Non-Homeopathic Belladonna

[Rodney]

Developmental delay is a feature of West Syndrome and resistance to treatment gives a poor prognosis (i.e. this case would be considered otherwise hopeless).

The case-report represented a viral infection resolving developmental delay, although whether or not it does so in that circumstance depends upon the underlying cause of the developmental delay (e.g. primary or secondary).

Please note that the case-report was not adding to the understanding that West Syndrome or other types of epilepsy have spontaneously resolved after various viral infections, but rather adding to the understanding of HHV-7 infection in humans.

Okay. I was relying on Wikipedia for my information, which seems to suggest that West Syndrome does not necessarily involve developmental delays. See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_syndrome

It would be an amazing coincidence. And as I was attempting to get at earlier, that alone doesn't mean anything, since it may be the only reason that it was Cayce that was remembered 100 years later, rather than some other medium. With thousands of opportunities for medium intervention to coincide with spontaneous recovery, occasionally it will happen. And it is the medium that happens to be in that lucky situation that will subsequently be hailed as having real powers. And the proof of those real powers? That it was unlikely for spontaneous recovery to coincide with the medium's intervention if that particular situation is assumed a priori. Of course, everybody conveniently forgets that they have violated one of the assumptions of their hypothesis testing, since the situation was not, in fact, assumed a priori. And how many readings did Cayce give? Tens of thousands? He should have been swimming in amazing coincidences, even without taking the strong confirmation and attribution biases into effect.

However, it may not even be an amazing coincidence, as the events could easily be confounded and not independent. Viral infections usually make epilepsy worse, so even if eventual resolution of the viral infection leads to eventual resolution of the seizures, it would be expected that they could get worse before they get better. And it was that Aime was "getting worse" that led to calling in Cayce - i.e. the same thing that could have led to Aime's worsening and then subsequent resolution was the same thing that led to the desparate attempt to try anything.

And that a viral infection wasn't reported by Dietrich may have been that it was unnoticed or that Dietrich didn't understand the significance of what the doctor said. For example, the majority of HHV-7 infections seem to be asymptomatic or sub-clinical. Which is why a report of an acute manifestation of HHV-7 is worth a case-report. A sub-clinical infection (for many viruses) can smoulder for months, and recovery certainly fits with with the time course reported in the affadavit.

However, I realize that none of this necessarily applies to Cayce, since we simply to not have enough information on anything that has been claimed to say "this is what must have happened." All we can say is "this is what could have happened." And the scientific approach is to assume a naturalistic explanation exists (even if currently undetermined) until proven otherwise, mostly because this assumption has lead to amazing progress and because no exceptions have yet been discovered. Your approach seems to be to assume a supernaturalistic explanation when encountering the unknown until proven otherwise; an assumption that leads to stagnation and continual exceptions.

Linda

You make some valid points, but my main disagreement with you is that it's not just the Dietrich case that made Cayce famous. We've already discussed the Tommy House case and there are several others. So, I find the coincidence argument strained. Further, the way Cayce operated was just the opposite of the way a charlatan would have operated. Finally, there are still many medical unknowns, such as the causes of psoriasis, and many Cayce pronouncements fall into a gray area, where they have neither been proven nor disproven. So, I would hope that you would keep an open mind regarding whether his readings had any validity.

 

[Rodney]

Cayce's description of Psoriasis is like rubber-sheet topology. Through judicious pulling and stretching, it can be made to fit around what we now know about Psoriasis. But it could just as easily* fit a variety of shapes, and in the absence of knowledge, assumes a nondescript form resembling a blob.

I'm still unclear what was known about psoriasis in Cayce's time. Are you saying that his psoriasis readings just recycled the conventional wisdom of the early part of the 20th (not to be confused with the 19th ) Century?

Also, your continued reference to a period in my life I'd rather put behind me, wounds deeply. You don't want to make a mother cry on Mothers' Day, do you?

Linda

Absolutely not. Happy Mother's Day, Linda! (And I hope your children called, if only to say that they're a little short of cash at the moment.)

 

[BillyJoe]

I don't think Linda's children called. They are too little. But hopefully old enough for breakfast in bed. And all of the fun that involves.

 

[fls]

Okay. I was relying on Wikipedia for my information, which seems to suggest that West Syndrome does not necessarily involve developmental delays. See -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_syndrome

Yes, not necessarily (one does not need all three terms in the triad for the diagnosis). But it is present in most (up to 95%).

You make some valid points, but my main disagreement with you is that it's not just the Dietrich case that made Cayce famous. We've already discussed the Tommy House case and there are several others. So, I find the coincidence argument strained.

