Actually I have read this before. But to someone who’s studied Cayce carefully, this whole article is so flawed its ridiculous. They are dead wrong about many things they were saying, I don’t know how they got their facts mixed up when so many books and articles over the years have reiterated the story. To start with if it wasn’t this article it was another saying that his wife died from Tuberculosis anyway even after Cayce gave her a reading. That was completely false, because she was cured of Tuberculosis by the readings, and she didn’t die until months after Cayce’s own death. She lost the will to live they say, but the Tuberculosis she had beat was years before this. I think debunkers just grab the first unverified contrary comment they hear on someone and conveniently don’t put THAT to the skeptic question. Besides their complete mistakes on Cayce, they are naturally taking some other comments that are basically true, out of context and discrediting them entirely. One thing these people can’t stand is the middle ground of common sense in psychic ability.
They all seem to have this mantra saying “if you can’t do it 100% accurate at all times, and never be mistaken, then you have no ability, you are a fraud, and it proves that psychic does not exist”. This is a ridiculous expectation that needs no explanatory criticism. Compare that to other things in he world and see how unrealistic it would be to use this as a yardstick for proof. The readings made it clear that human beings having free will alter destiny at all times. You can only see the most likely future at that time based on the current decisions made by humans.
Naturally that changes. Besides Cayce gave very few predictions percentage
wise to his other work. He wasn’t interested in that. The one thing the
skeptics will never be able to do is disprove his success in hundreds of
people that are completely unexplainable and near-miraculous. Naturally
with over ten thousand readings they’ll find lots of people that didn’t
work (mainly because they wouldn’t follow instructions exactly or
consistently. This was the MAIN reason for failure on any case.) Also
there’s some that just came too late to him. In any event they are so
laughable in that article when talking about psoriasis and the other
examples of disease. There’s no question these fools have NO idea about the
medical field. Ironically some of those exact medical examples are being
proved right now by the Meridian Institute that are scientifically
validating all of the different modalities recommended by Cayce. Would
these serious scientists and researchers waste their time if it was so easy
to explain him as a fraud? I seriously doubt it. Check it out briefly to
see what I mean, it’s quite professional. http://www.meridianinstitute.com/
WHAT are you talking about?
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, razorraca. An interesting first post.
I think you are referring to the Staff Report by David: Straight Dope Staff Report: What’s the scoop on Edgar Cayce, the “Sleeping Prophet”? It’s helpful to provide a link to the Staff Report so that others will have some clue what you are commenting on, gets us all to the same page.
You sure you’re not confusing him with Fred (“Open and Shut”) Cayce, the second cousin evangelist big game hunter?
OK, seriously, David says, “As with most “psychics,” people remember the hits and forget the misses.” You seem to accuse him of remembering the misses and forgetting the hits?
But that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying there’s no “proof” of ANY hits, other than some ex-post-facto say-so. He’s also saying that there’s enough total bunkum – not just mis-diagnosis, but total bunkum – to make one suspicious of any claims.
You know, drinking cold water will cure a certain number of ailments, too.
Thanks for the tip, I just presumed people would know how to reference it.
Well all I can honestly tell you is that I have studied Cayce’s story for about 12 years. There is definitely hundreds of unquestionable psychic ability that had been verified, especially medically. People who act as debunkers don’t truly follow up their research very well, and they always try to dismiss anything that cannot be perfectly verified to their standards. Usually their standards are truly impossible to meet because they are completely unrealistic. Personal anecdotes, and individual cures for people are something that no matter how dramatic in effect will always be dismissed out of hand by medical authorities because it’s not done by a randomized-placebo controlled-double blind etc. study.
This is also a very unrealistic thing to ever expect to use to verify medical treatments because there is synergy in healing modalities and the person is paramount to their effectiveness because of their own attitude. So I think it’s completely unfair to dismiss thousands of people who benefitted in sometimes truly hopeless medical problems based on that reasoning. Quick little fact that no one could possibly explain as an example. All four people that came to him for help with Scleroderma, an INCURABLE disease, followed his readings to the letter, and all four were completely cured. For the rest of their lives which of course is easy to prove as this was so long ago. Let them try to explain away that.
