Non-Homeopathic Belladonna

[Slimething]

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.

Rodney, you sure are reading a lot into an unverified anecdote of divine healing. I take it you are not quoting from your new-found bible but, rather, are passing on your conclusions about what the these supposed doctors were thinking? Please.

So, what I'm asking is this: With the benefit of the above account and ...

This is getting really tiresome, Rodney. Let me put it plainly. I believe the entire account is farcical. That being stated, I'm not going to give your rhetorical questions the time of day. Until you've posted independent corroboration of the episode, the story is simply incredible and easily dismissed.

 

[BillyJoe]

Slimething,

I think Rodney is saying that if there is a condition recognised by modern medicine that could cause a three month infant to have seizures and make him appear terminally ill, and that if that condition could be cured using an otherwise lethal dose of Belladonna, then that would lend credibility to the story of Tommy House.

I think he may be implying that Cayce could have had precognition of that condition and the appropriate treatment

Or something like that.

BillyJoe

 

[Rodney]

Slimething,

I think Rodney is saying that if there is a condition recognised by modern medicine that could cause a three month infant to have seizures and make him appear terminally ill, and that if that condition could be cured using an otherwise lethal dose of Belladonna, then that would lend credibility to the story of Tommy House.

Correct.

I think he may be implying that Cayce could have had precognition of that condition and the appropriate treatment

Or something like that.

BillyJoe

Something like that. One possibility is that Cayce had done a vast amount of reading of medical books and articles and had knowledge of belladonna that the three doctors did not. A second possibility is that somebody had told Cayce about this particular treatment for curing seizures. A third possibility is that Cayce obtained his knowledge in some paranormal fashion, although not necessarily by precognition. A fourth possibility is that Cayce's treatment was ineffective, but that it coincided with Tommy's recovery.

 

[Slimething]

\One possibility is that Cayce had done a vast amount of reading of medical books and articles and had knowledge of belladonna that the three doctors did not. A second possibility is that somebody had told Cayce about this particular treatment for curing seizures. A third possibility is that Cayce obtained his knowledge in some paranormal fashion, although not necessarily by precognition. A fourth possibility is that Cayce's treatment was ineffective, but that it coincided with Tommy's recovery.

A fifth possibility, which I favor based on the complete lack of logically-expected corroborative evidence, is that the even did not take place at all or as described. Therefore, any discussion on possibilities would be tantamount to speculation on what, if anything, any of the main characters knew, did, suspected, etc. Not really worth the time, Rodney.

 

[BillyJoe]

One possibility is that Cayce had done a vast amount of reading of medical books and articles and had knowledge of belladonna that the three doctors did not.

A second possibility is that somebody had told Cayce about this particular treatment for curing seizures.

A third possibility is that Cayce obtained his knowledge in some paranormal fashion, although not necessarily by precognition.

A fourth possibility is that Cayce's treatment was ineffective, but that it coincided with Tommy's recovery.

Do you favour one in particular?

And if there is no condition recognised by modern medicine that could cause a three month infant to have seizures and make him appear terminally ill, and that could be cured using an otherwise lethal dose of Belladonna?

Which one would you favour then?

 

[fls]

Let me start by saying that the most reasonable assumption is that the story is wrong. Since what I do for a living is this kind of comparison (comparing what people tell me with what is contained within the medical record - i.e. "taking a history" and "reading the chart"), I have a lot of experience in how people get it wrong. And the story you have related is likely to be subject to this problem - no diagnosis was made, the teller is heavily invested in the story, the information is fourth-hand, etc. I'm willing to pretend the story may be right, but the odds are heavily stacked against it.

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.

I doubt the doctors were confident that they understood what Tommy's condition was. No diagnosis is given in the story, and the description of the symptoms is still too vague to know whether they were talking about seizures, rigors, muscle spasms, myclonus, etc.

Administering belladonna would not be the worst possible option. There would be hundreds of substances available that would also be potentially toxic to an infant. It could reasonably be said that they would be well aware of the risks of administering belladonna, but the information as to benefit would be questionable without a diagnosis and with limited knowledge (at that point in time) of the specific effects of belladona. Knowledge for its use would mostly be based on observing what happened in prior cases (either personal experience or through the medical literature). I don't know what information was available about its use in infants at that time. If the physicians were concerned about its use, it would be on the basis of unclear benefit.

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?

No.

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?

Yes.

Linda

 

[fls]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe
Slimething,

I think Rodney is saying that if there is a condition recognised by modern medicine that could cause a three month infant to have seizures and make him appear terminally ill, and that if that condition could be cured using an otherwise lethal dose of Belladonna, then that would lend credibility to the story of Tommy House.

