Talk:Maurice Beddow Bayly

Deaths and serious reactions from diptheria vaccine

In 1919, at Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., ten children were killed and sixty others made seriously ill by toxin-antitoxin which had passed the tests of the New York State Health Department. The Mulford Company, at Philadelphia, the manufacturers, paid damages in every case. 2. In 1924, twenty-five children in Bridgewater and twenty in Concord, U.S.A., were poisoned by toxin-antitoxin. Many had high fevers, and their arms turned black and swelled to two or three times their normal size. 3. In 1924 (September) of 40 children immunised with toxin-antitoxin in a home for infants at Baden, near Vienna, six died and a number suffered from skin necroses of various sizes at the site of the injection.....4. In 1928, the Lancet of February 4th (p. 249), refers to "a more recent Russian disaster " (Bull. Hygiene, August 1927, p. 667) in which " 14 children received toxin in place of anatoxin (i.e., toxoid); eight of them died within two weeks, four of polyneuritis within a month and two recovered after symptoms of general intoxication." 5. In 1927 also there were five deaths in immunised children in China, thirty-seven others being made seriously ill. 6. In 1928, at Bundaberg, Australia, twelve children out of seventeen who were inoculated with toxin-antitoxin died, the five others being critically ill for some time. The material had been issued and declared safe by the Public Health Department of Queensland.....7. In 1930, at Medellin, Columbia, South America, forty-eight children were inoculated, with the result that many were taken ill during the same night, one died the following afternoon, fourteen others within sixty hours and two more within six weeks—a total of sixteen deaths. ......8. In 1932, at Charolles, in France, 172 children were immunised with anatoxin (toxoid). All were taken ill soon afterwards, developing local abscesses with abundant suppuration, necessitating surgical intervention in several cases. In one case the child died. The parents of the children demanded an official enquiry, but no explanation of the tragedy has so far been forthcoming.........In the province of Chiavari over 80 inoculated children were gravely affected, some being paralysed in arms and legs, others having their sight injured. One child died. In Venice and Rovigo severe symptoms, including paralysis, supervened and death occurred in ten cases."--Beddow Bayley (1939 Book: The Schick Inoculation Against Diphtheria) john 16:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For & Against Merger

For Merger

Merge It either needs the only notable things about him so far as we are told, that he was against vaccination, putting in the appropriate article about anti-vacciantionists, or else turning into a biography. Unless he managed to be right about some diseases (cf Diptheria) and there is some information about his date of birth, specialisation, appointments etc, I don't think it is going to be a good biography, and he may not be an interesting and notable person. Midgley 06:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

These pages are in fact on one topic, not biographies of people but one single aspect of their lives (I assume they had something else to do with their lives, although ...) Midgley 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge The only reason this one was created was to increase the number of articles about anti-vaccinationists. My guess is that it will stay in this non-biographical state forever, so I vote merge to anti-vaccinationists. --CDN99 13:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Against Merger

Against::[I]t is a fact allopaths are deleting my vaccine critic pages [1], and you are ... doing the same. You have tried it with Robert Mendelsohn the number one anti-vaccine man of the last 60 years, then Viera Scheibner the number one anti-vaccine activist of the present day, also Beddow Bayly the number one medical anti-vaccine man of the first half of the 20th century. Bit obvious, whatever you say. If you could give us a list of all your attempted page deletions over then we could see it more clearly. john 08:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Against & Agree.Midgley is part of a determined band of users who are pushing a POV. If he disagrees with Beddow Bayly, he needs to put proper information on the page to demonstrate why and thereby improve Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not improved by deleting pages wholesale and especially not by strangulation at birth. 86.10.231.219 08:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

this is an anonymous ad hominem attack, and also untrue, I am not part of a band. However, as with many attacks, if you look at the attackers you will see a considerable synchronicity of their apearances. [Comment added by Midgley - 21:16, 28 January 2006]

Evidence to show not ad hominem - see Talk:Mumps [[2]]. Other examples available on request. "The Invisible Anon" 86.10.231.219 00:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note, "The Invisible Anon", that votes of anonymous users don't count in the final tally (See Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus). Register if you want a say in things like this, and to hide your IP information. --CDN99 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. See [Rough Consensus] ".... administrators can disregard opinions and comments if ... strong evidence ... not made in good faith ... "bad faith" opinions include those made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Check my edit history for evidence of good faith and do not presume bad faith. The Invisible Anon 02:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC) - Restored by The Invisible Anon after inappropriate deletion by Midgley

• This is also not a deletion, it is a merger of the fragment of information about this doctor - that he was against use of a vaccine for a spurious ground (not where he was born, where he worked, what job he did, who he married, whether he reproduced, what he liked doing you know, biography into an article on people and a movement and the history and sociology of the anti-vaccinationists, which is th eonly suitable home fo the information as it is urrently presented here. Midgley 21:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Two vaccines at last count actually.

