Merged Edgar Cayce

[Psiload]

I'm not sure that having a mild case of psoriasis qualifies you as one of the leading experts on the subject, but your opinion is noted. But let me ask you a question: Where do you suppose Cayce obtained his information about psoriasis?

Why, from the Akashic Record of course.

Duh.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

According to --
http://www.meridianinstitute.com/projects.htm#PSORIASIS -- Six individuals participated in a 10-day live-in instructional/treatment program in November, 1995, in which they were taught the elements of the Edgar Cayce therapies for Psoriasis. Utilizing Dr. John Pagano's ground-breaking work treating psoriasis with the Cayce approach, special attention was paid to intestinal permeability ("leaky gut syndrome"). The Cayce perspective on psoriasis is that this condition is usually caused by a thinning of the walls of the small intestines allowing toxins to leak into the circulatory system. The body reacts by eliminating the poisons through the skin producing psoriatic lesions. The treatment rationale was to heal the gut, decrease toxicity in the system, and provide symptomatic relief as needed.

The therapies included dietary changes, colonic irrigations, castor oil packs, spinal manipulations, herbals teas and psycho-spiritual modalities to address the mental, emotional and spiritual aspects of the disease. The participants then returned home to continue these therapies for six months, submitting daily logs of compliance with the protocol. Subjects returned after six months for follow-up assessment. Intestinal permeability assessments indicated that most of the subjects had abnormally leaky intestines. The subjects with leaky gut profiles also responded well to treatment. This pilot study is briefly described in an article titled, "Systemic Aspects of Psoriasis: An Integrative Model Based on Intestinal Etiology." This article has been submitted to a peer-reviewed medical journal and is currently in the review process.

So, eleven years ago, a single trial was run to cure a disease, based upon a diagnosed cause that is not recognized by the general medical community, and using a broad spectrum of treatments simulateously, without a control group. Is this a correct summation?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm not sure that having a mild case of psoriasis qualifies you as one of the leading experts on the subject, but your opinion is noted. But let me ask you a question: Where do you suppose Cayce obtained his information about psoriasis?

Patnray never claimed to be an expert. I would assume though, that as a sufferer of it, Patnray has a vested interested to understand the disease.

Regarding Cayce's source of info, you tell us, you're the Cayce fan.

Ed: for grammar

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

(from the article)The therapies included dietary changes, colonic irrigations, castor oil packs, spinal manipulations, herbals teas and psycho-spiritual modalities to address the mental, emotional and spiritual aspects of the disease.

All you need to do is work UFO's in there and a government conspiracy and you got all the bases covered! (Oh and it might help if you blame the Jews as well. Make some kind of claim about lizards and scaly skin; just run with it man.)

LLH

 

[Rodney]

Patnray never claimed to be an expert. I would assume though, that as a sufferer of it, Patnray has a vested interested to understand the disease.

I.e., his opinion is worth as much as the next guy's.

Regarding Cayce's source of info, you tell us, you're the Cayce fan.

Ed: for grammar

I don't think there is a good explanation, but for those here who think he was cold reading, I'd love to see someone, say Randi, cold read in a similar manner.

 

[patnray]

I'm not sure that having a mild case of psoriasis qualifies you as one of the leading experts on the subject, but your opinion is noted. But let me ask you a question: Where do you suppose Cayce obtained his information about psoriasis?

I never claimed to be an expert, but I do have a personal interest in the subject. I follow the literature and discuss it with my doctor when my prescriptions need to be renewed.

Show me a "leading expert" who subscribes to Cayce's theory. Not a doctor on the fringe, but one recognized by the medical community as an expert.

Show me a replicated, peer reviewed study that supports Cayce's theory or treatment.

Name one toxin shown to leak out of the gut and be eliminated through psoriatic lesions.

How have its proponents modified Cayce's theory to account for modern knowledge about the changes in skin cells observed in the lesions?

As far as the one problematic study you did quote, I note that 6 months is not an adequate period for evaluating a cyclic condition like psoriasis.

 

[Starrman]

Your opinion is also noted, but keep in mind that I prefaced my comment with: "Using your logic . . ."

I know you did, I quoted that part as well. But no-where did Ken's logic, if followed, suggest that no doctor had ever cured anything.

We know doctors cure things because there are replicated studies published proving this. Cayce's cures are stories.

 

[Euromutt]

According to --
http://www.meridianinstitute.com/projects.htm#PSORIASIS -- [further propagada redacted - €]

Nice try, but no. See, you failed to notice the words "this pilot study." Note also how the participants are referred to as "subjects" rather than patients. So this was a study (and has been pointed out, an utterly worthless study), and the people involved were not paying patients receiving regular treatment.

