Talk:Russell Blaylock/Archive 1

Archive 1

where was he a neurosurgeon?

Searching his web sites, I found that in mid-2004 & through at least early February 2005 hisBlaylock 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.

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 orSpring 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 afterhis position at UMC was terminated, yet he still claimed on the associated[6] 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 [7] 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 hisvita 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 byQuackWatch. 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 areliable 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 areliable 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 founda 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 theMississippi 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" [8].

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 by68.222.116.70 (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 —Precedingunsigned comment added by66.32.176.93 (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

Here's an interesting article on virtual people contributing to debates such as that one:http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11872

Also see astroturfing. Martindo (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Retired or former?

Thoughts? Blaylock himself says "retired". Does anything else support him? If not, since we know that he is no longer a neurosurgeon, it seems that "former" would be the more NPOV, verifiable word. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Belhaven College Biology Faculty source (the one you removed to use the college main site to give the reader the view of the college you wanted, leaving the information floating free of the original source) uses "retired", which source uses "former"?(The editor formerly known as Alf [User:Wiki alf] not logging in)163.1.147.64 (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Belhaven source, as stated several times previously, copies Blaylocks' own website and is not an independent source. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It uses some of the Blaylock biog that appears on Blaylock's own site but is independent of Blaylock and responsible for it's own content. Where is the source for "former"?"?(The editor formerly known as Alf [User:Wiki alf] not logging in)163.1.147.64 (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Belhaven Biology faculty page has the words "He recently retired as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi and now serves as a Visiting Professor in the Department of Biology at Belhaven College." The Blaylock page does not, it says (seperated by bulk of the bio) "He recently retired from both practices to devote full time to nutritional studies and research." and "Presently, he is a visiting professor in the department of biological sciences at Belhaven College in Jackson, Mississippi." So although it does use someof the information, it also includes information that Blaylock's site does not.(The editor formerly known as Alf [User:Wiki alf] not logging in)163.1.147.64 (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything to suggest that he is a former neurosurgeon for any reason other than retirement? Because if there is no indication he was dismissed or something I don't really see why it matters. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I know of no reason and haven't found any such intimation in my searches about this subject, but why use a word that could mean other things when a perfectly valid and cited word exists and "former" can include being sacked and "retired" most definitely doesn't. Using a word that can be read into rather than a cited one which can't doesn't sound very NPOV to me.(The editor formerly known as Alf [User:Wiki alf] not logging in)163.1.147.64(talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Mission Possible has a page on him here -"retired from practice" and "He retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional studies and research. An in-demand guest for radio and TV programs, he lectures extensively to both lay audiences and other physicians on a variety of nutrition-related subjects."(The editor formerly known as Alf [User:Wiki alf] not logging in)86.3.142.2 (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii Tribune-Herald has "retired neurosurgeon, lecturer and author Russell Blaylock".(The editor formerly known as Alf [User:Wiki alf] not logging in)86.3.142.2 (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Weston A Price

I entered further details of Blaylock's writings as found on the fifth annual conference listing of Weston A. Price Foundation's website, which has that he is the author of 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals as well as three chapters in medical textbooks,List of speakers but was reverted as being a primary source by Keepcalmandcarryon, and on reverting his revert, Verbal reverted me saying "go to talk". Since Blaylock's only connection to Weston A Price seems to be an appearance at their fifth conference and WP:PRIMARY says:

Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

As this page does specifically not fit any of the above, the nearest being "historical documents such as diaries" and does not offer "an inside view" anyway, the policy allowing use with care being there anyway and there is certainly no interpretation involved, I do not understand the labelling of it as a "primary source", it seems to me to be, like the radio show host, lecturer and newsletter editor removals, an excuse to minimise any aspect of Blaylock's notability.(The editor formerly known as Alf [User:Wiki alf] not logging in)163.1.147.64 (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a primary and unreliable source to me, from a quick glance. Why aren't you logging in? Verbalchat 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this information really that important to add? Any academic will have published many articles in peer-reviewed journals in their field and the notable articles Blaylock has written are already included in the article. Given Blaylocks relationship to varies fringe theories and the subsequent drama that has taken place on this wiki article, adding the specific number of articles he is written may be WP:UNDUE per WP:FRINGE. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, It does not look like a primary and unreliable source to me, but I'm happy for both sources supporting that information to be taken to the WP:RS noticeboard. Why I am not logging in is irrelevant.163.1.147.64 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not assume anything of any subject, regardless of the nature of the article subject. Without it one wonders if he has written any peer-reviewed works, particularly as the preferred version of the editors who recommended deletion described him as "a neurosurgeon who writes" rather than calling him an author. It took a number of goes to get the lead to say he's a "neurosurgeon and author" rather than someone who writes. It would seem reasonable to give an number value to his writings in a section about his publications when they are available, why would this be undue weight? I am not aware of any reliable source that demonstrates, discusses or otherwise labels Blaylock as having "a relationship to varies fringe theories", all of the sources that give the FRINGE kickback do not mention him at all, one has to read his view, then the "scientific consensus" to be able to determine that, and when one does, one sees that is not a 100% match between what is said to be countering his views and what is said to be his views. I do not feel there is any 'drama', despite having two reports made on myself, one at as sockpuppeteering and the other for edit warring, neither of which are true. I would also say, that should the addition of the words "of 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals as well as three chapters in medical textbooks" be found to be undue, that the Belhaven descriptor of "a small, (historically Presbyterian-affiliated) Christian college in Mississippi that teaches "from a Christian Worldview Curriculum"" is also undue.(The editor formerly known as Alf [User:Wiki alf] not logging in)163.1.147.64 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Again I am reverted despite there now being two sources that support "author of 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals as well as three chapters in medical textbooks" what is the problem with that? Why does the lead not have lecturer, radio show guest and newsletter editor anymore like it used to? It seems to me that any aspect of the subjects notability is being resisted with whatever reason can be found.163.1.147.64 (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

VoiceofReason01 I am not sure that the notable articles Blaylock has written are already included in the article, the easily found positions were added, then Keepcalmandcarryon gave more detail and then FRINGE kickback, I genuinely do not know if they are his most notable works, and I'm not sure that any source have decided what they might be. I would think that his bookExitoxins that is frequently found in searches is likely that and that is listed but not discussed, whereas the viewpoints he makes in print and over the airwaves are, but the amount of appearances of both downplayed (and/or removed depending on which version one looks at).163.1.147.64 (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I have stress that it is important that if you are a registered user that you should be logged in for all your contributions. Not only does this provide a solid and complete history of an editor's contributions but it also helps to prevent the appearence of Sockpuppeting, since you apperently have already been accused of this it is even more important that you are logged in for all of your contributions especially on controversial subjects. There are very few legitimate reasons for a registered user to be posting while not logged in, it makes it difficult to assume good faith.

As for the Fringe comment, Blaylock is well known for his views on vaccinations and MSG, views not supported by scientific concensus; as well as some general health and nutrition advice that I personally consider suspect. These controversial views are what make him notable, we have to be careful that information in this article is about Blaylock, not his various viewpoints perWP:BIO. There has also been some problems with nNPOV stuff being added both in favor and against Blaylock, we need to be careful to aviod this as well.Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the importance people give to registered users logging in, but disagree that any perception of sockpuppetry should be thought of unless a solid case of avoiding scrutiny is forthcoming, which is blatantly obviously not the case when I am prepared to let anyone see where this editor is editing from, and I am editing from two ip addresses only. I may give up my named account permanently, or continue with the non-use, or do like User:Bubba hotep, the admin who made a comment on my talk page and left thereafter, asking to have his bit removed whilst being secure in resuming it if he wishes, while he may edit as an ip editor, or I may resume the (admin enabled) account, I don't know yet. I am not conducting a breaching experiment or anything counter to the genuine improvement of Wikipedia according to it's Five pillars(most particularly the second pillar). You can take me on my word for that, or as others have appeared to do, think that I have a vast array of devices for my apparent bloody mindedness on getting a fair picture of the sources and highlighting improper use of words and phrases taken from sources, but I do not. I am unaware of any policy that requires me to log in and would like to be informed if one does.

I was just reviewing the usage of the phrase involving Blaylock's "advice on what he feels an individual should do if faced with mandatory vaccination" and comparing it to the information on the CFP site used to source it (here) and although he gives a what one can do if vaccinated with the relevant vaccine (listified), nowhere does he actually say what the public, or anyone for that matter, should "do if faced with mandatory vaccination", check that for yourself in case my two read-overs missed it somehow.

