This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
translating this into Spanish. jussayin-- T.S.Boncompte ( talk) 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that Short Brigade Harvester Boris has gone in and reverted my edit with the edit note of: "this was their main point". I will address his concern and I would encourage anyone to please use the discussion page before making deletions or edits to Young's article.
Again I will make my arguments here on the discussion page and wait to hear from others before I take action. With that said, I would like to be CRYSTAL CLEAR why I am proposing removing the second half of the statement: "According to the National Council Against Health Fraud, a 2005 MEDLINE search indicated that Young had not published any research in recognized scientific journals, and that none of his graduate degrees was from an accredited educational institution.[20]". I am proposing once again to remove the second half of the statement in bold because it is already mentioned in earlier in his education paragraph as: "He received several degrees from Clayton College of Natural Health, an unaccredited distance learning school. These include an M.S. in nutrition (1993), a D.Sc. with emphasis in chemistry and biology (1995), a Ph.D. (1997) and an N.D. (Doctor of Naturopathy, 1999).[3]". I propose removing one of the statements about the non-accreditation of his degrees because it is redundant and not necessary - not because it is not their "main point" and not because it isn't cited good or valid information. It may very well be their main point. If it is, then I propose putting the reference up on the first statement where it is already stated that his graduate degrees are from an non-accredited school and removing the second statement. So once again on the grounds of redundancy will I remove the statement unless there is an argument which explains to me why the same information should be included twice in an article. I will wait a short while to hear from anyone before I delete it again. Please use the discussion page rather than just reverting an edit without a prior explanation here on the discussion page. Honest Research ( talk) 17:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose some additions to Young's article in the work paragraph. The reasoning behind this is to better illustrate what is written in Young's books. Please let me know if there are any problems with the sources or content. I tried to find other sources than Young's books showing what he claims in his books.
Young's fundamental theories are that the body is alkaline by design and acidic by function and that there is only one sickness, one disease, and one treatment. [RfC5 1] [RfC5 2] Young claims that this one sickness and one disease is the over-acidification of the blood then tissues due to an inverted way of living, eating and thinking. [RfC5 3] Young claims that the one treatment is maintaining the alkaline design of the body through an alkaline lifestyle and diet. [RfC5 1]
In order to explain Young's theories he repeatedly uses a "fish tank" metaphor to compare the human body to a fish tank. [RfC5 4] [RfC5 5] He explains that to cure sick fish swimming in polluted water one must change the water that the fish are swimming in and not necessarily treat the fish. Young uses this as a metaphor to represent the tissues of the body and the blood that surrounds them. [RfC5 6]
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Honest Research ( talk) 00:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Young's fundamental theory is that the human body is alkaline by design and acidic by function and that there is only one sickness, one disease, and one treatment. [RfC5 1] [RfC5 2] Young claims that this one sickness and one disease is the over-acidification of the blood and then tissues due to an inverted way of living, eating, and thinking. [RfC5 3] Young also believes that hereditary factors and contagious microorganisms or germs are not the cause or source of the one disease but contribute to environmental, dietary, and metabolic acid, which he claims, is the source and cause of the one disease. [RfC5 4] Young claims that the one treatment is to maintain the alkaline design of the body through an alkaline lifestyle and diet. [RfC5 1] Young's belief is that in the small intestine liquid food is biologically transformed into stem cells and then into erythroblasts and finally into the erythrocytes, or red blood cells. [RfC5 5] [RfC5 6] He believes that the quality of red blood cells produced depends upon the pH of the foods and liquids taken into the body. [RfC5 5] Furthermore, he suggests that red blood cells transform into heart, liver, and brain cells, giving their initial conception stage in the small intestine great importance. [RfC5 5] It is upon these premises that Young bases his alkaline protocol in the pH Miracle books. The alkaline protocol described in Young's books recommends a low-stress lifestyle and a high-water content, high chlorophyll, plant-based diet including uncooked green vegetables and grasses, soaked nuts, sprouted seeds, un-fermented soy, polyunsaturated fats, cold-pressed oils, unprocessed salts, and low-sugar fruits such as avocados, tomatoes, cucumbers, and bell peppers. [RfC5 7] Foods and liquids the alkaline protocol states should be used in moderation are high-carbohydrate vegetables such as potatoes, some grains, and fresh fish. [RfC5 8] The "acidic" foods and liquids Young claims should be abstained from are natural or artificial sugar, pork, red meat, shellfish, eggs, dairy, processed and refined foods, cooked foods, yeast products, fermented foods, algaes, mushrooms, stored grains, artificial sweeteners, high-sugar fruit, alcohol, coffee, chocolate, black tea, caned foods, and sodas. [RfC5 8] He claims that unless the body is able to eliminate excess acidity through respiration, perspiration, defecation and urination, or buffer excess acidity with alkaline minerals such as sodium, magnesium, potassium and calcium bicarbonate, the body will become sick and decompose. [RfC5 6] Young claims that weight gain, water retention, cholesterol, calcium stones, and tumors are all life saving mechanisms the body uses to store and deal with excess acidity in the body. [RfC5 6] It is common in Young's writings for him to explain these theories using a "fish tank" metaphor in which he compares the environment of the human body to the environment of a fish tank. [RfC5 9] [RfC5 10] Some Individuals who have adopted Young's alkaline protocol claim it was a factor in helping them overcome their sickness. [RfC5 1] [RfC5 11] [RfC5 12] [RfC5 10]
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Honest Research added the text above after no comments were given here for a few days. Verbal reverted it. I partially restored it.
Young's notoriety derives from his unorthodox ideas of physiology; therefore, including a brief description is appropriate and encyclopedic. However, when I restored the text Verbal reverted, I left out the unnecessary details and the testimonials at the end. What remains should be the bare-bones gist of Young's approach. Further information can be obtained from the references. = Axlq 15:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose adding a couple more of Young's theories from his writings:
Young believes excess blood sugar is taken up by connective tissues which degrades that tissue causing premature aging, sagging skin, weak joints, and loose teeth.
Young claims that animal proteins in foods cause the human immune system to react by producing an "immune storm" of antibodies which, Young claims, attempts to destroy infectious agents, but may also result in such a large overreaction of the immune system that the excess antibodies start going after healthy tissue as well. Young claims that animal proteins in foods like hamburgers, milk, cheese, etc., cause the same violent immune storm and end up attacking healthy tissues which he claims results in diseases such as Lupus, MS, and Type II diabetes.
I bring these up to get opinions on if these should be included in his article. Honest Research ( talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope that you have all been doing well. I was very busy but am back now to make further updates on Young's article. There is an issue with the article as it currently stands. I bring up the statements:
The source on this is from InteliHealth, and it is from a nurse/massage therapist, I think, that seems to be giving the end all be all accepted bottom line concerning the current standing of Alkaline diets. It sounds very authoritative and accepted. That is fine for her to make such a stance. But, it almost appears that there is a lack of research to support one way or another so matter of fact. I would like to bring up some research that may add onto her conclusions or change them to be more in line with other research that has been done related to cancer,humans, and pH.
I bring up these two articles of research concerning pH and tumors on both mice and humans, specifically breast cancer and tumors:
[ Bicarbonate Increases Tumor pH and Inhibits Spontaneous Metastases] [ Acid-Mediated Tumor Invasion: a Multidisciplinary Study ]
It seems that there is more information concerning pH cancer research than is currently represented in Young's article which would require changing those current lines and adding some additional ones. Please take a look at these links and let me know if you feel that this is valid research from which we can derive better representing statements about the current research regarding alkaline diets than is currently posted on Young's article. If this research is valid than I will formulate better representing statements that include both this research as well as the statements made in the inteliHealth article.
