There is none. As you rightly note, who’d spend money on it? The thing is, though, that since so many other psychics have been discredited, many people have simply given up on offering any of those who haven’t any benefit of a doubt. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, for Cayce. There is no solid evidence that the things he said came to him through psychic channels. Now, since he was buddies with osteopaths and other medical folk, there’s reason to believe that some of the things he advised were correct, but not because he was tapping into some sort of mystical knowledge base.
Plus, in general, it’s up to Cayce’s supporters to provide the solid evidence. The burden of proof is on them. Until they come up with something truly compelling, the conclusion “psychics are all full of it” is quite reasonable.
What?!? Perhaps you left out a “no” between “have” and “value”? If, after all, some psychic proved him/herself to be correct, there’d be money flowing in from all over the globe.
Um, no. The only serious interest is coming from the A.R.E. and the Meridian Institute, both of which are dedicated to proving Cayce correct, as I’ve already noted. They aren’t a part of the “mainstream medical community” by any stretch of the imagination.
I could create a small study tomorrow which would be “quite supportive” of the idea that cornflakes, motor oil, or a combination of gasoline and sandpaper could all ‘cure’ psoriasis.
And you won’t see much of that in these tiny studies, which were also, at least in the cases of psoriasis and MS, badly designed. With diseases that come and go, a six-month timeline is nothing. These ‘studies’ are deeply flawed.
Until solid evidence comes along that one psychic can do what they say, I will believe that they are all frauds, yes. If such evidence shows up, however, I will most certainly change my mind. To not do so is to ignore reality, which is what I’m busy accusing most psychics and their followers of.
Unsolved Mysteries, like In Search Of… before it, was designed to generate ratings, not search for the truth. Most people want to believe in psychic powers, and so a show about how Cayce was a phony would probably make ratings plummet.
That’s something that many “believers” forget: proof that psychic powers exist would be great. It would make life so much easier. Without such proof, psychics, when dispensing medical advice, are “quacks” and are comitting “health fraud” according to the definitons used by the US House of Representatives and the FDA, respectively.
Unfortunately, that attitude is exactly why we have Cayce’s and Miss Cleo’s and homeopathy and the rest. Testimonials, even when coming from yourself, are not good evidence that an effect is real. If you really think that your own experience does have value as solid evidence, I’ve got a Pyramid Hat to sell you.
Again, if even one percent of the so-called “alternative” treatments for psoriasis (everything from coffee enemas to deer antler velvet pills) were truly cures (as advertised), the disease would be no big deal at all. “Looks like psoriasis,” my MD would have said, “here’s where you can find the special bee pollen tea, and also a number for a friend of mine who organizes naked moonlight chanting. In two weeks, your skin will be back to normal.”
Oh, no, don’t get me (and the others here?) wrong, there’s most assuredly a possibility that Cayce was correct. We just don’t see it as the 50-50 chance your sentence here implies.
Well, it’s been 56 years since Cayce died, and he’d been doing readings for over 40 years. He’s had, in other words, nearly a century. How much more time should we give his followers?
The thing is, though, that since so many other psychics have been discredited, many people have simply given up on offering any of those who haven’t any benefit of a doubt.
I agree with this completely. I do believe that almost all “psychics” out there are deliberately bilking people, or fooling themselves as to their abilities. This has made the whole field extremely suspect.
Quote:
Plus, in general, it’s up to Cayce’s supporters to provide the solid evidence. The burden of proof is on them. Until they come up with something truly compelling, the conclusion “psychics are all full of it” is quite reasonable.
I also agree with these statements. I guess the only thing differing would be our interpretation. The thing is that Cayce simply didn’t have his abilities rigorously tested in the now scientific gold standard double blind studies. But even lacking the absence of these, I still don’t think it’s unfair to dismiss many many documented events that happened in evidence of his ability.
For example one that comes to mind is when he recommended Clary water in a reading for someone, and no one had ever heard of it. They asked him where they could locate this medicine and he gave them a drugstore in a far away state. They called the druggist and he told them he didn’t have this and never heard of it before. Confused they again asked Cayce in a reading about it and he gave them the location of the bottle on the shelf where it was placed behind something and not in plain view. They called back and the druggist found it exactly where he had said.
Now there is only two truly logical conclusions for this,
Cayce psychically located this medicine.
or
Caycle had arranged personally or by proxy to have the bottle placed in that position, or had seen it there previously.
This is where you have to make a choice to believe either that the psychic is a fraud or not. (at least an opinion anyhow)
In his case, the evidence is quite powerful in favor of him not ever using his ability for any great financial gain, and in fact he never charged for readings. He only accepted donations, and a pittance of a fee to be signed on as a coalition member in order to prevent legal problems by giving readings.
So this is just one of literally hundreds of things I have come across while studying the many accounts of his life, and from many different and ecletic people who have know him and believed in him.
I just don’t belive that all of those examples of alleged psychic ability can be explained away by deceit in his case. It doesn’t fit his character, and no one no matter how skeptical of his legacy could seriously accuse him of being unsavoury by any account. There was never any impropriety proven up to or even after his death.
Quote:
What?!? Perhaps you left out a “no” between “have” and “value”? If, after all, some psychic proved him/herself to be correct, there’d be money flowing in from all over the globe.
You’d think so, but it’s my opinion that someone could prove themselves repeatedly doing such a thing and regardless of how accurate they were, they would still jump on the misses and declare them either a fraud or just not psychic.
Quote:
Um, no. The only serious interest is coming from the A.R.E. and the Meridian Institute, both of which are dedicated to proving Cayce correct, as I’ve already noted. They aren’t a part of the “mainstream medical community” by any stretch of the imagination.
Actually this statement is definitely incorrect. You’ve forgotten about the clinic in Phoenix Arizona that was founded in 1970 by medical doctors interested in evaluating Cayce’s health concepts by treating the public accordingly.
After all this time, and considering the size of the staff they commanded over the years, don’t you think it would be reasonable to say as accredited medical doctors that they would have seen quite clearly if there was no value or validity to the suggestions in the readings ? I don’t understand your reasoning if you don’t.
Secondly there are and have been many health practioners throughout the world that have been seriously interested in Cayce’s concepts. That’s why there have been doctor referral list’s available that could suggest a medical practioner in your area that was at least open to the suggestions in the readings. Not to mention, you forgot Pagano, regardless what you think of him.
So it’s not fair to say there is only those two organizations that have any interest.
Quote:
I could create a small study tomorrow which would be “quite supportive” of the idea that cornflakes, motor oil, or a combination of gasoline and sandpaper could all ‘cure’ psoriasis.
I highly doubt that.
I understand your point, and I realize how difficult it is to get truly unquestionable answers from studies, especially small ones.
But I see many studies that simply show no benefit whatsoever even in indication. Practically all medical discoveries start with small studies and are either encouraged further or written off as unworthy of any further attention based on the preliminary numbers.
So don’t you think you’re being a little harsh on the admittedly small, but still encouraging studies?
Quote:
Without such proof, psychics, when dispensing medical advice, are “quacks” and are comitting “health fraud” according to the definitons used by the US House of Representatives and the FDA, respectively.
You’re absolutely correct, if they are setting themselves up as inviolable, and especially not encouraging people to verify anything they’ve said before “treating” themselves, then they should be charged. People do need to be protected and there should be enforceable laws preventing people from preying on people.
That said, if there is corrobaration repeatedly with the information being given, I think then the serious studies should begin and see if someone can prove their ability.
This naturally is a different era then Cayce’s time, and this would have been practically unthinkable as a scenario then. So I personally think it was just as one of the biographies titled him, “a seer out of season”. Yes yes I know you’ll want to jump on the “seer” word, but I’ll defer the argument.
He was not to my knowledge greatly accurate with a lot of his predictions, but in fairness he said that true prophecy is fluid, and is only of worth based on situations proceeding along the lines of what the course was at that point. Human’s being free willed, could change all prophecies at any point. That said, he DID predict a lot of things accurately, and they weren’t things like “the sun will rise tomorrow” either.
Quote:
Unfortunately, that attitude is exactly why we have Cayce’s and Miss Cleo’s and homeopathy and the rest. Testimonials, even when coming from yourself, are not good evidence that an effect is real. If you really think that your own experience does have value as solid evidence, I’ve got a Pyramid Hat to sell you.
I agree and disagree with this. In all fairness, it depends on what your situation is. Obviously with transitory health conditions like the common cold or flu, it is next to impossible to judge any worth of any alternative methods conclusively without massive rigorous studies. I agree with that completely.
But when you’re talking about serious, chronic conditions that you are affecting in a significant, and even more importantly, a lasting or permanent way, then I don’t understand how anyone can dismiss that as evidence.
If I was paraplegic and used a wet cell appliance consistently for many years and slowly regained the ability to walk, could you easily dismiss that as “he probably would have healed somehow and walked anyway, obviously they missed something that enabled him to regenerate. That useless machine had nothing to do with it.”
Of course the only way to truly prove something like that would be to magically create a double of that person and have him live life the same way without the appliance and see if one heals and the other doesn’t. This impossibilty is what makes such things so challenging to prove.
This could be extrapolated to practically every serious disorder as an example. It is very hard to prove. Then you have the problem that REALLY makes or breaks these situations.
Who’s going to pay the millions of dollars to prove these treatments? That was an excellent point Chattinman. No financial revenue can be expected on unpatentable treatments.
