American Medical System and Vioxx

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Gold star? Don't be condescending. I don't think anybody really claims that the story is made-up. However, given the lack of info, this is an anecdote. We don't know if he would have recovered anyway. We also don't know if belladonna might actually have an effect on the case.

It is an interesting story, but it really can't be used for anything, and it is not relevant for the topic of this thread. Cayce may have done something right, but the discussion is about whether he did something wrong.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

This is the important point. If producers of conventional meds could get away with sloppy or non-existent follow up logging typical of alternative medicine, we would know of very few side effects. I think that perhaps the Thalidomide scandal would happened anyway, but for example Vioxx would still be going strong.

Hans

 

[fls]

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.

Ah, the OP was a cautionary tale against the use of first-hand information, documented well before one knows the use to which it will be put. Far better to depend upon third-hand accounts conveyed by those who stand to gain from it.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ah, the OP was a cautionary tale against the use of first-hand information, documented well before one knows the use to which it will be put. Far better to depend upon third-hand accounts conveyed by those who stand to gain from it.
Linda

You are aware that includes the experience of many patients of regular physicians in the US?

 

[Deetee]

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.

Documentation is lacking. No replication. Did this happen the way it is retold, or did it happen and Cayce just get lucky?

If I gave a dose of belladonna to every patient I saw, I have no doubt that in a tiny percentage of cases it would coincide with natural resolution of the underlying problem. Causality is not established here between the two events.

Since atropine penetrates the CNS and has specific neurotransmitter effects, it is feasible that it may have altered the expression of whatever illness Tommy was exhibiting at the time. It is barely plausible to imagine some medical conditions that might have been helped by belladonna. Acute organophaosphate poisoning is the only one that springs easily to mind, but this is not likely to be what Tommy had in 1909.

Alternatively Tommy may have been poisoned temporarily with belladonna, which rendered him unconscious and appearing to ease his convulsions. (This would be akin to treating a convulsing patient with an dose of say heroin). By the time Tommy recovered from his atropine poisoning, the underlying illness had also settled coincidentally.

Even if we accept this at face value as a documented example of Cayce "helping" a patient, where are the other thousands of instances we were led to believe he cured people? If it is so difficult to get just one documented example, why should we believe there are so many others?

 

[paximperium]

I like a great story...with no good documentation and especially of absolutely no practical use.

 

[Rodney]

Documentation is lacking. No replication. Did this happen the way it is retold, or did it happen and Cayce just get lucky?

We can't say for sure, but there are a number of other cases where Cayce's remedies seem to have worked.

If I gave a dose of belladonna to every patient I saw, I have no doubt that in a tiny percentage of cases it would coincide with natural resolution of the underlying problem. Causality is not established here between the two events.

True, but given the facts of the case (I would add that Tommy was a premature baby and had been suffering convulsions since his birth three months earlier), was it more likely that the belladonna would have: (a) cured him, or (b) killed him?

Since atropine penetrates the CNS and has specific neurotransmitter effects, it is feasible that it may have altered the expression of whatever illness Tommy was exhibiting at the time. It is barely plausible to imagine some medical conditions that might have been helped by belladonna. Acute organophaosphate poisoning is the only one that springs easily to mind, but this is not likely to be what Tommy had in 1909.

Is belladonna ever used to treat a patient with Tommy's symptoms?

Alternatively Tommy may have been poisoned temporarily with belladonna, which rendered him unconscious and appearing to ease his convulsions. (This would be akin to treating a convulsing patient with an dose of say heroin). By the time Tommy recovered from his atropine poisoning, the underlying illness had also settled coincidentally.

I would also add that Cayce's remedy included wrapping Tommy in a hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree, apparently to leach the poison out of Tommy's system. In fact, I just found out that Kirkpatrick's account of events in this case is available on-line. See http://www.spiritsite.com/writing/edgcay/part1.shtml

Even if we accept this at face value as a documented example of Cayce "helping" a patient, where are the other thousands of instances we were led to believe he cured people? If it is so difficult to get just one documented example, why should we believe there are so many others?

