Shrine at Lourdes
The issue of healing has risen through a challenge from a troll and taken up by our friend and loyal atheist opponent Pixie. This is a pastiche fro various arguments made over the years. The healing i discuss here can be considered miraculous because they are proven by medical science to be conditions that are not explained by science,
Marian Library (Ibid.)
"In the last one hundred years, over 6,500 individuals have reported cures to the Medical Bureau. Of these, at least 2,500 cases are considered truly remarkable, but they lack some requirement needed to allow them to advance to the next stage--witnesses, evidence, lack of agreement on the nature of the ailment. In the last twenty years, there have been reports of about twenty cases of extraordinary cures or healings, about one a year. Mr. Bély's healing is the 66th cure occurring at Lourdes which has been officially recognized by ecclesiastical authorities. The recognition by church authorities has been a feature of Lourdes for a total of sixty- three years of its history."
The Process of Verification
There are three stages:
1)Examination by Lourdes Medical Bureau.
[Ibid]
"The first occurs when the cured person is examined at the Lourdes Medical Bureau. Established in 1883, the Medical Bureau receives the testimony of the cured person, of the doctor and of those who accompanied the person to Lourdes. After the preliminary examination, the cured person is usually asked to return to Lourdes a year later for another examination. Many cases remain at this first level because of the difficulty of gathering the previous medical reports, a frequent occurrence with individuals who come from underdeveloped areas."
2) Cases passed to International Bureau.
(Ibid.)
"Sufficiently documented cases are passed on to the International Medical Bureau. Established in 1946, this bureau consists of medical doctors, psychiatrists, and experts in specific diseases. The criteria for recognizing a cure at Lourdes are the same as those proposed, in 1743, by the canonist Prospero Lambertini (the future Benedict XIV) regarding the miracle required for the beatification and the canonization of saints. The infirmity must have been serious and considered impossible to cure; no medication or treatment must have been given, which could possibly have caused the change; the cure must be sudden and complete, with no relapse. In a word, the cure must be unexplainable, that is, there is no human or natural factor which could have effected the cure. (The doctors at Lourdes speak only of inexplicable cures, not "miracles.") If, in the opinion of the International Medical Committee, there is no natural explanation for the cure, the case is then referred to the bishop of the diocese in which the individual resides."
3)Investigation by Diocesan Canonical committee.
(Ibid.)
"At present, the final stage in the process is the investigation by the diocesan canonical committee, appointed by the bishop of the diocese. In the early years of Lourdes, the final judgment appeared to rest with the doctors, so much so, that the second President of the Medical Bureau wrote, in 1892, that "the history of Lourdes has been written entirely by doctors." In the twentieth century, church authorities have assumed a greater role in the discernment process. Although medical science has a role to play in their discernment, science alone cannot be the final arbiter. Since miracles are signs which point to something beyond, they belong to the order of faith. It is the Church's prerogative to recognize these signs of faith. In addition, a miraculous cure is not simply an impersonal intervention of divine power, but a gift to the individual, frequently accompanied by greater faith, charity, peace. For that reason, the canonical examination should also consider the individual's disposition at the time of the cure and religious attitudes which are part of his or her life.
The final word belongs to the bishop of the diocese, who, as did Bishop Dagens, recognizes the miraculous cure "in the name of the Church."
The Lourdes Medical Bureau and the International Bureau hold Symposia and conferences at which medical experts of all kinds present papers on the data of the miracle calims. Both philosophical and medical questions are addressed. The papers of top academic quality and the discussions are very important. There is a very interesting section on the Marian Newletter site about this, it is well worth reading, but we cannot go into that here. I urge the reader to click on that link and consider all that is said. One of the major issues addressed is the meaning of miralces. The Catholic chruch does not regard miracles as proof of the existence of God, rather, it understands them as a message, a sign form God, and the Pope has decalired that miracles are a call to prayer and to seek God. In light of this realization, I present a few examples of hearlings from Lourdes:
A Few examples from Lourdes The Marian Library Newsletter
No. 38 (New Series)
Summer, 1999
http://www.udayton.edu/mary/respub/summer99.html
On February 10, 1999, Msgr. Claude Dagens, bishop of Angoulˆme, France, announced that the cure which Mr. Jean-Pierre Bély, a member of the diocese, had experienced at Lourdes twelve years earlier, was truly "a sign of Christ." The bishop said, "In the name of the Church, I recognize and acknowledge in public the authenticity of the cure which Mr. Jean-Pierre Bély experienced at Lourdes on Friday, October 9, 1987. This sudden and complete cure is a personal gift of God for this man and an effective sign of Christ the Savior, which was accomplished through the intercession of Our Lady of Lourdes."
