Merged Edgar Cayce

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Pagano may not be interested in undertaking placebo-controlled double-blinded clinical trials, but, unless he's blatantly lying -- which no one has proven -- he has many satisfied patients.

You really don't get it do you? I will try again (maybe I should have my head examined):

1. It does not matter how many satisfied patients there are, this is worthless as evidence.

2. Testimonials, affidavits, or eyewitness reports are worthless.

3. Because of this, even if Cayce was psychic it would be difficult or impossible to demonstrate that now, since he is dead.

4. Even if Cayce had said carrot juice cures skin cancer and it turned out it was true, this still would not be enough to convince us he was psychic!

5. To convince us, a psychic is going to have to successfully perform (at least twice) in a double blinded experiment, in a neutral environment, in front of hostile witnesses. Anything less is just garbage.

6. Since it is now impossible to test Cayce in this manner, and since no one else has ever managed to perform this either; we will continue to assume that there are no such thing as psychics. If you had claimed that Cayce could bench press 300lbs, it will be impossible to test that was well, but we might be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, since it has been well established that some people can lift that kind of weight. If someday it is established that there really are such things as psychic powers, then I would give you the benefit of the doubt about him being psychic.

LLH

 

[Euromutt]

If he is prescribing, as a doctor, unproven medical treatments then his actions are unethical.

That's the beauty of it: Pagano isn't a doctor. He's a f*cking chiropractor. He isn't even qualified to diagnose psoriasis, let alone treat it!

 

[UrsulaV]

Since it is now impossible to test Cayce in this manner, and since no one else has ever managed to perform this either; we will continue to assume that there are no such thing as psychics. If you had claimed that Cayce could bench press 300lbs, it will be impossible to test that was well, but we might be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, since it has been well established that some people can lift that kind of weight. If someday it is established that there really are such things as psychic powers, then I would give you the benefit of the doubt about him being psychic.

I've tried this one already. Rodney hates it. He wants somebody to be psychic RIGHT NOW, and it preferably to be Cayce.

I still think it's a completely accurate and pithy summation of the situation, though. *grin*

 

[Rodney]

You really don't get it do you? I will try again (maybe I should have my head examined):

1. It does not matter how many satisfied patients there are, this is worthless as evidence.

2. Testimonials, affidavits, or eyewitness reports are worthless.

3. Because of this, even if Cayce was psychic it would be difficult or impossible to demonstrate that now, since he is dead.

4. Even if Cayce had said carrot juice cures skin cancer and it turned out it was true, this still would not be enough to convince us he was psychic!

5. To convince us, a psychic is going to have to successfully perform (at least twice) in a double blinded experiment, in a neutral environment, in front of hostile witnesses. Anything less is just garbage.

6. Since it is now impossible to test Cayce in this manner, and since no one else has ever managed to perform this either; we will continue to assume that there are no such thing as psychics. If you had claimed that Cayce could bench press 300lbs, it will be impossible to test that was well, but we might be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, since it has been well established that some people can lift that kind of weight. If someday it is established that there really are such things as psychic powers, then I would give you the benefit of the doubt about him being psychic.

LLH

I have to give you credit, you have summed up the consensus here very well -- even if doesn't make sense to anyone who lives in the real world. I particularly like #1: "It does not matter how many satisfied patients there are, this is worthless as evidence." So, even if a lot of highly-credible people who have been ravaged by psoriasis their entire lives sign affidavits stating that they have been cured by Pagano's treatment -- based upon Cayce's readings -- this means nothing. After all, in the final analysis, it's not quality of life that counts -- it's whether whatever quality of life one experiences is confirmed by a double-blind study!

 

[westphalia]

-- even if doesn't make sense to anyone who lives in the real world.

Yes, the real world, where psychic healers, unreviewed chiropractors and all sorts of woo nonsense hold sway over science and methodology.

So, even if a lot of highly-credible people who have been ravaged by psoriasis their entire lives sign affidavits stating that they have been cured by Pagano's treatment

He still doesn't get it - or won't.

 

[thaiboxerken]

After all, in the final analysis, it's not quality of life that counts -- it's whether whatever quality of life one experiences is confirmed by a double-blind study!

Without a double-blind, clinical studies, we don't knwo if the quality of life is due to "curing" a real ailment or if these people were just mistaken. Yes, the quality of life matters, but only if it can be dteremined with science.

 

[Hastur]

I particularly like #1: "It does not matter how many satisfied patients there are, this is worthless as evidence." So, even if a lot of highly-credible people who have been ravaged by psoriasis their entire lives sign affidavits stating that they have been cured by Pagano's treatment -- based upon Cayce's readings -- this means nothing.

