Talk:Russell Blaylock

This article should be deleted

Dr Blaylock has a career total of 9 publications on PubMed, only one of which was published since 1981. He has 3 additional publications since 1981 in very minor journals listed on the ISI Web of Knowledge. His career total citations stand at around 84, and citations of his papers since 1981 stand at around 12. These are all very, very low figures by any standard. No other facts cited in this article appear to confer notability either. I suggest this article be deleted for lack of notability. AussieBoy (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

How many publications by President Obama are cited in PubMed? My point is Dr. Blaylock should not be expected to be noteworthy in areas outside his main area of success which is popularizing little-known but important medical science discoveries made by others. Blaylock does not claim to be a scientist and if he were just an ordinary neurology doctor, then he would not be noteworthy. Instead Blaylock has gained publicity as a critic of medical and pharma orthodoxy and as such he attracts retaliation from those he criticizes and their sympathizers who want to marginalize him by calling him bad names such as not-noteworthy. A Google search on "Russell Blaylock" yields a respectable 34,700 hits. Greensburger (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to the request at the top of the article, I repeated the Google search. This time it came up with 39,600 hits. However, when scanning the first handful of pages, I did not spot any independent reliable sources. FWIW -- Untrue Believer (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not delete. The counting now is on 98,100. I believe though that this article is extremely biased and a smear job. This should be re-written. Saying that his positions are against the scientific consensus on the first paragraph is only a weasel words attack.Echofloripa (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This article has survived AFD and consensus right now seems to be to keep the article. Probably the three most reliable sources in this article are the ones in the lede used to cite: "These positions are not consistent with current scientific consensus." And Hits on Google are not a criteria for notability. If you can provide reliable sources for any information about Dr. Blaylock that you feel would provide better balance to the article feel free to add it. But beware there seem to be a LOT of primary sources for Dr. Blaylock, claims that are not properly sourced will be reverted. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done some research into Dr. Blaylock's claims. Here is a representation of what I found.

" Several incidents of widespread methyl mercury poisoning decades ago resulted in serious neurodevelopmental impairments in prenatally exposed children (Bakir et al. 1973; Tsubaki and Irukayama 1977). Ethylmercury, used in medical products and as a preservative (thimerosal) in common vaccines, contributes to total mercury levels in the blood, but there is little direct evidence of health effects, and expert reviews have concluded that vaccines are not associated with autism (Heron et al. 2004; Institute of Medicine 2004; Parker et al. 2004). Thimerosal has been removed from routine pediatric vaccines, but public debate and animal research continue (Burbacher et al. 2005; Geier and Geier 2003). "... A strong genetic component is indicated in the etiology of autism; it has been hypothesized this could involve susceptibility genes that, when combined with exposure, lead to this condition (London and Etzel 2000). Of the postulated chemicals of interest in relation to autism, metals, particularly mercury, have generated the most attention. Several metals have been implicated in adverse neuro- developmental outcomes in children, notably lead and mercury (ATSDR 1999a; Bellinger et al. 1984; Counter and Buchanan 2004; Mendola et al. 2002), with exposure to cadmium, arsenic, and chromium also of concern. Studies have found adverse effects of prenatal lead exposure on growth and development (Dietrich 1991), but little research has examined an association with autism (Eppright et al. 1996). Mercury is of concern because of evidence for neurotoxic effects and the fact that it has become ubiquitous in the global environment (Counter and Buchanan 2004; National Research Council 2000)" <Windham GC1, Zhang L, Gunier R, Croen LA, Grether JK. "Autism spectrum disorders in relation to distribution of hazardous air pollutants in the San Francisco BEnviron Health Perspect. 2006 Sep;114(9):1438-44)>

I cannot seem to find a doctor that has vaccines that do not contain thimerosal, even though the informational pamphlet I was given states that such a vaccine is available. For that reason, I no longer get flu shots; I get sick from the shot to the point of needing ER care at times. The attending physician asked me several questions, including my response to other vaccines (all of which make me very ill, but last for a certain number of years before a booster shot is needed [e.g. pneumonia and tetanus vaccines] ). He determined that "the preservative" (i.e., thimerosal)

was responsible for my reaction, advising me to "...ask for the vaccine without [thimerosal]".

"Abstract

Toxicology is based on the premise that all compounds are toxic at some dose. Thus, it is not surprising that very large doses of aspartame (or its components--aspartate, phenylalanine, and methanol) produce deleterious effects in sensitive animal species. The critical question is whether

aspartame ingestion is potentially harmful to humans at normal use and potential abuse levels. 

This paper reviews clinical studies testing the effects of various doses of aspartame upon blood levels of aspartate, phenylalanine, and methanol. These studies demonstrate that blood levels of these compounds are well below levels associated with adverse effects in sensitive animal species." <Stegink LD. "The aspartame story: a model for the clinical testing of a food additive." Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Jul;46(1 Suppl):204-15.>

I would argue that, since methanol is known to be toxic, it should not--in any circumstances---be permitted to be present in any food product. Methanol, even at low doses, has been known to negatively affect brain chemistry.

"Abstract

The metabolism and toxicity of fluoride are discussed with emphasis on new scientific findings. The gastric absorption, tissue distribution, and renal excretion of the ion are all influenced by the magnitude and direction of the pH gradient between adjacent body fluid compartments. This mechanism explains the asymmetric distribution of fluoride across cell membranes, and the manipulation of transmembrane pH gradients has proven efficacious in acute fluoride toxicity. The comparative metabolism and relative toxicities of ionic fluoride and monofluorophosphate are discussed. It is no longer certain that there is a difference between the acute toxic potentials of sodium fluoride and those of MFP. It is concluded that the "probably toxic dose" or PTD of fluoride-- the dose which should trigger therapeutic intervention and hospitalization--is 5 mg/kg of body weight. As currently packaged, many dental products contain sufficient fluoride to exceed the PTD for young children. There is a need for additional research into the sources, effects, and fate of strongly bound or organic fluoride compounds. Attention is drawn to the fact that, while the metabolic characteristics and effects of fluoride in young and middle-aged adults have received considerable research attention, there is a paucity of such information for young children and the elderly. The increasing prevalence of dental fluorosis is addressed. It is concluded that nondietary sources of fluoride, mainly fluoride- containing dental products, are a major source of ingested fluoride. The article concludes with 12 recommendations for future research. <Whitford GM. "The physiological and toxicological characteristics of fluoride." Journal of Dental Research [1990, 69 Spec No:539-49; discussion 556-7>

I could cite many other articles on other findings of his [e.g. GMO foods, etc.], but for the sake of brevity, I will end the citations.

