Non-Homeopathic Belladonna

[Mojo]

So how does one determine which credentialed authority knows what (s)he is talking about?

By looking at the evidence, rather than making appeals to authority.

 

[Mojo]

I already cited the Wikipedia article. And I never said I had conclusive proof that the A.R.E. has more members than the JREF, but there are 37 Edgar Cayce Centers around the world and I don't see anything comparable in the JREF.

If you want Cayce's treatments investigated, perhaps you could suggest that this vast organisation with its 37 Edgar Cayce Centers around the world provides the funding. After all, if the treatments work it must be in their interest to demonstrate this. Get that money you spent on your membership working!

 

[digithead]

snip

No, I'm just trying to determine how accurate RCTs actually are.

snip

RDBCT's accuracy is defined by both the significance level (the probability of finding a difference given none exists) and the power (the probability of finding a difference given it really exists). Both of these are set a priori to performing the trial with the latter defined by your sample size and clinically relevant difference...

But there are also different types of clinical trials depending on what the goal is. Phase I studies generally determine if there is a clinical effect, the safety of the treatment and other clinically relevant features. If a treatment passes phase I, then phase II studies determine the appropriate levels of treatment and efficacy. If a treatment passes phase II, then phase III trials compare the treatment vs. control or placebo to determine its effectiveness and identify any contraindications that may arise. Phase IV studies occur after a drug or treatment has gone to market to identify any interaction or adverse reactions that may occur...

So do you think any of Cayce's purported treatments could make it through all the phases of a clinical trial?

How come none of Cayce's purported treatments are generally accepted by the medical field? Things like aspirin and other such folk remedies have lasted and have been refined, wouldn't Cayce's treatments also last if they were effective regardless of any conspiracy by Big Pharma or the METSAUST (Monolithic Establishment That Suppresses All Unconventional Scientific Thought)?

 

[Rodney]

So do you think any of Cayce's purported treatments could make it through all the phases of a clinical trial?

There's only one way to find out.

How come none of Cayce's purported treatments are generally accepted by the medical field? Things like aspirin and other such folk remedies have lasted and have been refined, wouldn't Cayce's treatments also last if they were effective regardless of any conspiracy by Big Pharma or the METSAUST (Monolithic Establishment That Suppresses All Unconventional Scientific Thought)?

Cayce's treatments have lasted -- many people worldwide use them today, more than 62 years after his death. The conventional medical field doesn't have any incentive to investigate those treatments, and will not accept them as valid unless they are investigated and conclusively proven. So, it's sort of a vicious cycle, don't you think?

 

[Mojo]

Cayce's treatments have lasted -- many people worldwide use them today, more than 62 years after his death. The conventional medical field doesn't have any incentive to investigate those treatments, and will not accept them as valid unless they are investigated and conclusively proven. So, it's sort of a vicious cycle, don't you think?

Not really: the mighty A.R.E. (what does the "R" stand for again?), with its 37 Edgar Cayce Centers worldwide, could investigate them and prove that they work.

 

[fls]

Cayce's treatments have lasted -- many people worldwide use them today, more than 62 years after his death. The conventional medical field doesn't have any incentive to investigate those treatments, and will not accept them as valid unless they are investigated and conclusively proven. So, it's sort of a vicious cycle, don't you think?

This is what I have been getting at with the NCCAM.

There are thousands (millions?) of these purported treatments backed by "people have used them successfully for dozens/hundreds/thousands of years" which have not risen to the level of serious consideration. And that was one of the reasons given for the creation of the NCCAM - to provide a more systematic way of looking at these treatments in case truly useful methods were being missed. However, I suspect it's not that the conventional medical field has ignored folk remedies, but rather that there is a filtering process going on. Those folk remedies that looked like they were actually helping, in the eye of an expert, were the ones that got investigated through conventional channels. Some of them were found to have real effects and were incorporated into conventional medicine. And this still continues to some degree, but it looks like all the good stuff has already been picked out. Purposely dredging through the remainder has failed to yield any treasures (i.e. the NCCAM results).