Also, I will be putting up the image of Young again. I honestly have no idea what the reasoning was for taking down his picture without notifying anyone. There is no logic behind it taking the image off of a biography page. Remember, this is a biography about a person who is living and the image was added according to all of the rules that would allow it to stay there. I will add it back onto the article unless I have some reasoning for why it was taken off.
Respectfully Honest Research ( talk) 18:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Little research has been done showing whether or not alkaline diets, like that promoted by Young, are beneficial. Examples include in vitro and animal studies indicating that the external pH of solid tumors is acidic as a consequence of increased metabolism of glucose and poor perfusion. [RfC6 1] As well as that acid-mediated tumor invasion is plausible through mathematical modeling. [RfC6 2]
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
[redacted LeadSongDog come howl! 19:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)] pHmiraclesecrets —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmiraclesecrets ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on independent, reliable secondary sources. Right now, despite this article's length, the quality of its sourcing (as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies) is extremely poor. There is a heavy reliance on self-published promotional material directly affiliated with the article subject. That's a good recipe for a press release or a marketing document, but a poor recipe for a serious, neutral encyclopedic biography.
Right now I see 2 independent, reliable secondary sources on Young: [1], [2]. These sources note the questionable aspects of live blood analysis as promoted by Young, and detail his guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of attempted practicing of medicine without a license.
Additionally, we have one or two borderline sources: for example, the piece from the National Council Against Health Fraud ( [3]). That's it. The rest of the article's sources are predominantly links to Young's press kit, or to various obscure alternative-medical books. These sources might be acceptable if used lightly to flesh out the topic, but instead they form the basis of the article, while the content of actual reliable independent secondary sources is minimized. As a result, this article fails rather spectacularly to comply with Wikipedia's content and sourcing policies. I'd be interested in thoughts on how this article can be brought closer to the sort of thing that Wikipedia is intended to host. MastCell Talk 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
[redacted LeadSongDog come howl! 19:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)] phmiraclesecrets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.0.145 ( talk) 17:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC) NOTE: This is apparently blocked user User:Phmiraclesecrets
For reference, I made a version of the article stripped of almost all references written by Young [4]. From this version, I don't think we should retain the "Influence" and "Work" sections. A deletion discussion is probably the best next step given the BLP issues and questionable notability. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Jan Willem Nienhuys, Kim Tinkham dood door kankerkwakzalverij says that Mr. Young and his wife are guilty for the death of Judith Kim Tinkham, calling Mr. Young "a quack of the worst sort". See also David Gorski, Death by “alternative” medicine: Who’s to blame? (Revisited), On the nature of “alternative” medicine cancer cure testimonials, A horrifying breast cancer "testimonial" for "holistic" treatment and Kim Tinkham has passed away: Another victim of a quack?. Are these sources which could be included in the article? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
[redacted LeadSongDog come howl! 19:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.3.220 ( talk) 00:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This is Robert O. Young and I am demanding that you take down the attacks on me personally concerning Kim Tinkham and Quakewatchers. You are posting felacious information that cannot be substantiated. I have never met David Gorski, He knows nothing about the Kim Tinkham case other then what he makes up. I am recommending you take down my entire listing NOW before litigation The blogs any references you have sited are full of editorializing and personal opinion and NOT based upon fact. They are not formal articles that you would expect from legitimate source. I will give you 36 hours to take all personal attacks, felacious statements from blogs and editorials before I begin to legal recouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.3.220 ( talk) 20:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The following addition seems to some editors to be wp:SYN. It's pretty clear to me that the second sentence (starting "Unfortunately") needs to be rewritten. Rather than edit war, I'd like them to indicate by markup, or simply correcting the text, just where it is that they see a problem. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
In his book The pH Miracle Young tabulates his purported "The pH of Food" numbers, ranging from -39.4 (vinegar) to +39.4 (summer black radish). [RfC7 1] Unfortunately, his "pH" numbers have no correlation to actual pH numbers of those various foods. [RfC7 2]
Young could not have generated his "pH" numbers with commonly available pH indicators (range from 0.0 to 14.0 pH), [RfC7 3] nor with commonly available commercially manufactured pH meters (range from -2 to +20 pH). [RfC7 4]
Young's "pH" numbers declare that the pHs of vinegar, liquor, pork, soy sauce, veal, beef, fruit juice sweetened with white sugar, tea (black), beer, artificial sweeteners, coffee, chicken, eggs, ocean fish, mustard, hard cheese, white sugar (refined cane sugar), quark, pistachios, wine, rose hips, beet sugar, and molasses, are all lower than pH -14 [listed in ascending order, according to his "pH"] [RfC7 1] Young's clearly impossible "pH" numbers CAN NOT BE pH numbers because "pH = -12 ... would imply an impossibly high H3O+ concentration of 10+12 mol/L in ideal solution".
Young's assertion that "... it takes about twenty times as much base to neutralize any given amount of acid..."
[RfC7 5] is false. The essential equation of
acid-base chemistry is: H+
(aq) + OH−
(aq) ⇌ H
2O. {One acid + one base (both in aqueous solution) in equilibrium with neutral.}
Young lists "THE STARS:" chlorine dioxide (ClO2) or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) which "everyone should take daily", and describes them as "...safe, stable substances that release oxygen in the body...". [RfC7 6] However, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) describes both chlorine dioxide and chlorite as "very reactive chemicals". [RfC7 7] ClO2 and H2O2 both form potentially unsafe free radicals. [RfC7 8] [RfC7 9] [RfC7 10] Surprisingly, Young also describes some of the dangers of free radicals. [RfC7 10] Note the safety issues of ClO2 and toxicity issues of chlorite and alternative medicine uses of H2O2 and safety of H2O2.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
While my copy of the CRC handbook is rather older (58th ed), I'm sure it's "Approximate pH Values" table is materially correct about this. All the "Foods" that it lists have pH of 1.8 or above, that extreme being for limes. The highest pH listed for a food is 8.5, for crackers. Outside of the "Food" section, Normal hydrochloric acid is shown as having pH=0.1, while normal sodium hydroxide is shown with a 14.0 pH. All these are for measurements, rounded to the nearest 0.1 and taken at 25 degrees Celsius. None of this should ring strange to anyone with any time in a chem lab. Now, the CRC handbook makes no mention of Mr Young, so that much is SYN. The "Unfortunately, his "pH" numbers have no correlation to actual..." should simply be replace by "Actual pH values for foods range from 1.8 to 8.5, while the possible pH values for other substances range from 0 to 14." LeadSongDog come howl! 21:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
LeadSongDog: Thanks ... for putting my proposal above (a heart‑driven howl).
I've incorporated, answered, and repropose: facts on pH, acid, and alkaline are essential to understanding the core of Young's writing [RfC8 1] and must be here so that "the reader can understand the real science and medicine"—as required by NPOV (especially WP:DUE).
