Jun 022011

The anti-vaxers’ ability to find real doctors to support their particular brand of quackery is admirable: think Dr. Jay Gordon, Andrew Wakefield and countless others. Someone I was not previously aware off joins the illustrous ranks; we are  introduced to Dr. Russell Blaylock M.D. In a recent tweet, Meryl “I’m not anti-vaccine I’m pro-safe-vaccine even though vaccines=rape” Dorey linked to an article ominously titled “If You Are In Support of Vaccinations, Read This If You Dare“, published at thehealthy- economist.com. Now, how could I be expected to resist a dare from thehealthy- economist? I had to read.

As the first sentence of the article shows, we’re in for quite a spectacle:

If you are in support of vaccinations, this well written, concise and compelling letter by world renowned neurologist Dr. Russell Blaylock MD will dismantle every single argument used to support this inhumane, barbaric practice.

Wow, he’s world-renowned and is going to dismantle every single argument supporting vaccinations in one letter. What could possibly go wrong with that? I’m sure a world-renowned neurologist won’t stoop to the tired, old, already debunked anti-vaccine talking points. No, this guy will present earth-shattering evidence, unassailable arguments that will just leave the rest of us in the pro-health community flabbergasted and speechless. Did I mention he’s a world-renowned neurologist?

Who is Russell Blaylock MD?

He’s not new to the pseudo-scientific world according to the Skeptics Dictionary. He’s been around for a while apparently dabbling in pseudo-scientific endeavors with regards to vaccines, cancer, and other woo lovers topics such as water fluoridation, teeth fillings, aspartame etc.

According to this website, which one assumes is his own personal site (although we cannot know for sure), he is a neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He’s written 3 books, one of which caught my attention in particular. It is titled Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients and here’s a partial description of the work taken from the website (emphasis mine):

Through carefully references studies, he clearly demonstrates that when properly designed and compounded, nutrition dramatically enhances the effectiveness of traditional treatments, and importantly, prevents them from harming surrounding normal cells and organs-a major complication of all traditional treatments. He also shows that even when used alone, these nutritional treatments can work as well as traditional treatments without the terrifying side effects. Practical, detailed steps are outlined on how to design your nutritional treatments, with explanations as to how they work. As with all his books, the material is carefully referenced with scientific articles cited in the book.

That raises a red flag right away. Eating well can work as well as the traditional treatments? Surgery and chemotherapy can be replaced by a proper diet? Sounds a bit fishy to me, but without reading the book and the literature on cancer I couldn’t quite pronounce it as BS. So we’ll leave that for an oncologist to review.

The thing that is important here is not that he is apparently putting forth this nutrition cancer treatment theory, but that apparently Dr. Blaylock, a neurosurgeon, feels he has enough expertise to dish out advice about cancer and vaccines, two areas outside of his actual field of expertise, neurology , besides the expertise that all doctors have due to their medical training.

Dr. Blaylock writes the Blaylock Wellness Report which cost $79 for 2 years worth of monthly electronic issues, and $89 for the print version. Subscribe today and get a great free gift: a cancer-cure book by none other than Suzanne Somers! That fact alone makes me think that Dr. Blaylock has become a permanent resident of Wooville.

And let us be clear that this is not an ad hominem on him; he might be right in his arguments about cancer and vaccines, and I am not saying that he must be wrong because he’s going outside his area of expertise. After all, I am going outside of my area of expertise in this blog. However, I do not preface everything I write with my other credentials, as if they add anything to the actual arguments.  He may be a world-renowned neurosurgeon, but he is not a world-renowned oncologist, or immunologist.

Speaking of arguments, let us see what the earth-shattering piece of wisdom will Dr. Blaylock come up with in regards to vaccines.

Dr. Blaylock’s Anti-Vaccine Arguments

Those who are observant have noticed a dangerous trend in the United States, as well as worldwide, and that is the resorting of various governments at different levels to mandating forced vaccination upon the public at large. My State of Mississippi has one of the most-restrictive vaccine-exemption laws in the United States, where exemptions are allowed only upon medical recommendation. Ironically, this is only on paper, as many have had as many as three physicians, some experts in neurological damage caused by vaccines, provide written calls for exemption, only to be turned down by the State’s public-health officer.

Never mind that this is patently false, at least in the US. No one is being forced to vaccinate at all. There is no vaccination police that checks if you have vaccinated your child and comes knocking on your door if you didn’t. You will not be lead away in handcuffs for missing your 2-year-old’s vaccine appointment.  Well, not in the real world anyway. What we do have in place are rules that require proof of vaccination for children attending daycare and school, where, you know, one parent’s choice not to vaccinate affects other children’s health, like the recent measles outbreaks which were in large part caused by the unvaccinated and ended up causing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer money to control show.

One might use this same logic to say that government is mandating forced clothing, since we are not allowed to walk around naked in the streets. How dare those bastards tell me what I have to cover up?

Those that espouse this fake freedom argument are acting childish: they want to do what they want, but they do not want to bear the responsibility for their actions. They basically say that they don’t give a damn if their choice not to vaccinate their child ends up killing someone else’s child who may have been too young to get the vaccine, or couldn’t get it for medical reasons. They want society to care about their sense of freedom while at the same time they don’t give a rat’s ass about other people’s lives and health. A bit delusional no?

Worse are the States, such as Massachusetts, New Jersey and Maryland, where forced vaccinations have either been mandated by the courts, the state legislature, or have such legislation pending. All of such policies strongly resemble those policies found in National Socialist empires, Stalinist countries, or Communist China.

I’m surprised he didn’t mention Nazi Germany. Maybe that whole “Obama is a socialist” nonsense affected his choice of totalitarian country.

Not only are the courts mandating jabs, but we are also forced to put on a seat belt every time we drive, no exceptions allowed. Those socialist bastards. They do not let us have sex in public either; why not? It’s our bodies and it’s not hurting anyone. Stalinist perverts.

One quickly concludes that if the vaccines are as effective as being touted by the public-health officials, then why should one fear the unvaccinated? Obviously the vaccinated would have at least 95% protection. This question puts them in a very difficult position. Their usual response is that a “small” percentage of the vaccinated will not have sufficient protection and would still be at risk. Now, if they admit what the literature shows, that vaccine failure rates are much higher than the 5% they claim, they must face the next obvious question – then why should anyone take the vaccine if there is a significant chance it will not protect?

Well that’s ignorant to say the least; no one claims that vaccine effectiveness is 95%. Effectiveness varies depending on the vaccine. Pertussis vaccine for example is about 80% effective; the flu shot even less, at around 70% or so if memory serves me well. Where is he getting the 95% protection number from? Nevertheless, that is just ignorant, the next piece is downright stupid. He asks “why should anyone take the vaccine if there is a significant chance it will not protect?”. Whaaa? Why should any thirsty person drink a half a glass of water, if there is a significant chance it will not quench their thirst? The simple answer, that one would expect a world-renowned neurosurgeon to know, is that a half a glass of water is better than no water. Similarly, 80% protection from whooping cough is better than no protection. Maybe he skipped the class in medical school where they taught that.

But just you wait, the next one is a bombshell:

Herd immunity is mostly a myth and applies only to natural immunity – that is, contracting the infection itself.

Wow, just wow. At least he’s not going all the way off the cliff like some anti-vaxers do when they completely reject the idea of herd immunity; at least he’s only rejecting herd immunity from vaccinations. Because, you know when a virus is trying to spread, it really does give a damn whether the antibodies in the host’s body were created “naturally” or through a vaccine. Viruses tend to be picky that way.

His next rambling on herd immunity needs to be paraphrased as I cant quote it all. First he starts of by stating that natural immunity acquired by getting sick lasts a lifetime. Sure, no problems with that, so long as we’re also willing to note that disability related with being sick also lasts a lifetime, and death from the disease lasts, well you know, forever.

Then he makes a wilder claim: most vaccines offer no protection after 2-10 years. By the time 10 years have passed you’re just as vulnerable as you were before you got the vaccine apparently. As such, he argues, most adults have been living with no protection for decades, and lo and behold no outbreaks have occurred. Herd immunity therefore is a myth. I guess smallpox decided it was time to pack its bags and leave, on its own. Similarly whooping cough, measles, polio, mumps and all the other vaccine preventable disease viruses have come to a similar conclusion by themselves. Viruses tend to be spontaneous like that, free spirits that they are. Vaccines had nothing to do with any of that apparently.