In 1984, Mr. Bély was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and, by 1987, he was completely paralyzed. He was brought to Lourdes on a stretcher in 1987 as a participant in the October Rosary Pilgrimage. On the final morning of the pilgrimage, as Mr. Bély was anointed in the Sacrament of the Sick, he felt a "sensation of coldness" followed by "a gentle warmth" that seemed to fill his entire body. "Later, I took my first steps, just like a baby who is learning to walk."
3 October 1950
age 52; Toulon, France Post-operative fistula following a liver abscess in 1948. By the time of his pilgrimage in 1950, the condition had degenerated to an open wound that required multiple dressing changes each day, and showed no sign of healing. On emerging from his second bath in the waters, the wound had completely closed, and the condition never bothered him again. Recognized by the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France on 8 December 1953.
Protestant Miracles
Study: The Miracles: A Doctor says "Yes"
by Richard H. Casdorph.(Logos International, 1976)
Richard H. Casdroph collected medical evidence, x-rays, angeograms, and other data from 10 cases associated with the Kathryn Kulhman ministry. Now it will of course strike skeptics as laughable to document miracles of a faith healer. Ordinarily I myself tend to be highly skeptical of any televangelists. I am still skeptical of Kulhman because of her highly theatrical manner. But I always had the impression that there was actual documentation of her miracles, and I guess that impression was created by the Casdorph book.
The Casdroph book goes into great deatail on every case. Since these were not the acutal patients of Casdroph himself, there are 3 tiers of medical data and opinion; Casdroph himself and his evaluation of the data, several doctors with whom he consulted on every case, and they very from case to case, and the original doctors of the patents themselves. The patients gave their permission and were happy to provide the medical data on their healings since they were all people who had written to the Kulhman ministry with words of their healings. Not all of them were healed immediately in the meeting. Some were healed latter when they got home.Naturally no one had a x-ray machine standing by at the faith meeting to crank out results like a x-rox copy, so all of them took some period of time to see the results. Not all of them were tonally healed immediately. But all the cases were either terminal or incurrable and all of them, within a year, returned to full health and pain free existences.
Dr. Richard Steiner, of the American Board of Pathology, head of department of Pathology Long Beach Community Hospital reviewed several of the slides. William Olson, American Board of Internal Medicine and head of Isatope Department at Long Beach Community Hospital, and several radiologists form that Hospital also consulted on the rest of the cases.
1)Reticulum cell Sarcoma, right pelvic bone.
2)Chronic Rheumatoid Arthritis with Severe Disability
3)Malignat Brain Tumor (Glioma) of the left Temoperal lobe
4)Multiple Sclorosis
5)Arterioscloratic Heart Disease
6)Carcinoma of the Kidney (Hypernephroma)
7) Mixted Rhumatoid Arthritis with Osteoarthritis
8)Probable Brain Tumor vs Infarction of the Brain
9)Massive GI Hemorrhage with GI shock (instantly healed)
10)Ostioprosis of the Etire Spine
All of these people were totally healed of incurable or terminal states. The one commonality they all have is that they were at some point prayed for by the same person, Kulhman. Let's look at a few examples:
Pixie's Questions:
Pixie asked these in comment section last time,
Anonymous said...
There are several problems with the supposed miracles at Lourdes that lead skeptics to reject them as convincing evidence.:
Px:
1. The numbers of visits when visitors were not cured. "They took the 411 cures from the era known as “the golden age or Lourdes.” This is the period from 1909-14 ..." There were 150,000 pilgrims a year at that time, so over that period around 750,000, of which 411 were useful to the study. What of the other 749,589? Cures that were not miraculous; cures that failed?
Joe: The number of non healings is not important. The issue is not everyone get's healed, That was never a claim. One healing i supposedly impossible so one true healing should prove they can happen.
Px: Why is it so unreliable?
Joe: Because it's a matter of faith in conjunction with God's will. God never promises all people will be healed, We don;t now the perimeters.