Young's "Index" contains ""pH", definition of, [p.]13". [RfC8 2] That definition is nearly the commonly cited one, and his definitions of acid, basic, and alkaline there are standard: "The relationship between acid and base is scientifically quantified on a scale of 1 [sic to 14 known as "pH" (pronounced like the two letters). On that scale, 7 is neutral. Below 7 is acid and above it basic, or alkaline. Technically, pH reflects the concentration of hydrogen ions (positively charged molecules [sic) in any given solution." [RfC8 2]
The "pH" Miracle titles each of Young's relevant tables with "THE "pH" OF FOOD" or "THE "pH" OF FRUIT". Those tables then state "The following is a list of common foods with an approximate, relative potential of acidity (−) [sic or alkalinity (+) [sic, as present in one ounce of food." [RfC8 1] [RfC8 2]
"pH" was invented in 1909; by the director of research for Carlsberg Breweries. The raison d'être for pH IS food!!! Most specifically: for the purpose of brewing better barley‑pop. [RfC8 3] Knowing pH and moles enables calculating moles and/or pH needed to neutralize. Unknowns can also be determined by measuring how much neutralizer is required. In those ways and more, actual pH IS PRECISELY: (using the descriptors which Amatulić claims differentiate pH from Young's "pH") 1) a way to measure the effect of a food on the "acid–alkaline balance"; 2) an "acidifying potential" of food 3) a "pH reactivity scale"; 4) a "'relative potential' for a food to have an acidifying or alkalinizing effect"; 5) a "pH potential scale".
NO PLACE in Young's book specifically states "pH OF FOOD" numbers differ from his definition of that very same term i.e. "pH". Who defines a term within their own book, and then uses that term differently WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY STATING SO??? Similarly for "acid", "base" and "neutral". I find no reasonable doubt which would allow the conclusion that Young has suddenly made a precise‑yet‑casually‑worded distinction between pH and "pH" plus an irrelevant subtitle. Consider his other errors of fact.
LeadSongDog's " ‘is’ is" IS: 100% WP: SYNNOT. Amatulić's thrice‑repeated assertions ("[w]ithout having read Young's book"; without WP:RS; while citing self‑described WP:NOTRS) that Young has "developed" an "obviously" "unrelated" [‑yet‑same‑or‑similarly‑named] scale are not only incorrect [see herein] but, as Ronz states, 100% WP:OR.
I dispute Amatulić's [and Young's] "non‑controversial" assertion that because the "metabolic product in the body is alkaline" (from citric acid—or any substance), that the TOTAL effect of that substance on the body is to increase the body's alkalinity. Amatulić also cites a WP:NOTRS to assert that it is true that lemons are alkalinizing, while the actual pH is acid. Those assertions are false. Furthermore Amatulić, what "alkaline metabolic product" are you referring to? Both of you should give Young's fish‑tank analogy the greater credence it deserves, when you both suggest that the end product of the metabolism of a substance constitutes the sum total of its effects on the body. I defecate, urinate, and exhale end products. When we ingest more H+, there is more H+ in our body [that's the definition of ingest, insusceptible to argument]. (Except perhaps: our gastrointestinal tracts are external to our bodies. But the motility of H+ puts a hole in that [literally].)
WP:WEIGHT states that we need to explain the majority view within minority view articles, "must not" represent only minority view, and that some minority views "may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader." WP:PSCI clarifies further and says that we shouldn't describe these views as equal. These WPs also seemingly require labeling of each instance in which Wikipedia uses Young's "pH" or "acid..." or "alkalin..." or "bas..." or "neutral..."; because Young's use of those terms does not comport with their scientific usage. It is stylistically awkward to do so within the titles of his books, but it would seem to be acceptable to do so, while placing a footnote on the first sentence within each paragraph where used stating: "Red bold quotation marks added throughout indicate that Young's usage of the enclosed "terms" often differs from the standard usage." Note that the original version of WP:NOR, as cited by WP:CCPOL, would have required excluding them ("singled out edits for exclusion that: ... Define existing terms in different ways"). I think that "that" is a good compromise of readability, clarity, being noticeable, and conveying the message to readers; while minimizing footnote clutter—or perhaps there's an existing wiki‑style of doing so.
Ronz and Amatulić: I think that the best way to truly minimize what we present of Young's claims is not by minimizing their quantity (as Ronz seems to desire, and as Amatulić seems to NOT desire), but to state Young's claims, and then expose their veracity. That's what's required by WPs, and also provides the greatest benefit to readers. I think that Young does a stupendous job of making himself and his views known: in the totality of his own words and their meanings.
Due to his vague claims (dual definition usage of at least 4 terms), non‑scientific redefinition of common terminology (see herein), and irreproducible method and results (see below): WP:FRINGE (especially WP:FRINGE/PS) and Pseudoscience (especially Pseudoscience#Use_of_vague.2C_exaggerated_or_untestable_claims and Pseudoscience#Use_of_misleading_language) describe the proper approach to and categorization of Young's work. Robert O. Young's work is in the Category:Pseudoscience [ [5]], and he belongs in the Category:Pseudoscientists [ [6]]; and they both should be so placed. [I can't get standard wikilinks to those categories to work.]
So at least until a WP:RS describes Young's "pHs", et cetera; this is the best way I can see to enlighten wiki‑readers—even after such time, most of this should still be useful, because it relies on Young's own words (compared and contrasted with the scientific consensus point of view) to elucidate Young's views.
pH isn't 0 to 14; it has no defined ends. pHs down to at least −3.6 are known. [RfC8 4] Some WP:NOTRSs (I didn't find a WP:RS) state that the pH of fluoroantimonic acid is −25. Apparently they base that on its pKa being −25. (pKas are apparently pH's at 50% dissociation, so additional pH units of dissociation would occur. Furthermore, any pH that high would have to be based on the newer purely theoretical/calculated "activity" version of pH, and could not be based on an actual concentration of H+ that high.)
The calculated
density (protons alone) of Young's "Vinegar pH = −39.4" would be a
black hole.
[H+] = 1039.4 = 2.512 × 1039 moles/liter.
1.0079 g/mole H ×
(1835 / 1836) =
1.0074 g/mole H+.