Cayce was apparently wrong at different times, and the reasons for it are unknown for certain, but considering the nature of psychic ability, anyone who thinks it has to be 100% perfect to be real is a fool. Does anything in our mind, body or world work 100% perfect all the time?
I can definitely say without any reservations that I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that this man had a very real power. Consequently he is the only “psychic” so far that I have any unquestioned belief in. I am a very well read non-fanatical individual that has never been accused of being irrational or prone to fantasy. So if an average person with a reasonable mind can study something as long as 12 years and be more convinced than ever about the validity of something, I think that should make a pretty strong argument to check something out very carefully before you allow someone to make a decision on something for you. Myself included.
Thanks.
<< Cayce was apparently wrong at different times, and the reasons for it are unknown for certain, but considering the nature of psychic ability, anyone who thinks it has to be 100% perfect to be real is a fool. Does anything in our mind, body or world work 100% perfect all the time? >>
No one expects 100% success rate. The question is, what success rate counts as “significant” and what success rate is no different from placebo effect or control group? 50%? 10%? 2%? .001%?
So the question we pose to you is: what success rate did Cayce have? and what success rate is the inherent base line (that is, taking no action whatsoever, the patient would have been cured anyway)?
I’ve got an even higher cure rate. Follow Jesus’s advice, send me all your money and property and wealth. Then I will send you a dietary regime, and I guarantee that you’ll live for 100 years if you follow it. OK, OK, I’ll reveal my secret without the money, but you’ll do better if you send me your money. The secret: eat an apple every morning for 36,500 mornings. Guaranteed, 100% success rate, you do that, and you’ll live to be 100 years old.
[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 10-11-2001 at 04:29 PM]
First razorraca, please, please put some white space in your messages. Those massive paragraphs with no breaks make it difficult to read, and many here won’t bother, regardless of the worth of the content.
Having said that, here we go.
And yet others who have studied his work for years feel he was a fraud. Why is you opinion better?
This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method, and controlled studies. The standards are not impossible to meet, which is shown by the fact that many medicines, therapies, techniques, etc, have passed (and continue to pass) these tests. The fact that Cayce’s results don’t pass the tests speaks about his abilities (which were non-existant, IMHO) and not about impossible standards.
And this is how it should be. As you are apparently unaware, the only difference in a blind study and a non-blind study is that the subject doesn’t know if they are getting real treatment or the placebo. If a remedy is ineffective just because someone doesn’t know they are being given it, then it isn’t much of a remedy.
Baloney. If I have an infection, my attitude has little to do with the effectiveness of the antibiotic. Attitude can effect things like physical therapy, where the effort of the patient makes a difference, and can help lower stress, which can have several benefits, but does not heal broken bones, stop infections, or replace damages organs.
And of course this is all well documented.
Really? I think I know the reasons.
No one asks for 100%. This again only shows your ignorance of the people you dismiss as “debunkers”. All we ask is that it work better than chance, or better than doing nothing. In every controlled study done, Cayce’s techniques did no better than what would have happened had the subject received no treatment, or had received randomly selected treatment. This is not a great record.
And yet your post here indicates otherwise. You seem entirely credulous, and not at all familiar with proper study techniques.
Lots of average people have believed lots of foolish things for thousands of years. And yet no one (or at least very few people) still believe that a horse drawn carriage pulls the sun across the sky every day. This is no different.
Ugly
Then I challenge you to post, not hundreds!!! not dozens!!! but five!!! that’s right 5!!! examples of Cayce’s psychic abilities at work that cannot be reasonably questioned and explained away and for which you can provide references from qualified medical professionals that verified such events happened.
That challenge should be simple enough if you have access to hundreds of such cases. Simply pick the five most convincing, present them here and I’ll be more than willing to convert.
