Lourdes miracle question

[Hoppy]

Medicine in the early 1900's was more of a guessing game than science. Diagnosis was haphazard at best. Lab tests were few and probably often wrong. I would guess that all of the "faith healing" had to do with recovery from an unknown malady:" I had it and then it went away".

 

[sadhatter]

So would you say that by and large most "healings" at Lourdes are the result of misrepresenting? It is very hard to find any information on this subject other than form pro-catholic websites.

Also I notice many of the cures at Lourdes involve tuberculosis fistulae. Is this something that can heal on its own? Thank you

This could be explained by the phenomenon of " Lying for the cause."

When one truely believes, one knows that regardless of their methods used, as long as the outcome is getting someone else to believe, it is a good thing. This doesn't just happen in situations like the crusades.

One person lies and says " Oh my god, my lung cancer is gone!" and this encourages others to make similar claims. From their perspective, that person more than likely isn't lying , and they want to seem like one of the group.

This starts a chain reaction, and as more people lie , well, more people lie ( while not the most scientific of measures, 'If one person acts, three will act.' applies here.) and it snowballs until you have a giant group of people saying they have been cured of various ailments.

But the telling factor is, that there are so many conflicting reports. This wasn't some massive conspiracy, simply a group of people giving into to a kind of herd instinct, and without the organization of a proper conspiracy, the story ends up being conflicting and senseless, but having an overall vibe of " something happened.".

As far as your direct questions, of if a doctor of that time could have been fooled. Well, people constantly convince modern doctors to write prescriptions for narcotics , when they have no real need for them ( reports indicate this is around 1/3rd to 1/2 of all narcotic prescriptions.) , simply by telling the doctors what they are looking to hear. So regress medical science and critical thinking back a hundred or so years, and think if the same thing ( actually something easier, as you are not trying to get something desirable but controlled from the doctor.) would still work. Answer being, obviously yes.

I can honestly picture the thought process of the person now, ( being rather similar in my woo days.) " I am going to get a doctor convinced i am blind, then regardless of a miracle, i am going to claim it healed. I might be lying, but in doing so i could convince a huge amount of people to come to god. ".

 

[joedonjj]

Medicine in the early 1900's was more of a guessing game than science. Diagnosis was haphazard at best. Lab tests were few and probably often wrong. I would guess that all of the "faith healing" had to do with recovery from an unknown malady:" I had it and then it went away".

I understand that and please bear with me. I am confused, some of these situations seem impossible to fake. I mean someone with a open wound that heals right away does seem miraculous. Take this story for example:
This was the last cure involving multiple tuberculous lesions.

Elisa ALOI was nearly 17 years old when her illness began with a white swelling" of the right knee (tuberculous arthritis). In the following 10 years, up to 1958, she developed numerous tuberculous infections in bones and joints. At these sites, fistulae usually occured, requiring in-patient treatment in hospitals and sanatoria. Despite more or less immediate treatment, relapses and recurrences were for ever happening.

In June 1957, in desperation, she went to Lourdes with the Unitalsi Pilgrimage from Sicily.

She did not seem to benefit from the visit really.

But in 1958, she went to Lourdes again in a much worse condition, encased in a pelvis-to-foot plaster cast, with four fistulae drained through it. The dressings were soaked in Lourdes' water during the pilgrimage. Just ten days after she had left Sicily, her surgeon observed and wrote "Elisa ALOI returned from Lourdes completely cured".

The Medical Bureau in Lourdes recognised her cure, and handed her dossier to the International Medical Committee in 1960.

There, Professor Salmon, the recorder, had his report of a medically inexplicable cure adopted by the Committee.

Finally, after the Canonical Commission had given a favourable report, Mgr Fasola, Archbishop of Messine, declared "that the cure from multiple fistulous tuberculosis, which happened to Elisa ALOI, is miraculous" on 26.5.1965.