It was my understanding that the Dietrich case sorta started the ball rolling - that it was the first (or one of the first) readings he did for others and that word spread because of the result?

I think the idea of coincidence seems an intuitive strain because all the focus is on the few cases where coincidence would be (a priori) very unlikely (if independent). If you were reading in context, though, you would get a better feel for the variability and range. The few cases would seem less remarkable when read against a background of hundreds/thousands of more mundane cases. Just like my run of ten heads in a row seems less remarkable when you watch me flip a coin every day, all day, for a week.

Further, the way Cayce operated was just the opposite of the way a charlatan would have operated.

I don't think Cayce was a charlatan. I think he was a bit disingenuous about the extent to which he absorbed, rather than read, books. But otherwise I get the impression that he was sincere in the use of his abilities.

Finally, there are still many medical unknowns, such as the causes of psoriasis, and many Cayce pronouncements fall into a gray area, where they have neither been proven nor disproven. So, I would hope that you would keep an open mind regarding whether his readings had any validity.

I've already agreed that he did impart useful medical information. The part I disagree with and what I think you mean, when you talk about validity, is that he had a special way of knowing (i.e. seemingly in contradiction to the laws of nature).

Taking the statements on Psoriasis as an example...they do just seem to be recycled conventional wisdom based on what was known at that time. And if interpreted in a way that could be useful - i.e. that he was using the words as though they had a specific meaning - the statements are wrong. It is only by allowing the use of the words to be vague and non-specific, that one can extract meaning from them. But only after one already knows what meaning they have to fit. That is, his words are incapable of providing new information. If they are used to refer to something specific, they cannot be assumed to be correct unless confirmed (using conventional means). And if they are used in a non-specific manner, they could mean any one of a number of different things. And there is no way to figure out which one of those things can be assumed to be correct until you already know (using conventional means) which one (if any) is correct.

Linda

 

[fls]

Absolutely not. Happy Mother's Day, Linda! (And I hope your children called, if only to say that they're a little short of cash at the moment.)

My children are all still school-age, so rather than requests for cash, I was presented with hand-made pottery (very nicely done, I should add ).

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Yes, not necessarily (one does not need all three terms in the triad for the diagnosis). But it is present in most (up to 95%).

Thanks for the clarification. I would think that the summary would have mentioned it if the child was developmentally-delayed, but perhaps I'm wrong.

It was my understanding that the Dietrich case sorta started the ball rolling - that it was the first (or one of the first) readings he did for others and that word spread because of the result?

Yes, although I don't think that case was widely-known outside of Kentucky and Tennessee until the 1910 NY Times article.

I think the idea of coincidence seems an intuitive strain because all the focus is on the few cases where coincidence would be (a priori) very unlikely (if independent). If you were reading in context, though, you would get a better feel for the variability and range. The few cases would seem less remarkable when read against a background of hundreds/thousands of more mundane cases. Just like my run of ten heads in a row seems less remarkable when you watch me flip a coin every day, all day, for a week.

Yes, but if the analysis done by Cayce's son was accurate, Cayce had a good batting average even on the mundane cases.

I don't think Cayce was a charlatan. I think he was a bit disingenuous about the extent to which he absorbed, rather than read, books. But otherwise I get the impression that he was sincere in the use of his abilities.

Your take on Cayce distinguishes you from most skeptics.

I've already agreed that he did impart useful medical information.

But doesn't that distinguish Cayce from other alleged psychics?

The part I disagree with and what I think you mean, when you talk about validity, is that he had a special way of knowing (i.e. seemingly in contradiction to the laws of nature).

Yes, that's what I mean.

Taking the statements on Psoriasis as an example...they do just seem to be recycled conventional wisdom based on what was known at that time. And if interpreted in a way that could be useful - i.e. that he was using the words as though they had a specific meaning - the statements are wrong.

Can you give me an example, other than Mojo's favorite "infectious" one?

It is only by allowing the use of the words to be vague and non-specific, that one can extract meaning from them. But only after one already knows what meaning they have to fit. That is, his words are incapable of providing new information. If they are used to refer to something specific, they cannot be assumed to be correct unless confirmed (using conventional means). And if they are used in a non-specific manner, they could mean any one of a number of different things. And there is no way to figure out which one of those things can be assumed to be correct until you already know (using conventional means) which one (if any) is correct.

Linda

I still haven't seen documentation that psoriasis was known in Cayce's time to be a circulatory problem.

 

[Mojo]

I still haven't seen documentation that psoriasis was known in Cayce's time to be a circulatory problem.

It was a bit of a stretch to get that to fit, wasn't it?