Administrator - The estimates I’ve seen if memory serves me were between 75% - 94% accurate for physical diagnosis. Most people sent their name and address with no mention of their condition or any other information. The other percent of people who did not verify their condition is unknown as to accuracy.
It’s naturally very difficult to pin something down to easy statistics in this case. There were thousands of people. Some followed their readings, some verified them, some didn’t. Some half-assed them, etc.
It’s a statistical studies nightmare, but that doesn’t disprove or prove anything. It leaves it unexplained. But common sense dictates that if the great majority of people who followed their readings consistently and faithfully received obvious benefit, then its pretty indicative of something having value.
I’ll continue this in a new post. Have to answer the other two. 
<< The estimates I’ve seen if memory serves me were between 75% - 94% accurate for physical diagnosis >>
I have to say, I don’t believe your memory serves you. You said that 100% accuracy was impossible, and I agree; and no way do I believe over 90%. The best medical labs and diagnosticians in the country wouldn’t get 90%, with the latest technology.
Try to quick respond to your opinions:
And yet others who have studied his work for years feel he was a fraud. Why is you opinion better?
First I would like it proven to me other people really studied his work for years. They all make such mistakes on their facts I think they skim it.
I never said my opinions better. That’s why all I said was that people should look at the whole story themselves with an honest appraisal before rejecting it. That’s just as bad as uncritical acceptance.
This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method, and controlled studies
I won’t bother reprinting the whole paragraph. This is a matter of debate. I understand perfectly how scientific studies are run. What most people do not understand is that they are very limited for proving multi - therapy treatments.
Quick example, if 100 people were all of a sudden dying because of lack of 3 things in your diet. Calcium, vitamin c and iron, (being unaware of this), they could have a separate study performed on each element because some people were claiming to doctors that “This calcium is making me better” or the other “I’m taking vitamin C and I’m almost back to normal.”
They could get results showing no significant benefit from each of those elements separately because unknown to them, you need the synergy of ALL those elements to stay healthy yand survive. THAT’S my point.
Medical science admittedly have far more questions than answers and they still have learned so little about how the body heals and the way that it’s interconnected. So believe what you will about studies, but as useful as they are for limited tests, they are not applicable to all ways of judging the human body.
Lastly, Cayce never failed these tests as you indicate. They never tested him even though he offered to be.
That was their choice.
And this is how it should be. As you are apparently unaware, the only difference in a blind study and a non-blind study is that the subject doesn’t know if they are getting real treatment or the placebo. If a remedy is ineffective just because someone doesn’t know they are being given it, then it isn’t much of a remedy.
Why would you think this applies to Cayce? Besides this statement has always seemed to me to be hypocritical. Basically you’re saying “if it works without being proved in my idea of a proper study, than it HAS to be the placebo effect.”
No one can justify that statement rationally. The placebo effect is temporary at best and certainly is not strong enough to account for lasting effects on serious illnesses.
Baloney. If I have an infection, my attitude has little to do with the effectiveness of the antibiotic. Attitude can effect things like physical therapy, where the effort of the patient makes a difference, and can help lower stress, which can have several benefits, but does not heal broken bones, stop infections, or replace damages organs.
This statement I totally disagree with, and if you look around in the conventional medicine field, you’ll find they side with me on this issue. Medical science admits very frankly that they cannot explain exactly what healing is, but they are well aware that someone’s attitudes and thought’s directly influence the response to any form of treatment. Thoughts and feeling affect the body dramatically, and there is a massive amount of conventional studies supporting this.
And of course this is all well documented.
re: Scleroderma - As a matter of fact it is.
I’ll try to find something I can post if you wish.
No one asks for 100%. This again only shows your ignorance of the people you dismiss as “debunkers”. All we ask is that it work better than chance, or better than doing nothing. In every controlled study done, Cayce’s techniques did no better than what would have happened had the subject received no treatment, or had received randomly selected treatment. This is not a great record.
This I can directly challenge in my next post I’ll put together to answer the person wanting 5 situations. I’d like to see your studies showing his methods ineffective, because I have never heard of them. I do look at all sides of the coin on issues I’m interested in, and I’ve never seen any mention of these types of studies on any of the debunker’s sites or even in medical journals.
