Yes, because the affidavit was very specific. It did not say: "One of Aime's doctors told me she would not live much longer, which he said had been the case with others in her condition." Rather, the affidavit specified Dr. Hoppe and was also specific that Hoppe informed Dietrich that "only nine cases of this peculiar type were reported in Medical Records, and every one of these had proved fatal. He told us that nothing could be done, except to give her good care, as her case was hopeless and she would die soon in one of these attacks." It's not plausible to me that Hoppe said nothing of the sort and somehow Dietrich imagined that he did.
You misunderstood me if you think I am implying that Hoppe said nothing of the sort and Dietrich imagined it.
We remember the exact meaning, rather than the exact words. The same words may have a different meaning to two different people, especially when one person uses them to convey an exact medical meaning and the other (without knowing what that exact medical meaning is) draws out the common meaning.
I'm not saying that Hoppe definitely said something different. I'm just saying that the affidavit will reflect what Dietrich thought was the meaning of the words, rather than the exact words. And it is possible that he did accurately capture the meaning of what Hoppe said, and Hoppe was simply wrong. As I said before, medical science would not have been advanced enough to understand this case. So Hoppe would have been unable to determine whether Aime really did represent another example of the nine cases reported in medical records (or whether those nine cases even represented a common process).
Yes, but the affidavit earlier stated: "Convulsions returned, at irregular intervals,with increasing severity. She would fall just like she was shot, her body would become perfectly rigid, the spells lasting from one to two minutes. This went on for two years, or until she was four years old." Presumably, things worsened from there, culminating two years later in what appeared to Dr. Hoppe to be a hopeless condition.
The "until she was four years old" is followed by a description of visits to other doctors, not a description of worsening symptoms. And the diagnosis was a type of "nervousness", hardly something that represents a severe condition.
This is an example of what I mentioned before. Dietrich's words allow for various, quite different interpretations, depending upon what you want the story to mean.
I don't think there is any room for interpreting Dietrich's affidavit to mean that Aime was really not in that bad shape when Cayce became involved.
I agree.
But don't you think it's rather amazing that Cayce's intervention coincided with Aime being cured?
But the timing of the intervention and the course of the disease are not independent. I already explained why the timing of Cayce's intervention is what I would expect. If the usual course of an illness is progressive worsening until the illness is checked by natural processes, which leads to progressive recovery, you will have some people who only become mildly ill and then begin to recover, some who become very ill and then begin to recover, and some who die as the natural processes did not check the disease soon enough. The magical healer is unlikely to be called in when the disease is only mild or moderate. It is usually those cases that continue to progress to the point that the disease is severe where the patient/family become desparate enough to start looking for magic. And it is at that point that the patient will either start to recover due to natural processes or die. As I mentioned earlier, deaths will be easily ignored, so all that's left are those that recover.
Let's put it this way: If you can demonstrate that osteopathic adjustments could not possibly have cured Aime of seizures or delayed development, that would go a long way to discrediting Cayce. Wouldn't that be worthwhile?
I have not seen any evidence that demonstrating anything to you leads to those results. I am skeptical that it would be worthwhile.
Linda