The fact of the matter is that looking at the vaccine schedules for 0-6, 7-18 and adults over 18 one quickly notices that only one vaccine requires boosting every 10 years, specifically the Tdap, and even then it is only the tetanus portion that is recommended to be boosted every 10 years. Why would the evil, ignorant doctors require boosting for one only, if protection from all vaccines dissapears after 10 years? Must be part of the cover up I guess.

Did you know that tetanus is the only disease for which herd immunity cannot work, because it is not spread via human-to-human contact? Yet, Dr. Blaylock uses tetanus in his letter to make a point that herd immunity does not work. You’d expect him to know that the concept of herd immunity does not apply to tetanus, but who cares about facts when we’ve got an ideology to advance right?

When we examine the scientific literature, we find that for many of the vaccines protective immunity was 30 to 40%, meaning that 70% to 60% of the public has been without vaccine protection.

In regards to the above quote, what I am interested to know is whose behind was this statistic pulled out off? Many of the vaccines offer only 30-40% protection? I’d like to see what scientific literature supports that ridiculous claim.

Being done with herd immunity, Dr. Blaylock moves on.

Those pushing mandatory vaccination for an ever-growing list of diseases are a mixed bag.   Some are quite sincere and truly want to improve the health of the United States.   They believe the vaccine-induced herd immunity myth and likewise believe that vaccines are basically safe and effective.    They are not evil people.

Well thank you. I thought I was generally a nice guy; it’s good to have my belief confirmed.

A growing number are made of those with a collectivist worldview and see themselves as a core of elite wise men and women who should tell the rest of us what we should do in all aspects of our lives. They see us as ignorant cattle, who are unable to understand the virtues of their plan for America and the World. Like children, we must be made to take our medicine – since, in their view, we have no concept of the true benefit of the bad-tasting medicine we are to be fed.

Yeah, who the hell do they think they are? Power to the people right? We’ll make our own damn medical decisions thank you very much. I wonder if he used to consult his patients when he was about to operate on them? I mean, who says we can’t Google neurosurgery (now I know he’s retired and there was no Google back then, but you get the point)? Who the hell needs elitist, “wise men and women” neurosurgeons telling us what the best course of action is? I don’t want these guys with their sharp scalpels anywhere near me. I hear a good diet can fix anything.

I have also found that a small number of people in the regulatory agencies and public health departments would like to speak out but are so intimidated and threatened with dismissal or destruction of their careers, that they remain silent. As for the media, they are absolutely clueless.

Ah, wouldn’t be an anti-vax piece without an appeal to conspiracy, would it? I’m surprised they haven’t been bodily threatened, and only fear for their jobs and careers; I mean what kind of half-baked world-wide conspiracy is this that doesn’t threaten people with their lives? As far as the media comment goes, I can’t argue with that. Remember Oprah and Larry King giving all that time to Jenny McCarthy? Talk about clueless.

I have found that “reporters” (we have few real journalists these days) rarely understand what they are reporting on and always trust and rely upon people in positions of official power, even if those people are unqualified to speak on the subject. Most of the time they run to the Centers for Disease Control or medical university to seek answers. I cannot count the number of times I have seen university department heads interviewed when it was obvious they had no clue as to the subject being discussed. Few such professors will pass up an opportunity to appear on camera or be quoted in a newspaper.

Insolent fools; going to the CDC and medical universities to get information and commentary on vaccines! How do they know whoever they’re talking to is qualified to speak about vaccines, you know like a neurosurgeon is? Although, to be fair, Dr. Blaylock is right to complain about the media’s dismal coverage of most matters scientific, but not  in the ridiculous sense he means it, but the other way around. Need I mention Oprah and Larry King again?

One special fear of theirs is that the public might discover the fact that most vaccines are contaminated with a number of known and yet-to-be discovered viruses, bacteria, viral fragments, and DNA/RNA fragments.

Bingo! Not only is he knowledgeable about all the present contaminants in vaccines, but he’s warning us about the ones that haven’t been discovered yet, about whose existence he apparently is all too confident. Talk about being at the forefront of scientific knowledge. He’s literally waiting for science to catch up with him. In fact, he appears so much at the front, I am afraid science will never be able to catch up to him.

The idea that adults and their children would be forced to submit to being injected with dozens of these organisms and organic fragments is terrifying. No regulatory agency is tracking to see if chronic diseases are rising in the vaccinated, yet we have compelling evidence of a massive rise in all autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and certain cancers since the advent of a dramatic increase in the number of vaccines being mandated.

I’ve also noticed that we’re getting fatter too. Must be the fault of those damn vaccines. This is terrifying. Next comes a bit of an attempt to scare your pants off:

Of special concern is the finding that many of the contaminant organisms can pass from generation to generation. For example, new studies have found that SV-40, a major contaminant of the polio vaccine until 1963, not only existed as a latent virus for the lifetime of those exposed to the vaccine but was being passed on to the next generation, primarily by way of sperm, something called vertical transmission. This means that every generation from now on will be infected with this known carcinogenic virus. There is also compelling evidence that some polio vaccines manufactured after 1963 may contain SV-40 virus.

What makes the SV-40 contamination disaster of such concern is its association with so many cancers – including mesothelioma, medulloblastoma, ependymoma, meningioma, astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, pituitary adenoma, glioblastoma, osteosarcomas, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, papillary thyroid carcinomas, and anaplastic thyroid carcinomas.

Wow, sounds scary. SV-40 has been associated with all those cancers! Damn, if only we had a reliable source of information about the SV-40 polio vaccine debacle of the 60s. Hold on a second, we do! The National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health has a very well referenced page on this very issue and, lo and  behold, Dr. Blaylock seems to be wrong:

Over the last four decades, an intense research effort has been made to determine whether this route of exposure to SV40 has caused health problems in people, including cancer. Epidemiology studies involving decades of observations in the United States and Europe have failed to detect an increased cancer risk in those likely to have been exposed to the virus. These include a long-term Swedish study, which followed 700,000 people who received SV40-contaminated vaccine (7), a German study with 22 years of follow-up of 886,000 persons who received the contaminated vaccine as infants (8), a 20-year study of 1,000 people in the United States inoculated during the first week of life with contaminated vaccines (9), and a 30-year follow-up of approximately 10 percent of the entire U.S. population (using data from the National Cancer Institute‘s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry) (10). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds no evidence that SV40-contaminated vaccine lots cause cancer (11).


Using data from the Danish Cancer Registry covering the period from 1943 through 1997, the researchers compared the cancer incidence in people vaccinated with SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccine as infants (i.e., those born from 1955–1961) or children (i.e., those born from 1946–1952), to those not exposed to SV40 (i.e., those born from 1964–1970). Those exposed to SV40 had a lower overall cancer risk than those not exposed. Furthermore, they did not have an increased incidence of mesothelioma, brain tumors (including ependymoma and choroid plexus tumors), osteosarcoma and other bone tumors, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, or testicular cancer, compared to those not exposed to the virus.

But then, the government is covering everything up, so the above information cannot be trusted. One needs to go to independent, unbiased sources to get to the truth, sources such as Dr. Blaylock who thinks he’s figured out the truth about vaccines, yet doesn’t seem to understand that the concept of herd immunity does not apply to tetanus.

At least Andrew Wakefield has a retracted vaccine study to his name.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • LinkedIn
  • Print
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • del.icio.us
  • Add to favorites
  • email
  • Fark
  • Mixx
  • Netvibes
  • NewsVine
  • PDF
  • Ping.fm
  • Posterous
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

  70 Responses to “Russell Blaylock MD – The new Wakefield?”

  1. Great post, Leart!

    First he starts of by stating that natural immunity acquired by getting sick lasts a lifetime.

    Well, except for some diseases like pertussis (for which immunity only lasts from 3-12 years) or influenza (which only lasts a year or so). Oooh, and tetanus, which doesn’t grant any lasting protection following infection, plus it kills about 1 in 20. And, true, chicken pox immunity does last a lifetime, but it also comes with the added benefit of shingles, which the vaccinated need not fear. Then, of course, there’s measles, which also confers lifelong immunity, along with a roughly 1 in 8,000 chance of persistent infection in the brain leading to SSPE, which is almost universally fatal. But, hey! At least you won’t get measles ever again, unlike with the measles vaccine which only grants…oh…lifelong immunity without the risk of SSPE and significantly lower risks of things like encephalitis, pneumonia or death compared to natural infection.

    But, hey, world-renowned neurosurgeons know everything, so he must be right. Right? Beuler?

    • See, I was too generous when I gave him that point without much of a fight. Thanks for setting the record straight Todd.