As to me being credulous, I was giving my opinion in my belief. I’m throwing out ideas and challenging statements made in reference to this. All I’ve said is I have reason to believe in his ability. I challenge others to validate personally his work. otherwise don’t dismiss something you have no studied knowledge on.
It’s just as bad to accept a skeptic’s word unquestioningly as it is a true-believers.
Well that’s pretty much the range people have suggested. The idea behind Cayce is that his subconscious mind could tap into another person’s subconscious mind and see the whole system of that person outlined before him as if he was a human MRI. Unlike other alleged psychics, he wasn’t vague at all. He would often describe every major system of the body in detail down to the blood counts, spinal misalignments, nervous system, etc. Many times these we verified by x-ray and this was often things the person was completely unaware of.
So if the premise of his ability is in any way accepted as possible than it is very understandable how he was able to be so accurate. If you categorically deny the possibility of this being a theoretical ability, than it’s impossible to move you from your position.
razorraca wrote:
So what would you suggest in the place of blinded, randomized trials? What better way is there to measure the effectiveness of a treatment? Or is it the case that no treatment can be measured properly, in which case all modes of treatment must be considered equal, including Cayce’s.
I’ve never seen anyone dismiss anyone who’s gotten better from some nasty disease. What’s dismissed is the idea that psychic powers had anything to do with it.
Let’s see you prove it, first. You must also prove that these people did, indeed, have scleroderma (from my reading, diagnosis isn’t always cut-and-dried). Given that in one reading, Cayce describes “red spots with blackheads” as psoriasis, his diagnoses aren’t worth much.
And I’d like you to prove to me that you’ve studied Cayce for 12 years. Tough to do, isn’t it? Your request for proof is unlikely to be seen as reasonable.
Cite?
Cite, oh, three of them that use the word “dramatically” in their conclusions. Abstracts from Medline will be sufficient, if they’re from “conventional” journals.
Ok I’m going to give you some examples even though it would be much simpler to locate these on your own. That’s why I left a link in the very first post.
Anyhow I’ll try to present things as brief as I possibly can in this circumstance. I’ll add the link to things I post out of context so you can see the full story.
A couple of brief things on Scleroderma:
This in regards to the other post
2/23/68 Dr. McGarey’s ltr. to those M.D.'s who agreed to either treat A.R.E. members or act in consulting capacity in re tr. according to EC readings:
THE EDGAR CAYCE FOUNDATION Virginia Beach, Virginia
Medical Research Division 4018 N. 40th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85018 William A. McGAREY, M.D., Director
(one paragraph from letter)
Perhaps the most dramatic incident of the entire three-day period followed the scleroderma case presentation. Cayce insisted in each scleroderma reading that this was a disease process that involved tubercle bacilli in the skin. When I presented the case, I reported this fact as one of the physiological considerations - since I was presenting the commentary as Cayce saw it. However, I apologized for his tubercle bacilli, since nowhere had I seen record of such being the case in any of the medical discussions on scleroderma. After the presentation was over, we were handed an article entitled “Acid-fast Microorganisms as a Possible Cause of Scleroderma”. (Medicina Cutanea, Ano 1-N. 6-Mayo 1967, paginas 583-596. Editorial Cientifico-Medica - Barcelona) This article, written in Spanish, was given us by the prime author, present at the symposium, A. R. Cantwell, Jr., M.D., who did the work with Craggs, Wilson and Swatek at the Department of Dermatology, Long Beach V.A. Hospital. Microscopic demonstration of the organisms was made and Cayce’s unconscious visualization of what he called tubercle bacilli no longer needed even an uninformed apology.
http://www.are-cayce.org/readings/0528/003.html
This is one of the Doctor’s that incorporate Cayce’s techniques in their treatment. A patient of his.