Some months later she married. Between 1966 and 1974, she gave birth safely to four children, which without any doubt was "the best evidence of her complete cure"

There are other stories where the TB fistulae just " dried up". Not sure what that means. Thanks for the responses

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That is still not considered good evidence... Just someone telling a story that cannot be verified ..

 

[kerikiwi]

There are other stories where the TB fistulae just " dried up". Not sure what that means.

It means one of two things: the stories are just that, stories with no basis in reality, or that the stories are just chapters in a novel: we don't have all the facts.
What it does not mean is that some magic cure happened.

 

[Emet]

<snipped anecdote that does not contain medical records>
Thanks for the responses

How much research have you done about TB? Questions to consider:

1. How was she diagnosed? Is it possible they were mistaken?
2. How many disease conditions go into spontaneous remission without any treatment? (hint--cancer is one)

 

[Emet]

Even popular "miracle" sites like Lourdes have bad track records: of the hundreds of millions (about six million visits every year) who have traipsed through Lourdres praying for a "miracle," the Catholic Church has only recognized 67 "miracles" and about 7,000 "inexplicable" cures since Lourdes was opened as a religious hotspot, in February 1858. That's lower than the rates for spontaneous remission of many serious illnesses, including most cancers. That low record of success hasn't stopped the parade of faithful, however. Faith without skepticism too easily becomes superstition.

http://www.ianchadwick.com/forum/index.php?/blog/1/entry-48-mumbo-jumbo/

 

[joedonjj]

That is still not considered good evidence... Just someone telling a story that cannot be verified ..

But aren't the Lourdes miracles supposedly taken before a medical bureau? I Mean I see what you are saying, how could anyone know if she spontaneously lost the lesions at that point unless there was a before/after photo. If this is so, how can 25 or so doctors justify these "healings" as inexplicable?

 

[kerikiwi]

how could anyone know if she spontaneously lost the lesions at that point unless there was a before/after photo.

There was no miracle on the first visit. 10 days after the second visit she was said to be cured.
There are two explanations: spontaneous remission or response to treatment.
God didn't do it.

 

[joedonjj]

There was no miracle on the first visit. 10 days after the second visit she was said to be cured.
There are two explanations: spontaneous remission or response to treatment.
God didn't do it.

But if you read through the list there are some that claim there fistulae "dried up" immediately. Do you think this is just made up? Is there any merit to this? How could anyone possibly know without before/after photos. I cannot post a link but just google Lourdes miracle hunter

 

[sadhatter]

There was no miracle on the first visit. 10 days after the second visit she was said to be cured.
There are two explanations: spontaneous remission or response to treatment.
God didn't do it.

TO me the answer is a bit more simple.

The large cast seems to be a red flag something was up. Notice how it is a visual injury somehow cured, but for some odd reason the injury of this nature cured was concealed.

I would say that it was simply a hoax. The girl had either had the condition clear up, or never had it in the fist place. Donned a cast, and then took the cast off and claimed a miracle had cured her.

 

[MG1962]

TO me the answer is a bit more simple.

The large cast seems to be a red flag something was up. Notice how it is a visual injury somehow cured, but for some odd reason the injury of this nature cured was concealed.

I would say that it was simply a hoax. The girl had either had the condition clear up, or never had it in the fist place. Donned a cast, and then took the cast off and claimed a miracle had cured her.

So without any evidence of the research or background checks the Medical Bureau did, you declare it a hoax. Do you think those doctors would not even bother to get copies of her X-rays from her previous hospital visits. Thats very skeptical of you

I hope you also realise athiests and non Catholics can and have joined the Bureau.

 

[Aepervius]

So without any evidence of the research or background checks the Medical Bureau did, you declare it a hoax. Do you think those doctors would not even bother to get copies of her X-rays from her previous hospital visits. Thats very skeptical of you

I hope you also realise athiests and non Catholics can and have joined the Bureau.

