Non-Homeopathic Belladonna

[Rodney]

There is no way to know.

How likely would a spontaneous recovery be if Kirkpatrick is correct that "all [three physicians] agreed that Tommy House Jr. had little or no chance of living through the night"? ("An American Prophet" at 4.)

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.

What you say makes sense except with regard to information that comes from psychics. Consider the enlightened wisdom of our esteemed colleague Mojo in post #24 on this thread:

"Even if it is accurate, it hardly justifies poisoning the poor little sod [Tommy]. Actually, the fact that he was strong enough to survive Cayce's murderous ministrations suggests that the doctors were wrong."

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

Fine, but why couldn't the Tommy House case be investigated from the perspective of whether it is theoretically possible for a measured dose of belladonna to complete cure a 3-month old suffering from severe convulsions, malnutrition, and lack of sleep? Bear in mind that Kirkpatrick states that "[t]he convulsions had become so frequent that they occurred every twenty minutes" and that "Tommy House was on the verge of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, a diagnosis confirmed by the child's father, a doctor, and by the family's two personal physicians, Dr Jackson, a general practitioner in Hopkinsville, and Dr. Haggard, a pediatric specialist from Nashville who had been attending the child since birth." ("An American Prophet" at 4.)

 

[Slimething]

What you say makes sense except with regard to information that comes from psychics.

Your argument is getting circular, Rodney. You are assuming that the story you've read is factual. Various posters on this thread have tried to coach you in the fine art of corroboration but you are not comprehending. If the story your read is true, one would expect to find correlative evidence, especially with three medical doctors present. But there is none. Hence, either you believe in the story or you don't. Most of us don't and we have our reasons.

Fine, but why couldn't the Tommy House case be investigated from the perspective of whether it is theoretically possible for a measured dose of belladonna to complete cure a 3-month old suffering from severe convulsions, malnutrition, and lack of sleep?

Exactly our point, Rodney. Why wasn't it? Why did none of these three astute men of science even write a letter to a medical journal about what they had seen? Why did they not investigate alternatives to treatment of spasmodic diseases using belladonna? No, from these esteemed doctors, we have nothing further other than the one who closed his practice after twenty years to take a more lucrative position heading a private hospital. You must admit that the circumstances hardly bolster an account of a miraculous recovery witnessed by three well-respected doctors.

Perhaps you could start your attempts at corroboration by finding the listing of these three MDs living in that geographical area? First, establish that the story was possible, not necessarily true.

 

[Mojo]

How likely would a spontaneous recovery be if Kirkpatrick is correct that "all [three physicians] agreed that Tommy House Jr. had little or no chance of living through the night"? ("An American Prophet" at 4.)

That depends on what was causing the convulsions etc. You still haven't told us.

What you say makes sense except with regard to information that comes from psychics. Consider the enlightened wisdom of our esteemed colleague Mojo in post #24 on this thread:

"Even if it is accurate, it hardly justifies poisoning the poor little sod [Tommy]. Actually, the fact that he was strong enough to survive Cayce's murderous ministrations suggests that the doctors were wrong."

What has that post got to do with psychics? Let's look at it in its entirety, including the quotation it was replying to:

If you had been Tommy's father and the following is an accurate depiction of the facts, would your position still be the same?

"Although the three doctors disagreed about what treatment they should provide, all agreed that Tommy House Jr. had little or no chance of living through the night."

Even if it is accurate, it hardly justifies poisoning the poor little sod. Actually, the fact that he was strong enough to survive Cayce's murderous ministrations suggests that the doctors were wrong.

The post is about whether the prognosis allegedly given by the doctors justifies reckless experimentation. The fact that Cayce claimed to have arrived at the treatment by psychic means is irrelevant to this, and not mentioned in the post.

Fine, but why couldn't the Tommy House case be investigated from the perspective of whether it is theoretically possible for a measured dose of belladonna to complete cure a 3-month old suffering from severe convulsions, malnutrition, and lack of sleep?

Because none of the doctors involved seems to have thought it remarkable enough to bother making adequate notes of the alleged treatment and recovery.

 

[Mojo]

What you say makes sense except with regard to information that comes from psychics.

But if they had investigated the treatment and found that it worked, the source of the suggestion would have been irrelevant. It needn't even have been mentioned in the report.

 

[fls]

How likely would a spontaneous recovery be if Kirkpatrick is correct that "all [three physicians] agreed that Tommy House Jr. had little or no chance of living through the night"? ("An American Prophet" at 4.)

