• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Arguments on Edgar Cayce

Amazing Coincidence

After following this thread for a couple of days, imagine my surprise when I received in this morning's mail an ad inviting me to join Edgar Cayce's A.R.E. I tell you, chills ran up my spine.

When I read the articles in the promotional material, I knew I just had to share. Were you-all (using the polite southern inclusionary phrase) aware that in 1909 a cave was discovered in Arizona that contained Mummies, Egyptian hieroglyphs, golden statues and other items? Shocking how this news was suppressed by the Egyptological establishment. I can't recall ever hearing that these artifacts were removed, studied or placed in a museum anywhere, nor that the history of the world was revised in light of these findings.

On the second page, I read that Jesus was tutored by two Essenes named Judy and Josie. Or were they a sister act that wowed Vaudeville in the '20's?

Oh yes, Cayce was an astounding man, fabulous, unbelievable, in the full sense of the word.

By the way, I used to eat almonds at every opportunity--salted almonds in bags, almonds covering cheese logs, Almond Joy candy bars--not two or three a day, of course, so that probably explains why I've had two types of cancer. There is more than one kind of nut in the A.R.E., and Cayce should have been buried by squirrels.
 
No, that doesn't mean that eating 2-3 almonds a day is guaranteed to prevent cancer, and I certainly would not advocate ingesting known carcinogens along with the 2-3 almonds/day to test that proposition, but don't you think there is just a tad bit of difference in the evidence for the two propositions?

Then the studies do NOT support Cayce's claim, since his claim was that anyone who eats 2-3 almonds/day "need never fear cancer", not that almonds may reduce the likelyhood of a couple of particular forms of cancer. Don't you think there is a tad of difference in the two claims?
 
Then the studies do NOT support Cayce's claim, since his claim was that anyone who eats 2-3 almonds/day "need never fear cancer", not that almonds may reduce the likelyhood of a couple of particular forms of cancer. Don't you think there is a tad of difference in the two claims?
The studies did not test that particular claim of Cayce's, but Cayce frequently cited the benefits of eating almonds, specifically including as a cancer preventative. I don't believe your lava lamp has been shown to be a cancer preventative, which is why I reject your analogy.
 
Rodney, I see your point about the lava lamp, but the fact is that the health benefits of almonds were known in 1910. So what Cayce said is "a food known to be wholesome and good will prevent cancer, absolutely" and what we now know is "a food long known to be wholesome and good contains a substance which can prevent a certain percentage of a certain type of cancer." It's just not that impressive. If Cayce had not also praised many other folk remedies (like syrup of cocaine and kola nut) that now seem laughable, I'd be more impressed.
 
Rodney, I see your point about the lava lamp, but the fact is that the health benefits of almonds were known in 1910. So what Cayce said is "a food known to be wholesome and good will prevent cancer, absolutely" and what we now know is "a food long known to be wholesome and good contains a substance which can prevent a certain percentage of a certain type of cancer." It's just not that impressive. If Cayce had not also praised many other folk remedies (like syrup of cocaine and kola nut) that now seem laughable, I'd be more impressed.
Thanks for your support about the lava lamp, but can you document your contention "that the health benefits of almonds were known in 1910"? What, specifically, was known? Regarding Cayce's claims about coca cola syrup, they may seem laughable to you, but where is the study refuting them? (And, no, the burden isn't on me to prove them. I have an open mind regarding those claims; you and others here are absolutely convinced that they're false, but can't prove it.)
 
Can't get to the page w/o a sub, but excerpt suggests 1830
Cancer Spectrum: Physician Data Query - Complementary and ...
Amygdalin was first isolated in 1830 and was used as an anticancer agent in Russia as early as 1845. Its first recorded use in the United States as a ...
jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdq/jncipdq;CDR0000446369 - Similar pages
Per google search of [earliest recorded use of almonds as medicine]

And yes, the onus is on you to prove them, not for us to refute them.
 
The studies did not test that particular claim of Cayce's, but Cayce frequently cited the benefits of eating almonds, specifically including as a cancer preventative. I don't believe your lava lamp has been shown to be a cancer preventative, which is why I reject your analogy.


If you admit that the studies did not test Cayce's claim, then how can you cite them as evidence his claim is true?
 
Regarding Cayce's claims about coca cola syrup, they may seem laughable to you, but where is the study refuting them? (And, no, the burden isn't on me to prove them. I have an open mind regarding those claims; you and others here are absolutely convinced that they're false, but can't prove it.)

Wrong question, the question is "Where is the study supporting them?" It is irrelevant whether you have an open mind that they might be true or not, it maters that if you claim that his claims regarding health benefits of certain foods are true, then it is incumbent upon you to prove that this is indeed the case.
 
Thanks for your support about the lava lamp, but can you document your contention "that the health benefits of almonds were known in 1910"? What, specifically, was known? Regarding Cayce's claims about coca cola syrup, they may seem laughable to you, but where is the study refuting them? (And, no, the burden isn't on me to prove them. I have an open mind regarding those claims; you and others here are absolutely convinced that they're false, but can't prove it.)

In 1885 the U.S. manufacturer Parke-Davis sold cocaine in various forms, including cigarettes, powder, and even a cocaine mixture that could be injected directly into the user’s veins with the included needle. The company promised that its cocaine products would “supply the place of food, make the coward brave, the silent eloquent and ... render the sufferer insensitive to pain.”

From Wiki.

I have absolutely no doubt that the people following his advice re. Coke felt better. However, the onus is on the person making a claim to prove it.
 
From Wiki.

I have absolutely no doubt that the people following his advice re. Coke felt better. However, the onus is on the person making a claim to prove it.

And A.R.E. is still pushing Coke on believers. For acne, cystitis, and obesity.
 
On the other hand, two studies support the proposition that almonds (at least help) prevent cancer. No, that doesn't mean that eating 2-3 almonds a day is guaranteed to prevent cancer,

Are you willing to admit that if 2-3 almonds a day are not guaranteed to prevent cancer, that Cayce was wrong? Or are you going to weasel around it by saying "Well, just because he made an absolute definitive statement that's untrue, almonds are still good for you, so he was right!" ?

If almonds are good for you, but three a day won't absolutely prevent cancer, would you call that a hit or a miss?
 
Can't get to the page w/o a sub, but excerpt suggests 1830
Per google search of [earliest recorded use of almonds as medicine]
Interesting, but since I specifically inquired about almonds, not amygdalin (Cayce never mentioned amygdalin), irrelevant to my question.
 
Are you willing to admit that if 2-3 almonds a day are not guaranteed to prevent cancer, that Cayce was wrong?
IF, then yes, in that one statement of many he made about the benefits of almonds, he was wrong.
 
IF, then yes, in that one statement of many he made about the benefits of almonds, he was wrong.

Since, as has been pointed out above, people of the era knew full well that almonds had health benefits, are you also willing to admit that his other statements about the benefits of almonds may not have required any amaaaaazing psychic powers?

Or do you believe that stating common wisdom of the era makes you a psychic healer?
 
My evidence for the benefits of almonds is not online, it comes mainly from my mother's collection of antique cookbooks and diet manuals. I'll see what I can come up with online, though.
 
Interesting, but since I specifically inquired about almonds, not amygdalin (Cayce never mentioned amygdalin), irrelevant to my question.

It is completely relevent. The questions was if people prior to 1910 considered almonds to be a healthy/healthful/medicinal food. The answer is yes, amygdalin was extracted from almonds in 1830 and was used as anti-cancer in 1845.
 

Back
Top Bottom