Merged Edgar Cayce

[Euromutt]

But it's equally absurd to refuse to try a benign treatment that can save your life and that is supported by a substantial amount of credible evidence simply because "there's no double-blind study confirming it." You and the others here seem to think that the world is black and white: Either there's conclusive evidence for something or there is no evidence. That just isn't the way things work.

Rubbish. Any of us is quite prepared to accept that a certain amount of time is required between the observation of a phenomenon, the formulation of a hypothesis and the testing of a hypothesis, but there are limits. It took less than fifteen years from Fleming's first stumbling on the idea of penicillin to its coming into widespread use. It took eight years for Jones Salk to get his polio vaccine developed, tested and accepted. By contrast, it's been 61 years since Cayce died, and presumably longer since he recommended his regimen for psoriasis, and his disciples have yet to produce any research which would stand up to professional scrutiny. Hell, even the codswallop they've produced talks vaguely about "significant improvements" at most. Less time elapsed between Einstein's publication of his special theory of relativity and the detonation of the first atomic bomb. Oh yeah, I hear you cry, but it took forty years to confirm what Craven suspected, but note that the line immediately following the passage you quoted from this page is:

More rigorous studies in the 1960s and 1970s yielded conflicting results.

So at least the idea was being properly tested in the interim, and that would have been enough for me to say "well, there may be something to it; let's see what develops." Again, the Cayce adherents have nothing; not one randomized trial, not one professional-reviewed paper, nothing.

And why do you persist in citing some page, cherry-picking the quotes which appear to support your position, and think none of us will check the page to see what it actually says? Are you trying to insult our intelligence? Or are you so woo-minded that your confirmation bias affects your reading comprehension, causing you to overlook the material on those same pages which contradicts your assertions?

 

[Rodney]

Rubbish. Any of us is quite prepared to accept that a certain amount of time is required between the observation of a phenomenon, the formulation of a hypothesis and the testing of a hypothesis, but there are limits. It took less than fifteen years from Fleming's first stumbling on the idea of penicillin to its coming into widespread use. It took eight years for Jones Salk to get his polio vaccine developed, tested and accepted. By contrast, it's been 61 years since Cayce died, and presumably longer since he recommended his regimen for psoriasis, and his disciples have yet to produce any research which would stand up to professional scrutiny. Hell, even the codswallop they've produced talks vaguely about "significant improvements" at most. Less time elapsed between Einstein's publication of his special theory of relativity and the detonation of the first atomic bomb. Oh yeah, I hear you cry, but it took forty years to confirm what Craven suspected, but note that the line immediately following the passage you quoted from this page is: "More rigorous studies in the 1960s and 1970s yielded conflicting results." So at least the idea was being properly tested in the interim, and that would have been enough for me to say "well, there may be something to it; let's see what develops." Again, the Cayce adherents have nothing; not one randomized trial, not one professional-reviewed paper, nothing.

And why do you persist in citing some page, cherry-picking the quotes which appear to support your position, and think none of us will check the page to see what it actually says? Are you trying to insult our intelligence? Or are you so woo-minded that your confirmation bias affects your reading comprehension, causing you to overlook the material on those same pages which contradicts your assertions?

First, are you aware that aspirin was developed in the late 19th Century? So, it took about 100 years for a double-blind study to definitively show that it could help prevent heart attacks. Second, when you state that Cayce's "disciples have yet to produce any research which would stand up to professional scrutiny", Eric Mein has done significant research. Has the medical establishment objectively evaluated it? If so, what do they say is wrong with it? Third, as far as "cherry-picking the quotes," it's pretty funny that you seem to think that earlier CONFLICTING STUDIES about whether aspirin prevents heart attacks support the position taken by you and others here about evidence. The reality is that even double-blind studies frequently produce misleading results, both because of flawed methodologies and effect size. It is the latter problem that seems to have caused some studies to find that aspirin does not prevent heart attacks. The only reason we can now say with a high degree of confidence that it does is that the 1980s physicians' study had more than 20,000 participants.