There are a number of other examples that I have cited. Also, many physicians, including Dr. House, attested to the efficacy of Cayce's remedies. It seems to me that what you need to think about in the Tommy House case is why Cayce would recommend a dangerous treatment like belladonna. If he were just guessing, why not recommend a less dangerous remedy?

 

[paximperium]

We can't say for sure, but there are a number of other cases where Cayce's remedies seem to have worked.

And this is based off of the great documentation of his so called remedies...oh wait...

True, but given the facts of the case (I would add that Tommy was a premature baby and had been suffering convulsions since his birth three months earlier), was it more likely that the belladonna would have: (a) cured him, or (b) killed him?

Done absolutely nothing?

I don't know the dose. I don't even know if belladona that was supposedly given. I don't even know if any of this supposedly occurred.

Is belladonna ever used to treat a patient with Tommy's symptoms?

Belladonna...oh, you mean Atropine? We kind of purified atropine from belladonna some time ago.

Don't know. What diagnosis did he have again?
What were the seizures like? How often did they occur? What was the exam like? What was his weight?

I would also add that Cayce's remedy included wrapping Tommy in a hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree, apparently to leach the poison out of Tommy's system. In fact, I just found out that Kirkpatrick's account of events in this case is available on-line. See http://www.spiritsite.com/writing/edgcay/part1.shtml

Doctors House and Jackson listened intently as Cayce described an epileptic condition that had caused severe infantile spasms, nausea, and vomiting-evidently the outcome of the child's premature birth-which in turn had been the result of his mother's poor physical condition during the early months of her pregnancy. Cayce prescribed a measured dose of belladonna, administered orally, to be followed by wrapping the infant in a steaming hot poultice made from the bark of a peach tree. Cayce ended the trance session himself when he stated, "We are through for the present."

Wow...what an amazing LACK of detail, LACK of any actual diagnosi and LACK of any first hand accounts. I love the third person narrative. Makes a great way to write a story.

As unbelievable as the source of the information was, House and Jackson both agreed that the diagnosis sounded perfectly reasonable. It was the recommended cure that upset them, for the "sleeping" Cayce had prescribed an unusually high dose of a toxic form of deadly nightshade. Even if the peach-tree poultice could somehow leach the poison out of the infant's system, administering such a large dose of belladonna to a child as small and weak as Thomas House Jr. was tantamount to murder. Jackson expressed his sentiments to his colleague and the child's mother in no uncertain terms: "You'll kill little Tommy for sure," he said.

What diagnosis? "Poisons"? "Bad juju"?

Medical records do not exist to describe the child's physiological reaction to the belladonna, or to the steaming hot towels dipped in peach-tree solution in which the naked child was immediately wrapped. All that is known is that the crying stopped as soon as the mother spooned the poison into her child's mouth, and that he fell into his first deep and uninterrupted sleep since birth.

How convenient. The following paragraphs are some of the most unethical and disgusting quackery I've read. What a dangerous quack.

But that is a great story. What first hand account is there again? It's all written in the third person.

There are a number of other examples that I have cited. Also, many physicians, including Dr. House, attested to the efficacy of Cayce's remedies.

So?...where was that attestation again? I would actually like to read it, IN HIS OWN WORDS.

It seems to me that what you need to think about in the Tommy House case is why Cayce would recommend a dangerous treatment like belladonna. If he were just guessing, why not recommend a less dangerous remedy?

Because he was insane? Because he was deluded to believing in his own "readings"?
I thought Cayce was just some wannabe prophet. A failed Nostrodamus wannabee. But it looks like he was dangerous quack as well.

 

[paximperium]

So I'm curious Rodney.
If your baby had seizures, do you:
1)Take them to a big city hospital?
2)Wait for some prophet to show up and recommend a poisonous and untried treatment?
Just like Dr House, the so called "skeptic" who was already a "true believer" before this event even occurred.