So, a lot of credible people say Pagano's treatment works; therefore it must be working and Pagano and Cayce are right? Chalk up another appeal to popularity and ad hominem to Rodney. Before you try your argument track again, Rodney, it doesn't matter whether you think Cayce is right (though that is where you want us to go, right?) or something "deserves further investigation." You're using numbers and character as the be-all, end-all of your arguments, thus using these fallacies to make your case. How about some concessions on those fallacies pointed out earlier?

 

[UrsulaV]

So, even if a lot of highly-credible people who have been ravaged by psoriasis their entire lives sign affidavits stating that they have been cured by Pagano's treatment -- based upon Cayce's readings -- this means nothing. After all, in the final analysis, it's not quality of life that counts -- it's whether whatever quality of life one experiences is confirmed by a double-blind study!

This'd be a great point if we were arguing about whether Cayce's readings were a happy touchy-feely amusement park ride or a religion or a motivational speech. All those are things where subjective experience is important and valid.

But no, you want it to be science. But you're unwilling to hold to scientific standards of evidence, and when people point this out, you stamp your little feet and yell "Fine, so science doesn't care how people feel?!"

If a whole bunch of people sign affadavits stating that they have been cured by Pagano's treatments, then congratulations, you've got the basis for an excellent infomercial where you sell Cayce-brand TV dinners and diet books for the low low price of three installments of $19.95. You do not, however, have a scientific study.

None of the current evidence for Cayce is scientifically valid. You may feel it's emotionally valid, and that's fine, knock yourself out, but science does not confirm something just because a coupla people who may have partially followed Cayce's treatment, maybe, but it's never been peer-reviewed, but still, they claim they're feeling MUCH better now.

 

[Hawk one]

That a temporary cure isn't worth much, unless "temporary" means at least long periods of time.

Whee. I know people have already commented, but I must throw in two diseases that only offers temporary treatment:

Diabetes
and
kidney failure.

In the first case, we have a life of taking insulin every single day.
In the second case, unless you get so lucky as to have someone donate a kidney to you, you'll be a frequent visitor of hospitals for a dialysis. Or at best, if you can afford it, have a machine at home.

So, who here thinks that the insulin and dialysis machine isn't worth much for all those people? And who here lives in a magic fairy-land where every disease -must- have a one-time cure that will work for the rest of one's life?

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I particularly like #1: "It does not matter how many satisfied patients there are, this is worthless as evidence." So, even if a lot of highly-credible people who have been ravaged by psoriasis their entire lives sign affidavits stating that they have been cured by Pagano's treatment -- based upon Cayce's readings -- this means nothing.

By George I think you've got it!

I think most people in the world could be divided into two groups along these lines:

#1 Reality exists independent of people's perceptions and opinions. A knife is real and will cut flesh no matter how many people you convince otherwise.

#2 Reality changes on based on our perceptions and opinions. A knife might not cut flesh if you convince enough people otherwise.

Most of us here are members of group #1, so the number of people Cayce managed to convince means nothing to us. If he had convinced 1 billion people, it still would mean nothing.

LLH

 

[Rodney]

This'd be a great point if we were arguing about whether Cayce's readings were a happy touchy-feely amusement park ride or a religion or a motivational speech. All those are things where subjective experience is important and valid.

But no, you want it to be science. But you're unwilling to hold to scientific standards of evidence, and when people point this out, you stamp your little feet and yell "Fine, so science doesn't care how people feel?!"

If a whole bunch of people sign affadavits stating that they have been cured by Pagano's treatments, then congratulations, you've got the basis for an excellent infomercial where you sell Cayce-brand TV dinners and diet books for the low low price of three installments of $19.95. You do not, however, have a scientific study.

None of the current evidence for Cayce is scientifically valid. You may feel it's emotionally valid, and that's fine, knock yourself out, but science does not confirm something just because a coupla people who may have partially followed Cayce's treatment, maybe, but it's never been peer-reviewed, but still, they claim they're feeling MUCH better now.

You and several others here have missed the point in spectacular fashion. The point being that it may take years -- even lifetimes -- for so-called "anecdotal" evidence to be confirmed by double-blind studies. So what is to be done when there is evidence that a particular course of treatment is effective, but there is no double-blind study? According to folks here, the only logical course is stick to what has been absolutely confirmed.

So now let's look at the real world. According to -- http://phs.bwh.harvard.edu/phs1.htm -- "In the late 1940s, Lawrence Craven, M.D., a California general practitioner, observed excessive bleeding among children who chewed aspirin gum to ease pain after a tonsillectomy. Craven assumed that aspirin somehow prevented blood from clotting, and guessed that this drug might help prevent heart attacks caused by clots in coronary arteries. Over a span of ten years or so, he prescribed aspirin to several thousand patients, and claimed that none had heart attacks." But I guess if you and the others here had been heart-attack prone patients of Dr. Craven in that era, you would have disdained an unconfirmed treatment such as taking an aspirin a day to prevent a heart attack. And, when the definitive evidence finally surfaced in 1989 that aspirin does help prevent heart attacks (see above link), you likely wouldn't have been around to hear that news.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It would not take long for a double-blind study to confirm Cayce's treatments.

