Non-Homeopathic Belladonna

[Rodney]

What knowledge did he possess that was unavailable?

Lots. For example, look at both the Aime Dietrich and Tommy House cases. Why was it that conventional medical treatments failed both of them, while Cayce's unorthodox treatments succeeded? Did Cayce read different books than the doctors of his time?

Where is his report? The hearsay reports I have read do not describe an objective evaluation.

I doubt if Munsterberg's career would have been enhanced by him writing a paper supporting Cayce.

Studies on accuracy have been done regarding medical doctors - the answer depends upon the question you are asking (and it's not really worth pursuing your red herring, anyway). Studies similar to that done for Cayce have not been performed except to show that that is not a valid or reliable method of determining accuracy.

Linda

So what you appear to be saying is that you don't know whether the 85% accuracy figure is better or worse than the average medical doctor today would achieve as the result of a similar evaluation. Correct?

 

[Rodney]

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the training and qualifications to become a doctor were highly variable and mostly sub-standard.

Nineteenth or Twentieth?

State and local licensing bodies provided essentially no oversight. After the Flexner report in 1910, medical schools underwent reform, most of the private schools were shut down, and state colleges (a term used for the professional organizations of physicians) and licensing authorities began to provide real oversight. Also, people who did not receive an education in conventional medicine, such as homeopaths, also called themselves doctors. A 'doctor's opinion' from that time period is meaningless without significant investigation.

Okay, but let me assure you about Dr. Ketchum. According to the NY Times article of October 9, 1910:

"It is well enough to add that Dr. Wesley H. Ketchum is a reputable physician of high standing and successful practice in the homeopathic school of medicine. He possesses a classical education, is by nature of a scientific turn, and is a graduate of one of the leading medical institutions of the country. He is vouched for by orthodox physicians in both Kentucky and Ohio, in both of which states he is well known. In Hopkinsville, where his home is, no physician of any school stands higher . . ."

Again, you are asking me to believe that second-hand (really sixth-hand) information provided by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about reliably excludes the possibility that there was a reasonable possibility that Aime could recover on her own. You are asking me to believe something that I already know is not true.

So an affidavit from Aime's father -- one of the most educated and respected citizens of Hopkinsville -- is "second-hand (really sixth-hand) information provided by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about"?

"I read it in a book, therefore it must be true"? Aside from the fact that you are changing the claim, it simply fails the commonsense rule. If someone claims that they can tell the colour of a card just by touch, it is foolish to believe that they aren't peeking until someone specifically states that they saw them peeking.

Linda

Please explain what claim I'm changing and further explain why there are no authoritative books or articles debunking Cayce. The debunking attempts by Randi, Martin Gardner, Michael Shermer, and other skeptics don't even come close to being authoritative.

 

[fls]

Lots. For example, look at both the Aime Dietrich and Tommy House cases. Why was it that conventional medical treatments failed both of them, while Cayce's unorthodox treatments succeeded? Did Cayce read different books than the doctors of his time?

As has been pointed out numerous times, unsupported second, third, fourth, etc.-hand reports provided by people who do not know what they are talking about are not evidence. We have not excluded the possibility that there was a reasonable expectation that Aime could recover on her own, or that Tommy could recover on his own.

I doubt if Munsterberg's career would have been enhanced by him writing a paper supporting Cayce.

Perhaps you should just provide a list of your stock answers and refer to them by number. It'd save you some typing.

So what you appear to be saying is that you don't know whether the 85% accuracy figure is better or worse than the average medical doctor today would achieve as the result of a similar evaluation. Correct?

Not really. I'm saying that the accuracy figure would depend mostly upon the personability of the doctor and personality of the patient in that kind of evaluation - something that is generally of less interest than objective, or relevant subjective, outcomes.

Linda

 

[fls]

Nineteenth or Twentieth?

Oops. I meant Twentieth.

Okay, but let me assure you about Dr. Ketchum. According to the NY Times article of October 9, 1910:

"It is well enough to add that Dr. Wesley H. Ketchum is a reputable physician of high standing and successful practice in the homeopathic school of medicine. He possesses a classical education, is by nature of a scientific turn, and is a graduate of one of the leading medical institutions of the country. He is vouched for by orthodox physicians in both Kentucky and Ohio, in both of which states he is well known. In Hopkinsville, where his home is, no physician of any school stands higher . . ."