  2. He has actually been retired from practicing medicine for years, at least a decade. I am sure he is world renowned in his own mind and in the minds of the people who get his newsletter.

    Thank you for pointing out his more recent list of grievous errors.

  3. I was made aware of this clown on a parenting site a few years ago. The resident anti-vaxer was so proud that she got Dr. Blaylock to speak at her event. Did you know that he can diagnose death from MSG just by asking what the person’s last meal was? It’s true:

    “I was in a bookstore in Oxford, Miss. This young guy was there, and he just dropped and died. We took him to the hospital and tried to resuscitate him, and we couldn’t. He was only 26 years old, and he had just eaten a big bowl of soup at one of the restaurants. Well, I talked to the person that was there, and he said they use a lot of hydrolyzed protein and MSG. People will eat a meal, have a soup before the meal, get this huge dose of MSG, and drop dead from the arrhythmia.”

    The whole interview is classic. Blaylock even claims that “Big Artificial Sweetener” leaves him alone because he “knows too much.”

    And where is this winner of an interview? Natural News of course!

    • This guy has taken the very worst of what Blaylocks ever said completely out of context in order to have a good laugh, good for him. However Blaylock has changed thousands of lives with his excitotoxin information, mine included. When for 20 years doctors and mainstream science could offer NO explanation for my illnesses Blaylock was able to give solid answers that matched all the symptoms! No placebo effects as sure enough when I add these chemicals back in to my diet my symptoms come back. He IS qualified to speak on the topics if you bother to find out what he’s really saying as he’s seen the damage in the brain first hand. Laugh all you want but he has a growing number of happy customers that are getting from him what the government is failing to supply, answers and solutions that actually work! I’ve had attacks that have almost killed me from hydrolysed vegetable protein so it was a pretty good guess, and he never pretended it was anything but that. Vaccines today are doing horrible damage to people and worse than not offering answers mainstream science is not even asking why! They are simply writing most off as ‘coincidence’. Until we have MANDATORY reporting of ALL reactions NONE of you can say whether vaccines are worth the harm being done because you simply don’t know. Just ignoring what people are saying and laughing it off is really not the answer and makes you jokers seem more the fool than Blaylock ever will who can supply (if you bother to listen to him properly) the answers we are seeking or at least takes us seriously. When you stop reading kiddy sites like skepdics and start listening to him in detail you’ll see why his followers are growing daily.

      • Hi Julie,

        Firstly, thank you for taking the time to read through my post and to comment on it. If you could please point out what specifically I have taken out of context, and what the correct context is, I will gladly fix any mistakes/misperceptions on my part.

        Thank you.

      • Would the critics of Dr. Blaylock please explain his movive for bashing the current vaccine schedule? If he is on an ill thought out crusade based on flawed research and writing, then what is his motive? On the other hand, what is the motive to promote mass vaccination schedules using 21 different vaccines? Instead of condemning this issue right and left, we should all be asking many more questions that I am finding in the criticisms here. For example, how can Wall Street, banks, oil companies, certain billionaires be attacked as coercive and deceitful and greedy but no other company is? Are all companies and people altruistic? Or do profits, boards of directors, and shareholders drive decisions?

        • “Would the critics of Dr. Blaylock please explain his movive for bashing the current vaccine schedule?”

          Actually, we would like to know why a retired surgeon is selling a “Brain Repair” supplement, and writing on issues that he has no background nor expertize in. He was not an infectious disease doc, microbiologist, immunologist, nor epidemiologist.

          “On the other hand, what is the motive to promote mass vaccination schedules using 21 different vaccines?”

          To prevent several illnesses that cause hospitalization, permanent disability and death. Why is that so difficult a concept to get?

          If it is all about money, can you please tell us why it would cost less to treat a disease than to prevent it? Take, for instance, measles. Recently in Wales there were over a thousand cases of measles with about one in ten needing very expensive hospital care.

          Please provide the data showing that it would cost less to society if we allowed the diseases to come back and not prevent them. Provide verifiable evidence equivalent to the following:

          Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic. (which explains how much the epidemic cost in California)

          Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:1136-1144.
          Economic Evaluation of the 7-Vaccine Routine Childhood Immunization Schedule in the United States, 2001

        • By the way, the real Cici Bauer would have known the answers to your silly questions. It was very cute of you using the name of a real biostatistician.

          What happened, did you take one of her classes and get a low grade?

  4. Oh my that’s like the Axis of Stupid: Adams and Blaylock.

  5. I stopped reading when you said no one is forced to vaccinate. Or does threatening people with jail not count, as they did in Maryland? http://bit.ly/j3Unam

    • Ms. Gottstein, you tiny url goes to a general google search. If you have a specific case in mind, please link directly to it. Because it might show there is some specifics that you are ignoring, or that it actually happened.

      By the way, no one has to send their child to a public school. There are many private schools that allow children with vaccines to attend (though they are often the Waldorf schools that shut down when there is an outbreak), and homeschooling is allowed just about everywhere.

    • Sounds like you stopped reading, period. At least with regards to any sources that don’t agree with the random Google pages you happen to find that support your preexisting beliefs. Maybe you should do more reading and less whining about how you refuse to read anything that disagrees with you.

    • You’re right Sandy, and the author of this piece was so reckless in stating that no one is forced to vaccinate in this country, that I would even call it a lie. A friend of mine refused Hep B vaccination for her newborn in New York City in the mid-90′s when she came in to the hospital after a complication with a homebirth. She was immediately reported to the CPS (even though she was a good mother of two, previously, and a social worker herself) and they took custody her infant, and wouldn’t let her have the baby with her in the hospital room. Cases of a similar nature are reported all the time. Hep B is a sexually transmitted disease, and there was no scientific evidence of efficacy for it to be administered to newborns at the time it was mandated. Yup, you can’t extrapolate from efficacy in adults to efficacy in infants! But hey, I want to listen to the advice of the people who do, which would be the ACIP. Its also a particularly dangerous vaccine, and Michael Belkin’s statistical analysis showed that the risks of side-effects outweighed the risks of infection, due to the low incidence of the disease.

      It is also dishonest to say, “no one is forced”, because law-abiding people are forced simply by their adherence to the law in states without religious and philosophical exemptions, as it is also the case that a huge number of badly vaccine damaged children did not die or receive their permanent injuries on their first shot, but after receiving later shots in the schedule, when their intimidated physicians refused to give them exemptions even after prior incidents of reactions severe enough to cause their children to be hospitalized. These deaths can be laid at the doorstep of the polarized pro-vaccine camp, creating a climate of “your either with us or against us” that removes the appropriate medical safeguards for mass vaccination programs from working properly. You can see that kind of unbalanced fanaticism reflected in Rosch’s use of the word “whining.” So, Mr. Rosch, you know, if you want to make the world a better place, you might want to spend your time examining where that hatred comes from that has you attacking strangers on the internet, rather than campaigning against the rights of your fellow citizens to control their own bodies, rather than have them controlled, by a government that is obviously untrustworthy. The CDC knew about the Tuskegee experiments, and didn’t stop them….yup, those’r the people I want making my medical decisions for me!

      And “no one has to send their kid to public school”? Give me a break! Doesn’t that comment deserve the Marie Antoinette award. NY Steiner was ~$30,000 per year, tuition. Homeschooling generally requires one parent not to work. A great option educationally, but it isn’t widely available to people in these economically strapped times. So hopefully I will see the “pro-health” community campaigning vigorously for the full rebate of educational taxes to anti-vaccination parents who are not permitted to send their children to school, but I wouldn’t be holding my breath. From what I’ve seen here, you folks are much more interested in scapegoating than freedom and health.

      The arrogance in the pro-vaccination community is so intense, as illustrated in the constant sarcasm in the article above, it undermines the credibility of the accurate criticism they could otherwise contribute to improving immunization practice in the US. I found this article and the later discussion, so self-congratulory and rude, I will be unlikely to return here. I’m sure others will also be unlikely to want to take the time to inform such a self-righteous group. Unfortunately then, we will have another little eddy in the sea of consciousness of folks just talking to the people who agree with them, and creating “crippled epistemology” in Cass Sunstein’s words. I do discuss medical technologies with ardent proponents of them myself, in a more civil and apparently, much more well-informed venue, than this.

      I’ll append a short description of the Tuskegee experiments here:

      “Between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service, to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis that was given to unwitting ‘negro’ patients” (they told them they *were* being treated).