There is no way to test Cayce's superpowers now.

You have no rational basis for your opinion, hotRod.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

You and several others here have missed the point in spectacular fashion. The point being that it may take years -- even lifetimes -- for so-called "anecdotal" evidence to be confirmed by double-blind studies. So what is to be done when there is evidence that a particular course of treatment is effective, but there is no double-blind study? According to folks here, the only logical course is stick to what has been absolutely confirmed.

Absolutely.

So now let's look at the real world. According to -- http://phs.bwh.harvard.edu/phs1.htm -- "In the late 1940s, Lawrence Craven, M.D., a California general practitioner, observed excessive bleeding among children who chewed aspirin gum to ease pain after a tonsillectomy. Craven assumed that aspirin somehow prevented blood from clotting, and guessed that this drug might help prevent heart attacks caused by clots in coronary arteries. Over a span of ten years or so, he prescribed aspirin to several thousand patients, and claimed that none had heart attacks." But I guess if you and the others here had been heart-attack prone patients of Dr. Craven in that era, you would have disdained an unconfirmed treatment such as taking an aspirin a day to prevent a heart attack. And, when the definitive evidence finally surfaced in 1989 that aspirin does help prevent heart attacks (see above link), you likely wouldn't have been around to hear that news.

If you get anecdotal evidence that something might cure something, there is nothing wrong with investigating this. I would wager many discoveries are made this way. But until it is tested properly it is still anecdotal. If you search hard enough you will likely find anecdotal evidence for just about anything you can imagine. The test is what separates the wheat from the chaff.

LLH

 

[UrsulaV]

You and several others here have missed the point in spectacular fashion. The point being that it may take years -- even lifetimes -- for so-called "anecdotal" evidence to be confirmed by double-blind studies.

How am I missing the point? I happen to agree, it may take years for your anecdotes to be confirmed by double-blind studies, if they ever are. (the treatment regimens we could test, you're SOL on the historical stuff.) However, I am not going to merely roll over and say "Therefore, double-blind is useless, bring on the anecdotes!" I, for one, am willing to wait.

I'm sorry that you want your anecdotes confirmed right this minute, but it's not gonna happen. That doesn't bother me. It does seem to bother you, to which I can only say that hey, patience is a virtue well worth cultivating.

 

[Rodney]

How am I missing the point? I happen to agree, it may take years for your anecdotes to be confirmed by double-blind studies, if they ever are. (the treatment regimens we could test, you're SOL on the historical stuff.) However, I am not going to merely roll over and say "Therefore, double-blind is useless, bring on the anecdotes!" I, for one, am willing to wait.

I'm sorry that you want your anecdotes confirmed right this minute, but it's not gonna happen. That doesn't bother me. It does seem to bother you, to which I can only say that hey, patience is a virtue well worth cultivating.

You're still missing the point. In the real world, choices have to be made based on incomplete information. In the hypothetical I cited, the evidence was not conclusive that aspirin helped prevent heart attacks, but it was suggestive. To say "I'm not going to take aspirin until the evidence is conclusive" may well have shortened a person's life significantly. Which is why I believe that only a small percentage of people outside of this forum live their lives the way most people here seem to.

 

[Hellbound]

You're still missing the point. In the real world, choices have to be made based on incomplete information. In the hypothetical I cited, the evidence was not conclusive that aspirin helped prevent heart attacks, but it was suggestive. To say "I'm not going to take aspirin until the evidence is conclusive" may well have shortened a person's life significantly. Which is why I believe that only a small percentage of people outside of this forum live their lives the way most people here seem to.

To be fair, there's also "phen-phen", which could help people lose weight by controlling appetite (and losign wieght can make a person much healthier). OF course, using your strategy, many people did die from this drug. To say "I'm going to take it even though no one's sure of everything is does yet" not only may have, but actually did shorten the lives of many people significantly.

And your right, most people don't live their lives the way critical thinkers try to do, and that's a very sad thing.

 

[UrsulaV]

You're still missing the point. In the real world, choices have to be made based on incomplete information. In the hypothetical I cited, the evidence was not conclusive that aspirin helped prevent heart attacks, but it was suggestive. To say "I'm not going to take aspirin until the evidence is conclusive" may well have shortened a person's life significantly. Which is why I believe that only a small percentage of people outside of this forum live their lives the way most people here seem to.

