Russell Blaylock is a trained neurosurgeon who considers himself an expert on nutrition and toxins in food, cookware, teeth, and vaccines. Contrary to the vast bulk of the scientific evidence, Blaylock maintains that vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine are dangerous or ineffective; that dental amalgams and fluoridated water are harmful to our health; and that aluminum cookware, aspartame, and MSG are toxic substances causing brain damage.1, 2, 3 Ironically, Blaylock perpetuates the myth that science-based medicine is not interested in prevention, despite the fact that immunization, which he opposes, prevents more disease and saves more lives than just about any other medical activity.
Blaylock has retired from neurosurgery and has taken up a career opposing science-based medicine and promoting pseudoscience-based medicine and supplements that he sells under the label Brain Repair Formula. He suggests that his supplements can treat and prevent such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. He asserts that his formula "will maximize your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation." The rest of the scientific community seems oblivious to these claims, which are not based on large-scale clinical trials. Blaylock also sells hope to cancer patients by encouraging them to believe he has found the secret to prevention and cure.5
Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, Blaylock maintains that vaccines cause Lou Gehrig's disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, a disease of the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscle movement), Parkinson's, and autism.4 He puts forth these notions in books and for the politically conservative website Newsmax in a section called The Blaylock Wellness Report.* Despite the fact that the scientific evidence does not support his belief, Blaylock claims that giving children about two dozen vaccinations before they start school is dangerous. The experts at the Center for Disease Control disagree with Blaylock. According to the CDC:
The available scientific data show that simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines has no adverse effect on the normal childhood immune system....
No evidence suggests that the recommended childhood vaccines can "overload" the immune system. In contrast, from the moment babies are born, they are exposed to numerous bacteria and viruses on a daily basis. Eating food introduces new bacteria into the body; numerous bacteria live in the mouth and nose; and an infant places his or her hands or other objects in his or her mouth hundreds of times every hour, exposing the immune system to still more antigens. An upper respiratory viral infection exposes a child to 4 to 10 antigens, and a case of "strep throat" to 25 to 50.
Blaylock has claimed that the vaccine may be more dangerous than the swine flu because the vaccine contains squalene. On the one hand, no flu vaccine in the U.S. contains squalene, which is an adjuvant that allows the vaccine to be equally effective while using less of the antigen (thus, more vaccine can be made from less material). On the other hand, what if it did? There's no evidence squalene, a substance naturally produced in the body, is harmful. "Squalene is a natural and vital part of the synthesis of cholesterol, steroid hormones, and vitamin D in the human body."*
Dr. Harriet Hall writes:
Flu vaccines containing MF59, a squalene-based adjuvant, have been used in Europe for 10 years, with 22,000,000 doses given; and no serious adverse events have occurred, only mild local reactions. The vaccine does not raise the incidence or titers of anti-squalene antibodies. The World Health Organization (WHO) considers it safe.*
Blaylock claims that squalene "in vaccines has been strongly linked to the Gulf War Syndrome," despite the fact that there was no squalene in vaccines given to Gulf War soldiers.
Blaylock also believes there is a conspiracy by Big Pharma, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. government to trick people into getting vaccinated:
It is obvious that the vaccine manufacturers stand to make billions of dollars in profits from this WHO/government-promoted pandemic.
Joseph Mercola makes a similar argument, but as Joseph Albietz notes: it's obvious that pharmaceutical firms, doctors, and hospitals would make many more billions if there were a pandemic than if they prevent one. (Mercola is a nonscience-based or nonsense-based medical advisor with a loud Internet presence.)
Besides his anti-vaccination rants, Dr. Blaylock has been active in promoting the unsupported notion that aspartame is a neurotoxin.
An extensive review of the research on aspartame was published in 2007 and concluded:
The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.
Blaylock's claim about the dangers from mercury in dental amalgam is not supported by the preponderance of the scientific evidence.
The mercury scare apparently began in 1985 with the publication of It's All in Your Head by Hal Huggins, a Colorado dentist who was convinced that just about everything that ails anybody is due to the mercury in amalgam fillings. "60 Minutes" gave the idea a big boost with a program segment in 1990 entitled "Poison in Your Mouth." The program was called Toxic Television by Dr. Stephen Barrett.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says "there is scant evidence that the health of a vast majority of people with amalgam is compromised." The American Dental Association (ADA) claims that "there currently appears to be no justification for discontinuing the use of dental amalgam." Of course, the amalgam opponents think the ADA is part of a conspiracy to hide the real dangers of the alloy. The ADA position is not based on economics, but on science. According to my dentist, dentists in California are advised not to comply with a patient's request to have all his or her "mercury" fillings removed. Removing "mercury" fillings and using plastics to refill them would be a good way to make money, since there are many people who are convinced, as Blaylock is, that fillings are causing many health problems. Dentists are advised not to do the work because there is not sufficient scientific evidence to back up the fear that fillings are poisoning people. Furthermore, "patients might be exposing themselves to more mercury when a filling is removed. Some studies have shown a temporary spike of mercury levels in urine when amalgam fillings are removed. This increase lasts only a few days."*
The arguments of many opponents to mercury-based amalgams and preservatives in vaccines seem to commit the fallacy of composition: the notion that if part of a whole is toxic, then the whole must be toxic. Congresswoman Diane Waters, for example, sponsored H. R. 4163, the Mercury in Dental Filling Disclosure and Prohibition Act. She and some of her colleagues in Congress wanted to ban the amalgam used in many dental fillings because mercury, a known poison, is one of its components. (Amalgam is an alloy of silver, copper, tin, molybdenum, mercury, and perhaps a little zinc. Small traces of these elements may be floating freely in amalgam, but not enough to worry about.) Before the ban would take effect she wanted all amalgam to come with this warning label: "Dental amalgam contains approximately 50 percent mercury, a highly toxic element. Such products should not be administered to children less than 18 years of age, pregnant women or lactating women. Such products should not be administered to any consumer without a warning that the product contains mercury, which is a highly toxic element, and therefore poses health risks." Watson might as well have supported legislation that would ban both table salt (since it consists chlorine, a poisonous gas) and water (since it is consists of hydrogen, a highly flammable gas, and oxygen, known to be essential to combustion). Where is the science to back up Watson's concerns? Totally lacking, according to Leon Jaroff who took Watson to task in Time.
Blaylock's belief that thimerosal [a preservative using ethylmercury] in vaccines causes autism, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's is also misguided and without support of the preponderance of the evidence.
Blaylock makes too many claims to refute them all in this short article, but one more should be noted. He claims that "vaccines, such as those for diphtheria and whooping cough [pertussis], show high failure rates." Other experts disagree:
The DTaP vaccine is 95% effective in preventing all three diseases that it immunizes against--diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. It is 59-89% effective in preventing pertussis, while the protection rates for diphtheria and tetanus are higher. Pertussis occasionally occurs in children who have received the pertussis immunization, but it is less severe and has fewer complications.
Furthermore, many youngsters are getting whooping cough (even dying from it) because parents are not immunizing their children. In Japan, when the vaccination rate for pertussis dropped 70% from 1974 to 1976, there was a corresponding increase in pertussis. In 1974 there were 393 cases of pertussis and no deaths. In 1976, there were more than 13,000 cases and 41 deaths.*[\quote]
Link: http://www.skepdic.com/blaylock.html