Non-Homeopathic Belladonna

[Rodney]

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

And, yet, when I inquired in post #73: "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?" -- you responded in post #76: "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."

So, don't you find it kind of odd that this story, which you now seem to think "is without credit in the first place, except to people who wish to be credulous", could actually be true, and that Tommy did, in fact, recover because Dr. House followed Cayce's recommendation to administer a measured dose of belladonna (and a hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree)? In other words, wouldn't you feel a tad more comfortable if you could state categorically: "It is medically impossible for a 3-month old infant in Tommy's condition to have been cured by Cayce's recommended treatment"?

 

[fls]

And, yet, when I inquired in post #73: "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?" -- you responded in post #76: "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."

So, don't you find it kind of odd that this story, which you now seem to think "is without credit in the first place, except to people who wish to be credulous", could actually be true, and that Tommy did, in fact, recover because Dr. House followed Cayce's recommendation to administer a measured dose of belladonna (and a hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree)? In other words, wouldn't you feel a tad more comfortable if you could state categorically: "It is medically impossible for a 3-month old infant in Tommy's condition to have been cured by Cayce's recommended treatment"?

Not at all. The details of the story don't have to be proven impossible in order to discredit the story. It's that the story itself (even if the details are considered to be true) is inadequate to exclude normal explanations. It's not that the details of the story are without credit (it's not important whether or not it was medically possible for Cayce's treatment to have cured Tommy), it's that the use of a story of this nature to exclude the possibility of normal events is without credit.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Not at all. The details of the story don't have to be proven impossible in order to discredit the story. It's that the story itself (even if the details are considered to be true) is inadequate to exclude normal explanations. It's not that the details of the story are without credit (it's not important whether or not it was medically possible for Cayce's treatment to have cured Tommy), it's that the use of a story of this nature to exclude the possibility of normal events is without credit.

Linda

So you're saying that Tommy may well have made a spontaneous recovery?

 

[autumn1971]

Rodney, was it a "measured" dose, or an "unusually high" dose? Since neither were measured, are both wrong?
And as to the old canard of "the patient gives the doctor credit, so the doctor must be right", you do realize that you are giving credibility to someone who was an eyewitness at three months old, and using this to further your position that a rationally(?) acceptable healing took place?(your post #137)

 

[fls]

So you're saying that Tommy may well have made a spontaneous recovery?

Yes. Because we don't know what really happened (the given details don't tell us), it makes lots of different scenarios possible.

I think I've said this about twenty times now. I do not understand why you do not get this point.

I also get the impression that you don't think it's possible for people to recover from serious illness without intervention.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, was it a "measured" dose, or an "unusually high" dose?

According to "An American Prophet", it was both. Re-read the Opening Post, where I reference Randi quoting Reader Dana Turgeon as follows: "I guess it's a lucky thing that it's all a bunch of homeopathic hooey – who'd want to give an infant an actual, real dose of belladonna?"

Since neither were measured, are both wrong?

??? Please translate the above sentence into a form of English that I can understand.

And as to the old canard of "the patient gives the doctor credit, so the doctor must be right", you do realize that you are giving credibility to someone who was an eyewitness at three months old, and using this to further your position that a rationally(?) acceptable healing took place?(your post #137)

Presumably, as Tommy grew up, he didn't simply accept his father's opinion unquestioningly. And why did his father, a medical doctor, become such a strong Cayce supporter?

 

[Rodney]

Yes. Because we don't know what really happened (the given details don't tell us), it makes lots of different scenarios possible.

I think I've said this about twenty times now. I do not understand why you do not get this point.

Because the details of this story, and many others involving Cayce, make a spontaneous recovery unlikely in the extreme. When all of the doctors think a patient is going to die shortly, but then makes a complete recovery after Cayce-recommended treatment, it's a huge stretch to think that the recovery was spontaneous.

I also get the impression that you don't think it's possible for people to recover from serious illness without intervention.

Linda

No, but "serious illness" is not synonymous with all the doctors thinking the patient won't last through the night.

