeping in mind that we don't know if death is inevitable)?This is what I tell people when they choose to take the Noni Juice. Why not shark cartilege injections? Why not apricot kernels? Why not the bark of the slippery elm? Why have you chosen to take this remedy amongst the thousands on offer? The reason is that the Noni Juice is the first quack remedy they came across. :(

[Rodney]

Belladonna is a powerful drug, and it might have some effect on convulsions. So it might have acted as described.
Has belladonna ever been shown to alleviate convulsions?

[Rodney]

Out of the hundreds of possible "Plan B's", how do you choose one? Out of the hundreds of possible "Plan B's", how do you avoid the ones that are harmful (keeping in mind that we don't know if death is inevitable)?
According to "An American Prophet", Cayce had given several accurate readings for Tommy's mother, and so she had trust in Cayce's treatment in her son's case. In general, I would argue that, if three medical doctors agree that a patient is going to die imminently and no other doctor contradicts them, you might as well try the best available Plan B.

There isn't any indication from what you've told us (other than a desire to present it as such) that there was anything particularly wonderful about his guess.
Linda
You mean other than the fact that Tommy recovered completely after his father administered the belladonna? To give you one more quote from "An American Prophet" (at p. 7): "At his wife's insistence, and despite his great reservations, House ultimately agreed to prepare the belladonna. He justified his decision by saying that his son would surely die anyway if nothing were done. He and Dr. Jackson might be able to prolong the infant's life by a few hours, but they were powerless to keep him alive through the night."

[ChristineR]

Has belladonna ever been shown to alleviate convulsions?

Absolutely. It's all over the antique herbals. It's a powerful sedative and anti-spasmotic. It inhibits action of the involuntary muscles. Galen used it as an anesthetic and for gastrointestinal conditions. Belladonna

Of course if you inhibit your involuntary muscles too much you stop breathing and die, which is why belladonna is also used to kill people.

Here's what the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica had to say about it:

No less important than any of the above is the action of atropine on the cerebrum. This has long been a debated matter, but it may now be stated, with considerable certainty, that the higher centres are incoordinately stimulated, a state closely resembling that of delirium tremens being induced. In cases of poisoning the delirium may last for many hours or even days. Thereafter a more or less sleepy state supervenes, but it is not the case that atropine ever causes genuine coma. The stuporose condition is the result of exhaustion after the long period of cerebral excitement. It is to be noted that children, who are particularly susceptible to the influence of certain of the other potent alkaloids, such as morphine and strychnine, will take relatively large doses of atropine without ill-effect.

In other words, a relatively large, measured dose of belladonna will knock a child out for hours or even days.

[Slimething]

Has belladonna ever been shown to alleviate convulsions?

Yes. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=101059) Want more (http://www.springerlink.com/content/48021g025m885136/)?

[Mojo]

According to "An American Prophet"...

To give you one more quote from "An American Prophet"...Do you have anything that isn't from a hagiography?

[MRC_Hans]

Has belladonna ever been shown to alleviate convulsions?As others pointed out, yes.

I re-read this thread, and maybe I'm slow, but I can't make out what your point with this thread is, Rodney? Would you mind (re)stating exactly what is your point/claim here?

Hans

[fls]

Originally Posted by fls
Out of the hundreds of possible "Plan B's", how do you choose one? Out of the hundreds of possible "Plan B's", how do you avoid the ones that are harmful (keeping in mind that we don't know if death is inevitable)?According to "An American Prophet", Cayce had given several accurate readings for Tommy's mother, and so she had trust in Cayce's treatment in her son's case. In general, I would argue that, if three medical doctors agree that a patient is going to die imminently and no other doctor contradicts them, you might as well try the best available Plan B.

You didn't answer my questions.

Originally Posted by fls
There isn't any indication from what you've told us (other than a desire to present it as such) that there was anything particularly wonderful about his guess.
You mean other than the fact that Tommy recovered completely after his father administered the belladonna?

Yes. It's not like people don't have a wide variety of outcomes from various illnesses, sometimes related to substances ingested and other treatments, sometimes not.

Linda

[Rodney]

Absolutely. It's all over the antique herbals. It's a powerful sedative and anti-spasmotic. It inhibits action of the involuntary muscles. Galen used it as an anesthetic and for gastrointestinal conditions. Belladonna

Of course if you inhibit your involuntary muscles too much you stop breathing and die, which is why belladonna is also used to kill people.

Here's what the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica had to say about it:

In other words, a relatively large, measured dose of belladonna will knock a child out for hours or even days.
Thanks, it's very helpful to know what the contemporary medical wisdom was about belladonna when this event took place. The question is, however, how did Cayce manage to arrive at the correct treatment when the doctors were stumped? If Kirkpatrick's version of events is accurate, the doctors did not nod approvingly at Cayce's recommendation, but were shocked that he would prescribe such a dangerous medication.

[Rodney]

As others pointed out, yes.

I re-read this thread, and maybe I'm slow, but I can't make out what your point with this thread is, Rodney? Would you mind (re)stating exactly what is your point/claim here?
Hans
I already partially answered your question in post #10 on this thread regarding the irony of reader Turgeon's comment. But I also try to never miss an opportunity to mention an alleged Cayce treatment that worked after the conventional medical wisdom had failed. ;)

[Rodney]

You didn't answer my questions.
I thought my answer was clear, but to amplify: If the uncontradicted conventional medical wisdom is that a patient has only a very short time to live, there is likely little to lose in trying an alternative treatment. As to which alternative treatment, track record is the key. If someone has been accurate in the past about other medical conditions, that person's recommendation carries far more weight than someone who simply says: "Trust me, this will work."

Yes. It's not like people don't have a wide variety of outcomes from various illnesses, sometimes related to substances ingested and other treatments, sometimes not.

Linda
Okay, but if you had a patient that you were confident was on death's door and then (s)he suddenly recovered after an unconventional treatment, wouldn't you want to investigate in detail that treatment?

[ChristineR]

Thanks, it's very helpful to know what the contemporary medical wisdom was about belladonna when this event took place. The question is, however, how did Cayce manage to arrive at the correct treatment when the doctors were stumped? If Kirkpatrick's version of events is accurate, the doctors did not nod approvingly at Cayce's recommendation, but were shocked that he would prescribe such a dangerous medication.

By 1909 doctors were moving away from treatments like cocaine, opium, and some others I know of....I don't know what they thought of Belladonna, but as they knew how to extract atropine I suspect this was an outdated treatment by 1911.

[Slimething]

... If Kirkpatrick's version of events is accurate, ...

There, Rodney, I've simplified it for you using only your own words.

[Rodney]

There, Rodney, I've simplified it for you using only your own words.
The problem is that this incident and other similar ones regarding Cayce's successful treatments have been mentioned by several other authors. To my knowledge, no one has refuted them.

[Slimething]

The problem is that this incident and other similar ones regarding Cayce's successful treatments have been mentioned by several other authors. To my knowledge, no one has refuted them.

Don't be shy, Rodney, bring them forth. Perhaps no one has refuted them because there is no evidence either way. Remember that the burden of proof is on the proponent of a phenomenon.

[Mojo]

Okay, but if you had a patient that you were confident was on death's door and then (s)he suddenly recovered after an unconventional treatment, wouldn't you want to investigate in detail that treatment?Did anyone investigate the treatment in detail after Tommy's recovery? All that has been presented so far is an anecdotal account of a single case.

[Mojo]

Thanks, it's very helpful to know what the contemporary medical wisdom was about belladonna when this event took place. The question is, however, how did Cayce manage to arrive at the correct treatment... Or at least what appears to have been a fairly conventional treatment from around that time, which he could have read about. ...when the doctors were stumped? Perhaps they weren't very good doctors. Perhaps they were doctors of homoeopathy like the "Dr Ketchum" you tried to rely on as an authority in an earlier thread. If Kirkpatrick's version of events is accurate, the doctors did not nod approvingly at Cayce's recommendation, but were shocked that he would prescribe such a dangerous medication.What dosage did Cayce recommend? There seems to be no doubt that belladonna or atropine were used around the time we're talking about (see, for example the manual cited earlier by ChristineR, which was published only about a decade before), so presumably a dose regarded as appropriate wouldn't have been particularly shocking, even if they were of the opinion that it would be useless. If the dose recommended was so shocking, surely a responsible doctor would have made a note of it.

[MRC_Hans]

Ahh, now I found out how the multiquote thingy works....

As others pointed out, yes.

I re-read this thread, and maybe I'm slow, but I can't make out what your point with this thread is, Rodney? Would you mind (re)stating exactly what is your point/claim here?

Hans

I already partially answered your question in post #10 on this thread regarding the irony of reader Turgeon's comment. But I also try to never miss an opportunity to mention an alleged Cayce treatment that worked after the conventional medical wisdom had failed. ;)

Oh. So you have no claim. You just like to relate anecdotes. OK.

The problem is that this incident and other similar ones regarding Cayce's successful treatments have been mentioned by several other authors. To my knowledge, no one has refuted them.

Well, that is the thing with anecdotes. You can neither validate nor refute them.

What you can do is try to repeat them. Since this event allegedly took place about a century ago, there has been amble time to do that. So, can you point to subsequent research that could support the benefits of Belladonna in cases like this?

Hans

[fls]

I thought my answer was clear, but to amplify: If the uncontradicted conventional medical wisdom is that a patient has only a very short time to live, there is likely little to lose in trying an alternative treatment.

As long as you take into consideration the level of certainty involved in "uncontradicted conventional medical wisdom". I don't see anything to indicate that "survival" was excluded as a reasonable possibility, since physicians of the day wouldn't have had access to the requisite knowledge or tools to make that determination. And we don't really know what their opinion was, as all we have are third-hand or more accounts of what they thought from highly invested lay-people - the type of accounts that are rarely correct, even under relatively mundane circumstances.

As to which alternative treatment, track record is the key. If someone has been accurate in the past about other medical conditions, that person's recommendation carries far more weight than someone who simply says: "Trust me, this will work."

I suspect you think that Cayce falls into the former, rather than the latter category. But your description is of a non-scientific approach to the issue, which is not trustworthy.

Okay, but if you had a patient that you were confident was on death's door and then (s)he suddenly recovered after an unconventional treatment, wouldn't you want to investigate in detail that treatment?

Yes, that is a fairly typical occurence in medicine. It should tell you something that his results did not create a revolution among those with expert knowledge and experience.

Linda

[fls]

The problem is that this incident and other similar ones regarding Cayce's successful treatments have been mentioned by several other authors. To my knowledge, no one has refuted them.

Because the information is inadequate to demonstrate that there is even something there that requires refutation.

Linda

[BillyJoe]

According to "An American Prophet", Cayce had given several accurate readings for Tommy's mother, and so she had trust in Cayce's treatment in her son's case. In general, I would argue that, if three medical doctors agree that a patient is going to die imminently and no other doctor contradicts them, you might as well try the best available Plan B.

You seem to have added extra details to the original story:
"no other doctor contradicts them"
"best available Plan B."
Before it was just three doctors agreeing that death was imminent. Now we have no doctor contradicting them. How many doctors did not contradict them? Who were they? Before we just had Plan B, now we have best available plan B. What were the other Plan Bs? How was the best Plan B determined?

[Rodney]

Don't be shy, Rodney, bring them forth. Perhaps no one has refuted them because there is no evidence either way. Remember that the burden of proof is on the proponent of a phenomenon.
You can start with the Aime Dietrich case. See post #67 and subsequent discussion on this thread -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62560&page=2&highlight=Dietrich

[Rodney]

Yes, that is a fairly typical occurence in medicine. It should tell you something that his results did not create a revolution among those with expert knowledge and experience.
Two questions: (1) Has the use of belladonna to treat a desperately weak, seizure-ridden infant ever been rigorously studied? (2) What would be the conventional medical treatment today for an infant with Tommy's symptoms?

[Rodney]

You seem to have added extra details to the original story:
"no other doctor contradicts them"
"best available Plan B."
Before it was just three doctors agreeing that death was imminent. Now we have no doctor contradicting them. How many doctors did not contradict them? Who were they? Before we just had Plan B, now we have best available plan B. What were the other Plan Bs? How was the best Plan B determined?
I was responding generally to Linda's questions. However, I think it's safe to say that the Houses would not have consented to Cayce's recommended risky treatment if there had been a less risky alternative to it.

[Slimething]

You can start with the Aime Dietrich case. See post #67 and subsequent discussion on this thread -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62560&page=2&highlight=Dietrich

Rodney, I went there and read it. At least a story of convulsions being eased by atropine are credible because they're an established cause-effect relationship. However, "congestion at the base of the skull" is not a recognized medical diagnosis and, even if it were, an edema is not treatable by chiropracty.

[fls]

You can start with the Aime Dietrich case. See post #67 and subsequent discussion on this thread -- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62560&page=2&highlight=Dietrich

Again the detail is inadequate to demonstrate that anything remarkable happened.

Linda

[fls]

Two questions: (1) Has the use of belladonna to treat a desperately weak, seizure-ridden infant ever been rigorously studied?

Yes. The pathophysiology of those illnesses that would be encompassed by the term "desparately weak, seizure-ridden infant" have been rigorously studied, and the pharmocologic/physiologic effects of atropine and related anti-cholinergics have been rigorously studied.

(2) What would be the conventional medical treatment today for an infant with Tommy's symptoms?

The description is inadequate to tell what Tommy had. "Convulsions" is a non-specific term (like dizzy) which is used to cover symptoms affecting several different organ systems. The conventional medical treatment would be to determine the cause of the symptoms and treat that. Symptomatic treatment would be used if the symptoms themselves were life/health-threatening. For example, anti-epileptics such as phenytoin or diazepam would be given if someone had status epilepticus (unremitting seizure) even if the cause had not yet been determined.

Linda

[fls]

I was responding generally to Linda's questions. However, I think it's safe to say that the Houses would not have consented to Cayce's recommended risky treatment if there had been a less risky alternative to it.

There were many less risky alternatives available. Examples - no treatment, Lecithin (if the psychic of choice happened to be Sylvia instead of Cayce),
Epsom salts, cascara, bromide of soda, potash (the last 4 are culled from one of my early 20th century medical texts).

Linda

[Rodney]

Yes. The pathophysiology of those illnesses that would be encompassed by the term "desparately weak, seizure-ridden infant" have been rigorously studied, and the pharmocologic/physiologic effects of atropine and related anti-cholinergics have been rigorously studied.
And what is the conclusion? Could the belladonna have cured Tommy of a life-threatening condition?

[Rodney]

There were many less risky alternatives available. Examples - no treatment, Lecithin (if the psychic of choice happened to be Sylvia instead of Cayce),
Epsom salts, cascara, bromide of soda, potash (the last 4 are culled from one of my early 20th century medical texts).
I was talking about less risky alternatives that would have had a realistic chance of success. Someone could argue that the least risky thing would be to do nothing, but, if you were convinced that the patient would die without some sort of medical intervention, that would actually be the most risky thing.

[BillyJoe]

Rodney,

You are the one trying to make a point with this story.
Have you been able to find answers to the following questions:

Was the infant actually having convulsions?
Assuming he was, what was the underlying cause of the convulsions?
What dose of atopine was used?
What effect would this dose of atropine be expected to have had on the convulsions?
Could atropine possibly have had an effect on the underlying cause of the convulsions?
If it could not, would you expect atropine to have cured his convulsions?

Well, that's a start.

[fls]

And what is the conclusion? Could the belladonna have cured Tommy of a life-threatening condition?

Can I manufacture a scenario under which belladonna had a real effect? Yes. Can we tell what happened in this situation? No.

Linda

[MRC_Hans]

Can I manufacture a scenario under which belladonna had a real effect? Yes. Can we tell what happened in this situation? No.

LindaBeautiful. Simply beautiful.

Hans

[fls]

I was talking about less risky alternatives that would have had a realistic chance of success. Someone could argue that the least risky thing would be to do nothing, but, if you were convinced that the patient would die without some sort of medical intervention, that would actually be the most risky thing.

Then you would be talking about benefit, rather than risk - preferably something more than "at least I feel like I tried to do something". Once you recognize that "at least I feel like I tried to do something" can refer to any of a hundred/thousand/million possible things (depending upon your level of creativity) to try, selecting one of those things on the basis of arbitrary criteria (it rhymes with the name of the disease, it was spoken by someone who once said something else that was correct, the book fell open to that page) provides no additional affirmation of benefit.

Linda

[Rodney]

Can I manufacture a scenario under which belladonna had a real effect? Yes. Can we tell what happened in this situation? No.
Linda
Let me take it one step further: Given the information available in this case, is it conceivable -- or inconceivable -- that the only way Tommy could have recovered would have been to give him a measured dose of belladonna?

[Mojo]

Before you "take it one step further", perhaps you can go back and answer this:Okay, but if you had a patient that you were confident was on death's door and then (s)he suddenly recovered after an unconventional treatment, wouldn't you want to investigate in detail that treatment? Did anyone investigate the treatment in detail after Tommy's recovery? All that has been presented so far is an anecdotal account of a single case.So, did any of these three doctors, whose patient allegedly made a sudden recovery after they had allegedly been confident that he was at death's door, investigate the treatment in detail?

[BillyJoe]

Let me take it one step further: Given the information available in this case, is it conceivable....that the only way Tommy could have recovered would have been to give him a measured dose of belladonna?

No.
(Regardless of the information available in this case.)

Atropine can terminate a convulsion.
(Though diazepam is used these days)
But it cannot cure the underlying cause of the convulsion.

If you think it can, it is up to you to provide evidence.

[fls]

Let me take it one step further: Given the information available in this case, is it conceivable -- or inconceivable -- that the only way Tommy could have recovered would have been to give him a measured dose of belladonna?

The answer is yes (ignoring your requirement for "only" as there are other sources of similar anti-cholinergics) - for example atropine would terminate seizures from nerve gas poisoning. But the exercise is pointless as it becomes merely a matter of creating fiction. I can make up all kinds of stories, but we have no way of knowing whether or not Tommy is an example of any one of my stories.

And Mojo brings up a good point, related to what I was trying to say earlier. There were allegedly three physicians involved in the case. During a time when a physician's ability to influence the outcome in serious illness was very limited, an example of a drug altering the outcome (in a novel manner) in a serious illness would have warranted broad dissemination. Regardless of whether or not there was any interest in just how Cayce came up with his idea, if they saw an example of a particular illness responding to belladonna, it would become a suggested treatment for similar cases - i.e. Tommy's case would have shown up in the medical literature if it was as remarkable to experts as you claim it was to lay people.

Linda

[Rodney]

Before you "take it one step further", perhaps you can go back and answer this:So, did any of these three doctors, whose patient allegedly made a sudden recovery after they had allegedly been confident that he was at death's door, investigate the treatment in detail?I assume Dr. House did. According to "An American Prophet" at p. 8: "Dr. House had witnessed something that would make it impossible for him to return to the medical profession as he knew it. Twenty years later, he would close his practice and dedicate the remainder of his career to operating a hospital devoted to Edgar Cayce and the healing arts in Virginia Beach, Virginia."

[BillyJoe]

I assume Dr. House did.

But do you know that he did?

According to "An American Prophet" at p. 8: "Dr. House had witnessed something that would make it impossible for him to return to the medical profession as he knew it. Twenty years later, he would close his practice and dedicate the remainder of his career to operating a hospital devoted to Edgar Cayce and the healing arts in Virginia Beach, Virginia."

