Talk:Russell Blaylock

message: Header sez it all.
I arrive here in the course of researching Dr. Blaylock's self-promoting for-pay newsletter and the associated "supplements."
Most, but emphatically not all, of what the guy teaches is true -- but you don't need to pay for it: just read the Internet carefully.
Some of what he says is dangerous: he confuses the dangerous metals lead and mercury with all chemicals of which they may be a part. What he says about flu vaccines is incorrect and dangerous to the public. I believe that it is only possible for a dishonest person to say the things that his spokesman says in promoting his for-pay supplement promotion pamphlet, portentously titled "The Blaylock Report."  In a better world this guy would probably be in jail, with a pleasant golf course and no  Internet connection, and no doubt only after years of litigation.  I wonder whether this is a data-point for a National Institute of Delusional Snake-Oil Salesmen?  Perhaps Wikipedia is the best that can be done, all things considered...
There is no doubt that at a sufficiently high dose everything, including water, is poisonous or otherwise harmful. What his spokesman says about aspertame(tm.) is unproven, if not aggressively dishonest and the result of hysterical promotion by ignorant cults.
 
I already follow some of the advice he gives.  I think his smarmy audio-video promotions are probably wise to mix some good advice in with their bad science and their commercial promotion.
DavidLJ (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone gives good and bad advice in a freely mixed form, I ignore the hell out of the miseducation effort and find a reliable source for good information. To be honest, if his video I watched seven minutes of, before turning it off in disgust, were to tell me were to find my buttock with both hands, I'd ignore that advice and seek out a reputable medical resource to reassure me as to the location of my buttocks.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normal Variation Is Not a Medical Problem. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Russell Blaylock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091013095327/http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_89221.html to http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_89221.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090915234855/http://blaylockreport.com:80/about_drblaylock.html to http://www.blaylockreport.com/about_drblaylock.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm loathe to AfD this since it's already survived two, but honestly there is ONE source currently provided that seems to go toward supporting notability, this: 
I've found a second: . Not sure who The Outline is, but they seem to have editorial oversight.
Other than that it seems to be simple name checks, sourcing to his own work, simple citations of his work in the other pieces, and most of what I found on a google search is just opinion pieces by him. Where is the sigcov in RS?
If we don't have the stomach to just delete this, I think we need to strip it down to what's actually been said about him plus noncontroversial bio details. I'll circle back to give folks a chance to respond. valereee (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should avoid another AFD and should follow WP:Preserve, especially with a view toward treating him and his ideas as fringe. We should remove "unduly self-serving" content and give the due weight and increased prominence deserved to mainstream RS and views. As a fringe topic, WP:Parity applies, so feel free to use skeptical sources and other mainstream opinion sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the self-sourced and unsourced content. valereee (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  complete rewrite needed