Mainely Tipping Points 48: July 2, 2013
Is Dr. Russell Blaylock a Quack?
Wikipedia says Dr. Blaylock is a quack because he does not follow “science based medicine.”
On the basis of a Wiki page, which is anonymously written, a Facebook page on my news feed discussing Dr. Blaylock was removed by a FB friend yesterday without allowing the benign discussion taking place to go forward to its conclusion—which amounts to silencing and censorship, which means a refusal to dig deeper into the issue at hand to see what science actually says, which means a policing of the status quo, which means fear is present.
Science based medicine…
Well, that’s something I’ve been researching and writing about for the past five years or so. And, living, since my husband fell into the hands of “science-based” medicine practices during a time when the oversight boards for prostate cancer were saying that doing nothing was the best course to take since the treatments did not affect the outcome. I will go to my grave believing that the treatments did affect the outcome in that they hastened John’s death. How could they not since they assaulted his body in countless ways. It never had a chance.
I am sympathetic with our local doctors, most of whom are caring people who wanted to make a difference for John. The problem is that their tool box did not contain what John needed, so they just recommended the tools they had, regardless of the shift in the science. These doctors built their careers on these tools—such a shift threatened their ability to support themselves. That’s a grave place to be in.
What do we know about Dr. Russell Blaylock?
His own web site details his medical credentials (http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/). I do not doubt them since they would have long since been debunked if he were not telling the truth. You can go there for the whole list of his medical credentials.
The pertinent information is that Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon who practiced for 25 years before he retired. He worked with the eminent neurosurgeon Dr. Ludwig Kempe. Together they developed the transcallosal removal of intraventricular tumors, which he claims is still used today, and the ventriculolymphatic shunt in treatment of hydrocephalus. Their personal relationship continues to this day.
A turning point for Dr. Blaylock came when he started using “high-intensity nutritional supplementation in craniocerebral trauma patients” which “met with great success.” Eventually, Blaylock retired in order to spend more time studying and researching nutrition and healing with nutrition.
In that regard Blaylock is part of the current and growing movement which seeks to understand the connections between foods and human health. Some stars in this arena are Dr. Mary Enig (fats), Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride (GAPS), Dr. Joseph Mercola (amazing general blog), Dr. Kaayla T. Daniels (soy), Dr. William Davis (WHEAT BELLY), Dr. Chris Masterjohn (vitamins A, D, and K), Michael Pollen, Sally Fallon Morell, all the scientists now working on the integrity of the gut and gut health and its connections to behavior, and so forth. Blaylock’s work in this arena led to The Weston A. Price Foundation giving him their Integrity in Science Award in 2004.
Blaylock is a member of the International and American Associations of Clinical Nutritionists, the American College of Nutrition, the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, and many other health-related organizations. (Pottenger did the famous cat studies involving the generational effects of malnutrition.)
Dr. Blaylock is on the editorial staffs of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and of the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association. He is on the board of Fluoride. He is, or was if he’s retired from there, a visiting professor in the department of biological sciences at Belhaven College in Jackson, Mississippi—a conservative Christian college for those of you who think you are dealing with a liberal.
His web site lists his publications and his three books—the first being EXCITOTOXINS: THE TASTE THAT KILLS. (Aspartame is an excitotoxin.) It makes sense to me that Blaylock’s interest in the impact of excitotoxins on the brain lines up with the fact that he was a practicing neurosurgeon.
Is this a “star” resume?
I do not know, medically speaking. It is the resume of a working neurosurgeon of twenty-five years who got interested in the relationship of healing and food nutrition and acted on it. It is the resume of someone who went on to study nutrition, to put himself in the nutritional arena with his associations, and to write about nutrition.
So, where does he begin to fall afoul of the Wiki author of his page? The following list lies at the juncture of where many folks are asking “where’s the science?”—vaccines, aspartame, mercury in dental amalgams, fluoride, and aluminum cookware.
Which takes us back to “science-based” medicine…
Vaccines: Would it surprise you to know that there have been NO LONG TERM gold-standard studies on the efficacy of vaccines? That renders all we “know” about vaccines in the correlation camp. There is not solid cause and effect scientific data in this country. None. Period.
Would it surprise you to know that many scientists are now thinking that smallpox was tamed by sanitation and that polio may have been caused by DDT?