      When someone sneers at the notion of conspiracies, that’s another place to stop reading an article that doesn’t seem otherwise exceptionally meritorious! Paperclip was a conspiracy; Gladio was a conspiracy; the CIA has admitted to facilitating drug traffic into the US; the kind of people who proliferate nuclear weapons don’t do it openly. Sneering at conspiracy theories always shows someone whose thinking is seriously unintegrated with reality.

      Further ignorance and absolutely sheeplike conformity was displayed in this article when opposition to fluoride as dismissed as “woo”. LOL! Yup, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, the toxicologist who did the screening of fluoride herself, and found neurotoxicological effects as severe as with chemotherapy agents and published her results The Journal of Neurotoxicology and Teratology—that’s “woo” alright! And Nobelist Arvid Carlsson, the pharmacologist whose testimony helped convince Sweden to stop fluoridation—oh, that’s “woo” alright! Or chemist John Yiamouyiannis, or medical anthropologist Roger D. Masters, or William Marcus, the EPA scientist who was restored *with punitive damages* after he blew the whistle on fraud to minimize carcinogenic effects of fluoride shown in EPA research…all woo? Or were you just too lazy/uncritical or dishonest to check an assertion you knew nothing about (obviously…if you’d had any experience in biochemistry, you’d know fluoride compounds are used as enzyme inhibitors in research, and thus are obviously suspect as a health risk) when it gave you a target group to scapegoat?

      Here’s some more “woo” on fluoridation…if you botch it, people DIE. I wonder how many prevented cavities counterbalance a single death?

      “In rare cases improper implementation of water fluoridation can result in overfluoridation that causes outbreaks of acute fluoride poisoning, with symptoms that include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Three such outbreaks were reported in the U.S. between 1991 and 1998, caused by fluoride concentrations as high as 220 mg/L; in the 1992 Alaska outbreak, 262 people became ill and one person died”

      Balbus JM, Lang ME. Is the water safe for my baby?. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2001;48(5):1129–52, viii.

      Are you so angry and so insecure about your intellects, that you think some of the glory of science will rub off on you by parroting what you think are pro-science lines? I would really be ashamed of myself if I’d written something so embarrassingly foolish as this article (or applauded it)…I only hope some of you aren’t too far gone to admit when you’ve made a mistake and learn from it.

      I wouldn’t be debating here. You can take this gift and learn from it, or you can choose not to. Your lives and the sanity of your thought processes are your own responsibility. I suggest reading psychoanalyst Alice Miller’s “Banished Knowledge” and “the Drama of the Gifted Child” to get a clue where the roots of the kind of fanatical close-mindedness we see here comes from.

      • I wouldn’t be debating here. You can take this gift and learn from it, or you can choose not to.

        Because you just like to dump a Gish Gallop and run away. You said absolutely nothing about the dubious practice of the retired Dr. Blaylock who sells a “Brain Repair Formula” and writes on subjects that are outside his medical specialty.

        I see no reason for tax payers to let those who are willing to flaunt public health into publicly funded schools. The excuse that a parent cannot work fails to compel me since I had to stay home due to having a child become disabled due to a real illness (before a vaccine for it was available). There was no way I could afford a nanny or other person to take him to all of his doctors and therapist appoints, much less deal with the special education system.

        The most stupid thing I was ever told that I was “lucky” that I did not have to pay for my son’s preschool. It was a special ed. program at a public school. What the foolish woman did not know was that we were also paying about $100 per week on therapies, had to pay a percentage for the neurologist and for his emergency stays at the hospital, even though we have good health insurance.

        If you don’t want to stay home to homeschool, create your own “vaccine free” school. Surely you can find a group of like minded anti-public health advocates to join you.

        Interesting that you bring up Tuskegee. The cries we hear from some groups is that there should be studies on vaccinated versus children who are not vaccinated. Except those have been done.

        Before the1970s it was common to test vaccines on children who were places in institutions like Willowbrook. What was even worse is that some of these children were deliberately infected with the pathogen to see if the vaccine worked.

        Since the public schools did not allow disabled children to attend their schools before 1975 (Public Law 94-142), parents either had to have one parent stay home or put them in these special schools.

        Because of the rubella epidemic in the early 1960s there was tremendous demand for placements in institutions like Willowbrook. The child would get moved up the waiting list if the parent agreed to enroll their child into the medical studies.

        I also do not want to see tax payer money going into those kinds of vax vs. unvax studies. They should be funded by groups like SafeMinds and Generation Rescue. Perhaps they can get Dr. Blaylock to kick in some of his profits from his “Brain Repair Formula.”

        • Hi, where is the scientific rebuttal of the ingredients in the brain repair formula?

          • It’s not up to us to prove it doesn’t work, it’s up to those who think it does to prove that it does and until that happens it is assumed to not work.

      • Thank you, Pam, for taking to task the nastily arrogant & sarcastic ‘pro-vaccine’ folks on this website- which I will not revisit, either- and for attempting to present the other side of the coin in a balanced, rationale and dignified manner. You run rings around them.

        • “Thank you, Pam, for taking to task the nastily arrogant & sarcastic ‘pro-vaccine’ folks on this website- which I will not revisit, either- and for attempting to present the other side of the coin in a balanced, rationale and dignified manner.”

          Shouldn’t you thank the nasty people who run this website for allowing your comments to appear, unlike the antivax websites which openly censor any truthful information about vaccines? Why is the antivax side so afraid of disagreement and the pro-children side so open to opposing views?

          • Because the anti-vaccine people don’t have any decent evidence and would lose any arguments they haven’t had rigged in their favour.

          • Really? What do you call this? Here is a selection of real existing science, that shows your no decent evidence claim to be wrong. Let me remind you that almost all of those studies are as well published in Pubmed. Take a look at the data on the other pages of the site, as well.

            The Vaccine Damage – Science

            National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program – Payout Data

            Now since 1989, and as of Jan. 2013; over 2 trillion dollars have been paid out from this vaccine caused injury and death compensation fund. $2,550,640,666.73 is the current total figure paid out from this federal court system; which includes attorney fees, (paid out, win or lose the case). Since the first Vaccine Injury Compensation claims were made in 1989, 3,110 compensation payments have been made, $2,389,329,250.45 disbursed to petitioners and $94,604,103.72 paid to cover attorney’s fees and other legal costs.

            To date, 9,785 claims have been dismissed. Of those, 3,982 claimants were paid $52,680,057.05 to cover attorney’s fees and other legal costs.


          • Here is some interesting information about the guy who writes the “science” of vacfacts: Lowell Hubbs.

  6. Another great piece, Leart. Beat me to it. It’s probably also important to warn people that they probably shouldn’t apply my drinking game to Blaylock’s article either.

  7. “Never mind that this is patently false, at least in the US. No one is being forced to vaccinate at all. There is no vaccination police that checks if you have vaccinated your child and comes knocking on your door if you didn’t.”

    Unless you plan to homeschool your child the police will arrest you for not providing an education to your child. So, in MS, either you vaccinate or you must homeschool.

    The main issue with this whole argument is that pro-vaccers want to force everyone to vaccinate and anti-vaccers just want to be left alone. But according to the experts, the unvaccinated threaten the vaccinated, so the right to be left alone no longer applies. I personally feel that the vaccinated threaten the unvaccinated in the sense that the healthy unvaccinated will eventually have to pay for all the drugs and therapies for the chronically ill vaccinated.

    • You mean as we had to cover the $130,000 Utah measles outbreak, and the $800,000 Arizona measles outbreak costs? Arguments are made with facts not suppositions. Come back when you have more than a half-baked opinion to share.

      • And where are the facts supporting your arguments? In the old days you stayed home with the Measles until you were better. No need for a doctor unless a rare complication occured. You want to throw out some numbers..ok.

        A study scheduled for publication in the Pace Environmental Law Review closely examined public information on 1,300 cases in which the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program compensated families. Significant brain injuries were found in compensated patients as a direct result of vaccinations. Eighty-three cases specifically resulted in autism and are being called, “the tip of the iceberg.”

        Not including the millions of dollars that the government paid out directly, ask yourself how many millions of dollars will be needed to care for these children for the rest of their lives.

        I think your the one who’s half-baked.

        • You mean the same Pace Environmental Law Review piece that said that there was no meaningful difference between “autism-like symptoms” and “autism”? Where they treat encephalopathy and brain injury as equivalent to autism, despite the fact that they are not, in actuality autism? The study that failed to get IRB review before being conducted, thus making it an unethical study? Is that the study to which you refer?

          • We’ll at least we can agree that vaccines can cause encephalopathy and brain injury as equivalent to autism.

