Non-Homeopathic Belladonna

[MRC_Hans]

Yeah, which basically returns us to my earlier question: What is the purpose of referring to this anecdote? What is interesting about it?

Hans

 

[Rodney]

Dumb:

Bottom line is you can speculate about Jesus' walking on water all you want, unless we can travel backward in time, you can't draw any conclusions.

And dumber:

Yeah, which basically returns us to my earlier question: What is the purpose of referring to this anecdote? What is interesting about it?

Hans

 

[Slimething]

How a person who believes unattributed, fantastic stories can presume to call anyone dumb is beyond me. I hope you get it, Rodney, that no one believes this story except you. You've offered absolutely no evidence to support it and can't even post the source of the story other than a baseless hagiography of Cayce.

 

[ChristineR]

I have to say that my interpretation was a "minimal truth" version. I assumed that the story was true and the reporters gave the information as best as they remembered. Given that this allows for an awful lot of leeway, I found an interpretation that is in accordance with known medical science and fits with the story in almost all the facts.

The dosage was described as a "single large" dose, which is not the way belladonna was usually given, but it may have been equivalent to several small doses, and that may have put Tommy out for a week. Or it may have been small doses.

The doctors are described as certain the dose would kill Tommy, which seems unlikely as they should have at least familiar with the use of belladonna. On the other hand if the doctors thought belladonna was a bad idea but did not actually believe that the dose was certain death, that would explain why the doctors apparently never recorded the event.

These are the sorts of details that distressed parents get wrong or simplify. So that's my best case interpretation of the story. No magic, just an outdated remedy and a bit of luck.

 

[Rodney]

How a person who believes unattributed, fantastic stories can presume to call anyone dumb is beyond me. I hope you get it, Rodney, that no one believes this story except you. You've offered absolutely no evidence to support it and can't even post the source of the story other than a baseless hagiography of Cayce.

If you check out the Wikipedia artlcle on Sidney Kirkpatrick -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_D._Kirkpatrick -- you will read that he "is an award winning documentary film maker and a bestselling author" and that his most recent book is "The Revenge of Thomas Eakins (pub. 2006), ISBN 978-0300108552 a biography of Thomas Eakins, the artist, for which he was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in biography." You will also note that none of his other books have anything to do with psychic phenomena. So, some might conclude that the charge of a "baseless hagiography of Cayce" is a rather wild one supported by "absolutely no evidence."

 

[Rodney]

I have to say that my interpretation was a "minimal truth" version. I assumed that the story was true and the reporters gave the information as best as they remembered. Given that this allows for an awful lot of leeway, I found an interpretation that is in accordance with known medical science and fits with the story in almost all the facts.

Are you an M.D., Christine?

The dosage was described as a "single large" dose, which is not the way belladonna was usually given, but it may have been equivalent to several small doses, and that may have put Tommy out for a week. Or it may have been small doses.

The book is clear that Tommy was out only for a few hours, not a week.

The doctors are described as certain the dose would kill Tommy, which seems unlikely as they should have at least familiar with the use of belladonna.

They were likely basing their dire prognosis on Tommy's existing precarious state of health, coupled with a large dose of belladonna given to an infant.

On the other hand if the doctors thought belladonna was a bad idea but did not actually believe that the dose was certain death, that would explain why the doctors apparently never recorded the event.

I'm still researching what notes they may have taken.

These are the sorts of details that distressed parents get wrong or simplify. So that's my best case interpretation of the story. No magic, just an outdated remedy and a bit of luck.

Thomas House, Sr. was the only doctor there who was a distressed parent. And I'm not saying Cayce's treatment WAS magic, but it seemed to work like magic.

 

[ChristineR]

Are you an M.D., Christine?

No, but there is no medical information given here to analyze. The details are so vague that an educated layperson can probably get as much out of it as could a doctor.

The book is clear that Tommy was out only for a few hours, not a week.