So all I can say in this regard is, if you do have psoriasis and have not managed to eradicate it yet through any conventional methods. (Which there is none yet.)
Then why not try out methods that have worked on so many? The proof is still in the pudding, and if you go for years without any outbreaks of psoriasis by following a medical plan regardless of the origin of the information, isn’t that what really matters?
I could give a rat’s ass whether or not something is proven in a study as long as it proved its benefit to me. Consequently, I HAVE used many Cayce product, and suggested treatments for friends and family based on the readings and I have seen almost every time excellent results.
I think that is still the most important thing, because we wouldn’t have discovered smallpox vaccination if it wasn’t because of the empirical evidence of people doing self-variolation.
Double blind studies are an exellent tool to absolutely confirm or refute the majority of theories. But they are not always possible or applicable as a yardstick for proof. And the lack of them doesn’t make anything any more unplausible, just unproven.
Quote:
Oh, no, don’t get me (and the others here?) wrong, there’s most assuredly a possibility that Cayce was correct. We just don’t see it as the 50-50 chance your sentence here implies.
Well I applaud the first part of your sentence. It honestly sounded to me like nobody here even acknowledged the possibilty he could be genuine.
I don’t think Chattinman was saying it was 50-50, it sounded like he was giving the 2 extreme poles and he was’t convinced of either.
I don’t see it as 50-50 either, but I’ll bet we disagree on which statistic is higher.
Quote:
Well, it’s been 56 years since Cayce died, and he’d been doing readings for over 40 years. He’s had, in other words, nearly a century. How much more time should we give his followers?
Finally, phew
In fairness, they’ve only started very recently the beginnings of studies. It took a long time I imagine to get the funds together to even set the organizations up. Without massive financial support from pharmaceutical companies, there’s barely a hope in hell of passing the standards necessary to be considered a valid treatment approved by doctors; unless they start giving government grants out a little easier.
I’m on the run today, so I’ll just respond to this one point that caught my eye. It is further evidence that you don’t really understand the scientific process, and why you seem to be overly credulous in regard to these stories.
But there is a third choice, that the incident didn’t happen as reported.
This possibility is really a summary of several possible alternatives, which are not mutually exclusive (in other words, more than one may apply). These possibilities are that someone mis-remembered, someone lied, someone conflated two or more stories, someone made a mistake transcribing notes, there were multiple people involved and one or more of them misunderstood what happened with one or more of the others, etc.
The fact that you don’t see this possibility speaks volumes. This is exactly why unsubstantiated stories are interesting to read, but mean nothing scientifically. Until you understand this, you won’t make much headway.
The third possibility is that it never happened. You said it was documented. Was it documented by an independent unbiased source? Or was it documented by Cayce or by his supporters (who would NOT be independent and highly unlikely to be unbiased).
Perhaps he was content with the “donations” you mentioned. Perhaps he was practicing what is referred to in the retail business as “loss leader”, where you sell something at very low price (or even give something away) in order to get people to buy something else that has a much higher profit margin. For example, a supermarket selling milk at a very low price, but raising the price on breakfast cereal.
Good grief, you’ve just argued against yourself! You admitted that Cayce was not much of a seer and that even the best seers are going to be wrong sometimes because of free will!
A seer isn’t of much use if he can’t tell us what another person or persons will do.
Uhm, no. You examine and test the patient’s body and see how it changes. If it changes in ways that are not consistent with the body’s natural healing abilities, then you just may have something. If it changes in ways that are consistent with the body’s natural healing abilities, you probably have nothing.
Mind you, to know for sure if the “wet cell appliance” (whatever THAT is) is responsible, you’d have to test it on many, many subjects, not just one, and, yes, it’s best to do it blindly.
Then what makes you think Cayce - or, more importantly, those people who support Cayce today - was any different?
I’m going to assume that you think it is unfair to dismiss said events. I’m the one who doesn’t think it’s unfair.
I’ll have to agree with jab1 and RJKUgly on this point. There are quite a lot of possibilities other than the two you list, and many do not involve duplicity on Cayce’s part at all.
If I can safely assume that you weren’t present at the Clary water event, then your choice is not limited to this “was Cayce a fraud or not” dichotomy. You need to decide at what level you will trust the source of this story, in regards to completely non-psychic phenomena. Is there more than one source? Are they similar in details? Are there details at all (such as, what was the name of the pharmacist, or what was the date)? Look, it’s very common for stories about famous people to get completely garbled into things that never happened. There are lots of Urban Legends that have a ‘kernel’ of truth to them.
[shrug] The defintions of “quackery” do not necessarily include a profit motive. Promotion is the key.
He may have believed in his powers sincerely, and just been mistaken. Others may have believed in him, but were less than honest (by exagerrating, for example) in their attempts to call the public’s attention to Cayce. That is, after all, a completely understandable and human thing to do.
If the psychic was 100% accurate, there’d be no misses. Perhaps you also missed the part where I said I’d love for there to be proof of psychic abilities. It’d be great. And what you’re thinking would happen is that skeptics would argue against reality, once it was proven. I think you’re very much mistaken.
Honestly, I never knew about any clinic in Phoenix. Do you have a citation?
Well, without knowing any of the details, I can tell you that there’s a long history of people who, after practicing nothing but mainstream medicine for years, go off and become quacks. MDs are, after all, human beings, they can make mistakes. A few MDs who turned away from the mainstream to practice quackery: Dr. Andrew Still, Dr. Andrew Weil, and Dr. Deepak Chopra.
Ah, you misunderstood me. I said no mainstream doctors have an interest. Pagano is a chiropractor. Having a lot of “alternative” doctors interested in Cayce’s work is, in my opinion, not necessarily a good thing. (Oh, also, Pagano isn’t using Cayce’s psoriasis regimen as Cayce laid it out. Pagano’s modified it.)
Well, considering that “tomorrow” was yesterday, I now doubt it, too.
No, because these (well, the psoriasis and MS ones) weren’t even on a par with what mainstream medicine calls “pilot studies.” For psoriasis, at least, what they’ve got there is really 5 case histories. The patients were self-selected, there were no attempts at controls or blinding, and only one person appears to have made an attempt to follow the protocol well. Because of that last one, an argument could be made that the study had an 80% drop-out rate. All of these things add up to “cruddy study.” That means the results are questionable, and not encouraging.
Oh, but you’re putting too many conditions on them. If I dreamt up a treatment for some disease, and began to promote it, I’d be guilty of quackery. Doesn’t matter whether or not I present myself as “inviolable” or whether or not I tell people to get a second opinion. The very act of promoting it, without good evidence that my treatment works as I say it does, is what is quackery.
Sure, but who should pay for it? The people making the claims. And when should they begin to promote these things as effective? After the studies are done, not before, which is what’s happening now.
Actually, the FDA was created well before Cayce’s death, and medical science was becoming “all the rage.”
Nah. If I tried to “jump on” every label someone ever gave to a psychic, I’d be too busy to go to work. I couldn’t care less what they called him. What’s important to me is whether or not he could do what people today claim he could do. Actually, no. What’s truly important to me is whether or not his treatments work. Give a hoot about whether he fabricated them or reached into the Akashic Record and brought them out. In fact, if his therapies do work, that is not evidence that he was truly psychic!
I gotta agree with jab1 here, too. You’ve basically just said that Cayce said his predictions were worthless.
If I make 10,000 predictions (er, guesses), I’m sure I’d get a few things right, too. Doesn’t mean I’m psychic, or even lucky. How many things did Cayce predict that were wrong (besides the finding of the death ray used on Atlantis in 1958)?
You really do need to learn more about medicine and the human body. Psoriasis, as one example, is a disease whose symptoms come and go unexpectedly over time. In fact, the worse a person’s psoriasis is, the more likely it is that it won’t be stable. Five cases don’t “cut it” in terms of useful evidence, especially when the only follow-up was apparently after a measly six months.
Let’s take cancer, as another example. It can spontaneously go into complete remission. According to Carl Sagan, in The Demon-Haunted World, you’re more likely to be ‘cured’ of cancer by sitting around doing nothing than if you visit the Shrine at Lourdes.
I know a paraplegic who’s getting his legs back using nothing but phsyical therapy.
Another misunderstanding of how clinical trials work. An acceptable method to prove this wet cell treatment would be to get a couple hundred paraplegics to use the device, and compare their results to those of a different couple hundred paraplegics who used a device which looked and acted the same as the real thing, but did nothing therapeutic at all (cut wires, for example?). The former group is the treatment group, and the latter is the placebo group. If, after enough time has gone by (years?), the treatment group is doing better to a statistically significant degree, then you’ve got your proof.
This is no different from how mainstream pharmaceuticals and therapies are tested.
So what? Do you really think there should be different levels of acceptable evidence depending on how much of a return on investment you can get? I cannot force myself to feel at all sympathetic towards people who’ve chosen to invest their time on things they cannot protect, and then whine about how it’s impossible for them to be tested like the “big boy’s” products because they’ll lose money. If they really believed in the therapies, if they really wanted the proof, there are all sorts of philanthropic organizations who’d give them money for testing, if the “pitch” was good enough. So what if there’s no profit afterwards? Isn’t a Nobel Prize in Medicine recognition enough? Isn’t altruism a sufficient motivator?
No, there aren’t, but there’s no evidence that Cayce’s suggestions will “eradicate” psoriasis, either, except for one case where after six months, the person had a PASI score of zero (and even that evidence is “iffy”). Is there any evidence that person’s PASI score remained at zero for any significant amount of time? Is there any evidence that the other people’s PASI scores continued to drop?