Though he may seem like a quack because he includes his religious beliefs, his findings are accurate.

````Lakewolf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakewolf (talk • contribs) 08:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything you just added to this talk page is WP:OR and as such it will not be added to the article.--Daffydavid (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Please add WP:RS that establish notability per WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Having published three non-notable books doesn't cut it. Verbal chat 20:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A Google search on "Russell Blaylock" yields a respectable 71,600 hits. He is notable as a popularizer of medical facts discovered by others. The mere fact that he attracts attempts to marginalize him and POV pushing makes him notable as a source of controversy. Greensburger (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Google hits aren't necessarily indicative of notability. Please bring WP:RS for your claims, see the WP:NOTABILITY guide for advice on how to do this. Verbal chat 20:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing cited or discussed in the current article makes him notable by wikipedia standards. See guidelines: wp:prof, wp:bio. Almost all of the first several pages of google hits seem to be things written by Blaylock himself i.e. primary sources, wp:or, being prolific is not a qualification for notability. Article should be deleted. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards that conclusion. I'm getting worried that this talk page should also be deleted per WP:BLP considering the COI claims and counterclaims. Verbal chat 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The discussion on this page is way over the line, both in terms of COI and attacks on Russell Blaylock. I may not agree with his scientific position, but NCDave went too far. Fences&Windows 23:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The attacks on Blaylock, including COI attacks on his notability, should be archived and not deleted to preserve the context. But the response by Blaylock himself should be retained on this talk page in accordance with Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article. Greensburger (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Blaylock has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity and the article is beginning to show that. I have added sources for his pieces in mainstream media where the viewer can view data without having to pay, there is much more that are in archives, but one needs to pay for access. His books, (such as his main book Excitotoxins which had good reviews) alongside his many radio appearances, a large amount of which have been added to youtube and google videos, have raised his profile way above your average professor. A search for "Russell Blaylock" radio guest easily shows many mentions and archives of his appearances, as well as the fact that many have been made available via torrent. As far as I can see, each and every piece of information in the article is now cited or checkable without any difficulty in the case where you have to type in his name for his records.86.3.142.2 (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of these sources are, frankly, Blaylock saying nutty things and these publications are either small or not particularly notable as far as academic sources go, the 700 club? Really? As for the youtube links, they're even worse as far as the fringy stuff goes. Besides internet famous is not the same thing as actually famous. But in light of this new information we need to ask ourselves, is he a sufficiently notable nut for an article? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, many of the sources are not Blaylock saying nutty things and the publications chosen (of the many in the archives) are reliable sources regardless of the size, mostly chosen because they do not cost to view. "The 700 Club is the flagship news talk show of the Christian Broadcasting Network, airing on cable's ABC Family and in syndication throughout the United States and Canada. In production since 1966..." unless our article is lying, it sounds like a pretty stable, ethical, long term station covering the continent of North America, I'm not going to sneer at it, and he's been on it seven times (as the source in the article says). Regardless of your view to smear his "fringy stuff" available via the internet, there is considerable dissemination of his work there. I heard of him first by him appearing on a radio show I was listening to - the journals, books and radio, were not of the internet initially, regardless of whether 'internet fame is not being actually famous', famous!=notability. Your insistence on smearing this individual as a nut, on more than one occasion, is noted. None of the information is new, it's that no-one bothered to dig further than a couple of pages into very basic google searches and get to some reasonable information to support information that was there, on and off, over the last three years, that and the inclusion of information which should not have been (per BLP guidance).86.3.142.2 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: I conducted a google searches for ""Russell Blaylock" fringe" and ""Russell Blaylock" nut" and noted the absence of reliable sources (for that matter any sources) that think his position is "fringy" or that he is a nut. Lots of almonds and hazlenuts, well as he's into a sensible healthy diet and advises on eating what's good for you, so that would be expected, but no one calling him a nut for his position.86.3.142.2 (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I appologize if I offended you, such was not my intent and my comments were presumptuous. My point, more finely stated, is that Blaylock is not notable for his hard hitting scientific research. I think he is notable, for wikipedia standards, because he is a controversial figure. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how Blaylock is notable by WP:PROF or WP:BIO, unless being interviewed by what are normally considered unreliable sources is by itself a source of notability. Blaylock does appear to have a following on the right-wing WP:FRINGE, but there are simply no reliable sources that tell us anything about him. When we have to derive most of the article from biography pages at a small college or the "Life Extension Foundation", that should tell us something about his notability. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

KCACO, your hacking of the article to take out various items immediately prior to nominating for deletion is noted, particularly the removal of appearances (as an academic) on radio (outside academia) when criteria 7 of WP:PROF is "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Your editorial habits of misuing citations and blackening names is also very much noted, I note similar complaints on your talk page. Are you receiving any form of payment for this very obvious pattern of edits?Alf <sup>melmac</sup> 09:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is most certainly a personal attack that has nothing to do with the article, and is in poor form coming from an individual who has been using several IPs and at least one username in the past week to attack my contributions. As for "hacking" an article, it is proper to remove trivia, original research and unreliable sources from a BLP. Regarding my source of payments, the Bilderberg liaison told me to keep my mouth shut about it at least until the next Grove meeting, by which time we will have completed our H1N1 vaccine plot to rid the world of rich white people. (wink, wink) Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your editing pattern shows that you remove critical material fromt the leads of certain individuals and add critical information to the leads of others, that is a consistent pattern in your editing. Your edit was a hack, it removed the fact (as shown by other citations other that the one chosen) that Blaylock has appeared on over fifty radio shows, which you have consistently removed with no other rationale than "appearing as a guest on radio is probably not notable". I gave up using my account because of the amount of editors like yourself who consistently misrepresent citations and quotations to advance ther point of view, having only logged in today to comment on the AfD, my others edits from wherever I am at the time, without bothering to sign in breaks what rule or guideline? You did not answer the question as to whether you receive remuneration for your edits. Do you not remember when political parties were caught editing Wikipedia to their own advantage. It is a fair question, please answer it straight.--Alf <sup>melmac</sup> 16:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop abusing this talk page. If you have evidence I am being paid in contravention of Wikipedia policy, notify an administrator or begin a COI or incidents discussion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I am an adminstrator. I am considering those options.--Alf <sup>melmac</sup> 16:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The following sentence was deleted from the Blaylock article three four times: "He was licensed to practice Neurological Surgery in North Carolina between May 6, 1977 and December 15, 2006.[ref>North Carolina Medical Board [/ref>" and the reliable source was also deleted. This is clear evidence that there is a concerted attempt by some editors with a hostile Conflict of Interest to conceal Dr. Blaylock's 20+ years of experience as a neurosurgeon. Using the North Carolina Medical Board web site is not Original Research and is not a search. It is page lookup of a specific page - you key in his name and you get the specific page that attests to his being licensed. This is no different than referring to a specific page in a book or journal. That a provable fact about Blaylock has been deleted four times proves the extreme bias of those who are vandalizing Blaylock's article. Edits that falsely make Blaylock appear to be an inexperienced crackpot and false accusations that he is not notable are a violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and a libelous attempt to mislead Wiki admins to delete Blaylock's article. Greensburger (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"docboard" has been questioned as a reliable source in the absence of secondary, independent sources about Blaylock. There is no evidence of editorial oversight at this AIM website: "...neither AIM, its contractors, nor its member boards guarantee its accuracy, or the accuracy of information in other sites accessible through links herein. AIM makes no representations or warranties, either express or implied, as to the accuracy of any posted information and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions contained therein." In my interpretation of WP:OR, an interpretation that may or may not represent that of other Wikipedia users, performing a search on such a website constitutes original research. Consider this illustration: what if the information we were discussing were Blaylock's telephone number? We could certainly use an online search to find it, or go to a primary source like a local telephone book, but that would be original research. On the other hand, if the New York Times provided Blaylock's telephone number in an article on him, that would be notable and reliable. So far, we have no reliable secondary sources supporting your claims about Blaylock; that doesn't mean they don't exist or that Blaylock is not/was not a neurosurgeon, or that anyone is trying to "conceal" information about Blaylock. We must be careful that biographies of living persons adhere to strict sourcing requirements.

As for Blaylock's notability, there do not appear to be any reliable, independent sources providing coverage of Blaylock himself; there are several sources in which Blaylock is quoted, and we have Blaylock's statements about himself on his website. A good rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that when there are no articles about a subject, it is probably not notable. In my opinion, that means that Blaylock is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. Others may disagree, and I will accept and support whatever decision is made at AfD. However, "delete" votes and the reasons supporting them should not be labeled "libellous". This is a violation of our no legal threats policy. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Whilst Keepcalmandcarryon added some good and pertinent information, the language continues to minimise the positives and maximise the negatives. The re-addition of the 700 club, rephrased and noting and giving an epithet to the founder, is exemplar. The inclusion of what the current medical view actually is, is irrelevant and uncalled for, Wikipedia is not here to remind the reader of what the correct view is when Mr Blaylock informs us the swine flu vaccine is worse than the swine flu and one has to read the current view and compare it to see that is it 'contrary' to the 'scientific consensus'. 'Editor's note: the views expressed by the subject are against the correct view' NO. I agree with you Greensburger that function is not original research, the data given by the function will always be the same (barring muppets who muff the typing in of the name) and does not require the reader to make any judgement as original research does.