In order to have Cayce's treatments investigated, they need to stick out from the mud, somehow. Which usually involves interested parties making the effort to gather the kind of evidence that makes it different from all the rest - evidence of effectiveness with some attempt to eliminate the effects of chance and wishful thinking.

It's not that conventional medicine a priori decided to ignore information coming from particular sources. It's that the need to ration led us to discover those sources which are usually fruitless and those which are fruitful. If Cayce's treatments were picked up by the filter, then they'd be investigated.

Linda

 

[digithead]

Cayce's treatments have lasted -- many people worldwide use them today, more than 62 years after his death.

But they're not accepted or prescribed by the medical community. Many quack therapies persist despite no evidence that they work or clear evidence that they don't work. We still have snake oil salesmen peddling things that have no proven efficacy (e.g. AirBorne), no reason why they should work (e.g. Enzyte), or clear evidence that they don't work (e.g. Head On) yet these products make millions. If lots of people do a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing...

The conventional medical field doesn't have any incentive to investigate those treatments, and will not accept them as valid unless they are investigated and conclusively proven. So, it's sort of a vicious cycle, don't you think?

No incentive?!? Do you realize how much money is in medicine if a drug therapy or treatment actually works? There's no vicious cycle, you're appealing again to some larger conspiracy that doesn't exist. There has to be some known physical mechanism or clear relationship between treatment and cure for science and medicine to investigate therapies. Cayce's treatments have neither of these and hence hold no interest for those in medical research...

Linda and Mojo are correct, if you think Cayce's treatments are viable and deserve testing, then you should persuade A.R.E. to do it...

 

[Rodney]

. . . or clear evidence that they don't work (e.g. Head On) yet these products make millions.

Can you cite the "clear evidence" that Head On does not work?

No incentive?!? Do you realize how much money is in medicine if a drug therapy or treatment actually works?

Drug therapy, yes, but that's not what Cayce prescribed. Rather, he focused on diet and lifestyle changes. Where is the money to be made there?

There's no vicious cycle, you're appealing again to some larger conspiracy that doesn't exist. There has to be some known physical mechanism or clear relationship between treatment and cure for science and medicine to investigate therapies.

So how does conventional medicine determine if there is a "known physical mechanism or clear relationship between treatment and cure" if it doesn't investigate the treatment?

Cayce's treatments have neither of these and hence hold no interest for those in medical research...

Where may I find the study that proves that "Cayce's treatments have neither of these"?

Linda and Mojo are correct, if you think Cayce's treatments are viable and deserve testing, then you should persuade A.R.E. to do it...

I think it should be a joint effort between believers and skeptics, but I don't think either side sees that effort as the best use of its resources.

 

[digithead]

Can you cite the "clear evidence" that Head On does not work?

Are you serious? It's a homeopathic substance so by homeopathic theory, it's basically wax. Do you really think rubbing wax on your head will "cure" headaches". If so, speculate on the reason on how it could possible work? Placebo?

Better yet, how about Enzyte?

Drug therapy, yes, but that's not what Cayce prescribed. Rather, he focused on diet and lifestyle changes. Where is the money to be made there?

How about Jenny Craig, Body for Life, et al...

So how does conventional medicine determine if there is a "known physical mechanism or clear relationship between treatment and cure" if it doesn't investigate the treatment?

Sigh...

Where may I find the study that proves that "Cayce's treatments have neither of these"?

Indeed, I'm as puzzled as you are...

I think it should be a joint effort between believers and skeptics, but I don't think either side sees that effort as the best use of its resources.

Since we're on 12 pages now, maybe we should return to your original post, id est Cayce's use of belladonna. I had forgotten that belladonna is the folk precurser to atropine, which has clear and convincing evidence of its usefulness. However, Cayce is not attributed to this discovery and I couldn't find who originally discovered its efficacy.

Nonetheless, how many people know the names of Salk (polio vaccine) or Fleming (penicillin) who have saved millions of people by their respective discoveries? If Cayce came up with anything like those two, it should stand out, don't you think?

 

[Mojo]

Linda and Mojo are correct, if you think Cayce's treatments are viable and deserve testing, then you should persuade A.R.E. to do it...

I think it should be a joint effort between believers and skeptics...

Why should it be a joint effort between believers and skeptics? Are the believers not capable of doing the work themselves?

...but I don't think either side sees that effort as the best use of its resources.

Why would the A.R.E. not consider determining whether or not Cayce's treatments actually work to be a good use of its resources?

 

[Rodney]

Are you serious? It's a homeopathic substance so by homeopathic theory, it's basically wax. Do you really think rubbing wax on your head will "cure" headaches". If so, speculate on the reason on how it could possible work? Placebo?

So the "clear evidence" that Head On does not work is not a controlled study of its efficacy but rather your opinion that "it's basically wax"?

How about Jenny Craig, Body for Life, et al...

Yes, but the A.R.E. does not have a subsidiary such as Jenny Craig or Body for Life.

Since we're on 12 pages now, maybe we should return to your original post, id est Cayce's use of belladonna. I had forgotten that belladonna is the folk precurser to atropine, which has clear and convincing evidence of its usefulness. However, Cayce is not attributed to this discovery and I couldn't find who originally discovered its efficacy.

Nonetheless, how many people know the names of Salk (polio vaccine) or Fleming (penicillin) who have saved millions of people by their respective discoveries? If Cayce came up with anything like those two, it should stand out, don't you think?

Not to the orthodox medical community, because Cayce's recommended measured dose of belladonna for Tommy House has not been proven to have cured Tommy from an apparently fatal condition.

 

[Rodney]

Why should it be a joint effort between believers and skeptics? Are the believers not capable of doing the work themselves?

Believers are convinced that Cayce's treatments work and many put their money where their mouths are by using those treatments. In general, believers don't see the need to spend money on studies.

Why would the A.R.E. not consider determining whether or not Cayce's treatments actually work to be a good use of its resources?

Again, most A.R.E. officials are convinced that Cayce's treatments do work and many use those treatments. However, I think there is a faction that would like to fund studies of those treatments, but they don't have the votes.

 

[fls]

Are you serious? It's a homeopathic substance so by homeopathic theory, it's basically wax. Do you really think rubbing wax on your head will "cure" headaches". If so, speculate on the reason on how it could possible work? Placebo?

It was talked about in this thread. Some of the non-active ingredients listed can have a counter-irritant effect in certain amounts, which theoretically could relieve some headache pain. Can't tell if that applies, though, since the amount of a non-active ingredient doesn't have to be specified on the label.

Linda

 

[Slimething]

Rodney, either you just don't get it or you are acting intentionally thick.

So the "clear evidence" that Head On does not work is not a controlled study of its efficacy but rather your opinion that "it's basically wax"?

One cannot prove a negative. Either the substance works or it does not. Note that clinical studies do not test mixtures but, rather, the specific chemicals that are claimed to be effective. You would have us believe, rodney, that wax relieves headache pain. I now challenge you to produce such study or any evidence you can muster. Ain't it great how science really works?

Yes, but the A.R.E. does not have a subsidiary such as Jenny Craig or Body for Life.

Again you miss the point, either intentionally or because you have nothing going on between the ears. You wrote:

Rather, he focused on diet and lifestyle changes. Where is the money to be made there?

So, you got a reply that, yes, diet and lifestyle management is a HUGE business reaping colossal amounts of profits per year for the successful vendors. Instead, you try to weasel out of being so easily proved wrong by saying that ARE does not offers such a service. That was not the point, rodney. Cayce could have made millions making people healthier by teaching them about propser nutrition and exercise. Perhaps Ra was much like Browne's Francine, feeding Cayce bad information for comic relief. IOW, why did this seer not see the market potential in the fitness craze?

Not to the orthodox medical community, because Cayce's recommended measured dose of belladonna for Tommy House has not been proven to have cured Tommy from an apparently fatal condition.

Here you've said it yourself. There is NO evidence that cayce was onto anyting, even in your OP.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, either you just don't get it or you are acting intentionally thick.

One cannot prove a negative. Either the substance works or it does not. Note that clinical studies do not test mixtures but, rather, the specific chemicals that are claimed to be effective. You would have us believe, rodney, that wax relieves headache pain. I now challenge you to produce such study or any evidence you can muster. Ain't it great how science really works?

Yes, it is. And that means there must be a controlled study of the efficacy of Head On, not an unsupported assertion that there is "clear evidence" that it does not work.

Again you miss the point, either intentionally or because you have nothing going on between the ears. You wrote:

So, you got a reply that, yes, diet and lifestyle management is a HUGE business reaping colossal amounts of profits per year for the successful vendors. Instead, you try to weasel out of being so easily proved wrong by saying that ARE does not offers such a service. That was not the point, rodney.

It wasn't? I wrote: "Drug therapy, yes, but that's not what Cayce prescribed. Rather, he focused on diet and lifestyle changes. Where is the money to be made there?" The point that you don't seem to understand is that Cayce did not say to his clients: "And, if you just take this little pill that my organization can sell to you for a very reasonable price, you'll be better in no time." Rather, he told them to use certain generic products, such as almonds, as well as to change their lifestyles, such as by getting more exercise.

Cayce could have made millions making people healthier by teaching them about propser nutrition and exercise.

I think you'll find that Cayce's recommendations about nutrition and exercise were not all that different than what most health organizations recommend today.

Perhaps Ra was much like Browne's Francine, feeding Cayce bad information for comic relief.

Ra fed Cayce bad information? Please explain what you're talking about.

IOW, why did this seer not see the market potential in the fitness craze?

Cayce didn't worry about the "market potential" of anything, as far as I can tell.

Here you've said it yourself. There is NO evidence that cayce was onto anyting, even in your OP.

You may not think Cayce was on to anything, but I think the evidence says otherwise.

 

[Slimething]

Yes, it is. And that means there must be a controlled study of the efficacy of Head On, not an unsupported assertion that there is "clear evidence" that it does not work.

Rodney, I'm very disappointed. I've just got done telling you that commercial products are not tested this way. IOW, I could no sooner provide you a study on Bufferin (R) than I could on Head On (R). So, that means that there is no evidence that Head On works and that is the question, not that there is evidence that it doesn't work. I know the facts can be confusing at times but try to remember that the burden of proof is on the claimant, not their target. Head On has made claims that it "works through the nerves" but has no evidence for this. (Actually, this claim is contravened by much of what we know concerning pharmacology.) Also, none of the ingredients in Head On are in sufficient concentration to administer a therapeutic dose. Only wax, a fairly inert substance, is left. So, again, I challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever of the therapeutic effects of wax on headache pain. That is the scientific approach. If you want to take a different approach, don't bug me.

It wasn't? I wrote: "Drug therapy, yes, but that's not what Cayce prescribed. Rather, he focused on diet and lifestyle changes. Where is the money to be made there?" The point that you don't seem to understand is that Cayce did not say to his clients: "And, if you just take this little pill that my organization can sell to you for a very reasonable price, you'll be better in no time." Rather, he told them to use certain generic products, such as almonds, as well as to change their lifestyles, such as by getting more exercise.

First you recap a statement that has been thoroughly refuted and then you post a non-sequitur as an example. You have been told now by two different people the gold mine that is lifestyle and weight management. The bounty being reaped by the successful services is plain to anyone who can see. Then, instead of admitting that cayce missed an opportunity, you post about, not lifestyle management, but pharmaceutical fraud. Selling people magic pills is not lifestyle management, rodney. Are you really aware of the nuances surrounding this topic or is this another example of your annoying attempts at avoiding intelligent discourse?

I think you'll find that Cayce's recommendations about nutrition and exercise were not all that different than what most health organizations recommend today.

But you just wrote the cayce did not involve himself in lifestyle management! Either he did or he didn't. Can't have it both ways. Which was it? Suppose you could post some of cayce's lifestyle management advice?

Ra fed Cayce bad information? Please explain what you're talking about.

IIRC, Ra was the spirit that cayce channeled, much like Saliva Browne and Francine. Instead of telling cayce all about DNA repair, interferon and cellular poisioning, ra was telling cayce to wrap kids in tree bark and lather them with peach goo. Nice. That's what I meant. Do you want it in Spanish?