2.512 × 1039 moles/liter × (1000 liter / m3) × 1.0074 g/mole H+ × (1kg / 1000g) = 2.53 × 1039 kg/m3
Lutefisk's pH is presumably higher than that of nearly any other food ("lutefisk" translates directly to "lye fish" and is cod preserved by soaking in lye). {Hmm, a strong base used to kill microbes—should be on Mr. Young's list of recommendations. I'd heartily recommend that fish—to him and any of his supporters.}
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); ALSO IN {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Food | Actual pH [RfC9 3] |
Young's "pH" [RfC9 4] [RfC9 1] |
---|---|---|
Limes | 1.8 to 2.0 | +8.2 |
Lemons | 2.2 to 2.4 | +9.9 |
Vinegar | 2.4 to 3.4 | −39.4 |
Gooseberries | 2.8 to 3.0 | −7.7 |
Plums | 2.8 to 3.0 | −4.9 |
Wines | 2.8 to 3.8 | −16.4 |
Grapefruit | 3.0 to 3.3 | −1.7 |
Strawberries | 3.0 to 3.5 | −5.4 |
Oranges | 3.0 to 4.0 | −9.2 |
Rhubarb | 3.1 to 3.2 | +6.3 |
Raspberries | 3.2 to 3.6 | −5.1 |
Cherries | 3.2 to 4.0 | Sweet −3.6 |
Sour +3.5 | ||
Peaches | 3.4 to 3.6 | −9.7 |
Grapes | 3.5 to 4.5 | −7.6 |
Apricots | 3.6 to 4.0 | −9.5 |
Pears | 3.6 to 4.0 | −9.9 |
Tomatoes | 4.0 to 4.4 | +13.6 |
Beers | 4.0 to 5.0 | −26.8 |
Bananas | 4.5 to 4.7 | Ripe −10.1 |
Unripe +4.8 | ||
Cheese | 4.8 to 6.4 | −18.1 |
Carrots | 4.9 to 5.3 | +9.5 |
Beets | 4.9 to 5.5 | +11.3 |
Beans | 5.0 to 6.0 | Green +11.2 |
Bread,White | 5.0 to 6.0 | −10.0 |
Spinach | 5.1 to 5.7 | +8.0, +13.1 |
Cabbage | 5.2 to 5.4 | Five kinds +2.0 to +6.3 |
Turnips | 5.2 to 5.6 | +8.0 |
Asparagus | 5.4 to 5.8 | +1.1 |
Wheat Flour | 5.5 to 6.5 | Wheat −10.1 |
Potatoes | 5.6 to 6.0 | +2.0 |
Peas | 5.8 to 6.4 | ripe +0.5 fresh +5.1 |
Tuna | 5.9 to 6.1 | Ocean Fish −20.0 |
Salmon | 6.1 to 6.3 | |
Corn | 6.0 to 6.5 | −9.6 |
Butter | 6.1 to 6.4 | −3.9 |
Oysters | 6.1 to 6.6 | −5.0 |
Dates | 6.2 to 6.4 | −4.7 |
Milk, Cow's | 6.3 to 6.6 | −1.0 |
Water, Drinking |
6.5 to 8.0 | Distilled "neutral" |
Eggs, Fresh White |
7.6 to 8.0 | −18.0 to −22.0 |
Young's definitions here [RfC9 5] of "acid" (pH below 7), "neutral" (pH = 7), and "base" or "alkaline" (pH above 7) agree with scientific consensus definitions; [RfC9 6] but in 2002 he defined "pH" as "a scale of 1 [sic [RfC9 7] to 14". [RfC9 5] [RfC9 1] In 2010 his definition is "pH" scale is "0 to 14"; [RfC9 5] which now agrees with the commonly cited definition: [RfC9 7] that pH is a logarithmic scale, which measures the concentration of hydronium = hydrogen ions = [H+] = protons: [an incomplete but sufficient definition of pH, within the scope of this article]. [RfC9 6]
In his "The "pH" of Foods" tables [see comparison table at right], Young's numbers range from −39.4 [sic [RfC9 8] [RfC9 7] [RfC9 5] (vinegar) [sic [RfC9 3] to +39.4 [sic [RfC9 7] [RfC9 5] (summer black radish). [RfC9 4] [RfC9 1] In Young's Tables, he defines "acidity" as (−) [sic and "alkalinity" as (+) [sic, (which also shifts the "neutral" point from 7 to 0). [RfC9 4] [RfC9 6] He provides no explanations regarding his four pairs of dual‑definition‑usages. [RfC9 9]
Young recommends a "battery‑operated pH electron meter". [RfC9 10] [RfC9 1] He says that "alkaline" foods are made "alkaline" by the electrons in them, and that those can be measured with an "alkaline electron meter" (only in 2010). [RfC9 10] [RfC9 9] Those devices are not readily available to the general scientific community, [RfC9 11] [RfC9 12] nor are they available where Young says they are "cutcat.com"; unless Young means a " pH meter". [RfC9 10]
Young also recommends the use of paper pH strips (i.e. pH indicators) [the commonly available range is from 0.0 to 14.0 pH], [RfC9 13] or pH meters [the maximum commonly available range is from −2.0 to 22.0 pH] [RfC9 11] to measure pH. [RfC9 10]
Various sugars and alcoholic beverages are listed in his Tables as "acidic", [RfC9 4] but not until 2010 did Young regularly equate sugars and alcohol with "acid" in the rest of his text. [RfC9 14] [RfC9 15] [RfC9 9] [RfC9 1] He says "sugar is not a source of energy but an "acidic" waste product" [his italics]; "all sugars are "acid""; and "[a]lcohol is an "acid"." [RfC9 14] [RfC9 15] Scientific consensus is that sugar (which is a carbohydrate) is a source of energy (for plants and animals), and that both sugar and alcohol are neutral substances. [RfC9 7] [RfC9 16]
Young says limes, lemons, grapefruit, tomatoes, and (adds in 2010) pomegranates are all "alkaline" (or "alkaline‑forming"). [RfC9 17] [RfC9 1] He also says to "avoid hidden harmful foods, especially citric acid". [RfC9 18] Young recognizes that nearly everyone else recognizes these fruits as acid, but says that when they're metabolized, they're "alkalizing". [RfC9 17] In 2002, he says it's because of their low sugar content and the "alkaline" ash that they form, and in 2010, he adds that it's due to their high "sodium and potassium bicarbonate salts" content. [RfC9 17] [RfC9 19]
The "H" of " pH" stands for Hydrogen, in its ion form [H+, and pH's inventor invented it for food chemistry—to help brew better barley‑pop. [RfC9 20] Scientific consensus is: When you eat or drink more H+ (acid, low [actual] pH stuff), there is more H+ (acid, low [actual] pH stuff) in your body. [RfC9 21] [RfC9 6] [RfC9 7] [RfC9 5] See far right.
Young's writes "it takes about twenty times as much "base" to "neutralize" any given amount of "acid"".
[RfC9 22]
[RfC9 1] The
Arrhenius equation of acid–base chemistry expresses
scientific consensus: H+
(aq) + OH−
(aq) ⇌ H
2O [One acid + one base (both in aqueous solution) are in equilibrium with water].
He says "within your stomach ... being slightly "acidic" is what you're after" and "protein digestion requires a highly "acid" environment and takes place in the stomach." [RfC9 23] [RfC9 1] Scientific consensus is that gastric contents are strongly acidic, pH 1.0 to 3.0. [RfC9 3]
Young says the "small intestine should be "basic" [pH] (7.5–8.0)" and "a mildly "acidic" environment is required to initiate peristalsis" in the intestine. [RfC9 23] [RfC9 1]
Young states: "MICROFORMS ... Candida [yeast] is normally found in the gastrointestinal tract ... (We'd actually die without it [Candida].)" and "Ideally, the small and large intestines will be clean and free of all microforms." [RfC9 24] See Gut flora.
In 2002 Young advocated daily intake of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) by everyone, describing them as "safe, " stable" substances that release oxygen in the body". [RfC9 25] [RfC9 1] In 2010 the only mention of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is in his "References" section. [RfC9 9] In its place, he now recommends sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3), " magnesium carbonate (MgHCO3) sic [RfC9 26], potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3), and calcium carbonate (CaHCO3) sic [RfC9 26]" (he continues to recommend chlorine dioxide (ClO2)). [RfC9 25] Young says to avoid foods that "acidify" your body by leaving "acid" ash, which he says chlorine does. [RfC9 19] He says that most municipal tap water is "poisoned with chlorine", and isn't healthy, even if filtered (by most filters). [RfC9 27] In 2010, he recommends his "two to three thousand dollars" filter/ionizer, or a reverse osmosis system. [RfC9 27]
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) describes both chlorine dioxide and chlorite as "very reactive chemicals". [RfC9 28] ClO2 and H2O2 both form potentially unsafe free radicals. [RfC9 29] [RfC9 30] [RfC9 31] Young also describes some of the dangers of free radicals. [RfC9 31] Note the safety issues of ClO2, toxicity issues of chlorite, alternative medicine uses of H2O2, and safety of H2O2.