Re-reading the article, about which this is the Talk: page, he is given as being against one vaccine, and it is noted that the basis of his opposition is a misconception. Arguably, if his notable achievements included being against another vaccine, even if nothing more interesting, that should be added to the article, no? Good afternoon, by the way. Midgley 14:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And it will be expanded. Also I suspect you want to delete his list of anti-vaccine material on your new page. Whatever, it is an attempt to neuter anti-vaccine pages. He is significant when you know the whole story of vaccination and medicine, you only know your own side, as your new page shows. john 06:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the whole story. Lets settle for telling enough of it to be encyclopedic, shall we, since WP is not the whole story. Midgley 14:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

against: Significant historical figure. Ombudsman 20:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

for what, pray? And if you know that then write it in the article. Midgley 21:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Career

Come on, help me with this - what sort of doctor was he - what was his specialty? A previous version of the article (the first I think) described him as being "of the (London) Royal College of Surgeons" but that isn't accurate if it was based on his MRCS. It may not be apparent to everyone, but proper specialist surgeons are expected to be Fellows of that college - FRCS.

(removed digression on COnjoint which will find a home elsewhere and on further examination applies to LRCS not MRCS.)

So, back to Dr Bayly... he qualified (when) from (which) university with what degree. He didn't, as listed, obtain fellowship or MRCP - in those days (when?) it was far from necessary unless one wanted to be a Physician or Surgeon or any other sort of specialist. He would have had his first job at a hospital (which) in the "house", and then gone looking for another job (what?). Pursued that until he retired or died (when)

He is described as a medical historian at http://www.health.org.nz/heart.html which is copied from Whale.to or vice versa, without indication of any discrimination as to whether it is a good description (promiscuous reduplication again)

but most historians publish a bit more, and mostly on y'know, history so perhaps that is a sideline to his real interest. WHich was (drum roll)

over to the biographers here who report that he was a significant historical figure. (Have a look at Feynman for a biography, or William_Osler or Avicenna who _were_ signifciant historical figures, and have actual biographies in WP, if you want to see what one of either looks like. Midgley 22:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way... What was Osler's opinion on vaccination and immunisation? Midgley 22:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found it and will tell you (strange that people with such facility for quoting an apparently invisible minimally qualified unspecialised medical man whose actual practice remains a mystery to history didn't find anything to say from "the father of modern medicine" is it? Not.

ftp://ftp.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext98/teomm10.txt The Project Gutenberg Etext of The Evolution of Modern Medicine Yale, 1913

... Jenner ...
 The results of his experiments

were published in a famous small quarto volume in 1798.[*] From

this date, smallpox has been under control. Thanks to Jenner, not

a single person in this audience is pockmarked! A hundred and

twenty-five years ago, the faces of more than half of you would

have been scarred.  We now know the principle upon which

protection is secured:  an active acquired immunity follows upon

an attack of a disease of a similar nature. Smallpox and cowpox

are closely allied and the substances formed in the blood by the

one are resistant to the virus of the other. I do not see how any

reasonable person can oppose vaccination or decry its benefits.

I show you the mortality figures[9] of the Prussian Army and of

the German Empire.  A comparison with the statistics of the

armies of other European countries in which revaccination is not

so thoroughly carried out is most convincing of its efficacy.

Osler had a well-deserved (going by the whole of that text which still bears reading today) reputation for a clear turn of phrase, excellent understanding, and transferring that understanding to his students and colleagues. Midgley 22:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

while we are at it, can any passer-by point any of us at "A comparison with the statistics of the armies of other European countries..." with an anti-vacationist stance upon it. Midgley 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman edit with contrafactual description

Ombudsman's edit did not fit the description he attached to it in teh history - of "rm graffiti". This fails to give that appearance of an attempt at scrupulous honesty and truthfulness that is very helpful in any collaborative enterprise.

In what fashion, the {fact} tag asked, is this man significant as Ombudsman described him.

He looks, on Googling and on inspection of this stump of an articlette to be very uninteresting, and to have had no significance. Is the article giving an unrealistic impression of him as a man and doctor and presumably member of a family? WP:BIO may help anyone who has not the faintest idea what a biographical article should be.

He is a footnote in history, thus far, and that footnote belongs on present reading to an article about the people involved witht he only thing anyone her has offered as what he did in his life. Midgley 12:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a good criterion is whether it would be worthy of QI. All I can find QI about Beddow Bayly is that he was, like many of the BUAV/NAVL members of that era, "a devoted Theosophist" (as reported in the brief obit in Theosophist Magazine, January 1962-August 1962) and that he was one of the speakers at a 1928 meeting protesting against Serge Voronoff's monkey gland implants. 86.140.106.125 19:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

FX:claps. Is the Obit available in any reasonable form? Midgley 19:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Google Books. When I say brief, I mean brief: "Dr Beddow Bayly was a devoted Theosophist and a much-respected member of the English section, active both in the Society and in work for the protection of animals." 86.140.106.125 21:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

THanks. Nothing like making a ripple in the surface of life as you slip under, is there. I wonder if any of the monkeys were interviewed. Midgley 00:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User's edit histories

An anonymous user suggested that his edit history would indicate something:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=86.10.231.219

It does. But not what he indicated it would.