Again, this is too vague to analyze. The effects of belladonna can last for days. The patient was an infant. How do you distinguish between a drug-induced stupor and normal infant behavior? If there were details given, then we could ask one of the MD's. My theory is that Tommy was given enough belladonna to suppress his seizures for days.

They were likely basing their dire prognosis on Tommy's existing precarious state of health, coupled with a large dose of belladonna given to an infant.

This is not likely. First of all, we have no details about Tommy's state of health, just some vague after the fact anecdotes. Secondly, a large dose of belladonna may not be fatal to an infant. How do you define large? You are reading into the story that it was a dose that was always fatal, without knowing the actual dose. I think it is more likely that the doctors though the belladonna was a poor choice but went along with it because they recognized that it would temporarily stop the seizures.

I'm still researching what notes they may have taken.


Thomas House, Sr. was the only doctor there who was a distressed parent. And I'm not saying Cayce's treatment WAS magic, but it seemed to work like magic.

The story does not come to us from one of the MD's that was present. It apparently comes to us from a fan of Cayce's through Tommy. It's too vague to prove anything one way or the other, and it is not inconsistent with spontaneous recovery after Cayce knocked Tommy out.

If you can produce these doctor's notes, then of course I'll reconsider. My theory is speculative. I wouldn't be shocked if the incident never happened, or if the details turn out to be completely different from the doctor's notes.

 

[BillyJoe]

I have to say that my interpretation was a "minimal truth" version.

How minimal?

We have:

An infant three months of age.
The infant has been having seizures since birth.
The seizures have been occurring every twenty minutes of late.
The infant is given a "measured" dose of Belladonna/Atropine.
The infant stops crying as soon as the dose is placed in it's mouth.
The infant fell into his first uninterrupted sleep since birth.
The infant awakes "hours" later.
The infant never has a convulsion again.

Which of these "facts" do allow to let slide and still have a medically coherent story?

I found an interpretation that is in accordance with known medical science and fits with the story in almost all the facts.

What was your interpretation that is in accordance with known medical science?
And which of the above facts fit with it?

The dosage was described as a "single large" dose, which is not the way belladonna was usually given, but it may have been equivalent to several small doses, and that may have put Tommy out for a week. Or it may have been small doses.

You are not allowed to change the "facts"
I read "measured".
I read "hours".
I read "single".

So that's my best case interpretation of the story. No magic, just an outdated remedy and a bit of luck.

My interpretation is that either something extraordinary happened or the story is false in almost every detail.
Given the dearth of documentation/information, the default has to be that the story is false (unless and until provided with evidence to the contrary)

BJ

 

[Slimething]

If you check out the Wikipedia artlcle on Sidney Kirkpatrick -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_D._Kirkpatrick -- you will read that he "is an award winning documentary film maker and a bestselling author" and that his most recent book is "The Revenge of Thomas Eakins (pub. 2006), ISBN 978-0300108552 a biography of Thomas Eakins, the artist, for which he was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in biography." You will also note that none of his other books have anything to do with psychic phenomena. So, some might conclude that the charge of a "baseless hagiography of Cayce" is a rather wild one supported by "absolutely no evidence."

1. Your link didn't work. (After over a thousand posts, you can't insert a link yet?) I went here and found a "stub" article in Wikipedia. No information as to which awards he's won. So, the ball's in your court again, genius. Can you produce a relatively unstilted bio of Kirkpatrick such that there is some merit to quoting his as an historical writer?
2. Nominated for the Pulitzer!!!! Big whoop!
3. What you've tried to do here is known as an Appeal to Authority. Remember where you are.
4. We're not discussing any other books at the moment so it doesn't matter if the guy had written a physics book. Focus!
5. From your inability to produce even a citation of where Kirkpatrick got the Story of Tiny Tom, I would have to conclude that the book does not include a worthy bibliography. If Kirkpatrick can't or won't acknowledge where he got the story, I'd have to truly question his veracity.
6. The word "hagiography" has been used to describe his books by professional book reviewers. I'm not the first and I certainly won't be the last. Deal with it.

