0:01
SNI, Surgical Neurology International, an Internet Journal with Nancy Epstein as its Editor-in-Chief, and SNI Digital in New, editorially curated neurosurgery and
0:16
medical information multimedia platform with operative videos, expert interviews, podcasts, and global interactive discussion of information for the next generation of clinicians in 13 languages,
0:34
with James Osmond as its Editor-in-Chief.
0:40
Dr. Blanock is the CEO of Theoretical Neuroscience Research, Associate Editor-in-Chief of the Neuro-Information section of Surgical Neurology International and SNI Digital. He's a Board-certified
0:55
clinical nutritionist. He's the creator and editor of the Blalock Wellness Report, author of multiple books, scientific papers, a health commentator on radio TV and for the epic times. And he has
1:11
written numerous books all available at amazoncom,
1:17
on natural solutions for liver cure, natural strategies for cancer patients,
1:24
Dr. Blaylock's prescription for natural health, excitotoxins, which will be a portion of this presentation. And together with Dr. Oswin, co-authored the book calledThe China Virus, What is the
1:38
Truth?
1:41
He publishes the Blaylock Wellness Report, which is a monthly nutritional newsletter for over 20 years. And the sum of the subjects he covers, This cancer is actually a metabolic disease.
1:56
or natural compound compounds offer more benefit for cancer treatments. In a book on natural strategies for cancer patients.
2:08
The key papers for this presentation are in surgical neurology and international accelerated cancer aggressiveness by viral outcome modulation, new targets and newer natural treatments for cancer
2:21
control and treatment, published in 2019,
2:27
in a recent publication and it's about a play like wellness report on protecting yourself from cancer-causing viruses
2:40
Are pleased to present
2:43
the SNI and SNI Digital Neuroscience Expert Series.
2:49
This program is an interview with Dr. Russell Blylock on conversations with a visionary in science
3:02
Yeah, you see, they didn't see the connection there. And this is what Cypher's saying. It really can't, what's turning all this on? And, you know, the explanation before, well, radiation and
3:17
chemo, chemical exposure, chemo carcinogens, they affect certain gene that affect the cell and make it more carcinogenic. But then we take the nucleus out of a fully carcinogenic cell, we put it
3:32
in a normal cell and take its nucleus out and all the progenitor cells that come from that are normal. Well, that doesn't make any sense if it's a genetic disease. If it's a genetic disease, all
3:47
the progenitor cells should be carcinogenic. But they're not. They're normal. And then you do just the opposite. You take a cancer cell, you take its nucleus out, You put a normal nucleus in it
4:01
and. I mean, you put a
4:04
cytoplasm and you put the cancer gene in it, suddenly all the progenitor cells are normal. That doesn't fly. That doesn't make any biological sense. And so you've done it both ways and I've read
4:19
the other day that they've repeated this over and over. Each time they get the same thing. And there's a diagram in a cypher article I put on the list that shows it. It shows a diagram of doing
4:36
these nuclear exchanges. So I don't see how you can argue with that. I mean, if the radiation and the other chemicals have caused these genetic defects, why are the progenitor cells normal? That
4:51
doesn't make any sense. So I don't want you to do it to say everything now, But that's, I mean, as I go through everything. that struck me. Now, the next thing gets to something personal, and
5:07
I'm just thinking about, well, how are people going to attack this? Well, it gets back to your career. We're not going to go into that, but when it gets into the career,
5:18
you grew up and basically self-taught by it because you learned your biochemistry before you went to medical school. You learned it in college. You learned it in medical school. It just kept
5:31
learning and learning about it and it spent years developing all of an understanding of what the biochemistry is going on in the body and how it's changed. Okay, then you go into practice. Okay,
5:45
it doesn't mean you stop learning about this. You do. Well, then you write a series of papers and the first question comes up, Well, is he ever an academician? Oh, well,
5:57
it wasn't an academician.
6:00
And you go back two years ago, where would you go to study with somebody who was interested in this? It would probably be zero.
6:12
So you have to do this yourself. Okay, and we do this yourself. That's an academician's argument. But the next thing is, if you look at all the papers that I've read that you've written. They're
6:25
abundantly, I'm not gonna talk about this, but I'm just trying to give you a logic to what a criticism is gonna be. They're abundantly references, hundreds, hundred,
6:40
200 references. And it's just for a paper. And so what you're doing is what you learn to do is you grew up and tell me if I'm wrong, but you learn to look at these things, read all these things,
6:53
absorb this material, ask questions, go look and see if you can find some work that does that, you find the work. work may not be today, tomorrow it could be a month from now, and eventually
7:05
begin to put all these things together and link them together into what you think is a hypothesis of how this happens. Well, did he go to the laboratory and test it out? Well,
7:17
basically as he pursued all the questions, he found that people had done it.