          • You need to read what Todd wrote with a bit more reading comprehension, especially this phrase: “despite the fact that they are not.” Then go click on the link to his blog post.

            Remember that the paper that was written by lawyers identified only 83 children compensated over the course of several years. This is a tiny small micro-drop compared to the number of vaccines administered every year. In no way does it show that vaccines commonly cause brain injury or encephalopathy (the latter my son has, due to seizures while suffering from a now vaccine preventable disease).

            Now provide an actual citation to your claims, not VAERS or a lawsuit, something more like this:

            Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
            Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
            Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.

        • In the old days you stayed home with the Measles until you were better.

          Please introduce yourself to the CDC Pink Book Appendix G. This is where these kinds of statistics were found:
          2000____86___ 1____1950__319124____468
          2001___116___ 1____1951__530118____683
          2002____44___ 0____1952__683077____618
          2003____56___ 1____1953__449146____462
          2004____37___ NA___1954__682720____518
          2005____66___ NA___1955__555156____345
          2006____55___ NA___1956__611936____530
          Total__460___3 or more__3831277___3624

          Now some more cites (not anecdotes):

          J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S210-5.
          Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1985-2002.
          Lee B, Ying M, Papania MJ, Stevenson J, Seward JF, Hutchins SS.
          Epidemiology Program Office, and National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.

          J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
          Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.
          Gindler J, Tinker S, Markowitz L, Atkinson W, Dales L, Papania MJ.
          National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

          Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
          Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
          Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Mar;160(3):302-9. Review.

          J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93. Epub 2005 Oct 12.
          Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.
          Bellini WJ, Rota JS, Lowe LE, Katz RS, Dyken PR, Zaki SR, Shieh WJ, Rota PA.
          Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Branch, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.

          Economic Evaluation of the 7-Vaccine Routine Childhood Immunization Schedule in the United States, 2001
          Zhou F, Santoli J, Messonnier ML, Yusuf HR, Shefer A, Chu SY, Rodewald L, Harpaz R.
          Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:1136-1144.

          An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
          Zhou F, Reef S, Massoudi M, Papania MJ, Yusuf HR, Bardenheier B, Zimmerman L, McCauley MM.
          J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.

          Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.
          Chavez GF, Ellis AA.
          West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.

          Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.
          Dales LG, Kizer KW, Rutherford GW, Pertowski CA, Waterman SH, Woodford G.
          West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.

          • Like I said, in rare circumstances complications happen. In immune compromised children, any sickness could prove fatal.

          • Measles causes complications at a rate of one out of a thousand times. If you believe that one out of a thousand children are immune compromised, please provide a real citation.

            Also, I find it disturbing that any child who is disabled or died from measles in a way “deserved” their fate do to some randomly chosen by you health issue. That is a form of eugenics, and that is not a good thing.

          • Why has all this been not only downplayed, but not ever published ANYTHING, in or US media???

            English Court Exonerates MMR/Autism Doctor – UK General Medical Given Sound Thrashing

            Posted on March 7, 2012 by ChildHealthSafety

            Here is the full judgement of the court today [Not good news for "investigative journalist" Brian Deer responsible for this witchhunt or the Editor of the British Medical Journal, Dr Fiona Godlee.]:


            Callous Disregard

            The other research studies that back, Dr Wakefields

          • Mr. Hubbs, in what jurisdiction is Andrew Wakefield allowed to practice medicine?

          • Have you done the math on the stats you’re quoting?

            In 1950 there where 319124 cases and 468 died. That’s 0.14%
            In 2001 116 case and one death. That’s 0.86% and that’s the best year! The rest are worse.

            So it seems that more people die from measles proportionaly that ever before. Measles is becoming more not less dangerous, which is exactly what Blaylock is saying.

          • Dear Lifeboy,

            I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your numbers so I will use them as provided.

            1950 – 450+ dead
            2001 – 1 dead

            Vaccines win.

          • The total death rate from measles per capita is what matters, not what proportion of those who get it die and vaccines have done a great job reducing the figure that actually matters.

      • Maybe if you would make sure kids are fed properly and not eating GMO’s and processed foods and HFCS all the time, those outbreaks would have cost not even 1/1000th of what they did.

        • There is no evidence that genetically modified foods or processed foods are any less safe than foods which haven’t been modified or processed (and quite a bit which indicates that the unprocessed foods can be dangerous, pasteurisation is done for very good reasons).

    • I personally feel that the vaccinated threaten the unvaccinated in the sense that the healthy unvaccinated will eventually have to pay for all the drugs and therapies for the chronically ill vaccinated.

      Citation, please. Something with the caliber of this study, which showed one main difference between those that are vaccinated and those without any vaccines: the children who had never been vaccinated became ill with vaccine preventable diseases more often. Funny that.

      • Maybe you can find a child that is unvaccinated and has Autism. I’ve been looking but haven’t found one.

        Thousands of children cared for by Homefirst Health Services in metropolitan Chicago have at least two things in common with thousands of Amish children in rural Lancaster: They have never been vaccinated. And they don’t have autism.

        “We have a fairly large practice. We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we’ve taken care of over the years, and I don’t think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines,” said Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, Homefirst’s medical director who founded the practice in 1973. Homefirst doctors have delivered more than 15,000 babies at home, and thousands of them have never been vaccinated.

        • Maybe you can find a child that is unvaccinated and has Autism.

          Ask Kim Stagliano, of the Age of Autism blog. Her youngest daughter is completely unvaccinated, and yet she still has autism. Oh, and you may be surprised to find that the Amish do have autistic kids, just like non-Amish.

        • Jim, look at the right hand side of this page. See the notice of the latest pdf issue of Vaccine Times, click on it and read page 23. Tell us all about it, please.

        • Jim,

          You asked for one case and you were presented with 2. Will you now drop the “vaccines cause autism” rubish, or will you just move the goalpost and demand something else? Ball’s on your court.

        • @Jim One of my previous neighbors had 4 kids; 3 were UNvaccinated and were all autistic – the 4th (the youngest by a different father) was vaccinated (at the father’s demand) and ISN’T autistic.

          Anecdotes are anecdotes;toss in a couple of bucks and you can get a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

  8. What a load of shit. You really are messed up, aren’t you.


    Dr. Russell Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans and completed his general surgical internship and neurosurgical residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. During his residency training he worked with the eminent neurosurgeon, Dr. Ludwig Kempe. Together they developed the transcallosal removal of intraventricular tumors, a technique still used today. For the past 25 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional studies and neuroscience research.


    Published Papers – Dr. Russell Blaylock

    “49 doses of 14 vaccines, by the age of 6″

    The Vaccine Damage Science

    • He is a surgeon. So what? He is not qualified in immunology, vaccines, infectious diseases and pediatrics. He has also been retired for over a decade from a discipline where you can be out of date in just a year.

      • Chris, you keep banging the same drum. You’re wrong and your falling for the “expert trap” that claims that only the elite if the elite experts in a very narrow field can discover new things in that field. Of course, that is what doctors are being taught at medical school as well. The classic example that exemplifies the untruth of this notion is Barry Marshall and Robin Warren that despite the redicule of their “expert elite” superiours, persisted and proved them wrong.

        The education a neurosurgeon received covers a very wide range of knowledge and expertise, not just a narrow focus on the brain. Actually, very often the addage “can’t see the woods for the trees” is true and it takes someone coming from a totally different angle to point out what the other can’t see.

        It’s an invalid argument to claim that just because you think that someone is not qualified by some standard in a certain field, his work is therefore also invalid.

        Evaluate the work on it’s own merit (if you can) or find someone that has done that and then you may have or not have proof.

        • “You’re wrong and your falling for the “expert trap” that claims that only the elite if the elite experts in a very narrow field can discover new things in that field.”

          Actually you are falling for the “argument from authority fallacy.”

          “Evaluate the work on it’s own merit (if you can) or find someone that has done that and then you may have or not have proof.”

          Provide me one statement by Blaylock and its corresponding supporting PubMed reference. Make sure the PubMed study that he cites to support his statement is done by a qualified reputable researcher.

  10. In order to know the truth about vaccines, you have to separate the fact from fiction. You will get nothing but fiction from an entity with as much to lose as the CDC has to lose. To much to lose, if the real truth were generally known to the public.

    Measles outbreaks signal increasing incidence comparable with the pre-vaccine era

    Outbreaks of measles in vaccinated children have continued and have intensified to this day. Dr. Viera Scheibner, Principal Research Scientist (Retired) who has a doctorate in Natural Sciences from Comenius University in Bratislava, has observed that, “the ineffectiveness of vaccination,” may indicate, “that the incidence of measles has increased and has not continued decreasing as it did for some 100 years before any type of measles vaccination was introduced.”