As I've written before, Rodney, your predilection for believing baseless lies in the face of hard fact is your own cross to bear. Don't expect anyone else to be as unquestioningly naive and gullible.

 

[ChristineR]

I don't agree. I feel that we can look at your basic list of facts and conclude that this story is unlikely. We can then look at the list and observe that several key points use vague terms like "measured" and "hours" and "as soon as." The story is not plausible if we take the most straightforward interpretations of these terms, but if we choose less straightforward choices then the story becomes not only plausible, but unremarkable.

In my opinion the default position has to be to assume the story is true. Otherwise there is no point in analyzing it at all. Although my alternative interpretation is far from certain, it is (in my opinion) reasonable.

Faced with the dichotomy of "utterly false" or "extraordinary" you are forced to assume extraordinary.

For the record, the possible scenario I'm presenting is:

An infant three months of age.
The infant has been having seizures since birth.
The seizures have been occurring every twenty minutes of late.
The infant is given a dose or doses of Belladonna/Atropine large enough to suppress the seizures and knock the child out.
The infant stops crying after the belladonna is given, and at that point no more belladonna is given.
The infant fell into his first uninterrupted sleep since birth.
The infant awakes "hours" later but remains under the influence of the drug for several days.
The infant spontaneously recovers from his underlying disease or disorder.
The infant never has a convulsion again.

Is it not reasonable that this scenario ended up as the first scenario in an after the fact, third hand, retelling?

 

[Slimething]

In my opinion the default position has to be to assume the story is true. Otherwise there is no point in analyzing it at all.

How can you judge a story without first analyzing it? Only after analyzing a story can you decide if it's credible or incredible. But, let's suppose you have judged the story to be fact-based folklore and are trying to see if there is a plausible set of circumstances that could explain the story as far as a spastic baby, belladonna and an instant cure are concerned. Even there, you have to modify the story so much, it's hardly recognizable afterward.

Another important consideration is the intent of this story. I would wholeheartedly agree with your approach if this was an old folk tale and you were trying to decypher what may have been the origin of the myth and its foundation in reality. However, that's not what we have here. This is a story in an unquestioning (understated) biography of Cayce and its intent is solely to impress a reader with evidence of Cayce's supernatural abilities. Given that circumstance, I think your charitable attempt to rescue fact from fantasy is not warranted.

 

[BillyJoe]

...several key points use vague terms like "measured" and "hours" and "as soon as."

These are not as vague as you would have us believe.
A "measured" dose means a normal therapeutic dose, certainly not a lethal dose, or even an overdose, or large dose.
"Hours" cannot be extended into "days".
"as soon as" means "as soon as". That's pretty specific. I don't know how else to interpret that.

In my opinion the default position has to be to assume the story is true. Otherwise there is no point in analyzing it at all.

Why? I have analysed it and determined that, because the case has not been documented as to the actual facts, because of the time that has elapsed between the event and the writing down of hte details, because the supposed "facts" contained therein are not consistent with any known medical condition that we have been able to come up with, the default is that "the story is false".

Faced with the dichotomy of "utterly false" or "extraordinary" you are forced to assume extraordinary.

My conclusion was "something extraordinary happened" or "the story is false". By "extraordinary" I meant "something unknown to medical science", so my default is that "the story is false".

For the record, the possible scenario I'm presenting is:

An infant three months of age.
The infant has been having seizures since birth.
The seizures have been occurring every twenty minutes of late.
The infant is given a dose or doses of Belladonna/Atropine large enough to suppress the seizures and knock the child out.
The infant stops crying after the belladonna is given, and at that point no more belladonna is given.
The infant fell into his first uninterrupted sleep since birth.
The infant awakes "hours" later but remains under the influence of the drug for several days.
The infant spontaneously recovers from his underlying disease or disorder.
The infant never has a convulsion again.