I would assume though, that as a sufferer of it, Patnray has a vested interested to understand the disease.

Same here. It should be noted that people who suffer from some chronic condition, and therefore take an active interest in it, tend to be better informed about that particular condition than your average family GP. They don't know as much as the appropriate specialists, of course, but they tend to spend a lot of time talking to specialists about the particular condition.

 

[westphalia]

I just noticed that Randi's online dictionary of frauds, hoaxes, etc., also lists the number of total Cayce readings at 30,000. He also lists that number on page 188 of "Flim Flam!"

Funny, the facts you find when you do research from something other than a chair.

 

[Rodney]

I just noticed that Randi's online dictionary of frauds, hoaxes, etc., also lists the number of total Cayce readings at 30,000. He also lists that number on page 188 of "Flim Flam!"

Hopefully, that misinformation will cause a few folks here to question whether Randi is truly the fountainhead of all wisdom. As I noted in my post of April 26 on this thread, there is a link on the ARE website that states that membership in the ARE entitles the member to: "Access to Edgar Cayce's 14,306 psychic readings on-line." See http://edgarcayce.org/join_w_heavensastro.asp. This approximate number is confirmed in other places on the website. For example -- http://www.edgarcayce.org/about_edgarcayce/about_edgarcayce_readings.asp -- states: "Edgar Cayce gave over 14,000 readings on more than 10,000 different topics to people all over the world." So does Randi have some secret knowledge about the number of readings that Cayce's own organization doesn't have?

 

[westphalia]

Hopefully, that misinformation will cause a few folks here to question whether Randi is truly the fountainhead of all wisdom. As I noted in my post of April 26 on this thread, there is a link on the ARE website that states that membership in the ARE entitles the member to: "Access to Edgar Cayce's 14,306 psychic readings on-line." See http://edgarcayce.org/join_w_heavensastro.asp. This approximate number is confirmed in other places on the website. For example -- http://www.edgarcayce.org/about_edgarcayce/about_edgarcayce_readings.asp -- states: "Edgar Cayce gave over 14,000 readings on more than 10,000 different topics to people all over the world." So does Randi have some secret knowledge about the number of readings that Cayce's own organization doesn't have?

Nope. What he did do is not rely on lazy internet research, as you seem absolutely, stubbornly insistent upon doing. What part of "related correspondence" can't you read, Rodney? There is no way - no way - you could have spent a day at the ARE and only come across 14,000-odd readings, and no correspondence. No way.

I'm sure while you were there that you realized that there is an off-site facility with materials not offered at the ARE headquarters. To access these materials, you must make an appointment and clear your access with the ARE. Of course, you did that - I'm sure you did. (This is on the website you love to quote, but can't read, too.)

It's interesting how often you try to quote completely irrelevant and evidentially useless information to support your nonsensical belief in Cayce's abilities, but never quote any of your own "research." Considering how "many" times you've been to the ARE, what were you doing there?

 

[westphalia]

I take that last paragraph back. I sometimes need to be reminded that collecting affidavits is a core element of critical research. Mea culpa.

 

[Rodney]

Nope. What he did do is not rely on lazy internet research, as you seem absolutely, stubbornly insistent upon doing.

It's true that Randi did not rely on Internet research in "Flim Flam." Of course, when he wrote that book, the Internet as we know it did not exist, which may explain that. What Randi did do was quote from the book written by Edgar Cayce's sons, titled "The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power." Now, some people might find it a trifle odd that the sons of a "fraudulent" psychic would write a book exploring cases where their father's psychic readings were clearly erroneous. But this apparently did not occur to The Amazing Randi. He cited these readings as proof that Cayce was a fraud, while doing absolutely no original research of his own.

What part of "related correspondence" can't you read, Rodney? There is no way - no way - you could have spent a day at the ARE and only come across 14,000-odd readings, and no correspondence. No way.

I'm sure while you were there that you realized that there is an off-site facility with materials not offered at the ARE headquarters. To access these materials, you must make an appointment and clear your access with the ARE. Of course, you did that - I'm sure you did. (This is on the website you love to quote, but can't read, too.)

Where on the ARE website does it say this? And where is this "off-site facility" located?

It's interesting how often you try to quote completely irrelevant and evidentially useless information to support your nonsensical belief in Cayce's abilities, but never quote any of your own "research." Considering how "many" times you've been to the ARE, what were you doing there?

I've attended a few Cayce conferences and done some research on Cayce's readings before they became available on-line -- all 14,306 of them.

