Non-Homeopathic Belladonna

[Mojo]

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."

What was he doing in the twenty years between witnessing "something that would make it impossible for him to return to the medical profession as he knew it", and actually closing his practice?

Did he, or either of the other two doctors who were convinced that Tommy wouldn't survive the night, actually investigate the treatment in detail? After all, as you say:

if you had a patient that you were confident was on death's door and then (s)he suddenly recovered after an unconventional treatment, wouldn't you want to investigate in detail that treatment?

 

[fls]

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.

And that's the problem. You give credence to what we already know to be an unreliable way of finding the truth. We simply do not have enough information to determine whether or not there was anything remarkable (read "new") about what Cayce was doing. Using ignorance in support of credulity has always served us poorly.

Linda

 

[Loss Leader]

Let me take it one step further: Given the information available in this case, is it conceivable -- or inconceivable -- that the only way Tommy could have recovered would have been to give him a measured dose of belladonna?

Still with the Cayce?

As has been discussed in depth in previous threads, childhood seizures sometimes resolve completely without treatment never to appear again. And hundred year-old anecdotes are impossible to verify in any way because even if the medical doctors of the time did take good notes, they did not have access to medical tests that are vital for diagnosis today.

So, I assume, you're now falling back on, "Can you prove that this would be impossible?" The only problem with that is that when we had two medical doctors tell you that another Cayce cure was impossible, you ignored them. And although you claimed to be getting a third medical opinion, you never did.

Enough with the Cayce, already.

 

[BillyJoe]

...childhood seizures sometimes resolve completely without treatment never to appear again.

That'd be a long shot. Convulsions since birth now occurring every twenty minutes. Suddenly cease after a treatment given to cure them.

(Hey, I didn't say you couldn't use the "impossible to verify" bit.)

 

[Rodney]

What was he doing in the twenty years between witnessing "something that would make it impossible for him to return to the medical profession as he knew it", and actually closing his practice?

Practicing medicine, I assume, but with a changed outlook. Like everyone else, Dr. House had to make a living. According to "An American Prophet" at p. 7, House at that time was "a highly respected general practitioner with aspirations to become the county health commissioner."

Did he, or either of the other two doctors who were convinced that Tommy wouldn't survive the night, actually investigate the treatment in detail?

I presume so, but I don't have access to their medical records.

 

[Rodney]

That'd be a long shot. Convulsions since birth now occurring every twenty minutes. Suddenly cease after a treatment given to cure them.

In Loss Leader's world, that type of thing is just a coincidence.

 

[Slimething]

In Loss Leader's world, that type of thing is just a coincidence.

Is that any more of a long shot than a sleeping insurance salesman saving a child with fits to the awe of three doctors who decided to keep quiet about it for twenty years? That a doctor of some repute would wait twenty years to confess what he knew in contravention to the state of his vocation to open a clinic to heal rich people?

Rodney, let's just suppose that sometimes Cayce missed and a patient died despite (not because of) his prescriptions. Would those cases have made it into that book?

 

[Mojo]

Practicing medicine, I assume, but with a changed outlook. Like everyone else, Dr. House had to make a living.

Which he later did by "operating a hospital devoted to Edgar Cayce".

According to "An American Prophet" at p. 7, House at that time was "a highly respected general practitioner with aspirations to become the county health commissioner."

So it took him a further twenty years to realise that his aspirations wouldn't be fulfilled?

I presume so...

Why?

 

[Rodney]

Is that any more of a long shot than a sleeping insurance salesman saving a child with fits to the awe of three doctors who decided to keep quiet about it for twenty years?

What makes you think the doctors kept quiet about it? Tommy House was cured in February 1909 and Cayce's reputation spread significantly after that. In October 1910, an article on Cayce appeared in the New York Times, and in December 1911, Cayce was investigated by Hugo Munsterberg, the dean of psychology at Harvard University.

That a doctor of some repute would wait twenty years to confess what he knew in contravention to the state of his vocation to open a clinic to heal rich people?

Again, Dr, House didn't wait, but Cayce wasn't in a position financially to open a hospital until February 1929. And the hospital was not just for rich people.

Rodney, let's just suppose that sometimes Cayce missed and a patient died despite (not because of) his prescriptions. Would those cases have made it into that book?