What many? I count 5, or around 0.0001% of the psoriatic population in the U.S.
It matters, but is beside the point. What is the point is whether or not there’s enough evidence to suggest I spend my time, effort, and money in the attempt before I try it. This is called “making an informed decision regarding treatment.”
I’ve got a Pyramid Hat for you, too, then. Sorry.
But after the observations were made, they were tested, before vaccinations were begun on any large scale.
And promoting an unproven therapy is quackery, and illegal here in the U.S. if any income (not profit, just income) is generated.
I can’t speak for the others here, but since there’s no real good evidence one way or the other, one must leave open the possibility that he was onto something. I just think that possibility is very small.
Well, without his having told us where he feels he sits, I can only assume he’s a 50-50 fence-sitter, based on what he has said.
I’m quite positive of that. For psoriasis in particular, which is where my main interest lies, I see quite a lot of confirmation bias and selective use of evidence on the part of the Meridian Institute. In other words, they’re trying to force-fit reality to Cayce’s suggestions. They aren’t doing good science. That tips the “it works” end of my scale very close to a 0% chance.
Actually, the results would be just as valid if done in a country other than the United States. A country without the equivalent of the FDA. It’s the licenses to investigate new drugs or run clinical trials which cost the big bucks here.
That’s what the NCCAM is for. Personally, I’d rather my tax dollars not be spent in this fashion.
Most arguments dealing with my last post I don’t really disagree with. You’re not really refuting my points this time as much as giving another possibility or meeting me halfway with reservations. Only a couple that I want to clarify.(I’ve got to learn how to do those little quote brackets you guys use.)
Good grief, you’ve just argued against yourself! You admitted that Cayce was not much of a seer and that even the best seers are going to be wrong sometimes because of free will!
A seer isn’t of much use if he can’t tell us what another person or persons will do.
Hehehe. It seems like I did, but I never did say I thought he was a great “seer” or “prophet”, and from his own explanations in the readings it wouldn’t make sense for anyone to be infallible or there would be no true free will.
Being prescient was explained more or less like comparing a weatherman’s predictions. Based on the current state of things he could SEE, he would predict a likely pattern of weather. But as we all know, the weather isn’t always reliable.
So most people with in depth knowledge of his readings dismissed many prophecies as only possibilities, and didn’t treat them as gospel like other psychics. Then of course you’d ask “What’s the point then?”. Exactly. He didn’t give them often anyway as he considered it relatively useless information. Sometimes people would ask though, and he gave possibilities as he saw them.
Exceptions were major events that are supposed to one day happen, but timing is fluid. Example being the discovery and opening of this alleged hidden room under the sands near Giza. No point arguing those prophecies, as one skeptic noted in an allegory. You can’t prove Santa Claus DOESN’T exist.
Most people interested in Cayce were focusing on clairvoyance, and particularly medical information. everything else was a small portion of his total readings.
Quote:
Uhm, no. You examine and test the patient’s body and see how it changes. If it changes in ways that are not consistent with the body’s natural healing abilities, then you just may have something. If it changes in ways that are consistent with the body’s natural healing abilities, you probably have nothing.
Mind you, to know for sure if the “wet cell appliance” (whatever THAT is) is responsible, you’d have to test it on many, many subjects, not just one, and, yes, it’s best to do it blindly.
I’m still not wrong. It is the only way you could TRULY prove something worked. Some will always argue that everyone is a universe in itself and everything works totally different from person to person. So your scenario would help suggest it efficaciousness, but not constitute ABSOLUTE proof.
Not that we need it, ultimately its preponderance of the evidence that is the goal in medical studies.
Quote:
Then what makes you think Cayce - or, more importantly, those people who support Cayce today - was any different?
His whole story from beginning to end, and seeing the results of his legacy on thousands in the world. Biographies of people that are documented and confirmed by many people are worth being taken as factual unless proved otherwise. “Innocent until proen guilty” and all that?
Quote:
You need to decide at what level you will trust the source of this story, in regards to completely non-psychic phenomena. Is there more than one source? Are they similar in details? Are there details at all (such as, what was the name of the pharmacist, or what was the date)? Look, it’s very common for stories about famous people to get completely garbled into things that never happened. There are lots of Urban Legends that have a ‘kernel’ of truth to them.
I guess this is the heart of my whole purpose for debating. I guess I’m a lot more willing to trust that the people involved in and relating to this story, are being honest and accurate in their portrayal of events. Because also what’s telling is that they never tried to hide any of the mistakes people keep bringing up.
They don’t even downplay them, they just throw them out there being satisfied that there was enough to convince them of his genuine ability and so maybe mistakes would have a reasoning behind them we don’t understand. Obviously if the psychic is real, then it automatically sets a whole new standard of unknown laws governing it’s limits and abilities that no one would be yet qualified to interpret.
As in these cases people try to guess the reasons why, but it’s pure speculation. At least it was presented honestly.
Quote:
He may have believed in his powers sincerely, and just been mistaken. Others may have believed in him, but were less than honest (by exagerrating, for example) in their attempts to call the public’s attention to Cayce. That is, after all, a completely understandable and human thing to do.
You’re absolutely right. This could have happened. At this time I give the benefit of the doubt.
Quote:
Honestly, I never knew about any clinic in Phoenix. Do you have a citation?
Quote:
Oh, but you’re putting too many conditions on them. If I dreamt up a treatment for some disease, and began to promote it, I’d be guilty of quackery. Doesn’t matter whether or not I present myself as “inviolable” or whether or not I tell people to get a second opinion. The very act of promoting it, without good evidence that my treatment works as I say it does, is what is quackery.
This may be true legally, but I still don’t think it’s either a fair thing to do or even desirable. Personal experience is almost a necessity first for someone to test an effect of something. it has to start somewhere. No one just grabs a substance out of the blue and says “Gee, maybe I should test this on a rat, maybe it will cure cancer, if not I’ll rub it on his feet and see if it’s good for Athlete’s foot.”
Do you see what I mean? Where else would you go? Not to mention how many people want something NOW that might be useful as opposed to 50 years in the future when science might have something validated. People with ailments want results not proof.
So naturally if you took an herb in the woods and it had a medicinal effect, you wouldn’t run off to get it tested. They’d say, just you? No one else has used it? So What?
But if you had 500 people using it and claiming benefit, then at least they may be interested in verifying the claim.
Quote:
In fact, if his therapies do work, that is not evidence that he was truly psychic!
Depends. If the many things he gave as true causes of disease are verified, such as a “cold spot” in the intestines being the main cause for epilepsy, or the “leaky gut syndrome” being the main cause for psoriasis, or the malfunction of glands being the first true cause of Multiple Sclerosis, etc. then that should be considered pyschic information.
He could not possibly have known by any conventional means, and also the odds against guessing correctly would be astronomical if every one of his theories were right
Quote:
How many things did Cayce predict that were wrong (besides the finding of the death ray used on Atlantis in 1958)?
This is one of those statements that is inaccurate. There’s quite afew I haven’t called anyone on. I should have done the quote-refute thing on the case report. Oh well.
I presume you got that quote from the Skeptics dictionary? Or one of the well known debunker’s web sites or books?
Trust me, don’t use their information as an accurate source on the Cayce story. they’re riddled with errors. Anyone who read any of the biographies “There is a river”, “The sleeping prophet”, “A seer out of season”, etc. etc., will find that they somehow mixed up a lot of their information. Consequently all the books are consistent, and some published before some of these debunker’s were born.
Anyhow, what that quote is referring to is a reading when people asked cayce how people had built the pyramid at Giza. Here’s the quote:
(Q) How was this particular Great Pyramid of Gizeh built?
(A) By the use of those forces in nature as make for iron to swim. Stone floats in the air in the same manner. This will be discovered in '58 [See EARTH CHANGES booklet report pages 33-34 , E.C.F. 1963]. …
There were a few scientific discoveries at that time that might be the explanation eventually, I can’ remember what they were though. probably in the Earth changes booklet they would have speculated.
You really do need to learn more about medicine and the human body. Psoriasis, as one example, is a disease whose symptoms come and go unexpectedly over time. In fact, the worse a person’s psoriasis is, the more likely it is that it won’t be stable. Five cases don’t “cut it” in terms of useful evidence, especially when the only follow-up was apparently after a measly six months.
Let’s take cancer, as another example. It can spontaneously go into complete remission. According to Carl Sagan, in The Demon-Haunted World, you’re more likely to be ‘cured’ of cancer by sitting around doing nothing than if you visit the Shrine at Lourdes.
This is where again we simply differ on how to look at something. I know all this very well. But I automatically assume reason for something to go into remission, not chance. The most important thing being attitude. See if you believe in Cayce, then you would accept his explanation of healing as well:
Know that all strength, all healing of every nature is the changing of the vibrations from within, - the attuning of the divine within the living tissue of a body to Creative Energies. This alone is healing. Whether it is accomplished by the use of drugs, the knife or what not, it is the attuning of the atomic structure of the living cellular force to its spiritual heritage.
So based on that premise, someone could be dying of cancer, somehow attuned themselves to healing whether through a dramatic attitude change, a revelation in their life, or even unknowingly doing something physical that in their particular case was effective in rallying their bodies immunity enough to start winning the battle. This could be completely unconscious behaviour, and yet still powerful enough to make the difference.