    In an article dated January 18 and written by Dr. Scheibner entitled, “The ineffectiveness and unintended consequences of measles vaccination,” she gives some examples of these outbreaks in both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations all over the world:

    Read more:

    Measles Vaccines Part I; Ineffectiveness of Vaccination and Unintended Consequences. ~ by Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD)

    Measles Vaccines Part II; Benefits of Contracting Measles ~ by Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD)

    The information and research studies that back Dr Wakefields study. Why has the CDC denied the existence of that?



    This documentary tells the story of Brian Deer, the journalist who has viciously attempted to destroy the reputation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield by conspiring with the GMC and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) to publish false and defamatory information that unfairly smears the reputation of Dr. Wakefield.

    Brian Deer and The GMC, Selective Hearing. BMJ Journalist


    • Mr. Hubbs, Viera Scheibner’s PhD is in geology. She has absolutely no education in biology or medicine. I suggest that the next time you require medical attention that you get yourself to the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology and request either a geologist or mining engineer.

  11. Ånd ‘what are YOUR credentials, L. Shaka regarding this blog on Dr. Blaylock? I can see that YOU are easily offended to the point of posting juvenile comments “Come back when you have more than a half-baked opinion to share” Grow up shaka! By the way, you must be a Democrap or a liberal or maybe a ‘progressive’. I noticed that even though your blog is all about Dr. Blaylock, you childish mind managed to throw in “political reference’ ( Maybe that whole “Obama is a socialist” nonsense affected his choice of totalitarian country) Lets leave politics out of this. After reading your whole blog I gather that you are about 10 yrs old (maybe you’re big for your age) because the wording and comments were so ‘juvenile’ and it would seem to be that “you” were directing your blog to those that would only agree with your ‘rats ass assessments” of Dr. Blaylock. And did I happen to mention that YOU ARE ‘NOT’ A WORLD RENOWNED NEUROLOGIST’! As for people not being forced to take vaccines—this is where YOU come off as being an ignorant blogger jerk—people such as health care workers are forced to take the flu vaccine or face termination from their jobs—- DO YOUR RESEARCH JERK! Can You Read and comprehend what you’ve read? Oh wait; you probably only made it through kindergarten. Oh Yeah, that explains your mental aptitute. And yes, obuma is a socialist ( Commie, to me). DON’T BOTHER TO REPLY TO MY COMMENT— I LOVE TO DELETE RESPONSES FROM PEOPLE I DON’T KNOW, and that includes you!

    • Veronika:


      Actually, you have that wrong. Dr. Blaylock is a retired neurosurgeon. There is actually a difference between being a neurologist and a neurosurgeon. Those are two completely different medical disciplines. Plus, Dr. Blaylock has been retired for several years, his only activities now are teaching classes at a Christian university, his newsletter and selling his supplements (Internet Safety Hint: beware of medical sites that sell stuff).

      Even being a neurologist does mean he has the requisite education in microbiology, immunology, pediatrics, infectious diseases and vaccinology. Which has nothing to do with politics.

      In the USA most states have a vaccine policy to attend public school. Basically it is “our public money, therefore our rules.” If you have an issue defying public health regulations you are more than welcome to educate your children yourself (homeschool). Since there is a way to get out of vaccination by using public school, vaccination is not automatically mandatory.

      And you should be happy to know there are many private schools who do not care about vaccination. Those are often the ones the get shut down when there is a measles or pertussis outbreak. Most of them are Waldorf schools, but there are others like the private school near my home which had a measles outbreak.

      When you choose a private school for your children, make sure they have a good writing program. I hope you will want them to be better at grammar, rhetoric and “how to use capital letters” than you have demonstrated. Trust me, it is not a bad thing to have kids who are smarter than you (so says the mother of a fully vaccinated healthy eighteen year old young lady who is easily learning a third foreign language as a college junior!)

      • Missing important word: Even being a neurologist does mean not he has the requisite education in microbiology, immunology, pediatrics, infectious diseases and vaccinology. Which has nothing to do with politics.

  12. I gained interesting insight into Russell Blaylock’s perspective on things from an anti-vax site where they posted his ‘There is no herd immunity’ referenceless speech from 2012, with similar lines as the one you posted about.


    The link was given to me by an anti-vax parent on a parenting forum. What most amazed me was the link on the bottom of the page. While Mr Blaylock/the site feels no need to show any actual scientific findings to back up his eccentric claims (which is a poor sign of scientific reasoning or lack of thereof), the only resource he provides at all is this:
    “To read more on Dr Blaylock’s site go to: Vaccines and Herd Immunity on Dr Blaylock’s site.” http://www.h4cblog.com/vaccines-and-the-myth-of-herd-immunity

    So, this apparently is Blaylock’s own site: “Tracking the End of Days…” it’s called. You can read that he apparently thinks that end is near (though he doesn’t believe in climate change). He also believes that America is at the brink of tyranny, and that apparently Obama (with dots on his face??) is connected to Zeus and Satan somehow: http://www.h4cblog.com/obama-and-the-altar-of-zeus

    This goes on. What can I say. It does not seem quite lucid to me.
    Not someone I would take medical advice from.

  13. So exactly who are you, L Shaka?? What qualifies you to splutter forth the dismissive drivel you just did?

    Here’s a challenge for you: Delete all the dismissive junk you wrote and focus on the actual detail of the work that Blaylock has published. Then show where he is wrong. No, you can’t grab little quotes and then mock that with your writing antics, you have to actually show that the science he proclaims is wrong. Ok, I know you can’t do that, it’s not your field of expertise. So I’ll help you. Find other scientists that have shown scientifically that the basis of what he says is wrong. If he is wrong, that should not be difficult to find, right? Remember, you can’t just find someone that just shouts how stupid he is, like this article, and use that as proof, you have to find real science that shows why he’s wrong.

    I’ll be waiting here to hear from you.

  14. You say Dr Blaylock is not an Immunologist and therefore cannot speak to the issue, well this person IS an immunologist and offers compelling evidence that vaccine induced immunity is not sufficient to produce Herd Immunity as observed in communities with a high percentage of individuals that have acquired the disease and have natural immunity.

    This article is written by Dr Tetyana Obukhanych, a PhD Immunologist currently doing postdoctoral work at Stanford University:

    Herd Immunity: Can Vaccination Achieve It?
    Endemic outbreaks of a childhood disease measles have been eliminated in North America following many decades of unrelenting mass vaccination efforts. But the risk of re-imported disease outbreaks still exists.
    There is no doubt that a measles outbreak can happen in a non-immune community, should the measles virus be reintroduced there. The real question is: can the required compliance with the childhood immunization schedule ensure the herd immunity effect?
    In other words, would a vulnerable segment of the population (infants too young to be vaccinated against measles and immuno-compromised individuals) be protected from a re-imported measles virus by vaccinating all other children? Herd Immunity, in Theory and in Reality
    Herd immunity is not an immunologic idea, but rather an epidemiologic construct, which theoretically predicts successful disease control or viral eradication when a certain pre-calculated percentage of people in the population become immune. A scholarly article on herd immunity states:
    “Along with the growth of interest in herd immunity, there has been a proliferation of views of what it means or even of whether it exists at all. Several authors have written of data on measles, which “challenge” the principle of herd immunity and others cite widely divergent estimates (from 70 to 95 percent) of the magnitude of the herd immunity threshold required for measles eradication.”[i]
    In the past, herd immunity has been deemed instrumental in rapid disease eradication. Relying upon the meticulous work of a researcher A. W. Hedrich, who documented annual measles attack rates in relation to the proportion of naturally immune people in the 1900s-1930s,[ii] the United States Public Health Service had confidently announced in 1967 its intent to swiftly eradicate measles in the USA over the winter by vaccinating a sufficient number of susceptible children.[iii] Mass vaccination was implemented, but the expected herd immunity effect did not materialize and measles epidemics did not stop in 1967.
    A bit later, the concept of herd immunity has evolved to justify the idea of vaccinating children against a very mild childhood disease, not for their own health benefit, but to protect a vulnerable but vaccine-ineligible segment of the population. For example, rubella is not dangerous for children. However, for pregnant women who have not become immune from rubella prior to pregnancy, a rubella virus poses a danger during the first trimester by increasing the risk of fetal developmental abnormalities (congenital rubella). Vaccination with a live rubella vaccine is contraindicated during pregnancy.
    Perhaps with a good intention to immediately put an end to any risk of congenital rubella in their community, elementary school children were vaccinated en mass against rubella in 1970 in Casper, Wyoming. Ironically, nine months after this local vaccination campaign took place, an outbreak of rubella hit Casper, Wyoming. The herd immunity effect did not materialize and the outbreak involved over one thousand cases and reached several pregnant women, whereas recently vaccinated children were spared from rubella. The perplexed authors of the study describing this outbreak wrote:
    “The concept that a highly immune group of pre-pubertal children will prevent the spread of rubella in the rest of the community was shown by this epidemic not always to be valid.”[iv]
    Even now, the unsubstantiated belief in herd immunity is influencing vaccine-related legislation in many U.S. states and other countries. The notion of herd immunity is used as a trump card to justify any measures, often at odds with personal freedom of choice, aiming to increase vaccination compliance. An implicit assumption is that liberal vaccine exemptions policies would somehow compromise this precious herd immunity, which the public health authorities strive to establish and maintain via vaccination.
    Although the evidence for vaccination-based herd immunity is yet to materialize, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just a single publication by Poland & Jacobson (1994)[v] reports on 18 different measles outbreaks throughout North America, occurring in school populations with very high vaccination coverage for measles (71% to 99.8%). In these outbreaks, vaccinated children constituted 30% to 100% of measles cases. Many more similar outbreaks occurring after 1994 are described in epidemiologic publications.
    What to Blame?The medical establishment was quick to blame Mother Nature on frequent occurrence of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated communities. It has been noticed that if vaccinated too early, an infant might fail to respond to the measles vaccine due to the inhibitory (and at the same time protective) effect of maternal antibodies transferred via placenta. Before the 1990s, a single dose of the measles vaccine was on the childhood schedule in North America. To compensate for a potential “interference” of maternal immunity transfer with the first round of measles vaccination in some children, a double MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccination strategy was introduced in the United States and Canada in the early 1990s.
    Endemic measles got subsequently eliminated in North America, but in 2011 an imported measles outbreak – the largest so far in the post-elimination era – hit a community in Quebec, Canada with 95-97% measles vaccination compliance in the era of double vaccination against measles. If double vaccination is not enough to patch those early-age vaccination failures and ensure the elusive herd immunity, should we then look forward to triple (or, might as well, quadruple) MMR vaccination strategy to see how that might work out with respect to herd immunity? Or, should we instead re-examine the herd immunity concept itself?
    Faulty Assumption
    The herd immunity theory is based on a faulty assumption that vaccination elicits in an individual a state equivalent to bona fide immunity (life-long resistance to viral re-infection). As with any garbage in-garbage out type of theory, the expectations of the herd immunity theory are bound to fail in the real world.
    Some relevant information about anti-viral immunity can be gleaned from experiments in research animals. Ochsenbein et al. (2000)[vi] conducted an experiment in mice, in which they compared the effect of injecting mice with two preparations of the vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). They immunized mice with either unmodified VSV (live virus) or ultraviolet light-inactivated VSV incapable of replication (dead virus). Then they tested the capacity of the serum from the two groups of immunized animals to neutralize VSV (i.e., render VSV incapable of infecting cells) over the 300 day-span following immunization.
    The injection of the live-virus preparation induced long-lasting capacity of the serum to neutralize the virus, which persisted for the whole duration of the study without any noticeable decline. In contrast, the injection of the dead-virus preparation induced much lower levels of virus-neutralizing serum antibody titers to start with. Virus-neutralizing serum titers reached a peak at 20 days post-immunization and then started to wane rapidly. They went below the level detectable by the neutralization test by the end of the study.
    The conclusion of this experiment was that a procedure that attenuates or inactivates the virus also diminishes its ability to induce long-lasting virus-neutralizing serum titers upon immunization of animals.
    It should be noted that vaccines against viral childhood diseases are similarly prepared by first isolating a wild virus from a sick person, then rendering it artificially attenuated or inactivated to make a vaccine-strain virus. The attenuation or inactivation of a wild virus to become a vaccine-strain virus is done to reduce the likelihood of it inducing viral disease symptoms, although this happens anyway in some cases. The process of attenuation, while making a vaccine-strain virus “safer” than the original wild virus, as far as the induction of viral disease symptoms are concerned, also impacts the durability of vaccine-based protection.
    The Boston University Measles Outbreak StudyThe protective threshold for measles-virus neutralizing serum titers in humans can be estimated from the Boston University Measles Study by Chen et al.[vii] A subsequent study by LeBaron et al.[viii] further estimates how long it takes, after the receipt of the second MMR shot, for measles-virus neutralizing serum titers to drop below the protective threshold level. Let us examine these two relevant studies side-by-side.
    In 1990, a blood drive was conducted among students of Boston University a month before the campus happened to be hit with a measles outbreak. Due to these natural circumstances, researchers happened to have access to blood samples of many students who either got measles or were spared from the disease during the outbreak. The measles virus-neutralizing serum titers were measured a month prior to and two months after the exposure. Pre-exposure titers (due to prior vaccination of these students in their childhood) could then be correlated with the degree of their current protection from measles: (1) no detectable infection or disease; (2) a serologically confirmed measles virus infection with a modified clinical course of disease; or (3) full-blown clinical measles. By the way, eight out of nine students who ended up getting full-blown measles, had been vaccinated against measles in their childhood.
    The outcome of the Boston University measles outbreak study was the following:
    (a) In all previously vaccinated students who experienced full-blown measles, pre-exposure titers were below 120;
    (b) Seventy percent of students whose pre-exposure titers were between 120 and 1052, ended up having a serologically confirmed measles infection, but since their altered disease symptoms did not conform to the clinical measles case definition, they were categorized as non-cases during the outbreak;
    (c) Students with pre-exposure titers in excess of 1052 were for the most part protected both from the typical clinical disease as well as the measles virus infection.
    The other study, by LeBaron et al. (2007), sought to determine the duration of measles virus-neutralization serum titers after the receipt of the second MMR booster. The study enrolled several hundred healthy Caucasian children from rural U.S. areas free of measles outbreaks for the duration of the study.
    The study revealed that about a quarter of these children generated relatively high serum titers in response to MMR vaccination, although not nearly as high as serum titers would be after a natural measles infection. The rest responded modestly to the booster, but some did very poorly. Serum titers in all children, regardless of being high, moderate, or low, reached a peak in a month after the MMR booster, then came down in six months to the pre-booster levels and continued to decline gradually over the next 5-10 years of observation. Only about a top quarter of children (called high-responders) were able to maintain serum titers in excess of 1000 units 10 years following their second MMR booster, received at the age of five. This fraction of children is likely to be protected from the measles virus infection by the time they are adolescents.
    The least efficient vaccine responders (bottom 5%) had their serum titers fall below 120 units within 5-10 years after the second MMR shot. This percentage of vaccinated children is expected to have full-blown, clinically identifiable measles upon exposure when they get a bit older. This is the reason why vaccinated (and even twice-vaccinated) people show up as disease cases in numbers equal to or even exceeding the unvaccinated cases in communities with very high (>95%) vaccination coverage.
    Rapid loss of vaccine protection in low-responders is the reason for the paradox of a “vaccine-preventable” disease becoming the disease of the vaccinated. Such disease cases are not early-age vaccine failures due to maternal antibody interference, they are anticipated vaccine failures due to waning vaccine protection.
    For the majority of MMR-vaccinated children, serum titers against measles fall between 120 and 1000 by the time they reach adolescence. These children can acquire the measles virus upon exposure and be potentially contagious during an outbreak, although they might experience a modified course of measles disease and therefore not be labeled as measles cases for the purposes of reporting. In fact, during the Boston University measles outbreak, many students with pre-exposure titers between 120 and 1052, who were officially categorized as non-cases, had most of the viral disease (flu-like) symptoms, including cough, photophobia, headache, and fever. These sick “non-cases” ended up with high post-exposure serum titers for measles, just as the typical disease cases did, which is indicative of viral replication and, hence, transmission.
    High Vaccination Compliance Does Not Result in Herd Immunity
    Cases of the measles virus re-importation into North America after the eradication of the endemic virus had typically resulted in small or no sustained outbreaks in the last decade, in part due to the vigilance of the public health authorities in quarantine implementation. However, the 2011 imported outbreak of measles in Quebec, Canada characterized by de Serres et al.[ix] appeared to be ominously different. Strict quarantine measures were not implemented, possibly because of the assumption that the region was well under the herd immunity effect due to an exceptionally high and uniform vaccination compliance for measles (95-97%) in this region. The consequences of relying on non-existent herd immunity as opposed to quarantine in curbing an imported disease outbreak were very telling.
    Imported by a high-school teacher during the spring break trip abroad (himself vaccinated against measles in his childhood), the outbreak happened to spread swiftly from this index case, involved more than 600 individuals including 21 infants, and lasted for half a year. Nearly half of the measles cases in this outbreak were vaccinated individuals. Indicative of gradually waning nature of vaccine-based protection, the contribution of twice-vaccinated children to disease cases increased with age. Twice-vaccinated cases constituted only 4.1% of the 5-9 age group, but 18% of the 10-14 age group, and 22% of the 15-19 age group. The study did not assess how many previously vaccinated individuals ended up getting the measles virus infection with a modified clinical course of disease and thus were not counted as disease cases for the purposes of reporting, yet were spreading the virus around in the community.
    Can Vaccinated Transmit the Measles Virus?
    The medical establishment assumes that vaccinated children, if they themselves get virally infected or even develop full-blown (called breakthrough) disease, cannot transmit it to others. Some cite a paper published in the prestigious Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) as providing evidence for this assumption. Indeed, the title of the article reads “Failure of Vaccinated Children to Transmit Measles.”[x] However, careful examination of the study design reveals that it did not properly address the question it should have addressed: whether vaccinated children who definitely get infected during an outbreak can or cannot transmit the virus to others, who are still susceptible to the virus.
    The results of the JAMA study show that during an outbreak of measles in an Iowa community in 1970s, which involved both vaccinated and unvaccinated children, non-sick vaccinated children were unlikely to transmit measles to their younger pre-school siblings, many of whom could have been recently vaccinated themselves and therefore not vulnerable to measles anyway during that particular outbreak. The vaccination status of those younger siblings was not determined (or disclosed) by the study. Curiously, the study data show that non-sick unvaccinated children also “fail” to transmit measles (which they obviously did not contract during that particular outbreak) to their younger pre-school siblings with undisclosed vaccination status. If this tells us anything about the failure of the vaccinated children to transmit the virus, then this failure has obviously nothing to do with their vaccination status.
    Doing the Math
    Let us now remind ourselves that the touted purpose of establishing herd immunity via a high degree of vaccination compliance is to be able to promptly cease any outbreak of a benign childhood disease so that a vulnerable but vaccine-ineligible population (i.e., infants or individuals taking immuno-suppressive medications) could avoid contracting the disease that is dangerous only at their age or given their state of the immune system. To prevent an outbreak, 70-95% of the population, according to very broad theoretical estimates, has to be truly immune – that is, resistant to viral infection, not just protected from developing the full range of symptoms that conform to the accepted clinical definition of the disease. However, 100% vaccination compliance can at best make only a quarter of the population become resistant to viral infection for more than a decade. This means that 100% vaccination compliance is nowhere near achieving the required threshold (70-95%) of population’s cumulative immunity in order for the herd immunity effect to take place.
    Due to waning nature of vaccine-based protection, stable herd immunity from measles cannot be achieved via childhood vaccination in the long term, even with 100% vaccination compliance.
    Is Revaccination a Solution to Waning Vaccine Protection Against Measles?Typical variations in the gene pool (i.e., personal immuno-genetic profile) affect how efficiently vaccines get processed and presented to the immune system for the purposes of antibody production. This might be one of the reasons why only a fraction of healthy children respond well to vaccination (i.e., can generate and maintain high enough serum titers for many years), whereas other healthy children respond poorly to vaccination. Would re-vaccinating those whose personal immuno-genetic profile does not favor high antibody production in response to the measles vaccine, correct their inherently low degree of vaccine-responsiveness? The research that attests to the futility of such an endeavor is gleaned from observations summed up by Dr. Gregory Poland:
    “In studies of measles, post-immunization measles antibody in the ‘low positive’ range did not protect against clinical measles when subjects were exposed to the wild measles virus, whereas high levels were protective. Furthermore, non-responders to a single dose of measles vaccine, who demonstrated an antibody response only after a second immunization, were still six times more likely than were responders to a single dose of measles vaccine to develop measles on exposure to wild virus. Others examined ‘poor responders,’ who were re-immunized and developed poor or low-level antibody responses only to lose detectable antibody and develop measles on exposure 2–5 years later.”[xi]
    The answer is clear: poor responders to the measles vaccine remain poor responders to further vaccination and cannot rescue herd immunity. Having these data, why does the medical establishment insist that vaccine-based herd immunity is even possible, if only stricter or more frequent vaccination measures could be implemented? Why, for the sake of an unattainable idea, do mainstream pediatricians and public health officials pester those families who choose to shield their children from potential vaccine injuries or ensure their children’s health via natural vaccine-independent strategies?
    Self-Defeating Public Health Venture
    The biomedical belief that a vaccine-exempt child endangers the society by not contributing to herd immunity is preposterous, because vaccinating every single child by the required schedule cannot maintain the desired herd immunity anyway. It is time to let go of the bigotry against those seeking vaccination exemptions for their children. Instead, we should turn our attention to the outcome of mass vaccination campaigns that lies ahead.
    Mass vaccination of children initially achieves rapid results in disease reduction through attempted viral eradication only because it hitch hikes on top of the permanently immune majority of adults who acquired their permanent immunity naturally in the pre-vaccination era.[xii] The problem is, however, that the proportion of vaccinated but non-immune young adults is now growing, while the proportion of the older immune population is diminishing due to age. Thus, over time mass vaccination makes us lose rather than gain cumulative immunity in the adult population. At this stage the struggle to control imported outbreaks is going to become an uphill battle regardless of vaccination compliance, with the Quebec measles experience of 2011 being a harbinger for more of such out-of-control outbreaks to come.
    Mass vaccination eventually ceases endemic disease outbreaks by removing viral circulation in the community, instead of inducing permanent immunity in the vaccinated. However, viral diseases, although reduced in incidence in many countries, are not fully eradicated from all parts of the world. A region-specific elimination of viral exposure at the time when the virus is present globally is hardly good news. Prolonged mass childhood vaccination is a measure of disease control that with time makes our entire adult population (but more importantly infants) more and more defenseless against the incompletely eradicated virus, which can be easily re-imported.
    Why do the public health authorities choose to put so much effort into a self-defeating venture of non-uniform viral eradication at the time when the residual mortality from benign viral childhood diseases could have been eliminated with the judicious use of immunoglobulin?

