Non-Homeopathic Belladonna
- Thread starter Rodney
- Start date
-
- Tags
- belladonna edgar cayce
Even confirming that someone is your patient is violating patient confidentiality. And you would be unable to respond to the inevitable counter-claims, making the initial denial useless as a way to stop the misinformation.
We were talking about independent verification of the Aime Dietrich case. The article was based on fourth-hand information only for the Dietrich case - hardly an example of "independent verification".
What a strange question. I haven't the foggiest idea what you think you are asking for.
There are many good medical textbooks that include physiology and pathophysiology. Any one of them should do.
Linda
Why does documentation of what Cayce said impress you? What does it mean that lots of documentation is available on Cayce? What is the nature of those documents?
Linda
So if a patient or parent of a patient slanders or libels a physician, the physician has no recourse?
I don't know whether the Times talked with Dietrich, but they did talk with Dr. Ketchum, who had verified the facts with Dietrich. So, at worst, it was second-hand information from a doctor.
Very simple: I asked: "So you can cite other cases where a seizure-ridden and developmentally-delayed child recovered spontaneously after four years?" You responded: "Yes." I then responded: "And that case is . . . ?" So, I am looking for a case similar to the Dietrich case that has been verified, such as by having it described in a medical journal article.
How do textbooks prove that osteopathic adjustments cannot, under any circumstances, cure a child of seizures and developmental delays?
There are thousands of pages of documents on file at the A.R.E. in Virginia Beach, VA, most of which are now available on the computer. Many of those documents seem to verify Cayce's diagnoses and treatments. It is not plausible to me that Cayce was making it up as he went along, but you might want to check that out for yourself. One interesting area where recent developments suggest Cayce may have been accurate is the treatment of psoriasis. See post #20 by Lurking on this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1518201#post1518201
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Where in that post (a second-hand account of something an unnamed but "incredibly educated and accomplished" doctor may or may not have said) does it say anything about the "accuracy" of Cayce's treatment of psoriasis?
Lurking's post implies strongly that his/her doctor thought the Cayce material on psoriasis was accurate, but what I actually said was: "One interesting area where recent developments suggest Cayce may have been accurate is the treatment of psoriasis." I referenced Lurking's post because I thought it was a good place to start. And, if you read post #297 on this thread --
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1660125&highlight=psoriasis#post1660125 -- you will note that Cayce's seemingly strange notion that "psoriasis affects the lymph circulation" was confirmed in the mid-1980s.
The physician has legal recourse. I believe that in the case of slander/libel, the burden of proof is on the defendant - the patient/parent would be required to present the doctor/patient interaction as evidence in their defense and thereby effectively waive privilege.
But that's what I mean. It's not new or independent information, it's simply the same information we already have from Dietrich and his affidavit, except that now it has been filtered through two more people (Ketchum and the reporter).
Cases like the Dietrich case don't get published in medical journals. A case-report gets published when there is some unique or bizarre component to the case, or (more often) it is used to illustrate a more in-depth study. The recovery of Aime would fall under information about the natural history of various diseases (such as epilepsy, encephalitis, post-traumatic seizures, pseudoseizures), which reflects many cases. As spontaneous recovery from any of those illnesses is well-documented and part of most physicians' experience, it doesn't illustrate anything unique to show that it happens.
The mention of textbooks was meant to be a stand-in for the extent of our current knowledge. It is the details of what we already know that constrains the possibilities of what we don't know.
Linda
Consulting my old medical texts, it was already known that psoriasis was the skin manifestation of a systemic inflammatory disease in Cayce's time. Also, the link to GI disorders (but not the mechanism) was recognized.
Linda
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Do you have a reference for Cayce saying "psoriasis affects the lymph circulation"? In this post you said that "Cayce's psoriasis treatment always centered on the circulatory system". You went on to claim that the circulatory system is "a synonym for the immune system", but this is, of course, not the case.
By the way, has Cayce's notion that psoriasis is infectious, referred to in the post you linked to, been confirmed yet?
Yes, I'm saying it wouldn't be written up unless some other feature of the case was unique.
Linda
For example, "The Home Physician and Guide to Health", Canadian Watchman Press, 1924.
Linda
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I think particularly at that time, they would have been written up. A case-report or case-series to suggest a novel treatment would have been useful at a time when the field was fairly wide open (truly effective treatments were few and far between). Also, it builds (to a somewhat limited degree) on an understanding of what can happen, and how disease can be classified. As knowledge in those areas progresses, then individual cases become less useful unless they truly push the boundaries of what has already been observed.
I should add that this applies to conventional medical journals. Publications in non-conventional journals depend heavily upon case-reports and case-series since the results of systematic, good-quality studies tend to disappoint their audience.
Linda
Perhaps we cannot ever be certain of the details of the Amie Dietrich case, but assuming that what has been documented is correct and, in the absence of a documented case study in the medical literature which mimics it, I wonder if anyone can come up with a reasonable hypothetical case history that mimics that of Amie Dietrich?
Perhaps Rodney could first provide a reasonably detailed summary of her case.
Perhaps Rodney could first provide a reasonably detailed summary of her case.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
In reading 943-17, given January 21, 1932, Cayce stated: "As is known, psoriasis is - itself - an infectious condition that affects the emunctory and lymph circulation, and causes an improper coordination of the eliminating forces of the system, as in this body."