 

[fls]

Rodney,

Like I said, you will continue to ignore information provided to you by people who actually have the knowledge and experience to evaluate the story in order to justify your credulity.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Rodney,

Like I said, you will continue to ignore information provided to you by people who actually have the knowledge and experience to evaluate the story in order to justify your credulity.

Linda

So what would it take to convince you that Cayce's treatments likely cured some people of dire ailments?

 

[fls]

So what would it take to convince you that Cayce's treatments likely cured some people of dire ailments?

I already think that it's likely that Cayce's treatments cured some people of dire ailments. I have also cured some people of dire ailments. Are you saying that that makes me psychic?

Linda

 

[Slimething]

I have also cured some people of dire ailments. Are you saying that that makes me psychic?

Linda, may I write a book about you and head your hospital? I'm not trained in medicine but who cares? With your abilities and my..em.., we'll have your abilities. Just think of it!

 

[Rodney]

I already think that it's likely that Cayce's treatments cured some people of dire ailments.

Do you think that's because he had a lot of medical knowledge, or for some other reason?

I have also cured some people of dire ailments. Are you saying that that makes me psychic?

Linda

No, but presumably you have a medical degree, whereas Cayce didn't even attend high school.

 

[ChristineR]

Rodney, I hope I have convinced you that someone with some basic nineteenth century medical knowledge could have prescribed belladonna for Tommy, and that the possibility of a good outcome was significant--probably not high, but certainly not remarkable enough to consider it proof of supernatural intervention.

The fact that Cayce was not formally educated certainly does not work against him. Belladonna was no longer used by people who had access to atropine. The great advantage of herbal drugs is that you can grow them in your own backyard. Cayce may have had more opportunities to learn about the medical uses of belladonna than Dr. House.

Nothing in the story is inconsistent with a good guess by a layman with a working knowledge of herbal pharmaceuticals. If the treatment had not been successful, then Dr. House would not have gone on to dedicate his life to Cayce and the incident would not have been recorded. The only way to judge this incident is to look at all of Cayce's cases, not just the ones he chose to write books about.

 

[Slimething]

If the treatment had not been successful, then Dr. House would not have gone on to dedicate his life to Cayce and the incident would not have been recorded.

You and I part company here, ChristineR. Presuming that this story is factual is not warranted based on the lack of corroborative evidence that one would expect from such an event. For example, the story places three doctors (of medicine, I presume) at the site yet not one of them wrote anything down for twenty years. No newspaper clippings of this miracle have been produced.

As a matter of fact, Rodney has not even given us the attributions necessary for the author of the book he cites to have been able to write this story up. I hate to be the suspicious kind but I suspect that this story has one source and that would be Dr. House, who had a vested interest in heightening Cayce's mystique.

Until high-quality confirmation is posted, I'm prone to believe this is a made up just-so story.

 

[fls]

Do you think that's because he had a lot of medical knowledge, or for some other reason?

At the very least, the assistants he worked with had medical knowledge.

No, but presumably you have a medical degree, whereas Cayce didn't even attend high school.

So it's not possible to gain any medical knowledge except through med school? Can I quote you on that?

Linda

 

[BillyJoe]

Essentially we are being asked to believe that a three month infant who has been having seizures since birth and who is now having them every twenty minutes, is given a single dose of Belladonna (atropine) and never has a seizure again.

In other words we are being asked to believe one of the following:

- The underlying cause of the seizures resolved spontaneously at the very moment that the Belladonna/Atropine was administered.
- The Belladonna/Atropine stopped his seizures and that the underlying cause of the seizures spontaneously resolved sometime over the duration of action of Belladonna/Atropine.
- The Belladonna/Atropine stopped his seizures by curing the underlying cause of the seizures.

The chances of the first two occuring must be astronomical (exaggerating only a little).
As for the third:

We have been able to come up with only two scenarios where atropine may be useful in the symptomatic treatment of seizures:

- organophosphate poisoning.
In this scenario, organophosphate poisoning causes the seizures, the Atropine stops the seizures and we have to assume that over the next eight hours or so the organophosphate poisoning resolves. In other words that the source of organophosphate poisoning that has been acting for three months since birth is suddenly cut off and that the organophosphate already in the infants body is eliminated.