This could have been similar to St Paul on the road to Damascus. A sudden intuitive feeling that something is absolutely true. This not sufficient. It is only a starting point. It must be backed up by evidence. Did he investigate the treatment? Do you know whether or not he has? If not, why do you give it any credence?

[Rodney]

But do you know that he did?

This could have been similar to St Paul on the road to Damascus. A sudden intuitive feeling that something is absolutely true. This not sufficient. It is only a starting point. It must be backed up by evidence. Did he investigate the treatment? Do you know whether or not he has? If not, why do you give it any credence?

Needless to say, Dr. House died many years ago, and I don't have access to his records. From all reports, Dr. House became convinced of the efficacy of Cayce's treatments, and that's why he agreed to direct Cayce's hospital. I give this report credence both because of that and because Tommy House became actively involved with Cayce's work. Presumably, Tommy raised with his father what it was that Cayce did to help him and also became convinced of the efficacy of the treatment.

[BillyJoe]

Okay, Rodney, if that's enough for you.
Personally I'd require a whole lot more evidence than is available here.

regards,
BillyJoe

[Mojo]

According to "An American Prophet" at p. 8: "Dr. House had witnessed something that would make it impossible for him to return to the medical profession as he knew it. Twenty years later, he would close his practice and dedicate the remainder of his career to operating a hospital devoted to Edgar Cayce and the healing arts in Virginia Beach, Virginia."What was he doing in the twenty years between witnessing "something that would make it impossible for him to return to the medical profession as he knew it", and actually closing his practice?

Did he, or either of the other two doctors who were convinced that Tommy wouldn't survive the night, actually investigate the treatment in detail? After all, as you say: if you had a patient that you were confident was on death's door and then (s)he suddenly recovered after an unconventional treatment, wouldn't you want to investigate in detail that treatment?

[fls]

Needless to say, Dr. House died many years ago, and I don't have access to his records. From all reports, Dr. House became convinced of the efficacy of Cayce's treatments, and that's why he agreed to direct Cayce's hospital. I give this report credence both because of that and because Tommy House became actively involved with Cayce's work. Presumably, Tommy raised with his father what it was that Cayce did to help him and also became convinced of the efficacy of the treatment.

And that's the problem. You give credence to what we already know to be an unreliable way of finding the truth. We simply do not have enough information to determine whether or not there was anything remarkable (read "new") about what Cayce was doing. Using ignorance in support of credulity has always served us poorly.

Linda

[Loss Leader]

Let me take it one step further: Given the information available in this case, is it conceivable -- or inconceivable -- that the only way Tommy could have recovered would have been to give him a measured dose of belladonna?


Still with the Cayce?

As has been discussed in depth in previous threads, childhood seizures sometimes resolve completely without treatment never to appear again. And hundred year-old anecdotes are impossible to verify in any way because even if the medical doctors of the time did take good notes, they did not have access to medical tests that are vital for diagnosis today.

So, I assume, you're now falling back on, "Can you prove that this would be impossible?" The only problem with that is that when we had two medical doctors tell you that another Cayce cure was impossible, you ignored them. And although you claimed to be getting a third medical opinion, you never did.

Enough with the Cayce, already.

[BillyJoe]

...childhood seizures sometimes resolve completely without treatment never to appear again.

That'd be a long shot. Convulsions since birth now occurring every twenty minutes. Suddenly cease after a treatment given to cure them.

(Hey, I didn't say you couldn't use the "impossible to verify" bit.)

[Rodney]

What was he doing in the twenty years between witnessing "something that would make it impossible for him to return to the medical profession as he knew it", and actually closing his practice?
Practicing medicine, I assume, but with a changed outlook. Like everyone else, Dr. House had to make a living. According to "An American Prophet" at p. 7, House at that time was "a highly respected general practitioner with aspirations to become the county health commissioner."

Did he, or either of the other two doctors who were convinced that Tommy wouldn't survive the night, actually investigate the treatment in detail?
I presume so, but I don't have access to their medical records.

[Rodney]

That'd be a long shot. Convulsions since birth now occurring every twenty minutes. Suddenly cease after a treatment given to cure them.
In Loss Leader's world, that type of thing is just a coincidence.

[Slimething]

In Loss Leader's world, that type of thing is just a coincidence.

Is that any more of a long shot than a sleeping insurance salesman saving a child with fits to the awe of three doctors who decided to keep quiet about it for twenty years? That a doctor of some repute would wait twenty years to confess what he knew in contravention to the state of his vocation to open a clinic to heal rich people?

Rodney, let's just suppose that sometimes Cayce missed and a patient died despite (not because of) his prescriptions. Would those cases have made it into that book? :confused:

[Mojo]

Practicing medicine, I assume, but with a changed outlook. Like everyone else, Dr. House had to make a living. Which he later did by "operating a hospital devoted to Edgar Cayce".

According to "An American Prophet" at p. 7, House at that time was "a highly respected general practitioner with aspirations to become the county health commissioner." So it took him a further twenty years to realise that his aspirations wouldn't be fulfilled?

I presume so... Why?

[Rodney]

Is that any more of a long shot than a sleeping insurance salesman saving a child with fits to the awe of three doctors who decided to keep quiet about it for twenty years?
What makes you think the doctors kept quiet about it? Tommy House was cured in February 1909 and Cayce's reputation spread significantly after that. In October 1910, an article on Cayce appeared in the New York Times, and in December 1911, Cayce was investigated by Hugo Munsterberg, the dean of psychology at Harvard University.

That a doctor of some repute would wait twenty years to confess what he knew in contravention to the state of his vocation to open a clinic to heal rich people?
Again, Dr, House didn't wait, but Cayce wasn't in a position financially to open a hospital until February 1929. And the hospital was not just for rich people.

Rodney, let's just suppose that sometimes Cayce missed and a patient died despite (not because of) his prescriptions. Would those cases have made it into that book? :confused:
Yes, Kirkpatrick discusses some of those cases. Further, Cayce's sons, Hugh Lynn and Edgar Evans, wrote a book about their father's failed readings. It was titled "The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power."

[Slimething]

What makes you think the doctors kept quiet about it?

No scientific publications by any of the said doctors indicates to me that they all kept quiet except for perhaps supplying anecdotal information to anyone who would listen.

Tommy House was cured in February 1909 and Cayce's reputation spread significantly after that. In October 1910, an article on Cayce appeared in the New York Times, and in December 1911, Cayce was investigated by Hugo Munsterberg, the dean of psychology at Harvard University.

Are you stating that the three doctors at Tommy's were responsible for this? Can you supply the basis for this belief?

Again, Dr, House didn't wait,

Yes, he waited twenty years.

but Cayce wasn't in a position financially to open a hospital until February 1929. And the hospital was not just for rich people.

So, a doctor who knows his practice is a sham continues the fraud for twenty years and, only when a backer appears, reveals the truth of what he has seen to a waiting world? If so, Dr. House is a bit of con artist. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, Kirkpatrick discusses some of those cases. Further, Cayce's sons, Hugh Lynn and Edgar Evans, wrote a book about their father's failed readings. It was titled "The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power."

Well, post some of those! Any of them involve convulsions and belladonna?

[Rodney]

No scientific publications by any of the said doctors indicates to me that they all kept quiet except for perhaps supplying anecdotal information to anyone who would listen.
I don't know whether any of the three doctors authored articles in medical journals. Do you?

Are you stating that the three doctors at Tommy's were responsible for this? Can you supply the basis for this belief? I don't know whether they had a direct role, but the story of Tommy's recovery became well-known.

Yes, he waited twenty years.
So, a doctor who knows his practice is a sham continues the fraud for twenty years and, only when a backer appears, reveals the truth of what he has seen to a waiting world? If so, Dr. House is a bit of con artist. Wouldn't you agree?
What makes you think his practice was a sham? Cayce never recommended that doctors discontinue their practices. Presumably, however, House was more skeptical of the conventional medical wisdom after the unorthodox cure of his son.

Well, post some of those! Any of them involve convulsions and belladonna?
You can buy the book if you're interested in reading about some of Cayce's failures. To my knowledge, however, Cayce was never shown to have misprescribed belladonna.

[Slimething]

I don't know whether any of the three doctors authored articles in medical journals. Do you?

You're the one making the claim, Rodney. All I'm doing is asking questions. You want me to spend my time researching your claim? Not gonna happen.

I don't know whether they had a direct role, but the story of Tommy's recovery became well-known.

That's not the point. A few posts ago, I asked why these medical professionals kept quiet, meaning why the didn't do what most such professionals would do: research the heck out of it and publish, publish, publish (in medical journals, that is). You then told me that Tommy's case became well knows, inferring that these individuals did not keep quiet.

What makes you think his practice was a sham?

Because he closed his own practive twenty years after the event, apparently to administer Cayce's hospital. If he truly believed that Cayce held a truth not known to medicine, he sure took his sweet time acting on it. Just why would anyone further the status quo if they realized that it could be vastly improved?

Cayce never recommended that doctors discontinue their practices. Presumably, however, House was more skeptical of the conventional medical wisdom after the unorthodox cure of his son.

So, if Cayce had a better way, why didn't he ask the medical profession to change? After you've written that House was skeptical of conventional medical wisdom, what took him twenty years to stop living a lie?

You can buy the book if you're interested in reading about some of Cayce's failures.

No, thanks. Your posit, not mine. You do the buying and reading.

To my knowledge, however, Cayce was never shown to have misprescribed belladonna.

As your knowledge is entirely based on books you've read on Cayce written by people who believed in Cayce's paranormal abilities, we will never truly know. Will we?

[Rodney]

You're the one making the claim, Rodney. All I'm doing is asking questions. You want me to spend my time researching your claim? Not gonna happen.
I think I can safely say I've spent more time researching Cayce than everyone else here put together, but it's not possible to pin down every fact about everyone who was ever associated with him.

That's not the point. A few posts ago, I asked why these medical professionals kept quiet, meaning why the didn't do what most such professionals would do: research the heck out of it and publish, publish, publish (in medical journals, that is). You then told me that Tommy's case became well knows, inferring that these individuals did not keep quiet.
They may well have submitted an article for publication in a medical journal, but it could have been rejected. I doubt if medical journals a century ago were any more receptive to an article about a psychic succeeding where doctors had failed than they are today.

Because he closed his own practive twenty years after the event, apparently to administer Cayce's hospital. If he truly believed that Cayce held a truth not known to medicine, he sure took his sweet time acting on it. Just why would anyone further the status quo if they realized that it could be vastly improved?
Again, you seem to believe that Cayce was opposed to doctors, which was not the case. Following Cayce's successful treatment of Tommy, Dr. House undoubtedly took Cayce's ideas into account in his medical practice prior to administering Cayce's hospital.

So, if Cayce had a better way, why didn't he ask the medical profession to change?
That wasn't Cayce's style and it would have been futile, in any case.

After you've written that House was skeptical of conventional medical wisdom, what took him twenty years to stop living a lie?
You have no evidence that he was.

No, thanks. Your posit, not mine. You do the buying and reading.
Don't worry -- I will.


As your knowledge is entirely based on books you've read on Cayce written by people who believed in Cayce's paranormal abilities, we will never truly know. Will we?
I've read a number of books and articles that were critical of Cayce. And they have something in common -- they're superficial.

[Slimething]

I think I can safely say I've spent more time researching Cayce than everyone else here put together, but it's not possible to pin down every fact about everyone who was ever associated with him.

You're right, Rodney. That would be a herculean task. I'm not asking you to do it. I'm only saying that I'm not going to do it. Primarily because I've got enough on my plate already and I don't believe Cayce was anything special.

They may well have submitted an article for publication in a medical journal, but it could have been rejected. I doubt if medical journals a century ago were any more receptive to an article about a psychic succeeding where doctors had failed than they are today.

Good point, Rodney. However, that leaves a fairly large gap for us today. Do you suppose that, instead of taking the angle that something preternatural happened, these doctors could have followed up on belladonna as a cure for spasms? No apparent woo involved there. Oh, the opportunity they missed!


Again, you seem to believe that Cayce was opposed to doctors, which was not the case. Following Cayce's successful treatment of Tommy, Dr. House undoubtedly took Cayce's ideas into account in his medical practice prior to administering Cayce's hospital.

As I wrote previously, a conscientious person with Cayce's knowledge would have been opposed not to doctors but to the then-existing practice of medicine. Yet, Cayce did/said nothing.

Also, don't state that Dr. House "undoubtedly" did/thought/said anything. That's pure speculation on your part mandated by your expectations of Cayce and Dr. House. If Dr. House continued his usual practice only to jump on the Cayce bandwagon twenty years after he became convinced his vocation was fraudulent because the funds became available, he really deserves little respect as a professional of any type.

That wasn't Cayce's style and it would have been futile, in any case.

I can't argue there, Rodney. Search out a book called The Romance of Medicine by Benjamin Lee Gordon. Cover to cover, the book portrays the individual stories of the many iconoclasts who paved the way from shamanism to modern medical practices. Many of these greats died poor or in asylums but their contributions to the health care we enjoy today is inestimable. Compared to these greats, Cayce deserves little recognition at all, even if he was onto something.


You have no evidence that he was.


Just following your lead, Rodney. Did you or did you not write:
Presumably, however, House was more skeptical of the conventional medical wisdom after the unorthodox cure of his son.


Don't worry -- I will.

Good, Rodney! I admire your persistence.

I've read a number of books and articles that were critical of Cayce. And they have something in common -- they're superficial.

I hardly consider the unsubstantiated evidence for Cayce's supernatural gifts that you've posted here as much more than superficial either, Rodney. Is there more?

[Mojo]

They may well have submitted an article for publication in a medical journal, but it could have been rejected. I doubt if medical journals a century ago were any more receptive to an article about a psychic succeeding where doctors had failed than they are today. That is not what you suggested. You suggested that they would want to investigate the treatment: Okay, but if you had a patient that you were confident was on death's door and then (s)he suddenly recovered after an unconventional treatment, wouldn't you want to investigate in detail that treatment?If they had investigated the efficacy of the treatment in a systematic manner and found that it worked, the fact that it was originally suggested by Cayce would not be particularly relevant as far as publication of the results is concerned.

[Rodney]

That is not what you suggested. You suggested that they would want to investigate the treatment: If they had investigated the efficacy of the treatment in a systematic manner and found that it worked, the fact that it was originally suggested by Cayce would not be particularly relevant as far as publication of the results is concerned.
Do you have evidence that the doctors did not investigate the treatment? What may have happened is that they investigated, but could not definitively determine how the measured dose of belladonna had cured Tommy. What I would like to see happen is for a medical research team to evaluate this case and see if they could come to any conclusions about the efficacy of the treatment. Of course, that would take money.

[Mojo]

What may have happened is that they investigated, but could not definitively determine how the measured dose of belladonna had cured Tommy. ...or even if it had cured Tommy.

Basically, you have no evidence that they investigated it at all, do you? And if the case was as remarkable as you assert, there should be evidence. Remember what fls posted? There were allegedly three physicians involved in the case. During a time when a physician's ability to influence the outcome in serious illness was very limited, an example of a drug altering the outcome (in a novel manner) in a serious illness would have warranted broad dissemination. Regardless of whether or not there was any interest in just how Cayce came up with his idea, if they saw an example of a particular illness responding to belladonna, it would become a suggested treatment for similar cases - i.e. Tommy's case would have shown up in the medical literature if it was as remarkable to experts as you claim it was to lay people.Any sign of it (or any of Cayce's other "cures") showing up in the medical literature?


What I would like to see happen is for a medical research team to evaluate this case and see if they could come to any conclusions about the efficacy of the treatment. Of course, that would take money.


With the almost complete lack of information about the case, it would also take a great deal of imagination. ;)

[Rodney]

...or even if it had cured Tommy.
So did Tommy have a spontaneous recovery?

Basically, you have no evidence that they investigated it at all, do you?
Do you have evidence that they didn't investigate?

And if the case was as remarkable as you assert, there should be evidence.
It's not what I assert, it's what many have asserted over many years. And why do you think Tommy spent his life promoting Cayce's treatments?

Remember what fls posted? Any sign of it (or any of Cayce's other "cures") showing up in the medical literature?
I'm sure medical journals were anxious to undermine the conventional wisdom. ;)

With the almost complete lack of information about the case, it would also take a great deal of imagination. ;)
Complete lack of information? Try re-reading what I've posted.

[Mojo]

So did Tommy have a spontaneous recovery? Quite possibly. It's an anecdotal account of a single case, so there's no way of knowing whether the recovery was caused by Cayce's treatment or by other factors, including spontaneous recovery.

Do you have evidence that they didn't investigate?Naughty Rodney, asking me to prove a negative. Do you have any evidence that they did? Did they even bother reporting the case?

It's not what I assert, it's what many have asserted over many years. Argumentum ad numerum: the fact that a lot of people have made an assertion does not make that assertion any more true. What evidence did these "many" people base their assertion on?And why do you think Tommy spent his life promoting Cayce's treatments? Because he followed his father into the family business?

I'm sure medical journals were anxious to undermine the conventional wisdom. ;) Do you really think that medical journals are unwilling to report novel treatments? That would explain why medicine has made no progress since the eighteenth century, I suppose.

I can just see the headlines:

"ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM FOILED BY VIGILANT MEDICAL JOURNALS

Some quack called Fleming claims to have discovered penicillin. Take no notice: he's trying to undermine conventional wisdom.

Keep using the leeches, guys."

Complete lack of information? Try re-reading what I've posted.


Well, for a start you would need to provide the following information.

What condition was Tommy suffering from? Remember that the convulsions are a symptom which could be caused by any number of conditions, rather than a disease in themselves.

What was the dose of belladonna used?

Without these you just have a report of an unknown condition allegedly cured by an unknown dose of belladonna. Not very much information.

[fls]

So did Tommy have a spontaneous recovery?

There is no way to know.

I'm sure medical journals were anxious to undermine the conventional wisdom. ;)

This is frequently used as an excuse for why amazing discoveries are ignored by those very people who would be most interested in those discoveries, and who would be best able to assess the degree of amazingness. In reality, overturning conventional wisdom is of high interest to medical journals and researchers/physicians. Nobel prizes aren't awarded for doing the same-old stuff as everyone else.

Also, even if we buy that argument, it would simply be a report of a novel use of a drug - the kind of thing that was (and still is) commonly published. That's how medical progress was made - trying new things and telling others about the results.

Complete lack of information? Try re-reading what I've posted.

I don't know if you read any medical journals, but the information given is considered completely inadequate for a case report. There is a case report in every other New England Journal of Medicine issue - Case Records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. The detailed information about the case usually covers several pages (small print, pictures). For example, in the issue sitting on my desk, the case presentation covers 5 pages.

I did a quick search for something on line to give a bit of an idea about the kind of information that is needed. This (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0010051) isn't ideal, but it provides some illustration of what is meant by an adequate investigation.

Linda

[Rodney]

There is no way to know.
How likely would a spontaneous recovery be if Kirkpatrick is correct that "all [three physicians] agreed that Tommy House Jr. had little or no chance of living through the night"? ("An American Prophet" at 4.)

This is frequently used as an excuse for why amazing discoveries are ignored by those very people who would be most interested in those discoveries, and who would be best able to assess the degree of amazingness. In reality, overturning conventional wisdom is of high interest to medical journals and researchers/physicians. Nobel prizes aren't awarded for doing the same-old stuff as everyone else.