24.2%

What you say makes sense except with regard to information that comes from psychics. Consider the enlightened wisdom of our esteemed colleague Mojo in post #24 on this thread:

"Even if it is accurate, it hardly justifies poisoning the poor little sod [Tommy]. Actually, the fact that he was strong enough to survive Cayce's murderous ministrations suggests that the doctors were wrong."

What's that got to do with it?

Fine, but why couldn't the Tommy House case be investigated from the perspective of whether it is theoretically possible for a measured dose of belladonna to complete cure a 3-month old suffering from severe convulsions, malnutrition, and lack of sleep? Bear in mind that Kirkpatrick states that "[t]he convulsions had become so frequent that they occurred every twenty minutes" and that "Tommy House was on the verge of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, a diagnosis confirmed by the child's father, a doctor, and by the family's two personal physicians, Dr Jackson, a general practitioner in Hopkinsville, and Dr. Haggard, a pediatric specialist from Nashville who had been attending the child since birth." ("An American Prophet" at 4.)

Why? It can't possibly tell us anything new since the necessary information is so sparse it can only be understood in light of what we already know, and is too vague to constrain us to any one of a dozen potential explanations.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

24.2%

Okay, I'll bite: How did you arrive at that percentage?

What's that got to do with it?

It shows the bias against psychics. Mojo seems to be saying that, even if Cayce cured Tommy, his advice still should not have been followed.

Why? It can't possibly tell us anything new since the necessary information is so sparse it can only be understood in light of what we already know, and is too vague to constrain us to any one of a dozen potential explanations.

Linda

So what is it that we know about belladonna and seizures? Are there situations today where a physician might prescribe it to a 3-month old suffering from seizures?

 

[Slimething]

It shows the bias against psychics. Mojo seems to be saying that, even if Cayce cured Tommy, his advice still should not have been followed.

That's not what Mojo wrote at all. Read it again. Perhaps you read what you wanted Mojo to write so you could dismiss it but he has a very good point.

 

[BillyJoe]

Okay, I'll bite: How did you arrive at that percentage?

She pulled it out of her....sorry, Linda, you can answer that one.

So what is it that we know about belladonna and seizures? Are there situations today where a physician might prescribe it to a 3-month old suffering from seizures?

I doubt it.
They might possibly use atropine.
And what stops the seizure doesn't actually cure it - that requires firstly a diagnosis and then treatment of the underlying cause if possible.
But it's your baby, Rodney, shouldn't you be looking after it.

(Okay....googling it produces references that suggest atropine can be used to treat RAS or Reflex Anoxic Seizures - but these occur in children (not 3 month infants) who have breath holding attacks as a result of, for example, pain.)

 

[fls]

Okay, I'll bite: How did you arrive at that percentage?

Umm, you might want to be a little more careful about what you put in your mouth....considering where that number came from....

I collect old medical textbooks. What's interesting is to compare the classification and description of diseases from one hundred years ago, to our current understanding. Sometimes there is a clear correspondence - for example, where the putative agent has been determined and the clinical syndrome is straightforward. Often there is no correspondence between named diseases/categories and our current classifications - what was referred to as a single disease we now know as a manifestation of a number of different diseases or what were referred to as different diseases we now know to be different manifestations of the same thing. Or even that some "diseases" were a contrived collection of "symptoms" that do not really correspond to anything in particular.

This case clearly falls into the second situation. No diagnosis was provided ("convulsions" is not a diagnosis, but a description (and a non-specific one at that - it could be generalized seizures, myoclonic jerks, rigors, etc.)) which means that the doctors' ability to provide accurate guesses about prognosis and treatment was very limited. So, as I have mentioned numerous times, even though we cannot even begin to guess at the chance of recovery (for some disease conditions, it could have been 99%, for some it could have been 1%), we can say with great certainty that the doctors were guessing if they actually said what it is reported that they said.

It shows the bias against psychics. Mojo seems to be saying that, even if Cayce cured Tommy, his advice still should not have been followed.

I don't think it can be assumed that the doctors ignored a supposedly remarkable event for that reason.

So what is it that we know about belladonna and seizures? Are there situations today where a physician might prescribe it to a 3-month old suffering from seizures?

I already said yes. And that we have no way of knowing whether that situation corresponds to Tommy's situation, or whether Tommy's situation corresponds to any one of dozens of other possibilities. The inability to constrain the explanation to one out of many means that the story cannot be used as evidence of any one thing.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Umm, you might want to be a little more careful about what you put in your mouth....considering where that number came from....

Here we are in complete agreement.

