Talk:Russell Blaylock

where was he a neurosurgeon?

Searching his web sites, I found that in mid-2004 & through at least early February 2005 his Blaylock Report web site said, "Dr. Russell Blaylock is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi." [1] [2]

In early 2005 his web page changed, the word "retired" was added: [3]

However, there is no such institution as the "Medical University of Mississippi." Google finds thousands of references to that institution name, but all of them are about Blaylock.[4]

In the Fall of 2005 or Spring of 2006 the name of the institution from which he retired changed on his web site. The new version of the sentence is, "Dr. Russell Blaylock is a retired Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center." [5]

The University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMC) is a respected institution. However, I've found no evidence of an association between UMC and Dr. Blaylock.

Google site search finds no references to Dr. Blaylock on the UMC web site.

This is the latest UMC faculty list, from their web site. Dr. Blaylock is not listed.

This is the oldest UMC faculty list which exists in the archive.org web archives. It is for Fall, 1998. Dr. Blaylock is not listed.

Neither is he listed in the Fall 1999, Fall 2000, Fall 2001, Fall 2002, Fall 2003, Fall 2004, Fall 2005 or Spring 2006 faculty list.

So where was he?

NCdave 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the "citation needed" tags, Greensburger. I wrote to the department chairman at UMC, asking this question, and noted that he was not listed in the faculty lists. I received this reply:

He [Blaylock] was appointed clinical assistant professor of neurological surgery-non-salaried on July 1,1996 and terminated on February 1,2003. Clinical faculty are not necessarily listed in the medical center faculty directory.

It seems to have taken Dr. Blaylock two full years after he left UMC before he got around to adding the word "retired" to his description of his relationship with UMC, plus another half year before he corrected the name of the institution. Also, it appears that the article's 2004 date for his retirement from neurosurgical practice might be incorrect. However, I have verified the fact that he was actually associated with UMC for six and a half years, so I will remove the "citation needed" for that. NCdave 11:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for researching this. I changed 2004 to 2003 in accordance with your new information. Issue 1 of his Wellness Report was dated July 2004. Greensburger 14:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, his departure from UMC 2/1/2003 doesn't necessarily mean that he ceased his neurosurgical practice on that date. But that's not the sort of medical specialty that can be run from a doctor's office, so if he continued to practice neurosurgery after that date then he must have had privileges at some other hospital, which he doesn't seem to mention anywhere that I've seen.

And clinical assistant professor is no great honor. any experienced board certified specialist will usually be able to get such an appointment. DGG (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Issue 1 of his Blaylock Wellness Report was July, 2004. It is interesting that he didn't start doing his Blaylock Wellness Report until 1.5 years after his position at UMC was terminated, yet he still claimed on the associated blaylockreport.com web site that, "Dr. Russell Blaylock is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi." Note his use of the present tense (as well as the wrong name for the institution). NCdave 16:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I emailed the department chairman at UMC with a follow-up question, asking what "non-salaried" meant, and I got a most surprising reply:

Non-salaried means that the University of Mississippi gave him an honorific title in the hope that he would contribute to our teaching conferences for resident education. He never actually practiced neurosurgery at the university hospital nor did he see patients here. Unfortunately, he did not come to any teaching functions at the university, being quite busy in his business.

In light of the fact that Dr. Blaylock apparently didn't actually do anything at UMC, except use the honorific title, it seems not quite accurate to say that he "served as" clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at UMC. What, if anything, do you think the article should say about that?

It also makes me wonder if his claim to have practiced neurosurgery for 25 or 26 years is true. If he wasn't practicing neurosurgery at UMC, then where was he practicing neurosurgery? You can't do neurosurgery in a doctor's office! What's more, the cost of medical malpractice insurance for a practicing neurosurgeon is astronomical, which makes it almost unheard of for anyone to do that specialty part-time.