Also, even if we buy that argument, it would simply be a report of a novel use of a drug - the kind of thing that was (and still is) commonly published. That's how medical progress was made - trying new things and telling others about the results.
What you say makes sense except with regard to information that comes from psychics. Consider the enlightened wisdom of our esteemed colleague Mojo in post #24 on this thread:

"Even if it is accurate, it hardly justifies poisoning the poor little sod [Tommy]. Actually, the fact that he was strong enough to survive Cayce's murderous ministrations suggests that the doctors were wrong."

I don't know if you read any medical journals, but the information given is considered completely inadequate for a case report. There is a case report in every other New England Journal of Medicine issue - Case Records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. The detailed information about the case usually covers several pages (small print, pictures). For example, in the issue sitting on my desk, the case presentation covers 5 pages.

I did a quick search for something on line to give a bit of an idea about the kind of information that is needed. This (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0010051) isn't ideal, but it provides some illustration of what is meant by an adequate investigation.

Linda
Fine, but why couldn't the Tommy House case be investigated from the perspective of whether it is theoretically possible for a measured dose of belladonna to complete cure a 3-month old suffering from severe convulsions, malnutrition, and lack of sleep? Bear in mind that Kirkpatrick states that "[t]he convulsions had become so frequent that they occurred every twenty minutes" and that "Tommy House was on the verge of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, a diagnosis confirmed by the child's father, a doctor, and by the family's two personal physicians, Dr Jackson, a general practitioner in Hopkinsville, and Dr. Haggard, a pediatric specialist from Nashville who had been attending the child since birth." ("An American Prophet" at 4.)

[Slimething]

What you say makes sense except with regard to information that comes from psychics.

Your argument is getting circular, Rodney. You are assuming that the story you've read is factual. Various posters on this thread have tried to coach you in the fine art of corroboration but you are not comprehending. If the story your read is true, one would expect to find correlative evidence, especially with three medical doctors present. But there is none. Hence, either you believe in the story or you don't. Most of us don't and we have our reasons.

Fine, but why couldn't the Tommy House case be investigated from the perspective of whether it is theoretically possible for a measured dose of belladonna to complete cure a 3-month old suffering from severe convulsions, malnutrition, and lack of sleep?

Exactly our point, Rodney. Why wasn't it? Why did none of these three astute men of science even write a letter to a medical journal about what they had seen? Why did they not investigate alternatives to treatment of spasmodic diseases using belladonna? No, from these esteemed doctors, we have nothing further other than the one who closed his practice after twenty years to take a more lucrative position heading a private hospital. You must admit that the circumstances hardly bolster an account of a miraculous recovery witnessed by three well-respected doctors.

Perhaps you could start your attempts at corroboration by finding the listing of these three MDs living in that geographical area? First, establish that the story was possible, not necessarily true.

[Mojo]

How likely would a spontaneous recovery be if Kirkpatrick is correct that "all [three physicians] agreed that Tommy House Jr. had little or no chance of living through the night"? ("An American Prophet" at 4.) That depends on what was causing the convulsions etc. You still haven't told us.

What you say makes sense except with regard to information that comes from psychics. Consider the enlightened wisdom of our esteemed colleague Mojo in post #24 on this thread:

"Even if it is accurate, it hardly justifies poisoning the poor little sod [Tommy]. Actually, the fact that he was strong enough to survive Cayce's murderous ministrations suggests that the doctors were wrong." What has that post got to do with psychics? Let's look at it in its entirety, including the quotation it was replying to: If you had been Tommy's father and the following is an accurate depiction of the facts, would your position still be the same?

"Although the three doctors disagreed about what treatment they should provide, all agreed that Tommy House Jr. had little or no chance of living through the night."
Even if it is accurate, it hardly justifies poisoning the poor little sod. Actually, the fact that he was strong enough to survive Cayce's murderous ministrations suggests that the doctors were wrong.The post is about whether the prognosis allegedly given by the doctors justifies reckless experimentation. The fact that Cayce claimed to have arrived at the treatment by psychic means is irrelevant to this, and not mentioned in the post.

Fine, but why couldn't the Tommy House case be investigated from the perspective of whether it is theoretically possible for a measured dose of belladonna to complete cure a 3-month old suffering from severe convulsions, malnutrition, and lack of sleep? Because none of the doctors involved seems to have thought it remarkable enough to bother making adequate notes of the alleged treatment and recovery.

[Mojo]

What you say makes sense except with regard to information that comes from psychics. But if they had investigated the treatment and found that it worked, the source of the suggestion would have been irrelevant. It needn't even have been mentioned in the report.

[fls]

How likely would a spontaneous recovery be if Kirkpatrick is correct that "all [three physicians] agreed that Tommy House Jr. had little or no chance of living through the night"? ("An American Prophet" at 4.)

24.2%

What you say makes sense except with regard to information that comes from psychics. Consider the enlightened wisdom of our esteemed colleague Mojo in post #24 on this thread:

"Even if it is accurate, it hardly justifies poisoning the poor little sod [Tommy]. Actually, the fact that he was strong enough to survive Cayce's murderous ministrations suggests that the doctors were wrong."

What's that got to do with it?

Fine, but why couldn't the Tommy House case be investigated from the perspective of whether it is theoretically possible for a measured dose of belladonna to complete cure a 3-month old suffering from severe convulsions, malnutrition, and lack of sleep? Bear in mind that Kirkpatrick states that "[t]he convulsions had become so frequent that they occurred every twenty minutes" and that "Tommy House was on the verge of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, a diagnosis confirmed by the child's father, a doctor, and by the family's two personal physicians, Dr Jackson, a general practitioner in Hopkinsville, and Dr. Haggard, a pediatric specialist from Nashville who had been attending the child since birth." ("An American Prophet" at 4.)

Why? It can't possibly tell us anything new since the necessary information is so sparse it can only be understood in light of what we already know, and is too vague to constrain us to any one of a dozen potential explanations.

Linda

[Rodney]

24.2%
Okay, I'll bite: How did you arrive at that percentage?

What's that got to do with it?
It shows the bias against psychics. Mojo seems to be saying that, even if Cayce cured Tommy, his advice still should not have been followed.

Why? It can't possibly tell us anything new since the necessary information is so sparse it can only be understood in light of what we already know, and is too vague to constrain us to any one of a dozen potential explanations.

Linda
So what is it that we know about belladonna and seizures? Are there situations today where a physician might prescribe it to a 3-month old suffering from seizures?

[Slimething]

It shows the bias against psychics. Mojo seems to be saying that, even if Cayce cured Tommy, his advice still should not have been followed.

That's not what Mojo wrote at all. Read it again. Perhaps you read what you wanted Mojo to write so you could dismiss it but he has a very good point.

[BillyJoe]

Okay, I'll bite: How did you arrive at that percentage?She pulled it out of her....sorry, Linda, you can answer that one. :D

So what is it that we know about belladonna and seizures? Are there situations today where a physician might prescribe it to a 3-month old suffering from seizures?

I doubt it.
They might possibly use atropine.
And what stops the seizure doesn't actually cure it - that requires firstly a diagnosis and then treatment of the underlying cause if possible.
But it's your baby, Rodney, shouldn't you be looking after it.

(Okay....googling it produces references that suggest atropine can be used to treat RAS or Reflex Anoxic Seizures - but these occur in children (not 3 month infants) who have breath holding attacks as a result of, for example, pain.)

[fls]

Okay, I'll bite: How did you arrive at that percentage?

Umm, you might want to be a little more careful about what you put in your mouth....considering where that number came from....

I collect old medical textbooks. What's interesting is to compare the classification and description of diseases from one hundred years ago, to our current understanding. Sometimes there is a clear correspondence - for example, where the putative agent has been determined and the clinical syndrome is straightforward. Often there is no correspondence between named diseases/categories and our current classifications - what was referred to as a single disease we now know as a manifestation of a number of different diseases or what were referred to as different diseases we now know to be different manifestations of the same thing. Or even that some "diseases" were a contrived collection of "symptoms" that do not really correspond to anything in particular.

This case clearly falls into the second situation. No diagnosis was provided ("convulsions" is not a diagnosis, but a description (and a non-specific one at that - it could be generalized seizures, myoclonic jerks, rigors, etc.)) which means that the doctors' ability to provide accurate guesses about prognosis and treatment was very limited. So, as I have mentioned numerous times, even though we cannot even begin to guess at the chance of recovery (for some disease conditions, it could have been 99%, for some it could have been 1%), we can say with great certainty that the doctors were guessing if they actually said what it is reported that they said.

It shows the bias against psychics. Mojo seems to be saying that, even if Cayce cured Tommy, his advice still should not have been followed.

I don't think it can be assumed that the doctors ignored a supposedly remarkable event for that reason.

So what is it that we know about belladonna and seizures? Are there situations today where a physician might prescribe it to a 3-month old suffering from seizures?

I already said yes. And that we have no way of knowing whether that situation corresponds to Tommy's situation, or whether Tommy's situation corresponds to any one of dozens of other possibilities. The inability to constrain the explanation to one out of many means that the story cannot be used as evidence of any one thing.

Linda

[Rodney]

Umm, you might want to be a little more careful about what you put in your mouth....considering where that number came from....
Here we are in complete agreement. ;)

I collect old medical textbooks. What's interesting is to compare the classification and description of diseases from one hundred years ago, to our current understanding. Sometimes there is a clear correspondence - for example, where the putative agent has been determined and the clinical syndrome is straightforward. Often there is no correspondence between named diseases/categories and our current classifications - what was referred to as a single disease we now know as a manifestation of a number of different diseases or what were referred to as different diseases we now know to be different manifestations of the same thing. Or even that some "diseases" were a contrived collection of "symptoms" that do not really correspond to anything in particular.

This case clearly falls into the second situation. No diagnosis was provided ("convulsions" is not a diagnosis, but a description (and a non-specific one at that - it could be generalized seizures, myoclonic jerks, rigors, etc.)) which means that the doctors' ability to provide accurate guesses about prognosis and treatment was very limited. So, as I have mentioned numerous times, even though we cannot even begin to guess at the chance of recovery (for some disease conditions, it could have been 99%, for some it could have been 1%), we can say with great certainty that the doctors were guessing if they actually said what it is reported that they said.
It may well have been that, among the three doctors, they had experience with infants in the same shape as Tommy was that night in February 1909, and all had died. I don't think it's logical that Dr. House would have followed Cayce's recommendation if he thought there was a realistic chance that Tommy could have otherwise recovered.

I don't think it can be assumed that the doctors ignored a supposedly remarkable event for that reason.
Again, there is no evidence that the doctors ignored the event.

I already said yes. And that we have no way of knowing whether that situation corresponds to Tommy's situation, or whether Tommy's situation corresponds to any one of dozens of other possibilities. The inability to constrain the explanation to one out of many means that the story cannot be used as evidence of any one thing.

Linda
It's very interesting to me -- and I suspect all the other non-medical folks here -- that a physician might prescribe belladonna to a 3-month old suffering from seizures. Can you cite a case where this actually happened?

[Mojo]

Again, there is no evidence that the doctors ignored the event. Is there even any evidence that they took notes at the time? For example, did they bother recording the dose of belladonna that Cayce recommended?

Is any contemporaneous record available, or is this one of the cases from what Gladys Davis Turner, Cayce's secretary from 1923 onwards, described (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1626753#post1626753) as "those early days of which no copies were kept". It is true that, prior to Gladys Davis becoming Cayce's secretary in 1923 (not 1925), most readings were not retained. Are we just relying on a later account from Dr. House, a man who ran Cayce's hospital and according to your OP spent his life promoting Cayce?

[fls]

It may well have been that, among the three doctors, they had experience with infants in the same shape as Tommy was that night in February 1909, and all had died. I don't think it's logical that Dr. House would have followed Cayce's recommendation if he thought there was a realistic chance that Tommy could have otherwise recovered.

That would be my guess as well - that they were acting under the assumption that previous experiences could/would apply to this case.

Again, there is no evidence that the doctors ignored the event.

I wasn't saying that the doctors ignored the event. You seemed to be offering up reasons why doctors would be inclined to ignore the event a priori.

It's very interesting to me -- and I suspect all the other non-medical folks here -- that a physician might prescribe belladonna to a 3-month old suffering from seizures.

Why? You seem to be trying to go somewhere with this, but I don't understand where that is. Can you tell me what point you are trying to make? Since we are going in circles here, I'm obviously not giving you the kind of information you are looking for.

Can you cite a case where this actually happened?

?

Not in my personal experience (as far as I recall). Do you think there'd be a reason that I would hear about a case if it actually happened?

Linda

[Mojo]

It's very interesting to me -- and I suspect all the other non-medical folks here -- that a physician might prescribe belladonna to a 3-month old suffering from seizures. Why? According to what has already been posted in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2458718#post2458718), belladonna seems to have been a fairly standard drug around 100 years ago.

[MRC_Hans]

It's very interesting to me -- and I suspect all the other non-medical folks here -- that a physician might prescribe belladonna to a 3-month old suffering from seizures. Why is it interesting? All this happened a century ago. At that time scientific medicine was still nascent. Most medical research was still purely empirical. I'm sure that if you researched medical journals from that era extensively, you would be able to find examples of practically any medicine used for practically any disease (within reason, of course).

Hans

[BillyJoe]

Mojo & Hans,

If you follow the links back, Rodney was asking...


So what is it that we know about belladonna and seizures? Are there situations today where a physician might prescribe it to a 3-month old suffering from seizures?



Sorry. :D

[BillyJoe]

Here is the sequence...

Rodney:
So what is it that we know about belladonna and seizures? Are there situations today where a physician might prescribe it to a 3-month old suffering from seizures?


Linda:
I already said yes. And that we have no way of knowing whether that situation corresponds to Tommy's situation, or whether Tommy's situation corresponds to any one of dozens of other possibilities. The inability to constrain the explanation to one out of many means that the story cannot be used as evidence of any one thing.



Rodney:
It's very interesting to me -- and I suspect all the other non-medical folks here -- that a physician might prescribe belladonna to a 3-month old suffering from seizures. Can you cite a case where this actually happened?


Rodney does not believe that Belladonna would be given to a three month infant suffering seizures today. Therefore he is asking for references.

(I have already stated that I doubt this would be the practise today).

[MRC_Hans]

Here is the sequence...


Rodney does not believe that Belladonna would be given to a three month infant suffering seizures today. Therefore he is asking for references.

(I have already stated that I doubt this would be the practise today).Ehrm, OK, thanks.

I don't think Belladonna would be given today by any qualified physician to an infant suffering from seizures.

Reference: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-belladonna.html

And?

Hans

[BillyJoe]

And?

I agree this doesn't seem to be advancing his argument.
Which is why I was happy to agree.
Seems you agree as well.
(I wonder what Linda has up her sleeve though? She seems to disagree!)

BJ

[fls]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe
Rodney does not believe that Belladonna would be given to a three month infant suffering seizures today. Therefore he is asking for references.

(I have already stated that I doubt this would be the practise today).
Ehrm, OK, thanks.

I don't think Belladonna would be given today by any qualified physician to an infant suffering from seizures.

Reference: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-belladonna.html

And?

Hans

I already gave Rodney an example (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2478725#post2478725) where a three-month-old infant suffering from seizures might be given Bellandonna (atropine) today. What I don't know is whether or not there has ever been a case of three-month-old infant with an organophosphate ingestion. If there has been a case (or cases), there would be no particular reason to publish it (we already know children ingest toxins (accidentally or deliberately), we already know the antidote to organophosphates), therefore there would be no reason to think there should be references on this issue.

Somebody else gave an example of using atropine in Reflex Anoxic Seizures. In that situation, case reports were published because it was a novel treatment.

Like I said earlier, I need to know where Rodney is going with this to understand why the example I already gave was unsatisfactory.

Linda

[Rodney]

I already gave Rodney an example (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2478725#post2478725) where a three-month-old infant suffering from seizures might be given Bellandonna (atropine) today. What I don't know is whether or not there has ever been a case of three-month-old infant with an organophosphate ingestion. If there has been a case (or cases), there would be no particular reason to publish it (we already know children ingest toxins (accidentally or deliberately), we already know the antidote to organophosphates), therefore there would be no reason to think there should be references on this issue.

Somebody else gave an example of using atropine in Reflex Anoxic Seizures. In that situation, case reports were published because it was a novel treatment.

Like I said earlier, I need to know where Rodney is going with this to understand why the example I already gave was unsatisfactory.

Linda
First, let me give you a little more detail regarding Tommy's condition, from "An American Prophet" at pages 5-6:

"Cayce described an epileptic condition that had caused severe infantile spasms, nausea, and vomiting -- evidently the outcome of the child's premature birth -- which in turn had been the result of the mother's poor physical condition during the early months of her pregnancy. Cayce prescribed a measured dose of belladonna, administered orally, to be followed by wrapping the infant in a steaming hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree."

Further, as I noted in post #8 on this thread:

" . . . the sleeping Cayce had prescribed an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade. Even if the peachtree poultice could somehow leach the poison out of the infant's system, administering such a large dose of belladonna to a child as small and weak as Tommy House Jr. was tantamount to murder . . . The infant had been suffering convulsions since his premature birth three months earlier. The convulsions had become so frequent that they now occurred every twenty minutes, leaving the helpless child too weak to nurse from his mother's bosom or to wrap his tiny hands around her fingers. Tommy House was on the verge of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, a diagnosis confirmed by the child's father, a doctor, and by the family's two personal physicians, Dr. Jackson, a general practitioner in Hopkinsville, and Dr. Haggard, a pediatric specialist from Nashville who had been attending the child since birth."

So, it appears that the three doctors were confident that: (a) they understood at least generally what Tommys' condition was, but thought that there was nothing they could do for him, and (b) administering a large dose of belladonna to him was the worst possible option because it would poison Tommy.

So, what I'm asking is this: With the benefit of the above account and the 98 years of medical knowledge that has accumulated since that night in February 1909, is it possible to make an educated guess as to what specific condition Tommy was suffering from and whether Cayce's treatment might have saved him? In other words, could Tommy have been suffering from a condition that doctors in 1909 did not know how to treat, but that could have been successfully treated, if they had the knowledge that Cayce somehow possessed? Or, alternatively, could Tommy have been suffering from what appeared to be a terminal condition, but that in reality was not, and that is why he so suddenly recovered?

[Slimething]

So, it appears that the three doctors were confident that: (a) they understood at least generally what Tommys' condition was, but thought that there was nothing they could do for him, and (b) administering a large dose of belladonna to him was the worst possible option because it would poison Tommy.

Rodney, you sure are reading a lot into an unverified anecdote of divine healing. I take it you are not quoting from your new-found bible but, rather, are passing on your conclusions about what the these supposed doctors were thinking? Please.

So, what I'm asking is this: With the benefit of the above account and ...

This is getting really tiresome, Rodney. Let me put it plainly. I believe the entire account is farcical. That being stated, I'm not going to give your rhetorical questions the time of day. Until you've posted independent corroboration of the episode, the story is simply incredible and easily dismissed.

[BillyJoe]

Slimething,

I think Rodney is saying that if there is a condition recognised by modern medicine that could cause a three month infant to have seizures and make him appear terminally ill, and that if that condition could be cured using an otherwise lethal dose of Belladonna, then that would lend credibility to the story of Tommy House.

I think he may be implying that Cayce could have had precognition of that condition and the appropriate treatment

Or something like that.