- reflex apnoea syndrome.
This occurs in children who reflexly hold their breath in response to pain or emotional stimuli. We have not found a single case of this occuring in a three month infant and I doubt that it can occur at this age.

And there seem to be no examples and no mechanism whereby Atropine can cure the underlying cause of convulsions.


Where does this leave us?
In my opinion, it leaves us with a story that is either untrue or, if it can be verified, would be a example of the supernatural prowess of one Edgar Cayce.


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[ChristineR]

Essentially we are being asked to believe that a three month infant who has been having seizures since birth and who is now having them every twenty minutes, is given a single dose of Belladonna (atropine) and never has a seizure again.

In other words we are being asked to believe one of the following:

- The underlying cause of the seizures resolved spontaneously at the very moment that the Belladonna/Atropine was administered.
- The Belladonna/Atropine stopped his seizures and that the underlying cause of the seizures spontaneously resolved sometime over the duration of action of Belladonna/Atropine.
- The Belladonna/Atropine stopped his seizures by curing the underlying cause of the seizures.

The chances of the first two occuring must be astronomical (exaggerating only a little).
...
regards,
BillyJoe

Why is the second case unlikely? I would say that it is the most likely scenario. Belladonna is a dangerous but effective way of mitigating seizures.

 

[BillyJoe]

Why is the second case unlikely? I would say that it is the most likely scenario. Belladonna is a dangerous but effective way of mitigating seizures.

Because, the underlying cause of the seizures which have been occuring for three months since the infant's birth and had been occuring at a rate of one seizure every twenty minutes before the Belladonna/Atropine was administered, would need to have spontaneously resolved over the duration of action of a single dose of Belladonna/Atropine (? eight hours).

How likely is that?

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, I hope I have convinced you that someone with some basic nineteenth century medical knowledge could have prescribed belladonna for Tommy, and that the possibility of a good outcome was significant--probably not high, but certainly not remarkable enough to consider it proof of supernatural intervention.

I'm not saying it's proof of supernatural intervention, but you haven't convinced me that someone with some basic nineteenth century medical knowledge would have prescribed belladonna for Tommy. If that was the case, why didn't any of the three doctors there prescribe it? According to "An American Prophet" (p. 6), the doctors thought Cayce's recommendation was "tantamount to murder." In fact, the book quotes Dr. Jackson, a general practitioner from Hopkinsville, Ky, as stating: "You'll kill little Tommy for sure."

The fact that Cayce was not formally educated certainly does not work against him. Belladonna was no longer used by people who had access to atropine. The great advantage of herbal drugs is that you can grow them in your own backyard. Cayce may have had more opportunities to learn about the medical uses of belladonna than Dr. House.

Again, it wasn't just Dr. House, but two other doctors as well. And where did Cayce get that, or any other, medical knowledge?

Nothing in the story is inconsistent with a good guess by a layman with a working knowledge of herbal pharmaceuticals. If the treatment had not been successful, then Dr. House would not have gone on to dedicate his life to Cayce and the incident would not have been recorded. The only way to judge this incident is to look at all of Cayce's cases, not just the ones he chose to write books about.

Cayce didn't write any books about his cases, but many others have. However, I'm in total agreement about discussing his other cases. Did someone say Aime Dietrich? See post #67 of this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62560&page=2&highlight=aime+dietrich

 

[Rodney]

At the very least, the assistants he worked with had medical knowledge.

Are you referring to Dr. Wesley Ketchum? He did know Cayce at the time of the Tommy House case, but -- as far as I can tell -- had no involvement in it. And bear in mind that Ketchum was a homeopath, and so I doubt if he would have told Cayce to give Tommy a measured dose of belladonna. Also, the Aime Dietrich case occurred prior to Ketchum meeting Cayce.

So it's not possible to gain any medical knowledge except through med school? Can I quote you on that?

Linda

IF I said that, you may quote me.