 

[UrsulaV]

The reality is that even double-blind studies frequently produce misleading results, both because of flawed methodologies and effect size. It is the latter problem that seems to have caused some studies to find that aspirin does not prevent heart attacks. The only reason we can now say with a high degree of confidence that it does is that the 1980s physicians' study had more than 20,000 participants.

This is quite true. Flawed methodologies and too small a sample size can certainly give misleading results. Repeated and thorough double-blind testing, sometimes over decades, is the only way to get an accurate assessment. It's not something that can be done with a single study or a single anecdote.

How big was the sample size in that one thing about the Cayce diet and psoriasis again? Six people, was it?

 

[Mojo]

First, are you aware that aspirin was developed in the late 19th Century? So, it took about 100 years for a double-blind study to definitively show that it could help prevent heart attacks.

That wasn't what aspirin was developed for. In case you don't know, it was actually developed in the late 19th century as an analgesic/anti-inflammatory/antipyretic.

 

[Rodney]

This is quite true. Flawed methodologies and too small a sample size can certainly give misleading results. Repeated and thorough double-blind testing, sometimes over decades, is the only way to get an accurate assessment. It's not something that can be done with a single study or a single anecdote.

How big was the sample size in that one thing about the Cayce diet and psoriasis again? Six people, was it?

Actually, two studies totalling 16 people, one of whom dropped out. Specifically: "Meridian Institute has conducted two projects confirming Pagano’s approach, and exploring the role of intestinal permeability or 'leaky gut.' Four years ago, in our first major research project, we brought Dr. Pagano in as an advisor, and taught 10 people the elements of the Cayce therapeutic approach. Within six months, most had experienced some healing of their psoriasis, some with major clearing of the skin lesions. In the cases reported here, we repeated and improved the psoriasis project, with five participants (a sixth began the study but dropped out)." See http://www.meridianinstitute.com/psorias5.html Also, Pagano claims success with many more psoriasis victims.

 

[Rodney]

That wasn't what aspirin was developed for. In case you don't know, it was actually developed in the late 19th century as an analgesic/anti-inflammatory/antipyretic.

How is that point relevant to our esteemed colleague Euromutt's contention that, if there were anything to Cayce's psoriasis treatment, it would have been conclusively proven by now?

 

[UrsulaV]

Actually, two studies totalling 16 people, one of whom dropped out.

Great! Then you only need another...ah...19,984 to equal the aspirin study.

Well, and a good study protocol.

I'll await the results with bated breath.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I'm still a little confused about the term "leaky gut". The intestines draw all the nutrients from the food we eat that they can, it's completely normal and we kinda need that to happen to survive. "Leakiness" to me sounds like some of the nutrients are allowed back into the gut contents from the bloodstream.

A sieve can't leak, can it?

 

[Rodney]

Great! Then you only need another...ah...19,984 to equal the aspirin study.

Well, and a good study protocol.

I'll await the results with bated breath.

First, we need you, Euromutt, and the other fine folks here to lobby the AMA for such a study. Let me know if there is anything I can do to assist in this valuable endeavor.

 

[Mojo]

How is that point relevant to our esteemed colleague Euromutt's contention that, if there were anything to Cayce's psoriasis treatment, it would have been conclusively proven by now?

I was pointing out that the fact that it took about 100 years from the descovery of aspirin until a double-blind study definitively showed that aspirin could help prevent heart attacks is not really relevant to the fact that in over 60 years Cayce's psoriasis regimen has failed to produce any research that will stand up, because aspirin was not being suggested as a treatment for heart attacks for all of that 100 years or so: it was developed for quite another purpose, and only used to help prevent heart attacks comparatively recently. In other words, it is your argument that is irrelevant here.

Unless you are suggesting that Cayce actually recommended his psoriasis regimen as a treatment for something else entirely, and it has only been suggested as a treatment for psoriasis comparatively recently.