Would it surprise you to know that there is a government organization that pays off parents of children who have been harmed by vaccines? Or that you can’t sue a vaccine maker if you or your child is harmed?
Recently, two young women died after a Gardasil vaccine. Researchers examined their brain tissues and discovered that the vaccine had breached the blood-brain barrier, which in turn triggered the fatal autoimmune response that killed the girls—which vaccines are not supposed to do (Pharmaceut Reg Affairs 2012, S12:001). What if other vaccines are making this leap? Could that account for the undeniable vaccine damage in children? Leslie Mannookian’s documentary THE GREATER GOOD addresses the lack of science in the vaccine debates. It is being shown all over the country in many venues, including to medical personnel. I, for one, am going to see this film, which I think is available online, as soon as possible.
Fluoride: I wrote three essays on this blog (Tipping Points Essays 34-36) that attempted to summarize the book THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE—written by three senior, well-established scientists with impeccable biographies in chemistry, toxicology, medical biophysics, and biological sciences. There never was any science supporting putting fluoride in the water. The most recent mandated government-sponsored assessment raised dozens of red flags about fluoride. It was the first panel that contained nonbiased scientists. The dose isn’t controllable, and even the American Dental Association warns not to feed infants formula made with fluoridated tap water. Studies from all over the world show that fluoride is dangerous: it harms bones and affects IQ in developing infants. Countries that do not fluoridate do not have worse cavity rates than the U.S. does. The stronger correlation with healthy teeth is good diet.
Mercury amalgams: The mercury in your fillings off-gasses for the rest of your life and can make you sick. Mercury is very, very toxic. Europe is banning mercury fillings. In our country dentists are quietly switching to non-mercury fillings. I and many of my family members have had old mercury fillings removed. (Be careful doing that and find a dentist who knows the danger of what s/he is doing.)
Aspartame: Aspartame has, famously, never undergone third-party independent and objective assessment. Industry supplies the “proof” of safety and the government (with staff assessment by actual scientists saying no about aspartame) allowed its use. That’s a nasty, nasty story—and I covered it in Tipping Points Essay No. 19 on this blog. The approval was a political decision, not a scientific one. If you go to www.snopes to check on claims that aspartame is dangerous, you will see that the story is “false” and you will see a letter written by a government staffer claiming it was tested. Don’t you believe that because the studies were all industry produced. That’s the kind of corrupt system our government is running now, and we have got to get the foxes out of the regulatory henhouses and put in some laws with teeth if we want our government to actually protect us.
Aluminum cookware: Aluminum is a toxic metal. If you cook with it or use a lot of aluminum foil, it will reside in your body. Our bodies have enough environmental burdens without having to cope with aluminum toxicity. I don’t use it any more—either cookware or foil. Parchment paper works just as well in most cases.
So, you decide about Dr. Blaylock.
He’s not a saint. He’s got quirks—like most of us he is a complex figure, not a cartoon all bad/all good character.
He’s asking “where’s the science” behind a number of mainstream medical practices and recommendations that he (and I, after researching them) believe are quite dangerous. He’s looking for ways to effect healing by giving the body the healthy nutrient dense food it requires.
The response from the mainstream—as it almost always is—is to demonize him as a quack. Devra Davis, a premier scientist, described this industry-driven process brilliantly in THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE WAR ON CANCER. And make no mistake about it, too much of science and medicine today is industry driven, with little relationship to actual science and a huge relationship to profit making.
With demonization, Blaylock joins any number of folks who have said “where’s the science” and been attacked and smeared in an attempt to erase what he’s asking as it falls into the realm of “an inconvenient truth.” Dr. Mary Enig, for instance, tried to tell us about the danger of trans fats and about the healthy nature of high-quality saturated fats. She lost all her research money and was demonized and not published for years. But, she was right all along.
Follow the money. Vaccines, aspartame, and fluoride are big, big money. Under our economic system, it is entirely logical that industry would fight to continue making that money and that it enslaves us all to its purpose, doctors included.
Demonization is how a system of cultural power maintains the status quo. But that status quo is not ultimately healthy for you. Today, one in two people will get cancer. That’s 50 percent. That’s a plague. So, think twice, investigate, learn how to find and read reputable sources, and choose not to participate in practices that will make you sick.
Ultimately, this issue isn’t about Blaylock personally. It’s about “where’s the science?” It’s about your health.
Louisa Enright's Blog 