Yes, Kirkpatrick discusses some of those cases. Further, Cayce's sons, Hugh Lynn and Edgar Evans, wrote a book about their father's failed readings. It was titled "The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power."

 

[Slimething]

What makes you think the doctors kept quiet about it?

No scientific publications by any of the said doctors indicates to me that they all kept quiet except for perhaps supplying anecdotal information to anyone who would listen.

Tommy House was cured in February 1909 and Cayce's reputation spread significantly after that. In October 1910, an article on Cayce appeared in the New York Times, and in December 1911, Cayce was investigated by Hugo Munsterberg, the dean of psychology at Harvard University.

Are you stating that the three doctors at Tommy's were responsible for this? Can you supply the basis for this belief?

Again, Dr, House didn't wait,

Yes, he waited twenty years.

but Cayce wasn't in a position financially to open a hospital until February 1929. And the hospital was not just for rich people.

So, a doctor who knows his practice is a sham continues the fraud for twenty years and, only when a backer appears, reveals the truth of what he has seen to a waiting world? If so, Dr. House is a bit of con artist. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, Kirkpatrick discusses some of those cases. Further, Cayce's sons, Hugh Lynn and Edgar Evans, wrote a book about their father's failed readings. It was titled "The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power."

Well, post some of those! Any of them involve convulsions and belladonna?

 

[Rodney]

No scientific publications by any of the said doctors indicates to me that they all kept quiet except for perhaps supplying anecdotal information to anyone who would listen.

I don't know whether any of the three doctors authored articles in medical journals. Do you?

Are you stating that the three doctors at Tommy's were responsible for this? Can you supply the basis for this belief?

I don't know whether they had a direct role, but the story of Tommy's recovery became well-known.

Yes, he waited twenty years.
So, a doctor who knows his practice is a sham continues the fraud for twenty years and, only when a backer appears, reveals the truth of what he has seen to a waiting world? If so, Dr. House is a bit of con artist. Wouldn't you agree?

What makes you think his practice was a sham? Cayce never recommended that doctors discontinue their practices. Presumably, however, House was more skeptical of the conventional medical wisdom after the unorthodox cure of his son.

Well, post some of those! Any of them involve convulsions and belladonna?

You can buy the book if you're interested in reading about some of Cayce's failures. To my knowledge, however, Cayce was never shown to have misprescribed belladonna.

 

[Slimething]

I don't know whether any of the three doctors authored articles in medical journals. Do you?

You're the one making the claim, Rodney. All I'm doing is asking questions. You want me to spend my time researching your claim? Not gonna happen.

I don't know whether they had a direct role, but the story of Tommy's recovery became well-known.

That's not the point. A few posts ago, I asked why these medical professionals kept quiet, meaning why the didn't do what most such professionals would do: research the heck out of it and publish, publish, publish (in medical journals, that is). You then told me that Tommy's case became well knows, inferring that these individuals did not keep quiet.

What makes you think his practice was a sham?

Because he closed his own practive twenty years after the event, apparently to administer Cayce's hospital. If he truly believed that Cayce held a truth not known to medicine, he sure took his sweet time acting on it. Just why would anyone further the status quo if they realized that it could be vastly improved?

Cayce never recommended that doctors discontinue their practices. Presumably, however, House was more skeptical of the conventional medical wisdom after the unorthodox cure of his son.

So, if Cayce had a better way, why didn't he ask the medical profession to change? After you've written that House was skeptical of conventional medical wisdom, what took him twenty years to stop living a lie?

You can buy the book if you're interested in reading about some of Cayce's failures.

No, thanks. Your posit, not mine. You do the buying and reading.

To my knowledge, however, Cayce was never shown to have misprescribed belladonna.

As your knowledge is entirely based on books you've read on Cayce written by people who believed in Cayce's paranormal abilities, we will never truly know. Will we?

 

[Rodney]

You're the one making the claim, Rodney. All I'm doing is asking questions. You want me to spend my time researching your claim? Not gonna happen.

I think I can safely say I've spent more time researching Cayce than everyone else here put together, but it's not possible to pin down every fact about everyone who was ever associated with him.

That's not the point. A few posts ago, I asked why these medical professionals kept quiet, meaning why the didn't do what most such professionals would do: research the heck out of it and publish, publish, publish (in medical journals, that is). You then told me that Tommy's case became well knows, inferring that these individuals did not keep quiet.