It does seem to me that conventional medicine is becoming more holistic; for example, in Cayce's time, conventional psoriasis treatment centered on skin creams, and now it centers on the immune system. However, Cayce's psoriasis treatment always centered on the circulatory system, which I think can be taken as a synonym for the immune system.

 

[BillyJoe]

I suppose, then, that the circulatory system is also a synonyn for the pituitary gland.

 

[fls]

Yes, but if the analysis done by Cayce's son was accurate, Cayce had a good batting average even on the mundane cases.

It may influence you to see that more than half of the cases have no follow-up or are equivalent to telling someone to take an aspirin when they complain of a headache.

But doesn't that distinguish Cayce from other alleged psychics?

Psychics make valid statements all the time. The point is that simply coming up with a valid statement does not mean that there was an anomalous source of information.

Can you give me an example, other than Mojo's favorite "infectious" one?

Pretty much the whole quote is incorrect.

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.

Psoriasis does not affect the lymph circulation or the umenctory systems. It does not involve the improper co-ordination of anything that could reasonably be called part of the "eliminating forces". In order to make a statement like "affects the...lymph circulation" correct, it would have to apply to any disease which involves any sort of immune response - i.e. almost everything. By that reasoning, epilepsy is a "heart problem" because the heart pumps blood to the brain.

I still haven't seen documentation that psoriasis was known in Cayce's time to be a circulatory problem.

Psoriasis is not known to be a circulatory problem, unless your use of "circulatory problem" is so non-specific as to make any disease with a systemic component "circulatory". That is, it's a meaningless statement because it can be made to apply to everything.

Linda

 

[ChristineR]

Psoriasis, like many skin conditions, is typically worse on the extremities because of the lower blood circulation to those areas. I would assume this was known in Cayce's time.

So if you use that broad definition of "circulatory problem" then Cayce would have known this, if you use a narrow definition Cayce was wrong.

 

[Rodney]

It may influence you to see that more than half of the cases have no follow-up or are equivalent to telling someone to take an aspirin when they complain of a headache.

How do you think the greatest physicians of all time would be rated by their patients?

Psychics make valid statements all the time.

Careful now, Linda. Randi may excommunicate you from His Holy Church of Skepticism.

The point is that simply coming up with a valid statement does not mean that there was an anomalous source of information.

Not necessarily, but you have to show that the information was available through normal means.

Pretty much the whole quote is incorrect.

Psoriasis does not affect the lymph circulation or the umenctory systems. It does not involve the improper co-ordination of anything that could reasonably be called part of the "eliminating forces". In order to make a statement like "affects the...lymph circulation" correct, it would have to apply to any disease which involves any sort of immune response - i.e. almost everything. By that reasoning, epilepsy is a "heart problem" because the heart pumps blood to the brain.

Psoriasis is not known to be a circulatory problem, unless your use of "circulatory problem" is so non-specific as to make any disease with a systemic component "circulatory". That is, it's a meaningless statement because it can be made to apply to everything.

Linda

So how does your position square with (the unparalleled wisdom of) post #297 of this thread? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1660125&highlight=psoriasis#post1660125
In particular, do you agree or disagree that: "A major breakthrough in understanding psoriasis occurred in the mid '80s, when it was identified as an immune disorder"?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Just piping in on this:

Careful now, Linda. Randi may excommunicate you from His Holy Church of Skepticism.

Not necessarily, but you have to show that the information was available through normal means.

Wrong. They (they being proponents of paranormal means) will have to show that it was not optained through normal means.

We (we being skeptics) can basically just assume it was.

You know, burden of proof rests on the claimant. If you claim an unknown phenomenon exists, then you must provide the evidence.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

So how does your position square with (the unparalleled wisdom of) post #297 of this thread? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1660125&highlight=psoriasis#post1660125
In particular, do you agree or disagree that: "A major breakthrough in understanding psoriasis occurred in the mid '80s, when it was identified as an immune disorder"?

Why don't you link to the post to which you are referring?

How does the "unparallelled wisdom" of your post #297 of that thread square with your statement that "Cayce's psoriasis treatment always centered on the circulatory system"?

 

[fls]

How do you think the greatest physicians of all time would be rated by their patients?

I think they would be rated very highly.

Careful now, Linda. Randi may excommunicate you from His Holy Church of Skepticism.

Randi himself has made this point on numerous occasions.

Not necessarily, but you have to show that the information was available through normal means.

The assumption is that information is available through normal means unless the possibility has been excluded. This particular standard has never been met.