3/12/92 Report:
PATIENT: Charlene Seguine - 901 Rt.#82- Hopewell Jct., NY 12533 Tel: (914)221-2508 DIAGNOSIS: SCLERODERMA (Generalized) - Lung involvement
Diagnosed at Layhe Clinic. Patient was afflicted 9 years. Was not diagnosed at Layhe until the fall of '88. Every few months she has her regular check-up at Layhe.
Started the Cayce approach to scleroderma with Dr. Pagano on 5/10/91.
Dr. Pagano received the following communication from the patient on 3/12/92:
Charlene Seguine 901 Rt. 82 Hopewell Jct., N.Y. 12533
March 8, 1992
Dear Dr. Pagano
I’m writing you this letter to inform you of the results of my tests I had run at Layhe clinic. I went to Layhe on February 4, 5, 6 they did a pulmonary test which measured the amount of air I take into my lungs and checked my blood gases. I’m pleased to tell you the test turned out great my lungs have improved from last year I have 97% oxygen in my blood. The doctors couldn’t believe it, they said that they had never seen that before when you have a thickening of the lung as I did it does not improve it can stay the same but it will not improve. Well Doc we proved them wrong I’m living proof it can happen I wish you could have been there to see how confused they were because they couldn’t explain it was great! I know what did it though, I feel by using the charred oak key and following the diet you gave me and following the Cayce readings it has made a major change in my health. I want to thank you for everything you have done for me I will let you know about the rest of my test results when I get them from Layhe I hope to see you soon.
Sincerely, [signed] Charlene Seguine
http://www.are-cayce.org/readings/0528/016.html
They don’t have any easy links on the web that I’ve found that incorporate the 4 people and their stories that were given the personal readings for scleroderma, but if you get the case histories from the A.R.E they show all 4 of them responded to the treatments. Keep in mind again that Scleroderma is considered incurable and these people are an effective argument as they had reports from them showing they were truly cured their whole life.
Ok, Gaspode I’m going to a new post. It’s very difficult to do this and keep it short.
Here are some examples of studies and reports that are verifying Cayce’s readings:
PAGANO SPEAKS AT PSORIASIS CONFERENCE
On June 22, 23, and 24, 2001, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF), the largest psoriasis organization in the world, held its 8th International World Conference on Psoriasis in San Francisco, with a record-breaking attendance of international dermatologists as well as patients afflicted with the disease.
This annual event focuses on the latest medical research on psoriasis with the world's most distinguished medical specialists in the field. Every aspect of controlling the disease from the latest topical, systemic and combination therapies, as well as gene research, was presented to the many in attendance.
For the first time, Dr. John O.A. Pagano, Chiropractic Physician from Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey was asked to participate as a featured speaker in the symposium and share with the audience his experiences in dealing with this skin disease. From the outset, Dr. Pagano made it clear that the inspiration for his dealing with the disease came from the discourses by Edgar Cayce. For over thirty years he has worked with the readings, and, combined with his own discoveries, worked out a treatment protocol (regimen) that has brought relief and healing to hundreds of his patients. His work culminated in his book HEALING PSORIASIS: The Natural Alternative.
Dr. Pagano addressed a standing-room-only audience on both days of the conference. Weeks before the start of the actual conference, Dr. Pagano had been told by the staff of the NPF that his segments of the conference entitled "Popular Alternative Approaches" were already sold out! In his presentations, Dr. Pagano emphasized that it was Edgar Cayce who first described the cause of psoriasis as being primarily due to thin, porous intestinal walls that allow toxic elements to pass through and pollute the bloodstream. The psoriatic lesions form as an external manifestation of the body's attempt to rid itself of these toxins. While described at great length in his book, in summary Pagano's entire approach (referred to by the NPF as the Cayce/Pagano Regimen) focuses on diet and internal cleansing as the route to take towards alleviation of the disease.
