Talk:Medical explanations of bewitchment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Medical explanations of bewitchment is within the scope of The Salem Witch Trials Task Force. A task force dedicated to improving articles about and relating to the Salem Witch Trials.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale

This article needs more citations on the academic historians who refute these theories. Ogram 14:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I post a question. There seems to be a lot of research done in the Ergot Theory, that supposely cause the hysteric acts in the Salem Phenonmenon of 1692. Has anyone looked at the psychological factors that may have contributed to the odd behavior that was displayed by the afflicted? I have created a page titled Pychological explantions of the Salem Witch Hunts[1], which illustrates different psychological disorders that may have taken place in Salem. I encourage individual to take a gander, at my page and discuss the different theories I propose. --Lenix9 (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Huntington's Chorea

I have opted to remove references to the theory of Huntington's Chorea. The only source I can find making this claim (See http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/sttools/print/p_r_timeline.pdf) only states "1692 The Salem Witch Trials occur in Salem, Massachusetts. Many of the "witches" are now believed to have had HD. Their choreic movements and odd behavior, likely caused by HD, were seen as possession by the devil." This article has no citations ("believed" by whom?), and the author of the document is unknown. Ogram 15:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sleep paralysis

I am looking for a citation to support the possible inclusion of Sleep paralysis in this article. See the testimony of Richard Coman v. Bridget Bishop, in which Coman states "And [she] lay upon my Brest or body and soe oppressed him that he could not speake nor stur noe not soe much as to awake his wife althow he Endeavered much soe to do itt;" (Salem Witchcraft Papers, Boyer & Nissenbaum, Vol. 1, pp. 101-102. Ogram 15:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The root cause: Ergot Theory

Transfered from Talk:Salem witch trials


I just read a fascinating article about the witch trials that describes a 1979 study showing the girls who did the accusing were suffering from ergot poisoning. Ergot comes from rye and when bad produces LSD-like symptoms. This wiki article addresses just the accused, not the accusers, which I'd like to change. Can I put quotes into the article from a previously-published source as long as I include the citation?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Estreya (talk • contribs) 15:59, 3 December 2005

Never-mind my query, I've made the update I was asking about. Woo hoo! Now I'm a Wikipedian!  :) Estreya 15:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence in "Ergot Theory"

I'm not really satisfied with this sentence "A new study has shown that a primitive form of LSD was infecting the wheat supply on one side of the village. " First off, what study? There is no reference cited so this could be some wackos study or it could be something reputable. Also, the sources I've cited in the rest of this section were all discussing RYE not wheat. This is the lone sentence about wheat and I have no idea whether ergot (which I assume is what is meant by "a primitive form of LSD") on wheat does the same as ergot on rye. I propose the sentence be edited out unless it can be expanded by citing some verifiable study. Estreya 18:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I found an article that clarified ergot infections in cereal grains and modified the Ergot Theory section to reflect it. Ergot does infect both rye and wheat and it's probable that the colonists were poisoned by both. I moved the sentence on LSD being derived from ergot down to its own paragraph; it's cool trivia but doesn't really fit into either paragraph's main topic. Estreya 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Originalbigj's revert

I really did not appreciate your revert to a previous version after my well-researched additions to the Ergot Theory and sources sections, Originalbigj. What did you mean, "everything afterward seems to be worse"? I specifically asked for dialogue on this page and got no response. Now you're saying my corrections suck? Why? I documented everything I wrote and have referenced every statement. How can this not be appropriate for inclusion in this article? I would appreciate an explanation of your actions. In the mean time I have restored just the sections I wrote which your revert decimated. Estreya 20:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought everything you wrote was good. There was some vandalism that wasn't properly corrected and was still there in the form of long underlines. I figured I'd fix that and work on putting your work back into the article later. Originalbigj 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, gosh, Originalbigj, give me heart failure! Okay, thanks for the explanation! I'm relieved my additions were not included in what you considered junk.  :) Estreya 02:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I should have left you a note on the talk page but I didn't think to. Originalbigj 13:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critiques of Ergot Theory