Well, I was hoping you had in mind a medical condition that could follow the course described in the story.
If not, I think I will stick with my default: "The story is false"

Is it not reasonable that this scenario ended up as the first scenario in an after the fact, third hand, retelling

The story you end up with after decades of retelling, even if only by one person, with all the usual embellishments, exaggerations, and gradual half-truths and non-truths that always, and inevitably occur, can be unrecognisable against what actually occurred. There may, in fact, be absolutely no points of concurrence left at all.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Mojo]

If you check out the Wikipedia artlcle on Sidney Kirkpatrick -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_D._Kirkpatrick -- you will read that he "is an award winning documentary film maker and a bestselling author" and that his most recent book is "The Revenge of Thomas Eakins (pub. 2006), ISBN 978-0300108552 a biography of Thomas Eakins, the artist, for which he was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in biography."

According to Wikipedia:

The Pulitzer Prize Board distinguishes between "nominees" and "nominated finalists": A "nominee" is simply someone whose publisher has formally entered his or her work for consideration according to the Boards "Plan of Award". As such, it is not a very significant distinction.

And according to the Pulitzer Prize website:

...it's important to understand the following Pulitzer Prize terminology:

A Pulitzer Prize Winner may be an individual, a group of individuals, or a newspaper's staff.
Nominated Finalists are selected by the Nominating Juries for each category as finalists in the competition. The Pulitzer Prize Board generally selects the Pulitzer Prize Winners from the three nominated finalists in each category. The names of nominated finalists have been announced only since 1980. Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. No information on entrants is provided.

For some reason Kirkpatrick doesn't appear in the lists of nominated finalists.

 

[Rodney]

1. Your link didn't work. (After over a thousand posts, you can't insert a link yet?) I went here and found a "stub" article in Wikipedia.

You're the first person to complain about my link not working. What browser are you using?

No information as to which awards he's won. So, the ball's in your court again, genius. Can you produce a relatively unstilted bio of Kirkpatrick such that there is some merit to quoting his as an historical writer?

You mean a bio written by someone who, like you, is convinced that there is no such thing as the paranormal? I can tell you that Kirkpatrick has sold a lot of books, and here is what he has to say about writing "An American Prophet": "Prior to taking this book project on, I was not involved in the Cayce organization at all. In fact, I was quite skeptical that there was any truth or insights to be found in the Cayce material. It was only after I began examining Cayce's original correspondence and trance readings (some 150,000 pages) that I came to appreciate the depth, scope, and truth of the material. I also came to appreciate the integrity of Cayce the man. A book which I had intended to write in two years, resulted in a seven year, 40,000 mile journey as I interviewed recipients of the Cayce readings and studied their impact and veracity." See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cu...te&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=11 [Hopefully, the link will work for you. If so, you will notice that most of the other reviews on Amazon are positive.]

2. Nominated for the Pulitzer!!!! Big whoop!

So everyone who writes a biography is nominated for a Pulitzer?

3. What you've tried to do here is known as an Appeal to Authority. Remember where you are.

Meaning what: Randi participants are The Authority on an Appeal to Authority?

4. We're not discussing any other books at the moment so it doesn't matter if the guy had written a physics book. Focus!

But deep down, wouldn't you feel just a wee bit better if Kirkpatrick's other books were: (1) How Bush and Cheney Ordered 9/11; (2) The Martians are Here; and (3) Randi Forum Controlled by Devil Worshipers?

5. From your inability to produce even a citation of where Kirkpatrick got the Story of Tiny Tom, I would have to conclude that the book does not include a worthy bibliography. If Kirkpatrick can't or won't acknowledge where he got the story, I'd have to truly question his veracity.

He does that generally, but not specifically, which is more than a lot of biographies do.

6. The word "hagiography" has been used to describe his books by professional book reviewers. I'm not the first and I certainly won't be the last. Deal with it.

Please document who these "professional book reviewers" are.

As I've written before, Rodney, your predilection for believing baseless lies in the face of hard fact is your own cross to bear. Don't expect anyone else to be as unquestioningly naive and gullible.

Please document what "baseless lies" I believe in.