7:23
So it fit with what he was saying. So he goes on to make some more hypothesis. And this is how the work is constructed. What I'm doing this for is because
7:36
that is totally, totally against the way people think things should be done. You should have a laboratory or your room there should be filled with test tubes and
7:50
these culture plates and everything. And you've got a whole bunch of people working on this. Well, I've written reviews on paper. I certainly didn't know And I make a hypothesis out of this that
8:02
comes to that. There's nothing
8:05
world-chaking about that or wrong about that, except that you've taken on a fundamental concept that's been endorsed by probably 95 of the people in the world and doctors in the world, and it
8:19
becomes an attack. They don't look at it as another reason of argument, but it's a personal attack, which it is not. I mean, that's how people react, they take it personally Instead of divorcing
8:32
the person from the criticism. And so I can see, 'cause we get back to the party, he said nobody wants to publish what I'm saying. I can understand that if I'm on an academic community. Who is
8:49
this guy? Where is he? Well, he's never done any laboratory work. He's not on a faculty anywhere. And all these kinds of things.
8:58
at the time when nobody was interested, now people are interested in it, your
9:04
way ahead. That's how they're thinking. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but that's what's happening. So that's a way of invalidating the work, which is what I'm sure is some of the reasons
9:17
why some people haven't picked that up. I happen to agree with that. I think it's reasonable, I think it's right I think that's,
9:28
so you go to the laboratory, you do a few experiments, you make a couple of things that are right, you write a paper, you go to a meeting, everybody recognizes you do it. That's the normal
9:38
pathway. You didn't do that. Well, that doesn't make it wrong. And so, am I right in my analysis? I think that's what's happening. That's what's - Well, you know what always surprised me was
9:52
that, In all the scientific disciplines, there's only one that does. theoretical, and that's physics, and then was a theoretical physicist, he never did an experiment at all. One of the
10:08
greatest physiologists we've ever had since Einstein, and he never did a single experiment. He he's a theoretical physicist. And I said, well, why don't we have theoretical neurosurgery or
10:20
neuroscience? And so I said, I don't need to do the experiment I take other people's experiment. And I think about them, I connect the dots, I try to put it all together and I construct a story.
10:35
And what I do when I write a paper, I say, what are they going to say about this? What are the criticisms? What are the blank spots? And that's how I write a paper. And so I'll look up
10:46
references. Well, has anybody ever done this? And then I find out, well, yes, it did. It was forgotten. And never went any further And we look at the subject we're talking about, well,
10:59
You had the idea, which came to me when I was in college and studying cancer, is that
11:06
it's probably a viral disease. It made a lot of sense. I read it numerous times, and it made tremendous sense. And then they started examining tumors, and said, well, we can't find tumors in
11:18
these cancers. And then now in modern times, I looked back and said, well, you can't find that virus by that method. PCR doesn't work. And these other methods that these articles were depending
11:33
on don't work. And then we find out, well, actually the virus didn't even have to infect all the cells. It's producing hundreds of proteins, each one of which does all the things we know happens
11:46
with cancer. They do every one of them And the literature ignores it except for a handful of people. And now they're looking at the cytometric virus It's really an oncogenic virus. It can do
12:01
everything to produce cancer that we see in any cancer. It meets all the criteria. And so you think, well, I didn't do a single experiment. That was a conclusion I came to along with. You know,
12:16
one time I was a speaker at a meeting with the head of biochemistry at Vanderbilt. And I made the statement, I said Alzheimer's disease, it was not called by amyloid. Amyloid is a result of what
12:33
really causes inflammation. And I said, you can't get a grant from NIH unless you have in there amyloid somewhere. And he stood out, everybody else was skeptical and he stood up and he said,
12:49
Russell's exactly right. If you don't put amyloid, you're not gonna get an NIH grant. Well, it's taken all this time Now they all come to agree. Hey, it's not amyloid. It's inflammation. We
13:03
were on the wrong track. We made all these drugs and we got rid of all the amyloid. It had no effect
13:11
You see, and so it's like fine on that physicist. He says, when you do things, you have to think like a five year old child. You have to constantly say why why he said everybody takes it for
13:25
granted like gravity.