Thanks for the link to Dr. Blaylock's email address, Greensburger. I've emailed Dr. Blaylock at that address and one other that I found, asking where he last practiced neurosurgery. If I get an answer, I'll note it here. NCdave 21:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

<-(unindenting)

It seems downright weird to me, and not a little deceptive, that the first/main occupation which he often cites turns out to be something that was just "on paper," a job that he didn't actually do at all. E.g., in 2002 he wrote a little vita which began with this sentence:

"I am a Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi and have a private nutritional practice under the name, Advanced Nutritional Concepts."

That was when he was supposedly practicing neurosurgery, which we now know he wasn't doing at UMC.
And how can he have "retired" from a job that he never did? E.g., in mid-2005 his vita on his blaylockreport.com web site had, as its 2nd sentence:

"Board-certified neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock is a retired Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi."

That is almost the same as the version currently there, except that he corrected the name of the institution:

"Board-certified neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock is a retired Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center."

I've wondered how he could get the name wrong for an institution at which he worked. But, since he never actually worked there, the mistake is understandable. Even so, he obviously wants people to think of him as a neurosurgeon: note the lab coat label in his photo: "Russell Blaylock, M.D. / Neurosurgery." But I wonder how long it has been since he actually practiced neurosurgery? NCdave 11:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

> I've wondered how he could get the name wrong for an institution at which he worked.

He did his internship and residency at the Medical University of South Carolina where the first word in the name is "Medical". Later he got an honorific title from the University of Mississippi Medical Center and he or his secretery shortened it to Medical University of Mississippi, an easily made error because he never worked there. When somebody mentioned the error, he or his secretery corrected it. Greensburger 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like what probably happened. NCdave 14:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

The article says:

Dr. Blaylock serves on the editorial staff of the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association and is the associate editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, official publication of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

However, both the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" and "Journal of the American Neutraceutical Association" are listed as untrustworthy by QuackWatch. So is the "Blaylock Wellness Report." I think the article should note that. Does anyone disagree? NCdave 11:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi dave, you should cross post a note to the reliable sources noticeboard for input about this. The editors there are experienced in deciding waht is and what isn't a reliable source--Cailil ^talk 20:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've done so. NCdave 11:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody has ventured an answer there yet, but I see that QuackWatch is cited elsewhere in Wikipedia. So my tentative guess is "yes," QuackWatch is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. NCdave 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have my answer on the reliable sources noticeboard. The consensus of the only two editors who replied is that QuackWatch "can be used for statements of opinion (as in: 'according to Dr. Stephen Barrett at Quackwatch, "blah blah blah"'), but should not be relied on for statements of fact." NCdave 11:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is odd that Blaylock's CV seems cloudy. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch does not appear to be a reliable source though. This is from a judge's opinion in a case where Barrett sued King Bio Pharmaceuticals where the judge negates any of Dr. Barrett's testimony as an expert witness -

Dr. Barrett's heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. Both witnesses' fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just here for the night (talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that decision? I found a decision in that 2003 case, but it doesn't contain your quote.

Barrett did, indeed, lose the case. But it appears that the case was decided on the basis of a legal principle, not a scientific one. Namely, the Court ruled that suppliers of homeopathic remedies need not demonstrate the efficacy of their products or the truthfulness of their claims about those products. Rather, the Court ruled that in California the burden of proof rests on a plaintiff who charges a homeopathic supplier with false advertising. That decision does not appear relevant to the question of whether Barrett and Quackwatch are reliable sources of information about scientific questions. NCdave (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it is helpful if you sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. NCdave (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch, originally Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud, Inc, took over from the Coordinating Conference on Health Information (CCHI) and the AMA's propaganda department called the Committee on Quackery when it had to disband. So hardly an unbiased source of information. Dr Victor Herbert, Stephen Barrett and William Jarvis are on the Scientific Board of the American Council on Science and Health. Founded in 1978, this organisation is funded solely by the large pharmaceutical and chemical companies, the AMA and industry supported Foundations. john (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

PS More insight re Quackwatch http://www.thenhf.com:80/newsflash_02.htm john (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Licensed to practice medicine? Yes.