My perception of this retired neurosurgeon, based on having trawled through the first ten pages or so of the results for each of the various word combinations, like "radio", "lecture", "guest appearance" with "Russell Blaylock" is that he appears on radio shows at least two or three times a week, but could be more, some of them on in tandem with streaming on the internet. A good number of those shows get around the internet via various archives - opensource archives, google video, youtube and the like. The googlescholar results may not be great, but since he is known more outside academida, that is not important. The news results are numerous but a lot require payment, his views are repeated in newspapers and magazines at a reasonable frequency, I noted two new pieces in the last week. He's written four books, one of which was named in The Guardian (?-the link given as evidence on the Fringe theory board as fringeyness) as 'Books such this that spurred the anti-MSG wave' which sorta shows his presence outside academia, even if, one could deduce by it, that his views are not mainstream. I can't think of any other 'neurosurgery expert' who has as much or more public airtime and dissemination as him, but if there are, they're notable too.86.3.142.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC).

FRINGE (+break for easier editing)

I forgot to mention that the repositioning the "According to Blaylock's page on the Belhaven College website..." to "According to Blaylock's website..." and placing a more general url for the college when also repositioning to "Blaylock states that he is currently a visiting professor in the biology department at Belhaven College, a small school in Mississippi that teaches "from a Christian Worldview Curriculum". is disgusting use of citation for your own personal view. When neither the "official scientific view" or your discovery of the school's "Christian Worldview" and the like specifically place Blaylock in the picture (which none of the "current scientific thought"... do), they are irrelevant and should not make their way into articles. if the reader wishes to know a POV or political slant, they must go look it up themselves.86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing on Wikipedia as positive or negative; there is verifiable and reliable versus fringe and unverified. At this point, we have no verification from independent sources of Blaylock's credentials or career history. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but we do need independent sources. We have no verification that Blaylock is notable inside or outside of academic science as a neurosurgeon. Thus, it is not clear that he satisfies condition number 7 of WP:PROF, and his work does not appear to satisfy the others. Blaylock's positions on aspartame, MSG and vaccination, if they are notable at all, are not directly related to his work in academia or as a surgeon, as he does not appear to have published any academic research on any of these subjects. If I am wrong about this, please correct me and provide references to his relevant research on these topics. The only information I could find on Blaylock's work as a neurosurgeon is testimony he gave in the 1980s regarding an individual who was hit on the head with a golf ball.

As for "The inclusion of what the current medical view actually is, is irrelevant and uncalled for, Wikipedia is not here to remind the reader of what the correct view is..." On topics of science and medicine, Wikipedia is indeed here to provide the neutral, prevailing point of view per WP:FRINGE. From WP:FRINGE: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. To the extent that Blaylock is notable, he is notable for his views on aspartame, MSG and vaccination. I trust we can all agree on that. His views are also fringe by Wikipedia definitions, since the mainstream medical community, including regulatory and international agencies, disagrees. This does not mean that Blaylock is necessarily wrong or that he is, in the words of User:Greensburger, "an inexperienced crackpot"; but he is currently outside the medical consensus and it is our duty as Wikipedia editors to point this out in accordance with WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS.

My personal view of Belhaven College is irrelevant and I have not given it. The quote is what Belhaven says about itself and seems to be its distinguishing characteristic. Providing background information on relatively unknown TV shows or small schools is not at all contrary to Wikipedia policy; most people don't live in Mississippi and don't know about the 700 Club or Belhaven College. The subject's website was given in place of the Belhaven page because the Belhaven page is mostly taken directly from the author's own page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There were a lot more sources, which the voters at AfD could have seen had you not removed them before nominating the article for deletion. The Guardian article says "But popular opinion has travelled - spectacularly - in the opposite direction to science. By the early eighties, fuelled by books like Russell Blaylock's Excitotoxins - The Taste That Kills, MSG's name was utter mud. Google MSG today, and you'll find it blamed for causing asthma attacks, migraines, hypertension and heart disease, dehydration, chest pains, depression, attention deficit disorder, anaphylactic shock, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases and a host of diverse allergies] which sounds to me that that book alone made an impact. Russell Blaylock is not an article "On topics of science and medicine" it is a "Biography of a Living Person" and even if it were, the article does not go into detail about the topic anyway. I think the usual descriptors for colleges are along the lines of "independent" and such, you had already added "small", giving it a viewpoint "that teaches "from a Christian Worldview Curriculum"" rather than saying "Christian" is obviously loaded. Saying it's Christian is also irrelevant - does Tony Blair's article tell us his school is Christian? No it tells us it's "independent", and we'd have more reason to want to know about Tony's school. Does Blaylock share this viewpoint? That might be relevant to his Biography, but I didn't see anything like that when I looked around.86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

When a fringe statement is made about science or medicine, in an article expressly about science or medicine or not, per WP:FRINGE, the prevailing view is needed. That's what we have here.

As far as I can tell, Excitotoxins was published in 1996. What's this about the "early eighties"? This source is emblematic of the problems we have with this article in general: several sources mention Blaylock once, but none of them tells us much if anything about him.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not much of an argument, but if Tony Blair's school were a small Christian school with "teaching from a Christian Worldview Curriculum" as the first sentence in a ghit from its own website, that might indeed be relevant to his bio. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read WP:FRINGE a number of times again since noticing this article being notified to the notice board and see no such requirement by that guideline to add the prevailing view in articles which do not go into detail about the fringe subject. In fact it says:

Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing.

Your edits have done the opposite of that guidance. It also says:

While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject.

The perspective your edits have added have not been neutral.

So OTHERSTUFF is a crap arugment but you'll argue it anyway, missing the point that I pointed at ("we'd have more reason...") that school Tony attended is so noted, something that would, undoubtedly affect his growing up, which is not the case for Belhaven.

As far as I can see from the guidance at WP:FRINGE, it does not apply in this article at this time as there is no detailed examination of any of the theories and there are no criticisms to quote or carefully balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.142.2 (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My edits have done precisely what is called for by WP:FRINGE: to balance fringe views presented in this article. The fringe views are not "debunked" using originally synthesised prose; they are simply balanced with reliable sources presenting the "mainstream" position.

My apologies, but I have no interest in having a lengthy wikilawyering argument about what the meaning of "is" is, or "detailed" for that matter, and especially not with an anonymous IP editor who doesn't have enough respect for the project or other editors to sign in...or even be bothered to sign comments. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The devil, is indeed in the detail, which FRINGE requires and this article has none, so there is indeed no need to wikilawyer. I find no call in FRINGE to balance fringe theories that are mentioned in a Biography of a Living Person, only in articles where theories are dealt with in detail. There is no excuse to make Wikipedia offer 'scientific consensus' to hold the reader's hand every time someone says something like 'the flu vaccine is likely worse than the 'flu'. Your opinion that by choosing not log in I am disrespecting the project and other editors is noted. It's not the first time I've forgotten to sign and not noticed until after the bot has signed and might not be the last.86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anon editor, this article is a biography of a living person Blaylocks theories should be mentioned but not discussed in detail in this article; if we are not discussing his theories than wp:fringe still applies, but wp:bio comes first. And as always we should seek reliable sources. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

References

CV Gaps

It seems clear that Dr. Blaylock is a licensed physician, has been Certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery and has been in private practice as a neurosurgeon for some 20+ years. I am immediately struck by the marketing of “Brain Repair Formula” and “Brain Lipid Repair” on his webpage (http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/). As his current activities are in the field of nutrition, toxicology, and immunology, I and curious as to his credentials in these fields. Does he hold academic degrees in these areas? His CV reveals nothing regarding his training in nutrition, toxicology and immunology Kwtcurious (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead and body

I would like to refer User:Wiki libs and User:Wiki alf to WP:LEAD. The lead should summarise the article. As such, some language in the lead may be repeated in the article. There is no contradiction or guideline violation here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think adding some of Blaylock's point of view (and the FRINGE kickback) count as summarising the article, there is no mention of writing four books for example, nor journals, nor the newletter, nor being a radio guest. Sure some words are going to be repeated, strange it's the ones that you chose which "need" FRINGING...(The editor formerly known as Alf [User:Wiki alf] not logging in)163.1.147.64 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Vaccination

I just restored a sentence contextualizing Blaylock's views on the swine flu vaccine. Per Fringe theories, it is necessary to document views in relation to the view of the medical community. If the point could be made in a better way, please propose alternate wording below. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah the Fringe Police cometh. As he doesn't urge anything, is not in "various media", and the fringe counter argument is one preliminary study which doesn't fully relate to Blaylock's claims a better representation of the sources would give:

Blaylock's position regarding the swine flu (H1N1) vaccination, which he states is more dangerous than the infection itself, has been reported by Canada Free Press where he lists measures to reduce autoimmune reactions to the 'flu vaccines. A preliminary report published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2009 indicated that an effective vaccine is a vital tool in protecting the public and that the new H1N1 vaccine is both safe and effective.

Which was in the considered changes I made earlier but reverted wholesale.(Alf)86.3.142.2 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I added another reference for the fairly obvious points that vaccination as a public health initiative is well-supported and the new flu vaccine works just like all the others. Think of it like a hot patch in a system that is usually only updated twice a year. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Political Views

Decora admitted that the section was too long and asked for help shortening it. I cut everything after the first paragraph, because that info starts sounding more and more fringe, distracting from the lead which is about the man's views on *health*. Strikes me as a case of overkill.

I agree that a paragraph or so about his political views adds some context. If anyone wants to revert, please discuss re-insertion item by item (or paragraph by paragraph) to explain why extra details on these views are useful to WP users. Martindo (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I, too, feel that extensive detail is undesirable, but Blaylock's views on health seems to be promulgated through sources with strong political leanings (and also seemingly because of politics). His views on politics, as written by Blaylock himself, are thus useful to know. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I could see some utility in keeping some of the information, since it is public health related, and that's what he's known for. Sci girl (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

MSG split from sweeteners as separate sections

These are two separate issues, with different degrees of mainstreaming and different balances of evidence, so I split into two sections.

Regarding the question of "mainstream" views, Health Canada cautions on its official web site: "In general, the use of MSG is not a health hazard to consumers. The safety of MSG has been reviewed by regulatory authorities and scientists worldwide, including Health Canada. However, some individuals who consume MSG may exhibit an allergic-type reaction or hypersensitivity." http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/addit/msg_qa-qr-eng.php AFAIK, this is very different from anything about aspartame or sucralose at such official web sites.

Note that I added a study on obesity by Ka He of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that was published in 2008 and can be found at the official site of the NIH which is another mainstream government organization.

I also added a reference to an article written by an MD in Arizona for her newsletter, which is much more recent than the other sources of Blaylock's views on MSG. Martindo (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a lengthy analysis of the various views on MSG. In a biography, all that's needed is: Blaylock says it's toxic, scientific consensus says it's not. Also, I take "her newsletter" to mean self-published, and as the organization doesn't seem to be an independent news source with a reputation for fact checking, I don't feel it's appropriate for a BLP. As a side note, any substance can trigger an allergic reaction in allergic individuals. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

First, let me say that I agree with you that Dr. Grout's newsletter was not a direct interview of Dr. Blaylock, so it doesn't qualify as a more recent source, though she did summarize the history of the MSG controversy.

Second, I restored the separation of these issues, which now are each roughly equal to the size of the Vaccination subsection. Flavor enhancers and artificial sweeteners are both far more long-standing on Blaylock's radar screen (AFAIK) than the recent controversy over the 2009 flu pandemic. So, similar weight for *each* of the two is warranted.

Third, MSG having a longer subsection than sweeteners is not undue weight. Kindly read WP's page on excitotoxicity, where the lead mentions glutamates, but not sweeteners. These are two distinct chemicals, which should not be conflated into one subsection.

Fourth, his MSG views had much more mainstream support than his aspartame views. There is a different phenomenon at play -- the MSG views can be seen as "outmoded" concern while the aspartame views never received support from the NIH or FDA. History is useful here because some WP users may have heard media concerns in the 1970s, or heard them repeated.

Please don't whitewash the fact that NIH currently offers a journal article on its web site showing a possible link between MSG and health problems. That's about as mainstream and WP:RS as one can get. Note that the 2008 article is more recent than other sources quoted here.

I can see reducing the four org names to one (WHO) if space is seriously a problem on this page.

Finally, I would like to agree with you (sort of) that this is not a good bio page. It doesn't even mention Blaylock's date of birth! It reads more like a page about "Blaylock viewpoints". Martindo (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

For many editors of this biography, the subject's notability itself is questionable, so there's no need for separate subsections for every statement he's made. This article is also not about the history of MSG concerns; the current scientific consensus, as represented by the reliable sources already referenced, is sufficient. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me be a bit more clear: the primary research User:Martindo is adding does not directly address Blaylock's claims of excitotoxicity to neurones, which involve an issue separate from the idea that people are more likely to eat larger quantities of "tastier", MSG-containing food and thus become obese. The jury is still out on this issue, but most evidence seems to weigh (pardon me) against it. In any case, it's a primary source, does not mention Blaylock or his theories and is thus trademark synthesis. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I agree with you partially, which I suppose is what give-and-take is about. There is no need for separate sections, true. However, your revision still lumped MSG with sweeteners, contrary to the facts that their chemistry is different and concerns have been supported differently (e.g., NIH and others raised them about MSG). So, I split into two paragraphs.

The concluding sentence of what was your first paragraph becomes less absolutist when applied only to sweeteners. But even the lead of the aspartame page says:

"A 2007 safety evaluation found that the weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener."

Compare this to the wording used in the Blaylock article and you can see a need for improvement. Each of his three allegations follows a reasonable pattern: 1 or 2 sentences about his view, followed by 1 or 2 sentences of rebuttal. I am simply saying that the same rebuttal does not apply to both MSG and aspartame. Our goal is to clarify here, not to blur.

Meanwhile, is anyone going to find his birthdate and birth place? Martindo (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy in Countering his Ideas

As I noted in the preceding section, the lead in the aspartame page uses the phrase "weight of existing scientific evidence", which if more fitting to a scientific viewpoint than what I have been trying to correct on the Blaylock page:

These positions are not supported by scientific consensus or regulatory bodies

This statement is misleading in regard to MSG, because regulatory bodies have expressed concern in the past. Such past concern makes the issue distinct from a fringe viewpoint.

Further, the regulatory body NIH posted a 2008 article on its web site reporting a study that links MSG consumption and obesity. Its authors *hypothesize* that this might be due to damage to the hypothalamus. Sure, wikipedia editors and other researchers might surmise a different cause, but that's not what those authors reported. While primary research is not preferred as WP:RS, the fact that such research exists can be mentioned, can it not?

Here's the link, in case anyone is interested: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610632/ Association of monosodium glutamate intake with overweight in Chinese adults: the INTERMAP Study by Ka He et al

I'd like to see "regulatory bodies" cut from the misleading statement, at the least, if I'm going to repeatedly get outvoted in my attempt to distinguish WP's commentary on Blaylock's MSG stance from its/our commentary on his sweetener stance.

So far, nobody has provided an explanation on Talk justifying conflation of the two. Martindo (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have provided an explanation, but you have refused to listen. Using synthesis and a single, primary study to advance an agenda on a biography page is inappropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I don't see it. I see other points you countered, some of which I accepted.

You yourself remarked "most evidence seems to weigh" (against effect of MSG) in regard to my citing primary research. So, why are you reverting my use of that exact same notion of "weight of evidence" in my attempts to modify the stark phrase "not supported"? Even the aspartame page uses "weight of evidence" to qualify that some evidence exists -- it's not a dualistic yes-no issue (which is common in science, in contrast to religious dogma). Martindo (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The subject's stances on MSG, aspartame, sucralose and vaccines are by definition WP:FRINGE: they are opposed by current medical consensus. Or medical dogma/fanatical religious belief by the priests in white coats, if you prefer. Your interpretation of a single, primary study doesn't change that the current weight of opinion of scientists, doctors, regulatory bodies is that MSG and sweeteners are safe. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly fringe if it was a concern expressed by mainstream organizations in the 1970s. The term "outdated" is more appropriate, compared to many other issues that never had mainstream support. I don't know who had what agenda in starting this page in the first place. I wasn't part of it until recently. I'm appalled at the character assassination by NCDave. I wonder how many WP editors stood by and gloated in their schadenfreude while it went on?

Anyway, you again say "current weight of opinion" in your comment here. So why can't I replace the existing "no support" with the more accurate phrase that you yourself use?!? Martindo (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

So is the definition of Fringe when you type something in to Google and at least half of all the articles support it? MSG is widely recognized as bad for you everywhere but in university faculty rooms and the cafeterias at Ajinomoto. Is the definition of not-notable when you appear on nationally syndicated radio programs repeatedly? If those are the current definitions, they need to change. Wikipedia has become such a joke. This article needs to be rewritten with some respect. Futurebeast (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Googling something and getting a bunch of results does not make something non-fringe. If they were reliable sources then it would be notable. If you have an edit suggestion please make it, rambling on without suggesting an edit is pointless.--Daffydavid (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

1. It's unconscionable that a bio page about a living person would lack basic info such as birthdate and birthplace. Isn't the info available in public records?

2. The notability issue is tricky because it's hard to separate opposition to his ideas from opposition to publicizing his ideas. AFAIK, in most other cases where notability has been flagged (e.g., Sarah Hrdy), the main issue is overly favorable writing by thesis advisees, paid PR agents, etc. who created a WP page as a form of flattery.

It would be useful to find a neurosurgeon to participate in the editing of this page and shed some light on how notable Dr. Blaylock's contributions to that field have been. In other words, there might be an uncontroversial reason for creating a page about Blaylock, but it looks to me like none of us is qualified to judge that aspect.

3. Long-time editors of this page might find it useful to study how controversy and non-mainstream viewpoints are reported on the pages of nobel laureates such as Linus Pauling and William Shockley, who are at the other extreme of notability.

4. It's detrimental to NPOV to regard ideas as if they were biohazards, subject to strict protocol in order to avoid "contaminating" the public. It's also ironic if participants in a wiki view the public as an unknown mass of people who might be "easily misled".

The page on Patch Adams, practitioner of alternative medicine, could be instructive.

5. Historical perspective is useful in regard to a viewpoint that was not considered fringe at some point within living memory. There are likely to be people who still adhere to the viewpoint and it would serve WP users to explain why (i.e., concern is outmoded, not merely fringe). FYI, I found the MSG/obesity article in the first 5 hits while googling "World Health Organization" +"monosodium glutamate" in my quest for info about the WHO recommending that MSG should NOT be given to children under age 2.

6. Granted that literature reviews tend to be published less frequently than once a year, nevertheless some effort should be made to keep references up to date here. Martindo (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

1. If you have a reliable source for basic info like birthplace, please add it. Such information is often readily available for notable subjects.

2. The notability issue is this: has Blaylock been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources? It has nothing to do with whether any particular editor agrees or not with Blaylock's political views. Blaylock does not appear to be notable on the basis of his contributions to neurosurgery, as judged by his involvement in prominent cases or his publication record. He may be notable if his political views are cited in reliable media sources.

3-6. It's Wikipedia policy to present medical views in proportion to the weight they receive in the medical literature. A fringe claim should be labeled as such, ideally with a supporting reference. Not to avoid "contaminating" the world (although that is no doubt a concern for some) but to ensure that information is reliably sourced and presented with proper perspective. Note that for better or worse, because fringe claims are not a pressing concern to most in the medical community, literature reviews specifically addressing such claims or their individual proponents are not always common. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a civil and informative reply. My understanding is that Dr. Blaylock claimed to have contributed an important technique to neurosurgery, mentioned in various textbooks. That surgical technique might be notable, regardless of how many articles he published about it.

Anyway, I have no more interest in raising issues on this page. Martindo (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If Blaylock invented a notable technique, we should certainly mention it. If you have a source for this information, please pass it along or insert it yourself. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Googling for "transcallosal-transventricular" and Blaylock shows a number of cites. It could be the technique in question. Unomi (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, google books search for "kempe blaylock" indicates attribution for the novel approach. Unomi (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The transcallosal approach originally described by Kempe and Blaylock is highly recommended. Unomi (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The case report referenced by Unomi is not only primary literature and thus poorly suited to supporting claims related to medicine (such as the notability of this technique), but also does not support the language used by Unomi in the article. The reference does not state that Kempe was Blaylock's mentor. It does not state that Kempe and Blaylock developed the technique, only that they first described its application. Come to think of it, are there reliable sources supporting the identity of the Blaylock who co-authored the original report with the subject of this article?

The communication does state that the technique is one approach to "a relatively rare surgical experience for most neurosurgeons". Thus the technique, whatever its still unconfirmed origin, would seem to be a rather rare procedure. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In that type of literature 'first described' often means exactly 'developed', 'invented' etc. I am fairly sure that MastCell would agree with that. Could you perhaps tell me why being a contributor to a novel surgical approach is trivia unworthy of inclusion while a small, (historically Presbyterian-affiliated) Christian college in Mississippi that teaches "from a Christian Worldview Curriculum".[7] is relevant to an article on Blaylock? Unomi (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As for whether the co-developer of the technique is indeed the same Blaylock, reading the sources will show that there is evidence to support it, see for example the 'current address' here, and full name association here. Unomi (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not a doctor, but I am pretty sure that first described is used as Unomi states. I support this series of changes following the above discussion, though I changed the internal links to the relevant controversy articles where I know of them. Probably it is not very likely, but if we find a source describing the newsmax advertisements, that would be nice; for the simple statement that the ads exist, though, I thing primary sourcing as alright. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I support your change regarding internal linking. Unomi (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why he's notable

Part of the problem here is "why" he's notable. The article should describe him in relation to that issue. He isn't notable for his medical skills, but for his untraditional and fringe POV. What factors have contributed to those views? How have those views made him notable, infamous, created controversy, probably contributed to the needless deaths of children, and made him a source used by various quacks to back their dubious ideas? There are quite a few controversial articles here that are subjects related to this man and his allies. Keep that in focus and the article will keep the balance prescribed by NPOV, FRINGE, etc.. Why is he notable? That's the issue. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles on people that are notable for specific things and they do not fail to have room for detailing other aspects of that person. I would also urge you to refactor your comment as it seems to be in violation of WP:BLP. Unomi (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that nothing else should be mentioned, but we're dealing with a very controversial man whose POV are diametrically opposed to mainstream science and medicine in many areas, and yet the article contains hardly a mention of that fact. Those facts need mentioning, and since he pushes fringe POV, the WP:MEDRS and WP:Fringe guidelines apply to this article, IOW the mainstream POV should have weight. My comments are bringing those facts to the attention of editors who should be investigating this and adding such content. While my comments are critical, there is nothing libelous in them, but I'll take out a few adjectives if that will spare someone's sensibilities. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly open to expanding the 'Allegation of health dangers' section. And I too agree that regarding unattributed claims or 'facts' that we apply MEDRS, doing so would have avoided the rather embarrassing situation where the lead of the article states that MSG and Aspartame are not excitotoxins, I don't believe any researchers dispute that the components they break down to when ingested in fact are. Unomi (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that the lead states that, but it could be written much better. The dose makes the poison, and his contentions (that the small doses that are normally used are very dangerous) are in conflict with mainstream consensus and research. If we start applying MEDRS to these issues, we'll get a better balance in the article. His POV should definitely be presented, but it needs balancing so the article doesn't create advocacy for his fringe POV. He is closely allied with Betty Martini and her scare campaign/hoax against aspartame. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly do not wish for the article to become promotional or to lack balance. As 2/0 and myself have linked to the controversy / health concerns pages for most of the claims he has made, one might argue that the reader should be lead to read the full treatment of such concerns. We could (for example) expand the 'health dangers' to give more detail regarding specific claims (which I must admit I am largely ignorant of), counter with a summary from the relevant article and link to the full treatment of claims. Unomi (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead currently says that Excitotoxicity is not consistent with mainstream thinking. Is it not? The article about it doesn't say so, what cites are there saying so? It says he has developed SEVERAL ideas counter to mainstream thinking (but only giving TWO examples - ONE of which is excitoxicity which appears not to be counter to mainstream thingking) - this is just more SYNTH/OR to tarnish the man with.163.1.147.64 (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not that Excitotoxicity is fringe, it's Blaylocks claims that aspartame and MSG are excitoxic that is fringe. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The article about excito' includes mentions of both aspartame and MSG by others than Blaylock, so saying Blaylocks claims that they are is somehow FRINGE is invalid, with or (as in this case) without a cite clearing it of being Original Research/Synthesis. The line at present says several, I do not believe there are any cites out there that back up this notion without using OR/SYNTH, but maybe someone would care to prove me wrong?163.1.147.64 (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: "DISCUSSION: Excitotoxins are molecules, such as MSG and aspartate, that act as excitatory neurotransmitters, and can lead to neurotoxicity when used in excess." from The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 702-706. DOI 10.1345/aph.10254 (found via googlescholar - cited 27 times) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.147.64 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

References 2 and 3 from the article are from respectable peer-reviewed journals and conclude that aspartamine and msg respectively are not excitoxic. You can read a copy of the abstract of these papers by clicking on the links at the bottom of the article. It was also previously mentioned in the article, although it seems to have been removed, that the FDA and European Food Safety Authority consider the amounts of both substances usually found in food to have no toxic effects. Please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and the excitotoxity article cites Blaylock as a source so it may not be the best source of information to refute what this article says. From WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Just because other people agree with Blaylock does not mean his ideas are not WP:FRINGE. The claim in the lede has been discussed and consensus is that it is not original research as his claims have been evaluated and rejected by the scientific community. I hope this helps clear up the issue for you. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's OR then isn't it. 'These sources say a & b are c so e saying a & b are f' is original research. Make your mind up, either excitoxicity is fringe or it isn't, Blaylocks views appear to accord with the volume of data about that subject, so isn't out of the ordinary in that particular area. Saying he has several views that don't accord without cites seems like a BLP problem to me, no matter how many of the fringe police come along and say it ain't so.163.1.147.64 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The argument that WP:BLP and WP:OR require that a source specifically mention a subject as WP:FRINGE is not an uncommon one, but it is not an argument supported by policy. Please review the guidelines I have posted here, as I mentioned this subject has been extensively discussed on this page and consensus is that the lede is ok as it is. You may also want to read through some of the other discussions on this talk page since a couple discussion, like the one I linked, specifically deal with the issues you are bringing up in our current discussion.Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