Young also recommends ingesting various metals: including gallium [Ga], germanium [Ge], gold [Au], iridium [Ir], osmium [Os], palladium [Pd], platinum [Pt], rhodium [Rh], ruthenium [Ru], silver [Ag], and sometimes vanadium [V]. [RfC9 32] None of those elements have a " Dietary Reference Intake" as determined by the US Government's Institute of Medicine (IOM). [RfC9 33]
U.S. Food and Drug Administration research has concluded that germanium, when used as a nutritional supplement, "presents potential human health hazard". [RfC9 34] The IOM finds "no justification for adding vanadium to food and vanadium supplements should be used with caution". [RfC9 33] Note germanium's supplement use; vanadium's issues and safety; gallium's precautions and applications; iridium's precautions; osmium's precautions and applications; palladium's precautions; platinum's health issues; and silver's consumption and medical uses. Gold's toxicity and rhodium's precautions may be of interest.
As Stephen Barrett M.D., says: The "pH" Miracle "contains so many dubious passages that it would take a book to respond to them all." [RfC9 35] [RfC9 1]
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); ALSO IN {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
67.91.184.187 ( talk) 01:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 67.91.184.187 ( talk) 21:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 67.91.184.187 ( talk) 22:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 67.91.184.187 ( talk) 20:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 67.91.184.187 ( talk) 00:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC) 67.91.184.187 ( talk) 20:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC) 67.91.184.187 ( talk) 19:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Minor comment: the anon says "Amatulić also cites a WP:NOTRS to assert that it is true that lemons are alkalinizing, while the actual pH is acid. Those assertions are false."
That assertion is true. Perhaps the anon should read up on the citric acid cycle, or speak to an actual food scientist. Or maybe even look up some academic peer-reviewed literature on the subject. See for example alkaline diet, which cites a reliable source for this claim. And maybe PubMed, for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22500592 -- this is non-controversial, and widely-known. It just isn't known to this anonymous editor.
That lapse in knowledge, unfortunately, extends to other statements in the anon's proposed text above, and certainly does nothing to enhance credibility — hence my statement "grounded in ignorance" the anon complained about earlier, in a long-ago comment regarding this dispute. The Wikipedia:Original research evident in the text above boggles the mind, using primary sources to draw conclusions about that primary source, and using secondary reliable sources that say nothing about Young to create conclusions about Young in Wikipedia's voice.
That said, I commend the anon for getting Young's book and giving this a try. Also, I don't object to adding a section explaining briefly the main ideas promulgated by Young in his books. I have advocated this before. The above text (basically arguing with the primary source rather than finding reliable sources that address the book specifically) is the wrong way to go about it, and judging by the reverts I've seen in this article lately, I am not alone in this view. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to make the recommendation that the section on "Legal" be completely deleted. The reason for this deletion is Dr. Young has had both arrests expunged and he has been exonerated. The Judge in the case ordered that this happen in 2004 and we are still talling about this in 2012. The Judge also stated in the record that the arrests were "false arrests". All the newspapers that did articles on this arrest will also be deleted soon if not already deleted. Dr. Young was never convicted of any crime. If you check the Utah County Court records you will find that the records no longer exist. Please vote to have this section deleted. It is the right thing to do since the section is inaccurate. Thank you for considering this change. drjoven Drjoven ( talk) 20:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I would also suggest that the section on Kim Tinkham be deleted as well. Kim died of liver cancer after many months of chemotherapy. Her original diagnosis of breast cancer was still in remission. The last year of Kim's life she was not on Dr. Young's program. I am willing to post emails from Kim to Dr. Young to prove the statements above. Please consider with me to delete this felacious information inaccurately protrays the truth. drjoven Drjoven ( talk) 20:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Finally, I would recommend the change in the wording concering Dr. Young's advance degrees where it is stated that he attended "nonaccredited" schools. If you call the Board of Education in Washington DC you will find that holistic and alternative schools were NOT required and they were not accrediting alternative or nutritional schools up until 2007. I would recommend a change in the language to note this fact. drjoven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjoven ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Drjoven ( talk) 20:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Note that this new account Drjoven (from the Latin "juventis" meaning "youth") uses the same characteristic and eccentric misspelling of fallacious ("felacious") as the IP 70.234.3.220, which claimed to be Dr. Young, and which we blocked back in June for making legal threats (see above). I have therefore blocked Dr. Young's newest account for block evasion. -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I have restored twice the consensus version, which User:Techimpossible has reverted twice. I warned him about edit warring. Verifiable information from reliable sources should not get removed without obtaining consensus from the talk page. He/she has no consensus for removal. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
QuackWatch has been repeatedly shown to be a reliable source, see WP:RSN archive. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Quackwatch passes WP:PARITY and the press statement of the California Medical Board passes WP:MEDASSESS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey, here is an article written by Young. I'd like to include it on his page:
Alkalizing Nutritional Therapy in the Prevention and Reversal of any Cancerous Condition [1]
Also there are more books he has written:
"Reverse Cancer Now" and "The pH Miracle For Cancer" [2]
I'm thinking of adding a section for "Published articles" for the article and then adding the two additional books to the "Published books" section.
All good? TequilaBrown ( talk) 04:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
How should we best qualify that he's not a licensed naturopath per [7]? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
If it helps add more context and details, The dying officer treated for cancer with baking soda (BBC News - Magazine section). Carcharoth ( talk) 11:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: I read this news on NBC article about Mr. Young and it says, "As part of entering his guilty plea, Young had to state that he has no post high school educational degrees from any accredited schools.". I understand Mr. Young may have degrees from unaccredited schools but I believe the nature of those unrecognized degrees should therefore require the removal of "naturopath" from his occupation infobox and intro line. I welcome discussion before I unilaterally undertake those edits as I realize this gentleman is still living and therefore subject to the protection of WP:BLP. Thank you and good day. 67.134.204.55 ( talk) 00:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought that I would let the regular wikipedians know that Young has been sentenced, and that part of his guilty plea stipulated that he was not a naturopath (so his profession is wrong in the box), according to this article: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/pH-Miracle-Author-Robert-O-Young-Sentenced-431659933.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStapler ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
In the WP:MEDRS tradition, QuackWatch is by default the preferred WP:RS for WP:FRINGE medical topics, when there are no high-quality sources. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking over the state of this article, past discussions, and recent editing, I think we could use more and better sources. Here are a few potential refs: -- Ronz ( talk) 21:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The edit summaries weren't enough to understand why this was removed. I'd guess it's redundant, but I've not looked at the refs. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
In November 2018 a jury awarded $105 million to a cancer patient, Dawn Kali, for negligence and fraud, after after Young advised her to forgo chemotherapy treatment in favor of alkaline treatment theories. [1]
References
My addition of "unlicensed" was reverted with an edit summary which stated "an 'unlicensed naturopathic practitioner' makes no sense because no license is required", but this is incorrect. First, it doesn't matter particularly whether they are required, but rather if they exist. Regardless, in both Utah and California, where he "practiced", accredited naturopathic licenses do exist and are required. Naturopathic Doctor Licensure "In the United States: 25 jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands all have laws regulating naturopathic doctors.... States currently offering licensure or registration to naturopathic physicians:... California... Utah...". NonReproBlue ( talk) 03:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The same or similar content was added and is being edit-warred over at least four articles:
All but the last are BLPs. All are FRINGE-related.
There's a discussion at Talk:Hulda_Regehr_Clark#Contested_deletion, where BLP doesn't apply. I think it would be best to see how we can resolve it there before going into the BLPs.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
translating this into Spanish. jussayin-- T.S.Boncompte ( talk) 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that Short Brigade Harvester Boris has gone in and reverted my edit with the edit note of: "this was their main point". I will address his concern and I would encourage anyone to please use the discussion page before making deletions or edits to Young's article.