Px: Why were those 411 successful? Were they particularly pious?Joe: The proper combination of faith an God's ill for those people. Gift of grace. The historical article says at times in the 'golden age" of Lourdes healing would spill over into the town and run rampant. A lot of claimed healing took place without proper examination. So we don't know how many were healed but way more than just 411. Those are eh one's they were able to document,
Px: 2. How miraculous? "That cure was attended by the famous atheist writer Emile Zola; Grabiel Gargam cured of post traumatic paraplegia in 1901 and several others."
Post-traumatic paraplegia sounds like a psychological problem, one that being cured by faith is quite believable, quite explainable.
Joe:
Px: Has an amputee ever regained a limb at Lourdes? I do not know, but I would be willing the answer is "no". THAT would be a true miracle, but it never happened. Why?
Joe: Why is that a "true miracle" and healing incurable disease is not? This has been the atheist fail safe for many years because no one really knows. But I will share with you the ferment of my toil in dealing with it many years ago in the time when the war between atheists and Christians on the net was real intense. Please read here.Px: 3. How well verified?
Joe: They are extremely well verified, RCC uses struck rules they only take cases first rate medical documentation. Here was a major article on the subject years ago, click on the guy's name.
Px: This is pretty damning: "During the golden age there were strange spontaneous healings in the town in such places as breakfast table, during a procession, in the hospital ward in town.[10] Apparently it was WWI that put the Kybosh on the golden age. The committee changed leadership many times and doctors were scarce due to the war.[11] 1947-2006 was marked by improved diagnostics, new young physicians more careful attitudes."
Joe: Your focusing on an isolated time.It's the golden age because it was a media sensation then not because the curses were better. The did't even have w rays then, The diagnostics are much better now.
Px: During the Golden Age, checks were not that careful. As checking got better, the fake miracles got weeded out better, and the number of supposed miracles got less and less.
Joe: "Fake" means explained not that the church was trying to fake miracles.
Px: 4. What is the theology?
Joe: Healing is a gift of the spirit, It is an outgrowth of the relationship between the person healed and God. Paul could heal others but not himself.Px: How does the whole concept of Lourdes work within Christian theology anyway? Why does God choose to cure a limited number of people why visit the place? Why not cure anyone who prays for a cure, regardless of where they are? It makes no sense.
Joe: This is several questions in one, Lourdes is a Catholic miracle so many Protestants may be skeptical of it. I accept it because I tided it, But my understanding and explanation are different from the official Catholic dogma. I don't really know how they would answer you, but it is a Mary miracle. I don't include Mary in my explanation, I say it's just the result of people's faith.Px: I appreciate that a Christian will be pre-disposed to believe the miracles are true, but from a skeptic's point of view, the far more likely explanation is the supposed miracles are a mix of people convincing themselves it was a cure and getting well independently of the visit.
Joe: Not with the medical evidence that is required. Each one of those healing is very formidable in that they prove it couldn't be explained scientifically and it is proven to be an actual condition such that there was illness and it vanished in all traces soon after prayer, some where deemed incurable.
|
Comments
First off, it is important to point out that the problem here is one of perspective. If you are examining these from the perspective of a Christian, with the background assumption that God exists and does miracles you will look at the evidence quite differently to a sceptic who believes otherwise. If a man suddenly and for no obvious reason recovers from cancer, the Christian is reasonably going to suppose a miracle, whilst the sceptic is not.
Do the records of healing at Lourdes provide good evidence of miracles, if we assume God exists and routinely performs miracles? Yes.
Do the records of healing at Lourdes provide good evidence of miracles, if we do not assume God exists and routinely performs miracles? No.
We need a different approach, and the most objective methodology we have is the scientific method: We propose a hypothesis, draw predictions and test those predictions.
The hypothesis here is that God performs miracles to heal the sick. Of course, we may want to modify it, but that is our starting point, and if we do modify it, we need to be careful that we are not firing an arrow at random, and painting a target around it, wherever it lands.
Now we draw a prediction. If God performs miracles to heal the sick, then we would expect the sick to always get healed. Clearly that is not the case; people get sick and die, so the hypothesis is wrong.
We can try another hypothesis: God performs miracles to heal the sick Christians. But again, we know even the most pious Christians get sick and die, so again the hypothesis fails.
We can try another hypothesis: God performs miracles to heal the sick Christians who are willing to show their faith by going to Lourdes. Again, this fails, because many make the trip but are not cured. In fact in the period from 1909-14 there were 150,000 pilgrims a year at that time, so over that period around 750,000, of which 411 were useful to the study you cited. How many of the other 749,589 were simply not cured?