Whether a medical care provider is or is not a quack bears on the question of whether that person is or was licensed to practice medicine. The website of the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure does not list Russell Blaylock, but does list Darrell Nolon Blaylock, Greenville, MS. If Russell Blaylock was licensed to practice medicine prior to retirement, then he is not a quack. It would be helpful if the public knew exactly when and in which state he was so licensed. Greensburger 14:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am in receipt of a Sept. 7, 2007 email from the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure, saying:

This is in response to your request for verification of Dr. Blaylock's licensure status in 2004. Dr. Blaylock has been currently licensed in Mississippi since 1999. Dr. Blaylock has no board action to report.

So he is licensed to practice medicine. However, note the 1999 date. His UMC position or title commenced July 1, 1996, which seems to have been at least 2.5 years before he got his Mississippi medical license. Since he didn't actually do anything at UMC, it appears that he was not guilty of practicing medicine at UMC without a license during that 2.5 to 3.5 year period. However, it also appears that he could not have legally practiced medicine anywhere else in Mississippi during that period, either. Assuming that he was living near UMC (in Jackson, Mississippi) when he got the UMC title in 1996, it therefore seems that he could not have been "practicing neurosurgery" during that time (unless he was doing so in another State, which seems unlikely, since Jackson is right in the middle of the State of Mississippi). That appears to falsify his claim to have practiced neurosurgery for 25 or 26 years.

Thus far I have received no reply from him to the email which I sent on Sept. 7, asking where he most recently practiced neurosurgery. If I do then I'll note the answer here. NCdave 12:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Still no answer to my emails. It is clear that he is not going to reply. Were I a gambling man I would give long odds that he never practiced neurosurgery in the State of Mississippi at all. NCdave (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The North Carolina Medical Board web site says Dr. Russell Blaylock was licensed to practice "Neurological Surgery" in North Carolina between May 6, 1977 and December 15, 2006. This is consistent with his published statement that he was a neurosurgeon for 26 years (1977-2003). Apparently he was licensed but inactive for 3 years (2004-2006). Greensburger 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The information from there is, in full--

• Licensee Name Russell Lane Blaylock
• License Status Inactive
• License Number 21534
• License Type MD
• License Subcategory Full and Unrestricted
• Address Russell L. Blaylock,M.D.
• Address PO BOX 2670
• City State Zip Ridgeland MS 39158-2670
• Birthdate 11/5/1945
• License Issue Date 5/6/1977
• License Expire Date 12/15/2006
• Medical School Lsu-New Orleans
• Medical School Graduation Year 1971
• Primary Specialty Neurological Surgery
• Secondary Specialty Nutrition
• Board Actions: No action

This does not mean he was certified by the American Board of Medical Specialists, just that he listed that in his application: In NC (as elsewhere in the US)"except in very unusual circumstances, the medical license grants a physician the privilege of practicing medicine and surgery in all their branches. It does not designate a specialty (such as obstetrics or family medicine). Most physicians select a specialty during their training, however, and most of those achieve certification in a specialty following licensure" [6].

Whether a physician who calls himself as neurosurgeon but is not so certified can be described here as a neurosurgeon without qualifications is a little doubtful to me.DGG (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mysterious Dr. Blaylock Answers His Critics

I was recently told of this site attacking my person and questioning that I was even a practicing physician in the state of Mississippi. I am normally too busy reviewing research articles and preparing lectures to involve myself in such activities. I must say I was amazed at some of the extreme speculations contributed by people who know absolutely nothing about me and have never met me. The writer from Carey, NC who seems to have an abundance of time to speculate about my life, claims to be "obsessed with the facts", yet his dissertations are filled with errors. I called the Mississippi State Licensing Board to see what they would say concerning my license. They quickly told me that I was licensed in the State of Mississippi to practice medicine on 6/11/71, the year I graduated from LSU School of Medicine. I have held this license for 35 years. The reason I had a Mississippi license was because my internship at the Medical University of South Carolina started before the Louisiana boards were to be held. I needed the license sooner. So much for that mystery.

