Non-Homeopathic Belladonna
- Thread starter Rodney
- Start date
-
- Tags
- belladonna edgar cayce
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Perhaps he's wrong. Are you contending that he must be right because he's a medical doctor? Perhaps you should examine his claims rather than his qualifications.
Being a medical doctor does not make one infallible - physicians are subject to the same biases as everyone else. Also, his listed specialty is Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, so there is no indication that he has expertise in this area.
Linda
Fine, but I'm unsure why you're so adamant that Cayce was flat out wrong about psoriasis. There is still uncertainty regarding what causes it, and today's conventional treatments are hit and miss. Further, Mein claims some successes by following Cayce's approach to psoriasis. So, I think the jury is still out on Cayce's approach.
He simply didn't provide any information about psoriasis that was novel or useful and correct. I have already explained this and provided specific examples.
Conventional treatments have demonstrated effectiveness even when the effects of chance and wishful thinking are removed, and/or are directed at the underlying mechanism of disease. We do not always know the trigger that leads to psoriasis (or to flares), but we know the constraints under which it must act.
Yes, by performing a non-controlled, non-blinded, non-randomized trial. And by keeping track in a non-systematic manner the course of a disease that naturally waxes and wanes upon which is superimposed his own attempts to alter that course. Under those circumstances, when confirmation and attribution bias are allowed free rein, it would be very difficult not to be able to identify a treatment as "effective". It is, after all, exactly how medicine was practised until 150 years ago and allowed us to confirm the effectiveness of bloodletting and heavy metal poisoning in the treatment of disease.
You weren't, perchance, a member of the jury for the O. J. Simpson trial, were you?
Linda
I'm still looking for a journal article or textbook that debunks what Cayce had to say about psoriasis.
Except that, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation -- http://www.psoriasis.org/about/faq/ --
"Is there a cure for psoriasis?
"There is no cure, but many different treatments, both topical (on the skin) and systemic (throughout the body), can clear psoriasis for periods of time. People often need to try out different treatments before they find one that works for them.
"What treatments are the best for me?
"The unpredictable nature of psoriasis makes treatment challenging for many people. A wide range of treatments is available. No single psoriasis treatment works for everyone, but something will work for most people. It is hard to predict what will work for a particular individual; however, it is important to be open-minded and willing to work with your doctor to find a treatment that will work for you."
Is there a peer-reviewed study showing that conventional treatment of psoriasis is more effective than Cayce's treatment?
No, and there's also little truth to the rumor that I drove the getaway car.
Any textbook would do.
I didn't mean to imply that all treatments are always effective. The description you provided illustrates the point I was thinking of. It reads exactly like what you'd expect if the treatments had no effect on the disease, but just happened to coincide with natural remissions. I'd be skeptical that any of the treatments worked except that the effectiveness has been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.
There are studies showing that conventional treatment of psoriasis is effective, and as far as I know there aren't any for Cayce's treatment. The simplest way for the supporters of Cayce's treatment to make their point would be to perform a trial. "Conventional treatment" is just "treatment for which evidence of effectiveness is available". There's no other particular distinguishing feature.
Linda
Perhaps in the same sense that a 19th Century science textbook would have led you to believe that heavier than air flight was impossible.
But how much does the average psoriasis sufferer benefit from conventional treatment?
I think Mein feels he has done a reasonable study, but I agree that a controlled study of Cayce's treatment would be preferable.
Is conventional treatment for any ailment effective?
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
(rule 8) stupid myth
Bull. What was thougth to not be possible at the time, was "engine propelled controlled" flight. Heavier than air flight was ALWAYS thougth to be possible or do you think scientific are idiot unable to weigh a bird and remark the density is greater than that of air ? And that they clearly do not function by beeing lighter than air (like a Montgolfier) ? Minus 100 point for you rodney to perpetuate myths.