I collect old medical textbooks. What's interesting is to compare the classification and description of diseases from one hundred years ago, to our current understanding. Sometimes there is a clear correspondence - for example, where the putative agent has been determined and the clinical syndrome is straightforward. Often there is no correspondence between named diseases/categories and our current classifications - what was referred to as a single disease we now know as a manifestation of a number of different diseases or what were referred to as different diseases we now know to be different manifestations of the same thing. Or even that some "diseases" were a contrived collection of "symptoms" that do not really correspond to anything in particular.

This case clearly falls into the second situation. No diagnosis was provided ("convulsions" is not a diagnosis, but a description (and a non-specific one at that - it could be generalized seizures, myoclonic jerks, rigors, etc.)) which means that the doctors' ability to provide accurate guesses about prognosis and treatment was very limited. So, as I have mentioned numerous times, even though we cannot even begin to guess at the chance of recovery (for some disease conditions, it could have been 99%, for some it could have been 1%), we can say with great certainty that the doctors were guessing if they actually said what it is reported that they said.

It may well have been that, among the three doctors, they had experience with infants in the same shape as Tommy was that night in February 1909, and all had died. I don't think it's logical that Dr. House would have followed Cayce's recommendation if he thought there was a realistic chance that Tommy could have otherwise recovered.

I don't think it can be assumed that the doctors ignored a supposedly remarkable event for that reason.

Again, there is no evidence that the doctors ignored the event.

I already said yes. And that we have no way of knowing whether that situation corresponds to Tommy's situation, or whether Tommy's situation corresponds to any one of dozens of other possibilities. The inability to constrain the explanation to one out of many means that the story cannot be used as evidence of any one thing.

Linda

It's very interesting to me -- and I suspect all the other non-medical folks here -- that a physician might prescribe belladonna to a 3-month old suffering from seizures. Can you cite a case where this actually happened?

 

[Mojo]

Again, there is no evidence that the doctors ignored the event.

Is there even any evidence that they took notes at the time? For example, did they bother recording the dose of belladonna that Cayce recommended?

Is any contemporaneous record available, or is this one of the cases from what Gladys Davis Turner, Cayce's secretary from 1923 onwards, described as "those early days of which no copies were kept".

It is true that, prior to Gladys Davis becoming Cayce's secretary in 1923 (not 1925), most readings were not retained.

Are we just relying on a later account from Dr. House, a man who ran Cayce's hospital and according to your OP spent his life promoting Cayce?

 

[fls]

It may well have been that, among the three doctors, they had experience with infants in the same shape as Tommy was that night in February 1909, and all had died. I don't think it's logical that Dr. House would have followed Cayce's recommendation if he thought there was a realistic chance that Tommy could have otherwise recovered.

That would be my guess as well - that they were acting under the assumption that previous experiences could/would apply to this case.

Again, there is no evidence that the doctors ignored the event.

I wasn't saying that the doctors ignored the event. You seemed to be offering up reasons why doctors would be inclined to ignore the event a priori.

It's very interesting to me -- and I suspect all the other non-medical folks here -- that a physician might prescribe belladonna to a 3-month old suffering from seizures.

Why? You seem to be trying to go somewhere with this, but I don't understand where that is. Can you tell me what point you are trying to make? Since we are going in circles here, I'm obviously not giving you the kind of information you are looking for.

Can you cite a case where this actually happened?

?

Not in my personal experience (as far as I recall). Do you think there'd be a reason that I would hear about a case if it actually happened?

Linda

 

[Mojo]

It's very interesting to me -- and I suspect all the other non-medical folks here -- that a physician might prescribe belladonna to a 3-month old suffering from seizures.

Why? According to what has already been posted in this thread, belladonna seems to have been a fairly standard drug around 100 years ago.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It's very interesting to me -- and I suspect all the other non-medical folks here -- that a physician might prescribe belladonna to a 3-month old suffering from seizures.

Why is it interesting? All this happened a century ago. At that time scientific medicine was still nascent. Most medical research was still purely empirical. I'm sure that if you researched medical journals from that era extensively, you would be able to find examples of practically any medicine used for practically any disease (within reason, of course).

Hans

 

[BillyJoe]

Mojo & Hans,

If you follow the links back, Rodney was asking...

So what is it that we know about belladonna and seizures? Are there situations today where a physician might prescribe it to a 3-month old suffering from seizures?

Sorry.

 

[BillyJoe]

Here is the sequence...

Rodney:
So what is it that we know about belladonna and seizures? Are there situations today where a physician might prescribe it to a 3-month old suffering from seizures?

Linda:
I already said yes. And that we have no way of knowing whether that situation corresponds to Tommy's situation, or whether Tommy's situation corresponds to any one of dozens of other possibilities. The inability to constrain the explanation to one out of many means that the story cannot be used as evidence of any one thing.