BillyJoe

[Rodney]

Slimething,

I think Rodney is saying that if there is a condition recognised by modern medicine that could cause a three month infant to have seizures and make him appear terminally ill, and that if that condition could be cured using an otherwise lethal dose of Belladonna, then that would lend credibility to the story of Tommy House.
Correct.

I think he may be implying that Cayce could have had precognition of that condition and the appropriate treatment

Or something like that.

BillyJoe
Something like that. One possibility is that Cayce had done a vast amount of reading of medical books and articles and had knowledge of belladonna that the three doctors did not. A second possibility is that somebody had told Cayce about this particular treatment for curing seizures. A third possibility is that Cayce obtained his knowledge in some paranormal fashion, although not necessarily by precognition. A fourth possibility is that Cayce's treatment was ineffective, but that it coincided with Tommy's recovery.

[Slimething]

\One possibility is that Cayce had done a vast amount of reading of medical books and articles and had knowledge of belladonna that the three doctors did not. A second possibility is that somebody had told Cayce about this particular treatment for curing seizures. A third possibility is that Cayce obtained his knowledge in some paranormal fashion, although not necessarily by precognition. A fourth possibility is that Cayce's treatment was ineffective, but that it coincided with Tommy's recovery.

A fifth possibility, which I favor based on the complete lack of logically-expected corroborative evidence, is that the even did not take place at all or as described. Therefore, any discussion on possibilities would be tantamount to speculation on what, if anything, any of the main characters knew, did, suspected, etc. Not really worth the time, Rodney.

[BillyJoe]

One possibility is that Cayce had done a vast amount of reading of medical books and articles and had knowledge of belladonna that the three doctors did not.

A second possibility is that somebody had told Cayce about this particular treatment for curing seizures.

A third possibility is that Cayce obtained his knowledge in some paranormal fashion, although not necessarily by precognition.

A fourth possibility is that Cayce's treatment was ineffective, but that it coincided with Tommy's recovery.

Do you favour one in particular?

And if there is no condition recognised by modern medicine that could cause a three month infant to have seizures and make him appear terminally ill, and that could be cured using an otherwise lethal dose of Belladonna?

Which one would you favour then?

[fls]

Let me start by saying that the most reasonable assumption is that the story is wrong. Since what I do for a living is this kind of comparison (comparing what people tell me with what is contained within the medical record - i.e. "taking a history" and "reading the chart"), I have a lot of experience in how people get it wrong. And the story you have related is likely to be subject to this problem - no diagnosis was made, the teller is heavily invested in the story, the information is fourth-hand, etc. I'm willing to pretend the story may be right, but the odds are heavily stacked against it.

First, let me give you a little more detail regarding Tommy's condition, from "An American Prophet" at pages 5-6:

"Cayce described an epileptic condition that had caused severe infantile spasms, nausea, and vomiting -- evidently the outcome of the child's premature birth -- which in turn had been the result of the mother's poor physical condition during the early months of her pregnancy. Cayce prescribed a measured dose of belladonna, administered orally, to be followed by wrapping the infant in a steaming hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree."

Further, as I noted in post #8 on this thread:

" . . . the sleeping Cayce had prescribed an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade. Even if the peachtree poultice could somehow leach the poison out of the infant's system, administering such a large dose of belladonna to a child as small and weak as Tommy House Jr. was tantamount to murder . . . The infant had been suffering convulsions since his premature birth three months earlier. The convulsions had become so frequent that they now occurred every twenty minutes, leaving the helpless child too weak to nurse from his mother's bosom or to wrap his tiny hands around her fingers. Tommy House was on the verge of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, a diagnosis confirmed by the child's father, a doctor, and by the family's two personal physicians, Dr. Jackson, a general practitioner in Hopkinsville, and Dr. Haggard, a pediatric specialist from Nashville who had been attending the child since birth."

So, it appears that the three doctors were confident that: (a) they understood at least generally what Tommys' condition was, but thought that there was nothing they could do for him, and (b) administering a large dose of belladonna to him was the worst possible option because it would poison Tommy.

I doubt the doctors were confident that they understood what Tommy's condition was. No diagnosis is given in the story, and the description of the symptoms is still too vague to know whether they were talking about seizures, rigors, muscle spasms, myclonus, etc.

Administering belladonna would not be the worst possible option. There would be hundreds of substances available that would also be potentially toxic to an infant. It could reasonably be said that they would be well aware of the risks of administering belladonna, but the information as to benefit would be questionable without a diagnosis and with limited knowledge (at that point in time) of the specific effects of belladona. Knowledge for its use would mostly be based on observing what happened in prior cases (either personal experience or through the medical literature). I don't know what information was available about its use in infants at that time. If the physicians were concerned about its use, it would be on the basis of unclear benefit.

So, what I'm asking is this: With the benefit of the above account and the 98 years of medical knowledge that has accumulated since that night in February 1909, is it possible to make an educated guess as to what specific condition Tommy was suffering from and whether Cayce's treatment might have saved him?

No.

In other words, could Tommy have been suffering from a condition that doctors in 1909 did not know how to treat, but that could have been successfully treated, if they had the knowledge that Cayce somehow possessed? Or, alternatively, could Tommy have been suffering from what appeared to be a terminal condition, but that in reality was not, and that is why he so suddenly recovered?

Yes.

Linda

[fls]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe
Slimething,

I think Rodney is saying that if there is a condition recognised by modern medicine that could cause a three month infant to have seizures and make him appear terminally ill, and that if that condition could be cured using an otherwise lethal dose of Belladonna, then that would lend credibility to the story of Tommy House.
Correct.

Something like that. One possibility is that Cayce had done a vast amount of reading of medical books and articles and had knowledge of belladonna that the three doctors did not. A second possibility is that somebody had told Cayce about this particular treatment for curing seizures. A third possibility is that Cayce obtained his knowledge in some paranormal fashion, although not necessarily by precognition. A fourth possibility is that Cayce's treatment was ineffective, but that it coincided with Tommy's recovery.

That makes it clearer what you are looking for. But as I have said all along, there is simply not enough information there to even begin to sort out what happened.

The most likely scenario (based on my experience) is much as Slimething suggested; the story is wrong. I have had the opportunity to investigate dozens of amazing cures (i.e. patients telling me about alternative treatments they used to cure serious or terminal disease), and in all cases, nothing particularly remarkable happened. Many times the report by the patient that the disease was serious or terminal, or that spontaneous recovery was not possible, was simply wrong. I've had cases were the patient has reported "the doctor told me I was going to die and there was nothing they could do" and when I've talked to the doctor or read the medical records, what they had was an illness that most people recover from and they were told no such thing. It's not that they are purposely lying, but funny things happen when constructing an illness narrative.

The reason that I am skeptical when I hear these stories is because the information is far too inadequate to make a determination. And everytime there is an opportunity to investigate in the detail required, it turns out that key details are missing and some of the details given are wrong, so that the real story no longer contains the elements that made it remarkable in the first place. Every single time. So whenever you or anyone else presents these stories, where it is impossible to investigate and get the information that is required, it would be foolish of me to assume that lack of information makes credulity justifiable. There is, after all, no way to distinguish these stories beforehand.

Linda

[BillyJoe]

Linda,

I'm having just as much trouble understanding what you are getting at as I am understanding what Rodney is getting at. :(

It we assume for a moment that the story is true, then how could modern medicine explain it. We have a three month infant having seizures from birth who is now having them every twenty minutes. He is given a single dose of Belladonna and never has a seizure again.

Even in the very unlikely case of organophosphate poisoning in a three month infant that you mentioned, giving Belladonna would not cure him. It might possibly stop his seizures for eight hours (or however long the effect of Belladonna lasts), but then, if the seizures never recurred, we would have to believe that the underlying condition suddenly resolved itself within those eight hours.

The way I see it, the story has to be wrong.
Or have I missed something?


BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

We cross-posted.
(Ignore the time difference, I often get distracted while posting :( )

[ChristineR]

More from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:

In cases of poisoning the delirium may last for many hours or even days. Thereafter a more or less sleepy state supervenes, but it is not the case that atropine ever causes genuine coma. The stuporose condition is the result of exhaustion after the long period of cerebral excitement. It is to be noted that children, who are particularly susceptible to the influence of certain of the other potent alkaloids, such as morphine and strychnine, will take relatively large doses of atropine without ill-effect.

Normally the procedure was to give very small doses repeatedly until the symptoms were relieved. There is really nothing in the OP which would make it impossible that this was the way the Belladonna was administered, but it's also possible that Tommy was in a stupor for several days.

[Rodney]

It we assume for a moment that the story is true, then how could modern medicine explain it. We have a three month infant having seizures from birth who is now having them every twenty minutes. He is given a single dose of Belladonna and never has a seizure again.
Yes, that is the issue. Based on our current knowledge of medicine, could a single dose of belladonna (and a hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree) have cured Tommy or not?

[Mojo]

We don't know what was causing the convulsions, Rodney.

And we don't know how big the "measured dose of belladonna" was.

Why won't you tell us?

[Rodney]

We don't know what was causing the convulsions, Rodney.
It seems to me that, given the information in "An American Prophet", the possibilities can be narrowed down quite a bit. The book describes a three-month old infant having had severe infantile spasms, nausea, and vomiting since his premature birth and now being on the brink of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, with the convulsions occurring every twenty minutes. Are there a lot of medical conditions that could cause all of those symptoms?

And we don't know how big the "measured dose of belladonna" was.

Why won't you tell us?
"An American Prophet" states that Cayce had prescribed "an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade."

[Slimething]

The book describes a three-month old infant having had severe infantile spasms, nausea, and vomiting since his premature birth and now being on the brink of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, with the convulsions occurring every twenty minutes. Are there a lot of medical conditions that could cause all of those symptoms?

Need pulse, BP, temperature and an accurate case history. Unwilling or can't provide that? Go fish.

"An American Prophet" states that Cayce had prescribed "an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade."

Here's where the woo really comes in. First of all, atropine is atropine. There is no form that is more toxic than the other. Also, since you don't know how much the dosage was, there is no way to state with certainty that it was an unusually high dose.

Rodney, stop playing around. If you want to believe that Cayce was some sort of preternatural doctor, that's your right. I can only speak for myself but it will take a heck of a lot more than a hagiography to convince me that he was.

[fls]

It seems to me that, given the information in "An American Prophet", the possibilities can be narrowed down quite a bit. The book describes a three-month old infant having had severe infantile spasms, nausea, and vomiting since his premature birth and now being on the brink of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, with the convulsions occurring every twenty minutes. Are there a lot of medical conditions that could cause all of those symptoms?

Dozens.

Linda

[Deetee]

Such as...

Infections - congenital herpes, toxoplasma, syphilis, rubella, cytomegalovirus, tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, pertussis etc.
Birth trauma and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Chromosome disorders.
Epilepsy variants.
Drugs, poisons.
Metabolic problems such as dihydropteridine reductase deficiency, Menkes disease, cytochrome c oxidase deficiency, histidinemia, pyridoxine deficiency, and urea cycle disorders. Thyroid deficiency. Hypo and hypernatremia. Calcium metabolism disorders. Hypo and hyperglycemia.

Ones that can be cured by a single dose of atropine? - I don't think so.
I think the anecdote is exaggerated or distorted, or the spasms/convulsions were not really spasms at all.

[Rodney]

Such as...

Infections - congenital herpes, toxoplasma, syphilis, rubella, cytomegalovirus, tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, pertussis etc.
Birth trauma and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Chromosome disorders.
Epilepsy variants.
Drugs, poisons.
Metabolic problems such as dihydropteridine reductase deficiency, Menkes disease, cytochrome c oxidase deficiency, histidinemia, pyridoxine deficiency, and urea cycle disorders. Thyroid deficiency. Hypo and hypernatremia. Calcium metabolism disorders. Hypo and hyperglycemia.

Are you sure that ALL of these conditions are consistent with ALL of the alleged facts set forth in an "An American Prophet"? Can you document that at least a handful of the conditions you name are?

Ones that can be cured by a single dose of atropine? - I don't think so.

If you can prove that, it would go a long way toward discrediting the story.

I think the anecdote is exaggerated or distorted, or the spasms/convulsions were not really spasms at all.
Possibly, but why do you think Dr. House and Tommy became such strong Cayce supporters?

[Slimething]

Are you sure that ALL of these conditions are consistent with ALL of the alleged facts set forth in an "An American Prophet"?

Here are some that Deetee didn't list that are also wholly consistent with the story:


atropine-allergic invisible gnomes blocking the kid's esophagus or windpipe
angels who intervened because Cayce wanted them to
Cayce-projected energy that dislodged evil invisible ducks pecking on Tiny Tommy's brain
An author making stuff up for a book
A doctor making stuff up to draw more patients to his woo Cayce ClinicTake your pick, Rodney. They're all consistent with the story in the book.


If you can prove that, it would go a long way toward discrediting the story.

Again, it's your point to prove, Rodney. You keep trying to push the burden of proof onto us. Why? Never mind, I know why!

Possibly, but why do you think Dr. House and Tommy became such strong Cayce supporters?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Mojo]

"An American Prophet" states that Cayce had prescribed "an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade."Leaving aside that fact that they seem to have thought that there are non-toxic forms of deadly nightshade, How big was this "unusually high" dose?

If the doctors had been homoeopaths, like the "Dr." Ketchum that you attempted to rely on as an authority figure in another thread, they might have considered any detectable amount of belladonna to be "an unusually high dose".

If the dose really was "unusually high", why did nobody bother recording how large it was? According to you, "it appears that the three doctors were confident that ... administering a large dose of belladonna to him was the worst possible option because it would poison Tommy". Surely they would have wanted to keep a record of the dosage?

I'll ask again: is there a contemporaneous account of this case, or did Kirkpatrick just rely on later accounts from the Houses, men who you describe as "strong Cayce supporters" who "spent the rest of their lives promoting Cayce"?

[fls]

If you can prove that, it would go a long way toward discrediting the story.

There seems to be no point in attempting to discredit the story. The story is without credit in the first place, except to people who wish to be credulous. And your desire to remain credulous can easily overcome any attempts to inform you in a setting such as this forum. I think we should drop the pretense that providing information has the power to persuade (either side) under these circumstances.

Linda

[Rodney]

There seems to be no point in attempting to discredit the story. The story is without credit in the first place, except to people who wish to be credulous. And your desire to remain credulous can easily overcome any attempts to inform you in a setting such as this forum. I think we should drop the pretense that providing information has the power to persuade (either side) under these circumstances.

Linda
And, yet, when I inquired in post #73: "Let me take it one step further: Given the information available in this case, is it conceivable -- or inconceivable -- that the only way Tommy could have recovered would have been to give him a measured dose of belladonna?" -- you responded in post #76: "The answer is yes (ignoring your requirement for "only" as there are other sources of similar anti-cholinergics) - for example atropine would terminate seizures from nerve gas poisoning."

So, don't you find it kind of odd that this story, which you now seem to think "is without credit in the first place, except to people who wish to be credulous", could actually be true, and that Tommy did, in fact, recover because Dr. House followed Cayce's recommendation to administer a measured dose of belladonna (and a hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree)? In other words, wouldn't you feel a tad more comfortable if you could state categorically: "It is medically impossible for a 3-month old infant in Tommy's condition to have been cured by Cayce's recommended treatment"?

[fls]

And, yet, when I inquired in post #73: "Let me take it one step further: Given the information available in this case, is it conceivable -- or inconceivable -- that the only way Tommy could have recovered would have been to give him a measured dose of belladonna?" -- you responded in post #76: "The answer is yes (ignoring your requirement for "only" as there are other sources of similar anti-cholinergics) - for example atropine would terminate seizures from nerve gas poisoning."

So, don't you find it kind of odd that this story, which you now seem to think "is without credit in the first place, except to people who wish to be credulous", could actually be true, and that Tommy did, in fact, recover because Dr. House followed Cayce's recommendation to administer a measured dose of belladonna (and a hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree)? In other words, wouldn't you feel a tad more comfortable if you could state categorically: "It is medically impossible for a 3-month old infant in Tommy's condition to have been cured by Cayce's recommended treatment"?

Not at all. The details of the story don't have to be proven impossible in order to discredit the story. It's that the story itself (even if the details are considered to be true) is inadequate to exclude normal explanations. It's not that the details of the story are without credit (it's not important whether or not it was medically possible for Cayce's treatment to have cured Tommy), it's that the use of a story of this nature to exclude the possibility of normal events is without credit.

Linda

[Rodney]

Not at all. The details of the story don't have to be proven impossible in order to discredit the story. It's that the story itself (even if the details are considered to be true) is inadequate to exclude normal explanations. It's not that the details of the story are without credit (it's not important whether or not it was medically possible for Cayce's treatment to have cured Tommy), it's that the use of a story of this nature to exclude the possibility of normal events is without credit.

Linda
So you're saying that Tommy may well have made a spontaneous recovery?

[autumn1971]

Rodney, was it a "measured" dose, or an "unusually high" dose? Since neither were measured, are both wrong?
And as to the old canard of "the patient gives the doctor credit, so the doctor must be right", you do realize that you are giving credibility to someone who was an eyewitness at three months old, and using this to further your position that a rationally(?) acceptable healing took place?(your post #137)

[fls]

So you're saying that Tommy may well have made a spontaneous recovery?

Yes. Because we don't know what really happened (the given details don't tell us), it makes lots of different scenarios possible.

I think I've said this about twenty times now. I do not understand why you do not get this point.

I also get the impression that you don't think it's possible for people to recover from serious illness without intervention.

Linda

[Rodney]

Rodney, was it a "measured" dose, or an "unusually high" dose?
According to "An American Prophet", it was both. Re-read the Opening Post, where I reference Randi quoting Reader Dana Turgeon as follows: "I guess it's a lucky thing that it's all a bunch of homeopathic hooey – who'd want to give an infant an actual, real dose of belladonna?"

Since neither were measured, are both wrong?
??? Please translate the above sentence into a form of English that I can understand. ;)

And as to the old canard of "the patient gives the doctor credit, so the doctor must be right", you do realize that you are giving credibility to someone who was an eyewitness at three months old, and using this to further your position that a rationally(?) acceptable healing took place?(your post #137)
Presumably, as Tommy grew up, he didn't simply accept his father's opinion unquestioningly. And why did his father, a medical doctor, become such a strong Cayce supporter?

[Rodney]

Yes. Because we don't know what really happened (the given details don't tell us), it makes lots of different scenarios possible.

I think I've said this about twenty times now. I do not understand why you do not get this point.
Because the details of this story, and many others involving Cayce, make a spontaneous recovery unlikely in the extreme. When all of the doctors think a patient is going to die shortly, but then makes a complete recovery after Cayce-recommended treatment, it's a huge stretch to think that the recovery was spontaneous.

I also get the impression that you don't think it's possible for people to recover from serious illness without intervention.

Linda
No, but "serious illness" is not synonymous with all the doctors thinking the patient won't last through the night.

[fls]

Rodney,

Like I said, you will continue to ignore information provided to you by people who actually have the knowledge and experience to evaluate the story in order to justify your credulity.

Linda

[Rodney]

Rodney,

Like I said, you will continue to ignore information provided to you by people who actually have the knowledge and experience to evaluate the story in order to justify your credulity.

Linda
So what would it take to convince you that Cayce's treatments likely cured some people of dire ailments?

[fls]

So what would it take to convince you that Cayce's treatments likely cured some people of dire ailments?