As one example it’s a generally accepted idea that stress makes psoriasis symptoms worse, (practically all symptoms really). That’s a negative reaction to your emotions that affects your body. It pumps out extra cortisol, depletes your adrenal glands, and weakens your general immunity. So even in this little example you can see quite clearly how the mind affects the body. I’m quite certain you won’t ask me to cite this one as I’ve seen it reported numerous times in medical literature.
So essentially my point is that there are so many different contributing factors that affect health in a living human body, that it’s not logical to suggest that doing nothing and improving would be a reasonable control. Nobody does nothing when its in relation to our bodies. Every breath, every bite we take, every drink we swallow, etc. has an effect on us.
Oh I do agree by the way about the 6 months not being evidence. I never really said it was, or if I did I overstated and I apologize. I thought I said it was encouraging as an indication. I think that’s fair.
Quote:
? I cannot force myself to feel at all sympathetic towards people who’ve chosen to invest their time on things they cannot protect
I agree wholeheartedly. This is why pharmaceutical companies with the big money are uninterested in testing unpatentable idea. Consequently unless you’re a personal multi-millionaire, it’s near impossile to afford the costs necessary in fulfilling the standards for studies.
Here’s the link about the cost of a new drug. I can’t quote without permission according to the page.
It’s between 2.6 million to over a billion dollars depending.
Do you know any philantropic organizations with that much money to bestow?
Quote:
Is there any evidence that person’s PASI score remained at zero for any significant amount of time? Is there any evidence that the other people’s PASI scores continued to drop?
I don’t know. Maybe Pagano has that evidence. He’s been helping hundreds according to his presentation at the psoriasis conference. Hopefully they will have some published evidence sometime soon.
Quote:
What many? I count 5, or around 0.0001% of the psoriatic population in the U.S.
I wasn’t referring to just that pilot study. There’s whomever derived benefit directly from Cayce’s readings, as well as Pagano’s patients.
Qoute:
It matters, but is beside the point. What is the point is whether or not there’s enough evidence to suggest I spend my time, effort, and money in the attempt before I try it. This is called “making an informed decision regarding treatment.”
If everyone thought that way millions of more people would have died instead of getting variolized with smallpox before the vaccine idea was accepted. It’s a personal choice and some people rightly choose to make up their own minds instead of letting someone else control that decision.
Quote:
I’ve got a Pyramid Hat for you, too, then. Sorry.
Why should personal experience that was positive make me any more gullible than the next person? There have been scores of “alternative” treatments and potions and gadgets that I tried over the years out of curiosity.
Practically all were either worthless or impossible to prove if they were doing anything. I don’t endore those particular products, and would be the first to say I found them worthless.
Consequently I have had the opposite percentage with Cayce’s recommendations. Not all, but definitely most has had measurable benefit. I would be surprised anyone would suggest there’s something wrong with using and promoting something that personally works.
If the person is wrong, misled or can’t show any objective evidence o someon else, then they should beware they are taking a chance. If it doesn’t work they’ll know pretty quickly. Most people will not continue with something that doesn’t do anything. There’s always a fringe few, but not the majority.
Quote:
I’m quite positive of that. For psoriasis in particular, which is where my main interest lies, I see quite a lot of confirmation bias and selective use of evidence on the part of the Meridian Institute. In other words, they’re trying to force-fit reality to Cayce’s suggestions. They aren’t doing good science. That tips the “it works” end of my scale very close to a 0% chance.
This may well be, but that would indicate the fault of the organization then, not a definitive flaw in the information.
they aren’t the only people doing this. Regardless of the scientific studies, if you get enough empirical evidence behind something that’s more than just a temporary abatement of symptoms, then it should be considered more seriously.
Quote:
The Association for Research and Enlightenment, however, was created 70 years ago.
Yes but they aren’t a medical facility or a medical research center. They are an organization based on shared belief in the ideals and information emanating from the readings. Others were necessary to start testing the concepts by studies.
Actually, the results would be just as valid if done in a country other than the United States. A country without the equivalent of the FDA. It’s the licenses to investigate new drugs or run clinical trials which cost the big bucks here.
Well then I hope studies outside the States eventually happen.
quote:
unless they start giving government grants out a little easier.
That’s what the NCCAM is for. Personally, I’d rather my tax dollars not be spent in this fashion.
This is relatively new is it not?
Secondly do you wish all our medical research to be focused on drugs that will never truly correct the basis of a medical condition? I think I’d rather focus on possible causes of disease and then learn the most effective way to help our bodies correct the disturbance permanently.
Drugs are great for symptomatic relief, but only when dealing with infectious organisms are they at all curative in nature. Chronic conditions have to be dealt with in a holistic fashion for any hope of a cure.(IMHO)
Ok I lied, it wasn’t short.
But weathermen don’t use psychic powers when trying to predict the weather. In your opinion, did Cayce have psychic powers or not?
Of course it is. Weather WILL happen. It just won’t always be the weather you want.
He probably came to this conclusion after being wrong so often.
I predict that terrorists will attack the USA again. I won’t say when because “the timing is fluid.” In other words, I don’t want to be wrong.
Describe what the hidden room was supposed to be like.
You can’t prove that he DOES.
So let’s put Cayce’s remedies to that test, shall we…?
Some people are stupid, yes.
Results ARE proof; proof that it works or proof that it doesn’t.
Epilepsy is a brain disorder; the intestines have nothing to do with epilepsy.
gigglesnort!
“Malfunctioning glands”?!?! You must be joking. Why don’t you chalk it up to “bad humors” while you’re at it?
Gibberish. Utter gibberish.
Excellent. And the reason is not all cancers are identical. Some are easier to kill than others. Some are more likely to be fatal than others. It isn’t chance.
More gibberish. It sounds like Star Trek technobabble.
You can see THAT the mind affects the body, but HOW is another matter. It isn’t mind-over-matter. It isn’t psychic.
They’re also uninterested in testing ideas that have no hope of being effective, like Cayce’s “cures.”
Are you kidding? A seemingly postive experience is far more likely to make you gullible. It’s the negative ones that make you skeptical, as you admitted yourself later:
See?
Uh-huh. :rolleyes:
You ain’t kiddin’. I wanted to comment more, but I just didn’t have the time.
Those “some” don’t understand medical science, or how human beings typically fall somewhere well within a giant “bell curve” of possibilities. There is no such thing as absolute proof, and there will always be someone, no matter what the disease or treatment, who will fail to respond. They’re outside the bell curve. Medical science cannot treat them effectively because there’s no way to quantify them, prior to treatment (you won’t find out they’re bizarre until after you treat them). This applies just as well to Cayce as to scientific medicine.
Absolutely.
Nope. What constitutes proof and proper methodology in a courtroom does not do so in the realm of science - even historical science.
Call me cynical. Human nature being what it is, people fool themselves all the time, and then pass their “knowledge” off on the unsuspecting but trusting folk who listen to them as authorities.
Doesn’t really make a bit of difference how it’s presented if it’s wrong. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Well, the closest thing I can find to any credentials of the staff is this photos page, which lists one person as being a doctor. Doctor of what, we don’t know.
You go to the microbiologists and chemists who are, at this moment, designing drugs from the ground up. “Oh, we need a chemical which blocks this enzyme, so let’s start by looking at the structure of it, and see if we know of any molecules that are similar…” Modern drug design is nowhere near as haphazard as you might think. Besides which, a lot of drug selection in the past has been based on “experience,” such as asking, “what’s different about these kids over here that makes them get fewer cavities?” But the answer (flouride in the water) was arrived at through scientific processes, and no mass flouridation was done until extensive testing was completed.
For a psoriasis example, it was found that some psoriatics who had cancer, and were being treated with methotrexate (MTX) for the cancer, were getting relief from their psoriasis. Did dermatologists the world over start handing out dangerous chemotherapy drugs to folks with mild psoriasis? Of course not. Again, extensive testing was done, to ensure this was indeed effective, as well as to find the proper dosage (much less than when treating cancer), and, most importantly, safe.
And what’s most important, in both of these examples, as well as being germane to the point I was making, is that nobody made a dime from these particular uses of these particular chemicals until the evidence was sufficient to say that yes, indeed, flouride helps prevent cavities, and that yes, indeed, MTX can lessen psoriasis symptoms.
On the other hand, the A.R.E. Clinic in Phoenix is making money from treatments which are not proven to be either effective or safe. Colonics, for example, have no evidence of efficacy for treating any disease. The benefit-to-risk ratio is precisely 0, but the risk itself is not also 0. To me, that makes their use absolutely unethical, and the practitioners of said ‘therapy’ quacks, in no uncertain terms.
As people age, they usually realize that they cannot always have what they want. I don’t want to die, ever. I want to be immortal NOW. I am being unreasonable and childish.
Fact of the matter is that the FDA does, indeed, “fast track” drugs which show a lot of promise and low toxicity profiles. This sometimes bites them, because they wind up approving things like Rezulin, which have to be removed from the market for killing too many patients.
Or, look at Fen/Phen. These two drugs were never approved by the FDA for use together for any disease or condition. People wanted to lose weight NOW, doctors caved into patient pressure and greed, and people died.
And that’s the other thing: People desperate for a “cure” are the worst judges of “results.” Quacks who are in it for the money prey on this desperation. Those who are in it for the altruism don’t realize that if they’re wrong, they only add to the desperation by crushing yet another hope. It’s bad, no matter what.