What the wright brother did is profite from a few new invention in engine which made propelled flight do-able (as opposed to have coal based engine .... Which was not possible for propelled flight) and a few new innovation for the control.
They did not do out of THIN air. They asked a LOT of engineer and scientist before launching themselves in their adventure.
When I see this myth about "scientific were saying heavier than air flight was impossible for man" it make my blood boil. (rule 8) myth (rule 8 rule 8 rule 8) distortion.
Bull. What was thougth to not be possible at the time, was "engine propelled controlled" flight. Heavier than air flight was ALWAYS thougth to be possible or do you think scientific are idiot unable to weigh a bird and remark the density is greater than that of air ? And that they clearly do not function by beeing lighter than air (like a Montgolfier) ? Minus 100 point for you rodney to perpetuate myths.
What the wright brother did is profite from a few new invention in engine which made propelled flight do-able (as opposed to have coal based engine .... Which was not possible for propelled flight) and a few new innovation for the control.
They did not do out of THIN air. They asked a LOT of engineer and scientist before launching themselves in their adventure.
When I see this myth about "scientific were saying heavier than air flight was impossible for man" it make my blood boil. (rule 8) myth (rule 8 rule 8 rule 8) distortion.
You are not distinguishing between facts/data/information and speculation/ideas/hypotheses explaining those facts. Textbooks are generally a source of facts and well-established hypotheses and theories. When Cayce first presented his ideas, knowledge about physiology was scant and there were potentially many ways to explain what was known. When information is crude, pretty much anything can fill in the blanks. When information is detailed, the blanks are tiny and what can fit in there is tightly constrained. Now that our understanding of physiology is exquisitely detailed, the facts directly contradict Cayce's explanation. And if you are trying to imply that any absence of information potentially allows for the presence of whatever one wants to believe, I suggest you ask any woman whether you can squeeze a size 18 body into a size 2 catsuit. My recommendation that you read a textbook was so that you could acquaint yourself with the multitude of facts that would have to be wrong in order for Cayce's explanation to be right, and the size and shape of the gaps into which Cayce's explanation would have to fit if you wished to rely solely upon the absence of information.
67.2 percent.
The answer would be yes, since that is one of the necessary components of evidence-based medicine (if I understand what you're asking), with an understanding that the specifics are ever-changing as information accumulates.
Linda
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Ivor the Engineer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,642
Well can you?
Despite the consistently negative results, you'd be surprised how often the experiment is attempted.
Linda
And, if you can, can we watch you prove your claim?
I worry about you sometimes.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm nowhere near a size 18.
Linda
baskett_case
Student
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2007
- Messages
- 41
Is it being claimed that Edgar Cayce was an illiterate hermit, off all alone with no contact with civilization? Cayce is purported to have finished eighth grade at least, so he would be more than able to read medical textbooks, etc. Further, he could talk to doctors and find out medical info, such as the properties of belladonna and amount prescribed. This
Is it unimaginable that Cayce was a sham, using medical info learned elsewhere as well as folksy, kooky ideas about Castor oil and such? One anecdote is not evidence... did other children experience this "cure" and because they were not cured, conveniently forgotten? I know many woo-woo practitioners that cherry-pick their anecdotes because it wasn't their fault the person on the receiving end didn't have the proper "spiritual intention" to bring about their own healing.
I am not even going into Cayce's many "prophetic" visions, such as Atlantis being found in 1958, etc.
Is it unimaginable that Cayce was a sham, using medical info learned elsewhere as well as folksy, kooky ideas about Castor oil and such? One anecdote is not evidence... did other children experience this "cure" and because they were not cured, conveniently forgotten? I know many woo-woo practitioners that cherry-pick their anecdotes because it wasn't their fault the person on the receiving end didn't have the proper "spiritual intention" to bring about their own healing.
I am not even going into Cayce's many "prophetic" visions, such as Atlantis being found in 1958, etc.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist
See http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/neverwrk.htm