Jump to content

Talk:Russell Blaylock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russell Blaylock Post

[edit]

Copied directly from a helpdesk post, [1] 88.104.31.21 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article contained the sentence "Blaylock opposes the use of vaccines." I have added the word "certain" – I hope this change will not be controversial. Maproom (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
is there any evidence that he considers any vaccine "safe"? In fact, no one supports "unsafe" vaccines, so his caveat is meaningless, especially since the medical community considers H1N1 influenza vaccine that he opposes "safe", so he does oppose "safe" vaccines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we can assume that 2601 is indeed Russell Blaylock, his statement "I am not opposed to safe vaccines" implies that either he does consider safe vaccines to exist, or is a pedantic mathematician. Maproom (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found several articles (here is one) in which Blaylock states some version of "...the entire vaccine program is based upon nonsense, fear, and concocted fairy tales", and "...most vaccines are contaminated with a number of known and yet-to-be discovered viruses, bacteria, viral fragments, and DNA/RNA fragments." (How he knows about the "yet-to-be discovered" ones is not convincingly explained.) This strongly implies that he opposes all vaccines, not just certain ones. As for his assertion that he is "not opposed to safe vaccines", note that he did not give us any examples of vaccines that he considers "safe". Are there any sources mentioning even a single vaccine (one will do) that he approves of? If not, I vote for returning the sentence to the way it was. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not assume or imply.
If reliable sources state that he is "opposed to most vaccines", then say he is opposed to most vaccines.
I see no source saying that the Queen of England supports all sausages - so shall we say she is opposed to all sausages?
Stick to referenced facts. Do not interpret them.
That said, if a reference says that a person is an idiot, feel free to cite it. 88.104.31.21 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand the analogy. Where has the Queen expressed any objection to WP's documentation of her sausage preferences? Blaylock has raised the objection reproduced above, and claims that he is "not opposed to safe vaccines". The ball is now in his court as to which vaccines he considers safe. I don't see any indication that he approves of any of them. If he would be good enough to list those vaccines which meet his safety standards, we would certainly document that in the article. We do not, however, alter an article just because its subject tells us to. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. It doesn't matter what somebody-who-claims-to-be-Russell-Blaylock posts on Wikipedia. All that matters is, what is verifiable in reliable sources. 88.104.17.113 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Variation Is Not a Medical Problem.

[edit]

Header sez it all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quack

[edit]

Russell Blaylock is basically a quack according to skeptic blogs and an anti-vaccine activist [2], [3], [4] "Russel Blaylock – A retired neurosurgeon who became a scam artist. Despite having no experimental foundation for any of his claims, he promotes himself as an expert from vaccination to chemtrails (see Note 1). He charges ($48-$54) for his opinion pieces and sells a supplement called the Brain Repair Formula to exploit money from people who are at risk or have Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. He’s also into cancer quackery." As these are only blogs I will leave them off the article though. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably, Dr. Blaylock also penned an opinion piece for The Northside Sun (a newspaper in Jackson, Mississippi) against the U.S.'s three current COVID-19 vaccines in July 2021 [5] in which he greatly exaggerated the instances of serious injury or death from these vaccines. People like him take all VAERS reports at face value, which is misleading because they are not vetted and include some hoax reports. According to this opinion piece, Blaylock actually believes VAERS suffers from "under-reporting" rather than over-reporting of real adverse events!2600:1000:B159:AD27:571:7E82:20D5:B83F (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which is misleading because they are not vetted and include some hoax reports That is not even necessary to make VAERS misleading. If, by coincidence, someone was vaccinated a few days before having a stroke, the case may end up in VAERS although there is no connection between the two events. Only innumerates take VAERS data at face value because they confuse "unlikely" and "impossible". An unlikely event is expected to happen now and then, and since there is a real lot of potential unlikely events, they happen all the time.
But neither American Loons nor Skeptical Raptor can be used as sources in Wikipedia, since they are blogs without editorial overview. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

complete rewrite needed

[edit]

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

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

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

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

I think we should avoid another AFD and should follow WP:Preserve, especially with a view toward treating him and his ideas as fringe. We should remove "unduly self-serving" content and give the due weight and increased prominence deserved to mainstream RS and views. As a fringe topic, WP:Parity applies, so feel free to use skeptical sources and other mainstream opinion sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the self-sourced and unsourced content. valereee (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russell_Blaylock&oldid=1257272381"