I expect mine does as well (eclectic is too strong a word, but I do seem to have more than three interests)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Midgley

Assume good faith is fine, but presenting something as evidence which is evidence of the opposite raises the question of whether this is an inability to see the world as it appears from a different POV, part of holding a theory of mind which seems to be one of the things we claim sets us apart from other mammals, or else an assumption that readers will not look at the link given, since they are lazy or their minds are made up without reference to any facts adduced. Not so round here, at least. Midgley 14:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

About Doctors, and Treatments

We are very rarely just against a treatment. Rather, we have an opinion, usually not quite the same as another doctor's opinion, on how to manage a patient or a condition or complication, or for that matter, a preofessional practice.

So... what was MBB's opinion on how to manage pernicious anaemia?

and for that matter Diptheria etc?

Midgley 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

pernicious anaemia - If the Homoint.org summary is accurate, he considered raw liver had nasty side effects, and that it and other animal-sourced treatments were too yucky; that Marmite was commercialized and still had side effects; and that ultraviolet light would do the business. 86.139.250.97 16:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Was that out of thin air, or was it based on a body of opinion - IE if he stodd up at a meeting and said that would he be told not to be an idiot, or reminded that that was a bit old-fashioned old chap, and everyone else's pateints have turned pink now? Midgley 22:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Poor chap. From my vantage point, perched on the shoulders of giants like Osler, or more accurately, taking advantage of the steady accumulation of work by many many people, often quite ordinary, I can see that he had all he needed to work it out, but was blinded by his prejudices from seeing it. He could have been famously right...

"We must ... to gain a balanced view of the subject, review what medical authorities say (about liver for pernicious anaemia (PA) ... finally, we  
must consider a form of treatment which, possessing none of the disadvantages of liver therapy, may be said to be truly curative, in that it actually 
destroys the toxic property of the blood which is at the root of the trouble."
...
"T. Ordway and L. W. Gorham draw attention to the fact that "it cannot be termed a cure since it has no affect on the underlying pathological process".

(Midgley: this is a familiar trope, which always reminds me of Monty Python's Life of Brian "Yes, ... well, apart from curing the anaemia, bringing back sensation to the feet, preventing death and restoring a feeling of well-being and the capacity to earn a living... what has this treatment ever done for us?". It fits well with the conspiracism approach to life, which is something that occurs to all of us, but is discounted in the sane. When taken to the extremes of acting upon it, that is shading into psychosis.)

"the Lancet ...: ". . . it certainly seems as though liver therapy was largely symptomatic and not directed towards the actual cause of the disease".

and here we come to the clue number one

"It is remarkable that despite innumerable experiments" on animals "it has not yet been possible to find 
the truly active substance in the anaemia diet. The manner of action or point of attack of the liver diet has not yet been explained".

and here is clue number two

We read in the Practitioner for March 1930:-.
"If beefsteak is allowed to digest for an hour 
in the stomach of a normal man  
and the mixture is then syphoned off and given to a patient with pernicious anaemia, improvement occurs in the same way as with liver therapy ".

so, children, where is the factor missing in people with PA and present in people without?

The credit ... experiment on human patients belongs to biologist, W. B. Castle et al, and the Journal of Organotherapy for March-April 1932 
refers to their methods as "brilliant examples of how research should be conducted".

and rightly so, but alas...

Whether or not patients at the Mayo clinic or elsewhere appreciate having their semi-digested meals "syphoned off" 
for purposes unconnected with their own benefit is undisclosed; 

at a guess, based on a working knowledge of people, they were quite pleased, particularly when they realised they had helped understnad the disease, later.

Clue number three coming up ...

"Very recently," according to D. F. Cappell and J. A. W. McCluskie, "Morris and his co-workers (1932) claimed very striking results 
in pernicious anaemia by parenteral administration of highly concentrated gastric juice derived from man, swine, dogs or cattle".

So, we know where to look... but MBB...

The fact that such methods of treatment can be devised and accepted in methods of medical circles at the present day is to the writer 
an indication of the depths of degenerate beastliness to which medical practice has been led through the influence of the cult of 
vivisection, which masquerades under the assumed title of "pure science"

Pernicious anaemia is due to the failure of secretion of something from the stomach - termed "intrinsic factor" since it comes from within the pateint, rather than being something wrong they are eating (that trope is familiar, no?) and can therefore be corrected eitehr by feeding large quantities of vitamin B12 (which is absorbed in small amounts without intrinsic factor or very avidly with intrinsic factor present) in Liver or in tablets nowadays, or by feeding small quantities of exogenous intrinsic factor...

We have a better model and it works, and MBB was present just before it became obvious to damn nearly everyone how it worked. He only had to add the clues up and he could have looked clever. Midgley 13:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry about that

I've no idea how that deletion happened. Probably a wild swipe of the mouse. Midgley 23:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maurice Beddow Bayly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217093406/http://www.theosophical.org/publications/questmagazine/index.php to http://www.theosophical.org/publications/questmagazine/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)