Again I will make my arguments here on the discussion page and wait to hear from others before I take action. With that said, I would like to be CRYSTAL CLEAR why I am proposing removing the second half of the statement: "According to the National Council Against Health Fraud, a 2005 MEDLINE search indicated that Young had not published any research in recognized scientific journals, and that none of his graduate degrees was from an accredited educational institution.[20]". I am proposing once again to remove the second half of the statement in bold because it is already mentioned in earlier in his education paragraph as: "He received several degrees from Clayton College of Natural Health, an unaccredited distance learning school. These include an M.S. in nutrition (1993), a D.Sc. with emphasis in chemistry and biology (1995), a Ph.D. (1997) and an N.D. (Doctor of Naturopathy, 1999).[3]". I propose removing one of the statements about the non-accreditation of his degrees because it is redundant and not necessary - not because it is not their "main point" and not because it isn't cited good or valid information. It may very well be their main point. If it is, then I propose putting the reference up on the first statement where it is already stated that his graduate degrees are from an non-accredited school and removing the second statement. So once again on the grounds of redundancy will I remove the statement unless there is an argument which explains to me why the same information should be included twice in an article. I will wait a short while to hear from anyone before I delete it again. Please use the discussion page rather than just reverting an edit without a prior explanation here on the discussion page. Honest Research ( talk) 17:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose some additions to Young's article in the work paragraph. The reasoning behind this is to better illustrate what is written in Young's books. Please let me know if there are any problems with the sources or content. I tried to find other sources than Young's books showing what he claims in his books.
Young's fundamental theories are that the body is alkaline by design and acidic by function and that there is only one sickness, one disease, and one treatment. [RfC5 1] [RfC5 2] Young claims that this one sickness and one disease is the over-acidification of the blood then tissues due to an inverted way of living, eating and thinking. [RfC5 3] Young claims that the one treatment is maintaining the alkaline design of the body through an alkaline lifestyle and diet. [RfC5 1]
In order to explain Young's theories he repeatedly uses a "fish tank" metaphor to compare the human body to a fish tank. [RfC5 4] [RfC5 5] He explains that to cure sick fish swimming in polluted water one must change the water that the fish are swimming in and not necessarily treat the fish. Young uses this as a metaphor to represent the tissues of the body and the blood that surrounds them. [RfC5 6]
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Honest Research ( talk) 00:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Young's fundamental theory is that the human body is alkaline by design and acidic by function and that there is only one sickness, one disease, and one treatment. [RfC5 1] [RfC5 2] Young claims that this one sickness and one disease is the over-acidification of the blood and then tissues due to an inverted way of living, eating, and thinking. [RfC5 3] Young also believes that hereditary factors and contagious microorganisms or germs are not the cause or source of the one disease but contribute to environmental, dietary, and metabolic acid, which he claims, is the source and cause of the one disease. [RfC5 4] Young claims that the one treatment is to maintain the alkaline design of the body through an alkaline lifestyle and diet. [RfC5 1] Young's belief is that in the small intestine liquid food is biologically transformed into stem cells and then into erythroblasts and finally into the erythrocytes, or red blood cells. [RfC5 5] [RfC5 6] He believes that the quality of red blood cells produced depends upon the pH of the foods and liquids taken into the body. [RfC5 5] Furthermore, he suggests that red blood cells transform into heart, liver, and brain cells, giving their initial conception stage in the small intestine great importance. [RfC5 5] It is upon these premises that Young bases his alkaline protocol in the pH Miracle books. The alkaline protocol described in Young's books recommends a low-stress lifestyle and a high-water content, high chlorophyll, plant-based diet including uncooked green vegetables and grasses, soaked nuts, sprouted seeds, un-fermented soy, polyunsaturated fats, cold-pressed oils, unprocessed salts, and low-sugar fruits such as avocados, tomatoes, cucumbers, and bell peppers. [RfC5 7] Foods and liquids the alkaline protocol states should be used in moderation are high-carbohydrate vegetables such as potatoes, some grains, and fresh fish. [RfC5 8] The "acidic" foods and liquids Young claims should be abstained from are natural or artificial sugar, pork, red meat, shellfish, eggs, dairy, processed and refined foods, cooked foods, yeast products, fermented foods, algaes, mushrooms, stored grains, artificial sweeteners, high-sugar fruit, alcohol, coffee, chocolate, black tea, caned foods, and sodas. [RfC5 8] He claims that unless the body is able to eliminate excess acidity through respiration, perspiration, defecation and urination, or buffer excess acidity with alkaline minerals such as sodium, magnesium, potassium and calcium bicarbonate, the body will become sick and decompose. [RfC5 6] Young claims that weight gain, water retention, cholesterol, calcium stones, and tumors are all life saving mechanisms the body uses to store and deal with excess acidity in the body. [RfC5 6] It is common in Young's writings for him to explain these theories using a "fish tank" metaphor in which he compares the environment of the human body to the environment of a fish tank. [RfC5 9] [RfC5 10] Some Individuals who have adopted Young's alkaline protocol claim it was a factor in helping them overcome their sickness. [RfC5 1] [RfC5 11] [RfC5 12] [RfC5 10]
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Honest Research added the text above after no comments were given here for a few days. Verbal reverted it. I partially restored it.
Young's notoriety derives from his unorthodox ideas of physiology; therefore, including a brief description is appropriate and encyclopedic. However, when I restored the text Verbal reverted, I left out the unnecessary details and the testimonials at the end. What remains should be the bare-bones gist of Young's approach. Further information can be obtained from the references. = Axlq 15:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose adding a couple more of Young's theories from his writings:
Young believes excess blood sugar is taken up by connective tissues which degrades that tissue causing premature aging, sagging skin, weak joints, and loose teeth.
Young claims that animal proteins in foods cause the human immune system to react by producing an "immune storm" of antibodies which, Young claims, attempts to destroy infectious agents, but may also result in such a large overreaction of the immune system that the excess antibodies start going after healthy tissue as well. Young claims that animal proteins in foods like hamburgers, milk, cheese, etc., cause the same violent immune storm and end up attacking healthy tissues which he claims results in diseases such as Lupus, MS, and Type II diabetes.
I bring these up to get opinions on if these should be included in his article. Honest Research ( talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope that you have all been doing well. I was very busy but am back now to make further updates on Young's article. There is an issue with the article as it currently stands. I bring up the statements:
The source on this is from InteliHealth, and it is from a nurse/massage therapist, I think, that seems to be giving the end all be all accepted bottom line concerning the current standing of Alkaline diets. It sounds very authoritative and accepted. That is fine for her to make such a stance. But, it almost appears that there is a lack of research to support one way or another so matter of fact. I would like to bring up some research that may add onto her conclusions or change them to be more in line with other research that has been done related to cancer,humans, and pH.
I bring up these two articles of research concerning pH and tumors on both mice and humans, specifically breast cancer and tumors:
[ Bicarbonate Increases Tumor pH and Inhibits Spontaneous Metastases] [ Acid-Mediated Tumor Invasion: a Multidisciplinary Study ]
It seems that there is more information concerning pH cancer research than is currently represented in Young's article which would require changing those current lines and adding some additional ones. Please take a look at these links and let me know if you feel that this is valid research from which we can derive better representing statements about the current research regarding alkaline diets than is currently posted on Young's article. If this research is valid than I will formulate better representing statements that include both this research as well as the statements made in the inteliHealth article.
Also, I will be putting up the image of Young again. I honestly have no idea what the reasoning was for taking down his picture without notifying anyone. There is no logic behind it taking the image off of a biography page. Remember, this is a biography about a person who is living and the image was added according to all of the rules that would allow it to stay there. I will add it back onto the article unless I have some reasoning for why it was taken off.