Unfortunately, and I have checked, I can't anywhere where anyone says 'Blaylock's controversial views' to attest to this particular notability, which is why I felt any notability better demonstrated by PROF 7 in the AfD. I agree that we should be careful on balancing it and would not mind going backwards in some respects, as the nannying of the 'not the official view' stuff is of no benefit to a biography. For a number of versions, before the particulars of the views were added, the article just noted he had views on such and suchas in this previous version) (and here is where it's unfortunate not to be able quote 'controversial views') and left it at that, it pretty much said 'his position on aspartame and MSG has been quoted n times in blah media' and I agree with you that the article should be about him and not his views, how we can arrive there I don't know. Tefka Alf86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Undue

Strange how a primary source is outrageous if it supports "numerous journals" or "over 100 radio shows" but is fine if it cherry picks viewpoints those tinfoil ones (now with added strawman). I think of the recent additions from a truly primary source, the view he had of Med School and the books he read are useful - for the biography section, but otherwise, his random views, particularly those he self published are not otherwise like his views on h1n1 vaccine, msg, aspartame, which have had reasonable coverage.86.3.142.2(talk) 08:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

i started the section on politics. i do tend to bang on a bit and write too much.. i agree it is currently 'overweighted' in the article as the article is rather short, and doesnt go into much detail about his medical accomplishments and research. i would have no problem in shrinking the whole politics section into three or four sentences. those interested can read the referenced articles. but i must say that i would be very confused if the article did not mention politics at all. political ideas are obviously very important in Dr Blaylocks life and are very important to the group AAPS which he appears to be very involved with. Decora (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a political rant I heard him going on about when I first heard him on the radio so I won't disagree that it's important in his life. It's that those particular views don't seem to be as reported as his views on MSG, aspartame. The flu vaccine section is like this, I agree, he has said so in many areas, the sources however are not forthcoming in either saying so or being there to demonstrate.

I would rather the view that Blaylock had of his alma mater and the books he read there be added to the biography section. Like Voiceofreason01 said above, we need to make sure that this is an biography and not a viewpoints article, particularly if the viewpoints are not clearly demonstrable as being important or been give given some currency like his views of MSG etc.(Alf)86.3.142.2 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A primary source, even a self-published source, is indeed reliable in establishing the views of the author. But not for much else. Also, there's no need to add a fact tag to "various media outlets". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's picking and choosing what you allow the subject to say then. The views on aspartame and MSG are clearly widespread but the political views aren't given as much coverage as his views on health and is therefore undue. The various media being what? The one source doesn't state the view being covered in various media, one report does not make "various media outlets". Unless it's demonstrated somehow, it's a non-sourced opinion, which cannot be verified without indulging in OR.86.3.142.2 (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the IP, and agree with the named editors above that this is well sourced and not undue. Verbalchat 09:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you agree with Decora saying "i agree it is currently 'overweighted'" who was the original contributor of the information.163.1.147.64(talk) 09:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

He is talking about verbosity. Please suggest changes here. Verbal chat 09:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the source of all the political views are one piece in one medical journal I don't think they're notable at all, but in due deference to those that believe the one source is adequate to portray what they believe is a notable aspect (which I very strongly contest), I left some of the lines in. I moved a section to his history which is where I said (and wasn't disgareed with) that it better fitted. The lead included patent falsities which I also corrected, also addressed on this talk page.163.1.147.64(talk) 10:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent removal of notability tag, large edits

I see no support for the recent large edit by an IP, hence I have reverted awaiting discussion.Verbal chat

I see no reason for your wholesale revert. All the points I addressed in the edit are above and unanswered.163.1.147.64 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Silence in this case clearly does not imply consent. You have not addressed the points. Please use your account. Verbal chat 09:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor who added all the polictical views agreed it was too much. Silence is agreement if valid points are raised and no counter argument is made. I have addressed the points. The article was not NPOV, free of UNDUE or represented the sources in a fair and neutral way, your reversion adds back all that made it a hit piece. I spent two hours making the change this morning, you have expended no time and no effort in improving this article.163.1.147.64 (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

People have objected, but you have continued arguing. In that case silence does not imply consent, especially if you are immediately reverted. Please suggest changes on this page. FollowWP:BRD. Verbalchat 09:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

People have objected to me insisting that the sources are being misquoted, misrepresented and abused, yes. That's because they are. No policy or guidance based reasons have been made to counter my attempts to ensure a fair piece per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP. I have made a decent improvement to the article per all relevant guidelines, your revert includes back gross errors and hit-piece writing.163.1.147.64 (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

{undent} I agree the current version of the page is not perfect but neither is your revision. The current version is not a "hit piece" and that accusation borders on disruption. I like some of the changes you made, but they are being disputed.