    Perhaps a bit belated, comes a theoretical recognition of the epidemiologic disaster we are heading towards:
    “For infectious diseases where immunization can offer lifelong protection, a variety of simple models can be used to explain the utility of vaccination as a control method. However, for many diseases, immunity wanes over time…. Here we show how vaccination can have a range of unexpected consequences. We predict that, after a long disease-free period, the introduction of infection will lead to far larger epidemics than that predicted by standard models. These results have clear implications for the long-term success of any vaccination campaign and highlight the need for a sound understanding of the immunological mechanisms of immunity and vaccination.”[xiii]
    Indeed, the medical establishment got it all in reverse. It is not a vaccine-exempt child who endangers vulnerable infants and immuno-compromised individuals. It is the long-term effects of mass vaccination campaigns that have accomplished that already. It is time to wake up to the reality of our public health vaccination policies and their long-term implications.

    All references can be found at this link: https://sites.google.com/site/vaccineillusion/herd-immunity

  15. […] http://www.vaccinetimes.com/russell-…new-wakefield/ __________________ "It's no longer a question of staying healthy. It's a question of finding a sickness you like." -Jackie Mason […]

  16. This piece of writing presents clear idea for the new visitors of
    blogging, that actually how to do blogging and site-building.

  17. Hmm is anyone else having problems with the images on this blog loading?
    I’m trying to find out if its a problem on my end or if it’s
    the blog. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

  18. […] Vaccine Conspiracy Theorist – Quack of the Day: Dr. Russell Blaylock The VaccineTimes – Russell Blaylock MD – The new Wakefield? Rational Wiki – Russell Blaylock Media Matters – Here Are 5 Conservative Outlets That […]

  19. I have fun with, result in I found just what I was looking for.

    You have ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have
    a great day. Bye

  20. Hello everyone, it’s my first visit at this website, and
    piece of writing is in fact fruitful in favor of
    me, keep up posting these posts.

  21. WOW juyst what I was searching for. Came here by searching
    for search engines

    My weblog paatexo.wordpress.com – Cindy,

 Leave a Reply



You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>