13:29
They go to this elaborate explanation. And he said, you asked the student, why do you believe that And you find out, he's just quoting a textbook. He doesn't really know why. And he doesn't
13:41
learn. He just repeats exactly what some authority said. And then you go along and you find out, well, everybody's been thinking wrong forever.
13:52
And it took somebody who asked the question to the kids that, well, why, why does the sun come up? Why does the clouds go away? Why does it rain? Do you question everything? And that's what you
14:06
do, and that's what I do. I don't just accept it, I question it. Is that indeed true? We'll see. And then you find out, as you go deeper, you find out, no, that's not true. It's like the
14:20
paper you wrote on random examinations of these sort of studies, randomized trial And you wrote a beautiful paper. I couldn't put it into words, but under you were right. It's exactly what we see.
14:36
And then we see a single study, a patient study, or one patient, oh, oh, that's anecdotal evidence. And I said, that's the biggest nonsense I've ever heard. How can you say is anecdotal
14:50
evidence? Like, I'm just guessing. And we have such firm evidence with one patient and I have cancer patients who's in. where they went to MD Anderson and it's repeated what I said and they said,
15:05
Where's all the evidence? Where's the evidence is there? I said, Well, prove me wrong. Show me where I made a mistake. And I said, Ask them one question. If I treat 10 patients, you have this
15:18
incurable cancer, and almost all of them get well. How do you explain it? Have you guys ever seen that? And all your treatments, all the things you do, have you ever seen that? I said, Ask
15:31
them that. And they all say, Well, no. They say, Well, I have.
15:38
I totally agree with you. We, at the very end, I may ask you this question. Who was the scientist and theoretical physicist? Was that Einstein you said? Never did you experiment? Huh? Yeah.
15:51
Yeah, he never did you experiment. Yeah,
15:54
Einstein you're a fine man. Both of them. Yeah, I'm fine. He said he used to sit in the chair and just think. That's how he did. And he made some of the greatest discoveries in physics ever.
16:07
And he's quoted endlessly. He's considered the smart friend in the world that ever existed. And he just sat in the chair and thought. Never did experiment. Absolutely. So we may get into that at
16:20
the end. I don't want to get into it at the beginning. I want to get into it at the end because there are several reasons One, I think
16:28
it's, this is going to turn out to be a, I'll probably be a 45 minute summary of the first three videos. That's okay.
16:39
Because I think it is important to bring it all together. It's also a place where we're just going to be talking, most of them. We're not going to be showing slides. We're going to be talking. I
16:48
got them up anyway, if you want them.
16:52
And putting this together so that it could see it 45 minutes at the end. We'll talk a little bit about this, because I can just - I can just see it in academia. Who is this guy? Play a lot. He's
17:08
never been an academic. Where's he in academia? I never saw this guy in academia. Well, what do you mean? He doesn't - has no laboratory. I mean, what kind of nonsense is that? I can see that.
17:19
I mean, that's just like falling off a lot. And I think we have to introduce the Einstein idea I mean, maybe the Feynman idea. And that's what you're doing.
17:32
If I go and review the literature, I'm doing the same thing and come out with some suggestions. What the hell is different? Nothing. And it's just - it's just that it's basically different than
17:45
what I know. I mean, that's basically the only argument. It's different. So your argument's right. Well, prove me wrong. I got that I got that very much. So anyway, as I was thinking about
17:60
all this, I'm thinking about, what is the problem here, Russell Scott? And that's how I put it all together, and I think what you're telling me says I'm right, and that's how it happened, but
18:14
that's not good enough. The answer is, the answer to your answer will prove me wrong, prove me wrong And
18:25
so, because you're citing enough literature here, that essentially makes every point you have, you go through it with all the references you got, just, it's overwhelming.
18:39
So, that's what I think I want to do. I want to spend a little time, have you spent a little time on describing Cypherie's experiments? That is fundamental to understanding everything you say that
18:52
follows And then also the Warburg.
18:56
Warburg hypothesis under the Warburg effect and the answer is how do you explain? That this is all going to be a random event and The events are actually proven That these cells are taken over and
19:13
follow the Warburg Hypothesis that you get a very limited amount of aerobic glycolysis with the manufacturer of
19:25
ATP's and and all of a sudden this turns into a cancer cell I mean, what do I have to how do I have to explain that by? Implicating all kinds of other things got to follow in an intelligent sequence.
