Arguments on Edgar Cayce

[Jeff Corey]

No. Worse than garden variey, unless you mean the manure to fertilize the garden.

 

[Rodney]

Probably not. You'd think the A.R.E. would've conducted an experiment along those lines by now. I guess they're too busy selling magical Coke syrup, playing with zener cards, and giving past life readings to tackle something as insiginificant as a moronically simple, 100% effective cure for cancer.

Go figger'

And you would doubtless have great confidence in an ARE medical study? But no matter how you try and spin in it, Cayce said almonds were a cancer preventative and that has now been confirmed. Maybe not a total preventative, but we still don't even know that for sure. What we do know is that the Straight Dope's claim that Cayce recommended laetrile to prevent cancer is 100% bogus. Cayce zeroed in on almonds, not amygdalin or apricot kernels, and was right on the money.

 

[Psiload]

Your anecdote did not improve upon your retelling it.

Q: When is an anecdote more than an anecdote?

A: When it's backed up by confirmable fact.

http://www.edgarcayce.org/health/medical_overviews/cystitis.asp

Afterward - that is, for that day, or for that evening use a little of the watermelon seed tea; this will help to purify. Or if desirable drink Coca Cola - a little Coca Cola; this will act almost in the same way and manner in purifying or clearing the ducts through the kidneys, and thus reduce the general forces and influence there. (540-11)

http://www.meridianinstitute.com/echerb/Files/5097-1.html

CAYCE QUOTE ON REMEDY 5097-1

Do take coca cola occasionally as a drink for the activity of the kidneys, but do not take it with carbonated water. Buy or have the syrup prepared and add plain water to this. Take about 1/2 oz. or 1 oz. of the syrup and add plain water. This to be taken about every other day with or without ice. This will aid in purifying the kidney activity and bladder and will be better for the body.

 

[Psiload]

And you would doubtless have great confidence in an ARE medical study? But no matter how you try and spin in it, Cayce said almonds were a cancer preventative and that has now been confirmed. Maybe not a total preventative, but we still don't even know that for sure. What we do know is that the Straight Dope's claim that Cayce recommended laetrile to prevent cancer is 100% bogus. Cayce zeroed in on almonds, not amygdalin or apricot kernels, and was right on the money.

Spin? I quoted Cayce's words directly. How is that putting a "spin" on it?

Here they are again, presented without comment or "spin":

"Those who would eat two to three almonds each day need never fear cancer." (1158-31)

 

[Rodney]

Spin? I quoted Cayce's words directly. How is that putting a "spin" on it?

Because you haven't shown that Cayce was incorrect in any way either about almonds or coca cola syrup. If you can cite a study that he was wrong about either or both, bring it on.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Because you haven't shown that Cayce was incorrect in any way either about almonds or coca cola syrup. If you can cite a study that he was wrong about either or both, bring it on.

Cite directly his predictions and the eventual research that backs the claims. His suggestion to eat almonds is suspect because (1) He says it will guarantee a prevention of cancer; which is false, the form of vitamin E found in them helps, but is not a guarantee; and the same vitamin E is also found in sweet peppers and other produce that he fails to mention.

If that is sufficient criteria for proof of psychic powers then my grandmother is psychic, as she always said to eat my greens, and hey, those contain antioxidants which help reduce the risk of cancer. Oh, wait, let me rephrase that in woo, they prevent cancer.

If it exists I would imagine that A.R.E. would qualify for the million dollar prize.

 

[UrsulaV]

Not exactly your garden variety "anecdote."

Um...how is that not exactly a garden variety anecdote? It's one person's account of a thing they think happened. It's a report of a single incident, unbacked by any rigorous scientific studies.

That's an anecdote. That's what anecdotal means. It doesn't matter if it's a signed affadavit from an educated man, or Billy-Joe-Bob claiming he saw Bigfoot in the headlights while he was out runnin' moonshine--it's still an anecdote. That he made a signed affadavit doesn't lend any more or less weight to the matter. I can make a signed affadavit that Cayce is a fraud, but I doubt you'd find that compelling!

Let me say it as clearly as I can. Anecdotes aren't good enough as proof of Cayce's healing powers. Affadavits from people he supposedly cured aren't enough. The data isn't THERE. We have virtually no ability to examine what he may have done, and thus, I don't think it's possible to prove he had healing powers at all.