When the arrival at fringe is based on Original Research I would think "doing the right thing" more important othewise WP:IAR because the colour the peeps here would like to paint this guy is unsubstantiated. I have read every word on this page since I tried to knock some N into the POV and got the Fringe Police interested even more. Even had false claims of puppetry levelled against me when I got too close to nailing it down. I see that we will still have no usage for common sense here so I will retire again from this biased, corrupted and unfair article until it is. (163.1.147.64 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As Voiceofreason01 explained, reporting the status of anti-aspartame activism as fringe is not original research. And as it turns out, there are sources specifically making the connection: even the New York Times has referred to this group as "conspiracy theorists". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to resolve some unclear wording. It is his claims regarding normal doses that are fringe. When used in excess, many otherwise harmless substances can cause problems. Duh! There is nothing controversial about that, but Blaylock's controversial views are the stuff advanced by the promoters of the aspartame hoax and conspiracy theories. He, along with Olney and Roberts, are their posterboys. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you BullRangifer, that does improve it. I still think it smacks of guilt by association and requires the reader to engage in Original Research to come to that conclusion, but at least with the clearer wording it is no longer a patently false claim.163.1.147.64 (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried ;-) To the best of my knowledge that's pretty accurate wording. What could improve it? Do you have a suggestion? -- Brangifer (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No suggestions to improve - I'm entirely unhappy that it appears acceptable to decide that a subject is purveying fringe ideas without solid sources saying so, but understand those who think FRINGE is more important than accurately relaying what sources actually say will invariably find some loop to append banal "against the current consensus" type sentences into a biography which does not go into any great detail about the fringe theory, which is, in fact, the remit of FRINGE, that it specifically deals with articles that go into detail about the fringe theory. I don't have to be happy to accept a compromise and am content that at least a compromise has been made because of my input, for which I thank you again.163.1.147.64 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that my addition of the words "in normal doses" has been removed. This makes the current statement somewhat misleading. Why can't those words remain? They are important qualifiers. Please justify that deletion. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies...I was going for concision and would not object to your "in normal doses". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. I suspect we were looking at different issues with the wording. Let's see if we can hammer out a consensus version here. Here is the current wording and then my version:

• "Blaylock has endorsed views inconsistent with the scientific consensus, including that food additives such as aspartame and monosodium glutamate (MSG) are excitotoxic ..."

• "Blaylock has developed several ideas about healthcare that are not consistent with mainstream thinking, including that food additives such as aspartame and monosodium glutamate (MSG) are, in normal doses, excitotoxic and can lead to neurotoxicity, ..." [1]

What should be kept and what should be modified or eliminated? I'm not an expert on the subject, but I don't think it's questioned that the substances are considered excitotoxic (by definition, IOW regardless of dosage), but neurotoxic only "in large doses" ("when used in excess"). (The list of such substances would be huge, and it would include large numbers of ordinary food items!) Where he deviates is in claiming that they are neurotoxic in normal doses. If I'm wrong, I hope someone will enlighten me. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right: anything can be toxic at the right dose. Claiming that amino acids, the building blocks of our bodies, are somehow neurotoxic if they come from one food but not from another is...well, it's fringe. In my view, Blaylock has not developed these ideas, they are not matters of healthcare, and going into detail about neurotoxicity and excitotoxicity is too much for the lead. (I also don't like the phrase "mainstream thinking" as its alt-med users wield it to imply a stodgy unwillingness to deal with facts.) Just my view, to be taken with a grain of glutamate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Now we're getting somewhere. It should be possible to modify the wording by taking account of your concerns while including something about "in normal doses". The current misleading wording needs tweaking. Any suggestions? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to "excitotoxic (or simply toxic) in normal doses". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's try that. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

H1N1 vaccine is both safe and effective? Edit?

"Current research indicates that an effective vaccine is a vital tool in protecting the public and that the new H1N1 vaccine is both safe and effective."

I would like to change this to: "Limited preliminary research indicates that the new H1N1 vaccine may be both safe and effective". This is congruent with the citations given; (3) advises the research is "preliminary" and is only a single reference of a short term study with just 240 people.(20) is a dead link. There is no citation to support the broad generalization that "current research indicates an effective vaccine is a vital tool in protecting the public". Mangomon (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I call NPOV shennanigans on the proposed wording. If you have any evidence supporting it not being safe and effective from reliable sources let us know. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:COATRACK - this article should adhere closely to the topic Russell Blaylock. We must provide relevant context in the process of explaining his ideas, but this is not the place to recapitulate 2009 flu pandemic vaccine or Vaccine controversy. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a good laugh with "although current research indicates that an effective vaccine is a vital tool in protecting the public and that the H1N1 vaccine is both safe and effective". The flu vaccine is known to be both ineffective and relatively dangerous. Wake up. --WPcorrector (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? You'll forgive us if we don't take your word for it. If you have any evidence from reliable sources supporting it not being safe and effective, let's see it! DoctorJoeE <sup>review transgressions</sup>/<sub>talk to me!</sub> 21:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, safety is well established, efficacy isn't the greatest yet. Still, even if efficacy slipped to 30%, I'd still be inoculated, as even 30% efficacy beats 0% efficacy of non-immunization and 100% lack of protection. As for the subject of this article, I couldn't tolerate more than seven minutes of his pseudoscience before I had to kill it, lest I fall out of my chair from laughter. About the only thing I can agree with is the death of his parents did have an effect on him; it drove him out of his ever-loving mind. Straight into the land of paranoid delusional thinking.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of narcolepsy, "doctor"?

Which studies show that this vaccine is safe? That it is useful? --WPcorrector (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum, keep the conversation on topic about the article.--Daffydavid (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality of Academic Credentials

I find it odd that people think the quality of Blaylock's academic credentials is irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? Unomi (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Belhaven

Could someone explain why the description of Belhaven is relevant here? I could understand if he was a proponent of Intelligent Design or the like, I could understand if we had refs where he expounds on religion, but afaik we don't. If someone wants to read about Belhaven it is fully wikilinked and I fail to see reason to include it here unless it is meant to give some synthesized flavour to the depiction of Blaylock. Unomi (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It speaks to the quality of his academic credentials and is, thus, relevant. Attempts to delete it are actually the more eggregious violation of WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't seem to follow, how does working at Belhaven speak to the quality of his academic credentials? Unomi (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He is a retired neurologist who taught at a bible school and claims to be a nutritionist. This is actually important and relevant information. Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223: you have reverted material deemed irrelevant without establishing that Blaylock is notable for his Christian Wordview beliefs, and are now engaged in edit-warring. You need to act prudently, within WP's allowed guidelines and policies. HarryZilber (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not violated WP:3RR and, in fact, even noted that it was my last revert for the day on the last item I edited. On the second revert I directed interested parties to talk page to discuss the deletion, again as per policy. How am I edit warring? While you are at it how is this information irrelevant? I said why it is relevant and your rebuttal was to accuse me of edit warring... Oh, and another thing, deemed irrelevant? by who? Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So you believe that the information should be included because him being a visiting professor of biology at a university that teaches "from a Christian Worldview Curriculum" would give most people the impression that he lacks academic credentials? Indeed, your first edit summary the school ignoring a materialistic worldview in favour of a religious one is relevant would seem to further this guilt by association and, to me, suggests that you would like to imply that he as well does not base his position in a materialistic worldview, am I mistaken? Unomi (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Science operates from a materialistic worldview within the context of the definition I am using. As he is being claimed as a scientist the fact that he teaches at institutions that scorn that world view (a bible college) and the fact that he operates outside of his specialty are relevant. Turning the question around, why do you believe them to be irrelevant? Reverts without answering any one of my questions? Who is it really engaging in tendentuous edit warring? Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if we find sources which find this connection relevant we should include it. I would however caution against employing guilt by association or extrapolating too much from such affiliations, I have not been able to find anything tangible when searching for Russell Blaylock +christ, so it seems clear that Blaylock himself is at the very least not vocal in his supposed religious fundamentalism. As such, I have removed the material. Unomi (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It just boggles my mind that you can't see that the nature of the school a supposed academic teaches at is relevant to the acacemic. I'm speechless. Seriously. How can you possibly consider this irrelevant?!?!?!?! Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223: you've failed to cite reliable material showing that Blaylock is notable for his Christian Worldview philosophy, thus you're reinserting irrelevant material. Again, the article is about Blaylock, not Belhaven University. Unless you can provide the reliable cites you should remove the material to avoid violation of wp:BLP and wp:NPOV. HarryZilber (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your understanding of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are about as solid as your understanding of WP:3RR. Now how about answering my questions? Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, lets start afresh, what questions do you want answered? Unomi (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Read this conversation topic, search for "?". Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr Please do have the courtesy to collect the ones you still feel are relevant. Unomi (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your friend has left me short on patience. Just read the darn thread. Simonm223 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary style answer to what I gather are your questions, please let me know if I missed anything.

Irrelevance; falls afoul of burden of proof when it comes to inclusion of material. Quite simply I have not seen that his statements seem influenced by such views.

affiliation with belhaven as proof of religious dogmatism; synth, see specifically WP:BLPSTYLE, note that he actually is board certified, note that he does not ascribe anything that I can see to supernatural causes. I found a video of a lecture he gave at Belhaven and there is no reference to anything that relates to religion or nonmaterialistic influence that I could see. Most importantly though, no WP:RS have made such a claim or connection. Unomi (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