Regarding the “Laetrile” issue I was trying to get the record set straight on in the earlier posts, this is very interesting:
ALMONDS FOUND TO REDUCE CANCER RISKS IN RATS
The Cayce readings state, “Those who would eat two to three almonds each day need never fear cancer” (Reading 1158-31). But is there any scientific evidence that almonds are of use in preventing cancer? There is a report in the April 2001 issue of the medical journal Cancer Letters that suggests that Cayce was on target, although we still don’t know how strong the preventative effect is in humans. Paul Davis and Christine Iwahashi of the University of California at Davis studied the effect of eating almonds on colon cancer in rats. They fed the rats whole almonds as well as almond oil and almond meal. They also injected a chemical that induces cancer. After 26 weeks on the almond diet, they looked at the colons of the rats to see whether cancer was developing. For control groups, the researchers used rats who were fed either wheat bran or cellulose, two high fiber foods that can help prevent cancer. The whole almonds and the oil and meal all had cancer preventative effects. The whole almonds were especially effective, and were better at inhibiting the cancer than either wheat bran or cellulose. The authors suggest that a combination of compounds only found in the whole almonds is necessary for the full effect. They conclude that “almond consumption may reduce colon cancer risk and does so via at least one lipid-associated almond component.”
Granted these are rats, but it’s certainly indicative.
This is a combination study - case history report too long to copy here.
http://www.meridianinstitute.com/psorias5.html
Same thing although on Multiple Sclerosis:
http://www.meridianinstitute.com/msreport.htm
Same thing on Parkinson’s disease:
http://www.meridianinstitute.com/pdreport.htm
Same thing on Asthma
http://www.meridianinstitute.com/asthcs.htm
Same thing on Epilepsy
http://www.meridianinstitute.com/epilepsy.htm
There’s 5.
These consequently are people today who are benefitting from these readings. For Cayce’s original individuals there are case reports and follow ups on many people and obviously to find and copy each individual case here would be too laborious. I just want to make the point that there is a great deal of serious interest in Edgar Cayce and he’s far from being categorically dismissed by the whole medical profession.
My own doctor who delivered me I discovered last year is good friends with a colleague who has been running a medical clinic in Arizona for over 25 years helping people based on the Cayce readings, and he’s a medical doctor as well.
Just one more point that a lot of people should know. Even the hardcore skeptics out there like James Randi and Henry Gordon, both member’s of the debunker’s organization CSICOP, have not personally attacked Cayce as a deliberate fraud or scam artist. They accept the idea that the state he entered into was a very real phenomena and is just a type of altered consciousness that is not truly psychic. They believe that he was very likely a sincere individual trying to help people, they just also dismiss any psychic ability accredited to him.
So at the very least he’s not somebody who anyone ever tried to claim was deliberately shamming people, and that’s quite a feat to manage for over the 30 years or so he gave readings.
Seems to me that people here are really sensitive on this issue. I’m just trying to make people think and do research of their own. This is getting silly if I haveto defend each and every comment I make. For example I’m not going to search medline for 3 studies based on mind-body connections.
Every one of us have read studied and reports on millions of things over the years, and you know what the general consensus of things are by them. I happened to always be very focused on medicine, it’s a personal interest. But I don’t have these things at the touch of a button to bring up for every comment. Again, I’m not asking you to prove your statements, I take them as opinion. Later I may come across something to support or refute that opinion.
I noticed that the person claiming:
Cayce describes “red spots with blackheads” as psoriasis!
did not cite the reference. I have never seen that reading.
At this point if we don’t search both sides of the story independently and then give reasons to refute things, lets just agree to disagree.
Thanks for the debates everybody, it’s good to see in-depth conversations on topics.
razorraca responds:
Well, it’s good to know who the only person ever to study Cayce correctly is. You don’t mind being on call if we have questions?
And your point is correct, but silly, and not germane to the discussion. (As an aside, on another thread in this message board, someone asked for a definition of the “Strawman Argument”. I linked your previous posts as a perfect example. This is more of the same, and does little to further your point.)
Double blind and controlled studies can be set up for virtually any treatment, be it a single medicine, or a regimen comprised of several therapies. Granted it’s more difficult to blind multi-procedural therapies, but it can be done. The point is, in every case where psychic healings have been tested (and this is whether they were simple or complex therapies) they have done no better than chance, or doing nothing. Again I say, not a great record.