 

[westphalia]

What Randi did do was quote from the book written by Edgar Cayce's sons, titled "The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power." Now, some people might find it a trifle odd that the sons of a "fraudulent" psychic would write a book exploring cases where their father's psychic readings were clearly erroneous. But this apparently did not occur to The Amazing Randi. He cited these readings as proof that Cayce was a fraud, while doing absolutely no original research of his own.

If he'd gotten affidavits from the boys, would you have believed him then?

Curious, too, that even his sons couldn't figure out how many readings Cayce did.

Where on the ARE website does it say this? And where is this "off-site facility" located?

It's right here on this webpage:

http://www.edgarcayce.org/edgarcaycefoundation/

Relevant quote, from the second left-set paragraph:

"Most of these archival records are now stored in the A.R.E. Conference Center building in Virginia Beach. Historical, aging, sensitive and fragile materials are further protected within the Foundation vault in that building. Microfilm copies of the original carbon copies of the readings and related correspondence are stored in a climate-controlled facility off premises." (emphasis mine)

You don't even acknowledge the presence of correspondence at the ARE, and don't know what that correspondence contains. The 14,000 readings offered by the ARE are almost exclusively from after 1925, and rely mostly on notes made by Cayce's wife and secretary. He had transmitted readings long before this by mail, and there are extensive notes of these readings available in his correspondence. Please do your own, complete research, Rodney.

I've attended a few Cayce conferences and done some research on Cayce's readings before they became available on-line -- all 14,306 of them.

And you have never seen any original stenographer notebooks, any correspondence (which contains readings not available online), any original lecture notes and transcriptions (which contains readings not available online), or even microfilm copies of them. You haven't done a shred of research that hasn't been handed to you by the ARE or some twit running a conference.

Saturday, I placed a call with the archivist at the ARE and will let you know what he has to say. No one is getting healed on weekends, apparently.

 

[Rodney]

It's right here on this webpage:

http://www.edgarcayce.org/edgarcaycefoundation/

Relevant quote, from the second left-set paragraph:

"Most of these archival records are now stored in the A.R.E. Conference Center building in Virginia Beach. Historical, aging, sensitive and fragile materials are further protected within the Foundation vault in that building. Microfilm copies of the original carbon copies of the readings and related correspondence are stored in a climate-controlled facility off premises." (emphasis mine)

You don't even acknowledge the presence of correspondence at the ARE, and don't know what that correspondence contains. The 14,000 readings offered by the ARE are almost exclusively from after 1925, and rely mostly on notes made by Cayce's wife and secretary. He had transmitted readings long before this by mail, and there are extensive notes of these readings available in his correspondence. Please do your own, complete research, Rodney.

I have. You still have produced no evidence that there is any material available either on or off ARE premises that is not available on-line. It is true that, prior to Gladys Davis becoming Cayce's secretary in 1923 (not 1925), most readings were not retained. However, there is no way of knowing how many readings were discarded prior to 1923. And why would "extensive notes of these readings" be retained, but not the readings themselves?

And you have never seen any original stenographer notebooks, any correspondence (which contains readings not available online), any original lecture notes and transcriptions (which contains readings not available online), or even microfilm copies of them. You haven't done a shred of research that hasn't been handed to you by the ARE or some twit running a conference.

Saturday, I placed a call with the archivist at the ARE and will let you know what he has to say. No one is getting healed on weekends, apparently.

Are you saying that you got an answering machine or voice mail? If that's the case and the archivist calls you back on Monday and tells you that there is material that is available at Headquarters but is not available on-line, ask him why that is the case.

 

[westphalia]

Rodney, there are notes of readings in existence among the stenographers' notebooks - both in books kept by Turner and notes kept by Cayce's wife - that do not correspond to listed readings. That can be seen by an examination of the notebooks, at the ARE archives. There are sound recordings of readings that also have no corresponding, catalogued listing in the online offerings. I have no idea why this is the case. The website does admit that new material is being added as it becomes practicable, so maybe they are planning to eventually transcribe these materials, and offer them online. It's a pity none of the Cayce's correspondence is available online - it's quite illuminating.

I might suggest that those who knew Cayce best - his wife, his sons, and himself - might well know how many readings Cayce had given out.

I got an answering machine. I will let you know what the fellow has to say. (I'd give his name, but I couldn't make it out clearly. The number is the same one listed on the ARE webpage I gave you above.)

 

[westphalia]

Okay, here's the scoop from the ARE. I got a return call around 1330 EST today, but didn't talk to the fellow until after I returned from the fields later this afternoon.

We both win and lose, I guess - or need to take a lesson in talking past each other.