 

[Rodney]

I was pointing out that the fact that it took about 100 years from the descovery of aspirin until a double-blind study definitively showed that aspirin could help prevent heart attacks is not really relevant to the fact that in over 60 years Cayce's psoriasis regimen has failed to produce any research that will stand up,

How do you know it won't stand up? Has someone done a study of Cayce's regimen that disproves it?

because aspirin was not being suggested as a treatment for heart attacks for all of that 100 years or so: it was developed for quite another purpose, and only used to help prevent heart attacks comparatively recently. In other words, it is your argument that is irrelevant here.

Unless you are suggesting that Cayce actually recommended his psoriasis regimen as a treatment for something else entirely, and it has only been suggested as a treatment for psoriasis comparatively recently.

No, but lots of stuff has been developed for one purpose and then been found to be useful for other purposes. Take Listerine. As Wikipedia notes: "First formulated by Dr Joseph Lawrence and Jordan Wheat Lambert in 1879 as a surgical antiseptic, it was given to dentists for oral care in 1895 and became the first over-the-counter mouthwash sold in the United States in 1914." See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listerine -- In any event, it was a medical doctor who claimed that aspirin could prevent heart attacks, and it still took 40 years to conclusively confirm that. So when a psychic makes a claim, do you think there might be a slim chance that it will take longer than 61 years to confirm that?

 

[UrsulaV]

First, we need you, Euromutt, and the other fine folks here to lobby the AMA for such a study. Let me know if there is anything I can do to assist in this valuable endeavor.

Ooh, shift that burden of proof! It's the Cayce workout--remember, lift with the legs, not the back! And shift! And shift! And shift--and hoooooold---and rest! Very good! You get an almond!

As always, and as you well know, Rodneykins, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You think Cayce is a brilliant medical psychic and oracle, you try to prove it. If you think his treatments work and merit further study, lobby the AMA to your little heart's content. I promise not to stop you in any way.

Hell, I'll even buy you a bag of almonds if you succeed.

 

[Euromutt]

How is that point relevant to our esteemed colleague Euromutt's contention that, if there were anything to Cayce's psoriasis treatment, it would have been conclusively proven by now?

I'd say "straw man," but I believe the description "lie" is more acurate. I have not contended that anything should have been conclusively proven. I said of Craven's contention:

[At] least the idea was being properly tested in the interim, and that would have been enough for me to say "well, there may be something to it; let's see what develops."

Being open to the possibility of an idea, and accepting it completely are two different things.

So why would I have been open to the possibility of Craven being right, while being quite certain there is nothing to the Cayce/Pagano regimen? First, unlike the Craven hypothesis, zero evidence has been produced with regard to the Cayce/Pagano conjecture ("hypothesis" is too charitable a word).

Mein's "pilot studies" don't cut it; even a layman can see their failings plainly (I don't understand why I have to keep explaining this). There was no placebo control, blinding or randomization. The test subject populations were woefully small, with the subjects likely drawn from sufferers more predisposed to give credence to the "leaky gut syndrome" conjecture. The primary factor in determining the "effectiveness" of the program was subject self-reporting, which is worthless in any test which isn't blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled. As patnray pointed out, six months is way too short to make any kind of determination, as anyone who is familiar with psoriasis knows the severity of the condition is highly variable, not least by season, amount of time spent outdoors, etc. And, of course, Mein recommends subjects not discontinue their conventional treatments--and conspicuously fails to make mention of whether, and if so, which, subjects did discontinue conventional treatment--thus further muddying the results. And if the results were suposedly so promising, as Main claimed, why did he not conduct a follow-up study or set up a proper clinical trial? Pilot studies are supposed to be preliminary exercises for the purpose of pre-testing aspects of the main research project (e.g. the feasibility of the protocol or the effectiveness of a particular research tool). But in the case of the Cayce/Pagano regimen, the main research project has never materialized. Hell, they haven't even managed to identify these supposed "toxins."