I already think that it's likely that Cayce's treatments cured some people of dire ailments. I have also cured some people of dire ailments. Are you saying that that makes me psychic?

Linda

[Slimething]

I have also cured some people of dire ailments. Are you saying that that makes me psychic?

Linda, may I write a book about you and head your hospital? I'm not trained in medicine but who cares? With your abilities and my..em.., we'll have your abilities. Just think of it! ;)

[Rodney]

I already think that it's likely that Cayce's treatments cured some people of dire ailments.
Do you think that's because he had a lot of medical knowledge, or for some other reason?

I have also cured some people of dire ailments. Are you saying that that makes me psychic?

Linda
No, but presumably you have a medical degree, whereas Cayce didn't even attend high school.

[ChristineR]

Rodney, I hope I have convinced you that someone with some basic nineteenth century medical knowledge could have prescribed belladonna for Tommy, and that the possibility of a good outcome was significant--probably not high, but certainly not remarkable enough to consider it proof of supernatural intervention.

The fact that Cayce was not formally educated certainly does not work against him. Belladonna was no longer used by people who had access to atropine. The great advantage of herbal drugs is that you can grow them in your own backyard. Cayce may have had more opportunities to learn about the medical uses of belladonna than Dr. House.

Nothing in the story is inconsistent with a good guess by a layman with a working knowledge of herbal pharmaceuticals. If the treatment had not been successful, then Dr. House would not have gone on to dedicate his life to Cayce and the incident would not have been recorded. The only way to judge this incident is to look at all of Cayce's cases, not just the ones he chose to write books about.

[Slimething]

If the treatment had not been successful, then Dr. House would not have gone on to dedicate his life to Cayce and the incident would not have been recorded.

You and I part company here, ChristineR. Presuming that this story is factual is not warranted based on the lack of corroborative evidence that one would expect from such an event. For example, the story places three doctors (of medicine, I presume) at the site yet not one of them wrote anything down for twenty years. No newspaper clippings of this miracle have been produced.

As a matter of fact, Rodney has not even given us the attributions necessary for the author of the book he cites to have been able to write this story up. I hate to be the suspicious kind but I suspect that this story has one source and that would be Dr. House, who had a vested interest in heightening Cayce's mystique.

Until high-quality confirmation is posted, I'm prone to believe this is a made up just-so story.

[fls]

Do you think that's because he had a lot of medical knowledge, or for some other reason?

At the very least, the assistants he worked with had medical knowledge.

No, but presumably you have a medical degree, whereas Cayce didn't even attend high school.

So it's not possible to gain any medical knowledge except through med school? Can I quote you on that? ;)

Linda

[BillyJoe]

Essentially we are being asked to believe that a three month infant who has been having seizures since birth and who is now having them every twenty minutes, is given a single dose of Belladonna (atropine) and never has a seizure again.

In other words we are being asked to believe one of the following:

- The underlying cause of the seizures resolved spontaneously at the very moment that the Belladonna/Atropine was administered.
- The Belladonna/Atropine stopped his seizures and that the underlying cause of the seizures spontaneously resolved sometime over the duration of action of Belladonna/Atropine.
- The Belladonna/Atropine stopped his seizures by curing the underlying cause of the seizures.

The chances of the first two occuring must be astronomical (exaggerating only a little).
As for the third:

We have been able to come up with only two scenarios where atropine may be useful in the symptomatic treatment of seizures:

- organophosphate poisoning.
In this scenario, organophosphate poisoning causes the seizures, the Atropine stops the seizures and we have to assume that over the next eight hours or so the organophosphate poisoning resolves. In other words that the source of organophosphate poisoning that has been acting for three months since birth is suddenly cut off and that the organophosphate already in the infants body is eliminated.

- reflex apnoea syndrome.
This occurs in children who reflexly hold their breath in response to pain or emotional stimuli. We have not found a single case of this occuring in a three month infant and I doubt that it can occur at this age.

And there seem to be no examples and no mechanism whereby Atropine can cure the underlying cause of convulsions.


Where does this leave us?
In my opinion, it leaves us with a story that is either untrue or, if it can be verified, would be a example of the supernatural prowess of one Edgar Cayce.


regards,
BillyJoe

[ChristineR]

Essentially we are being asked to believe that a three month infant who has been having seizures since birth and who is now having them every twenty minutes, is given a single dose of Belladonna (atropine) and never has a seizure again.

In other words we are being asked to believe one of the following:

- The underlying cause of the seizures resolved spontaneously at the very moment that the Belladonna/Atropine was administered.
- The Belladonna/Atropine stopped his seizures and that the underlying cause of the seizures spontaneously resolved sometime over the duration of action of Belladonna/Atropine.
- The Belladonna/Atropine stopped his seizures by curing the underlying cause of the seizures.

The chances of the first two occuring must be astronomical (exaggerating only a little).
...
regards,
BillyJoe

Why is the second case unlikely? I would say that it is the most likely scenario. Belladonna is a dangerous but effective way of mitigating seizures.

[BillyJoe]

Why is the second case unlikely? I would say that it is the most likely scenario. Belladonna is a dangerous but effective way of mitigating seizures.


Because, the underlying cause of the seizures which have been occuring for three months since the infant's birth and had been occuring at a rate of one seizure every twenty minutes before the Belladonna/Atropine was administered, would need to have spontaneously resolved over the duration of action of a single dose of Belladonna/Atropine (? eight hours).

How likely is that?

[Rodney]

Rodney, I hope I have convinced you that someone with some basic nineteenth century medical knowledge could have prescribed belladonna for Tommy, and that the possibility of a good outcome was significant--probably not high, but certainly not remarkable enough to consider it proof of supernatural intervention.
I'm not saying it's proof of supernatural intervention, but you haven't convinced me that someone with some basic nineteenth century medical knowledge would have prescribed belladonna for Tommy. If that was the case, why didn't any of the three doctors there prescribe it? According to "An American Prophet" (p. 6), the doctors thought Cayce's recommendation was "tantamount to murder." In fact, the book quotes Dr. Jackson, a general practitioner from Hopkinsville, Ky, as stating: "You'll kill little Tommy for sure."

The fact that Cayce was not formally educated certainly does not work against him. Belladonna was no longer used by people who had access to atropine. The great advantage of herbal drugs is that you can grow them in your own backyard. Cayce may have had more opportunities to learn about the medical uses of belladonna than Dr. House.
Again, it wasn't just Dr. House, but two other doctors as well. And where did Cayce get that, or any other, medical knowledge?

Nothing in the story is inconsistent with a good guess by a layman with a working knowledge of herbal pharmaceuticals. If the treatment had not been successful, then Dr. House would not have gone on to dedicate his life to Cayce and the incident would not have been recorded. The only way to judge this incident is to look at all of Cayce's cases, not just the ones he chose to write books about.
Cayce didn't write any books about his cases, but many others have. However, I'm in total agreement about discussing his other cases. Did someone say Aime Dietrich? ;) See post #67 of this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62560&page=2&highlight=aime+dietrich

[Rodney]

At the very least, the assistants he worked with had medical knowledge.
Are you referring to Dr. Wesley Ketchum? He did know Cayce at the time of the Tommy House case, but -- as far as I can tell -- had no involvement in it. And bear in mind that Ketchum was a homeopath, and so I doubt if he would have told Cayce to give Tommy a measured dose of belladonna. Also, the Aime Dietrich case occurred prior to Ketchum meeting Cayce.

So it's not possible to gain any medical knowledge except through med school? Can I quote you on that? ;)

Linda
IF I said that, you may quote me. ;)

[Rodney]

Because, the underlying cause of the seizures which have been occuring for three months since the infant's birth and had been occuring at a rate of one seizure every twenty minutes before the Belladonna/Atropine was administered, would need to have spontaneously resolved over the duration of action of a single dose of Belladonna/Atropine (? eight hours).

How likely is that?
Billy Joe, there may be hope for you. ;)

[fls]

Are you referring to Dr. Wesley Ketchum? He did know Cayce at the time of the Tommy House case, but -- as far as I can tell -- had no involvement in it. And bear in mind that Ketchum was a homeopath, and so I doubt if he would have told Cayce to give Tommy a measured dose of belladonna. Also, the Aime Dietrich case occurred prior to Ketchum meeting Cayce.

I was speaking to my statement that Cayce likely helped some people. I don't know whether or not that includes Tommy. And I was thinking also of Layne (Osteopath) and Blackburn (MD) who assisted him before Ketchum.

Linda

[ChristineR]

Because, the underlying cause of the seizures which have been occuring for three months since the infant's birth and had been occuring at a rate of one seizure every twenty minutes before the Belladonna/Atropine was administered, would need to have spontaneously resolved over the duration of action of a single dose of Belladonna/Atropine (? eight hours).

How likely is that?

From the manuals I got the idea that it was more like eight days than eight hours. You can't really tell from the information given, but yes, their idea of medical treatment in the 18th century was to put an infant in a coma for eight days.

[ChristineR]

I'm not saying it's proof of supernatural intervention, but you haven't convinced me that someone with some basic nineteenth century medical knowledge would have prescribed belladonna for Tommy. If that was the case, why didn't any of the three doctors there prescribe it? According to "An American Prophet" (p. 6), the doctors thought Cayce's recommendation was "tantamount to murder." In fact, the book quotes Dr. Jackson, a general practitioner from Hopkinsville, Ky, as stating: "You'll kill little Tommy for sure."


Again, it wasn't just Dr. House, but two other doctors as well. And where did Cayce get that, or any other, medical knowledge?


Cayce didn't write any books about his cases, but many others have. However, I'm in total agreement about discussing his other cases. Did someone say Aime Dietrich? ;) See post #67 of this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62560&page=2&highlight=aime+dietrich

Well, if we assume that all those details are correct (and I don't think that this is proven by any means) then I would assume that the three doctors no longer believed in prescribing belladonna because atropine was available, and they no longer believed in knocking an infant into a coma to stop seizures because other treatments were available and they simply didn't know how much belladonna you can give a baby before you kill it.

Cayce was recommending an out of date treatment. 1909 was the twentieth century. I guess I didn't make that clear in my other posts, for which I apologize. Cayce may have known more about herbal belladonna than the actual doctors.

[Mojo]

In fact, the book quotes Dr. Jackson, a general practitioner from Hopkinsville, Ky, as stating: "You'll kill little Tommy for sure."

What was Kirkpatrick's source for this quotation?

[Rodney]

What was Kirkpatrick's source for this quotation?
I'm researching that.

[Mojo]

Does the book not give references?

[BillyJoe]

From the manuals I got the idea that it was more like eight days than eight hours. You can't really tell from the information given, but yes, their idea of medical treatment in the 18th century was to put an infant in a coma for eight days.

I must have missed that.
I thought he was given a single dose of Belladonna. I assume more than a single dose would be required to keep him in a coma for eight days.

I wonder if Rodney has any details on this point?

[BillyJoe]

Billy Joe, there may be hope for you. ;)

I've been saying this from the start.
I think all the alternatives are extremely unlikely.
This, of course, makes me suspect the story itself.

[Mojo]

I wonder if Rodney has any details on this point?Me too. Like how big the dose was, for example.

[ChristineR]

I must have missed that.
I thought he was given a single dose of Belladonna. I assume more than a single dose would be required to keep him in a coma for eight days.

I wonder if Rodney has any details on this point?

What I got from the manuals was that the standard practice was to give the patient very small amounts of the drug until he passed out, at which time he might remain in a stupor for days. The effect was more profound in children.

The most straightforward reading of Rodney's quote doesn't match up with this, but if your working assumption is that Cayce was prescribing a reasonable folk remedy that might have worked for certain conditions you can then stretch the meaning of "measured dose" a little to get the standard dosing and the expected outcome.

[Rodney]

What I got from the manuals was that the standard practice was to give the patient very small amounts of the drug until he passed out, at which time he might remain in a stupor for days. The effect was more profound in children.

The most straightforward reading of Rodney's quote doesn't match up with this, but if your working assumption is that Cayce was prescribing a reasonable folk remedy that might have worked for certain conditions you can then stretch the meaning of "measured dose" a little to get the standard dosing and the expected outcome.
"An American Prophet" at p. 8 states:

"Medical records do not exist to describe the child's physiological reaction to the [single measured dose of] belladonna, or to the steaming hot towels dipped in peach-tree solution in which the naked child was immediately wrapped. All that is known is that the crying stopped as soon as the mother spooned the poison into her child's mouth, and that he fell into his first deep and uninterrupted sleep since birth. Thomas House Jr. awoke hours later, drenched in sweat, cheeks pink, and breathing steadily. He was never to have a convulsion again."

[BillyJoe]

Christine,



"An American Prophet" at p. 8 states:

"Medical records do not exist to describe the child's physiological reaction to the [single measured dose of] belladonna, or to the steaming hot towels dipped in peach-tree solution in which the naked child was immediately wrapped. All that is known is that the crying stopped as soon as the mother spooned the poison into her child's mouth, and that he fell into his first deep and uninterrupted sleep since birth. Thomas House awoke hours later...He was never to have a convulsion again."


From the bolded bit, we can conclude, assuming the story is true, that it all happened in a matter of hours after a single dose of Belladonna/Atropine.

So my question stands: How likely is that?

(Also note the italisised bit: The Belladonna started working as soon as it entered the child's mouth - before it was even absorbed!)

regards,
BillyJoe

[Slimething]

that it all happened in a matter of hours after a single dose of Belladonna/Atropine.

So my question stands: How likely is that?

(Also note the italisised bit: The Belladonna started working as soon as it entered the child's mouth - before it was even absorbed!)

Another incredible detail:

...to the steaming hot towels dipped in peach-tree solution in which the naked child was immediately wrapped. ...Thomas House Jr. awoke hours later, drenched in sweat,


So, how did this wet child wake up in a sweat? How would they know it was sweat instead of peach-tree tea? I smell a rat.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I suppose in 5 pages this has been brought up but the neurological effect of belladonna is essentially an anticholinergic response. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticholinergic)

It could have an effect on seizures by interfering with neurotransmitters in the brain.

OTOH, any medical anecdote which lacks sufficient documentation allows limited conclusions to be drawn. We really don't know anything except this is the story related about the event. So what's the point?

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
(Also note the italisised bit: The Belladonna started working as soon as it entered the child's mouth - before it was even absorbed!)

regards,
BillyJoeYeah, assuming the account is accurate (but we cannot assume that), it definitely rules out the belladonna as the primary cause.

Or, we can infer that the account is inaccurate, in which case it is rather ininteresting.

Hans

[BillyJoe]

Yeah, assuming the account is accurate (but we cannot assume that), it definitely rules out the belladonna as the primary cause....Or, we can infer that the account is inaccurate, in which case it is rather ininteresting.


That has been my point from the start.
There is no explanation for what happened whatever way you look at it.
The problem must be the story.
Lacking strong documentation, we must dismiss the story out of hand.

[Mojo]

Lacking strong documentation, we must dismiss the story out of hand.It's not so much the lack of documentation as the lack of information. There just isn't enough information to figure out what happened. We don't know what was causing the siezures, we don't know how much belladonna he was given. It would be nice to know whether there are any contemporaneous sources for the story related by Kirkpatrick, but without further details it's worthless as far as figuring out whether or not Cayce cured Tommy is concerned.

[BillyJoe]

Okay, probably chose the wrong word there.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bottom line is you can speculate about Jesus' walking on water all you want, unless we can travel backward in time, you can't draw any conclusions.

[MRC_Hans]

Yeah, which basically returns us to my earlier question: What is the purpose of referring to this anecdote? What is interesting about it?

Hans

[Rodney]

Dumb:
Bottom line is you can speculate about Jesus' walking on water all you want, unless we can travel backward in time, you can't draw any conclusions.

And dumber:
Yeah, which basically returns us to my earlier question: What is the purpose of referring to this anecdote? What is interesting about it?

Hans

[Slimething]

How a person who believes unattributed, fantastic stories can presume to call anyone dumb is beyond me. I hope you get it, Rodney, that no one believes this story except you. You've offered absolutely no evidence to support it and can't even post the source of the story other than a baseless hagiography of Cayce. :rolleyes:

[ChristineR]

I have to say that my interpretation was a "minimal truth" version. I assumed that the story was true and the reporters gave the information as best as they remembered. Given that this allows for an awful lot of leeway, I found an interpretation that is in accordance with known medical science and fits with the story in almost all the facts.

The dosage was described as a "single large" dose, which is not the way belladonna was usually given, but it may have been equivalent to several small doses, and that may have put Tommy out for a week. Or it may have been small doses.

The doctors are described as certain the dose would kill Tommy, which seems unlikely as they should have at least familiar with the use of belladonna. On the other hand if the doctors thought belladonna was a bad idea but did not actually believe that the dose was certain death, that would explain why the doctors apparently never recorded the event.

These are the sorts of details that distressed parents get wrong or simplify. So that's my best case interpretation of the story. No magic, just an outdated remedy and a bit of luck.

[Rodney]

How a person who believes unattributed, fantastic stories can presume to call anyone dumb is beyond me. I hope you get it, Rodney, that no one believes this story except you. You've offered absolutely no evidence to support it and can't even post the source of the story other than a baseless hagiography of Cayce. :rolleyes:
If you check out the Wikipedia artlcle on Sidney Kirkpatrick -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_D._Kirkpatrick -- you will read that he "is an award winning documentary film maker and a bestselling author" and that his most recent book is "The Revenge of Thomas Eakins (pub. 2006), ISBN 978-0300108552 a biography of Thomas Eakins, the artist, for which he was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in biography." You will also note that none of his other books have anything to do with psychic phenomena. So, some might conclude that the charge of a "baseless hagiography of Cayce" is a rather wild one supported by "absolutely no evidence." ;)

[Rodney]

I have to say that my interpretation was a "minimal truth" version. I assumed that the story was true and the reporters gave the information as best as they remembered. Given that this allows for an awful lot of leeway, I found an interpretation that is in accordance with known medical science and fits with the story in almost all the facts.
Are you an M.D., Christine?

The dosage was described as a "single large" dose, which is not the way belladonna was usually given, but it may have been equivalent to several small doses, and that may have put Tommy out for a week. Or it may have been small doses.
The book is clear that Tommy was out only for a few hours, not a week.

The doctors are described as certain the dose would kill Tommy, which seems unlikely as they should have at least familiar with the use of belladonna.
They were likely basing their dire prognosis on Tommy's existing precarious state of health, coupled with a large dose of belladonna given to an infant.

On the other hand if the doctors thought belladonna was a bad idea but did not actually believe that the dose was certain death, that would explain why the doctors apparently never recorded the event.
I'm still researching what notes they may have taken.

These are the sorts of details that distressed parents get wrong or simplify. So that's my best case interpretation of the story. No magic, just an outdated remedy and a bit of luck.
Thomas House, Sr. was the only doctor there who was a distressed parent. And I'm not saying Cayce's treatment WAS magic, but it seemed to work like magic.

[ChristineR]

Are you an M.D., Christine?

No, but there is no medical information given here to analyze. The details are so vague that an educated layperson can probably get as much out of it as could a doctor.


The book is clear that Tommy was out only for a few hours, not a week.


Again, this is too vague to analyze. The effects of belladonna can last for days. The patient was an infant. How do you distinguish between a drug-induced stupor and normal infant behavior? If there were details given, then we could ask one of the MD's. My theory is that Tommy was given enough belladonna to suppress his seizures for days.


They were likely basing their dire prognosis on Tommy's existing precarious state of health, coupled with a large dose of belladonna given to an infant.