You’re kidding me, right? Do you have any idea how many people are working for the pharmaceutical companies right now whose sole jobs are to find plants with medicinal effects? Do you have any idea how many interesting chemicals can be drawn from plants? Oregon Grape is a plant that has an effect on psoriasis. In the currently-available dosages, it may be too weak to do much good (as studies show). But raising the dosage may not work, because the active chemicals are alkaloids created by the plant to poison mammals and insects which eat it.
Oh, more to your point, if you took a plant from the woods, and claimed it had a medicinal effect which was previsouly unknown, and tried to sell it, you’d be comitting health fraud if you’d done no testing. Actually, as soon as you claim it has medicinal effects, the plant becames a drug in the eyes of the FDA. By law, you would be forced to test it if you wanted to sell it or treat people with it.
I don’t know who the “they” you refer to is. Certainly, anyone can do the testing required by the FDA themselves, with enough captial.
What “oh well?” Go ahead and call us on them.
Yes.
Why not read the actual words of Cayce, instead?
So what? The debunkers are quite consistent, as well. Also, the age of a claim has little to do with its accuracy (otherwise, the Earth would, indeed, be flat).
The only similarity I see between what’s written at Skepdic.com and the above is “58”. Are you telling me that at no time did Cayce ever mention a death ray used on Atlantis? And that the above reading is the only time Cayce ever mentions 58 (is that 1958 or 2058 or 19358, anyway)?
Oh, please. We know how the pyramids were built, and in no case is it necessary to posit floating stones. This is a “miss” from Cayce.
Oh, I believe there’s a reason for diseases to go into remission, I just don’t think it’s possible to predict when they will, nor do I think it is possible, now, to learn what the reasons were for all remissions after they happen.
I can only say that that is utterly meaningless to me without defintions of, and measurements of, “vibrations,” “the divine,” “Creative Energies,” “attuning,” “atomic structure” (as Cayce means it), “living cellular force,” and “spiritual heritage.” These terms are largely unfamaliar to me, and so I cannot accept this “explanation” as anything but “new ageish” mumbo-jumbo.
Well, since I think the premise is faulty and mystical, the rest of the above argument is moot. It’s even more pointless since that “somehow” in there really takes this discussion away from the scientific realm, and moves it into the metaphysical realm where anything is possible, “somehow.” Suggesting a plausible mechanism would bring us back into the world of the testable.
No, I’m quite familiar with stress being an exacerbator of psoriasis. In about 2/3rds of psoriatics. In about 5% of us, stress makes us better. Also, both extra cortisol and “weakening the immunity” ought to make most psoriasis better. But I digress…
Ah, now I see where you were going. Back to the “everyone is unique” idea that I did away with, earlier. What you’re ignoring is the fact that good tests use lots of people in order to “average out” all these teeny-tiny effects. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the “placebo group” in any clinical trial should show even close to zero improvement. The percentages are often in the double-digits.
No, I’ve told you twice already that it is not encouraging. Six months is too short to even be “encouraging” with only a handful of participants.
Did you read the rest to find out why there’s such a wide range?
The average cost from the start of research to a drug hitting the market is around $100 million. But, as I said in my last post, much of the costs are in terms of fees paid to the FDA, not in actually running the tests themselves (a New Investigational Drug license runs around $25 million by itself, application fees for approval after testing are a similar amount - there’s a fee schedule on the FDA’s web site somewhere).
But these overall figures also include millions spent prior to human testing: the original design of a drug, the animal testing which requires no FDA oversight, etc… A lot of that can be ignored for testing Cayce’s stuff (there are no good animal models of psoriasis, for example).
So, take the testing to another country. For argument’s sake, let’s say a “wet cell appliance” costs $1,000 to build, and an extra $100 to modify it to be a “placebo.” Let’s say office space for the researchers runs $10,000 a month (that’s steep), and there are five researchers with salaries of $100,000 each. Support personel and other overhead? Let’s say another $100,000 per year. For a study with 200 paraplegics (100 use the real thing, 100 the placebo), there’d be an initial outlay of $210,000 for wet cells, and then the study costs $720,000 per year. For 5 years, that’d be $3,810,000.
Too much? Find researchers who so believe in Cayce they’re willing to prove him right in return for room and board, plus a little pocket change. That ought to cut the costs by over $400,000 per year. Now we’re down to $1,810,000 for five years of work.
Don’t forget, these are five researchers (could easily be fewer), with really expensive offices, doing nothing but working on this one thing for five years. That’s a completely unrealitic situation, but it’s geared towards your argument in that it’s expensive.
How much do the “paralympics” and other similar events cost to run? With a name like “wet cell,” I’d be willing to bet that a good salesman could easily convince Energizer to toss in a few hundred grand, with a promise of a small cut of sales in the future, and their name on the final report somewhere. The money is out there. Do you know that the manufacturers of exercise equipment commonly fund studies on phsyical therapies?
The National Psoriasis Foundation takes in over $4 million per year, mostly from us poor psoriatics. The A.R.E., with a much broader “application” (more than one disease), ought to be able to easily take in much more than that. A decent business plan would pare the research down to one or two projects at a time.
Pagano, from what I’ve heard, is a very nice gentleman who has no interest whatsoever in proving that what he’s doing is actually working. I doubt he has any solid evidence at all, mostly because he probably doesn’t keep track of people who don’t come back to his office because they are fed up with his suggestions failing. And book sales don’t equal efficacy, either.
As far as I’m concerned, they are uncountable, due to lack of stringent record-keeping. Pagano is neither a scientist nor a clinical researcher.
And just how long was that, anyway? How many years? How many millions died each year prior to widespread variolization?
Would you say the same about something dangerous, like laetrile?
Back to the point, I don’t believe that a person can “rightly” make up their own mind without all available information. I know that many people do not use this same high standard, or they think they’ve got all the information they need. I believe that many of these people, who often say that their health is the most important thing to them, are gambling their health away, more times than not.
One of the classic examples is, at a craps table, “I’ve rolled 4 sevens in a row! I can’t lose!”
And yet, I’ve already shown you how promoting something without good evidence is quackery here in this thread. Also, did you read the Pyramid Hats pages?
Absolutely untrue. You were talking about using a “wet cell” for years and getting only small (but measurable) benefits. If using one gives a person enough of a reason to quit all other therapy, only to find out, years later, that they were using something that didn’t help, they’ve wasted valuable time. They’ll be pissed. Same goes for psoriasis. Many “alternative” therapies for psoriasis are said to take lots of time, and all one needs is patience. That’s a quack cop-out. “It hasn’t worked yet? You just need to give it more time.” Blame the patient. Garbage.
If the only way to support Cayce’s suggestions about psoriasis are through non-scientific methods, that points to a definite flaw in the information itself.
I have yet to see anydecent empirical evidence that Cayce’s suggestions for psoriasis offer temporary abatement of symptoms for just a significant percentage of psoriatics.
Oh, good grief. There are two main bodies of scientific research into psoriasis going on these days. One is looking for newer, cheaper, better, safer drugs with which to eliminate the symptoms temporarily. The other is looking at the genetics of the disease (half of all people who become symptomatic before age 40 have family members with psoriasis), to find the root cause(s). The first group of researchers is expecting to be put out of their jobs by the second group (and the sooner the better, I say).
Until we know for a fact what causes psoriasis, there probably won’t be a real cure.
Finally, perhaps just to pique your curiosity, I’ll tell you that while I think Cayce was 100% incorrect on the reasons why his suggestions for psoriasis would work, I think there are some good reasons why those suggestions may very well work. There’s a difference between theory and results which is largely ignored by “believers” such as yourself. Of course, it helps if you know a lot about the diseases in question.
[Putting on administrator hat] People, people, this is now becoming line-by-line responses to line-by-line responses, which is both (a) unreadable and (b)impossible to follow.
If you have new points to make, please make them, but let’s drop the notion of having to make a snide comment back for every sentence that the other guy has written. One of the ground rules for this debate is, presumably, that you want to make your point(s). You don’t do that when your main points are buried amongs a dozen or more “quote/response” stuff. Got it? [/OK, back to the fray]
I’m not going to win these arguments, and consequently neither are you. We’re debating points of logic, but we have different standards about what constitutes proof. I stand by my argument that personal experience is still valid.
Yes you will get some people who are either fooling themselves or attributing efficacy to a method that could be coincidental because of the time they are using it.
But then I think you have to examine each individual case, and the severity of an ailment, and determine how likely it is that this is either easily explained away by chance or insignificant response compared to a dramatic, long-term improvement unnatural to the course of the disease.
Yes as you pointed out there is a lot more time and interest very RECENTLY devoted to discovering possible new medicines and treatments especially from the herbal kingdom. But a lot of this has happened solely because the empirical evidence was getting stronger over the years by people willing to try unproven treatments.
Then when standardization of herbs came into being they were seeing consistent results. They used to decry herbal studies as being very inconsistent based on earlier results, but instead of listening to the nay-sayers and throwing them out as worthless, the people who believed they had value perservered. Now we have definite evidence on some of them.
It’s a good example as to not making conclusive judgements on the validity of something unless you possess all of the facts, and sometimes it takes a while to discover what components have to be taken into consideration before you can test something properly.