Correct.

Something like that. One possibility is that Cayce had done a vast amount of reading of medical books and articles and had knowledge of belladonna that the three doctors did not. A second possibility is that somebody had told Cayce about this particular treatment for curing seizures. A third possibility is that Cayce obtained his knowledge in some paranormal fashion, although not necessarily by precognition. A fourth possibility is that Cayce's treatment was ineffective, but that it coincided with Tommy's recovery.

That makes it clearer what you are looking for. But as I have said all along, there is simply not enough information there to even begin to sort out what happened.

The most likely scenario (based on my experience) is much as Slimething suggested; the story is wrong. I have had the opportunity to investigate dozens of amazing cures (i.e. patients telling me about alternative treatments they used to cure serious or terminal disease), and in all cases, nothing particularly remarkable happened. Many times the report by the patient that the disease was serious or terminal, or that spontaneous recovery was not possible, was simply wrong. I've had cases were the patient has reported "the doctor told me I was going to die and there was nothing they could do" and when I've talked to the doctor or read the medical records, what they had was an illness that most people recover from and they were told no such thing. It's not that they are purposely lying, but funny things happen when constructing an illness narrative.

The reason that I am skeptical when I hear these stories is because the information is far too inadequate to make a determination. And everytime there is an opportunity to investigate in the detail required, it turns out that key details are missing and some of the details given are wrong, so that the real story no longer contains the elements that made it remarkable in the first place. Every single time. So whenever you or anyone else presents these stories, where it is impossible to investigate and get the information that is required, it would be foolish of me to assume that lack of information makes credulity justifiable. There is, after all, no way to distinguish these stories beforehand.

Linda

 

[BillyJoe]

Linda,

I'm having just as much trouble understanding what you are getting at as I am understanding what Rodney is getting at.

It we assume for a moment that the story is true, then how could modern medicine explain it. We have a three month infant having seizures from birth who is now having them every twenty minutes. He is given a single dose of Belladonna and never has a seizure again.

Even in the very unlikely case of organophosphate poisoning in a three month infant that you mentioned, giving Belladonna would not cure him. It might possibly stop his seizures for eight hours (or however long the effect of Belladonna lasts), but then, if the seizures never recurred, we would have to believe that the underlying condition suddenly resolved itself within those eight hours.

The way I see it, the story has to be wrong.
Or have I missed something?


BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

We cross-posted.
(Ignore the time difference, I often get distracted while posting )

 

[ChristineR]

More from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:

In cases of poisoning the delirium may last for many hours or even days. Thereafter a more or less sleepy state supervenes, but it is not the case that atropine ever causes genuine coma. The stuporose condition is the result of exhaustion after the long period of cerebral excitement. It is to be noted that children, who are particularly susceptible to the influence of certain of the other potent alkaloids, such as morphine and strychnine, will take relatively large doses of atropine without ill-effect.

Normally the procedure was to give very small doses repeatedly until the symptoms were relieved. There is really nothing in the OP which would make it impossible that this was the way the Belladonna was administered, but it's also possible that Tommy was in a stupor for several days.

 

[Rodney]

It we assume for a moment that the story is true, then how could modern medicine explain it. We have a three month infant having seizures from birth who is now having them every twenty minutes. He is given a single dose of Belladonna and never has a seizure again.

Yes, that is the issue. Based on our current knowledge of medicine, could a single dose of belladonna (and a hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree) have cured Tommy or not?

 

[Mojo]

We don't know what was causing the convulsions, Rodney.

And we don't know how big the "measured dose of belladonna" was.

Why won't you tell us?

 

[Rodney]

We don't know what was causing the convulsions, Rodney.

It seems to me that, given the information in "An American Prophet", the possibilities can be narrowed down quite a bit. The book describes a three-month old infant having had severe infantile spasms, nausea, and vomiting since his premature birth and now being on the brink of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, with the convulsions occurring every twenty minutes. Are there a lot of medical conditions that could cause all of those symptoms?

And we don't know how big the "measured dose of belladonna" was.

Why won't you tell us?

"An American Prophet" states that Cayce had prescribed "an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade."

 

[Slimething]

The book describes a three-month old infant having had severe infantile spasms, nausea, and vomiting since his premature birth and now being on the brink of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, with the convulsions occurring every twenty minutes. Are there a lot of medical conditions that could cause all of those symptoms?

Need pulse, BP, temperature and an accurate case history. Unwilling or can't provide that? Go fish.

"An American Prophet" states that Cayce had prescribed "an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade."

