Talk:Russell Blaylock: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:58, 22 May 2022 editValereee (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators84,130 edits OneClickArchiver archived Accuracy in Countering his Ideas to Talk:Russell Blaylock/Archive 1 ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:28, 14 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,904,432 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(22 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talk header}}		{{talk header}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes\|class=Start\|listas=Blaylock, Russell\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|blp=yes\|
	{{WikiProject Biography		{{WikiProject Biography\|s&a-priority=Low\|needs-photo=yes\|s&a-work-group=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
	\|living=yes
			{{WikiProject Conservatism\|importance=Low}}
	\|class=start
			{{WikiProject Alternative views\|importance=Low}}
	\|s&a-priority=Low
			{{WikiProject Skepticism \|importance=Low}}
	\|needs-photo=yes
	\|s&a-work-group=yes
	\|listas=Blaylock, Russell}}
	{{WikiProject Alternative medicine\|class=Start\|image-needed=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Conservatism\|class=Start}}
	}}		}}
	{{Old AfD multi\| date = 29 September 2009 (UTC) \| result = '''no consensus''' \| page = Russell Blaylock \|date2 = 7 November 2013 (UTC) \| result2 = '''keep''' \| page2 = Russell Blaylock (2nd nomination)}}		{{Old AfD multi\| date = 29 September 2009 (UTC) \| result = '''no consensus''' \| page = Russell Blaylock \|date2 = 7 November 2013 (UTC) \| result2 = '''keep''' \| page2 = Russell Blaylock (2nd nomination)}}
	{{Image requested\|scientists and academics\|people in health professions}}		{{Image requested\|scientists and academics\|people in health professions}}

	== 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., ]), 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 ] and ], 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 ] view the public as an unknown mass of people who might be "easily misled".

	The page on ], 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
	::Googling for "transcallosal-transventricular" and Blaylock shows a number of cites. It could be the technique in question. ] (]) 23:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
	::Indeed, google books search for "kempe blaylock" indicates attribution for the novel approach. ] (]) 23:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
	:: ] (]) 23:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::The case report referenced by ] 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. ] (]) 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".'' is relevant to an article on Blaylock? ] (]) 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' , and full name association . ] (]) 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 following the above discussion, though I 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. - ] <small>(])</small> 19:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::: Thank you, I support your change regarding internal linking. ] (]) 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 ], 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. -- ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 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 ] and ] 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. -- ] (]) 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 ] and ] are not ]s, I don't believe any researchers dispute that the components they break down to when ingested in fact are. ] (]) 01:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::: I don't see that the lead states that, but it could be written much better. ], 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 ]. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

	::The lead currently says that ] 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.] (]) 08:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

	:::It's not that ] is ], it's Blaylocks claims that aspartame and MSG are excitoxic that is fringe. ] (]) 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?] (]) 15:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

	::::PS: from ''The Annals of Pharmacotherapy'': Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 702-706. DOI 10.1345/aph.10254 (found via googlescholar - ) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:::::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 Misplaced Pages is not a ] and the ] article cites Blaylock as a source so it may not be the best source of information to refute what this article says. From ]: "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 ]. The claim in the lede has been discussed and consensus is that it is not ] as his claims have been evaluated and rejected by the scientific community. I hope this helps clear up the issue for you. ] (]) 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.] (]) 15:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

	:::::::: The argument that ] and ] require that a source specifically mention a subject as ] is not an uncommon one, but it is not an argument ] by ]. Please review the guidelines I have posted here, as I mentioned this subject has been extensively discussed on this page and 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.] (]) 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 ] 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. (] (]) 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". ] (]) 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

	:::::::::::: I have tried to 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. -- ] (]) 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.] (]) 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? -- ] (]) 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.] (]) 09:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

	::::::::::::::::: You're welcome. -- ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 18:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

	: My apologies...I was going for concision and would not object to your "in normal doses". ] (]) 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 ] and ] (MSG) are ] ..."

	::* "Blaylock has developed several ideas about healthcare that are not consistent with mainstream thinking, including that food additives such as ] and ] (MSG) are, in normal doses, ] and can lead to ], ..."

	:: 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" (). (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. -- ] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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? -- ] (]) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

	:::::: Okay, let's try that. -- ] (]) 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". ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
	:: Please see ] - 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 ] or ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 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.
	--] (]) 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! ] ]/] 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.] (]) 08:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

	Ever heard of narcolepsy, "doctor"?