None of that speaks to the lack of relevance to the nature of the school at which he teaches. At best they say that we should not provide actual WP:Synth by suggesting that he is a fundamentalist explicitly. Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Again though, proving irrelevance is a mighty challenge, and policy does not really support Shifting the burden of proof as a valid form of argument. Please also see impartial tone note: ``Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized.`` Unomi (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Unomi on this one. Even though I think Blaylock is a pseudoscientist who promotes POV that cause needless deaths of children, the way this is included is based on editorial POV, not third party sources that establish it as notable in this connection. That's SYNTH. You are welcome to make this otherwise legitimate connection on a private website, but without the appropriate third party sources, Wikipedia's rules won't allow it here. If you can't find them, then we should just keep the basic statement with the wikilink and leave out the commentary. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There is no language in the disputed version ridiculing the subject or Belhaven college, and I see no evidence of synthesis; instead, a relatively unknown college is described briefly and informatively, including, per selfpub, Belhaven's own description of itself (see MastCell's edit summary), in much the same way that the 700 Club is described as a television show associated with televangelist Pat Robertson.

There is "inappropriate tone" in the disputed description only if one assumes, as do apparently Unomi and Zilber, that affiliation with a Christian college is shameful or insulting ("guilt by association", writes Unomi). Wikipedia does not make any such assumptions. Editors are welcome to their opinions about faith traditions, but such opinions become obstacles when used as an excuse to exclude valuable context. The editor's job is to relate verifiable information, not pass it through the filter of prejudices. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That was basically my thinking. I think it's a relevant detail of an encyclopedic biography to note that he teaches at a Christian college. I would be fine with just describing it as a "Christian college", as Belhaven is relatively unknown and two words of context are perhaps useful as a sop to the reader. It's a bit mind-boggling to me that this is considered "guilt by association" or "POV" - that's only true if you come in assuming that there is something shameful about being associated with a Christian college. I don't think that, and I don't think we should assume that our readers have that prejudice either.

Then again, I'm not really excited about the current editing atmosphere at this article, and I really don't feel like fighting about something this picayune and ridiculous, so I'm not going to revert at all. MastCell <sup>Talk</sup> 06:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is "inappropriate tone" in the disputed description only if one assumes, as do apparently Unomi and Zilber, that affiliation with a Christian college is shameful or insulting ("guilt by association", writes Unomi). Per this talk thread and edit summaries, this seems precisely the reasoning of Simonm233. My personal opinion is that teaches from a Christian Worldview Curriculum is used to undermine the validity of information taught there and, in this context, the validity of the information or positions held by those who work there.
• exclude valuable context kcaco could you tell me what makes this context valuable? Our article on Belhaven College does not include Christian Worldview Curriculum Unomi (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Gee, you're right, it doesn't say "Christian worldview curriculum". It says that Belhaven "prepares students academically and spiritually to serve Jesus Christ in their careers, in human relationships, and in the world of ideas." What a useful exercise in semantic hair-splitting.

Actually, I could care less whether this article says anything about Belhaven's "worldview". I think it's useful, non-judgmental, and informative to the reader to simply note that it's a "Christian college", and leave the rest to the wikilink. But whatever. MastCell <sup>Talk</sup> 03:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that it is a case of semantic-hair splitting, the wording that was chosen before was a bit more pointy than simply 'Christian college' and it was clear that at least some editors liked the wording for more than 'non-judgemental' reasons. I am fine with 'Christian college/university' if you want to put it in there MastCell. Unomi (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have revised to "Christian", simply (since "historically Presbyterian" doesn't tell us much about the current institution"), and removed "small"; I trust this will be a reasonable compromise based on discussions above. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree to this compromise. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would further note, after reading more about the university and doing some editing of our article, that "historically Presbyterian" was inaccurate since the university considers itself a Presbyterian school and its faculty, students and funding are drawn mostly from three Presbyterian denominations. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

scientists

Blaylock promotes MSG, aspartame and vaccine theories with little or no basis in scientific fact. That a small number of scientists, whether in 1980 or 1991, have made similar claims is of no relevance to this article unless reliable sources specifically connect Blaylock with these scientists. Publications from 20+ years ago do no such thing. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the second paragraph of a paper from 2001 that's been cited over 100 times by other papers: "The neurotoxic properties of glutamate were first demonstrated in 1957 by Lucas and Newhouse,1 who showed that systemic administration of glutamate to infant mice caused retinal degeneration. Over the last 4 decades, a direct correlation between the neuroexcitatory and neurotoxic properties of glutamate has been linked to activation of excitatory amino acid receptors.2, 3, 4, 5 This overactivation leads to an enzymatic cascade of events ultimately resulting in cell death." There is nothing fringe about glutamate being neurotoxic. Physicsjock (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In the paper you are referencing they were giving massive doses to the mice. Blaylock claims that the amounts commonly found in food stuffs is neurotoxic. It's not the same. Besides, the FDA is a much more reliable and verifiable source than a 50-year-old paper. Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH, the article reflects the information in the reliable and verifiable sources we have available. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a neuroscientist with a PhD in Nutrition, and I thought I'd chime in on this. Glutamate is not a neurotoxin per se. It's actually a neurotransmitter. Our brains put it to use. However, glutamate acts as an excitatory neurotransmitter. More glutamate to the brain means more brain activation. Because aspartate (one of the 2 amino acids that make up aspartame) is so chemically similar to glutamate, it activates the same excitatory glutamate receptors. And yes, if you inject ridiculous doses into neural tissue, that tissue will die. That's a no-brainer.

Fortunately, the rate at which glutamate and aspartate enter the brain from the blood is very tightly controlled in humans, and people with normal physiology will never experience the excitatory effects of glutamate or aspartate from their diet. Unfortunately, a few of us aren't very good at regulating how fast the stuff enters the brain. They have abnormal glutamate transport. Those are the people who get migraines or the shakes from food containing MSG or beverages with aspartame. If you don't get headaches, dizziness, or shakiness when you consume these items, you will not experience any harmful effects at all from them. They are naturally occurring amino acids, and the body will metabolize them in exactly the same way we metabolize many grams of amino acids in our diets.

I'm not into taking the time to look up all the cits (I studied this excitatory amino acid stuff in grad school long ago), nor do I think that all of this should go into the article, but those of you who spend so much time editing this one can decide if any of this is worth doing up properly. Or not. I guess I just wanted to say that, like most fringe nutrition or medical theories, there's usually a kernel of truth that's been taken out of context at some point. From a research point of view, Blaylock contributed to developing a new surgical technique (long ago), and has contributed nothing meaningful since. If he's notable for anything other than his neurosurgical innovations, it's for having such an effect on our culture that otherwise sensible people can't stop fighting about him and his potentially harmful fringe claims. Dcs002 (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Blaylocks view, as he states in his book, is that doctors are overly optimistic about the ability of the blood brain barrier to protect the brain from over-exposure to ingested aspartate or glutamate. This, he states, is especially true in children. Also, the issue he talks about in his book mostly is regular use of these substances and their chronic effects at what are considered safe levels. No source other than his book, "Neurotoxins: The Taste That Kills." Futurebeast (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Skeptic's Dictionary

The Skeptic's Dictionary has a page on Blaylock; it's an acceptable parity source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:<sup>simple</sup>/<sub>complex</sub> 13:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Retired?

The original text: "Russell L. Blaylock is a retired neurosurgeon and author..." is subliminal. Insinuates inexperticia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.75.144.221 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it says he's retired, plain and simple. If you must make complaints please stick to English.--Daffydavid (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean. Where say en all Wiki "ex-president" or similar something? He say, but it´s your edited. Think it. Regards

Quoting a summary of a Reliable Source is not synthesis

There are two distinct issues involved. Daffydavid stated: "The way the information reads is OR. We need a reliable source stating that RB stated pesticides are neurotoxic." I responded to that objection by citing Blaylock's own publication, the Blaylock Wellness Report. What a person writes in his own publication is the most RS for what he writes in his own publication. Daffydavid is surely not claiming that an editor of the Blaylock Wellness Report rewrote it to say the opposite of what Blaylock actually wrote. The second issue is whether Blaylock was misrepresenting what scientists have written about a link between pesticides and Parkinson's disease. In addition to the pre-existing van der Mark et al reference "Is pesticide use related to Parkinson's disease?", I cited another reference linking pesticides to Parkinson's disease published in the science journal "Neurology" which qualifies as a RS. This is the same RS that Blaylock cited as his source for the pesticide-Parkinson connection. Mastcell then reverted the whole paragraph, claiming that "This looks like original synthesis; the sources don't support the specific connection being made by the editor" There was no synthesis. Blaylock reported what a scientist wrote and I reported what Blaylock wrote, and cited his source. Greensburger (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source to establish the notability of Blaylock's opinion on this matter and to place it in the context of the literature. What was written and reverted was simply a collection of sources connected by an editor's interpretation, i.e., synthesis. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph to report facts which speak for themselves, without any synthesis.Greensburger (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The way you've juxtaposed the text is clearly inappropriate original synthesis. It reads very strangely as well. MastCell <sup>Talk</sup> 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Vitamin D, fish oil, etc.

Blaylock has stated that several substances can be used to treat influenza. A leading academic critic has specifically addressed Blaylock's claims, stating that there is no evidence for their veracity. That's where we should leave it, without getting into synthesis.

