8/47 A.R.E. BULLETIN
READY FOR QUESTIONS
Many times through the years everyone closely associated
with the work of Edgar Cayce has asked, "Did he ever give a
wrong diagnosis?" In going back over the records twenty-two
years ago, a case turned up recently which is of particular
interest to those of us most concerned with attempting to
answer the above question.
G.D.
On November 29, 1922, a man of fifty-eight sought a reading.
He had ulcers of the stomach and a tumor on his left arm.
The reading described how that a nervous shock had produced
a fear and a dissatisfaction which reacted detrimentally
throughout the nervous system. However, the chief warning
was in regard to the condition of his blood:
"The blood is an impoverished condition. There is a lack of
the proper constituents to make the perfect distribution
within the blood of the conditions found through the
digestive tract and the stomach itself. The effect upon the
circulation is to reduce the vital forces within the body.
"There is insufficient hemoglobin of the nature which
produces the carbon needed in the blood to take from the
system the poisons created by the stomach and intestinal
condition."
(No. 13-1)
The man wrote Mr. Cayce on December 7, 1922:
"I called upon my physician and had him make a test of my
blood. He says my blood is in fine condition - test 100%
- he says my color is extra fine.
"Do you suppose a mistake was made in the wrong body?"
Probably because of the doubt in his mind as to the accuracy
of the diagnosis, Case No. [
13] halfheartedly followed part
of the treatment suggested in his reading and received help
for his ulcers; he resorted to surgery for removing the tumor
from his arm.
Ten years later he sought another reading for a colitis
condition and halfheartedly followed the treatment; He
carried on a correspondence with Mr. Cayce in regard to the
philosophy of the reading; he couldn't quite make up his
mind to believe it. Again the second reading warned of his
blood condition.
On February 27, 1937 - fifteen years later the first reading
was given - we received the following note from the wife of
Case No. [
13]:
"My husband died on Feb. 1st - he made a 10 week's fight
with streptococcic throat and ear poisoning which resulted
in acute leukemia."
Was the first diagnosis right, even though test at the time
(perhaps not thorough ones) seemed to dispute it?
What do you think?
7/60 Dr. W. N. Pahnke included Case [
13] in his study of
seven cases (16 readings) of leukemia. He obtained a Death
Certificate which indicated that Mr. [
13] died of Acute
Monocytic Leukemia, Date of Onset "about Dec. 1, 1936".
9/05/60 Doris T. Patterson's letter to GD:
Some information I put together on one or two medical
prophecies and sent to Vaughan [Vaughan Shelton] might be of
interest to you too. I recall you were the one who first
mentioned the "wrong diagnosis" - Leukemia case. [Case [
13]]
Some information culled from the Bryn Mawr Hospital library
adds interest to both the first and second reading as well as
the diagnosis. I believe the first trouble for which Case
[
13] sought advice was ulcers of the stomach and a tumor on
his left arm. Fear and shock described by the reading and
treatment for ulcers was apparently successfully prescribed
and understood.
Warning about impoverishment of the blood would be poorly
understood in 1922, as would his other advice. But wait.
The second reading was for a colitis condition. The reading
and warning about the blood were apparently set aside.
On 5 March 1960 the journal Medical de Lyon, France, carried
an article on Electrophoresis in stasis in ascending
colitis...listed under BLOOD, CHEMISTRY OF, in the Index
Medicus. Apparently there is some detectable factor in the
chemistry of the blood that has some relationship to
ascending COLITIS (could this have been forseen in reading
#2? Apparently. Unfortunately doctors couldn't use future
knowledge.)
And the polish Medical Archives of 1960 carried on article,
also listed under BLOOD CHEMISTRY on Pathological proteins
appearing during the course of Leukemias, malignant granuloma
and primary reticulosis.
I'm not familiar enough with Polish to read the article, but
it seems obvious that here there is also a relationship
between the chemistry of the blood and a particular type of
blood protein that becomes evident during the course of
leukemia...and malignant granuloma of course is another type
of cancer - the "oma" ending usually refers to a tumor, I
believe - Could there be some treatment through the blood to
reduce tumors? Chemical treatment of cancer is finally
receiving serious consideration these days. And possibly the
blood proteins foretold at the time (1922) that leukemia was
possible IF the blood were not sufficiently improved.



Edgar Cayce Readings © 1971, 1993, 1994, 1995 by the Edgar Cayce Foundation