Another hypothesis: God performs miracles to heal the sick Christians who are willing to show their faith by going to Lourdes, but only when it suits him, and we mere mortals cannot hope to understand that. Sure, that works. But this is just painting a target around the arrow; it is carefully constructing a hypothesis to fit the results we want.
Joe: Why is that a "true miracle" and healing incurable disease is not? This has been the atheist fail safe for many years because no one really knows. But I will share with you the ferment of my toil in dealing with it many years ago in the time when the war between atheists and Christians on the net was real intense. Please read here.Px: 3. How well verified?
Again, we can look at this using the scientific method. The hypothesis here is that God performs miracles to heal the sick. God in our hypothesis is all-powerful, so therefore the degree of healing required will be no impediment, and therefore he will as readily heal an amputation as anyone else. The reality is that that does not happen; again the hypothesis is refuted.
Sure, Christians can rationalise away why God never heals amputees, such as God has to remain hidden, which ignores the plain fact that God has supposedly performed several very clear miracles (yes, they were a very long time ago, but to the people of that time, they were not). And really, curing an amputee is hardly comparable to magically giving someone a milk shake; clearly the latter is a trivial request, the former is life-changing.
Joe: I say it's just the result of people's faith.
Agreed. It was not God who cured them, but their faith in God.
First off, it is important to point out that the problem here is one of perspective. If you are examining these from the perspective of a Christian, with the background assumption that God exists and does miracles you will look at the evidence quite differently to a sceptic who believes otherwise. If a man suddenly and for no obvious reason recovers from cancer, the Christian is reasonably going to suppose a miracle, whilst the sceptic is not.
Yes you are right but I did not call this tune. I did not say "hey class let me show you how we advance miracles as a proof of God so we can convert pixie." No it was thrust upon me by that link pitting troll. U see my role in this thing to do damage control to an atheist attach that miracle are not real. My answer: they might be
I don't know about routine. I see God working miracles at his leisure by some mystical agenda that is beyond my understanding. I think provides the best evidence that miracles are possible
Pix:Do the records of healing at Lourdes provide good evidence of miracles, if we do not assume God exists and routinely performs miracles? No.
We need a different approach, and the most objective methodology we have is the scientific method: We propose a hypothesis, draw predictions and test those predictions.
Lourdes medical committee does use a scientific approach. The problem is you want to treat God's healing power as a function of nature, something you can control you can dyslectic it and understand it and control an automatic process which work works by your rules it is not it is subject to God's will
Pix:The hypothesis here is that God performs miracles to heal the sick. Of course, we may want to modify it, but that is our starting point, and if we do modify it, we need to be careful that we are not firing an arrow at random, and painting a target around it, wherever it lands.
Provisional hypothesis
Pix:Now we draw a prediction. If God performs miracles to heal the sick, then we would expect the sick to always get healed. Clearly that is not the case; people get sick and die, so the hypothesis is wrong.
that;s the kind of false assumption I would expect you to make by saying always: you setting it up to fail then lose the phenomena. That by treating it like a force nature rather than God's will and action
Pix:We can try another hypothesis: God performs miracles to heal the sick Christians. But again, we know even the most pious Christians get sick and die, so again the hypothesis fails.
that's the same trick, by treating it like an automatic process you set it up to fail
We can try another hypothesis: God performs miracles to heal the sick Christians who are willing to show their faith by going to Lourdes. Again, this fails, because many make the trip but are not cured. In fact in the period from 1909-14 there were 150,000 pilgrims a year at that time, so over that period around 750,000, of which 411 were useful to the study you cited. How many of the other 749,589 were simply not cured?
God heals more than just people at Lourdes.I also presented protest miracle. Did you read the op?
Another hypothesis: God performs miracles to heal the sick Christians who are willing to show their faith by going to Lourdes, but only when it suits him, and we mere mortals cannot hope to understand that. Sure, that works. But this is just painting a target around the arrow; it is carefully constructing a hypothesis to fit the results we want.
why don't you try honest study instead of trying set it up to fail? Stop trying to treat it like a force of nature than be studied by your rues. That's just an attempt to reduce it and lose the phenomena.
Again, we can look at this using the scientific method. The hypothesis here is that God performs miracles to heal the sick. God in our hypothesis is all-powerful, so therefore the degree of healing required will be no impediment, and therefore he will as readily heal an amputation as anyone else. The reality is that that does not happen; again the hypothesis is refuted.
but God also has a will of his own, he might decide not heal someone, so that is something you can't control but reductionist seek control. if you insist upon using rules guaranteed to disprove miracles then of course they will always be disproved, but it's not scientific. It ideological.