And I think it goes the other way, too. The data is not there to prove he didn't heal anybody. The data just isn't THERE, period.

However, since nobody else in the history of the world has been proven to have miraculous healing powers, and we've had a whole pack of frauds, the burden of proof is on Cayce supporters. And they don't have the data to prove it.

That basically leaves us with what we CAN test--his medical theories and his predictions. I note that you avoid all the failed predictions. I realize they're embarassing, since they're so bad. Still, with so little testable data, if you actually want facts about Cayce instead of worship, seems like we should probably pay attention to where the magnetic poles are...

 

[Rodney]

Um...how is that not exactly a garden variety anecdote? It's one person's account of a thing they think happened. It's a report of a single incident, unbacked by any rigorous scientific studies.

That's an anecdote. That's what anecdotal means. It doesn't matter if it's a signed affadavit from an educated man, or Billy-Joe-Bob claiming he saw Bigfoot in the headlights while he was out runnin' moonshine--it's still an anecdote. That he made a signed affadavit doesn't lend any more or less weight to the matter. I can make a signed affadavit that Cayce is a fraud, but I doubt you'd find that compelling!

Ursula, Ursula, Ursula. You really think an unverified account by a person who lacks credibility is the same thing as a verified account by a person who epitomizes credibility? The Aime Dietrich case was well-known in Hopkinsville, KY before Cayce undertook his reading for her. (In a small town, when the condition of the daughter of the school superintendent appears to be hopeless, the news gets around.) A medical doctor named Wesley Ketchum verified that she had been cured by Cayce's prescribed treatment and that was detailed in the Sunday NY Times of October 9, 1910. Did anyone ever challenge either Professor Dietrich's or Dr. Ketchum's accounts? And why would Professor Dietrich and Dr. Ketchum risk their reputations to support Cayce?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ursula, Ursula, Ursula. You really think an unverified account by a person who lacks credibility is the same thing as a verified account by a person who epitomizes credibility? The Aime Dietrich case was well-known in Hopkinsville, KY before Cayce undertook his reading for her. (In a small town, when the condition of the daughter of the school superintendent appears to be hopeless, the news gets around.) A medical doctor named Wesley Ketchum verified that she had been cured by Cayce's prescribed treatment and that was detailed in the Sunday NY Times of October 9, 1910. Did anyone ever challenge either Professor Dietrich's or Dr. Ketchum's accounts? And why would Professor Dietrich and Dr. Ketchum risk their reputations to support Cayce?

Are her medical records, pre and post treatment, available publically?

 

[Psiload]

***snip*** And why would Professor Dietrich and Dr. Ketchum risk their reputations to support Cayce?

In Dr. Ketchum's case, I'd say the motive was probably plain ol' profit... being that Cayce was his buisness partner.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/pex_9.htm

Requests for readings began coming to Hopkinsville. In order to meet these requests, Dr. Wesley Ketchum, Edgar Cayce, Leslie Cayce and Albert Noe, a hotel owner formed the Psychic Reading Corporation.

***edited to add***

btw... Wesley Ketchum was a "doctor" of homeopathy.

 

[Kochanski]

In Dr. Ketchum's case, I'd say the motive was probably plain ol' profit... being that Cayce was his buisness partner.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/pex_9.htm



***edited to add***

btw... Wesley Ketchum was a "doctor" of homeopathy.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner here. Business partner and Homeopath, yeah that is a trustworthy source of information, right, if you believe that one I have a really nice bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap

 

[UrsulaV]

Ursula, Ursula, Ursula. You really think an unverified account by a person who lacks credibility is the same thing as a verified account by a person who epitomizes credibility?

I think an anecdote is an anecdote, yes, no matter who's saying it.

And how is this a *verified* account? In what fashion has it been verified? Are her medical records pre-and-post available? Are you calling it "verified" because he signed an affadavit about it?

If I may quote wikipedia...

"In American jurisprudence, under the rules for hearsay, admission of an unsupported affidavit as evidence is unusual (especially if the affiant is not available for cross-examination) with regard to material facts which may be dispositive of the matter at bar. Affidavits from persons who are dead or otherwise incapacitated, or who cannot be located or made to appear may be accepted by the court, but usually only in the presence of corroborating evidence."

It's still an anecdote, hon. It wouldn't be accepted in court unless you had corroborating evidence to back it up. By itself, a signed affadavit is not significant of anything except that somebody was willing to claim they believed something.