Cayce didn't worry about the "market potential" of anything, as far as I can tell.

Ha! Yeah, he hated publicity, too!

You may not think Cayce was on to anything, but I think the evidence says otherwise.

What evidence? You have no evidence. If you did, the pharma world would be all over themselves trying to get rights to cayce quackery. Instead, it's a no sale. If you have real evidence, bring it.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, I'm very disappointed. I've just got done telling you that commercial products are not tested this way. IOW, I could no sooner provide you a study on Bufferin (R) than I could on Head On (R). So, that means that there is no evidence that Head On works and that is the question, not that there is evidence that it doesn't work. I know the facts can be confusing at times but try to remember that the burden of proof is on the claimant, not their target. Head On has made claims that it "works through the nerves" but has no evidence for this. (Actually, this claim is contravened by much of what we know concerning pharmacology.) Also, none of the ingredients in Head On are in sufficient concentration to administer a therapeutic dose. Only wax, a fairly inert substance, is left. So, again, I challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever of the therapeutic effects of wax on headache pain. That is the scientific approach. If you want to take a different approach, don't bug me.

You're ignoring the point, which is that you're running buddy digithead claimed to have "clear evidence" that Head On doesn't work. In fact, he has zero evidence.

First you recap a statement that has been thoroughly refuted and then you post a non-sequitur as an example. You have been told now by two different people the gold mine that is lifestyle and weight management. The bounty being reaped by the successful services is plain to anyone who can see.

You have not produced a scintilla of evidence that the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries. Do you have any?

Then, instead of admitting that cayce missed an opportunity, you post about, not lifestyle management, but pharmaceutical fraud. Selling people magic pills is not lifestyle management, rodney. Are you really aware of the nuances surrounding this topic or is this another example of your annoying attempts at avoiding intelligent discourse?

As far as I can tell, Cayce never tried to make a dime out of either lifestyle management or recommending pharmaceuticals.

But you just wrote the cayce did not involve himself in lifestyle management! Either he did or he didn't. Can't have it both ways. Which was it? Suppose you could post some of cayce's lifestyle management advice?

I've already told you that Cayce was big on diet and exercise. He generally told people to eat more fruits and vegetables, eat less red meat, and get more exercise. However, he didn't make any money from his advice, as far as I can tell.

IIRC, Ra was the spirit that cayce channeled, much like Saliva Browne and Francine. Instead of telling cayce all about DNA repair, interferon and cellular poisioning, ra was telling cayce to wrap kids in tree bark and lather them with peach goo. Nice. That's what I meant. Do you want it in Spanish?

Now, you're revealing what you actually know about Cayce, which is practically nothing. Ra was whom Cayce said directed the building of the Great Pyramid, not some spirit that Cayce channeled. Cayce said that, while he had several sources of information, most of his information came from his ability to tap into a universal unconscious, rather than from disembodied spirits.

Ha! Yeah, he hated publicity, too!

If he had a good business manager, he would have received vastly more publicity, particularly early in his life.

What evidence? You have no evidence. If you did, the pharma world would be all over themselves trying to get rights to cayce quackery. Instead, it's a no sale. If you have real evidence, bring it.

The evidence lies in the many people that Cayce cured after conventional medicine had failed them.

 

[Slimething]

You're ignoring the point, which is that you're running buddy digithead claimed to have "clear evidence" that Head On doesn't work. In fact, he has zero evidence.

I'm not missing any point, you are. I'm not addressing Digithead's point. I'm trying to teach you how science answers questions of pharmaceutical efficacy. Try to follow. The only substance in HeadOn in a concentration sufficient to have a therapeutic effect is wax. Each pharmacological study concentrates on the efficacy of one substance at a time. If you want to argue that HeadOn works, go ahead. It only makes you look stupid. To argue effectively for such a belief, you would have to produce evidence that wax has analgesic value. Do you have it? Can you find it? Do you get it yet?

You have not produced a scintilla of evidence that the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries. Do you have any?

You must be joking.

As far as I can tell, Cayce never tried to make a dime out of either lifestyle management or recommending pharmaceuticals.