You boldly changed the article, that's good; your changes were reverted, that's ok, now we discuss that changes, DO NOT EDIT WAR That's bad. I am reverting to the old version since the significant changes made here are being disputed, please observe the 3RR and remain WP:CIVILand we will discuss to build consensus on further changes to the article.Voiceofreason01 (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you like some of the changes then you should make a partial revert. The current is false "He charges that certain food additives such as aspartame and MSG are toxic and that the H1N1 influenza vaccine is more dangerous than the viral infection itself. These positions are not consistent with current scientific consensus." is not what the guy is best known for, I found two (admitedly not very good) references that state what he is best known for and changed the lead, do you disagree with that?163.1.147.64 (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Most the best sources currently included in the article discuss his views on MSG and aspartamine, particularly MSG. I don't see anything wrong with the lead. As for H1N1, it's timely and will continue to be for the foreseeable future and he has been making noise over it for a while. I see no problem with its inclusion. I agree that the "Views of Politics" section should be toned down, but the information cited comes from editorials Blaylock himself has written, it is undeniably his opinion, he wrote it then published it; gutting the section is not the answer.

To be frank, Blaylock is a fringe scientist, he is better known as a guru than a legitimate physician, and an appropriately weighted article that includes his most vocal opinions is probably going portray him as such, at least to some degree, we do not whitewash a persons biography to exlude material we consider to be unflattering. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't know if he is or he isn't "a fringe scientist" and I take no-one's word for it and you can't find a single source to say so and neither can anyone else. Only various people's OR say he is a fringe scientist. Recentism has a whole guideline to itself. But anyways I give up, the article as is, is biased, misrepresents his views, adds unwarranted epithets and is unacceptable but I give up. Do what you want with it, I care no longer.163.1.147.64 (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please use your account, that you have recently misleadingly marked as "retired". I dispute all your changes, especially as you admit the sources are poor. Please justify them individually here. Verbalchat 13:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No I have retired my admin account and wish to only edit as IP. I am in the process of writing up the changes.163.1.147.64 (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please post a list of all IPs you have used on your account page, and link back to this from every IP you use. As I have no idea how to contact you I'm having to post this here. Your use of multiple IPs is misleading. Verbal chat 13:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I will now not post any individual rationales for the section because as I was typing them up, had to jump form one to the other because of edit conflicts here, I lost them all. I have said numerous times now that I am using two machines, easy to find. I will now no longer spend any more time working on Wikipedia, on this article or any other as your posse will undo any good that I do. Have your Wikipedia, fill it with your misquotes, omit of pertinent facts, blacken names that challenge your cult-like religion of "scientific consensus" - I like others who have told you your edits stink am going to not give a fuck anymore - per the edit summary on my old account's talk page when putting up the retired notice today.163.1.147.64(talk) 14:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This editor has used at least three IPs and at least one account, User:Wiki alf, during the past six six months. I suspect there could be more going on, but I would need a large checkuser request and that's quite frankly not a good use of anyone's time unless the sock puppeteer further expands the disruptive editing and personal attacks.Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Used two machines only, home and work, I've said it enough times now. Logged in on the day I voted at AD. I have no sock army - you just have your meat puppet posse to keep you half-truths, misquotes, and misrepresentations in the encyclopedia. Do what check you like. You are the one damaging Wikipedia. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 86.3.142.2(talk) 07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Abstract

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

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

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

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

"Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

Notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FRINGE (+break for easier editing)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The perspective your edits have added have not been neutral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

CV Gaps

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

Lead and body

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

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

Vaccination

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

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

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

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

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

Political Views

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

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

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

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

MSG split from sweeteners as separate sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accuracy in Countering his Ideas

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

These positions are not supported by scientific consensus or regulatory bodies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why he's notable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Blaylock has developed several ideas about healthcare that are not consistent with mainstream thinking, including that food additives such as aspartame and monosodium glutamate (MSG) are, in normal doses, excitotoxic and can lead to neurotoxicity, ..." [9]

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

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

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

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

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

H1N1 vaccine is both safe and effective? Edit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ever heard of narcolepsy, "doctor"?

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

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

Quality of Academic Credentials

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

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

Belhaven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

scientists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skeptic's Dictionary

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

Retired?

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

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

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

Quoting a summary of a Reliable Source is not synthesis

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

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

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

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

Vitamin D, fish oil, etc.

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

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

Sigh...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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