 

[UrsulaV]

In Dr. Ketchum's case, I'd say the motive was probably plain ol' profit... being that Cayce was his buisness partner.

That was a lovely catch.

 

[Psiload]

That was a lovely catch.

My google fu is strong.

 

[ChristineR]

I agree that the case is interesting and worth investigation. But so far it is going nowhere. We don't even know what was actually wrong with Aime Dietrich. I could say the whole thing was staged and Cayce and Ketchum paid the Dietriches to lie, and that explanation fits the facts (as given so far on this thread) as well as anything.

Is there more information? Does anyone have the NY article?

 

[Rodney]

I agree that the case is interesting and worth investigation. But so far it is going nowhere. We don't even know what was actually wrong with Aime Dietrich. I could say the whole thing was staged and Cayce and Ketchum paid the Dietriches to lie, and that explanation fits the facts (as given so far on this thread) as well as anything.

Is there more information? Does anyone have the NY article?

I have a copy of the article, and the NY Times on microfilm is available at most libraries. The article is a long one and mentions a speech about Cayce given by Dr. Ketchum in Pasadena, CA. "This speech created such widespread interest among those present that one of the leading Boston medical men who heard his speech invited Dr. Ketchum to prepare a paper as a part of the programme of the September meeting of the American Society of Clinical Research. Dr. Ketchum sent the paper, but did not go to Boston. The paper was read by Henry E. Harrower, M.D., of Chicago, a contributor to The Journal of the American Medical Association, published in Chicago. Its presentation created a sensation, and almost before Dr. Ketchum knew that the paper had been given to the press he was deluged with letters and telegrams inquiring about the strange case." The article then goes on to refer to the Dietrich case.

 

[Rodney]

My google fu is strong.

I'm impressed with your google skills, but I would be even more impressed if you had skimmed even one book about Cayce. Dr. Ketchum is prominently
mentioned in the great majority of Cayce books. Yes, he became Cayce's partner -- after Cayce had demonstrated that in some cases he could cure people that doctors could not. Sounds like a pretty reasonable arrangement to me. And what's your explanation for Professor Dietrich's affidavit? Was he part of the conspiracy to defraud as well?

 

[Psiload]

I agree that the case is interesting and worth investigation. But so far it is going nowhere. We don't even know what was actually wrong with Aime Dietrich. I could say the whole thing was staged and Cayce and Ketchum paid the Dietriches to lie, and that explanation fits the facts (as given so far on this thread) as well as anything.

Is there more information? Does anyone have the NY article?

http://www.world-mysteries.com/pex_9.htm

A local man, Al Layne, was found who could give the hypnotic suggestions. Layne had educated himself. Not only had he worked with hypnotism, but he was familiar with osteopathy as well.

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

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

Eventually, Layne decided to become a fully accredited osteopath. The number of patients coming to him had continued to increase as he and Cayce had become well known. To continue his studies, Layne left Hopkinsville and entered the Southern School of Osteopathy.

Offered without comment or "spin". I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

 

[Psiload]

I'm impressed with your google skills, but I would be even more impressed if you had skimmed even one book about Cayce. Dr. Ketchum is prominently
mentioned in the great majority of Cayce books. Yes, he became Cayce's partner -- after Cayce had demonstrated that in some cases he could cure people that doctors could not. Sounds like a pretty reasonable arrangement to me. And what's your explanation for Professor Dietrich's affidavit? Was he part of the conspiracy to defraud as well?

Probably not. I'd surmise that Professor Dietrich was just a grateful parent, who could be forgiven for singing the praises of two medically unqualified individuals whom he'd erroneously assumed had cured his daughter.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I have a copy of the article, and the NY Times on microfilm is available at most libraries. The article is a long one and mentions a speech about Cayce given by Dr. Ketchum in Pasadena, CA. "This speech created such widespread interest among those present that one of the leading Boston medical men who heard his speech invited Dr. Ketchum to prepare a paper as a part of the programme of the September meeting of the American Society of Clinical Research. Dr. Ketchum sent the paper, but did not go to Boston. The paper was read by Henry E. Harrower, M.D., of Chicago, a contributor to The Journal of the American Medical Association, published in Chicago. Its presentation created a sensation, and almost before Dr. Ketchum knew that the paper had been given to the press he was deluged with letters and telegrams inquiring about the strange case." The article then goes on to refer to the Dietrich case.

What year was the article published?