I apply this not specifically to Cayce, but to your comment that” Personal anecdotes, and individual cures for people are something that no matter how dramatic in effect will always be dismissed out of hand by medical authorities because it’s not done by a randomized-placebo controlled-double blind etc. study.” Since you brought it up, I should ask you why you apply it to Cayce?
In any event, I think it does apply to Cayce just as it does to the all phony psychics. All the testimonials in the world amount to no more than interesting stories. It’s easy to get absolutely genuine, heart-felt testimonials for all kinds of nonsense. And many of them contradictory. Many people believe all kinds of things that are demonstrably wrong. Their claims of “It happened to me! Really it did!” are all of the same approximate value. Which is to say, none at all.
More nonsense, and more indications you don’t understand the scientific method. What I am saying is that a non-studied treatment, especially one that has no proposed mechanism, may be the result of the placebo effect, or of some other unregulated cause, or of faulty observations, or of bad data analysis, or of cheating, etc.
If you want to play with the big boys, you need to understand what constitutes proof. All the psychics know this (including our buddy Edgar) and none step up to the plate. I wonder why?
Actually no, what you said was “I can definitely say without any reservations that I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that this man had a very real power.” That seems a little stronger than “a reason to believe”.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Cayce and his ilk not only don’t have any extraordinary proof, they seem to have no real proof at all beyond testimonials and unsubstantiated claims.
If you’ve got more, lets see it.
Ugly
razorraca wrote:
Not at all. Mostly, we’re asking questions and pointing out flaws in your arguments.
Some of us have, already.
Why not? You claimed that they exist, so you’re much better equipped than I to do the work of searching for them. For example, you probably have a good idea of where to start looking.
I believe your opinion of what the “general consensus” is, in terms of what mainstream medicine thinks about the “dramatic” effects of the mind-body connection is wrong. You stated it as fact. You should be able to easily find evidence of such a consensus if it does exist.
Hmmm. I, too, have an interest in medicine, and in Cayce, since I have psoriasis. I can support, on request, every statement of fact that I make (see below). If I post an opinion, I do my best to make sure that everyone knows it’s an opinion.
If you’d like me to consider everything in your posts as mere opinions, then I can safely ignore you, and not think about what you’ve said. After all, on first reading, I think your opinions are simply wrong. On the other hand, if you have factual information which supports the statements you’ve made which have gone unsupported so far, then I would think about them. The choice is yours.
It is reading 5016-1. To be fair, Cayce qualifies his description with lots of “at times” phrases. The point is, though, that other than this one Cayce reading, I’ve never heard of psoriasis having any sort of “blackhead” component at all.
Of course, in my research on Cayce, I’ve come to the conclusion that he had very little use for disease names at all, and what the Meridian Institute and others have done is shoehorn his readings into various categories in order to make their own “research” easier. In the above-cited reading, for example, Cayce never says the word “psoriasis” himself. He only fails to object when someone else implies that the disease in question is psoriasis. However, whoever categorized this reading as being on psoriasis assumed that his non-correction implied agreement. Had the man not died in 1945, we’d be able to ask him directly.[sup]1[/sup]
Why? Do you not agree that there is an objective reality that lies beyond our opinions? Is it possible to state a fact or not? If so, then “agreeing to disagree” about what the facts are is, to me, counterproductive to the search for knowledge.
In another post, you gave the five cases Gaspode asked for. Unfortunately, you missed the “cannot be reasonably questioned and explained away and for which you can provide references from qualified medical professionals that verified such events happened” clause.
For the psoriasis cases, it’s important to note that psoriasis flares and remits spontaneously, often. It should also be noted that all but one case had “poor compliance with the colonics” and three out of five had “poor compliance with the adjustments.” Yet, they got better, anyway. Case 3 did poorly with both, yet had the 2nd-best response in terms of PASI score. It would appear that Cayce was wrong, and these aren’t needed.