That said any opinions on the actual mechanism of healing is definitely speculation and because there is no clue in the mainstream medical community as to actually HOW we heal yet, it shows a very biased and rude attitute when you ridicule someones opinion. It’s always been a mystery as to what makes a broken bone knit, or why someone responds very well to some treatments and others dont. So far the debate is still open, and all we have is opinions.
I did state many things that I made clear was opinion at this time, and without a conclusive argument of proof against same, it is in very poor taste to censure someone because of a diference in YOUR opinion. This is not directed at you DaveW, I think you’ve been pretty fair. A little passionate sometimes, but not directly rude.
Just for interests sake, I sent emails out to different organizations involved with Cayce’s readings to ask if they had any comments to add on the post. Most were mentioned here at one time or another, and I got back a pretty well uniform response. I’ll post a couple of them anonymous to person.
Quote from a medical practioner.
I have long since stopped trying to convince people about the efficacy of the Edgar Cayce Readings. Do you know what the most difficult thing to do is? It¡¦s trying to convince someone who has no intention of becoming convinced. For those who need convincing, no explanation is possible; for those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
Thank you for the notice
I¡¦ve looked at the Straight Dope discussion on Cayce. From what I¡¦ve seen, I don¡¦t think you can win this argument. Skeptics, by the present-day definition, are not open-minded individuals, but are rather arch-conservative ¡§rationalist¡¨ thinkers. This practice has a certain logic, and it is not meant to be unfair, but many find it needlessly limiting and unfulfilling.
In his readings, Cayce cautioned that the spiritual and healing material was not to be used in a ¡§proving¡¨ way - that is, to alter another¡¦s beliefs or to convert - but rather to support and amplify the already existing beliefs in people of any background who are seeking greater knowledge. The seeking must precede the understanding. If there is no seeking, there is no openness. It seems to me that these people are not seeking.
Please feel free to continue your efforts to the degree you wish. I don¡¦t mean to dissuade you from what you may determine is the right thing to do. But it¡¦s been my observation - and you may agree - that a closed mind can only be opened from within.
I know this is not the response you desired, but I hope it will in some way serve.
(Q) In what way may the Board of Trustees of the Ass¡¦n for Research and Enlightenment be of help with this [radio] program?
(A) Only in the encouraging of that THEY [the radio personalities] have found in their experience in the Association for Research and Enlightenment, to be a part of the policy and factors in the presenting of such a program. Never for sensational purposes, nor for the arousing of individuals to merely prove anything! Present rather that ye have found helpful, and let it be left on this note: ¡§Is it a mystery of the mind, or is there not rather a law that governs same?¡¨ [254-102]
(Q) What can [257] do now to make the visit of Edgar Cayce the most advantageous one he has ever had in N.Y., personal and for the sake of the Work?
(A) Make for the contacts that are of the nature that they as individuals seek, and are seeking, and not as ¡§I¡¦ll show you.¡¨ Not as of that which is attempting to prove, but to supply those needs of individuals who are in need. Those that are already sufficient unto themselves, leave them there. Those that are satisfied with their conditions, leave them there. Those that are in need, those that are seekers
„h and NOT the curious. [257-172]
The seeking … still the entity [is] on that bent [or] trend wherein as is given, ¡§As ye seek, ye shall find.¡¨ Little by little, there is being added to the entity¡¦s understanding that necessary to gain the full concept of the truths being given to same, that same may be given to others, for in service, in application, in action, do those truths prove themselves … [900-159]
In any event I wish these kind of discussions could be done in real time, because to put down every possible way of qualifying what you’re saying to prevent someone from grabbing different angles on something and jumping to conclusions is too easy in this manner of debate. As an example you mentioned with psoriasis that if anything, extra cortisol and a lowered immune system should improve symptoms. I know that, because anyone who knows the way that your body functions with anti-inflammatory hormones is aware that cortisol is released to quell inflammation. But I wasn’t trying to give the specific example of immune response and stress as a correlation to psoriasis. I was giving an example of mind-body connection. I could make many more, under hypnosis you can have a welt raised on your skin if the hypnotist tell you they’re touching you with a hot poker. Even when it’s a pen. People have literally willed themselves to death by being told they’re going to die, even when it’s a mistake and they’re in normal health.
If Cayce’s correct, Psoriasis doesn’t have anything to do with the immune system in it’s origin. (I may as well stick to this particular disorder as an argument since you are obviously well-informed on it). This is where it gets very difficult in medicine. The whole body works like a set of dominoes, and what starts a condition will naturally start involving other body systems and organs because they are all interconnected.
If Cayce is correct, then it explains why people run into a brick wall when delving into the causes of disease. They work backwards as they don’t have any other method to use. So psoriasis is looked at first as a skin disorder, and until they convince themselves that the cause must be from something else using the skin as a reflex, they don’t move on from there. Then they may have to jump to the glandular system, and if they don’t find anything there, maybe the nerve cells are awry? If not then maybe its in the blood supply, etc. What really helps is they find abnormalities in a lot of thee different parts of the body that might take ages to discover are another reflex and not the basic cause. Just contributing or co-existing factors.
Just because the prevailing thought on diseases are still stuck on a small part of the journey towards the discovery of the source, does not make Cayce wrong. He could allegedly see in entirety the way the body worked and so if genuine, had the most effective diagnostic tool imaginable.
In any event, we’re in a new century and the field is definitely more open to alternative ideas. Yes we’re going to be inundated by quacks, but hopefully the genuinely helpful treatments will be discovered and put into general use. I believe Cayce was genuine and will eventually have his theories borne out in studies. Until then like I said before, I’ll agree to disagree.
Razorraca, I can’t say that I’m not disappointed in your decision to give up. I can understand how you may be feeling overwhelmed, and I’m sorry for the part I’ve played in it (the line-by-line debate style comes naturally to me, I suppose - Sorry, Dex, consider me spanked ).
I wish I could better explain my point of view. It is summed up by neither of your correspondents (although I can see that many skeptics would turn your first letter’s words around by replacing “the efficacy of the Edgar Cayce Readings” with “the logic of the scientific method”). In fact, I find “arch-conservative rationalism” (if that’s indeed what I’m doing, I’ve never thought about it that much) freeing:
Believer: Believe in this! Me: Where’s the evidence? Believer: Well, there’s not that much. Me: Come back when you’ve got more.
And so I’m free to think and worry about other things. It’s not my job to either prove them wrong or to do their research for them, unless I feel like it. (It’s pretty obvious I did in this thread.)
I spent a lot of time in my younger days reading books on UFOs, witches, etc… Had I heard of Cayce back then, I probably would have believed. It wasn’t until my mid-20’s that I finally realized that skeptics aren’t just naysayers, and once I reached that point, my “conversion” was swift, and I found myself with a lot more time and shelf space.
Oh, and as for the charges of close-mindedness by your correspondent, I don’t know who first said it, but if there is a “skeptical slogan,” it’s probably this:
Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.
As far as Cayce’s views on psoriasis go, I submit, again, that to maintain that viewpoint requires that much of the evidence gathered since Cayce’s death be ignored. And yes, I understood the point you were making with the stress thing, hence my “but I digress” comment when I got into particulars.
Lastly, regarding the openness of people to alternatives these days, the history of medical fads is quite interesting. The current trend may actually be a getting-back-to-nature-type backlash against earlier “electrical medicine” and “better living through chemistry” fads which were as equally on unstable ground, and just as rife with quacks. There’s actually very little of the alternative medicines out there today that’s actually new.
I hope you find something else that interests you to post about on these message boards. I’m actually thinking that “What constitutes ‘proof’ and why?” might be a good Great Debates topic, if it hasn’t already been done.
Hey there. It sounds like you did the same thing I did starting off. I’m 31 now and was very interested in occult and new age things many years ago, but I really let it all fall by the wayside except cayce.
I guess I have to say something just rings true to me in the whole story. I actually own the cd-rom with the 14,000 + readings and I come across so much that truly impresses me, especially things that were not common beliefs or even thought of at the time that are now common knowledge.
It would be naturally a huge amount of effort and time to go through looking for all sorts of specific examples and compile them for an argument, and really, why bother? The 2 people I quoted still had the right idea, it’s not worth the time to appeal to ones not interested. Work with ones who wish to delve in detail personally and put the readings to test with actions. That’s what Cayce had said in regards to the information, if it’s not applicable it’s useless.
As is I’m being threatened by my boss regarding the 2 hours I spend working on posts.
He’s okay really, but I still should keep them short if I participate.
Quick question though, you mention evidence since his death as being negative for psoriasis? I haven’t heard anything like that from any quarters, so I must be missing it. Can you tell me what’s happened? Are they just discouraging in general or are did they conclusively find no benefit with a statistically significant study. I would really appreciate it.
Anyway I have enjoyed debating with you Dave, the others seem to be a little on the side of nasty. You also at least admitted a few things the others wouldn’t, that regardless of your certainty that Cayce was wrong, it’s not impossible he wasn’t, and also that he may have been completely sincere and not a deliberate fraud.
This at least proves you are not closed-minded and are willing to accept new information as long as it’s proved well enough. You’ve just got the most stringent of standards before you accept things.
That’s fine, I just personally think it’s still a little too narrow for me to define what I will believe.
Oh funny enough, I use that open mind quote all the time. I believe it came from one of Henry Gordon’s books.
