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?
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.