A peer-reviewed neurosurgery journal published an article spreading false claims about the pandemic — with no evidence to support its claims, an expert said.
The editorial by Russell Blaylock, MD, in Surgical Neurology Internationalstating that the COVID-19 pandemic is “one of the most manipulated infectious disease-related events in history.”
The piece, titled “COVID UPDATE: What’s the truth?” claims that the pandemic has been marked by lies from government officials and medical societies. It claims that the media orchestrates cover-ups under the control of drug companies. And it is claimed that “hundreds of thousands” have been killed and many times more injured by mRNA vaccines.
But although the editorial was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it provides no solid scientific evidence to support its claims, merely unfiltered conjecture by its author, according to Dr. Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia.
Meyerowitz-Katz wrote a Twitter thread He outlined his concerns about the editorial, calling the piece “bizarre” and “amazingly unscientific”. The epidemiologist said MedPage today that many of the papers cited in the editorial do not in fact agree with the points made in the editorial.
Additionally, Meyerowitz-Katz noted that the most cited reference in the editorial is the book by anti-vaccine Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health – a source he considered “obviously unreliable”.
Blaylock also links to conspiracy theory blogs, Meyerowitz-Katz said. One cites Ryan Cole, MD, an Idaho pathologist under fire for spreading COVID misinformation, who sees a “dramatic rise” in aggressive cancers among vaccinated individuals, but provides no data to support that claim.
Several other references in Blaylock’s article are to articles by doctors notorious for spreading COVID misinformation, being active in political movements and speaking at conservative rallies such as Peter McCullough, MD, Pierre Kory, MD, Meryl Nass , MD, and Joseph Mercola. DO, just to name a few.
“While Dr. Blaylock is of course entitled to his opinion, this is largely supported in the article by low-quality sources that lack credibility or simply do not support his argument,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “Much of the editorial is not supported by any credentials and simply represents the author’s own views.”
In an email to MedPage today, Blaylock said he had never seen such a “open call from a group of doctors” to end freedom of speech and debate. “The pandemic is over, so there is no justification for continuing this totalitarian suppression of dissent,” he said.
James Ausman, MD, PhD, Editor Emeritus of Surgical Neurology Internationalagreed in a statement MedPage today that the journal “is open to comments from any reader, so long as the comments are factual and free of personal comment”.
Blaylock has always spread misinformation in the nutrition world, claiming that certain food additives are “excitotoxic” to the brain in normal doses. Many have credited the former neurosurgeon with instigating monosodium glutamate (MSG) health scares, after he wrote in his 1994 book: Excitotoxins: The taste that killsthat it could be linked to brain damage and neurodegenerative diseases.
The doctor has also opposed vaccines in the past, specifically stating that swine flu is a man-made virus and promoting cold douches as a cure to counteract the “dangerous effects” of the H1N1 vaccine.
Blaylock currently sells a dietary supplement called Brain Repair Formula and writes for the conservative news outlet news max. He also serves as associate editor of the Neuroinflammation department of Surgical Neurology International.
This journal is an “independent publication, not affiliated with any society or organization,” according to the journal’s website. It was founded in 2010 and is published by MedKnow, a company owned by Wolters Kluwer.
Since its inception, the magazine said, it has remained “apolitical,” noting that it does not discriminate against authors on the basis of political, religious, racial, geographic, or sexual characteristics.
The magazine states that the articles it publishes must be “fact-based,” but added that it “understands that facts can be interpreted differently by different readers.”