American Medical System and Vioxx

[MRC_Hans]

Cayce was a random person?

Unless you can document that he is a qualified authority in the area we are discussing, then yes: His opinions or claims are exactly as interesting as those of any random person.

Hans

 

[fls]

In what post did I say that supplementary, complementary, and alternative medicine is much safer than conventional medicine?

So you aren't arguing that Cayce's recommended remedies weren't harmful? Then my work here is done.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

So you aren't arguing that Cayce's recommended remedies weren't harmful?

Non sequitur. I recognize that supplementary, complementary, and alternative medicine can be harmful in some circumstances, such as if someone has a serious infection and attempts to treat it with an herbal remedy rather than an antibiotic. But I'm still looking for a case where Cayce prescribed an unconventional remedy that caused major harm or death.

Then my work here is done.

I'll miss you.

 

[paximperium]

But I'm still looking for a case where Cayce prescribed an unconventional remedy that caused major harm or death.

I'm still looking for any evidence that showed any of his crap works.

 

[fls]

Non sequitur. I recognize that supplementary, complementary, and alternative medicine can be harmful in some circumstances, such as if someone has a serious infection and attempts to treat it with an herbal remedy rather than an antibiotic. But I'm still looking for a case where Cayce prescribed an unconventional remedy that caused major harm or death.

I'm talking about harm from the taking of substance, unconventional or not.

So what was your point in the OP, if the failure to discover harm by failing to look for it, is an acceptable defense to you?

Linda

 

[Rodney]

I'm talking about harm from the taking of substance, unconventional or not.

So what was your point in the OP, if the failure to discover harm by failing to look for it, is an acceptable defense to you?

Linda

You really don't think skeptics have combed through Cayce's medical readings, looking for errors that caused harm to his clients?

 

[paximperium]

You really don't think skeptics have combed through Cayce's medical readings, looking for errors that caused harm to his clients?

Still waiting for you to provide any evidence of these so called "medical readings" or more accurately, the dangerous ramblings of some random person.

Would you care to share even one of his "treatments" using "dangerous" substances that actually works?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you claiming such publications are ineffective at achieving the goals which motivate their use?

Much less so now than when the tactics were first used. Most providers I know are well aware of the tactic and while we may still go to the conference, people there will typically ask challenging questions of the presenters about their actual role in the research. And one evaluates any medical recommendation based on multiple sources of information, not on single presentations.

Finally, it is standard practice to be very conservative with new drugs and first only prescribe them to patients who other treatment options have failed. You don't just go switching patients from successful treatment regimens to the product in the shiny new box.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Medicine will improve when patients trust physicians less and feel free and able to question physicians' opinions and reasoning without sanction. I'm not sure physicians are particularly keen on this happening anytime soon.

If anything, a physician's desire to believe he or she practices science-based medicine can be seen as a move to increase power and authority of the physician over the patient.

Your narrow stereotype of the physician is really getting tiring.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's not the relevant issue. Merck presented Vioxx as superior to naproxen because it caused fewer stomach problems, and that's the way the choice between the two drugs was presented to many consumers. However, those consumers had no clue that Vioxx was more likely to cause a heart attack. Had consumers been told that, they could have made an informed choice, but they never were given that opportunity.

I don't have an issue with specific complaints against a single instance of unethical behavior by a pharmaceutical company. But when these events are used to claim all Big Pharma is the same as this, that is the thing I am taking issue with. Just like my complaint with Ivor posting over and over again that every physician is ego-challenged when the majority are not, you have to be careful painting every thing with the broad brush you happen to believe in the color on it.

 

[paximperium]

Your narrow stereotype of the physician is really getting tiring.

I've long given up taking his bigotry seriously.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Medicine will improve when patients trust physicians less and feel free and able to question physicians' opinions and reasoning without sanction. I'm not sure physicians are particularly keen on this happening anytime soon.

If anything, a physician's desire to believe he or she practices science-based medicine can be seen as a move to increase power and authority of the physician over the patient.

Your narrow stereotype of the physician is really getting tiring.

I've long given up taking his bigotry seriously.

It is very rare a person is happy to have his or her opinion or reasoning questioned. It is even rarer and more likely to cause offense when the person doing the questioning is perceived as being less knowledgeable or qualified, or of lower status.

There are unspoken rules about how to behave when talking to people with more authority, such as a patient talking to a physician. Behaviour which can be interpreted as showing indifference to the differential in power is usually met with sanction to remind the individual they are transgressing.

 

[paximperium]

It is very rare a person is happy to have his or her opinion or reasoning questioned. It is even rarer and more likely to cause offense when the person doing the questioning is perceived as being less knowledgeable or qualified, or of lower status.

There are unspoken rules about how to behave when talking to people with more authority, such as a patient talking to a physician. Behaviour which can be interpreted as showing indifference to the differential in power is usually met with sanction to remind the individual they are transgressing.

Thanks for making my point. Reminds of Creationist thinking that scientists take them seriously for being pissed off at their garbage.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Thanks for making my point. Reminds of Creationist thinking that scientists take them seriously for being pissed off at their garbage.