 

[Slimething]

You're the first person to complain about my link not working. What browser are you using?

Is that unusual? How many people do you think take the trouble to read what you write and then follow the links you post. When your link didn't work, I did the extra work of going to the Wiki article myself and what I found was grossly underwhelming.

You mean a bio written by someone who, like you, is convinced that there is no such thing as the paranormal?

No, that is not what I mean. What you need to find is a review or biography of someone who does not take sides but assesses the book as a factual, scholarly work. These reviews are not all that common and can be hard to find. You usually find them in literary magazines or even technical journals. Let me save you the trouble, though. Any book without a thorough bibliography doesn't have a hope of a good exhaustive review.

So everyone who writes a biography is nominated for a Pulitzer?

You need to read Mojo's post. Mojo was also unimpressed by "nominated for the Pulitzer". For all we know, that "honor' had nothing to do with the book we are discussing. Nor do we know what category the nomination was in. Are you impressed when you see a pulp paperback emblazoned with "NOW A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE" on the cover? Not a must read? Why not?

Meaning what: Randi participants are The Authority on an Appeal to Authority?

Meaning most of us know the flawed tools of hucksterism. We know a rat when we smell one.

But deep down, wouldn't you feel just a wee bit better if Kirkpatrick's other books were: (1) How Bush and Cheney Ordered 9/11; (2) The Martians are Here; and (3) Randi Forum Controlled by Devil Worshipers?

No, Rodney. For all I know Kirkpatrick is brilliant and his Cayce book is a wonderful piece of investigative journalism. However, the facts point in the other direction. You may not realize it but the difficulty you are having defending the book is a prime indicator that the book is flawed. Read a historical treatise by a recognized scholar and you'll immediately see the difference in style and annotation.

He does that generally, but not specifically, which is more than a lot of biographies do.

I'll have to take your word on that. I'm not a fan of biographies. My point is that you are fixated on this book as if it were a scholarly work and it is not. The story may well be true but it's very unusual and, without knowledge of the sources, suspect.

Please document who these "professional book reviewers" are.

Do a Google search on the book. You'll find them as easily as I did. I believe one was in Salon but it's been a few days. It's time you did some work on this theme, anyway. You should have done this research before investing your credibility into this book so heavily.

Please document what "baseless lies" I believe in.

For one, you believe in this story. Since you cannot provide the basis of the story, it is "baseless". Since it is baseless and extremely incredible, I consider it a lie. See how it works? Pretty nifty, this thing called logic.

I've also noted your other threads where you posit equally incredible stories or ideas with a convert's zeal. Your inclination to believe anything that makes the known universe seem plain by comparison is no secret here. Frankly, if you spent half the time getting to know and appreciate the universe as it is, you would consider these woo ideas you so enjoy to be a waste of time. Reality beats fiction any day of the week on the interest and curiosity scales.

With this, I leave you, Rodney. This thread has become tedious. You are not posting any support for the story and have, instead, started attacking the posters who question it. I've seen this before and I can live without it. See you around.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo was also unimpressed by "nominated for the Pulitzer".

Well, it costs $50.

ETA: And there must have been at least four copies of the book printed.

Wow!

 

[Mojo]

I can tell you that Kirkpatrick has sold a lot of books, and here is what he has to say about writing "An American Prophet": "Prior to taking this book project on, I was not involved in the Cayce organization at all. In fact, I was quite skeptical that there was any truth or insights to be found in the Cayce material. It was only after I began examining Cayce's original correspondence and trance readings (some 150,000 pages) that I came to appreciate the depth, scope, and truth of the material. I also came to appreciate the integrity of Cayce the man. A book which I had intended to write in two years, resulted in a seven year, 40,000 mile journey as I interviewed recipients of the Cayce readings and studied their impact and veracity."

Here's a nice review of it:

The book's completely uncritical reporting is disappointing and most exasperating. Kirkpatrick seems to reject nothing, never demurs at anything, establishes no critical distance, and provides little feel for what made Cayce tick. The good news is that eventually this approach becomes amusing...