Respectfully Honest Research ( talk) 18:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Little research has been done showing whether or not alkaline diets, like that promoted by Young, are beneficial. Examples include in vitro and animal studies indicating that the external pH of solid tumors is acidic as a consequence of increased metabolism of glucose and poor perfusion. [RfC6 1] As well as that acid-mediated tumor invasion is plausible through mathematical modeling. [RfC6 2]
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
[redacted LeadSongDog come howl! 19:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)] pHmiraclesecrets —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmiraclesecrets ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on independent, reliable secondary sources. Right now, despite this article's length, the quality of its sourcing (as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies) is extremely poor. There is a heavy reliance on self-published promotional material directly affiliated with the article subject. That's a good recipe for a press release or a marketing document, but a poor recipe for a serious, neutral encyclopedic biography.
Right now I see 2 independent, reliable secondary sources on Young: [1], [2]. These sources note the questionable aspects of live blood analysis as promoted by Young, and detail his guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of attempted practicing of medicine without a license.
Additionally, we have one or two borderline sources: for example, the piece from the National Council Against Health Fraud ( [3]). That's it. The rest of the article's sources are predominantly links to Young's press kit, or to various obscure alternative-medical books. These sources might be acceptable if used lightly to flesh out the topic, but instead they form the basis of the article, while the content of actual reliable independent secondary sources is minimized. As a result, this article fails rather spectacularly to comply with Wikipedia's content and sourcing policies. I'd be interested in thoughts on how this article can be brought closer to the sort of thing that Wikipedia is intended to host. MastCell Talk 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
[redacted LeadSongDog come howl! 19:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)] phmiraclesecrets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.0.145 ( talk) 17:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC) NOTE: This is apparently blocked user User:Phmiraclesecrets
For reference, I made a version of the article stripped of almost all references written by Young [4]. From this version, I don't think we should retain the "Influence" and "Work" sections. A deletion discussion is probably the best next step given the BLP issues and questionable notability. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Jan Willem Nienhuys, Kim Tinkham dood door kankerkwakzalverij says that Mr. Young and his wife are guilty for the death of Judith Kim Tinkham, calling Mr. Young "a quack of the worst sort". See also David Gorski, Death by “alternative” medicine: Who’s to blame? (Revisited), On the nature of “alternative” medicine cancer cure testimonials, A horrifying breast cancer "testimonial" for "holistic" treatment and Kim Tinkham has passed away: Another victim of a quack?. Are these sources which could be included in the article? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
[redacted LeadSongDog come howl! 19:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.3.220 ( talk) 00:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This is Robert O. Young and I am demanding that you take down the attacks on me personally concerning Kim Tinkham and Quakewatchers. You are posting felacious information that cannot be substantiated. I have never met David Gorski, He knows nothing about the Kim Tinkham case other then what he makes up. I am recommending you take down my entire listing NOW before litigation The blogs any references you have sited are full of editorializing and personal opinion and NOT based upon fact. They are not formal articles that you would expect from legitimate source. I will give you 36 hours to take all personal attacks, felacious statements from blogs and editorials before I begin to legal recouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.3.220 ( talk) 20:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The following addition seems to some editors to be wp:SYN. It's pretty clear to me that the second sentence (starting "Unfortunately") needs to be rewritten. Rather than edit war, I'd like them to indicate by markup, or simply correcting the text, just where it is that they see a problem. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
In his book The pH Miracle Young tabulates his purported "The pH of Food" numbers, ranging from -39.4 (vinegar) to +39.4 (summer black radish). [RfC7 1] Unfortunately, his "pH" numbers have no correlation to actual pH numbers of those various foods. [RfC7 2]
Young could not have generated his "pH" numbers with commonly available pH indicators (range from 0.0 to 14.0 pH), [RfC7 3] nor with commonly available commercially manufactured pH meters (range from -2 to +20 pH). [RfC7 4]
Young's "pH" numbers declare that the pHs of vinegar, liquor, pork, soy sauce, veal, beef, fruit juice sweetened with white sugar, tea (black), beer, artificial sweeteners, coffee, chicken, eggs, ocean fish, mustard, hard cheese, white sugar (refined cane sugar), quark, pistachios, wine, rose hips, beet sugar, and molasses, are all lower than pH -14 [listed in ascending order, according to his "pH"] [RfC7 1] Young's clearly impossible "pH" numbers CAN NOT BE pH numbers because "pH = -12 ... would imply an impossibly high H3O+ concentration of 10+12 mol/L in ideal solution".
Young's assertion that "... it takes about twenty times as much base to neutralize any given amount of acid..."
[RfC7 5] is false. The essential equation of
acid-base chemistry is: H+
(aq) + OH−
(aq) ⇌ H
2O. {One acid + one base (both in aqueous solution) in equilibrium with neutral.}
Young lists "THE STARS:" chlorine dioxide (ClO2) or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) which "everyone should take daily", and describes them as "...safe, stable substances that release oxygen in the body...". [RfC7 6] However, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) describes both chlorine dioxide and chlorite as "very reactive chemicals". [RfC7 7] ClO2 and H2O2 both form potentially unsafe free radicals. [RfC7 8] [RfC7 9] [RfC7 10] Surprisingly, Young also describes some of the dangers of free radicals. [RfC7 10] Note the safety issues of ClO2 and toxicity issues of chlorite and alternative medicine uses of H2O2 and safety of H2O2.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
While my copy of the CRC handbook is rather older (58th ed), I'm sure it's "Approximate pH Values" table is materially correct about this. All the "Foods" that it lists have pH of 1.8 or above, that extreme being for limes. The highest pH listed for a food is 8.5, for crackers. Outside of the "Food" section, Normal hydrochloric acid is shown as having pH=0.1, while normal sodium hydroxide is shown with a 14.0 pH. All these are for measurements, rounded to the nearest 0.1 and taken at 25 degrees Celsius. None of this should ring strange to anyone with any time in a chem lab. Now, the CRC handbook makes no mention of Mr Young, so that much is SYN. The "Unfortunately, his "pH" numbers have no correlation to actual..." should simply be replace by "Actual pH values for foods range from 1.8 to 8.5, while the possible pH values for other substances range from 0 to 14." LeadSongDog come howl! 21:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
LeadSongDog: Thanks ... for putting my proposal above (a heart‑driven howl).
I've incorporated, answered, and repropose: facts on pH, acid, and alkaline are essential to understanding the core of Young's writing [RfC8 1] and must be here so that "the reader can understand the real science and medicine"—as required by NPOV (especially WP:DUE).
Young's "Index" contains ""pH", definition of, [p.]13". [RfC8 2] That definition is nearly the commonly cited one, and his definitions of acid, basic, and alkaline there are standard: "The relationship between acid and base is scientifically quantified on a scale of 1 [sic to 14 known as "pH" (pronounced like the two letters). On that scale, 7 is neutral. Below 7 is acid and above it basic, or alkaline. Technically, pH reflects the concentration of hydrogen ions (positively charged molecules [sic) in any given solution." [RfC8 2]
The "pH" Miracle titles each of Young's relevant tables with "THE "pH" OF FOOD" or "THE "pH" OF FRUIT". Those tables then state "The following is a list of common foods with an approximate, relative potential of acidity (−) [sic or alkalinity (+) [sic, as present in one ounce of food." [RfC8 1] [RfC8 2]
"pH" was invented in 1909; by the director of research for Carlsberg Breweries. The raison d'être for pH IS food!!! Most specifically: for the purpose of brewing better barley‑pop. [RfC8 3] Knowing pH and moles enables calculating moles and/or pH needed to neutralize. Unknowns can also be determined by measuring how much neutralizer is required. In those ways and more, actual pH IS PRECISELY: (using the descriptors which Amatulić claims differentiate pH from Young's "pH") 1) a way to measure the effect of a food on the "acid–alkaline balance"; 2) an "acidifying potential" of food 3) a "pH reactivity scale"; 4) a "'relative potential' for a food to have an acidifying or alkalinizing effect"; 5) a "pH potential scale".