An IP editor has removed the critical quote, saying that the statement is "demonstratively false". There are claims in the literature that vitamin D supplementation is associated with fewer respiratory infections, particularly among children and/or those with deficiencies. However, the authoritative MEDRS (respected secondary sources like the IOM report) note that the evidence is inconsistent at best and that there is no solid basis for a causative role for vitamin D in prevention. The issue of treatment using megadoses (as advocated by Blaylock) goes well beyond the preventive claims. In any case, there is no reason to turn this article into a battleground over the murky vitamin D issue. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh...

I noticed that we're using sources that should be blacklisted, such as from Jeff Rense, Mike Adams and his Natural News, etc., but if the only way to document Blaylock's fringe ideas is to quote his fringe sources, so be it. That's allowed. This situation certainly frames any debate about whether he's a fringe personality! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Mostly my fault, but you got the logic; I had trouble with the (wording of the) claim that Blaylock had made statements "In various alternative media outlets". I couldn't find any third party sources stating such, but was able to find what most of us wouldn't disagree on as being those 'alternative media outlets' as hosting those views, so added those in as primary evidence. There was a little tussle from someone who may not have realized that that was what I was doing, who's now taken the article to AfD..., but in the meantime at least we have verifiable, if not otherwise reliable, sources for the wording in this instance. Fringe? You don't think that Woody Allen is a prophet? ;p (I also edit on 86.6.187.246 when I am not on) 163.1.147.64 (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No problemo! I was more surprised that those sources weren't on our blacklist yet. Even if they had been, in this case an exception could have been made. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This proper revert is a situation where we must tolerate such normally unreliable sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need to tolerate three references when one will suffice, especially when the other two are sources that should be blacklisted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

With no further answer to this, I'm removing them again. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, you are fighting a one sided battle here and your behaviour could be construed as a slow edit war. You have been reverted several times by several different authors. Please discuss this edit here as the consensus at this time is against you. I doubt anyone here is happy with the sources but in this situation we are left with no apparent alternatives until better (hopefully RS) sources are found. --Daffydavid (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has long been that Natural News and Rense are not appropriate sources to use sitewide. In fact, this is the only article using Natural News currently. We have one source for the claim. It's enough. If you have an argument as to why we need to continue using them, I'm open to hearing it, but so far, it hasn't been presented. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The argument is presented clearly above, ignoring it doesn't mean it's not there. If that 1 source you refer to mentions that Blaylock is on several alt sites then I'm good with using just it. If not, then multiple citations are required to indicate the "various" part of the sentence. You can always take this issue to the notice boards. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no argument above. The claim is made that the sources are used to show his views, but we already have a reliable source for that. There's no issue to take to the noticeboards, we simply cannot use bad sources, and your insistence on doing so is baffling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me we have a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. The sources are for validation of the fact that he is published "In various alternative media outlets" not as you are trying to Strawman the argument that the sources are used to show his views. Either provide a suggested change to the sentence so we no longer need these sources or take it to the noticeboards like I already suggested. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Then we can remove that portion of the statement to ensure the claims he's making meet our policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy one way or the other Thargor, either as you have it, a plain statement backed by one source or the contrived sentence but with multiple sources (at least until someone else comments the same). Both are good for me.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Russell Blaylock Post

Copied directly from a helpdesk post, [2] 88.104.31.21 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This post contains a number of factual errors and is obviously written by a critic. I am not opposed to safe vaccines. Many of the items listed as "conspiracy theory" are supported by factual data and not "theory". The medical opinions I give are all supported by scientific researchers accepted scientific literature, and are referenced carefully in my articles. Many of my qualifications to address these various subjects has been omitted. In addition,my published articles (in Pubmed) have been ignored. Many of these articles have been referenced by experts in these various fields. This is obviously a hatchet job by a critic and not an objective presentation. It should either be corrected or removed.

Russell Blaylock, M.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:8400:2EF:F0DD:3249:887D:184E (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The article contained the sentence "Blaylock opposes the use of vaccines." I have added the word "certain" – I hope this change will not be controversial. Maproom (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

is there any evidence that he considers any vaccine "safe"? In fact, no one supports "unsafe" vaccines, so his caveat is meaningless, especially since the medical community considers H1N1 influenza vaccine that he opposes "safe", so he does oppose "safe" vaccines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If we can assume that 2601 is indeed Russell Blaylock, his statement "I am not opposed to safe vaccines" implies that either he does consider safe vaccines to exist, or is a pedantic mathematician. Maproom (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have found several articles (here is one) in which Blaylock states some version of "...the entire vaccine program is based upon nonsense, fear, and concocted fairy tales", and "...most vaccines are contaminated with a number of known and yet-to-be discovered viruses, bacteria, viral fragments, and DNA/RNA fragments." (How he knows about the "yet-to-be discovered" ones is not convincingly explained.) This strongly implies that he opposes all vaccines, not just certain ones. As for his assertion that he is "not opposed to safe vaccines", note that he did not give us any examples of vaccines that he considers "safe". Are there any sources mentioning even a single vaccine (one will do) that he approves of? If not, I vote for returning the sentence to the way it was. DoctorJoeE <sup>review transgressions</sup>/<sub>talk to me!</sub> 23:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not assume or imply.

If reliable sources state that he is "opposed to most vaccines", then say he is opposed to most vaccines.

I see no source saying that the Queen of England supports all sausages - so shall we say she is opposed to all sausages?

Stick to referenced facts. Do not interpret them.

That said, if a reference says that a person is an idiot, feel free to cite it. 88.104.31.21 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the analogy. Where has the Queen expressed any objection to WP's documentation of her sausage preferences? Blaylock has raised the objection reproduced above, and claims that he is "not opposed to safe vaccines". The ball is now in his court as to which vaccines he considers safe. I don't see any indication that he approves of any of them. If he would be good enough to list those vaccines which meet his safety standards, we would certainly document that in the article. We do not, however, alter an article just because its subject tells us to. DoctorJoeE <sup>review transgressions</sup>/<sub>talk to me!</sub> 01:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It doesn't matter what somebody-who-claims-to-be-Russell-Blaylock posts on Wikipedia. All that matters is, what is verifiable in reliable sources. 88.104.17.113 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Normal Variation Is Not a Medical Problem.

Header sez it all.

I arrive here in the course of researching Dr. Blaylock's self-promoting for-pay newsletter and the associated "supplements."

Most, but emphatically not all, of what the guy teaches is true -- but you don't need to pay for it: just read the Internet carefully.

Some of what he says is dangerous: he confuses the dangerous metals lead and mercury with all chemicals of which they may be a part. What he says about flu vaccines is incorrect and dangerous to the public. I believe that it is only possible for a dishonest person to say the things that his spokesman says in promoting his for-pay supplement promotion pamphlet, portentously titled "The Blaylock Report." In a better world this guy would probably be in jail, with a pleasant golf course and no Internet connection, and no doubt only after years of litigation. I wonder whether this is a data-point for a National Institute of Delusional Snake-Oil Salesmen? Perhaps Wikipedia is the best that can be done, all things considered...

There is no doubt that at a sufficiently high dose everything, including water, is poisonous or otherwise harmful. What his spokesman says about aspertame(tm.) is unproven, if not aggressively dishonest and the result of hysterical promotion by ignorant cults.

I already follow some of the advice he gives. I think his smarmy audio-video promotions are probably wise to mix some good advice in with their bad science and their commercial promotion.

DavidLJ (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If someone gives good and bad advice in a freely mixed form, I ignore the hell out of the miseducation effort and find a reliable source for good information. To be honest, if his video I watched seven minutes of, before turning it off in disgust, were to tell me were to find my buttock with both hands, I'd ignore that advice and seek out a reputable medical resource to reassure me as to the location of my buttocks.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Russell Blaylock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091013095327/http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_89221.html to http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_89221.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090915234855/http://blaylockreport.com:80/about_drblaylock.html to http://www.blaylockreport.com/about_drblaylock.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—<sup>cyberbot II</sup><sub>Talk to my owner:Online</sub> 12:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Quack

Russell Blaylock is basically a quack according to skeptic blogs and an anti-vaccine activist [3], [4], [5] "Russel Blaylock – A retired neurosurgeon who became a scam artist. Despite having no experimental foundation for any of his claims, he promotes himself as an expert from vaccination to chemtrails (see Note 1). He charges ($48-$54) for his opinion pieces and sells a supplement called the Brain Repair Formula to exploit money from people who are at risk or have Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. He’s also into cancer quackery." As these are only blogs I will leave them off the article though. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Predictably, Dr. Blaylock also penned an opinion piece for The Northside Sun (a newspaper in Jackson, Mississippi) against the U.S.'s three current COVID-19 vaccines in July 2021 [6] in which he greatly exaggerated the instances of serious injury or death from these vaccines. People like him take all VAERS reports at face value, which is misleading because they are not vetted and include some hoax reports. According to this opinion piece, Blaylock actually believes VAERS suffers from "under-reporting" rather than over-reporting of real adverse events!2600:1000:B159:AD27:571:7E82:20D5:B83F (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)