After my internship and residency, I went into a private practice in High Point, NC and did my neurosurgery at High Point Regional Hospital. I practiced neurosurgery full time for 15 years in High Point. I moved from North Carolina and opened a practice with a neurosurgeon, who in fact, was the first neurosurgeon in the state of Mississippi-Dr. Walter Neil. We practiced together for one year and he retired. My practice was in Jackson, Mississippi and yes, I did my neurosurgery (full time) at three hospitals in Jackson - Baptist Hospital, St. Dominics Hospital and River Oaks hospital. Because I was in a solo practice and on call every third night and every third weekend, I had very little spare time. I was appointed as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi some time in the 1990s by the then head of the neurosurgery department, Dr. Robert Smith. Dr Smith has since retired and died. The new department head never knew me and we had no association at all. I knew Dr. Smith quite well.

As for my duties at the University, I did attend conferences when time permitted. I did not take call at the University, if I had I would have never seen my family. I utilized the educational services at the University and referred several patients to the neurosurgery department. As for the name confusion- No real mystery there. I trained at the Medical University of South Carolina and was accustomed to using "Medical" as the predominate first name. Once I realized my error, I changed it. Nothing nefarious there. I never dropped the title, because I assumed it was in effect as long as I held an active license. Many physicians use the title all over the United States. It is not given to just anyone, you have to be a full time practicing neurosurgeon and board certified.

The new head of the department of neurosurgery was inundated with calls from all over the country searching for me. They notified me that they would like me to no longer use the title and I complied. I still use the university's educational services. Most of my time was spent in private neurosurgical practice. I retired from full time practice in the year 2000 and opened a nutritional practice that same year. Nutrition has always been a love of mine and it gave me a chance to see patients with other disorders. I have since quit all practice and devoted all of my time to research, writing and lecturing. I have created the Advanced Nutritional Concepts, LLC as a way to network with other researchers and practitioners throughout the world. There are no paid salaries -it is a free association exchanging ideas. No one belongs to the organization. In fact, I am the sole officer of the entity. As far as my visiting professorship at Belhaven College in Jackson, MS, I was given the appointment by the president of the college. I am paid no salary, but I lecture intermittently to the students and the faculty adviser for the senior biology students' research projects. No, Belhaven college is not Harvard University or Johns Hopkins, but the students are quite bright and the department strong. Our research projects have won many awards in the state's science conferences, many times beating out the University of Mississippi presenters.

I do write a health newsletter, which is based on intensive research reviewed by me and presented to the readers. I do not ask anyone to agree with what I write and if they wish to debate the scientific issues I more than welcome such an exchange. What I do not like is slandering my name and even implying that I never practice neurosurgery in Mississippi. If the writer from Cary, NC, would like to bet that I never practiced in this state, I will wager him $300,000 on the bet. One can easily look in any public library to check on the practice of any physician in the United States. Also, I am listed in the publications by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons during the years of my active practice. I was board certified in Neurosurgery in 1980 and passed the examination the first time, which some neurosurgeons do not. When I took the written boards during my second year of residency, my scores were higher than my chief resident. (we could take the written at that time, but not for credit) It is so easy to confirm one's practice credentials that the statements by the NC writer are ludicrous.