What point?

 

[fls]

You really don't think skeptics have combed through Cayce's medical readings, looking for errors that caused harm to his clients?

What difference would that make? Cayce failed to record indications of harm in the first place. Is that your solution to the OP - what we don't know can't hurt us?

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Still waiting for you to provide any evidence of these so called "medical readings" or more accurately, the dangerous ramblings of some random person.

Would you care to share even one of his "treatments" using "dangerous" substances that actually works?

I've done so in the past, but briefly, Sidney Kirkpatrick begins his book Edgar Cayce: An American Prophet by recounting a case where an infant named Tommy House was on the verge of death, suffering from frequent seizures, malnutrition, and a lack of sleep. The child's father -- a physician -- as well as two other physicians, thought that Tommy would not survive the night. Cayce prescribed a measured dose of belladonna, which Tommy's father thought would kill Tommy. But Dr. House consented, believing his son would die shortly anyway. The bottom line: Tommy made a complete recovery, and he never had another seizure.

 

[Mojo]

We've been through all that before.

 

[paximperium]

I've done so in the past, but briefly, Sidney Kirkpatrick begins his book Edgar Cayce: An American Prophet by recounting a case where an infant named Tommy House was on the verge of death, suffering from frequent seizures, malnutrition, and a lack of sleep. The child's father -- a physician -- as well as two other physicians, thought that Tommy would not survive the night. Cayce prescribed a measured dose of belladonna, which Tommy's father thought would kill Tommy. But Dr. House consented, believing his son would die shortly anyway. The bottom line: Tommy made a complete recovery, and he never had another seizure.

Really?
Die from what? How did they know he would not survive the night?
Who were these "physicians" who was supposedly there and what are their accounts of the events?

What was the kid's specific diagnosis and underlying medical problem?
What was Cayce's supposed diagnosis?
What was his reasoning behind giving belladonna?
What was the dose of belladonna that was supposedly given?
When was it given and when was the kid finally "cured"?
Was this so called treatment used again by these "physicians" since it was apparently a "miracle"?

Who recorded this event and when?
Did these physicians publish their case in a medical journal?
What is the documentation of this supposedly event even occurring?

 

[Rodney]

Really?
Die from what? How did they know he would not survive the night?
Who were these "physicians" who was supposedly there and what are their accounts of the events?

What was the kid's specific diagnosis and underlying medical problem?
What was Cayce's supposed diagnosis?
What was his reasoning behind giving belladonna?
What was the dose of belladonna that was supposedly given?
When was it given and when was the kid finally "cured"?
Was this so called treatment used again by these "physicians" since it was apparently a "miracle"?

Who recorded this event and when?
Did these physicians publish their case in a medical journal?
What is the documentation of this supposedly event even occurring?

You're raising some good points, along with some dumb ones. If you're going to question whether Dr. House (a general practitioner in Hopkinsville, KY) and the other two doctors (Jackson, another general practitioner in Hopkinsville and Haggard, a pediatric specialist from Nashville, TN) were really "physicians", you had better put quotations marks around the alleged title of everyone on this Forum who claims to be some sort of professional. It is overwhelmingly documented that House was a physician, and that both he and his son believed implicitly in Cayce. I'm not as sure about Jackson and Haggard, but I would respectfully say that the proof that they were physicians is greater than for anyone posting here.

Cayce's diagnosis was that Tommy was suffering from an unusual epileptic condition, but he apparently did not state why the belladonna would cure that condition. It's not clear what dose was given to Tommy, other than it was a measured dose, not a homeopathic dose. Tommy fell asleep after being given the belladonna, and was fine the next morning, and so the cure was immediate. The cure was not a miracle, in that Cayce prescribed a powerful medication, rather than laying on hands or saying magic words. Whether any of the three physicians tried this same remedy in another case, I don't know, but presumably they would not have done so unless there was a nearly identical set of circumstances.

Now, since this event occurred in 1909, it's difficult to document it to the extent that it could be documented had it occurred in 2009. But a number of skeptics have examined the evidence, and I don't know of anyone who clams that this story was made up. I do agree, however, that at least one of the physicians should have written up the case in a medical journal. Kirkpatrick implies that doing so may not have been good for their careers, but this is a loose end. A bigger loose end is whether belladonna could have been efficacious for Tommy's condition. If you can prove that it could not have been, I'll award you a gold star.

 

[Mojo]

But a number of skeptics have examined the evidence, and I don't know of anyone who clams that this story was made up.

Maybe not, but there seemed to be a lot of them pointing out that there is no evidence that Cayce's recommendation had any connection (beyond coincidence) with the recovery.

I do agree, however, that at least one of the physicians should have written up the case in a medical journal.

Why?

A bigger loose end is whether belladonna could have been efficacious for Tommy's condition. If you can prove that it could not have been, I'll award you a gold star.

There you go trying to shift the burden of proof again. We don't know what Tommy's condition was. We don't know what, if any, effect the dose of belladonna had on him. We don't even know how big the dose was. There are no proper records.