I would actually not be surprised, that they got the X ray from her, and not from the hospital themselves. ETA: at least as far as i know in France nobody would give a medical record to another doctor without a good medical reason, or would give it to the patient itself.

But really MG1962, do you believe in miracle ? If yes, how do you explain amputee and non self-remissing illness don't get healed ? Might be actually good material for another thread : "how do people which believe in miracle explain away why non-self-remission illness like amputation never seem to get healed by miracle ?".

 

[kerikiwi]

But if you read through the list there are some that claim there fistulae "dried up" immediately. Do you think this is just made up? Is there any merit to this? How could anyone possibly know without before/after photos.

1. Yes (Although not necessarily deliberately. Self deception is possible)
2. No
3. Reality check. I would not even believe 'before and after photos'. What is more likely: that god performs miracles for a teeny tiny miniscule number of those who beg for healing at Lourdes, or that before and after photos are faked?

 

[MG1962]

I would actually not be surprised, that they got the X ray from her, and not from the hospital themselves. ETA: at least as far as i know in France nobody would give a medical record to another doctor without a good medical reason, or would give it to the patient itself.

Sorry your personal incredulity is simple not a good enough reason to doubt the medical findings of the team at Lourdes

Here is an interview with the Doctor who runs the investigations at Lourdes

http://www.romereports.com/palio/The-67-miracles-of-Lourdes-english-1605.html

But really MG1962, do you believe in miracle ? If yes, how do you explain amputee and non self-remissing illness don't get healed ? Might be actually good material for another thread : "how do people which believe in miracle explain away why non-self-remission illness like amputation never seem to get healed by miracle ?".

I am not debating if what happens at Lourdes is a miracle or not. As someone pointed out, the batting average at Lourdes is lower than found in general medical practice

There is something like 5 million people visit Lourdes each year. So in 20 years we have a 100 million, in total there has only been 8000 claims of cure, of which 67 have been given Church blessing. So whatever is happening at Lourdes it is so statistically small, the number cant be used to prove or disprove anything

 

[Aepervius]

Sorry your personal incredulity is simple not a good enough reason to doubt the medical findings of the team at Lourdes

Here is an interview with the Doctor who runs the investigations at Lourdes

http://www.romereports.com/palio/The-67-miracles-of-Lourdes-english-1605.html

The claim of miracle *ALONE* is good enough to cast incredulity on the team of doctor.
But yes you are right, I do not remember when the law on medical record came into play in France.

I am not debating if what happens at Lourdes is a miracle or not. As someone pointed out, the batting average at Lourdes is lower than found in general medical practice

There is something like 5 million people visit Lourdes each year. So in 20 years we have a 100 million, in total there has only been 8000 claims of cure, of which 67 have been given Church blessing. So whatever is happening at Lourdes it is so statistically small, the number cant be used to prove or disprove anything

I understand what you mean but I disagree on the sentence which already presuppose there *is* something happening, when it actually looks more like the same background noise of self remission we have in the general population (and so i understand it the way the number are presented).

ETA: A better sentence is "there has been no conclusive evidence brought up that the population visiting lourde is being host to spontaneous remission more than the general population".

 

[sadhatter]

So without any evidence of the research or background checks the Medical Bureau did, you declare it a hoax. Do you think those doctors would not even bother to get copies of her X-rays from her previous hospital visits. Thats very skeptical of you

I hope you also realise athiests and non Catholics can and have joined the Bureau.

Anyone can be fooled, uri geller proved that quite nicely, and moving backwards in time it only got easier. Based on the available evidence, there is plenty of room for a hoax to be perpetrated. Your welcome to prove it if you would like. I'll wait.

 

[MG1962]

Anyone can be fooled, uri geller proved that quite nicely, and moving backwards in time it only got easier. Based on the available evidence, there is plenty of room for a hoax to be perpetrated. Your welcome to prove it if you would like. I'll wait.

So because you argue some one could be fooled, then must have been. And tell me what available evidence have you examined in this case thats leads you to this judgement