Rodney:
It's very interesting to me -- and I suspect all the other non-medical folks here -- that a physician might prescribe belladonna to a 3-month old suffering from seizures. Can you cite a case where this actually happened?

Rodney does not believe that Belladonna would be given to a three month infant suffering seizures today. Therefore he is asking for references.

(I have already stated that I doubt this would be the practise today).

 

[MRC_Hans]

Here is the sequence...


Rodney does not believe that Belladonna would be given to a three month infant suffering seizures today. Therefore he is asking for references.

(I have already stated that I doubt this would be the practise today).

Ehrm, OK, thanks.

I don't think Belladonna would be given today by any qualified physician to an infant suffering from seizures.

Reference: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-belladonna.html

And?

Hans

 

[BillyJoe]

And?

I agree this doesn't seem to be advancing his argument.
Which is why I was happy to agree.
Seems you agree as well.
(I wonder what Linda has up her sleeve though? She seems to disagree!)

BJ

 

[fls]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe
Rodney does not believe that Belladonna would be given to a three month infant suffering seizures today. Therefore he is asking for references.

(I have already stated that I doubt this would be the practise today).

Ehrm, OK, thanks.

I don't think Belladonna would be given today by any qualified physician to an infant suffering from seizures.

Reference: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-belladonna.html

And?

Hans

I already gave Rodney an example where a three-month-old infant suffering from seizures might be given Bellandonna (atropine) today. What I don't know is whether or not there has ever been a case of three-month-old infant with an organophosphate ingestion. If there has been a case (or cases), there would be no particular reason to publish it (we already know children ingest toxins (accidentally or deliberately), we already know the antidote to organophosphates), therefore there would be no reason to think there should be references on this issue.

Somebody else gave an example of using atropine in Reflex Anoxic Seizures. In that situation, case reports were published because it was a novel treatment.

Like I said earlier, I need to know where Rodney is going with this to understand why the example I already gave was unsatisfactory.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

I already gave Rodney an example where a three-month-old infant suffering from seizures might be given Bellandonna (atropine) today. What I don't know is whether or not there has ever been a case of three-month-old infant with an organophosphate ingestion. If there has been a case (or cases), there would be no particular reason to publish it (we already know children ingest toxins (accidentally or deliberately), we already know the antidote to organophosphates), therefore there would be no reason to think there should be references on this issue.

Somebody else gave an example of using atropine in Reflex Anoxic Seizures. In that situation, case reports were published because it was a novel treatment.

Like I said earlier, I need to know where Rodney is going with this to understand why the example I already gave was unsatisfactory.

Linda

First, let me give you a little more detail regarding Tommy's condition, from "An American Prophet" at pages 5-6:

"Cayce described an epileptic condition that had caused severe infantile spasms, nausea, and vomiting -- evidently the outcome of the child's premature birth -- which in turn had been the result of the mother's poor physical condition during the early months of her pregnancy. Cayce prescribed a measured dose of belladonna, administered orally, to be followed by wrapping the infant in a steaming hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree."

Further, as I noted in post #8 on this thread:

" . . . the sleeping Cayce had prescribed an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade. Even if the peachtree poultice could somehow leach the poison out of the infant's system, administering such a large dose of belladonna to a child as small and weak as Tommy House Jr. was tantamount to murder . . . The infant had been suffering convulsions since his premature birth three months earlier. The convulsions had become so frequent that they now occurred every twenty minutes, leaving the helpless child too weak to nurse from his mother's bosom or to wrap his tiny hands around her fingers. Tommy House was on the verge of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, a diagnosis confirmed by the child's father, a doctor, and by the family's two personal physicians, Dr. Jackson, a general practitioner in Hopkinsville, and Dr. Haggard, a pediatric specialist from Nashville who had been attending the child since birth."

So, it appears that the three doctors were confident that: (a) they understood at least generally what Tommys' condition was, but thought that there was nothing they could do for him, and (b) administering a large dose of belladonna to him was the worst possible option because it would poison Tommy.

So, what I'm asking is this: With the benefit of the above account and the 98 years of medical knowledge that has accumulated since that night in February 1909, is it possible to make an educated guess as to what specific condition Tommy was suffering from and whether Cayce's treatment might have saved him? In other words, could Tommy have been suffering from a condition that doctors in 1909 did not know how to treat, but that could have been successfully treated, if they had the knowledge that Cayce somehow possessed? Or, alternatively, could Tommy have been suffering from what appeared to be a terminal condition, but that in reality was not, and that is why he so suddenly recovered?