In the earlier entry, two biographies of Mary Baker Eddy were briefly discussed. At that time no "bad" biography came to mind to accompany the "good" (Robert Peel) and the really "ugly" (Gill). The early Dakin and Milmine "biographies" are, however, worthy candidates for the bad, but both of thse go way beyond plain bad to vicious and nasty.
Dakin and Milmine were motivated by hate, not a desire to tell anything truthful about Mrs. Eddy. The tiniest shreds of fact were fleshed out by disgusting gobs of vilification, innuendo, grotesque distortion, and misinformation. Both these books of sludge were listed, regrettably but not surprisingly, in the bibliography of the Gill book.
One of the worst by-products of the Gill book is that for those feckless Christian Scientists who had long yearned for a guilt-free pass to mix medicine, doctors, and Christian Science, this book was a disingenuous godsend from Boston. "If Mrs. Eddy could take drugs," as the Gill book "uncovered", "then, hooray, I can too!"
Mrs. Eddy flatly denied using drugs. See her article "Falsehood" in Miscellaneous Writings (P.248:16-7). So either one accepts Gill, and in effect calls Mrs. Eddy a lier and a hypocrite, or he wholly rejects Gill's misrepresentations. And how could anyone who feels Mrs. Eddy lied about the use of drugs muster any desire to accept her as his Leader and remain a true Christian Scientist? Well, maybe the answer to that question depends upon what the true definition of "true" is.