Isn't that also the article that stated Cayce was illiterate? And again, the statements are unsupported.

So an affidavit from Aime's father -- one of the most educated and respected citizens of Hopkinsville -- is "second-hand (really sixth-hand) information provided by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about"?

Yes. He did not have the expert knowledge required to exclude the possibility that Aime could recover on her own. And we already know that she must have recovered on her own (or with conventional medical treatment), since osteopathic adjustments would not cure any disease that would fit the description given. And if she did have a disease that was amenable to osteopathic adjustments, then the description and prognosis must have been wrong.

Please explain what claim I'm changing and further explain why there are no authoritative books or articles debunking Cayce. The debunking attempts by Randi, Martin Gardner, Michael Shermer, and other skeptics don't even come close to being authoritative.

I started out by saying that we don't have information that excludes the obvious assumption that the doctors Cayce worked with could contribute their own knowledge. You changed it to Cayce relying on the doctor's diagnosis.

I don't know what you are looking for when it comes to authoritative debunking. I've seen articles that clearly demonstrate that the information provided on Edgar Cayce is insufficient to exclude normal explanations. More than that isn't really necessary, unless someone has a special interest in the matter.

Linda

 

[Mojo]

I don't know what you are looking for when it comes to authoritative debunking. I've seen articles that clearly demonstrate that the information provided on Edgar Cayce is insufficient to exclude normal explanations.

Rodney wants us to provide evidence that excludes paranormal explanations.

 

[Rodney]

Yes. He did not have the expert knowledge required to exclude the possibility that Aime could recover on her own.

What about the doctors that gave up on Aime?

And we already know that she must have recovered on her own (or with conventional medical treatment), since osteopathic adjustments would not cure any disease that would fit the description given.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Cannot osteopathic adjustments cure seizures in some cases?

 

[Mojo]

What about the doctors that gave up on Aime?

What about them?

 

[fls]

What about the doctors that gave up on Aime?

Other than second-hand (at best) reports of a nature known to be unrealiable, what evidence do we have that the doctors gave up on Aime?

Are you absolutely sure about that? Cannot osteopathic adjustments cure seizures in some cases?

No.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Other than second-hand (at best) reports of a nature known to be unrealiable, what evidence do we have that the doctors gave up on Aime?

Do you have evidence that affidavits from responsible citizens are "known to be unreliable"? In his affidavit, Professor Dietrich named five doctors who completely failed to help Aime over a four-year period. The affidavit states that the final doctor told him that nothing could be done, which to me sounds suspiciously like giving up.

No.

Linda

Has any study been done showing that osteopathic adjustments cannot eliminate seizures, or is it simply that there has never been a study along those lines?

 

[Mojo]

Do you have evidence that affidavits from responsible citizens are "known to be unreliable"? In his affidavit, Professor Dietrich named five doctors who completely failed to help Aime over a four-year period. The affidavit states that the final doctor told him that nothing could be done, which to me sounds suspiciously like giving up.

Anecdotal accounts given years after the fact by unqualified people are known to be unreliable. The fact that it was sworn as an affidavit would not increase the reliability of Dietrich's memory.

Did anyone bother getting in touch with the five named doctors involved?

 

[Mojo]

While we're on the subject of the reliability of Dietrich's affidavit: according to the affidavit, Aime was taken to the last doctor on March 1st 1902.

Given that, according to the affidavit, she was born on January 7th 1897, how old would she have been at that date?

How old does the affidavit say she was right before this?

 

[fls]

Do you have evidence that affidavits from responsible citizens are "known to be unreliable"? In his affidavit, Professor Dietrich named five doctors who completely failed to help Aime over a four-year period. The affidavit states that the final doctor told him that nothing could be done, which to me sounds suspiciously like giving up.

If I want to know an expert's opinion on a case, reading an account of an affadavit that was based on a non-expert's years-old recollection, incompletely understood, of what that expert said, is an unreliable method. That's not even taking into account that at that time it is unlikely that the doctors understood what was going on.

Also, patients/family often interpret "we currently know of no treatment" or "there is nothing we can do to alter the course of the disease" to mean that there is no possibility of recovery or that the doctors are giving up hope.