Here's where the woo really comes in. First of all, atropine is atropine. There is no form that is more toxic than the other. Also, since you don't know how much the dosage was, there is no way to state with certainty that it was an unusually high dose.

Rodney, stop playing around. If you want to believe that Cayce was some sort of preternatural doctor, that's your right. I can only speak for myself but it will take a heck of a lot more than a hagiography to convince me that he was.

 

[fls]

It seems to me that, given the information in "An American Prophet", the possibilities can be narrowed down quite a bit. The book describes a three-month old infant having had severe infantile spasms, nausea, and vomiting since his premature birth and now being on the brink of death from malnutrition and lack of sleep, with the convulsions occurring every twenty minutes. Are there a lot of medical conditions that could cause all of those symptoms?

Dozens.

Linda

 

[Deetee]

Such as...

Infections - congenital herpes, toxoplasma, syphilis, rubella, cytomegalovirus, tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, pertussis etc.
Birth trauma and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Chromosome disorders.
Epilepsy variants.
Drugs, poisons.
Metabolic problems such as dihydropteridine reductase deficiency, Menkes disease, cytochrome c oxidase deficiency, histidinemia, pyridoxine deficiency, and urea cycle disorders. Thyroid deficiency. Hypo and hypernatremia. Calcium metabolism disorders. Hypo and hyperglycemia.

Ones that can be cured by a single dose of atropine? - I don't think so.
I think the anecdote is exaggerated or distorted, or the spasms/convulsions were not really spasms at all.

 

[Rodney]

Such as...

Infections - congenital herpes, toxoplasma, syphilis, rubella, cytomegalovirus, tetanus, meningitis, encephalitis, pertussis etc.
Birth trauma and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Chromosome disorders.
Epilepsy variants.
Drugs, poisons.
Metabolic problems such as dihydropteridine reductase deficiency, Menkes disease, cytochrome c oxidase deficiency, histidinemia, pyridoxine deficiency, and urea cycle disorders. Thyroid deficiency. Hypo and hypernatremia. Calcium metabolism disorders. Hypo and hyperglycemia.

Are you sure that ALL of these conditions are consistent with ALL of the alleged facts set forth in an "An American Prophet"? Can you document that at least a handful of the conditions you name are?

Ones that can be cured by a single dose of atropine? - I don't think so.

If you can prove that, it would go a long way toward discrediting the story.

I think the anecdote is exaggerated or distorted, or the spasms/convulsions were not really spasms at all.

Possibly, but why do you think Dr. House and Tommy became such strong Cayce supporters?

 

[Slimething]

Are you sure that ALL of these conditions are consistent with ALL of the alleged facts set forth in an "An American Prophet"?

Here are some that Deetee didn't list that are also wholly consistent with the story:

• atropine-allergic invisible gnomes blocking the kid's esophagus or windpipe
• angels who intervened because Cayce wanted them to
• Cayce-projected energy that dislodged evil invisible ducks pecking on Tiny Tommy's brain
• An author making stuff up for a book
• A doctor making stuff up to draw more patients to his woo Cayce Clinic

Take your pick, Rodney. They're all consistent with the story in the book.

If you can prove that, it would go a long way toward discrediting the story.

Again, it's your point to prove, Rodney. You keep trying to push the burden of proof onto us. Why? Never mind, I know why!

Possibly, but why do you think Dr. House and Tommy became such strong Cayce supporters?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Mojo]

"An American Prophet" states that Cayce had prescribed "an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade."

Leaving aside that fact that they seem to have thought that there are non-toxic forms of deadly nightshade, How big was this "unusually high" dose?

If the doctors had been homoeopaths, like the "Dr." Ketchum that you attempted to rely on as an authority figure in another thread, they might have considered any detectable amount of belladonna to be "an unusually high dose".

If the dose really was "unusually high", why did nobody bother recording how large it was? According to you, "it appears that the three doctors were confident that ... administering a large dose of belladonna to him was the worst possible option because it would poison Tommy". Surely they would have wanted to keep a record of the dosage?

I'll ask again: is there a contemporaneous account of this case, or did Kirkpatrick just rely on later accounts from the Houses, men who you describe as "strong Cayce supporters" who "spent the rest of their lives promoting Cayce"?

 

[fls]

If you can prove that, it would go a long way toward discrediting the story.

There seems to be no point in attempting to discredit the story. The story is without credit in the first place, except to people who wish to be credulous. And your desire to remain credulous can easily overcome any attempts to inform you in a setting such as this forum. I think we should drop the pretense that providing information has the power to persuade (either side) under these circumstances.

Linda