So how does your position square with (the unparalleled wisdom of) post #297 of this thread? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1660125&highlight=psoriasis#post1660125
In particular, do you agree or disagree that: "A major breakthrough in understanding psoriasis occurred in the mid '80s, when it was identified as an immune disorder"?

That statement is meant to convey information about a complex topic in a simplified manner and it is not correct for you to interpret it the way that you have. When you try to explain a topic in non-technical terms, simplification necessarily introduces error. Or as Niels Bohr said, "there is an uncertainty relationship between truth and clarity."

What was occurring in the '80s was an explosion in the understanding of the details of how the immune system worked. Which led to a more detailed understanding of the different ways that the immune system was involved in those diseases which we had already realized somehow involved the immune response.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Why don't you link to the post to which you are referring?

I never previously bothered to figure out how to do that, but here you go: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1652844&postcount=297

How does the "unparallelled wisdom" of your post #297 of that thread square with your statement that "Cayce's psoriasis treatment always centered on the circulatory system"?

The point is that the modern explanation of psoriasis as an immune disorder is consistent with what Cayce had to say about it. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, during Cayce's time psoriasis was treated basically as a skin problem, to which creams and ointments should be applied. If Cayce was simply cribbing from the conventional wisdom of his era, please direct me to a publication of that era that essentially says what he said.

 

[Mojo]

The point is that the modern explanation of psoriasis as an immune disorder is consistent with what Cayce had to say about it.

If you assume that he was using his terms "in a different sense than the word[s are] used today", or so vaguely that they could mean almost anything (for example by saying things like "the circulatory system, which I think can be taken as a synonym for the immune system") or assume that anything he said that doesn't appear to fit is "a slip of the tongue", you can retrofit his pronouncements to almost anything. If you look at what he actually said, he appears simply to have been wrong in an unconventional manner.

 

[fls]

The point is that the modern explanation of psoriasis as an immune disorder is consistent with what Cayce had to say about it.

That is incorrect. If you read what Cayce had to say about Psoriasis, he was clearly focussed on the introduction of toxins through the digestive tract related to inadquate function of the lymphatics. The lymphatic system is not synonymous with the immune system. Rather part of the lymphatic system contains part of the immune system. But another funtion of the lymphatic system is the absorption of fats from the digestive tract which are passed through the thoracic duct into the general circulation. His continued focus on the intestine means that he was specifically not referring to the immune system when he was referring to lymph circulation. The lymphatic system has several functions, only one of which involves the immune system, and none of what he said could be taken as corresponding to that component of the lymphatic system.

On the other hand, as far as I can tell, during Cayce's time psoriasis was treated basically as a skin problem, to which creams and ointments should be applied. If Cayce was simply cribbing from the conventional wisdom of his era, please direct me to a publication of that era that essentially says what he said.

From the text I referenced earlier (The Home Physician):

"Associated with psoriasis, and possibly a causative factor, are rheumatic and gouty conditions, as well as digestive disturbances."

"Local treatment seems not to produce any permanent effect, unless the habits of the patient are materially changed." - followed by a list of dietary changes plus a recognition that systemic conditions (such as gout or rheumatic conditions) must be treated to effect a recovery from psoriasis.

"The condition is believed to be due to the action of a toxin produced...in another part of the body."

From the 1910 EB:

"The treatment is hygienic, constitutional and local. "

"The internal administration of small doses of vinum antimoniale, in acute cases, or of arsenic (in gradually increasing doses of the liquor arsenicalis) in chronic cases, is undoubtedly beneficial."

Clearly it was already recognized as the skin manifestation of a systemic disease, that the digestive system was somehow involved, and that while local treatments could help, systemic treatments may provide a more complete effect.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

That is incorrect. If you read what Cayce had to say about Psoriasis, he was clearly focussed on the introduction of toxins through the digestive tract related to inadquate function of the lymphatics. The lymphatic system is not synonymous with the immune system. Rather part of the lymphatic system contains part of the immune system. But another funtion of the lymphatic system is the absorption of fats from the digestive tract which are passed through the thoracic duct into the general circulation. His continued focus on the intestine means that he was specifically not referring to the immune system when he was referring to lymph circulation. The lymphatic system has several functions, only one of which involves the immune system, and none of what he said could be taken as corresponding to that component of the lymphatic system.

When did physicians first start using the term "immune system"?

From the text I referenced earlier (The Home Physician):

"Associated with psoriasis, and possibly a causative factor, are rheumatic and gouty conditions, as well as digestive disturbances."

"Local treatment seems not to produce any permanent effect, unless the habits of the patient are materially changed." - followed by a list of dietary changes plus a recognition that systemic conditions (such as gout or rheumatic conditions) must be treated to effect a recovery from psoriasis.