It's sort of lame that the long debunked Ergot Theory is the only one that is mentioned as a possible explanation -- I'll hunt down the debunking from the time the article was published when I have a minute. Any theory based on hallucinatory substances has to explain why only the people that had visions actually had visions, and not the whole village. For example, in the Parris household only the two young girls Betty and Abigail had visions; in the Putnam household, Ann Jr (12) and Ann Sr (31) did. So it was not something peculiar to young people (if it had been, that would still leave the question why the boys in the families did not get anything). The socio-economic theories a la Boyer & Nissenbaum and the post-traumatic stress theory a la Mary Beth Norton are much more likely to be correct. --Rck 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no references for this but i want to point out that the ergot theory has been forwarded a lot in cases of witchtrials. I think it is kind of an excuse. So like: don't blame the church, since the accusing got mad. However i think the effect of ergot was widely known, and people would generally have recognised a severe delirious state in accusants. So generally: no. its an excuse. 80.57.242.54 09:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the Ergot theory is that it does not account for the eclectic mix of people being affected. The primary folks having visions where the girls from the Putnam clan, including the older Ann Putnam (so it is not a kids-only deal), and the husband of Tituba, John the Indian (so it is not a girls only deal); however, most of the young boys seem to have been unaffected. Furthermore, the anti-Putnam group that was largely suspicious of the witchcraft proceedings reported less (if any) of these visions. -- 207.207.8.188 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Ergot poisoning cannot be used as a catch-all in this case. Encephalitis or Ergot could have been the foundation, and Conversion Syndrome could have spawned from it. A combination of causes is more likely in this case. But to form your own conclusions, i sugest Laurie Winn Carlson's A Feaver In Salem. My personal oppinion (bare with me, it takes some explaining):

1) Land feuds, Rev. Parris hungry for power, influence, and respect in the community, tension caused by these as well as the Indian wars taking place at the same time. Many of the prominant figures in the Trials were involved in ongoing land feuds between two families which turned into most of the village on one side and the Salem Towne-supported fraction as well as the Towne on the other side. Reverand Parris had lost much of his control over the Congragationalist community and wanted to regain his influence over the Village. 2) Reverand Parris as well as others could have influenced his daughter and niece to behave strangely to give him proof to rear his congragation back under his thumb. This is highly probable in my oppinion because the two girls were young (9 and 11) and very easily persuaded. It is also very likely because their personal symptoms started out as throwing bibles and cursing the Lord and refusing to pray. These symptoms did not increase to the expected symptoms until they were given attention for it. 3) Once these strange things began to happen in the Parris household and it was made known to the rest of the village, it was only THEN that more girls began behaving strangely. This could have resulted from Conversion Syndrome (basically mass hysteria.) 4) Another of my oppinions is that because the Parris family was "worldy" so to speak, they were exposed to the goings on of neighboring settlements such as Andover and Boston, where an Encephalitis or Ergot epademic could have been going on and the Parris girls found that mimickable. Another possibility is that Select few girls got a disease or virus and from there came Conversion Syndrome.

but these are my oppinions. i have deducted them from 11 months of research and interviews with archavists and historians from the area as well as authors of SWT literature.--Gingerseymour 03:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


I've summarized the medical explanations and created a new article specifically to address these at Medical and psychological explanations of bewitchment. The ergot content is now there, much expanded and referenced. Please take further discussion of this topic there. Ogram 13:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ergot i think is a brilient way of explaining what happened in Salam. this alcoline grows on Rhy as a fungus and acts like a LSD substance some would have hallucinated and in high doses had cesures, which today we would consider an epileptic fit. not uncomon in individuals experimenting with LSD and other mind altering drugs. Erigot can cause gangarin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.70.232 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)