19:42
So these things all have I mean This isn't a random event Otherwise every cancer would turn out to be a random peering and random this and that
19:55
It just, it doesn't make sense to me. It only, it makes sense to me, just like we have a genetic code, that there is a program that's followed, and that there's a program, even though it goes
20:08
awry, and that it's wrong, and it makes sense that it's in a virus, 'cause a virus has to protect itself, has to reproduce itself, on how does it do that? Okay, I got that. How did that happen?
20:21
I can't tell you that, I'm not God, but I see it's there.
20:28
So
20:32
it just, the random likelihood that these things are all gonna happen sequentially in an appropriate manner to make this a tumor is, to me, it is, I just, I don't accept that idea. And because a
20:50
whole bunch of things have to occur together for this to happen Now the next thing. we'll get into, and I don't know that there's an answer for this. Well, how come some occur later? Okay, we've
21:01
got ages of factor and diminished immune system. There's very reasonable arguments. Well, what happened to the kids that are having these
21:14
terrible cancers? How come that's faster? Well, it could be that the immune system is more severely compromised. Is there another factor here? We don't know. We haven't discovered that would
21:26
make this more sensible. If you get a tumor, it can grow. It can grow as a little growth and then it keeps growing and it grows more malignant and then so forth and so on.
21:40
They're not all this. They don't all necessarily grow at the same rate and the same speed. That's true. They may grow and stop growing. I'm not sure we know why that is.
21:55
Because once you get into your hypothesis, it makes sense, but you still don't have all the answers for everything. Whereas, like Feynman said, I didn't create anything, so I can explain
22:11
everything. I can't explain everything. I didn't create it, so I can't explain it all. So I think that's a reasonable answer And so,
22:23
I read an article the other day. It was an article about
22:30
young people. And what's happened in the technological age is they get essentially stimulated. There's a reward system, dopamine reward system, and the brain probably goes through the nucleus,
22:46
kelvins, whatever it is And they get a gratification. This may be doing games. It must be doing something else on the computers. And so they've hypertrophyed their reward system. And this means
23:01
instant gratification.
23:05
And so what happens to that is they've changed their dating systems.
23:13
And now they're going out essentially to get instant gratification because they've been programmed. I get this challenge, I want an instant gratification
23:24
I don't think that's a, I don't think that's a far-fetched idea. I think that makes a lot of sense to me.
23:32
And so we're programming kids because of the environment that they're in, because of the things we've introduced in the environment and companies have made it toxic that these people are now addicted
23:46
and they've got pathways that satisfies this addiction. It's like alcohol
23:52
instead of alcohol, some people it's sexual granted. some may people may say it's dating which leads to some of those things. I don't think this is way out in my field. I think this is exactly
24:05
what's happening.
24:08
But people, and I thought it was very, very, very smart for the person who wrote that paper to put it together because I think that's right. Why not get gratification on one thing and have your
24:20
body say I'm gonna, I'm excited about this and then have gratification from that. And that may be looking at a video, or doing a video game, or
24:31
that's it. So I think that there are a whole body of changes that are going on in today's society that are explained by those things. And so anyway, but that's what I want to do. I wanted to talk
24:47
about it. That make sense to you. I think we should do it.
24:52
I'm not sure we're gonna need much, many pictures if you want. And is there anything you can think of you want? I don't, we've been through it, but it's up to, we can find it. The only thing is
25:02
that figure one, I have of the proteins produced by virus. Okay, let me get everything we see in cancer. Yeah, let me get that up. Let me see where it is. I think it's here in preview, here it
25:16
is. Okay, I'm gonna get that up. Okay, we don't need the cell. We don't need any of this stuff We want this chart, here this is a chart, okay? Yeah, that's it. And that's a chart. So I'll
25:28
leave it there. We'll come back and you can refer to that, okay? Okay, you ready to just start? Well, I would say a couple other things. One of the things is that the monitor generation won't
25:41
stay easy. They don't work for anything. So if you give them a simple explanation for something, that's it to dig through the lead occur in this. study and the thing, they don't like that. It's
25:55
too much profit and so it's a simplicity idea. And the other is they're in love with authority. They're taught authorities for every time. If you're not an authority, if you're not a PhD in
26:10
immunology, you shouldn't even speak in the subject. You should be quiet. And I had a guy that was while you're down and I wrote about COVID And he said, well, you're not an immunologist. Well,
26:23
you know, I said, look out for the way you are. You don't know anything about
26:29
it. And then I embarrassed you by saying, I said, anybody in law knows that the number one reason for a lawsuit is lack of informed consent. You want to fight informed consent. I'm sure all his
26:43
colleagues laughed at it. You don't know anything about informed consent And, you know, and the other thing they found out is kids. cell phones, they don't know how to critically think anymore.