The aforementioned familiarity with psoriasis is a second point. I have little familiarity with cardiological matters, so I would have been hesitant to deliver an opinion on Craven's hypothesis. But as a sufferer of psoriasis, I do have some insight into the current basis of knowledge of the disease, such as it is. And the whole "leaky gut syndrome" conjecture just doesn't add up in my experience, both direct and indirect.

Unless you are suggesting that Cayce actually recommended his psoriasis regimen as a treatment for something else entirely, and it has only been suggested as a treatment for psoriasis comparatively recently.

Ah, well, there we appear to have a problem. From what I can make out, the majority of elements of the psoriasis regimen attributed to Cayce--safflower and slippery elm bark tea, chiropractic adjustments, castor oil packs, colonic irrigations, avoiding eating just about everything except nuts and vegetables--he recommended for just about every malady under the sun. At the same time, however, going over Cayce's readings, we find he is highly inconsistent in recommending particular treatments, or even in asserting what psoriasis is. Thus:

Reading 3827-1 F (1922):

Cuticle psoriasis, a condition produced in the system whereby the body, through its blood supply, attempts to eliminate the toxins carried in the blood where they are not eliminated through their proper functionings on account of this condition. Names do not mean anything for the condition of this body.

So it's caused by the blood supply carrying "toxins."

Reading 2491-1 F69 (1942):

(Q) What causes and what should be done for psoriasis?
(A) As just indicated, the preparing and taking into the system of those properties that will aid in CORRECTING these nerve tensions, as produced by lack of the vital forces to produce the proper reactions.

Twenty years later, it's "nerve tensions" caused by a lack of "vital forces," apparently.

Reading 3032-1 F 35 (1943):

These [conditions], we find, are from an unbalancing of the eliminations through their proper channels, produced by thinning of the walls in the intestinal system. Thus the activities of the lymph and emunctory circulations through these portions carry that humor into the lymph circulation, which causes that irritation to the skin called psoriasis.

A year later, it's "eliminations," but now it's the lymph and emunctory systems, not the "blood system."

Reading 5016-1 F 25 (1944):

[Psoriasis] is always caused by a condition of lack of lymph circulation through alimentary canal and by absorption of such activities through the body.

And a year after that, the cause is "lack of lymph circulation." The guy just can't make up his mind, can he? Or, more likely, he can't keep track of the ◊◊◊◊ he made up as he went along.

Reading 1048-2 F 21 (1931):

(Q) Will the psoriasis infection which attacked me strenuously during the past year be recurrent?
(A) Not if the corrections are made that are causing or producing same, as has been outlined.

From context, it's clear Cayce means "corrections" to mean chiropratic manipulations. So that's the key to treating psoriasis.

Reading 2455-2 F 28 (1941):

(Q) Is there an absolute cure for psoriasis?
(A) Most of this is found in diet. There is a cure. It requires patience, persistence - and right thinking also.

And ten years later, treatment is mostly down to diet.

And check out reading 982-1 F 34 (1935). Cayce gives a rundown which sounds like a "textbook" description of Cayce's take on psoriasis prior to 1942: "deflection from normal eliminations" via the blood supply, caused by "a thinning of the walls of the intestines themselves." Now get this:

24. (Q) Is this condition what is commonly known as psoriasis?
(A) No. [Question 24 submitted by GD, as GD's wrong guess as to type of skin trouble indicated. This question and answer not included in Patient's copy.]

"GD" is Gladys Davis, Cayce's stenographer. At the time, she'd been sitting in on readings for eleven years. Why the "wrong guess" on her part? The most obvious explanation is that she'd heard Cayce rattle off that spiel for psoriasis over many years and drew the logical conclusion that he was also talking about psoriasis in this case as well. That she was "wrong" says more about Cayce's inability to keep his story straight than anything else.

But here's the real kicker:
Reading 943-17 M 40 (1932):

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

Emphasis in bold mine. "Infectious"? And this is "known"? Do I need to provide more evidence that Cayce didn't have the first damn clue about psoriasis? The clinical picture has remained almost unchanged since it was formulated by Ferdinand Hebra in 1841, including the fact that it was not infectious. There is no excuse for not knowing this ninety years later, not when you're supposedly "treating" the condition.

So Cayce didn't know a damn thing about psoriasis, other than what his "patients" wrote in (note that the "patients" were not present for the readings; not only was he, like Pagano, not qualified to diagnose psoriasis, he was physically incapable of doing so). So why should anyone assume that there might be anything to a "treatment" based on this pile of garbage? At least Craven was an MD, unlike Cayce, and unlike Pagano. And unlike Mein, Craven actually treated patients.

Have we beaten this subject to death sufficiently yet?

 

[Mojo]

How do you know it won't stand up? Has someone done a study of Cayce's regimen that disproves it?

Trying to shift the burden of proof again? Naughty Rodney!

No, but lots of stuff has been developed for one purpose and then been found to be useful for other purposes. Take Listerine. As Wikipedia notes: "First formulated by Dr Joseph Lawrence and Jordan Wheat Lambert in 1879 as a surgical antiseptic, it was given to dentists for oral care in 1895 and became the first over-the-counter mouthwash sold in the United States in 1914." See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listerine -- In any event, it was a medical doctor who claimed that aspirin could prevent heart attacks, and it still took 40 years to conclusively confirm that. So when a psychic makes a claim, do you think there might be a slim chance that it will take longer than 61 years to confirm that?

OK. At least you appear to have conceded that the period of over 100 years from the development of aspirin for one purpose and confirming that it worked for another purpose is not relevant: it's the time between the suggestion that it works for the purpose being tested and the confirmation that's relevant here.

And Cayce's treatments have had more than 20 years longer. Of course, it may be, as you suggest, that the proponents of his ideas are simply not competent to carry out proper testing. But if so, it may well be that they're not competent to make the claim that it works in the first place.

 

[Yahzi]

How do I know you're not inventing this tale of being an ARE insider (so to speak)?

And you complain about Thaiboxerken being a rude poster?

 

[westphalia]

And you complain about Thaiboxerken being a rude poster?

I think he cut and run after that. I sometimes have that effect on folks. Rodney won't answer my criticism anymore, either. I wonder if I'm on "ignore?"

 

[Rodney]

But here's the real kicker:
Reading 943-17 M 40 (1932): "As is known, psoriasis is - itself - an infectious condition that affects the emunctory and lymph circulation, and causes an improper coordination of the eliminating forces of the system, as in this body." "Infectious"? And this is "known"? Do I need to provide more evidence that Cayce didn't have the first damn clue about psoriasis? The clinical picture has remained almost unchanged since it was formulated by Ferdinand Hebra in 1841, including the fact that it was not infectious. There is no excuse for not knowing this ninety years later, not when you're supposedly "treating" the condition.

Cayce's use of the word "infectious" is puzzling, but let's look at the current conventional wisdom: "A major breakthrough in understanding psoriasis occurred in the mid '80s, when it was identified as an immune disorder. It is now thought that an immune system response to as yet unknown stimuli activates many T-cells (a type of white blood cell that fights infection and other disease) in the skin. This, in turn, triggers inflammation and excessive skin cell production." See -- http://www.umdnj.edu/umcweb/marketi...cations/umdnj_magazine/hstate/win99/psor2.htm --

And what is the immune system? "The immune system is made up of a network of cells, tissues, and organs that work together to protect the body. The cells that are part of this defense system are white blood cells, or leukocytes (pronounced: loo-kuh-sytes). They come in two basic types (more on these below), which combine to seek out and destroy the organisms or substances that cause disease.

"Leukocytes are produced or stored in many locations throughout the body, including the thymus, spleen, and bone marrow. For this reason, they are called the lymphoid (pronounced: lim-foyd) organs. There are also clumps of lymphoid tissue throughout the body, primarily in the form of lymph nodes, that house the leukocytes.

"The leukocytes circulate through the body between the organs and nodes by means of the lymphatic (pronounced: lim-fah-tik) vessels. (You can think of the lymphatic vessels as a type of highway between the rest stops that are the lymphoid organs and lymph nodes). Leukocytes can also circulate through the blood vessels. In this way, the immune system works in a coordinated manner to monitor the body for substances that might cause problems." See -- http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/immune.html --

So, was Cayce correct or incorrect when he stated that psoriasis affects the lymph circulation?

 

[Rodney]

I think he cut and run after that. I sometimes have that effect on folks. Rodney won't answer my criticism anymore, either. I wonder if I'm on "ignore?"

No, you're on "never in doubt, but often wrong." I recently sent the ARE an e-mail about whether there are known readings that are not available on-line, and the ARE archivist sent me a response stating that there are only about five such readings. In those cases, the recipient or his/her heirs requested confidentiality. So, where did you get the idea that there are several thousand known readings that are not available on-line?

 

[westphalia]

No, you're on "never in doubt, but often wrong." I recently sent the ARE an e-mail about whether there are known readings that are not available on-line, and the ARE archivist sent me a response stating that there are only about five such readings. In those cases, the recipient or his/her heirs requested confidentiality. So, where did you get the idea that there are several thousand known readings that are not available on-line?

With whom did you speak, Rodney? Would you forward a copy of that e-mail to me at joefox@paintmytroops.com ?

 

[Euromutt]

Cayce's use of the word "infectious" is puzzling, [...]

No, it's not puzzling at all. Prior to Hebra, it was a common misconception that psoriasis was infectious. An English dermatologist named Willan identified psoriasis as a distinct disease around 1800, but it didn't help that he called it Leprosa Graecorum. The fact of the matter is, psoriasis is not infectious, and Cayce's "knowledge" of psoriasis was probably based on outdated, or just plain wrong, information. Or he was just making it up.

Sure, the immune system's job is to fight off "infection and other disease" (nota bene: "toxins" do not fall under that description). That's not what's happening in the case of psoriasis. The immune system is doing something other than what it is supposed to do, which is why psoriasis is classed as an immune disorder.

So, was Cayce correct or incorrect when he stated that psoriasis affects the lymph circulation?

Incorrect; psoriasis is caused by the immune system's response to certain stimuli, as the UMDNJ bit states. But before you try to weasel out of that by playing semantics with the meaning of the verb "affect," the above question isn't valid anyway, because you don't get to pick only those bits of Cayce's words which are convenient to you, i.e. count the "hits" (which aren't actually hits) and ignore the misses.
The valid question is:

Was Cayce correct or incorrect when he stated that "psoriasis is an infectious condition that affects the emunctory and lymph circulation"?

In bold the inconvenient bits you tried to sweep under the carpet, Rodney. Inconvenient because they are what makes Cayce's statement unequivocally incorrect.
(Note: "emunctory," according to Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary means

an organ (as a kidney) or part of the body (as the skin) that carries off body wastes.

If psoriasis affects the kidneys, it's the first I've heard of it, and observing that psoriasis affects the skin isn't exactly going to win you the Nobel Prize for Medicine.)

Moreover, if you want claim that Cayce was on to something in reading 943-17, it means he was wrong all those times he blathered about "eliminations," "toxins" and "humors" (the man was using the term humor without irony in the 1930s and 1940s!) being carried by, variously, the "lymph circulation" or the "blood system." And those instances occur significantly more frequently, so he must have been wrong almost all the time. Not to mention the bit about psoriasis being caused by "nerve tensions" as a result of a lack of "vital forces." So even if there were something to reading 943-17 (which there isn't, except by some extremely tortuous reasoning and a massive dose of confirmation bias), that would have appeared to have been a fluke at best. Hey, throw enough darts at a dartboard...