Just a quick note here, Razorraca, and I promise to respond more fully later on tonight, but I feel one thing needs to be addressed, and quickly, before there’s a pile-on or a Pit thread. You wrote:
In this case, you’d probably be better off avoiding judgements like this. You see, the correspondence you posted earlier amounts to little more than “people who don’t believe in Cayce will never believe, no matter what you say or show them. ‘Skeptics’ are really close-minded bigots.” This isn’t just “a little on the side of nasty” to those of us who are attempting to follow skeptical ideals, it’s a fairly vile insult. In other words, nastiness is in the eye of the beholder, and exists all over.
I appreciate the compliment, but there was no need for it to come at the expense of others here. Anything more on this should probably go in another forum, and my forthcoming comments on the rest of your latest post will be focused on the issues appropriate here.
What’s the mystery? Every day, every hour, every minute, some of the cells of your body die out. Your body, if it is healthy, replaces these lost cells. (Your skin sheds millions of dead cells every day, but you don’t run out of skin, do you?) When your body heals an injury like a scratch or a broken bone, it is simply doing what it normally does but at an accelerated rate. Injuries cause the body to release hormones that cause cells to mature more quickly and reproduce more quickly at the injury site, and the injury is healed. The process is all biochemical and it’s understood.
Here’s a story on a new device that accelerates the healing of broken bones by using ultrasound.
Here’s a story from the FDA on how bones maintain themselves over a lifetime and how new techniques can cause bones to heal themselves more quickly.
It’s why people ought to consume vitamin D all their lives and not quit upon reaching adulthood. The leading cause of osteoporosis is insufficient vitamin D intake.
I feel both complimented and offended. I feel complimented for being called “rational” and offended for being called “arch-conservative.”
I believe that stories like these ought to be filed under the heading “Urban Legends”.
I apologize if I have ever been rude. It was not my intent. But sometimes, my impulses and my sense of humor get the better of me.
Dave I wasn’t talking about their arguments against my postition, it was the references that even the administrator called “snide comments”. Sometime’s a few reactions to my quotes were not logically refuted, they were just ridiculed. So I think it’s fair to say that was a little nasty.
That said, jab1 I appreciate the apology. Not that you were singled out in that statement either.
About the healing I didn’t figure I had to qualify comparing someone being alive or dead.
That’s still the mystery in that they don’t truly have the answers to the mechanism of life yet and how this so far undefined energy is explained by design.
That’s all I mean, of course they have a much better understanding of the actual processes of healing, which is good. It makes verifying health modalities much easier and accurate as well.
As to the examples I gave, is this something that is not generally accepted? To be honest this is something I came across only in conventional sources by my memory. It wasn’t something in relation to alternative methods, I just would have seen it in either “typical” magazine stories from Time, Newsweek, etc. or on TV. It was in my mind as one of those things I came across a few times by some mediums I would have considered as mainstream enough to remember it as accepted.
If these are false or exaggerated claims then I apologize for presenting them as fact. I try never to do that purposefully. I’m not an irrational person, and believe me many people have changed my mind about things if they convince me logically enough with evidence, so by all means try if you wish.
Generally though our major differences would mainly be that I’m more inclined to be a little more accepting of some things that lack proof yet, but does have what constitutes to me encouraging evidence. but I’ll still be logical.
Two hours? Ha! I spent four or five hours of my own time on my last huge post here. Two hours? What a rookie.
Joking aside, there are two main reasons why I feel current interpretations of Cayce’s advice re psoriasis are wrong:
One, and this is where that CD of yours would help (can I get one without getting on some A.R.E. mailing list?), is that I ran across a web page purporting to be a compilation of a whole bunch of things Cayce said about psoriasis. Unfortunately, references to specific readings were often missing, many of the readings are hacked from their context, and it is mostly non-psoriatic stuff, like “how can I better serve my fellow man?” or testimonials. (Most disturbingly, it also contained reports from Pagano to the A.R.E., giving patient’s full names and addresses! Somebody skipped their “medical ethics” classes.)
At any rate, the impresson I got from what I did read in there of Cayce’s readings on “psoriasis” was that Cayce himself didn’t seem to bother with disease names much at all. In fact, the above page quotes him as saying, “Names do not mean anything for the condition of this body.” And so, every person who came to him with “psoriasis” got, for the most part, a different therapy. One person was told to wait before starting the colonics, another was told to start right away. That sort of thing.
If, indeed, this is true, this would eliminate Cayce’s therapies as being scientifically testable. If every person received a unique therapy, and Cayce is now dead, there’s no possible way to “customize” treatments for anyone anymore. Also, folks like the Meridian Institute and Pagano have things all wrong, since a “one size fits all” psoriasis therapy is not what Cayce was offering.
Two, scientific research since Cayce’s death has shown, conclusively (or nearly so), that the immune system plays a major, if not defining, role in the symptoms of psoriasis, and also that genetics are involved. My own summation of the situation is that there is a “miscommunication” between the skin cells and the immune system. Either the immune cells are “seeing” a “help me” signal that the skin cells aren’t sending, or the skin cells are mistakenly sending a “help me” signal when they shouldn’t. It’s most-likely the former, but either way, the immune cells move into the skin and set up an inflammatory, wound-healing response where no wound exists.
Another example of this mistaken signalling is what’s thought to happen in Strep-induced psoriasis. It seems that an antigen on Strep bacteria very closely matches a protein made by psoriatic skin. Once the immune system is triggered into action against the Strep proteins, the cells suddenly start seeing the skin-manufactured protein as “foreign,” and go charging in to combat an infection which no longer exists (most cases of Strep-induced psoriasis become symptomatic after the Strep infection itself has been killed off).
There are reams and reams of data on this. Now, here’s the thing: while it certainly is possible that triggering antigens enter the body through the intestines, it is by no means probable that eliminating the original trigger will cause the skin reactions to stop. Once skin cells begin being damaged by the inflammation, psoriasis can be self-sustaining, without the need for constant “external” triggering - an “auto-Koebner” response, if you will.
In other words, if a triggering antigen enters through a “leaky intestine,” fixing the leak may very well not fix the psoriasis. It’s closing the barn door after the horses have run out.
But there’s another possibility. Many psoriatics (I am not one of them) notice that certain foods can induce flare-ups of symptoms, sometimes within hours of eating them. These “trigger” foods run the whole gamut of human diets. The most-common one is any sort of alcoholic drink. For those of us who do find trigger foods, eliminating them from the diet can help, if for no other reason than eliminating periodic flare-ups. For some, the effect can be quite dramatic. For example, psoriatics who are also gluten-intolerant often find a gluten-free diet will clear them (the unfortunate part being that gluten intolerance doesn’t appear to be found much more often in psoriatics than in non-psoriatics). At any rate, many trigger foods are fairly unpredictable, and no one-size-fits-all dietary suggestions (as made by Pagano or others) is likely to eliminate the triggers for all psoriatics.
Along with the above two, there are also some minor reasons. There’s some more-or-less direct refutation of different aspects of the theories. Pagano, for example, claims that tomatoes are bad. An Italian study found less-severe psoriasis to be correlated with higher tomato consumption. Heck, even Cayce, in Reading 2455-3 (1/3rd of the way down the page or so, answer at line 17), suggests drinking more tomato juice. There’s also the fact that Cayce had some bizarre ideas about anatomy. For example, “a condition of lack of lymph circulation through alimentary canal” (answer at line 15, emphasis mine) is generally thought to be a good thing. If you’ve got lymph flowing through your small intestine, for example, you’ve probably got bigger problems than psoriasis.
I should, really, just put up a big “nitpicking Cayce” page on my web site.
<< it was the references that even the administrator called “snide comments”. Sometime’s a few reactions to my quotes were not logically refuted, they were just ridiculed. So I think it’s fair to say that was a little nasty. >>
Just to be perfectly clear: there were snide comments on both sides, I was not singling out any one poster or any one viewpoint. And while the line between “snide” and “nasty” is perhaps a grey one, we try to keep things on the polite side of the line in this forum.
Hey there. The CD rom is sold by A.R.E. I think, maybe it’s The Heritage Store? Probably both.
They would likely not put you on a list at all for just purchasing something through them. I have joined at least 4 times as a member for a year and have let it lapse every time out of laziness. They never sent anything further after it expired, even though up until then they would let me know it was coming up for renewal if wished. So as an organization they are quite good that way, most are pests.
Consequently if you join for a year which IS minimal, you get online access to all the reading & reports, etc. but I wouldn’t recommend this even if you wanted to because it is infinitely more difficult to extract the information you want online compared to the CD. The sonar program is much more efficient. But it can be done.
I wont be doing this all through, I promise.
Quote:
At any rate, the impresson I got from what I did read in there of Cayce’s readings on “psoriasis” was that Cayce himself didn’t seem to bother with disease names much at all. In fact, the above page quotes him as saying, “Names do not mean anything for the condition of this body.” And so, every person who came to him with “psoriasis” got, for the most part, a different therapy. One person was told to wait before starting the colonics, another was told to start right away. That sort of thing.
If, indeed, this is true, this would eliminate Cayce’s therapies as being scientifically testable. If every person received a unique therapy, and Cayce is now dead, there’s no possible way to “customize” treatments for anyone anymore. Also, folks like the Meridian Institute and Pagano have things all wrong, since a “one size fits all” psoriasis therapy is not what Cayce was offering.
I had to reprint this because it is very relevant as a point. I forgot to talk about this earlier. Information overload.