And then this wonder worker showed up, your child (that has been supposedly sick for months) would suddenly "not live through the night" or how the actual skeptic, the Dr Haggard, left instead of participating in the fraud. Wow. What a coincidence?

Then this fella closes his eyes, and then recommends a "poison", would YOU give your child that poison based purely on blind faith?

 

[Rodney]

So I'm curious Rodney.
If your baby had seizures, do you:
1)Take them to a big city hospital?
2)Wait for some prophet to show up and recommend a poisonous and untried treatment?
Just like Dr House, the so called "skeptic" who was already a "true believer" before this event even occurred.

And then this wonder worker showed up, your child (that has been supposedly sick for months) would suddenly "not live through the night" or how the actual skeptic, the Dr Haggard, left instead of participating in the fraud. Wow. What a coincidence?

Then this fella closes his eyes, and then recommends a "poison", would YOU give your child that poison based purely on blind faith?

First, in this case, Tommy had three physicians available, and I doubt if a 1909-era hospital would have been able to do anything for him that the physicians couldn't. Second, Dr. House was a (more-or-less) believer in Cayce, based on his past experience with him. So it wasn't "blind" faith. Still, it's clear that House wouldn't have consented to the belladonna, if he did not think his son was gravely ill and would die shortly anyway.

So, if I had been in the same situation as Dr. House was in 1909, I would have done the same thing as he did. Today, however, there is (to my knowledge) no medical psychic comparable to Edgar Cayce, and medicine has obviously progressed during the last century. So, today I would either call 9-1-1 or rush the baby to the hospital.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The manufacturers that failed to test its safety thouroughly enough before giving it out are clearly guilty, of negligent manslaughter for a lot of people. What a horrid drug, and its metabolite maleic anhydride is even worse.

Just like to clarify that I dont think this is true on reflection, some side effects from drugs really can not be predicted, people should know they take this slight risk.

 

[Mojo]

We can't say for sure, but there are a number of other cases where Cayce's remedies seem to have worked.

No, there are a number of cases in which recovery followed Cayce's treatments. Not the same thing. Would you like your logical fallacy translated into Latin?

 

[Rodney]

No, there are a number of cases in which recovery followed Cayce's treatments. Not the same thing. Would you like your logical fallacy translated into Latin?

Sure, if you'll also translate into Latin the fact that, prior to Cayce's treatments, conventional medical treatments had been totally ineffective.

 

[paximperium]

Sure, if you'll also translate into Latin the fact that, prior to Cayce's treatments, conventional medical treatments had been totally ineffective.

Would you also like this additional logical fallacy...no sorry, several logical fallacies, translated into latin?

 

[fls]

No, there are a number of cases in which recovery followed Cayce's treatments. Not the same thing. Would you like your logical fallacy translated into Latin?

That's not even quite accurate. It's more like, there are some cases in which patients, or people reporting on the behalf of patients, reported improvement in some symptoms following Cayce's treatments.

Linda

 

[fls]

Sure, if you'll also translate into Latin the fact that, prior to Cayce's treatments, conventional medical treatments had been totally ineffective.

Or more accurately, in some cases, prior to Cayce's recommendation of what were often conventional medical treatments, other conventional medical treatments had been tried with results that were not satisfactory.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

That's not even quite accurate. It's more like, there are some cases in which patients, or people reporting on the behalf of patients, reported improvement in some symptoms following Cayce's treatments.

Linda

So what's your criteria for evaluating when medical treatment has been efficacious?

 

[Mojo]

That's not even quite accurate. It's more like, there are some cases in which patients, or people reporting on the behalf of patients, reported improvement in some symptoms following Cayce's treatments.

Sorry. I was taking Rodney's apologetics at face value.

 

[Mojo]

So what's your criteria for evaluating when medical treatment has been efficacious?

I'm guessing that it involves systematic recording of results and a control group.

 

[fls]

So what's your criteria for evaluating when medical treatment has been efficacious?

I try to use more objective measures, something that is less subject to expectation. And when the diagnosis is unclear (and therefore prognosis is also unclear), I don't assume that a particular treatment was efficacious.

Linda