They may well have submitted an article for publication in a medical journal, but it could have been rejected. I doubt if medical journals a century ago were any more receptive to an article about a psychic succeeding where doctors had failed than they are today.

Because he closed his own practive twenty years after the event, apparently to administer Cayce's hospital. If he truly believed that Cayce held a truth not known to medicine, he sure took his sweet time acting on it. Just why would anyone further the status quo if they realized that it could be vastly improved?

Again, you seem to believe that Cayce was opposed to doctors, which was not the case. Following Cayce's successful treatment of Tommy, Dr. House undoubtedly took Cayce's ideas into account in his medical practice prior to administering Cayce's hospital.

So, if Cayce had a better way, why didn't he ask the medical profession to change?

That wasn't Cayce's style and it would have been futile, in any case.

After you've written that House was skeptical of conventional medical wisdom, what took him twenty years to stop living a lie?

You have no evidence that he was.

No, thanks. Your posit, not mine. You do the buying and reading.

Don't worry -- I will.

As your knowledge is entirely based on books you've read on Cayce written by people who believed in Cayce's paranormal abilities, we will never truly know. Will we?

I've read a number of books and articles that were critical of Cayce. And they have something in common -- they're superficial.

 

[Slimething]

I think I can safely say I've spent more time researching Cayce than everyone else here put together, but it's not possible to pin down every fact about everyone who was ever associated with him.

You're right, Rodney. That would be a herculean task. I'm not asking you to do it. I'm only saying that I'm not going to do it. Primarily because I've got enough on my plate already and I don't believe Cayce was anything special.

They may well have submitted an article for publication in a medical journal, but it could have been rejected. I doubt if medical journals a century ago were any more receptive to an article about a psychic succeeding where doctors had failed than they are today.

Good point, Rodney. However, that leaves a fairly large gap for us today. Do you suppose that, instead of taking the angle that something preternatural happened, these doctors could have followed up on belladonna as a cure for spasms? No apparent woo involved there. Oh, the opportunity they missed!

Again, you seem to believe that Cayce was opposed to doctors, which was not the case. Following Cayce's successful treatment of Tommy, Dr. House undoubtedly took Cayce's ideas into account in his medical practice prior to administering Cayce's hospital.

As I wrote previously, a conscientious person with Cayce's knowledge would have been opposed not to doctors but to the then-existing practice of medicine. Yet, Cayce did/said nothing.

Also, don't state that Dr. House "undoubtedly" did/thought/said anything. That's pure speculation on your part mandated by your expectations of Cayce and Dr. House. If Dr. House continued his usual practice only to jump on the Cayce bandwagon twenty years after he became convinced his vocation was fraudulent because the funds became available, he really deserves little respect as a professional of any type.

That wasn't Cayce's style and it would have been futile, in any case.

I can't argue there, Rodney. Search out a book called The Romance of Medicine by Benjamin Lee Gordon. Cover to cover, the book portrays the individual stories of the many iconoclasts who paved the way from shamanism to modern medical practices. Many of these greats died poor or in asylums but their contributions to the health care we enjoy today is inestimable. Compared to these greats, Cayce deserves little recognition at all, even if he was onto something.

You have no evidence that he was.

Just following your lead, Rodney. Did you or did you not write:

Presumably, however, House was more skeptical of the conventional medical wisdom after the unorthodox cure of his son.

Don't worry -- I will.

Good, Rodney! I admire your persistence.

I've read a number of books and articles that were critical of Cayce. And they have something in common -- they're superficial.

I hardly consider the unsubstantiated evidence for Cayce's supernatural gifts that you've posted here as much more than superficial either, Rodney. Is there more?

 

[Mojo]

They may well have submitted an article for publication in a medical journal, but it could have been rejected. I doubt if medical journals a century ago were any more receptive to an article about a psychic succeeding where doctors had failed than they are today.

That is not what you suggested. You suggested that they would want to investigate the treatment:

Okay, but if you had a patient that you were confident was on death's door and then (s)he suddenly recovered after an unconventional treatment, wouldn't you want to investigate in detail that treatment?

If they had investigated the efficacy of the treatment in a systematic manner and found that it worked, the fact that it was originally suggested by Cayce would not be particularly relevant as far as publication of the results is concerned.