This is not likely. First of all, we have no details about Tommy's state of health, just some vague after the fact anecdotes. Secondly, a large dose of belladonna may not be fatal to an infant. How do you define large? You are reading into the story that it was a dose that was always fatal, without knowing the actual dose. I think it is more likely that the doctors though the belladonna was a poor choice but went along with it because they recognized that it would temporarily stop the seizures.


I'm still researching what notes they may have taken.


Thomas House, Sr. was the only doctor there who was a distressed parent. And I'm not saying Cayce's treatment WAS magic, but it seemed to work like magic.

The story does not come to us from one of the MD's that was present. It apparently comes to us from a fan of Cayce's through Tommy. It's too vague to prove anything one way or the other, and it is not inconsistent with spontaneous recovery after Cayce knocked Tommy out.

If you can produce these doctor's notes, then of course I'll reconsider. My theory is speculative. I wouldn't be shocked if the incident never happened, or if the details turn out to be completely different from the doctor's notes.

[BillyJoe]

I have to say that my interpretation was a "minimal truth" version.

How minimal?

We have:

An infant three months of age.
The infant has been having seizures since birth.
The seizures have been occurring every twenty minutes of late.
The infant is given a "measured" dose of Belladonna/Atropine.
The infant stops crying as soon as the dose is placed in it's mouth.
The infant fell into his first uninterrupted sleep since birth.
The infant awakes "hours" later.
The infant never has a convulsion again.

Which of these "facts" do allow to let slide and still have a medically coherent story?

I found an interpretation that is in accordance with known medical science and fits with the story in almost all the facts.

What was your interpretation that is in accordance with known medical science?
And which of the above facts fit with it?

The dosage was described as a "single large" dose, which is not the way belladonna was usually given, but it may have been equivalent to several small doses, and that may have put Tommy out for a week. Or it may have been small doses.

You are not allowed to change the "facts"
I read "measured".
I read "hours".
I read "single".

So that's my best case interpretation of the story. No magic, just an outdated remedy and a bit of luck.

My interpretation is that either something extraordinary happened or the story is false in almost every detail.
Given the dearth of documentation/information, the default has to be that the story is false (unless and until provided with evidence to the contrary)

BJ

[Slimething]

If you check out the Wikipedia artlcle on Sidney Kirkpatrick -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_D._Kirkpatrick -- you will read that he "is an award winning documentary film maker and a bestselling author" and that his most recent book is "The Revenge of Thomas Eakins (pub. 2006), ISBN 978-0300108552 a biography of Thomas Eakins, the artist, for which he was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in biography." You will also note that none of his other books have anything to do with psychic phenomena. So, some might conclude that the charge of a "baseless hagiography of Cayce" is a rather wild one supported by "absolutely no evidence." ;)

1. Your link didn't work. (After over a thousand posts, you can't insert a link yet?) I went here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_D._Kirkpatrick)and found a "stub" article in Wikipedia. No information as to which awards he's won. So, the ball's in your court again, genius. Can you produce a relatively unstilted bio of Kirkpatrick such that there is some merit to quoting his as an historical writer?
2. Nominated for the Pulitzer!!!! Big whoop! :rolleyes:
3. What you've tried to do here is known as an Appeal to Authority. Remember where you are.
4. We're not discussing any other books at the moment so it doesn't matter if the guy had written a physics book. Focus!
5. From your inability to produce even a citation of where Kirkpatrick got the Story of Tiny Tom, I would have to conclude that the book does not include a worthy bibliography. If Kirkpatrick can't or won't acknowledge where he got the story, I'd have to truly question his veracity.
6. The word "hagiography" has been used to describe his books by professional book reviewers. I'm not the first and I certainly won't be the last. Deal with it.

As I've written before, Rodney, your predilection for believing baseless lies in the face of hard fact is your own cross to bear. Don't expect anyone else to be as unquestioningly naive and gullible. :eek:

[ChristineR]

I don't agree. I feel that we can look at your basic list of facts and conclude that this story is unlikely. We can then look at the list and observe that several key points use vague terms like "measured" and "hours" and "as soon as." The story is not plausible if we take the most straightforward interpretations of these terms, but if we choose less straightforward choices then the story becomes not only plausible, but unremarkable.

In my opinion the default position has to be to assume the story is true. Otherwise there is no point in analyzing it at all. Although my alternative interpretation is far from certain, it is (in my opinion) reasonable.

Faced with the dichotomy of "utterly false" or "extraordinary" you are forced to assume extraordinary.

For the record, the possible scenario I'm presenting is:

An infant three months of age.
The infant has been having seizures since birth.
The seizures have been occurring every twenty minutes of late.
The infant is given a dose or doses of Belladonna/Atropine large enough to suppress the seizures and knock the child out.
The infant stops crying after the belladonna is given, and at that point no more belladonna is given.
The infant fell into his first uninterrupted sleep since birth.
The infant awakes "hours" later but remains under the influence of the drug for several days.
The infant spontaneously recovers from his underlying disease or disorder.
The infant never has a convulsion again.

Is it not reasonable that this scenario ended up as the first scenario in an after the fact, third hand, retelling?

[Slimething]

In my opinion the default position has to be to assume the story is true. Otherwise there is no point in analyzing it at all.

How can you judge a story without first analyzing it? Only after analyzing a story can you decide if it's credible or incredible. But, let's suppose you have judged the story to be fact-based folklore and are trying to see if there is a plausible set of circumstances that could explain the story as far as a spastic baby, belladonna and an instant cure are concerned. Even there, you have to modify the story so much, it's hardly recognizable afterward.

Another important consideration is the intent of this story. I would wholeheartedly agree with your approach if this was an old folk tale and you were trying to decypher what may have been the origin of the myth and its foundation in reality. However, that's not what we have here. This is a story in an unquestioning (understated) biography of Cayce and its intent is solely to impress a reader with evidence of Cayce's supernatural abilities. Given that circumstance, I think your charitable attempt to rescue fact from fantasy is not warranted.

[BillyJoe]

...several key points use vague terms like "measured" and "hours" and "as soon as."

These are not as vague as you would have us believe.
A "measured" dose means a normal therapeutic dose, certainly not a lethal dose, or even an overdose, or large dose.
"Hours" cannot be extended into "days".
"as soon as" means "as soon as". That's pretty specific. I don't know how else to interpret that.

In my opinion the default position has to be to assume the story is true. Otherwise there is no point in analyzing it at all.

Why? I have analysed it and determined that, because the case has not been documented as to the actual facts, because of the time that has elapsed between the event and the writing down of hte details, because the supposed "facts" contained therein are not consistent with any known medical condition that we have been able to come up with, the default is that "the story is false".


Faced with the dichotomy of "utterly false" or "extraordinary" you are forced to assume extraordinary.


My conclusion was "something extraordinary happened" or "the story is false". By "extraordinary" I meant "something unknown to medical science", so my default is that "the story is false".

For the record, the possible scenario I'm presenting is:

An infant three months of age.
The infant has been having seizures since birth.
The seizures have been occurring every twenty minutes of late.
The infant is given a dose or doses of Belladonna/Atropine large enough to suppress the seizures and knock the child out.
The infant stops crying after the belladonna is given, and at that point no more belladonna is given.
The infant fell into his first uninterrupted sleep since birth.
The infant awakes "hours" later but remains under the influence of the drug for several days.
The infant spontaneously recovers from his underlying disease or disorder.
The infant never has a convulsion again.

Well, I was hoping you had in mind a medical condition that could follow the course described in the story.
If not, I think I will stick with my default: "The story is false"


Is it not reasonable that this scenario ended up as the first scenario in an after the fact, third hand, retelling


The story you end up with after decades of retelling, even if only by one person, with all the usual embellishments, exaggerations, and gradual half-truths and non-truths that always, and inevitably occur, can be unrecognisable against what actually occurred. There may, in fact, be absolutely no points of concurrence left at all.

regards,
BillyJoe

[Mojo]

If you check out the Wikipedia artlcle on Sidney Kirkpatrick -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_D._Kirkpatrick -- you will read that he "is an award winning documentary film maker and a bestselling author" and that his most recent book is "The Revenge of Thomas Eakins (pub. 2006), ISBN 978-0300108552 a biography of Thomas Eakins, the artist, for which he was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in biography."


According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize): The Pulitzer Prize Board distinguishes between "nominees" and "nominated finalists": A "nominee" is simply someone whose publisher has formally entered his or her work for consideration according to the Boards "Plan of Award". As such, it is not a very significant distinction.And according to the Pulitzer Prize website (http://www.pulitzer.org/Archive/archive.html#terminology): ...it's important to understand the following Pulitzer Prize terminology:

A Pulitzer Prize Winner may be an individual, a group of individuals, or a newspaper's staff.
Nominated Finalists are selected by the Nominating Juries for each category as finalists in the competition. The Pulitzer Prize Board generally selects the Pulitzer Prize Winners from the three nominated finalists in each category. The names of nominated finalists have been announced only since 1980. Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. No information on entrants is provided.

For some reason Kirkpatrick doesn't appear in the lists of nominated finalists.

[Rodney]

1. Your link didn't work. (After over a thousand posts, you can't insert a link yet?) I went here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_D._Kirkpatrick)and found a "stub" article in Wikipedia.
You're the first person to complain about my link not working. What browser are you using?

No information as to which awards he's won. So, the ball's in your court again, genius. Can you produce a relatively unstilted bio of Kirkpatrick such that there is some merit to quoting his as an historical writer?
You mean a bio written by someone who, like you, is convinced that there is no such thing as the paranormal? I can tell you that Kirkpatrick has sold a lot of books, and here is what he has to say about writing "An American Prophet": "Prior to taking this book project on, I was not involved in the Cayce organization at all. In fact, I was quite skeptical that there was any truth or insights to be found in the Cayce material. It was only after I began examining Cayce's original correspondence and trance readings (some 150,000 pages) that I came to appreciate the depth, scope, and truth of the material. I also came to appreciate the integrity of Cayce the man. A book which I had intended to write in two years, resulted in a seven year, 40,000 mile journey as I interviewed recipients of the Cayce readings and studied their impact and veracity." See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1573228966/ref=cm_rev_next/102-2191545-3468103?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=11 [Hopefully, the link will work for you. If so, you will notice that most of the other reviews on Amazon are positive.]

2. Nominated for the Pulitzer!!!! Big whoop! :rolleyes:
So everyone who writes a biography is nominated for a Pulitzer?

3. What you've tried to do here is known as an Appeal to Authority. Remember where you are.
Meaning what: Randi participants are The Authority on an Appeal to Authority?

4. We're not discussing any other books at the moment so it doesn't matter if the guy had written a physics book. Focus!
But deep down, wouldn't you feel just a wee bit better if Kirkpatrick's other books were: (1) How Bush and Cheney Ordered 9/11; (2) The Martians are Here; and (3) Randi Forum Controlled by Devil Worshipers?

5. From your inability to produce even a citation of where Kirkpatrick got the Story of Tiny Tom, I would have to conclude that the book does not include a worthy bibliography. If Kirkpatrick can't or won't acknowledge where he got the story, I'd have to truly question his veracity.
He does that generally, but not specifically, which is more than a lot of biographies do.

6. The word "hagiography" has been used to describe his books by professional book reviewers. I'm not the first and I certainly won't be the last. Deal with it.
Please document who these "professional book reviewers" are.

As I've written before, Rodney, your predilection for believing baseless lies in the face of hard fact is your own cross to bear. Don't expect anyone else to be as unquestioningly naive and gullible. :eek:
Please document what "baseless lies" I believe in.

[Slimething]

You're the first person to complain about my link not working. What browser are you using?

Is that unusual? How many people do you think take the trouble to read what you write and then follow the links you post. When your link didn't work, I did the extra work of going to the Wiki article myself and what I found was grossly underwhelming.

You mean a bio written by someone who, like you, is convinced that there is no such thing as the paranormal?

No, that is not what I mean. What you need to find is a review or biography of someone who does not take sides but assesses the book as a factual, scholarly work. These reviews are not all that common and can be hard to find. You usually find them in literary magazines or even technical journals. Let me save you the trouble, though. Any book without a thorough bibliography doesn't have a hope of a good exhaustive review.


So everyone who writes a biography is nominated for a Pulitzer?


You need to read Mojo's post. Mojo was also unimpressed by "nominated for the Pulitzer". For all we know, that "honor' had nothing to do with the book we are discussing. Nor do we know what category the nomination was in. Are you impressed when you see a pulp paperback emblazoned with "NOW A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE" on the cover? Not a must read? Why not?

Meaning what: Randi participants are The Authority on an Appeal to Authority?

Meaning most of us know the flawed tools of hucksterism. We know a rat when we smell one.

But deep down, wouldn't you feel just a wee bit better if Kirkpatrick's other books were: (1) How Bush and Cheney Ordered 9/11; (2) The Martians are Here; and (3) Randi Forum Controlled by Devil Worshipers?

No, Rodney. For all I know Kirkpatrick is brilliant and his Cayce book is a wonderful piece of investigative journalism. However, the facts point in the other direction. You may not realize it but the difficulty you are having defending the book is a prime indicator that the book is flawed. Read a historical treatise by a recognized scholar and you'll immediately see the difference in style and annotation.


He does that generally, but not specifically, which is more than a lot of biographies do.


I'll have to take your word on that. I'm not a fan of biographies. My point is that you are fixated on this book as if it were a scholarly work and it is not. The story may well be true but it's very unusual and, without knowledge of the sources, suspect.


Please document who these "professional book reviewers" are.


Do a Google search on the book. You'll find them as easily as I did. I believe one was in Salon but it's been a few days. It's time you did some work on this theme, anyway. You should have done this research before investing your credibility into this book so heavily.

Please document what "baseless lies" I believe in.

For one, you believe in this story. Since you cannot provide the basis of the story, it is "baseless". Since it is baseless and extremely incredible, I consider it a lie. See how it works? Pretty nifty, this thing called logic.

I've also noted your other threads where you posit equally incredible stories or ideas with a convert's zeal. Your inclination to believe anything that makes the known universe seem plain by comparison is no secret here. Frankly, if you spent half the time getting to know and appreciate the universe as it is, you would consider these woo ideas you so enjoy to be a waste of time. Reality beats fiction any day of the week on the interest and curiosity scales.

With this, I leave you, Rodney. This thread has become tedious. You are not posting any support for the story and have, instead, started attacking the posters who question it. I've seen this before and I can live without it. See you around.

[Mojo]

Mojo was also unimpressed by "nominated for the Pulitzer". Well, it costs (http://www.pulitzer.org/EntryForms/Letbbn2.pdf) $50.

ETA: And there must have been at least four copies of the book printed.

Wow!

[Mojo]

I can tell you that Kirkpatrick has sold a lot of books, and here is what he has to say about writing "An American Prophet": "Prior to taking this book project on, I was not involved in the Cayce organization at all. In fact, I was quite skeptical that there was any truth or insights to be found in the Cayce material. It was only after I began examining Cayce's original correspondence and trance readings (some 150,000 pages) that I came to appreciate the depth, scope, and truth of the material. I also came to appreciate the integrity of Cayce the man. A book which I had intended to write in two years, resulted in a seven year, 40,000 mile journey as I interviewed recipients of the Cayce readings and studied their impact and veracity."


Here's (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98538&page=1) a nice review of it: The book's completely uncritical reporting is disappointing and most exasperating. Kirkpatrick seems to reject nothing, never demurs at anything, establishes no critical distance, and provides little feel for what made Cayce tick. The good news is that eventually this approach becomes amusing... Oh well, at least it's funny.

Kirkpatrick's idea of proof is to cite scads of testimonials, including many from doctors and celebrities. You aren't by any chance related to Kirkpatrick, are you?

[fls]

No, but there is no medical information given here to analyze. The details are so vague that an educated layperson can probably get as much out of it as could a doctor.

Yes. The story is fourth-hand information provided from a lay perspective, so there isn't any medical information that requires interpretation.

I think the advantage that an MD has, is that they have direct experience as to how a layperson's characterization of events matches up with the medical record. And having performed this particular chore thousands of times, I can tell that you are wasting your time, Christine. It's fun to work through these things like they are mysteries, and the information you are providing is very interesting (I mentioned before that I collect old medical information). But you have been far too generous in your consideration of the "minimal truth".

It is probably safe to assume that Tommy was premature, and like most premature babies, was sickly for the first few weeks or months until his body caught up to the requirements of life outside of the womb. And it is probably also safe to assume that Cayce was actually involved with the Houses around that time. But it's possible none of the rest really happened, even with the assumption that everyone's intentions are honest. These things become distorted with each re-telling. An off-hand remark made by a physician becomes a terminal prognosis, the name of a familiar drug is substituted for one that was not comprehended, three weeks is condensed into a single night and conversely one night stretches out over three weeks, events that happened at different times and places are combined.

First hand accounts, written before or during the "event" by people with expert knowledge can be considered reliable. Accounts written after the event rapidly become unreliable depending upon the duration of time that has passed. Third and fourth hand accounts, years later, from inexpert laypeople are essentially useless. I'm not being needlessly harsh or dismissive. This has been my experience over and over and over again.

I will add the caveat that it is possible to extract useful information from someone giving a first-hand account through the use of careful questioning by an expert.

Linda

[ChristineR]

I concede the point. Cayce was not known for accuracy or even honesty, and there is a good chance that this story is entirely fictional.

The story started with a discussion of belladonna, which was characterized as a poison. I have a long time interest in folk remedies, but my interest is mostly political. There are still billions of people out there for whom the pharmacy is the back garden. Belladonna may not be the best example. Even the desperately poor people of the world probably have better choices, but I felt the need to defend it.

And from there I was intrigued by the fact that Cayce who grew up in a pre-industrial, rural community, apparently knew how to prescribe belladonna to good effect.

So while I hope you all enjoyed my exploration into the uses and abuses of herbal medicines, I will assume the story is completely fictional until and unless someone finds better information.

[fls]

I concede the point. Cayce was not known for accuracy or even honesty, and there is a good chance that this story is entirely fictional.

I got the impression from accounts I've read that he was honest and sincere. I didn't mean to imply that the stories are inaccurate because people lie (although that is sometimes the case as well).

The story started with a discussion of belladonna, which was characterized as a poison. I have a long time interest in folk remedies, but my interest is mostly political. There are still billions of people out there for whom the pharmacy is the back garden. Belladonna may not be the best example. Even the desperately poor people of the world probably have better choices, but I felt the need to defend it.

Interesting. In med school it was presented as one of the few truly effective drugs that physicians had for use before modern pharmacology, so I'm not used to thinking of it as a poison.

And from there I was intrigued by the fact that Cayce who grew up in a pre-industrial, rural community, apparently knew how to prescribe belladonna to good effect.

He apparently liked to read medical books. And he was assisted in his trances by medical professionals - intially an osteopath, then a medical doctor, and then a homeopathic doctor - any of whom would have been able to provide medical advice/information.

So while I hope you all enjoyed my exploration into the uses and abuses of herbal medicines, I will assume the story is completely fictional until and unless someone finds better information.

I didn't mean to imply that someone was making this up (although that also has to be considered as a possibility). It's just that someone is showing you a picture that they drew by looking through a foggy window. You don't know whether or not the "mountains" they drew in the background were really piles of garbage at the dump next door.