Has any study been done showing that osteopathic adjustments cannot eliminate seizures, or is it simply that there has never been a study along those lines?

Ah, yes. The "any old idea I pull out of my ass is considered valid until a study definitively proves it wrong" defense.

Linda

 

[Mojo]

Also, patients/family often interpret "we currently know of no treatment" or "there is nothing we can do to alter the course of the disease" to mean that there is no possibility of recovery or that the doctors are giving up hope.

Hence the perennial cry of the sCAM testimonial: "Five doctors gave up on me!"

 

[Mashuna]

Ah, yes. The "any old idea I pull out of my ass is considered valid until a study definitively proves it wrong" defense.

Linda

So you're saying prodding him with sharp sticks whilst bathing him in custard might have helped?

 

[Mojo]

Chacun à son goût.






ETA: Sorry, did you mean Tommy or Rodney?

 

[Rodney]

Anecdotal accounts given years after the fact by unqualified people are known to be unreliable. The fact that it was sworn as an affidavit would not increase the reliability of Dietrich's memory.

So when the affidavit claims that Dr. Hoppe said that nothing could be done, except to give Aime good care, as her case was hopeless and she would die, Professor Dietrich completely misremembered what really happened? Do you think that maybe the good doctor actually said: "Just give me four more years, I'll cure her"?

Did anyone bother getting in touch with the five named doctors involved?

I don't know, but I'm not sure they would have been the most objective folks to talk with, considering their treatment of Aime had been useless.

 

[Rodney]

While we're on the subject of the reliability of Dietrich's affidavit: according to the affidavit, Aime was taken to the last doctor on March 1st 1902.

Given that, according to the affidavit, she was born on January 7th 1897, how old would she have been at that date?

Five.

How old does the affidavit say she was right before this?

Six. However, this is the type of minor error that is readily understandable, considering that Professor Dietrich submitted his affidavit in October 1910. Presumably, Aime saw Dr. Hoppe in March 1903. It could even have been a typo that the affidavit says 1902 rather than 1903. Your idea that, because of that trivial error, Dietrich probably got confused about the five doctors' ineffective treatment of Aime over four years and Cayce's subsequent successful treatment of her is illogical in the extreme.

 

[Rodney]

If I want to know an expert's opinion on a case, reading an account of an affadavit that was based on a non-expert's years-old recollection, incompletely understood, of what that expert said, is an unreliable method.

So Professor Dietrich was incapable of understanding the pronouncements of the five doctors regarding his daughter?

That's not even taking into account that at that time it is unlikely that the doctors understood what was going on.

At least we agree on something.

Also, patients/family often interpret "we currently know of no treatment" or "there is nothing we can do to alter the course of the disease" to mean that there is no possibility of recovery or that the doctors are giving up hope.

It's not a question of interpretation, it's the fact that Dietrich categorically states that Aime failed to develop over four years and that Dr. Hoppe directly told him there was no hope for her.

Ah, yes. The "any old idea I pull out of my ass is considered valid until a study definitively proves it wrong" defense.

Linda

So I take it there is no such study?

 

[fls]

So Professor Dietrich was incapable of understanding the pronouncements of the five doctors regarding his daughter?

Huh? I'm saying that no matter how smart or educated you are, memory is unreliable - especially many years after the events, when it has been molded by numerous re-tellings (just guessing that he told the story of his daughter's amazing recovery to others), and involves a subject which requires an expertise to understand which you lack.

It's not a question of interpretation, it's the fact that Dietrich categorically states that Aime failed to develop over four years and that Dr. Hoppe directly told him there was no hope for her.

How someone remembers something happening is often not the same as how it happened.

(I can't believe I just said that.)

So I take it there is no such study?

Well, I found lots of studies involving sharp sticks, but I drew a blank with the custard.

Linda

 

[BillyJoe]

How someone remembers something happening is often not the same as how it happened.

(I can't believe I just said that.)

No, you should have gone further:
How someone remembers something happening is NEVER the same as how it actually happened.

And the more times the story has been told, and the more time that has passed between the event and the telling, the more the memory and the retelling deviates from the facts of what actually happened.

In time, any resemblance between the two can be entirely absent or purely coincidental.