The 14,000+ readings the ARE has available online are not complete - not yet, anyway. More readings are/will be added over time, but never the complete 30,000, since there are incomplete or missing records for a portion of those remaining readings. The fellow I spoke to said that the primary problem in adding readings is the time and effort involved in transcribing them from the original carbon copies and formatting them for online disbursement (that seems reasonable). He did indicate that the ARE has already put the most interesting readings out there already, but he hopes the total will eventually be between 20,000 and 22,000.

Cayce's sons got the 30,000 figure (the figure I understood) from Cayce himself, who references the number in four letters and two lectures he gave. The letters and lecture transcripts are available at the ARE. The same figure was given to me and my friend Jon by the archivist all those years ago, but he clearly meant Cayce's reckoned number, and not the number currently available online.

So, if Cayce gave 30,000 readings, it was by his own reckoning, but that number will never be realized at the ARE, thanks largely to sketchy transcription of the readings prior to 1925 (many of these readings were done by return mail, and are in the possession of the recipients' estates [if they exist]). The good news is that the ARE receives a fairly steady stream of newly-discovered Cayce material, usually from family archives, estate sales, etc. There are more than 14,000-odd readings, but they are only transcribed as material is available, and we apparently have - in the ARE's estimation - the most salient material.

I guess we now retire to neutral corners. There are good records for 14,000-odd readings, plus another (perhaps) 5,000 or more that may be added in the future. Cayce reckoned himself at 30,000 readings, but many of these are now unrecoverable.

 

[Rodney]

Okay, here's the scoop from the ARE. I got a return call around 1330 EST today, but didn't talk to the fellow until after I returned from the fields later this afternoon.

We both win and lose, I guess - or need to take a lesson in talking past each other.

The 14,000+ readings the ARE has available online are not complete - not yet, anyway. More readings are/will be added over time, but never the complete 30,000, since there are incomplete or missing records for a portion of those remaining readings. The fellow I spoke to said that the primary problem in adding readings is the time and effort involved in transcribing them from the original carbon copies and formatting them for online disbursement (that seems reasonable). He did indicate that the ARE has already put the most interesting readings out there already, but he hopes the total will eventually be between 20,000 and 22,000.

Cayce's sons got the 30,000 figure (the figure I understood) from Cayce himself, who references the number in four letters and two lectures he gave. The letters and lecture transcripts are available at the ARE. The same figure was given to me and my friend Jon by the archivist all those years ago, but he clearly meant Cayce's reckoned number, and not the number currently available online.

So, if Cayce gave 30,000 readings, it was by his own reckoning, but that number will never be realized at the ARE, thanks largely to sketchy transcription of the readings prior to 1925 (many of these readings were done by return mail, and are in the possession of the recipients' estates [if they exist]). The good news is that the ARE receives a fairly steady stream of newly-discovered Cayce material, usually from family archives, estate sales, etc. There are more than 14,000-odd readings, but they are only transcribed as material is available, and we apparently have - in the ARE's estimation - the most salient material.

I guess we now retire to neutral corners. There are good records for 14,000-odd readings, plus another (perhaps) 5,000 or more that may be added in the future. Cayce reckoned himself at 30,000 readings, but many of these are now unrecoverable.

Okay, thanks for your efforts. However, I'm still extremely skeptical of what you were told. Recently, I came across in the ARE on-line readings the following correspondence from Gladys Davis Turner, dated August 26, 1980, as part of Cayce Reading 1177-1:

"When I became Edgar Cayce's secretary on September 10, 1923, he had on file a total of 600 copies of readings. During the process of taking all the readings available, anonymous, with background and follow-up reports, complete with indexing, etc. (1960 to 1971, an 11 yr. process) we tabulated a total of 14,256 copies of readings. These are the number that we have on file. We have no way of knowing how many readings he gave in those early days of which no copies were kept."

Today, the ARE advertises on its website just 50 more readings than the number cited by Cayce's secretary 26 years ago. So, if there are indeed roughly 5,000 readings more that are still on carbon copies, progress has been incredibly slow since then in transcribing them. In fact, Cayce's secretary seems to have regarded the process as being essentially completed in 1971 -- 35 years ago. It is true, of course, that the ARE continues to receive material, which probably accounts for the fact they they now advertise 14,306 readings, rather than the 14,256 cited by Cayce's secretary. However, I find it unlikely in the extreme that the number of available Cayce readings will one day total anywhere near 20,000-22,000.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying you weren't given by someone at ARE the information that you say you were given. However, I don't think it's accurate. Still, there may yet be a handful of readings that will surface that will have something of interest in them.

 

[westphalia]

Okay, Rodney. I quit.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Okay, Rodney. I quit.

LOL, I quit awhile ago.

LLH