	Which studies show that this vaccine is safe? That it is useful?
	--] (]) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
	:This is ], keep the conversation on topic about the article.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
	:Sorry? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::::I have not violated ] 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? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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?!?!?!?! ] (]) 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 ] and ]. ] (]) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


	:I think your understanding of ] and ] are about as solid as your understanding of ]. Now how about answering my questions? ] (]) 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
	::Ok, lets start afresh, what questions do you want answered? ] (]) 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::'''Read this conversation topic, search for "?".''' ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::tl;dr Please do have the courtesy to collect the ones you still feel are relevant. ] (]) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Your friend has left me short on patience. Just read the darn thread. ] (]) 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 ], note that he actually is board certified, note that he does not ascribe anything that I can see to supernatural causes. I found 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 ] have made such a claim or connection. ] (]) 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 ] by suggesting that he is a fundamentalist explicitly. ] (]) 21:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)''

	: Again though, ''proving'' irrelevance is a mighty challenge, and policy does not really support ] as a valid form of argument. Please also see ] 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.`` ] (]) 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, Misplaced Pages'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. -- ] (]) 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). Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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.<p>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. ''']''' <sup>]</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 ] does not include ''Christian Worldview Curriculum'' ] (]) 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.<p>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. ''']''' <sup>]</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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

	::::::I would agree to this compromise. ] (]) 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::I would further note, after reading more about the university and doing some editing of ], 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
	: Here is the second paragraph of a 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'''. ] (]) 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. Misplaced Pages is not about ], the article reflects the information in the reliable and verifiable sources we have available. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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." ] (]) 16:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

	== Skeptic's Dictionary ==

	] has a on Blaylock; it's an acceptable ] source. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 13:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

	== Retired? ==

	The original text: "Russell L. Blaylock is a retired neurosurgeon and author..." is subliminal. Insinuates inexperticia. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:No, it says he's retired, plain and simple. If you must make complaints please stick to English.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
	::I rewrote the paragraph to report facts which speak for themselves, without any synthesis.] (]) 15:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::The way you've juxtaposed the text is clearly ]. It reads very strangely as well. ''']''' <sup>]</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 ] (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. ] (]) 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! -- ] (]) 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 ]? ;p (I also edit on 86.6.187.246 when I am not on) ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 04:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	is a situation where we must tolerate such normally unreliable sources. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	:With no further answer to this, I'm removing them again. ] (]) 13:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

	::], 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Seems to me we have a case of ]. The sources are for validation of the fact that he is published "In various alternative media outlets" not as you are trying to ] 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 04:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

	== Russell Blaylock Post ==		== Russell Blaylock Post ==
Line 266:		Line 24:
	:::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. ] (]) 23:15, 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. ] (]) 23:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

	::::I have found several articles () 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. ] ]/] 23:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)		::::I have found several articles () 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. ] ]/] 23:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

	::::Do not assume or imply.		::::Do not assume or imply.
Line 274:		Line 32:
	::::That said, if a reference says that a person is an idiot, feel free to cite it. ] (]) 05:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)		::::That said, if a reference says that a person is an idiot, feel free to cite it. ] (]) 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. ] ]/] 01:38, 17 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. ] ]/] 01:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Absolutely not. It doesn't matter what somebody-who-claims-to-be-Russell-Blaylock posts on Misplaced Pages. All that matters is, what is ] in ]. ] (]) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)		::::::Absolutely not. It doesn't matter what somebody-who-claims-to-be-Russell-Blaylock posts on Misplaced Pages. All that matters is, what is ] in ]. ] (]) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Line 315:		Line 73:
	Russell Blaylock is basically a quack according to skeptic blogs and an anti-vaccine activist , , "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. ] (]) 16:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)		Russell Blaylock is basically a quack according to skeptic blogs and an anti-vaccine activist , , "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. ] (]) 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 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!] (]) 03:02, 17 January 2022 (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 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!] (]) 03:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
			:::{{tq\|which is misleading because they are not vetted and include some hoax reports}} That is not even necessary to make VAERS misleading. If, by coincidence, someone was vaccinated a few days before having a stroke, the case may end up in VAERS although there is no connection between the two events. Only ] take VAERS data at face value because they confuse "unlikely" and "impossible". An unlikely event is expected to happen now and then, and since there is a real lot of potential unlikely events, they happen all the time.
			:::But neither American Loons nor Skeptical Raptor can be used as sources in Misplaced Pages, since they are blogs without editorial overview. --] (]) 17:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