 

[Rodney]

That is not what you suggested. You suggested that they would want to investigate the treatment: If they had investigated the efficacy of the treatment in a systematic manner and found that it worked, the fact that it was originally suggested by Cayce would not be particularly relevant as far as publication of the results is concerned.

Do you have evidence that the doctors did not investigate the treatment? What may have happened is that they investigated, but could not definitively determine how the measured dose of belladonna had cured Tommy. What I would like to see happen is for a medical research team to evaluate this case and see if they could come to any conclusions about the efficacy of the treatment. Of course, that would take money.

 

[Mojo]

What may have happened is that they investigated, but could not definitively determine how the measured dose of belladonna had cured Tommy.

...or even if it had cured Tommy.

Basically, you have no evidence that they investigated it at all, do you? And if the case was as remarkable as you assert, there should be evidence. Remember what fls posted?

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.

Any sign of it (or any of Cayce's other "cures") showing up in the medical literature?

What I would like to see happen is for a medical research team to evaluate this case and see if they could come to any conclusions about the efficacy of the treatment. Of course, that would take money.

With the almost complete lack of information about the case, it would also take a great deal of imagination.

 

[Rodney]

...or even if it had cured Tommy.

So did Tommy have a spontaneous recovery?

Basically, you have no evidence that they investigated it at all, do you?

Do you have evidence that they didn't investigate?

And if the case was as remarkable as you assert, there should be evidence.

It's not what I assert, it's what many have asserted over many years. And why do you think Tommy spent his life promoting Cayce's treatments?

Remember what fls posted? Any sign of it (or any of Cayce's other "cures") showing up in the medical literature?

I'm sure medical journals were anxious to undermine the conventional wisdom.

With the almost complete lack of information about the case, it would also take a great deal of imagination.

Complete lack of information? Try re-reading what I've posted.

 

[Mojo]

So did Tommy have a spontaneous recovery?

Quite possibly. It's an anecdotal account of a single case, so there's no way of knowing whether the recovery was caused by Cayce's treatment or by other factors, including spontaneous recovery.

Do you have evidence that they didn't investigate?

Naughty Rodney, asking me to prove a negative. Do you have any evidence that they did? Did they even bother reporting the case?

It's not what I assert, it's what many have asserted over many years.

Argumentum ad numerum: the fact that a lot of people have made an assertion does not make that assertion any more true. What evidence did these "many" people base their assertion on?

And why do you think Tommy spent his life promoting Cayce's treatments?

Because he followed his father into the family business?

I'm sure medical journals were anxious to undermine the conventional wisdom.

Do you really think that medical journals are unwilling to report novel treatments? That would explain why medicine has made no progress since the eighteenth century, I suppose.

I can just see the headlines:

"ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM FOILED BY VIGILANT MEDICAL JOURNALS

Some quack called Fleming claims to have discovered penicillin. Take no notice: he's trying to undermine conventional wisdom.

Keep using the leeches, guys."​

Complete lack of information? Try re-reading what I've posted.

Well, for a start you would need to provide the following information.

What condition was Tommy suffering from? Remember that the convulsions are a symptom which could be caused by any number of conditions, rather than a disease in themselves.

What was the dose of belladonna used?

Without these you just have a report of an unknown condition allegedly cured by an unknown dose of belladonna. Not very much information.

 

[fls]

So did Tommy have a spontaneous recovery?

There is no way to know.

I'm sure medical journals were anxious to undermine the conventional wisdom.

This is frequently used as an excuse for why amazing discoveries are ignored by those very people who would be most interested in those discoveries, and who would be best able to assess the degree of amazingness. In reality, overturning conventional wisdom is of high interest to medical journals and researchers/physicians. Nobel prizes aren't awarded for doing the same-old stuff as everyone else.

Also, even if we buy that argument, it would simply be a report of a novel use of a drug - the kind of thing that was (and still is) commonly published. That's how medical progress was made - trying new things and telling others about the results.

Complete lack of information? Try re-reading what I've posted.

I don't know if you read any medical journals, but the information given is considered completely inadequate for a case report. There is a case report in every other New England Journal of Medicine issue - Case Records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. The detailed information about the case usually covers several pages (small print, pictures). For example, in the issue sitting on my desk, the case presentation covers 5 pages.

I did a quick search for something on line to give a bit of an idea about the kind of information that is needed. This isn't ideal, but it provides some illustration of what is meant by an adequate investigation.

Linda