Linda

[Rodney]

When your link didn't work, I did the extra work of going to the Wiki article myself . . .
I've now checked the link that "didn't work" on both a PC and a Mac, using four different browsers (Explorer, Firefox, Netscape and Safari) and it worked every time. Further, no one else has complained about the link not working. So you might want to launch an investigation as to why it didn't work for you.

[Rodney]

Well, it costs (http://www.pulitzer.org/EntryForms/Letbbn2.pdf) $50.

ETA: And there must have been at least four copies of the book printed.

Wow!
So what percentage of biographies are nominated for Pulitzers?

[Rodney]

Here's (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98538&page=1) a nice review of it: Oh well, at least it's funny.
Paulos is a professional mathematician and debunker, not a professional book reviewer. His "review" is a superficial joke.

You aren't by any chance related to Kirkpatrick, are you?
No, are you related to Paulos?

[Rodney]

Cayce was not known for accuracy or even honesty, and there is a good chance that this story is entirely fictional.
Do you have any evidence for these assertions? If so, what is it?

[Rodney]

He apparently liked to read medical books.
Evidence?

And he was assisted in his trances by medical professionals - intially an osteopath, then a medical doctor, and then a homeopathic doctor - any of whom would have been able to provide medical advice/information.
The problem with your analysis is that the evidence indicates that Cayce guided the doctors, not the other way around. For example, Cayce's most famous early cure was of Aime Dietrich, the daughter of Professor Charles Dietrich, the first commissioned officer to graduate from Ohio State University's military program and the former superintendent of schools of Hopkinsville, Ky. According to Professor Dietrich's October 8, 1910 affidavit, filed in Hamilton County, Ohio:

"March 1st, 1902, she [Aime] was taken to Dr. Hoppe of Cincinnati, O., who made a most thorough examination. He pronounced her a perfect specimen physically, except for the brain affection, concerning which he state 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 [epileptic] attacks.

"At this period our attention was called to Mr. Edgar Cayce, who was asked to diagnose the case. By auto-suggestion, he went into a sleep or trance and diagnosed her case as one of congestion at base of the brain, stating also minor details. He outlined to Dr. A. C. Layne [Al C. Layne, D.O.], now of Griffin, Ga., how to proceed to cure her. Dr. Layne treated her accordingly, every day for three weeks, using Mr. Cayce occasionally to follow up the treatment, as results developed. Her mind began to clear up about the eighth day and within three months she was in perfect health, and is so to this day. This case can be verified by many of the best citizens of Hopkinsville, Ky."

[ChristineR]

My evidence for Cayce's dishonesty is that he claimed to be able to get information by supernatural means, but never passed any objective tests. When he wasn't vague, he was wrong.

[fls]

Evidence?

He had access to medical books (containing the same information that showed up in his readings) and he did a vast amount of miscellaneous reading. (Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science, Gardner (which cites There is a River, Sugrue as a source), Edgar Cayce: the 'prophet' who 'slept' his way to the top, Skeptical Inquirer Jan/Feb 1996 (which cites Sugrue and Edgar Cayce: the sleeping prophet, Stern)) I don't know if there's evidence about what he "liked", but it seems a reasonable guess. If you want to quibble over the "liked to", you can strike it. I'm not going to bother defending that part.

The problem with your analysis is that the evidence indicates that Cayce guided the doctors, not the other way around. For example, Cayce's most famous early cure was of Aime Dietrich, the daughter of Professor Charles Dietrich, the first commissioned officer to graduate from Ohio State University's military program and the former superintendent of schools of Hopkinsville, Ky. According to Professor Dietrich's October 8, 1910 affidavit, filed in Hamilton County, Ohio:

"March 1st, 1902, she [Aime] was taken to Dr. Hoppe of Cincinnati, O., who made a most thorough examination. He pronounced her a perfect specimen physically, except for the brain affection, concerning which he state 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 [epileptic] attacks.

"At this period our attention was called to Mr. Edgar Cayce, who was asked to diagnose the case. By auto-suggestion, he went into a sleep or trance and diagnosed her case as one of congestion at base of the brain, stating also minor details. He outlined to Dr. A. C. Layne [Al C. Layne, D.O.], now of Griffin, Ga., how to proceed to cure her. Dr. Layne treated her accordingly, every day for three weeks, using Mr. Cayce occasionally to follow up the treatment, as results developed. Her mind began to clear up about the eighth day and within three months she was in perfect health, and is so to this day. This case can be verified by many of the best citizens of Hopkinsville, Ky."

I'm not sure how that's supposed to be evidence that information only ever passed one way, or that Cayce's suggestions didn't require 'translation'.

Linda

[Mojo]

I'm not sure how that's supposed to be evidence that information only ever passed one way, or that Cayce's suggestions didn't require 'translation'. It is perhaps relevant to the issues of "translation" and where the suggestions originated, that in the Dietrich case, when he was being "assisted" by an osteopath, the treatment used was osteopathic adjustments.

[Mojo]

So what percentage of biographies are nominated for Pulitzers?Probably a very small one. But nomination says nothing about the book, apart from the fact that it was published in the US in the year of nomination and was written by an American citizen. Anyone can nominate any biography; all they need is $50 and four copies of the book. You could even have nominated it yourself.

http://www.pulitzer.org/EntryForms/Letbbn2.pdf

Nomination tells us nothing about the merits of the book, but perhaps we can deduce something about the Cayce book from your apparent inability to find the sources for Kirkpatrick's stories. I wonder, what percentage of Pulitzer winning biographies fail to reference their sources?

Have you made any progress tracking down Kirkpatrick's source for the quotation from Dr. Jackson? According to this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2542080#post2542080) you've been researching this since last Sunday.

And have you managed to find out what Kirkpatrick's sources were for the rest of the Tommy House story yet?

[Rodney]

My evidence for Cayce's dishonesty is that he claimed to be able to get information by supernatural means, but never passed any objective tests. When he wasn't vague, he was wrong.

(1) When conscious, Cayce, to my knowledge, did not claim to get information by supernatural means, but rather seemed mystified by where the information came from.

(2) What objective tests did he fail?

(3) According to "The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power", a study of Cayce's medical readings showed his accuracy was about 85%.

[Rodney]

He had access to medical books (containing the same information that showed up in his readings) and he did a vast amount of miscellaneous reading. (Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science, Gardner (which cites There is a River, Sugrue as a source), Edgar Cayce: the 'prophet' who 'slept' his way to the top, Skeptical Inquirer Jan/Feb 1996 (which cites Sugrue and Edgar Cayce: the sleeping prophet, Stern)) I don't know if there's evidence about what he "liked", but it seems a reasonable guess. If you want to quibble over the "liked to", you can strike it. I'm not going to bother defending that part.
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Cayce read medical literature.

I'm not sure how that's supposed to be evidence that information only ever passed one way, or that Cayce's suggestions didn't require 'translation'.

Linda
The point is that Dietrich's affidavit and Kirkpatrick's book state that it was Cayce, not Layne, who did the diagnosis. If Dietrich's affidavit had stated -- "Dr. A.C. Layne examined Aime and concluded her spine required osteopathic adjustments; Edgar Cayce then went into a trance and outlined to Layne how to make those adjustments" -- your interpretation would be more consistent with the facts.

[Rodney]

Probably a very small one. But nomination says nothing about the book, apart from the fact that it was published in the US in the year of nomination and was written by an American citizen. Anyone can nominate any biography; all they need is $50 and four copies of the book. You could even have nominated it yourself.

http://www.pulitzer.org/EntryForms/Letbbn2.pdf
But how many people want to waste 50 bucks on a nomination? And contrary to what you seem to think, "An American Prophet" received generally favorable reviews. For example, "The New Yorker" stated: "This engaging biography reads like a codex for the New Age"; the "Library Journal" called it "a fair, fascinating, and well-researched biography of one of twentieth-century America's most famous psychics"; and "Booklist" stated: "Kirkpatrick, the only person allowed unrestricted access to all of Cayce's personal writings, presents what every Cayce fan hungers for: a detailed and complete biography that reveals family secrets that were deemed too sensitive to include in earlier works, as well as the long-suppressed identities of the many famous people, from Woodrow Wilson to Thomas Edison, who benefited from Cayce's readings."

Nomination tells us nothing about the merits of the book, but perhaps we can deduce something about the Cayce book from your apparent inability to find the sources for Kirkpatrick's stories. I wonder, what percentage of Pulitzer winning biographies fail to reference their sources?
Kirkpatrick references his sources, but, as is the case with many biographies, it's unclear exactly where he obtains certain specific information.

Have you made any progress tracking down Kirkpatrick's source for the quotation from Dr. Jackson? According to this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2542080#post2542080) you've been researching this since last Sunday.

And have you managed to find out what Kirkpatrick's sources were for the rest of the Tommy House story yet?
No. Researching this is not my full-time occupation, but I'll let you know when I find out something.

[Mojo]

But how many people want to waste 50 bucks on a nomination? How many people want to bolster the author's authority by reference to meaningless "nominations"?

[fls]

(1) When conscious, Cayce, to my knowledge, did not claim to get information by supernatural means, but rather seemed mystified by where the information came from.

How is that evidence that he was being honest? There are quite normal ways of getting this knowledge - ways that were available to him. The only reason that you don't think he took advantage of these normal ways of gaining knowledge was because he claimed he didn't. So basically, the proof that he is honest is that he says he is honest.

(2) What objective tests did he fail?

What objective tests did he pass?

(3) According to "The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power", a study of Cayce's medical readings showed his accuracy was about 85%.

The accuracy was calculated by choosing 150 of his cases and looking for follow-up letters from the patient (or a relative) stating whether or not they were better. In 74 of the cases, there was no follow-up letter, so they were excluded from the analysis. So what we really have is, out of 150 people who sought out Cayce as a healer, 76 wrote back to him, and 65 of those who wrote back stated they were better and attributed it to Cayce. And research demonstrates quite clearly that people you don't hear from are likely to have had quite different outcomes from those you do hear from.

Also, under those circumstances, 86% does not seem like a remarkable number if you take a strong selection bias for the population of "those who seek out a medical medium", effective advice based on medical knowledge, normal prognoses and a desire to report subjective improvements into consideration.

Linda

[fls]

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Cayce read medical literature.

It's important that Cayce have the appearance of gaining knowledge through mysterious means, since otherwise he is just like all the other variously qualified 'doctors' of that time. Under any other circumstances, it is an obvious assumption that if somebody does a vast amount of reading, has easy access to medical books and repeats information that is contained within those medical books, they have read those medical books. However, you and others wish us to believe that because it was not specifically documented that he read the books, that he could not possibly have read them, making his knowledge of what was contained within the books mysterious.

I'm sorry, but I am simply not capable of being that stupid credulous.

The point is that Dietrich's affidavit and Kirkpatrick's book state that it was Cayce, not Layne, who did the diagnosis. If Dietrich's affidavit had stated -- "Dr. A.C. Layne examined Aime and concluded her spine required osteopathic adjustments; Edgar Cayce then went into a trance and outlined to Layne how to make those adjustments" -- your interpretation would be more consistent with the facts.

Again, you are asking us to believe that the doctors involved with Cayce's trances couldn't have contributed anything - that vaguely worded, second-hand (and more) information provided sometimes years after the fact, is so specific as to exclude that possibility.

Ditto.

Linda

[Rodney]

How is that evidence that he was being honest? There are quite normal ways of getting this knowledge - ways that were available to him. The only reason that you don't think he took advantage of these normal ways of gaining knowledge was because he claimed he didn't. So basically, the proof that he is honest is that he says he is honest. First, I was responding to Christine's assertion: "My evidence for Cayce's dishonesty is that he claimed to be able to get information by supernatural means." Second, I don't think he took advantage of normal ways of gaining knowledge because he possessed knowledge that, as far as I know, was unavailable, even if he did read medical books.

What objective tests did he pass?
Depends what you mean by objective tests. According to "An American Prophet" -- at pages 170-72, Dr. Hugo Munsterberg, the dean of psychology at Harvard, paid a surprise visit to Hopkinsville, KY in December 1911 in an attempt to expose Cayce as a fraud. However, after spending a week with him and conducting studies of three people who received readings, Munsterberg concluded that Cayce was legitimate and stated that Cayce had "an unusual power."

The accuracy was calculated by choosing 150 of his cases and looking for follow-up letters from the patient (or a relative) stating whether or not they were better. In 74 of the cases, there was no follow-up letter, so they were excluded from the analysis. So what we really have is, out of 150 people who sought out Cayce as a healer, 76 wrote back to him, and 65 of those who wrote back stated they were better and attributed it to Cayce. And research demonstrates quite clearly that people you don't hear from are likely to have had quite different outcomes from those you do hear from.

Also, under those circumstances, 86% does not seem like a remarkable number if you take a strong selection bias for the population of "those who seek out a medical medium", effective advice based on medical knowledge, normal prognoses and a desire to report subjective improvements into consideration.

Linda
Have any similar studies been done regarding the accuracy of medical doctors? If so, what was their overall accuracy?

[Rodney]

It's important that Cayce have the appearance of gaining knowledge through mysterious means, since otherwise he is just like all the other variously qualified 'doctors' of that time.
Why do you put 'doctors' in quotation marks? Weren't there any qualified doctors a century ago?

Under any other circumstances, it is an obvious assumption that if somebody does a vast amount of reading, has easy access to medical books and repeats information that is contained within those medical books, they have read those medical books. However, you and others wish us to believe that because it was not specifically documented that he read the books, that he could not possibly have read them, making his knowledge of what was contained within the books mysterious.

I'm sorry, but I am simply not capable of being that stupid credulous.
You're glossing over Cayce's specific diagnoses. For example, Charles Dietrich had taken his daughter to the best doctors he could find and none of them helped her at all. So how could Cayce help her simply by reading the same medical books the doctors had read?

Again, you are asking us to believe that the doctors involved with Cayce's trances couldn't have contributed anything - that vaguely worded, second-hand (and more) information provided sometimes years after the fact, is so specific as to exclude that possibility.

Ditto.

Linda
All the books that I have read about Cayce state that the doctors he dealt with relied upon his diagnoses rather than vice-versa. If there is a book that claims that Cayce relied upon doctors' diagnoses, please advise as to which book that is.

[fls]

First, I was responding to Christine's assertion: "My evidence for Cayce's dishonesty is that he claimed to be able to get information by supernatural means." Second, I don't think he took advantage of normal ways of gaining knowledge because he possessed knowledge that, as far as I know, was unavailable, even if he did read medical books.

What knowledge did he possess that was unavailable?

Depends what you mean by objective tests. According to "An American Prophet" -- at pages 170-72, Dr. Hugo Munsterberg, the dean of psychology at Harvard, paid a surprise visit to Hopkinsville, KY in December 1911 in an attempt to expose Cayce as a fraud. However, after spending a week with him and conducting studies of three people who received readings, Munsterberg concluded that Cayce was legitimate and stated that Cayce had "an unusual power."

Where is his report? The hearsay reports I have read do not describe an objective evaluation.

Have any similar studies been done regarding the accuracy of medical doctors? If so, what was their overall accuracy?

Studies on accuracy have been done regarding medical doctors - the answer depends upon the question you are asking (and it's not really worth pursuing your red herring, anyway). Studies similar to that done for Cayce have not been performed except to show that that is not a valid or reliable method of determining accuracy.

Linda

[fls]

Why do you put 'doctors' in quotation marks? Weren't there any qualified doctors a century ago?

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the training and qualifications to become a doctor were highly variable and mostly sub-standard. State and local licensing bodies provided essentially no oversight. After the Flexner report in 1910, medical schools underwent reform, most of the private schools were shut down, and state colleges (a term used for the professional organizations of physicians) and licensing authorities began to provide real oversight. Also, people who did not receive an education in conventional medicine, such as homeopaths, also called themselves doctors. A 'doctor's opinion' from that time period is meaningless without significant investigation.

You're glossing over Cayce's specific diagnoses. For example, Charles Dietrich had taken his daughter to the best doctors he could find and none of them helped her at all. So how could Cayce help her simply by reading the same medical books the doctors had read?

Again, you are asking me to believe that second-hand (really sixth-hand) information provided by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about reliably excludes the possibility that there was a reasonable possibility that Aime could recover on her own. You are asking me to believe something that I already know is not true.

All the books that I have read about Cayce state that the doctors he dealt with relied upon his diagnoses rather than vice-versa. If there is a book that claims that Cayce relied upon doctors' diagnoses, please advise as to which book that is.

"I read it in a book, therefore it must be true"? Aside from the fact that you are changing the claim, it simply fails the commonsense rule. If someone claims that they can tell the colour of a card just by touch, it is foolish to believe that they aren't peeking until someone specifically states that they saw them peeking.

Linda

[Mojo]

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the training and qualifications to become a doctor were highly variable and mostly sub-standard. State and local licensing bodies provided essentially no oversight. After the Flexner report in 1910, medical schools underwent reform, most of the private schools were shut down, and state colleges (a term used for the professional organizations of physicians) and licensing authorities began to provide real oversight. Also, people who did not receive an education in conventional medicine, such as homeopaths, also called themselves doctors. And, indeed, 'doctors' with whom Cayce associated seem to have been doctors of osteopathy like "Al C. Layne, D.O." or homoepaths such as Wesley Ketchup.

[Rodney]

What knowledge did he possess that was unavailable?
Lots. For example, look at both the Aime Dietrich and Tommy House cases. Why was it that conventional medical treatments failed both of them, while Cayce's unorthodox treatments succeeded? Did Cayce read different books than the doctors of his time?

Where is his report? The hearsay reports I have read do not describe an objective evaluation.
I doubt if Munsterberg's career would have been enhanced by him writing a paper supporting Cayce. ;)


Studies on accuracy have been done regarding medical doctors - the answer depends upon the question you are asking (and it's not really worth pursuing your red herring, anyway). Studies similar to that done for Cayce have not been performed except to show that that is not a valid or reliable method of determining accuracy.

Linda

So what you appear to be saying is that you don't know whether the 85% accuracy figure is better or worse than the average medical doctor today would achieve as the result of a similar evaluation. Correct?

[Rodney]

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the training and qualifications to become a doctor were highly variable and mostly sub-standard.
Nineteenth or Twentieth?

State and local licensing bodies provided essentially no oversight. After the Flexner report in 1910, medical schools underwent reform, most of the private schools were shut down, and state colleges (a term used for the professional organizations of physicians) and licensing authorities began to provide real oversight. Also, people who did not receive an education in conventional medicine, such as homeopaths, also called themselves doctors. A 'doctor's opinion' from that time period is meaningless without significant investigation.
Okay, but let me assure you about Dr. Ketchum. According to the NY Times article of October 9, 1910:

"It is well enough to add that Dr. Wesley H. Ketchum is a reputable physician of high standing and successful practice in the homeopathic school of medicine. He possesses a classical education, is by nature of a scientific turn, and is a graduate of one of the leading medical institutions of the country. He is vouched for by orthodox physicians in both Kentucky and Ohio, in both of which states he is well known. In Hopkinsville, where his home is, no physician of any school stands higher . . ."

Again, you are asking me to believe that second-hand (really sixth-hand) information provided by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about reliably excludes the possibility that there was a reasonable possibility that Aime could recover on her own. You are asking me to believe something that I already know is not true.
So an affidavit from Aime's father -- one of the most educated and respected citizens of Hopkinsville -- is "second-hand (really sixth-hand) information provided by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about"?

"I read it in a book, therefore it must be true"? Aside from the fact that you are changing the claim, it simply fails the commonsense rule. If someone claims that they can tell the colour of a card just by touch, it is foolish to believe that they aren't peeking until someone specifically states that they saw them peeking.