26:56
And I see a lot of that is the young people and some older people don't know how to critically think. They just accept everything. Well, the public health authority said it. What does it make any
27:08
sense? I don't know. I never thought about
27:13
it. Absolutely right. So we got a bunch we talked about here, but I wanted to talk through it first. So we were on the same page. And as we go along, it'll come out. We'll go now for about 45
27:27
minutes or so. I think we'll cover it in that time. But anyway, I just, that's when I came through looking at all these things. I think that's, and you talked about why people don't recognize
27:39
you. I think I pretty much summarized. That's pretty obvious. It doesn't make sense, but that's what's happened. So okay. I'm going to say, I'm just introducing you a little bit, and then I'll
27:54
make some statements about leading us into these questions. And the first thing I'll ask you is, Russell, can you experience life-age experiment? You've said it many times, but it is fundamental
28:06
to everything that happens. And then you were somewhere along the line where you're going to get into warbler because that's fundamental And once you get into this random series of events, how are
28:20
you going to tell me that 100 of the time, randomly, I'm going to evoke the appropriate messenger or protein that's going to start
28:31
the warburger effect,
28:34
and don't give me an answer. It's 100 of the time in a random event. That's not true. It won't happen It's so it's got to be there.
28:45
So that's key.
28:47
And after that, we'll talk a little bit about the various agents that call it. We'll talk about how do these things precipitated? Can some things occur without the immuno-excitotoxicity? And my
29:02
guess here, I just said, that would be very, very unlikely. With immuno-excitotoxicity, in there is a whole cascade of events that happen, releasing all kinds of factors that can stimulate
29:14
certain kinds of events, and maybe randomly something can occur. The thing that makes it the most sense is if there is a virus, and a virus, the virus is programmed to protect itself and to be
29:30
able to proliferate. And that's exactly what you need to have. There has to be something there that doesn't. So, and you disagree with any of that? You think that's what you agree with that? No,
29:43
I mean, you've demonstrated all of these events. This virus, particularly this cytomegal virus, produces all these proteins that do exactly what you see in cancer cell. And it explains why you
29:57
see it in cancer cell. And it makes the connection to carcinogenic ages, like sunlight, and irritation, and inflammation, and age. It answers all of that. Now we know why. And it mostly in
30:10
fact, senescent cell. Well, that's why cancer's more common in older people
30:17
And if you're brittle, you're more likely to get a cancer than if you're not. All those things make sense to me. And
30:26
so I think that's what we're gonna do. Okay, let me enter. References for this presentation follow. Take a screenshot for your records.
30:38
This is the first reference that we mentioned that's pertinent to this presentation.
30:45
And this is the second one from Brian Aqualen's report, also covered in this presentation.
30:54
We hope you enjoyed this presentation. Our legal disclaimer is that the views and opinions expressed in this program are those of the author or interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the official
31:08
policy or position of SI digital arts management This information and the program should not be considered to be medical advice. Patients should consult their own physicians as to their specific
31:21
medical needs.
31:25
Please fill out your evaluation of this video at the bottom of the rating scale on the home page with 1 to 5 stars 5 being the highest to help us improve the information we bring to you in SI digital
31:39
This recorded session is available free on SI digitalorg.
31:44
If you click the blue icon at the bottom right of the home page, we will answer your questions, comments, and requests for C, MA credit, or any suggestions you have will be welcomed.
31:58
SNI, Surgical Neurology International, is read in 239 countries and territories. It's been published for 15 years. It's the third largest readership of neurosurgery journals in the world, with
32:13
over 600, 000 views per year.
32:18
It's love addresses SNIglobal. And
32:23
SNI digital is seen in 158 countries in the last 24 months. It's just been published in the last 24 months. It's the first of all video neurosurgery journals and information sources has over 34,
32:42
000 viewers.
32:45
and podcast listeners a year, and it's what addresses us in idigitalorg, and both publications are free to everyone on the internet,
32:58
247, 365. Foundation supporting these publications is committed to helping people throughout the world.
33:10
SI Digital is now offering this program on podcasts, on Apple and Amazon on Spotify, look for SI Digital, and the foundation which brings this information to you is bringing truthful medical and
33:26
science news to the world. Medical news you can depend upon, and it's called the Medical News Network.
33:36
Wanna thank you for watching, we hope you enjoyed this presentation.