Sure, Christians can rationalise away why God never heals amputees, such as God has to remain hidden, which ignores the plain fact that God has supposedly performed several very clear miracles (yes, they were a very long time ago, but to the people of that time, they were not).
you didn't read the link I provided. there have been stories of healing amptees but they are very rare. You assert a reason that works with your reductionist but it's a straw man argument because you don't know the real argument,
And really, curing an amputee is hardly comparable to magically giving someone a milk shake; clearly the latter is a trivial request, the former is life-changing.
Joe: I say it's just the result of people's faith.
Agreed. It was not God who cured them, but their faith in God.
even that should not be possible under a materialist world view. That assumes a psychic milk of mind over matter.. But really you would accept anything broke the idea of a will grater than your own right?
Assumptions
(1) The assumption that God wants a "moral universe" and that this value outweighs all others.
The idea that God wants a moral universe I take from my basic view of God and morality. Following in the footsteps of Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics) I assume that love is the background of the moral universe (this is also an Augustinian view). I also assume that there is a deeply ontological connection between love and Being. Axiomatically, in my view point, love is the basic impitus of Being itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential.
(2) that internal "seeking" leads to greater internalization of values than forced compliance or complaisance that would be the result of intimidation.
That's a pretty fair assumption. We all know that people will a lot more to achieve a goal they truly beileve in than one they merely feel forced or obligated to follow but couldn't care less about.
(3)the the drama or the big mystery is the only way to accomplish that end.
The pursuit of the value system becomes a search of the heart for ultimate meaning,that ensures that people continue to seek it until it has been fully internalized.
argumet
1)God's purpose in creation: to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good.
(2) Moral choice requires absolutely that choice be free (thus free will is necessitated).
(3) Allowance of free choices requires the risk that the chooser will make evil choices
(4)The possibility of evil choices is a risk God must run, thus the value of free outweighs all other considerations, since without there would be no moral universe and the purpose of creation would be thwarted.
This leaves the atheist in the position of demanding to know why God doesn't just tell everyone that he's there, and that he requires moral behavior, and what that entails. Thus there would be no mystery and people would be much less inclined to sin.
This is the point where Soteriological Drama figures into it. Argument on Soteriological Drama:
(5) Life is a "Drama" not for the sake of entertainment, but in the sense that a dramatic tension exists between our ordinary observations of life on a daily basis, and the ultiamte goals, ends and purposes for which we are on this earth.
(6) Clearly God wants us to seek on a level other than the obvious, daily, demonstrative level or he would have made the situation more plain to us
(7) We can assume that the reason for the "big mystery" is the internalization of choices. If God appeared to the world in open objective fashion and laid down the rules, we would probably all try to follow them, but we would not want to follow them. Thus our obedience would be lip service and not from the heart.
(8) therefore, God wants a heart felt response which is internationalized value system that comes through the search for existential answers; that search is phenomenological; introspective, internal, not amenable to ordinary demonstrative evidence.
In other words, we are part of a great drama and our actions and our dilemmas and our choices are all part of the way we respond to the situation as characters in a drama.
This theory also explains why God doesn't often regenerate limbs in healing the sick. That would be a dead giveaway. God creates criteria under which healing takes place, that criteria can't negate the overall plan of a search.
That sounds rather confused. God reveals himself by these "miracles". Presumably so people like you can be aware he's there. But he can't be to obvious a out it - why??? So people like me won't be aware he's there? He doesn't need to do anything to convince you.
That sounds rather confused. God reveals himself by these "miracles". Presumably so people like you can be aware he's there.
I never said God's reasons for working miracles are to reel himself.I think God has a variety of reasons that are individual to the believer who expediences the miracle.
But he can't be to obvious a out it - why??? So people like me won't be aware he's there? He doesn't need to do anything to convince you.
that is not confused if you read the argument, it does asinine the proof is there if one cares to look it can't expunge all possibility of doubt. The only way to preserve the search is to make searching necessary, but there has to be a means of knowing how to find
But the bible make it very clear that miracles serve that purpose.
"that is not confused if you read the argument"
Your argument, as presented above doesn't even mention miracles. What is confusing is all the things you say about them.
