[Ziggy21]

Apologies in advance if this is in the wrong place, I took some time to read through the forum headers and this seems close but maybe not quite right.

I have been doing some research into the life of Samuel Rowbotham and I am now trying to find some sources of information about Rowbotham's personal life as opposed to his lecturing career. I read Christine Garwood's book but she says a fair bit of stuff without citation and I know from my own research that she has some minor details incorrect with regard to Rowbotham's lecture tour, so I was really hoping to get more original sources. Does Rowbotham write about himself anywhere as opposed to describing experiments ? Or do any other authors write about him personally.

Thanks

[Dr David Thork]

Go and look at hard facts.

Look at his list of patents. You can see what he invented.
Check out Edinburgh University's info on him and his research on human brains.
You can find things online such as labels for his products like Dr Birley's Phosphorus Tonic.
You can see his grave stone.
Legal documents pertaining to his house, his children (their death certificates etc), any law suits.

Basically check public records. Then you can match that to accounts like Garwood's and realise or rather wonder where the hell she gets her stupid ideas.

[Ziggy21]

Go and look at hard facts.

Check out Edinburgh University's info on him and his research on human brains.

The only place I have ever seen this mentioned is a thread on here which went on for 16 pages without any citation for this at all.
You are keen that I should look at facts, I am not certain this is one, which is really the point of my post.

Garwood gave an account of Rowbotham's childhood which she says came from him, does anyone know where this came from?

[stack]

Maybe you mean this thread: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.0

This all comes up from time to time. Apparently no one has produced a record of SBR attending Edinburgh. I remember reading about some sort of nationalized registry of medical professionals not being created until the 1850's in England. Sort of a licensing thing as before that there was no standardization. Also something about Phd's not being given out until the late 1800's. Don't remember the specifics of either. Never heard of the brain studies. From what I've read, back in his day, calling oneself a Dr and practicing was not a difficult thing to do, per se. And regardless of formalized training, experience seemed to be the most important thing. In essence, if he performed enough doctorly types of things he could call himself a Dr.

Then there's the whole elixir business. Which is fairly well documented, at least from advertisements. And I think he made a tidy sum off of it.

[Tom Bishop]

Do you really, honestly, believe that anyone could have legally prescribed drugs, performed diagnosis, and surgery on anyone they wanted to in mid-1800's Britain?

[stack]

Do you really, honestly, believe that anyone could have legally prescribed drugs and performed surgery on anyone they wanted to in mid-1800's Britain?

Not all Dr's perform surgery. What were the prescribed drugs of say the 1850's?

"The practice of medicine in Great Britain was, compared with other countries, disorganised and uncontrolled until the middle of the 19th century. Its practitioners were mostly part-time, combining their work with a wide range of other activities.
As late as 1856, of the 10,220 persons listed in the Medical Directory with some sort of qualification, only four per cent had a medical degree from an English university. Fifteen years earlier the 1841 Census had listed three times as many (33,339) as practising one or more branches of medicine."

https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Doctors:_Physicians,_Surgeons,_Dentists_and_Apothecaries_in_England

[Tom Bishop]

"Disorganized" does not mean that it was a free-for-all and that anyone could practice it.

The practice of medicine was regulated in the early 1500's, not in the 1800's. And it was likely regulated before then locally by county officials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medical_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom

The earliest reference to medical regulation in the UK dates from 1421, when physicians petitioned parliament to ask that nobody without appropriate qualifications be allowed to practise medicine. The doctors said that unqualified practitioners caused "great harm and slaughter of many men".[1]:274

Despite agreement in principle from parliament, little more appeared to happen until 1511, when a statute placed regulation of the medical profession in the hands of the bishops. John Raach wrote that "the Church was apparently considered the one institution whose influence was extensive and potent enough to be effective in suppressing quacks and licensing the members of the medical profession". Raach further suggested that as a learned profession, medicine "could not be relegated to regulation by the average county official". Clerics, often the most highly educated members of society, were better suited to the task. Medicine and religion were also closely entwined: healing had long been associated with the supernatural, while the events of birth and death involved both medics and clerics.[1]:277–278

The purpose of the 1511 statute was to eliminate unqualified practitioners, and to that end it provided for a financial reward for those who reported them.

At no point thereafter did they say "Anyone can perform medicine now! We don't care!" That seems to be a ridiculous scenario.

[stack]

"Disorganized" does not mean that it was a free-for-all and that anyone could practice it.

Medicine was regulated in the early 1500's, not in the 1800's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medical_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom

The earliest reference to medical regulation in the UK dates from 1421, when physicians petitioned parliament to ask that nobody without appropriate qualifications be allowed to practise medicine. The doctors said that unqualified practitioners caused "great harm and slaughter of many men".[1]:274

Despite agreement in principle from parliament, little more appeared to happen until 1511, when a statute placed regulation of the medical profession in the hands of the bishops. John Raach wrote that "the Church was apparently considered the one institution whose influence was extensive and potent enough to be effective in suppressing quacks and licensing the members of the medical profession". Raach further suggested that as a learned profession, medicine "could not be relegated to regulation by the average county official". Clerics, often the most highly educated members of society, were better suited to the task. Medicine and religion were also closely entwined: healing had long been associated with the supernatural, while the events of birth and death involved both medics and clerics.[1]:277–278

The purpose of the 1511 statute was to eliminate unqualified practitioners, and to that end it provided for a financial reward for those who reported them.

At no point thereafter did they say "Anyone can perform medicine now! We don't care!" That is ridiculous.

I'm not sure what the practice of medicine was like in 1511 England. But this may be a tip, "Medicine and religion were also closely entwined: healing had long been associated with the supernatural, while the events of birth and death involved both medics and clerics."

Apparently a few hundred years later England decided they needed something better (Though I'm sure there were efforts along the way), the Medical Act of 1858:

The Medical Act[1] (21 & 22 Vict c 90), An Act to Regulate the Qualifications of Practitioners in Medicine and Surgery, also referred to as the Medical Act 1858, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which created the General Medical Council to regulate doctors in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Act_1858

[Tom Bishop]

If there was a "Medical Act of 2020" to better regulate doctors and physicians, would future historians look at that as evidence that medicine was totally unregulated before that date?

[stack]

If there was a "Medical Act of 2020" to better regulate doctors and physicians, would future historians look at that as evidence that medicine was totally unregulated before that date?

I never said that. I do believe medicine is a little bit further along and more regulated than 1511 and even the 1850's. If you would like to believe otherwise, feel free to do so.

I did find this interesting bit:

"Biology. An inquiry into the cause of natural death : showing it not to arise from old age, but from a gradual process of consolidation, arising from substances which may be so far controlled as to preserve health and active life for an indefinable period”

Written by Tryon in 1846, which may be a pseudonym of Rowbotham’s. It’s attributed to him on the 3rd page or so.

https://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b2201911x#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=1&z=-1.328%2C0%2C3.6559%2C1.8498

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Just because there is regulations does not mean that there were not people calling themselves Doctors and selling snake oil. Ridiculous. Read this entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery#History_in_Europe_and_the_United_States

Particularly this:

"The number of internationally marketed quack medicines increased in the later 18th century; the majority of them originated in Britain[14] and were exported throughout the British Empire. By 1830, British parliamentary records list over 1,300 different "proprietary medicines,"[15] the majority of which were "quack" cures by modern standards."

And this:

"Similar advertising claims[25] to those of Radam can be found throughout the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. "Dr." Sibley, an English patent medicine seller of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, even went so far as to claim that his Reanimating Solar Tincture would, as the name implies, "restore life in the event of sudden death". Another English quack, "Dr. Solomon" claimed that his Cordial Balm of Gilead cured almost anything, but was particularly effective against all venereal complaints, from gonorrhoea to onanism."



So....yeah...there were people who claimed to be doctors - even after regulations were introduced. Don't be obtuse.

[Tom Bishop]

I never said that. I do believe medicine is a little bit further along and more regulated than 1511 and even the 1850's. If you would like to believe otherwise, feel free to do so.

If you are caught practicing medicine without the necessary permission or licensing from the government, you are probably going to jail either way, whether the year is 1515 or 1875.

I did find this interesting bit:

"Biology. An inquiry into the cause of natural death : showing it not to arise from old age, but from a gradual process of consolidation, arising from substances which may be so far controlled as to preserve health and active life for an indefinable period”

Written by Tryon in 1846, which may be a pseudonym of Rowbotham’s. It’s attributed to him on the 3rd page or so.

https://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b2201911x#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=1&z=-1.328%2C0%2C3.6559%2C1.8498

Sounds pretty similar to the conclusions from the immortality cell studies.

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/alexis-carrels-immortal-chick-heart-tissue-cultures-1912-1946

In an effort to develop tissue culture techniques for long-term tissue cultivation, French surgeon and biologist Alexis Carrel, and his associates, produced and maintained a series of chick heart tissue cultures at the Rockefeller Institute in New York City. From 1912 to 1946, this series of chick heart tissue cultures remained alive and dividing. As the duration of this culture greatly exceeded the normal chick life span, the cells were deemed immortal. Although further experiments in the 1960s challenged that conclusion, the publicity surrounding the immortal chick heart tissue significantly influenced the concept of cell immortality and cellular aging from the 1920s through the 1960s. Carrel’s experiment convinced many biologists to accept immortality as an intrinsic property of all cells, not just the cell line through which genetic material is passed to offspring, called the germ line. Consequently, the phenomenon of cellular aging was regarded not as an intrinsic characteristic, but was attributed to external factors such as the accumulation of waste products within the cell.

[Ziggy21]

I hope no one minds if i make a single attempt to stick this back on track.

I am really trying to find anything that Rowbotham wrote about his personal life or that was written about his life by another author.

Does anyone know where Garwood got the stuff about his childhood and schooling, for instance?   

[stack]

I hope no one minds if i make a single attempt to stick this back on track.

I am really trying to find anything that Rowbotham wrote about his personal life or that was written about his life by another author.

Does anyone know where Garwood got the stuff about his childhood and schooling, for instance?

She had a pretty extensive biblio in book if I remember correctly. Also you should look into Robert J. Schadewald. He wrote extensively about the subject and some about Rowbotham himself.

[Dr David Thork]

I hope no one minds if i make a single attempt to stick this back on track.

I am really trying to find anything that Rowbotham wrote about his personal life or that was written about his life by another author.

Does anyone know where Garwood got the stuff about his childhood and schooling, for instance?

How are we supposed to know what you are looking for, when everything you ask for is very easy to find?

Want to know what the press said about him?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za67.htm

Want a different book other than Garwoods?
https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Chapter_01.html

Just want a synopsis?
https://everything.explained.today/Samuel_Rowbotham/

Want proof he was a Dr of Medicine ... (for some reason this comes up a lot) ... an official patent acceptance
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CwcLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA236&dq=samuel+rowbotham&hl=en&ei=HLutTu3iJsGx8gOK3JS4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=samuel%20rowbotham&f=false

Want to see one of his inventions?


You want to go and dig him up to make sure he was real?
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/7368594/samuel-rowbotham

Note the gravestone also details his medical credentials.

What do you want? And why are you incapable of finding it?

[stack]

It probably doesn't make things very clear because he went by a few pseudonyms. One may try looking into all of them. The ones I'm aware of:

S. Goulden
Parallax
Tryon
Dr. Birley