"The condition is believed to be due to the action of a toxin produced...in another part of the body."

I have to admit that sounds somewhat like Cayce. Still, it's quite a bit different than Cayce's Reading 289-1, given March 2, 1933:

"Q. Please give me the cause and cure for the so-called psoriasis with which I am troubled.

"A. The cause is the thinning of the walls of the intestinal system, which allows the escaping of poisons - or the absorption of same by the muco-membranes which surround same, and becomes effective in the irritation through the lymph and emunctory reactions in the body.

"An effective cure for same is first being mindful of the diet, during the periods when these necessary elements would be given for creating those activities within the system to close such conditions:

"In the system we would use elm water and saffron water. These would be taken in the ordinary drinking water, during periods of one, two to three weeks at a time. All the drinking water, carrying, then, either a small quantity of elm or the Saffron. For this adds to the assimilating system those properties that become effective to the aiding of building within the system itself those conditions that will overcome such activities in the system.

"The diet during such periods should be more of vegetables than of meats or sweets, so that there are those reactions that make for better unification in the membranes' reaction within the body."

From the 1910 EB:

"The treatment is hygienic, constitutional and local. "

"The internal administration of small doses of vinum antimoniale, in acute cases, or of arsenic (in gradually increasing doses of the liquor arsenicalis) in chronic cases, is undoubtedly beneficial."

Cayce never recommended vinum antimoniale or arsenic as a treatment for psoriasis.

Clearly it was already recognized as the skin manifestation of a systemic disease, that the digestive system was somehow involved, and that while local treatments could help, systemic treatments may provide a more complete effect.
Linda

Okay, perhaps there was more understanding than I thought there was in Cayce's era that psoriasis involved more than a skin problem, but still, it seems that Cayce was recommending a fundamentally new approach. For example, where do you suppose he came up with the idea of "thinning of the walls of the intestinal system"?

 

[Mojo]

For example, where do you suppose he came up with the idea of "thinning of the walls of the intestinal system"?

where do we suppose he came up with the idea of "thinning of the walls of the intestinal system, which allows the escaping of poisons"? Perhaps he got the idea from a work like the Home Physician, as referenced by Linda: "The condition is believed to be due to the action of a toxin produced...in another part of the body." By the way, I thought you were claiming that Cayce said it was to do with the immune system, not "poisons".

 

[fls]

When did physicians first start using the term "immune system"?

I don't know. I do know that the term was already in use when Cayce gave his reading. My 1931 medical dictionary describes antibodies produced by the white blood cells that were formed from lymphoid tissue under the heading "immune system".

I have to admit that sounds somewhat like Cayce. Still, it's quite a bit different than Cayce's Reading 289-1, given March 2, 1933:

"Q. Please give me the cause and cure for the so-called psoriasis with which I am troubled.

"A. The cause is the thinning of the walls of the intestinal system, which allows the escaping of poisons - or the absorption of same by the muco-membranes which surround same, and becomes effective in the irritation through the lymph and emunctory reactions in the body.

"An effective cure for same is first being mindful of the diet, during the periods when these necessary elements would be given for creating those activities within the system to close such conditions:

"In the system we would use elm water and saffron water. These would be taken in the ordinary drinking water, during periods of one, two to three weeks at a time. All the drinking water, carrying, then, either a small quantity of elm or the Saffron. For this adds to the assimilating system those properties that become effective to the aiding of building within the system itself those conditions that will overcome such activities in the system.

"The diet during such periods should be more of vegetables than of meats or sweets, so that there are those reactions that make for better unification in the membranes' reaction within the body."

It doesn't sound that different to me. The idea that toxins can enter the body through the digestive tract and cause disease was very common - I find multiple references to this idea for various diseases of the skin. The diet is the same one that is mentioned in several of my books, as are systemic treatments consisting of different types of water (e.g. "lime water").

Cayce never recommended vinum antimoniale or arsenic as a treatment for psoriasis.

So?

Okay, perhaps there was more understanding than I thought there was in Cayce's era that psoriasis involved more than a skin problem, but still, it seems that Cayce was recommending a fundamentally new approach. For example, where do you suppose he came up with the idea of "thinning of the walls of the intestinal system"?

From his a**.

What on earth do you see as a fundamentally new approach here? Psoriasis was already considered a systemic disease that at least sometimes was related to absorbed toxins causing an inflammatory reaction. The treatment included prevention by following the same diet that Cayce recommended and ingested medicines as well as local treatments. It also very much fits with the ideas as to cause, prevention and treatment of other constitutional diseases of the skin from that time period. And a lot of what he said was simply wrong.

Linda