Rodney, for every case you cite of something like aspirin, there's a countercase where somebody's sworn-by sovereign remedy that really, honestly, swear to god helped like six friends-of-a-friend, turns out to have nasty side-effects. (In one particular case I recall from St. Paul, when I was living up there, somebody's sovereign folk remedy turned out to be primarily powdered lead. The advocates swore it worked.) There's an anecdote for every occasion. Human experience is vast, and can be mined for examples to one's heart's content. Still doesn't prove anything, though.

At the end of the day, if YOU want to risk your health on stuff that's supported by anecdotes but no double blinds, knock yourself out. I'm certainly not going to come over there and dash the almonds from your hand. But don't try to claim it's science.

If people want to follow Cayce's diets based on anecdotes, fine! I'm not gonna stop them! I'm not even going to care, frankly, unless it devolves into one of those things where somebody's killing minor children by giving them quack treatments instead of insulin. But the fact that somebody's following it STILL won't make it scientifically proven.

Nothing you can possibly do will provide a solid scientific backing for Cayce EXCEPT a double-blind study subjected to peer-review. You can apply anecdotes with a shotgun, you can come up with as many examples as you like, but Cayce's treatments STILL will not have solid experimental confirmation unless and until double-blind studies with appropriate controls and close scrutiny are applied.

You've gone from "it's science!" to "in the real world, we can't wait for science!" So don't wait. Go use Cayce's treatment right now. Load yourself up with almonds and Coke. What do you think we're going to do, drive over and stage an intervention?

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, for every case you cite of something like aspirin, there's a countercase where somebody's sworn-by sovereign remedy that really, honestly, swear to god helped like six friends-of-a-friend, turns out to have nasty side-effects. (In one particular case I recall from St. Paul, when I was living up there, somebody's sovereign folk remedy turned out to be primarily powdered lead. The advocates swore it worked.) There's an anecdote for every occasion. Human experience is vast, and can be mined for examples to one's heart's content. Still doesn't prove anything, though.

At the end of the day, if YOU want to risk your health on stuff that's supported by anecdotes but no double blinds, knock yourself out. I'm certainly not going to come over there and dash the almonds from your hand. But don't try to claim it's science.

If people want to follow Cayce's diets based on anecdotes, fine! I'm not gonna stop them! I'm not even going to care, frankly, unless it devolves into one of those things where somebody's killing minor children by giving them quack treatments instead of insulin. But the fact that somebody's following it STILL won't make it scientifically proven.

Nothing you can possibly do will provide a solid scientific backing for Cayce EXCEPT a double-blind study subjected to peer-review. You can apply anecdotes with a shotgun, you can come up with as many examples as you like, but Cayce's treatments STILL will not have solid experimental confirmation unless and until double-blind studies with appropriate controls and close scrutiny are applied.

You've gone from "it's science!" to "in the real world, we can't wait for science!" So don't wait. Go use Cayce's treatment right now. Load yourself up with almonds and Coke. What do you think we're going to do, drive over and stage an intervention?

Earth to Ursula: You still don't seem to understand the fundamental point, which is that there is a continuum of evidence about different phenomena ranging from zero to a little to a lot to proven. Of course, it's absurd to try someone's downright dangerous folk remedy based solely upon a vague claim that "this really works." But it's equally absurd to refuse to try a benign treatment that can save your life and that is supported by a substantial amount of credible evidence simply because "there's no double-blind study confirming it." You and the others here seem to think that the world is black and white: Either there's conclusive evidence for something or there is no evidence. That just isn't the way things work.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But it's equally absurd to refuse to try a benign treatment that can save your life and that is supported by a substantial amount of credible evidence simply because "there's no double-blind study confirming it.

What kind of treatment would this be? So far, you haven't shown anyting that is supported by even an IOTA of credible evidence.

 

[UrsulaV]

But it's equally absurd to refuse to try a benign treatment that can save your life and that is supported by a substantial amount of credible evidence simply because "there's no double-blind study confirming it."

Well, tell ya what, Rodney, when I get cancer because I didn't take Cayce's treatment, you can call me up and say "I told you so!"

Seriously, you're not getting anything else. You can go on until you're blue in the face about how it makes sense to try this stuff, and I still won't agree. But I'm not going to stop you. Cayce it up Cayce-style if it makes you happy.

If you're going to keep repeating yourself, perhaps thinking that sheer repetition will wear me down until I say "Oh, yes, what an idiot I am, of course we should all try Cayce's remedies because the anecdotes say so!--it was the six thousandth repetition that convinced me!" I can save you the trouble there. I'm still not going to follow Cayce's treatments without double-blind studies confirming their effectiveness, no matter how many ways you find to rephrase it.