As for my credibility as a neurosurgeon, I have published a number of articles in neurosurgical journals and my co-author in many happens to be one of the most famous neurosurgeons in the world-Dr. Ludwig G. Kempe. We have remained friends all these years. I am quoted in a number of neurosurgical textbooks and co-developed a surgical technique with Dr. Kempe that is still used today to remove deep-seated brain tumors. I worked with Dr. Peter Jennetta when I was a senior medical student and he was the head of the LSU Medical Center Neurosurgery department. He was doing his original research on vascular compression and trigeminal neuralgia and hemifacial spasm. He left LSU and asked me to go with him to the University of Pittsburgh as his first resident in neurosurgery. I decided instead to go to the Medical University of South Carolina.

At the Medical University of South Carolina I worked in one of the nation's first trauma units under the direction of two of the most famous trauma surgeons in the world-Dr. Curtis Arts and Dr. John Moncrief. Dr. Arts became a friend. I was one of the first interns to rotate on the new unit and did two tours. I was also the chief neurology resident for one year during my neurosurgery residency. Since the entire neurology resident staff had quit in protest of the passing over of one of their favorite professors, I ran the department by myself.

As for how long I practiced neurosurgery full time -it was approximately 24 years. My residency was different from most in the US in that we literally ran the service and did all the patient care and most of the surgeries, especially as a Chief Resident and teaching fellow. Many residents who visited our program were amazed that as junior residents we were clipping aneurysms as the primary surgeons.

So, I hope this removes all the mystery concerning Dr. Blaylock. If you want to observe my knowledge concerning what I write about, read my books, papers and attend my lectures. I have written three highly regarded books, written and illustrated chapters in three medial textbooks and published a number of articles in peer-reviewed journals. No, they are not all in the New England Journal of Medicine, but they are carefully researched and later research in more prestigious journals have confirmed many of my hypotheses. As for my editorial position in several journals, no they are not the most prestigious journals, but they are accepted medical journals and are read by medical students and a number of doctors -including full professors in medical centers. It is an honor to be asked to serve on the editorial board of a medical journal. Maybe the person from Cary, NC would like to share with the readers all his credentials and many awards. It's an easy thing to attack someone anonymously, but just what have my critics accomplished? Maybe we should delve into their lives a little deeper. I hope this has answered the burning questions you have concerning the mysterious Dr. Blaylock.

Dave stated that he e-mailed me for answers and then told the lie that I never responded. In fact I responded and informed him that I had practiced in both High Point, NC and Jackson, MS. But, he was never satisfied with the answers. I sent one final e-mail, but he blocked it. A number of attempts also failed. No answer ever satisfied Dave-the drilling, insistent questions kept flowing as if I had nothing better to do. It became obvious that Dave had an agenda. What, I do not know. But, from his comments, I assumed he felt it was his duty as a conservative ideologue to defend the pharmaceutical giants and “orthodox “ medical establishment against the criticism appearing in my newsletter.

There is an old adage that if you cannot answer a man’s arguments, all is not lost –you can still call him vile names. It is the way of an intellectual coward.

Russell L. Blaylock, MD, CCN (the CCN is Certified Clinical Nutritionist for which I took a three hour board examination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.116.70 (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., has answered the misinformation. I notice one of the critics is Quackwatch, the most notorious front group on the Internet. Just read this article: http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_articles/feature_article070.htm For instance the web site will tell you what is bad is really safe like aspartame, an addictive excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic drug which interacts with virtually all drugs, fluoride, a neurotoxin, MSG, an excitotoxin, etc. It's a wonder its allowed to exist since Title 18, Section 1001, states its a crime to stumble the people with full knowledge. I was on their list for awhile to see if I could alert people of the true facts and once they saw that I was posting scientific peer reviewed studies showing the toxicity of aspartame or government records they immediately stopped me from posting. I reported Quackwatch to the Justice Department many times.