This is exactly correct in that Cayce WAS unconcerned with names. The readings looked solely at what was “malfunctioning” in the body and how to correct. Unless it was outside influences such as viruses or bacteria which would naturally be a universal cause, he didn’t usually link it with a name unless asked if it was something. Then if agreed this was the disease, mainly by accepting that disease labels were based on symptom and not cause(for obvious reasons), he would say it was, or a form or tendency towards.
Coming from that angle you can see why it would be harder to pin things down. There are many different problems in our bodies that cause identical symptoms which is why diagnosing conditions requires tests (when they are available and conclusive), and until identified, anyone may think it’s a shared disease with another person exhibiting the same symptoms.
Again with the psoriasis, in the reading Cayce was asked about the cause. If he was correct about the majority of people having it because of the same reason but still maintaining a much smaller ratio being different in cause, this would also fit into the bell curve pattern as to why the majority react similarly to treatments. Then if you accept further that individual people affect any treatments efficacy for better or worse, then it does make things difficult to approach diseases as a uniform condition.
When someone asked Cayce in trance whether the readings were universally applicable he did actually say specifically not to assume one reading would have validity for anyone else, and testing would be needed to determine whether the majority would benefit from a specific treatment.
Sometimes he would indicate this or not, but usually when giving an individual reading as opposed to a general topic, he was focused solely on the individual.
Also Cayce had said many times when asked about promoting the readings that it was “not necessary” to believe in his ability as a psychic. The readings said the only way to present themselves properly was based on their own merit, and by testing the concepts presented within.
So the readings seem quite confident that eventually testing would prove out the concepts for general acceptance, but it qualified the addendum that it depended totally on how closely we could pinpoint the cause of a disease.
So theoretically if we found someone that we determined had the same base causes as a persons reading, then theoretically they should respond very well to the outlined treatments. This would be one of the ways to prove further, but of course we would only need a preponderance of statistical improvement to start paving the way. Hopefully most diseases have a similar cause in the majority of people.
The evidence showing the immune system being involved sounds logical. But lets postulate for a second. Lets say that if the idea that the intestines are more permeable than normal and subsequently “leak” toxins into the bloodstream, then naturally the immune system is going to look at these as foreign.
So combined with a tendency in someone to eliminate too heavily through the skin (as it is one of the organs of elimination), and maybe the reason for this is simply because of too heavy an amount of toxins which in turn cannot be neutralized completely through the liver or kidney, this could pose a theory that the immune system is causing the extremely rapid cell growth in order to very quickly move poisons from the bloodstream to a much less harmful place in the body. The skin.
I don’t even know if this is essentially what the readings or Pagano is suggesting, I didn’t honestly look at it that carefully. This is just an idea based on my own knowledge of the bodies elimination system. Is there any reason why this could not be possible? If so, let me know. I’m just speculating.
LOL. I should read the whole post before answering each paragraph, you brought up the antigens entering the bloodstream after.
Still I did propose it a little different and I’d still like an opinion.
That’s an excellent point about whether it can be reversed. I would hope it would be possible, and I guess only time would tell on that one.
With the triggers, I can again postulate a possibility. Alcohol is known to increase permeability of tissue in the intestine, so that could be a likely reason. Maybe certain foods excite someone’s immune response to a degree that it just causes the reflex of temporarily worsening the psoriasis. Which also might explain how reactions differ at different times, the bodies ability to adapt to things is incredible and can be just as annoying as the placebo effect sometimes I would think. Hmmmmm.
I would assume Pagano happened to come across enough people personally that found tomato juice to be a trigger, but I would dismiss that as an opinion and definitely not statistically proven. I don’t think he should be presenting anything as “bad” without evidence. I would simply say that I found a tendency in the people I’ve treated. That would be a lot more accurate. Plus people woudn’t jump on these people so much if the carefully qualified their statements.
I’m going to answer the last point about the lymph circulation based on my understanding of what he said. One of the other problems with Cayce’s readings is that they were sometimes difficult to understand because he had a unique way of explaining things. But after a while you pick it up quite quickly, and believe me it does make sense. You personally may not agree with what he’s saying, but if you read a great deal of it I’m certain you’d understand what he’s saying. It’s almost like studying old english.
So as to his quote, my immediate understanding is he’s saying Psoriasis original cause can differ between pressures involving organs as well as the intestines, maybe even more things, he didn’t quite make it clear if that was all. But then he says that it is ALWAYS caused by a lack of lymph circulation through the alimentary canal AND the lack of absorption. Which part he’s referring to as being absorbed wasn’t stated clearly. He could have been referring to the lymph that wasn’t provided there, or the toxins themselves, etc. I don’t know.
But regarding the first part, the lymph system runs essentially parallel to the bloodstream though the whole body except it’s actually more extensive. It reaches every single cell in living tissue according to the medical anatomy I’ve read, so based on that premise alone a lack of proper lymph circulation through the intestine would naturally be detrimental as it’s the actual system designed to filter all refuse the system produces, as well as foreign matter engulfed by our immune cells.
So it sounds logical to me in relation to his idea that the lack of proper lymph flow would then mean the toxins have not been neutralized and thus must be taken up by the bloodstream which would be considered inadequate. I’m presuming you thought he meant that sentence differently than how I interpreted it. So what do you think?
One other thing totally separate from Cayce I’m curious about. Have you seen the research on the herb milk thistle? I’d be surprised if you haven’t had someone mention it as it’s been reported anecdotally that psoriasis sufferers have had very good results with using it.
This would also if true be consistent with the ideas I just postulated as milk thistle’s main effect is hepatoprotective, and apparently stimulate the growth of healthy liver tissue. The correlation would be the increased ability of the liver to detoxify and thus relieve some of the toxic burden in the bloodstream. Have you tried it? As much as you seem to not be interested in anecdotal stories, I’ll give you one.
My aunt has psoriasis although I didn’t know this at the time, and my uncle had been telling someone how she used to have a “road map on her back of scales” and how dramatically they reduced after taking the herb. Last I heard she was still much less afflicted then before, but it’s been a while. I should ask. So just thought I’d add that.
Thanks for the info on the CD, Razorraca. However, if what’s available on the Meridian Institute’s web site is, indeed, a complete list of all of Cayce’s readings which mention psoriasis, then I really won’t need it (other than to dig up dirt on his Atlantis theories I don’t really want to become a Cayce scholar). Actually, if you’d like to do me a favor, you could verify that the following 50 readings are the only ones to pop up in a search for “psoriasis” on your CD…
Rather than get into any more of the details here, and thus farther and farther from the Staff Report you were commenting on, I think I will go ahead and write up my Web page on Cayce, based on the above Readings. One of the things I’m going to be focusing on is just how consistent he was in his theories for psoriasis. Just poking around in the above list, I can see places where things are “off” from the “leaky gut” theory, and I really wonder what percentage of readings really describe that. As I’ve already metioned, his “prescriptions” aren’t consistent, either.
Another thing I’ll be looking at is any descriptions of symptoms. As I’ve already noted, “blackheads” don’t fit the description of psoriasis very well, and in a handful of places, I see editorial notes saying stuff like “psoriasis tendencies?” which makes me think that someone other than Cayce was doing a lot of guessing. This could be indicative of someone trying to “force fit” the readings into nice, neat categories, and thus perhaps skewing Cayce’s original intent. Don’t forget that psoriasis is sometimes a difficult disease to distinguish from similar conditions (such as fungal infections or eczema), even for experienced dermatologists.
Anyway, after I finish, we can then discuss my findings, if you’d like, via email or some other forum here on the SDMB. Again, I just think that getting too far into discussing the particulars of Cayce’s readings on any one disease is a bit much for this forum, and I don’t want to get spanked any more than I already have been.
Short notes on other points:
Thanks for confirming my guess about Cayce and disease names.
I’m not even certain that a “leaky gut” of any degree is necessary for foreign antigens to do their dirty work on psoriatic’s immune systems - after all, since it is in direct contact with the outside world, the intestines have lots of immune support.
I continually (it seems) find myself taking issue with the statement that the skin is an eliminatory organ. I’ll grant that status to the sweat glands, but not the skin itself. The skin’s main job is to be a barrier. Anyway, if we psoriatics are throwing off more toxins in our sweat due to blocked up works elsewhere, one would expect to see first symptoms where there are lots of sweat glands, or more sweating - hands, feet, scalp, groin, armpits. Classic first psoriasis symptoms tend to show up on elbows and/or knees, though, followed by the scalp. Psoriasis on the palms of the hands or soles of the feet (which sweat constantly) is not all that common.
My comment about lymph flow through the alimentary canal really was just a nitpick, as had Cayce used the word “along,” instead, I probably wouldn’t have commented on it. “Through,” after all, implies “in with the food,” since food most assuredly flows through the alimentary canal.
Finally, I’d heard about milk thistle in relation to psoriasis before, but haven’t yet investigated it (I’ve got a couple-hundred things on my “to do” list, and milk thistle is one of them already). A quick search on Medline turns up a single article mentioning both the herb and the disease, but with no abstract. Usually, something with “very good results” will turn up a lot of hits in the “alternative” journals Medline carries, but this turned up just the one (even using the genus and species instead of the common name). A search of the psoriasis newsgroups turns up lots of posts, but usually, it seems, in relation to “liver cleanses” and the like. Don’t get me started on how “abused” I think the liver is as a source of disease. Why doesn’t anyone pick on the spleen? :rolleyes:
I’ll get back in touch in a few days or a week, perhaps more (depends largely on how much spare time I find for myself), after doing my research and writing up my Web page.