Oh well, at least it's funny.

Kirkpatrick's idea of proof is to cite scads of testimonials, including many from doctors and celebrities.

You aren't by any chance related to Kirkpatrick, are you?

 

[fls]

No, but there is no medical information given here to analyze. The details are so vague that an educated layperson can probably get as much out of it as could a doctor.

Yes. The story is fourth-hand information provided from a lay perspective, so there isn't any medical information that requires interpretation.

I think the advantage that an MD has, is that they have direct experience as to how a layperson's characterization of events matches up with the medical record. And having performed this particular chore thousands of times, I can tell that you are wasting your time, Christine. It's fun to work through these things like they are mysteries, and the information you are providing is very interesting (I mentioned before that I collect old medical information). But you have been far too generous in your consideration of the "minimal truth".

It is probably safe to assume that Tommy was premature, and like most premature babies, was sickly for the first few weeks or months until his body caught up to the requirements of life outside of the womb. And it is probably also safe to assume that Cayce was actually involved with the Houses around that time. But it's possible none of the rest really happened, even with the assumption that everyone's intentions are honest. These things become distorted with each re-telling. An off-hand remark made by a physician becomes a terminal prognosis, the name of a familiar drug is substituted for one that was not comprehended, three weeks is condensed into a single night and conversely one night stretches out over three weeks, events that happened at different times and places are combined.

First hand accounts, written before or during the "event" by people with expert knowledge can be considered reliable. Accounts written after the event rapidly become unreliable depending upon the duration of time that has passed. Third and fourth hand accounts, years later, from inexpert laypeople are essentially useless. I'm not being needlessly harsh or dismissive. This has been my experience over and over and over again.

I will add the caveat that it is possible to extract useful information from someone giving a first-hand account through the use of careful questioning by an expert.

Linda

 

[ChristineR]

I concede the point. Cayce was not known for accuracy or even honesty, and there is a good chance that this story is entirely fictional.

The story started with a discussion of belladonna, which was characterized as a poison. I have a long time interest in folk remedies, but my interest is mostly political. There are still billions of people out there for whom the pharmacy is the back garden. Belladonna may not be the best example. Even the desperately poor people of the world probably have better choices, but I felt the need to defend it.

And from there I was intrigued by the fact that Cayce who grew up in a pre-industrial, rural community, apparently knew how to prescribe belladonna to good effect.

So while I hope you all enjoyed my exploration into the uses and abuses of herbal medicines, I will assume the story is completely fictional until and unless someone finds better information.

 

[fls]

I concede the point. Cayce was not known for accuracy or even honesty, and there is a good chance that this story is entirely fictional.

I got the impression from accounts I've read that he was honest and sincere. I didn't mean to imply that the stories are inaccurate because people lie (although that is sometimes the case as well).

The story started with a discussion of belladonna, which was characterized as a poison. I have a long time interest in folk remedies, but my interest is mostly political. There are still billions of people out there for whom the pharmacy is the back garden. Belladonna may not be the best example. Even the desperately poor people of the world probably have better choices, but I felt the need to defend it.

Interesting. In med school it was presented as one of the few truly effective drugs that physicians had for use before modern pharmacology, so I'm not used to thinking of it as a poison.

And from there I was intrigued by the fact that Cayce who grew up in a pre-industrial, rural community, apparently knew how to prescribe belladonna to good effect.

He apparently liked to read medical books. And he was assisted in his trances by medical professionals - intially an osteopath, then a medical doctor, and then a homeopathic doctor - any of whom would have been able to provide medical advice/information.

So while I hope you all enjoyed my exploration into the uses and abuses of herbal medicines, I will assume the story is completely fictional until and unless someone finds better information.

I didn't mean to imply that someone was making this up (although that also has to be considered as a possibility). It's just that someone is showing you a picture that they drew by looking through a foggy window. You don't know whether or not the "mountains" they drew in the background were really piles of garbage at the dump next door.

Linda