To add to what Dr. Blaylock says, you should know he is the most renowned neurosurgeon in the world today on excitotoxins. Dr. John Olney founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity and Dr. Blaylock wrote the book on it: "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills" - www.russellblaylockmd.com I was with him and his wife, Diane, when he received the Integrity in Science award from Weston Price. He is an extraordinary humanitarian. He wrote Excitotoxins because his father died of Parkinson's. Not only can aspartame precipitate it (think of Michael Fox, a former Diet Pepsi spokesmen, who got Parkinson's at age 30), but interacts big time with L-dopa. In fact, the product Parcopa has aspartame in it and the pharmaceutical company refuses to remove it. Aspartame is marketed as NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Canderel, E951, Benevia, etc. The aspartic acid in aspartame is the excitotoxin. He also writes about MSG, another excitotoxin which has a synergistic and additive effect with aspartame.

Dr. Blaylock has exposed dangerous drugs that should be recalled, vaccinations, fluoride, etc. His book "Health & Nutrition Secrets To Save Your Life" in my opinion is the best book on nutrition ever written.

You can see him in the aspartame documentary, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, www.soundandfury.tv

He is an in-demand guest for radio and TV programs, and lectures extensively to both lay audiences and other physicians on a variety of nutrition-related subjects.

Incidentally, about his practice of neurosurgery in Mississippi, Ermelle Martinez was his patient in the summer of 1998 following her diagnosis of multiple sclerosis in January 1998. She had a very large cerebella lesion. Dr. Blaylock told her she had MS like symptoms but because she had been using aspartame there was the chance of this not being real MS and immediately put her on detox. Today she is Mission Possible Los Angeles warning others off this excitoneurotoxin. I remember the day she called and said her large lesion was now gone and Dr. Blaylock was correct. I just called her and asked her if she would like to make a comment and she said: "My visit with Dr. Blaylock was the highlight of my life!" Here is Dr. Blaylock's report on the MS and aspartame connection: http://www.mpwhi.com/new_report_at_neurology_conference.htm Ermelle had to drop out of medical school because of the afflictions triggered by aspartame and would be a physician today if she had never used the product. Dr. Blaylock's many other articles including his athlete alert on sudden cardiac death: http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_msg_scd.htm have saved the lives of thousands.

You can understand why flacks defending industry constantly attack the experts who expose aspartame. I even remember when a flack posing as an FDA employee wrote the webmaster of www.dorway.com, Dave Rietz, and tried to get some of these expert's reports off the web site. I knew who they were and Dave certainly wasn't intimidated and told them what they could do. I then sent the FDA the emails with a little note "friends of yours?". In the end aspartame killed Dave but www.dorway.com remains in his memorial.

Mission Possible International is a global volunteer force with organizations in 38 nations all working free to warn the world off aspartame. You will find Dr. Blaylock's excellent reports on the web sites below my signature. His newsletter is Blaylock Wellness Report which you will find on his web site, www.russellblaylockmd.com He is particularly concerned about aspartame destroying the brains of our children and triggering birth defects such as autism and everyone should see his DVD, Nutrition and Behavior. He also has a CD, "The Truth About Aspartame" that has his detox program, www.atavistik.com

We are grateful for Dr. Blaylock's brilliance, courage and humanitarian efforts to protect the world from this hideous neurotoxin, aspartame, and other poisons.

When I think of deceitful liars who try to harm the reputation of experts, I think of what William Shakespeare called deceit - "Quicksand". Their future is bleak.

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder

Mission Possible International

9270 River Club Parkway

Duluth, Georgia 30097

770 242-2599

www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com and www.wnho.net

Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

Aspartame Information List, www.mpwhi.com scroll down to banners —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.176.93 (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear me. This "Betty Martini" has wayyyyy too much time on her hands. This is the nut job that released that "Nancy Merkle" propaganda article. Her degree is Honorary and she was in the same bed with Preston Bradley Carey (the child molester) who is more or less disowned by the World Natural Health Organization. People have a right to espouse their opinions, but they don't need to use quasi-credible credentials to try and back up what they believe. "Oh my god, its a new world order and the sugar free industry is behind it!" - targeter15

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)

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 ^melmac 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 ^melmac 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 ^melmac 16:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)