The objection about flaring up and remitting goes double for the multiple sclerosis studies. A little research into this disease will show you that one common form is, in fact, called “relapsing-remitting MS” due to its up-and-down nature. Six months? That’s not enough time.
In both cases, the fact that you see these as good evidence that Cayce was right shows more that you don’t understand either the diseases or what constitutes good evidence. Neither of these was blinded at all (which, admittedly, would be difficult), and subjects appear to have been self-selected at a conference in which one would be expected to find lots of “Cayce believers” (and thus we could chalk the results up to the “dramatic mind-body healing,” and nothing else).
We should also not forget that the Meridian Institute does not exist in order to learn the truth about Cayce’s advice, but instead to prove him correct. They ignore, for example, much of what is known about psoriasis in their attempt to “prove” that psoriasis is caused by a “leaky gut” (which, to mainstream medicine, is a symptom of disease, and not a cause on its own).
Don’t get me started on Pagano.
And, just for your information, one of my earliest posts the SDMB was on this very subject.
[sup]1[/sup] Yes, it is important to note that Cayce died 56 years ago. Medical science is moving on, while organizations like the Meridian Institute are trying to show that what one man said all those years ago was right. Mainstream medicine has had 56 years of research into psoriasis since Cayce died, and on all fronts is running with the “immune-mediated” or “autoimmune” paradigms. Nobody, except for Pagano, gives “leaky gut syndrome” even a blink of attention, and he doesn’t seem the least bit interested in even testing his own theories.
<< All the testimonials in the world amount to no more than interesting stories. >>
Interesting stories? My Aunt Moomie had a dreadful cold and sore throat and cough, and it persisted for days and days, despite over-the-counter medications and finally antibiotics. Two days after starting the antibiotics, she bought a lottery ticket for the state lottery, and wow! her cold cleared up.
She’s done the same thing ever since, when she had a cold. She tries the over-the-counter stuff first for a day or two, and when it hasn’t worked, she calls the doctor and gets an antibiotic, and when that hasn’t worked after a day or two, she buys a lottery ticket, and WHAM! her cold is gone in the next day.
So we’re all convinced that buying lottery tickets is what cures colds.
Yes, but does the severity of the cold effect the odds of the ticket being the winning ticket? Come on people, we’re ignoring an important scientific principle here! I think it’s because all you close-minded debunkers won’t look at the evidence!
Ugly
Hmmm. I find it strange that everyone jumping on Razzorraca’s post’s seem to be guilty of one big flaw.
Everytime you keep reiterating that according to you there has never been any studies proving this Cayce guy or any psychic correct in a statistical way, you don’t provide any proof that he was discredited in a statistical study either.
From what I’m gathering, this was many years ago and wouldn’t it be fair to say that no one was willing to spend the money proving this? There has to be financial incentive to make these studies happen, and obviously there would be no basis for return if these methods were proven to have value.
In any case, I think Razzoraca sounds pretty reasonable in saying that there is obviously a lot of serious interest out there among some people in the medical community, and even though the studies he posted were small, they certainly don’t seem to be discrediting Cayce’s idea’s. They seem to be quite supportive of a POSSIBLE value.
Obviously much larger and longer term trials would be necessary to conclusively validate something, but I don’t see anything yet that sounds like his treatments were completely worthless.
I think comparing these examples to your water glass treatments or lotto tickets is silly. You’re all joking of course, but this doesn’t sound like open minded detachment to me, it sounds like people who already have their mind made up that all psychics are frauds and you don’t want to be budged from that position.
From what I remember, The Unsolved Mysteries show a few years back had an episode on Cayce and there were a great deal of unexplained things he did that were documented. I suppose you could say that they were all liars or misled, but again that would be your personal opinion, and the lack of “double blind” studies doesn’t disprove anything, it simply leaves it unexplained.
I suggest personally testing something yourself and then you’ll have the only proof that matters anyway.
In any case, nobody here has convinced me that Cayce was a definite fraud, but I’m not convinced he was genuine either.
Time will tell.