Linda
Please explain what claim I'm changing and further explain why there are no authoritative books or articles debunking Cayce. The debunking attempts by Randi, Martin Gardner, Michael Shermer, and other skeptics don't even come close to being authoritative.

[fls]

Lots. For example, look at both the Aime Dietrich and Tommy House cases. Why was it that conventional medical treatments failed both of them, while Cayce's unorthodox treatments succeeded? Did Cayce read different books than the doctors of his time?

As has been pointed out numerous times, unsupported second, third, fourth, etc.-hand reports provided by people who do not know what they are talking about are not evidence. We have not excluded the possibility that there was a reasonable expectation that Aime could recover on her own, or that Tommy could recover on his own.

I doubt if Munsterberg's career would have been enhanced by him writing a paper supporting Cayce. ;)

Perhaps you should just provide a list of your stock answers and refer to them by number. It'd save you some typing.

So what you appear to be saying is that you don't know whether the 85% accuracy figure is better or worse than the average medical doctor today would achieve as the result of a similar evaluation. Correct?

Not really. I'm saying that the accuracy figure would depend mostly upon the personability of the doctor and personality of the patient in that kind of evaluation - something that is generally of less interest than objective, or relevant subjective, outcomes.

Linda

[fls]

Nineteenth or Twentieth?

Oops. I meant Twentieth.

Okay, but let me assure you about Dr. Ketchum. According to the NY Times article of October 9, 1910:

"It is well enough to add that Dr. Wesley H. Ketchum is a reputable physician of high standing and successful practice in the homeopathic school of medicine. He possesses a classical education, is by nature of a scientific turn, and is a graduate of one of the leading medical institutions of the country. He is vouched for by orthodox physicians in both Kentucky and Ohio, in both of which states he is well known. In Hopkinsville, where his home is, no physician of any school stands higher . . ."

Isn't that also the article that stated Cayce was illiterate? And again, the statements are unsupported.

So an affidavit from Aime's father -- one of the most educated and respected citizens of Hopkinsville -- is "second-hand (really sixth-hand) information provided by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about"?

Yes. He did not have the expert knowledge required to exclude the possibility that Aime could recover on her own. And we already know that she must have recovered on her own (or with conventional medical treatment), since osteopathic adjustments would not cure any disease that would fit the description given. And if she did have a disease that was amenable to osteopathic adjustments, then the description and prognosis must have been wrong.

Please explain what claim I'm changing and further explain why there are no authoritative books or articles debunking Cayce. The debunking attempts by Randi, Martin Gardner, Michael Shermer, and other skeptics don't even come close to being authoritative.

I started out by saying that we don't have information that excludes the obvious assumption that the doctors Cayce worked with could contribute their own knowledge. You changed it to Cayce relying on the doctor's diagnosis.

I don't know what you are looking for when it comes to authoritative debunking. I've seen articles that clearly demonstrate that the information provided on Edgar Cayce is insufficient to exclude normal explanations. More than that isn't really necessary, unless someone has a special interest in the matter.

Linda

[Mojo]

I don't know what you are looking for when it comes to authoritative debunking. I've seen articles that clearly demonstrate that the information provided on Edgar Cayce is insufficient to exclude normal explanations. Rodney wants us to provide evidence that excludes paranormal explanations.

[Rodney]

Yes. He did not have the expert knowledge required to exclude the possibility that Aime could recover on her own.
What about the doctors that gave up on Aime?

And we already know that she must have recovered on her own (or with conventional medical treatment), since osteopathic adjustments would not cure any disease that would fit the description given.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Cannot osteopathic adjustments cure seizures in some cases?

[Mojo]

What about the doctors that gave up on Aime?What about them?

[fls]

What about the doctors that gave up on Aime?

Other than second-hand (at best) reports of a nature known to be unrealiable, what evidence do we have that the doctors gave up on Aime?

Are you absolutely sure about that? Cannot osteopathic adjustments cure seizures in some cases?

No.

Linda

[Rodney]

Other than second-hand (at best) reports of a nature known to be unrealiable, what evidence do we have that the doctors gave up on Aime?
Do you have evidence that affidavits from responsible citizens are "known to be unreliable"? In his affidavit, Professor Dietrich named five doctors who completely failed to help Aime over a four-year period. The affidavit states that the final doctor told him that nothing could be done, which to me sounds suspiciously like giving up.

No.

Linda

Has any study been done showing that osteopathic adjustments cannot eliminate seizures, or is it simply that there has never been a study along those lines?

[Mojo]

Do you have evidence that affidavits from responsible citizens are "known to be unreliable"? In his affidavit, Professor Dietrich named five doctors who completely failed to help Aime over a four-year period. The affidavit states that the final doctor told him that nothing could be done, which to me sounds suspiciously like giving up. Anecdotal accounts given years after the fact by unqualified people are known to be unreliable. The fact that it was sworn as an affidavit would not increase the reliability of Dietrich's memory.

Did anyone bother getting in touch with the five named doctors involved?

[Mojo]

While we're on the subject of the reliability of Dietrich's affidavit: according to the affidavit, Aime was taken to the last doctor on March 1st 1902.

Given that, according to the affidavit, she was born on January 7th 1897, how old would she have been at that date?

How old does the affidavit say she was right before this?

[fls]

Do you have evidence that affidavits from responsible citizens are "known to be unreliable"? In his affidavit, Professor Dietrich named five doctors who completely failed to help Aime over a four-year period. The affidavit states that the final doctor told him that nothing could be done, which to me sounds suspiciously like giving up.

If I want to know an expert's opinion on a case, reading an account of an affadavit that was based on a non-expert's years-old recollection, incompletely understood, of what that expert said, is an unreliable method. That's not even taking into account that at that time it is unlikely that the doctors understood what was going on.

Also, patients/family often interpret "we currently know of no treatment" or "there is nothing we can do to alter the course of the disease" to mean that there is no possibility of recovery or that the doctors are giving up hope.

Has any study been done showing that osteopathic adjustments cannot eliminate seizures, or is it simply that there has never been a study along those lines?

Ah, yes. The "any old idea I pull out of my ass is considered valid until a study definitively proves it wrong" defense.

Linda

[Mojo]

Also, patients/family often interpret "we currently know of no treatment" or "there is nothing we can do to alter the course of the disease" to mean that there is no possibility of recovery or that the doctors are giving up hope.


Hence the perennial cry of the sCAM testimonial (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/comics/funnystrips/sheridanpoorly01.shtml): "Five doctors gave up on me!"

[Mashuna]

Ah, yes. The "any old idea I pull out of my ass is considered valid until a study definitively proves it wrong" defense.

Linda


So you're saying prodding him with sharp sticks whilst bathing him in custard might have helped?

:boxedin:

[Mojo]

Chacun à son goût.






ETA: Sorry, did you mean Tommy or Rodney?

[Rodney]

Anecdotal accounts given years after the fact by unqualified people are known to be unreliable. The fact that it was sworn as an affidavit would not increase the reliability of Dietrich's memory. So when the affidavit claims that Dr. Hoppe said that nothing could be done, except to give Aime good care, as her case was hopeless and she would die, Professor Dietrich completely misremembered what really happened? Do you think that maybe the good doctor actually said: "Just give me four more years, I'll cure her"?

Did anyone bother getting in touch with the five named doctors involved? I don't know, but I'm not sure they would have been the most objective folks to talk with, considering their treatment of Aime had been useless.

[Rodney]

While we're on the subject of the reliability of Dietrich's affidavit: according to the affidavit, Aime was taken to the last doctor on March 1st 1902.

Given that, according to the affidavit, she was born on January 7th 1897, how old would she have been at that date? Five.

How old does the affidavit say she was right before this?
Six. However, this is the type of minor error that is readily understandable, considering that Professor Dietrich submitted his affidavit in October 1910. Presumably, Aime saw Dr. Hoppe in March 1903. It could even have been a typo that the affidavit says 1902 rather than 1903. Your idea that, because of that trivial error, Dietrich probably got confused about the five doctors' ineffective treatment of Aime over four years and Cayce's subsequent successful treatment of her is illogical in the extreme.

[Rodney]

If I want to know an expert's opinion on a case, reading an account of an affadavit that was based on a non-expert's years-old recollection, incompletely understood, of what that expert said, is an unreliable method. So Professor Dietrich was incapable of understanding the pronouncements of the five doctors regarding his daughter?

That's not even taking into account that at that time it is unlikely that the doctors understood what was going on. At least we agree on something. ;)

Also, patients/family often interpret "we currently know of no treatment" or "there is nothing we can do to alter the course of the disease" to mean that there is no possibility of recovery or that the doctors are giving up hope. It's not a question of interpretation, it's the fact that Dietrich categorically states that Aime failed to develop over four years and that Dr. Hoppe directly told him there was no hope for her.

Ah, yes. The "any old idea I pull out of my ass is considered valid until a study definitively proves it wrong" defense.

Linda
So I take it there is no such study?

[fls]

So Professor Dietrich was incapable of understanding the pronouncements of the five doctors regarding his daughter?

Huh? I'm saying that no matter how smart or educated you are, memory is unreliable - especially many years after the events, when it has been molded by numerous re-tellings (just guessing that he told the story of his daughter's amazing recovery to others), and involves a subject which requires an expertise to understand which you lack.

It's not a question of interpretation, it's the fact that Dietrich categorically states that Aime failed to develop over four years and that Dr. Hoppe directly told him there was no hope for her.

How someone remembers something happening is often not the same as how it happened.

(I can't believe I just said that.)

So I take it there is no such study?

Well, I found lots of studies involving sharp sticks (http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005062.html), but I drew a blank with the custard.

Linda

[BillyJoe]

How someone remembers something happening is often not the same as how it happened.

(I can't believe I just said that.)


No, you should have gone further:
How someone remembers something happening is NEVER the same as how it actually happened.

And the more times the story has been told, and the more time that has passed between the event and the telling, the more the memory and the retelling deviates from the facts of what actually happened.

In time, any resemblance between the two can be entirely absent or purely coincidental.

[Rodney]

Huh? I'm saying that no matter how smart or educated you are, memory is unreliable - especially many years after the events, when it has been molded by numerous re-tellings (just guessing that he told the story of his daughter's amazing recovery to others), and involves a subject which requires an expertise to understand which you lack.
I don't understand your focus on "a subject which requires an expertise to understand which you lack." This issue couldn't be simpler: Five doctors tried in vain to help Aime over four years. Professor Dietrich and his wife didn't have to be medical geniuses to see with their own eyes that, during this long period of time, their daughter was suffering from constant seizures and wasn't developing mentally. So, in desperation, they turned to Cayce.

How someone remembers something happening is often not the same as how it happened.

(I can't believe I just said that.)
I don't disagree that memory can play tricks on us, but I really can't fathom a scenario where Dietrich somehow erroneously came to believe that five doctors had failed Aime over four years and then Cayce succeeded. I could buy a spontaneous recovery scenario, if Aime's condition had not persisted for such a long time. I could even buy a fraud scenario, if there were evidence that Dietrich had profited from his story. But a faulty memory scenario just doesn't ring true to me in this case.


Well, I found lots of studies involving sharp sticks (http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005062.html), but I drew a blank with the custard.

Linda
To my knowledge, Cayce never recommended acupuncture.

[Mojo]

To my knowledge, Cayce never recommended acupuncture.How about custard?

[fls]

Originally Posted by Mojo
Did anyone bother getting in touch with the five named doctors involved?
I don't know, but I'm not sure they would have been the most objective folks to talk with, considering their treatment of Aime had been useless.

I kinda like this. It makes anything Rodney wants to believe non-falsifyable.

If the physicians agree, their opinion is valid. If the physicians don't agree, they are lying to cover their tracks.

Linda

[fls]

I don't understand your focus on "a subject which requires an expertise to understand which you lack." This issue couldn't be simpler: Five doctors tried in vain to help Aime over four years. Professor Dietrich and his wife didn't have to be medical geniuses to see with their own eyes that, during this long period of time, their daughter was suffering from constant seizures and wasn't developing mentally. So, in desperation, they turned to Cayce.

As an example, it requires expertise to know what the prognosis might be.

Also, your description doesn't match the description on the affidavit, where it stated that she had convulsions at irregular intervals. The description of those spells wasn't typical for seizures and the diagnosis given by the doctors was a type of nervousness, not epilepsy. She isn't described as getting worse and having constant seizures plus loss of mental abilities until she was six.

I don't disagree that memory can play tricks on us, but I really can't fathom a scenario where Dietrich somehow erroneously came to believe that five doctors had failed Aime over four years and then Cayce succeeded. I could buy a spontaneous recovery scenario, if Aime's condition had not persisted for such a long time. I could even buy a fraud scenario, if there were evidence that Dietrich had profited from his story. But a faulty memory scenario just doesn't ring true to me in this case.

Now you are doing it. With each retelling of the story, you move closer to a description of a lengthy, severe, unremitting affliction that very suddenly disappeared with Cayce's treatment. Yet if you go back to the original affidavit, what is described is a mild affliction that got worse when she was six, from which she recovered over the space of three months. If she had the "brain infection" (as the cause of the worsening) that one of the doctors gave as a diagnosis at the time, that course of events would be expected. The usual course for infection is that the patient gets worse until the immune system is adequately mobilized to overcome the infection. That Cayce became involved around the time of recovery is not unusual. It is often when things are at their worst that people seek treatment. What is likely to happen next is either that continued progession leads to death, or further progression is halted and overcome by the immune response. (This is, of course, grossly over-simplified.) It is very likely that the timing will usually lead to the appearance that Cayce's involvement has an effect, since the deaths will simply be dismissed as not bringing him in soon enough, and the credit for the improvements will be given to Cayce.

To my knowledge, Cayce never recommended acupuncture.

Of course not. He didn't have an accupuncturist as an assistant.

Linda

[Rodney]

How about custard?
Cayce mentioned custard a couple of times, but not as a treatment for seizures. ;)

[Rodney]

I kinda like this. It makes anything Rodney wants to believe non-falsifyable.

If the physicians agree, their opinion is valid. If the physicians don't agree, they are lying to cover their tracks.

Linda
I'm simply saying that it's probably unrealistic to have expected any of the five doctors who treated Aime prior to Cayce's involvement to have said: "I had no idea how to help Aime, but apparently a man who never went to medical school cured her completely."

[fls]

I'm simply saying that it's probably unrealistic to have expected any of the five doctors who treated Aime prior to Cayce's involvement to have said: "I had no idea how to help Aime, but apparently a man who never went to medical school cured her completely."

I was thinking that what makes doctors valuable is not that they are immune from the usual cognitive biases (they're not), but that they document the details beforehand. That is, their clinical notes serve as a source of (relatively) objective information before subsequent events start to rework memories.

Linda

[Rodney]

As an example, it requires expertise to know what the prognosis might be.
Gee, I don't know, Linda, if a doctor tells me I'm gonna die soon, I would consider that a bad prognosis. But that's probably just me.

Also, your description doesn't match the description on the affidavit, where it stated that she had convulsions at irregular intervals. The description of those spells weren't typical for seizures and the diagnosis given by the doctors was a type of nervousness, not epilepsy. She isn't described as getting worse and having constant seizures plus loss of mental abilities until she was six.

According to the affidavit, BY age six, Aime "had as many as twenty convulsions in one day, her mind was a blank, all reasoning power was entirely gone." So, it's not clear when the seizures began to increase. Further, according to -- http://sociologyesoscience.com/esoterica/cbooks2.html -- Aime's "four-year-old history of convulsions had resisted all conventional medical treatment. The drama of the Dietrich case had already caught the attention of the local press, so when Aime recovered completely following Cayce's trance-diagnosis (he prescribed osteopathic adjustments, which Layne administered), the story spread all over Kentucky and Tennessee."

Now you are doing it. With each retelling of the story, you move closer to a description of a lengthy, severe, unremitting affliction that very suddenly disappeared with Cayce's treatment. Yet if you go back to the original affidavit, what is described is a mild affliction that got worse when she was six, from which she recovered over the space of three months. If she had the "brain infection" (as the cause of the worsening) that one of the doctors gave as a diagnosis at the time, that course of events would be expected. The usual course for infection is that the patient gets worse until the immune system is adequately mobilized to overcome the infection. That Cayce became involved around the time of recovery is not unusual. It is often when things are at their worst that people seek treatment. What is likely to happen next is either that continued progession leads to death, or further progression is halted and overcome by the immune response. (This is, of course, grossly over-simplified.) It is very likely that the timing will usually lead to the appearance that Cayce's involvement has an effect, since the deaths will simply be dismissed as not bringing him in soon enough, and the credit for the improvements will be given to Cayce.
If what you're saying is true, why did Dr. Hoppe tell Professor Dietrich that Aime's case was "hopeless" and that she would "die soon"? Rather, why didn't Dr. Hoppe tell Dietrich that there was at least some hope so that, if Aime did recover spontaneously, Hoppe would be the hero?

Of course not. He didn't have an accupuncturist as an assistant.

Linda
Perhaps, but I'm still waiting for some hard evidence that osteopathic adjustments could not have cured Aime.

[fls]

Gee, I don't know, Linda, if a doctor tells me I'm gonna die soon, I would consider that a bad prognosis. But that's probably just me.

I'm trying to understand your point. You think that because Dietrich remembers Hoppe's take-home message as straightforward, that it must have been presented that way?

According to the affidavit, BY age six, Aime "had as many as twenty convulsions in one day, her mind was a blank, all reasoning power was entirely gone." So, it's not clear when the seizures began to increase.

The start of the sentence is "She was now six years old and getting worse..." which does give an indication.

Further, according to -- http://sociologyesoscience.com/esoterica/cbooks2.html -- Aime's "four-year-old history of convulsions had resisted all conventional medical treatment. The drama of the Dietrich case had already caught the attention of the local press, so when Aime recovered completely following Cayce's trance-diagnosis (he prescribed osteopathic adjustments, which Layne administered), the story spread all over Kentucky and Tennessee."

Yes, you have aptly demonstrated my point that repeating a story with small changes in wording each time can lead to quite different interpretations of what happened.

If what you're saying is true, why did Dr. Hoppe tell Professor Dietrich that Aime's case was "hopeless" and that she would "die soon"? Rather, why didn't Dr. Hoppe tell Dietrich that there was at least some hope so that, if Aime did recover spontaneously, Hoppe would be the hero?

If that is what he actually said, I would suspect that he said it because he thought that was what was going to happen, and that he didn't think there was hope. It's not particularly surprising that he got it wrong.

Perhaps, but I'm still waiting for some hard evidence that osteopathic adjustments could not have cured Aime.

I'm supposed to provide you with an education in pathophysiology?

Linda

[Rodney]

I'm trying to understand your point. You think that because Dietrich remembers Hoppe's take-home message as straightforward, that it must have been presented that way?
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.

The start of the sentence is "She was now six years old and getting worse..." which does give an indication.
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.

Yes, you have aptly demonstrated my point that repeating a story with small changes in wording each time can lead to quite different interpretations of what happened.
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.

If that is what he actually said, I would suspect that he said it because he thought that was what was going to happen, and that he didn't think there was hope.
Agreed.

It's not particularly surprising that he got it wrong. But don't you think it's rather amazing that Cayce's intervention coincided with Aime being cured?

I'm supposed to provide you with an education in pathophysiology?

Linda
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?