"the proof is there if one cares to look"
More confusion. You say there isn't proof, but there is proof. You say miracles are not to reveal God, but the article focuses on miracles. It seems very confused.
"I never said God's reasons for working miracles are to reel himself."
But the bible make it very clear that miracles serve that purpose.
sometimes not always
"that is not confused if you read the argument"
Your argument, as presented above doesn't even mention miracles. What is confusing is all the things you say about them.
that's its freewill defense don;t you know what that is? I said I:m applying it speaks of healing amputees in the last point.
"the proof is there if one cares to look"
More confusion. You say there isn't proof, but there is proof. You say miracles are not to reveal God, but the article focuses on miracles. It seems very confused.
you know nothing screw heard herd on imbecile. proof of rational warrant use your head
- What last point? The one that says "therefore, God wants a heart felt response which is internationalized value system that comes through the search for existential answers; that search is phenomenological; introspective, internal, not amenable to ordinary demonstrative evidence." ??? That basically says the only evidence people have is inside themselves. Which is really odd, given that the article is supposed to be about miracles. Or are you referring to a different argument? If so, what argument are you talking about? In this article and the subsequent comments, you didn't mention amputees at all. Only Pix did.
I don't like your attitude. I think you talk your intelligence to be much greater than what it really is.
If you are not the Anonymous who I nabbed yesterday then don't call yourself by that name, otherwise you are that person you have no right to criticize my attitude.
"it speaks of healing amputees in the last point."
- What last point? The one that says "therefore, God wants a heart felt response which is internationalized value system that comes through the search for existential answers; that search is phenomenological; introspective, internal, not amenable to ordinary demonstrative evidence." ???
no in the 5th post on this page I give a numbered argument, the last line ays:
"This theory also explains why God doesn't often regenerate limbs in healing the sick. That would be a dead giveaway. God creates criteria under which healing takes place, that criteria can't negate the overall plan of a search.
11/11/2019 03:50:00 AM Delete"
That basically says the only evidence people have is inside themselves. Which is really odd, given that the article is supposed to be about miracles. Or are you referring to a different argument?
All knowledge we possess comes to us by sense data. That means all knowledge is filtered through our personal perceptions
If so, what argument are you talking about? In this article and the subsequent comments, you didn't mention amputees at all. Only Pix did.
you didn't read all the posts did you? I assume you are the troll who has been poisoning links to irrelevant BS under the name "Anonymous" because you were banned some time ago
I have not posted any links here.
http://www.michaeltsarion.com/refuting-the-refuters.html
Refuting the Refuters
The Case Against Christianity
by Michael Tsarion
Because of recent discoveries about the past, and authorship and credibility of the Bible, the age-old lies and "pious frauds" in the Old and New Testaments are now finally seen for what they are. In regards the latter compendium, sane researchers realize that we don't have a single definable "Jesus Christ" a la St. Paul. Rather we have a warmongering Jesus (Judas) Khrestus, a Messianic Jesus of Gamala, a Jesus (Joshua) of the Fish, as well as others fitting the general description of the supposed Son of God. Which one do we pick? Which one was venerated by "Christians" two thousand years ago? Which one was divine and which a human fanatical Messianic rabble-rouser? Which one was a scheming demagogue, and which a claimant for the throne of Rome? Which of them was executed by the authorities? Which one was exalted to the status of a demigod by followers after his demise? Which one, if any, was truly a historical person?
"himself revealed as none other than mythmonger extraordinaire Flavius Josephus Piso, the commissioned agent of the world's great tyrants ensconced in imperial Rome? "
"I can answer that. I was diagnosed with MS once, then they said it was a stroke and then they decided it was all psychological. Fortunately for me my eye then turned in and I was paralysed down the left side and a cyst was discovered on my brain stem. However the symptoms then all disappeared and I have three different diagnoses still. There are a several large organisations of people with neurological conditions which come and go and they get all sorts of diagnoses. The one I belong to is for people with arachnoid cysts. There are 1400 of us and many many of us have been diagnosed with MS and been paralysed and incontinent and the symptoms have then gone again. This is a common problem with neurological conditions because the brain is not understood. It is significant that there was no obvious cause for the disability in the first place 'With a good degree of probability Mr Bely suffered a very serious organic condition' ??? Nothing was ever found as the cause then??? If I was to be superstitious I could look at the time my disabling symptoms disappeared and try to work out what caused that but I don't have any religion."