	== complete rewrite needed ==		== complete rewrite needed ==
Line 320:		Line 80:
	I'm loathe to AfD this since it's already survived two, but honestly there is ONE source currently provided that seems to go toward supporting notability, this: {{cite news\|url=http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=09b61c39-7287-4c58-a041-86c9c24799af&p=1\|title=it's all a plot to anti-vaccination conspiracy nuts\|newspaper=Montreal Gazette\|date=8 November 2009\|first=Joe\|last=Schwarcz\|access-date=12 June 2013\|archive-date=16 January 2014\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140116100429/http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=09b61c39-7287-4c58-a041-86c9c24799af&p=1\|url-status=live}}		I'm loathe to AfD this since it's already survived two, but honestly there is ONE source currently provided that seems to go toward supporting notability, this: {{cite news\|url=http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=09b61c39-7287-4c58-a041-86c9c24799af&p=1\|title=it's all a plot to anti-vaccination conspiracy nuts\|newspaper=Montreal Gazette\|date=8 November 2009\|first=Joe\|last=Schwarcz\|access-date=12 June 2013\|archive-date=16 January 2014\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140116100429/http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=09b61c39-7287-4c58-a041-86c9c24799af&p=1\|url-status=live}}

	I've found a second: {{cite\|url=https://theoutline.com/post/1183/the-quack-behind-the-msg-scare-is-still-stoking-fear-for-profit\|title=The quack behind the MSG scare is still stoking fear for profit\|date=5 March 2017}}.		I've found a second: {{cite\|url=https://theoutline.com/post/1183/the-quack-behind-the-msg-scare-is-still-stoking-fear-for-profit\|title=The quack behind the MSG scare is still stoking fear for profit\|date=5 March 2017}}. Not sure who The Outline is, but they seem to have editorial oversight.

	Other than that it seems to be simple name checks, sourcing to his own work, simple citations of his work in the other pieces, and most of what I found on a google search is just opinion pieces by him. Where is the sigcov in RS?		Other than that it seems to be simple name checks, sourcing to his own work, simple citations of his work in the other pieces, and most of what I found on a google search is just opinion pieces by him. Where is the sigcov in RS?

	If we don't have the stomach to just delete this, I think we need to strip it down to what's actually been said about him plus noncontroversial bio details. ] (]) 15:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)		If we don't have the stomach to just delete this, I think we need to strip it down to what's actually been said about him plus noncontroversial bio details. I'll circle back to give folks a chance to respond. ] (]) 15:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
			: I think we should avoid another AFD and should follow ], especially with a view toward treating him and his ideas as fringe. We should remove "unduly self-serving" content and give the due weight and increased prominence deserved to mainstream RS and views. As a fringe topic, ] applies, so feel free to use skeptical sources and other mainstream opinion sources. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 16:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
			::I've removed the self-sourced and unsourced content. ] (]) 13:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:28, 14 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russell Blaylock article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 7 November 2013 (UTC), see discussion.
no consensus, 29 September 2009 (UTC), see discussion.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Russell Blaylock be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Russell Blaylock Post

Copied directly from a helpdesk post, 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 /_{talk to me!} 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 /_{talk to me!} 01:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It doesn't matter what somebody-who-claims-to-be-Russell-Blaylock posts on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Quack

Russell Blaylock is basically a quack according to skeptic blogs and an anti-vaccine activist , , "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 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)

which is misleading because they are not vetted and include some hoax reports That is not even necessary to make VAERS misleading. If, by coincidence, someone was vaccinated a few days before having a stroke, the case may end up in VAERS although there is no connection between the two events. Only innumerates take VAERS data at face value because they confuse "unlikely" and "impossible". An unlikely event is expected to happen now and then, and since there is a real lot of potential unlikely events, they happen all the time.

But neither American Loons nor Skeptical Raptor can be used as sources in Misplaced Pages, since they are blogs without editorial overview. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

complete rewrite needed

I'm loathe to AfD this since it's already survived two, but honestly there is ONE source currently provided that seems to go toward supporting notability, this: Schwarcz, Joe (8 November 2009). "it's all a plot to anti-vaccination conspiracy nuts". Montreal Gazette. Archived from the original on 16 January 2014. Retrieved 12 June 2013.

I've found a second: The quack behind the MSG scare is still stoking fear for profit, 5 March 2017. Not sure who The Outline is, but they seem to have editorial oversight.

Other than that it seems to be simple name checks, sourcing to his own work, simple citations of his work in the other pieces, and most of what I found on a google search is just opinion pieces by him. Where is the sigcov in RS?

If we don't have the stomach to just delete this, I think we need to strip it down to what's actually been said about him plus noncontroversial bio details. I'll circle back to give folks a chance to respond. valereee (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we should avoid another AFD and should follow WP:Preserve, especially with a view toward treating him and his ideas as fringe. We should remove "unduly self-serving" content and give the due weight and increased prominence deserved to mainstream RS and views. As a fringe topic, WP:Parity applies, so feel free to use skeptical sources and other mainstream opinion sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the self-sourced and unsourced content. valereee (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Categories: