Non-Homeopathic Belladonna
- Thread starter Rodney
- Start date
-
- Tags
- belladonna edgar cayce
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
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Can I manufacture a scenario under which belladonna had a real effect? Yes. Can we tell what happened in this situation? No.
Linda
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
Mojo
Mostly harmless
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?
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.
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
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."
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.