Careful what you claim. Belladonna is a pharmaceutical. So is yogurt if it had any physiological effect. If I cared to look into it, I am sure that I could prove that cayce made a dime from recommending pharmaceuticals.

I've already told you that Cayce was big on diet and exercise. He generally told people to eat more fruits and vegetables, eat less red meat, and get more exercise. However, he didn't make any money from his advice, as far as I can tell.

I don't doubt that. Diet and exercise are lifetyle management, rodney. And, I betcha he made money from this advice. "As far as I can tell" doesn't cut the mustard with me, rodney. If you can't tell, don't hazard a guess. Just makes you look ignorant.

Now, you're revealing what you actually know about Cayce, which is practically nothing. Ra was whom Cayce said directed the building of the Great Pyramid, not some spirit that Cayce channeled. Cayce said that, while he had several sources of information, most of his information came from his ability to tap into a universal unconscious, rather than from disembodied spirits.

Rodney, I have no time for cayce. He's just another bunko artist. I know about science and you don't. I came upon something on the web recently where someone wrote that cayce channeled some person named ra. I'm not going to find it again because I really don't care about cayce or his claims. If he had the ability to tap into anything, he would have done a heck of a lot more for humanity than left us with a bunch of unconnected, useless medical advice and the hypothesis that a huge continent was swallowed by the ocean (a cataclysm which left absolutely no geological evidence on any other continent) and would be found by anyone willing to believe that BS. Got it? If he channeled a universal consciousness, that consciousness knew no more than humans did. So, even if cayce told the truth, it's useless. Deal with it.

If he had a good business manager, he would have received vastly more publicity, particularly early in his life.

Cry me a river.

The evidence lies in the many people that Cayce cured after conventional medicine had failed them.

Like I said, if you have evidence, bring it. The best you've been able to do is Tiny Tom and that evidence is incomplete, nonsensical and thoroughly speculative. Got anything better? Got anything systematic?

 

[Mojo]

You have not produced a scintilla of evidence that the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries. Do you have any?

Nobody has claimed that the lifestyle and weight management industry is more lucrative than other industries; merely that it is lucrative. What you have posted here is the type of argument known as a strawman.

 

[Rodney]

I'm not missing any point, you are. I'm not addressing Digithead's point. I'm trying to teach you how science answers questions of pharmaceutical efficacy. Try to follow. The only substance in HeadOn in a concentration sufficient to have a therapeutic effect is wax. Each pharmacological study concentrates on the efficacy of one substance at a time. If you want to argue that HeadOn works, go ahead. It only makes you look stupid. To argue effectively for such a belief, you would have to produce evidence that wax has analgesic value. Do you have it? Can you find it? Do you get it yet?

The issue at hand is whether there is "clear evidence" that Head On does not work. Is there?

You must be joking.

Why do you think the lifestyle and weight management industry is a ticket to riches? It's just another industry, with limited barriers to entry.

Careful what you claim. Belladonna is a pharmaceutical. So is yogurt if it had any physiological effect. If I cared to look into it, I am sure that I could prove that cayce made a dime from recommending pharmaceuticals.

Ah, but you just can't spare the time. Let me note that Cayce did not always recommend belladonna (or any other product) -- in some cases, he recommended against using it. And he did not say that belladonna or any other product must be obtained from a company in which he had a financial interest.

I don't doubt that. Diet and exercise are lifetyle management, rodney. And, I betcha he made money from this advice. "As far as I can tell" doesn't cut the mustard with me, rodney. If you can't tell, don't hazard a guess. Just makes you look ignorant.

I'm not guessing; I've studied Cayce carefully and have never seen any evidence to indicate that he profited from his diet and exercise recommendations.

Rodney, I have no time for cayce. He's just another bunko artist. I know about science and you don't. I came upon something on the web recently where someone wrote that cayce channeled some person named ra. I'm not going to find it again

A wise choice because your source didn't know what (s)he was talking about.

Like I said, if you have evidence, bring it. The best you've been able to do is Tiny Tom and that evidence is incomplete, nonsensical and thoroughly speculative. Got anything better? Got anything systematic?

How about Cayce's cure of Aime Dietrich?