NO PLACE in Young's book specifically states "pH OF FOOD" numbers differ from his definition of that very same term i.e. "pH". Who defines a term within their own book, and then uses that term differently WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY STATING SO??? Similarly for "acid", "base" and "neutral". I find no reasonable doubt which would allow the conclusion that Young has suddenly made a precise‑yet‑casually‑worded distinction between pH and "pH" plus an irrelevant subtitle. Consider his other errors of fact.
LeadSongDog's " ‘is’ is" IS: 100% WP: SYNNOT. Amatulić's thrice‑repeated assertions ("[w]ithout having read Young's book"; without WP:RS; while citing self‑described WP:NOTRS) that Young has "developed" an "obviously" "unrelated" [‑yet‑same‑or‑similarly‑named] scale are not only incorrect [see herein] but, as Ronz states, 100% WP:OR.
I dispute Amatulić's [and Young's] "non‑controversial" assertion that because the "metabolic product in the body is alkaline" (from citric acid—or any substance), that the TOTAL effect of that substance on the body is to increase the body's alkalinity. Amatulić also cites a WP:NOTRS to assert that it is true that lemons are alkalinizing, while the actual pH is acid. Those assertions are false. Furthermore Amatulić, what "alkaline metabolic product" are you referring to? Both of you should give Young's fish‑tank analogy the greater credence it deserves, when you both suggest that the end product of the metabolism of a substance constitutes the sum total of its effects on the body. I defecate, urinate, and exhale end products. When we ingest more H+, there is more H+ in our body [that's the definition of ingest, insusceptible to argument]. (Except perhaps: our gastrointestinal tracts are external to our bodies. But the motility of H+ puts a hole in that [literally].)
WP:WEIGHT states that we need to explain the majority view within minority view articles, "must not" represent only minority view, and that some minority views "may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader." WP:PSCI clarifies further and says that we shouldn't describe these views as equal. These WPs also seemingly require labeling of each instance in which Wikipedia uses Young's "pH" or "acid..." or "alkalin..." or "bas..." or "neutral..."; because Young's use of those terms does not comport with their scientific usage. It is stylistically awkward to do so within the titles of his books, but it would seem to be acceptable to do so, while placing a footnote on the first sentence within each paragraph where used stating: "Red bold quotation marks added throughout indicate that Young's usage of the enclosed "terms" often differs from the standard usage." Note that the original version of WP:NOR, as cited by WP:CCPOL, would have required excluding them ("singled out edits for exclusion that: ... Define existing terms in different ways"). I think that "that" is a good compromise of readability, clarity, being noticeable, and conveying the message to readers; while minimizing footnote clutter—or perhaps there's an existing wiki‑style of doing so.
Ronz and Amatulić: I think that the best way to truly minimize what we present of Young's claims is not by minimizing their quantity (as Ronz seems to desire, and as Amatulić seems to NOT desire), but to state Young's claims, and then expose their veracity. That's what's required by WPs, and also provides the greatest benefit to readers. I think that Young does a stupendous job of making himself and his views known: in the totality of his own words and their meanings.
Due to his vague claims (dual definition usage of at least 4 terms), non‑scientific redefinition of common terminology (see herein), and irreproducible method and results (see below): WP:FRINGE (especially WP:FRINGE/PS) and Pseudoscience (especially Pseudoscience#Use_of_vague.2C_exaggerated_or_untestable_claims and Pseudoscience#Use_of_misleading_language) describe the proper approach to and categorization of Young's work. Robert O. Young's work is in the Category:Pseudoscience [ [5]], and he belongs in the Category:Pseudoscientists [ [6]]; and they both should be so placed. [I can't get standard wikilinks to those categories to work.]
So at least until a WP:RS describes Young's "pHs", et cetera; this is the best way I can see to enlighten wiki‑readers—even after such time, most of this should still be useful, because it relies on Young's own words (compared and contrasted with the scientific consensus point of view) to elucidate Young's views.
pH isn't 0 to 14; it has no defined ends. pHs down to at least −3.6 are known. [RfC8 4] Some WP:NOTRSs (I didn't find a WP:RS) state that the pH of fluoroantimonic acid is −25. Apparently they base that on its pKa being −25. (pKas are apparently pH's at 50% dissociation, so additional pH units of dissociation would occur. Furthermore, any pH that high would have to be based on the newer purely theoretical/calculated "activity" version of pH, and could not be based on an actual concentration of H+ that high.)
The calculated
density (protons alone) of Young's "Vinegar pH = −39.4" would be a
black hole.
[H+] = 1039.4 = 2.512 × 1039 moles/liter.
1.0079 g/mole H ×
(1835 / 1836) =
1.0074 g/mole H+.
2.512 × 1039 moles/liter × (1000 liter / m3) × 1.0074 g/mole H+ × (1kg / 1000g) = 2.53 × 1039 kg/m3
Lutefisk's pH is presumably higher than that of nearly any other food ("lutefisk" translates directly to "lye fish" and is cod preserved by soaking in lye). {Hmm, a strong base used to kill microbes—should be on Mr. Young's list of recommendations. I'd heartily recommend that fish—to him and any of his supporters.}
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); ALSO IN {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Food | Actual pH [RfC9 3] |
Young's "pH" [RfC9 4] [RfC9 1] |
---|---|---|
Limes | 1.8 to 2.0 | +8.2 |
Lemons | 2.2 to 2.4 | +9.9 |
Vinegar | 2.4 to 3.4 | −39.4 |
Gooseberries | 2.8 to 3.0 | −7.7 |
Plums | 2.8 to 3.0 | −4.9 |
Wines | 2.8 to 3.8 | −16.4 |
Grapefruit | 3.0 to 3.3 | −1.7 |
Strawberries | 3.0 to 3.5 | −5.4 |
Oranges | 3.0 to 4.0 | −9.2 |
Rhubarb | 3.1 to 3.2 | +6.3 |
Raspberries | 3.2 to 3.6 | −5.1 |
Cherries | 3.2 to 4.0 | Sweet −3.6 |
Sour +3.5 | ||
Peaches | 3.4 to 3.6 | −9.7 |
Grapes | 3.5 to 4.5 | −7.6 |
Apricots | 3.6 to 4.0 | −9.5 |
Pears | 3.6 to 4.0 | −9.9 |
Tomatoes | 4.0 to 4.4 | +13.6 |
Beers | 4.0 to 5.0 | −26.8 |
Bananas | 4.5 to 4.7 | Ripe −10.1 |
Unripe +4.8 | ||
Cheese | 4.8 to 6.4 | −18.1 |
Carrots | 4.9 to 5.3 | +9.5 |
Beets | 4.9 to 5.5 | +11.3 |
Beans | 5.0 to 6.0 | Green +11.2 |
Bread,White | 5.0 to 6.0 | −10.0 |
Spinach | 5.1 to 5.7 | +8.0, +13.1 |
Cabbage | 5.2 to 5.4 | Five kinds +2.0 to +6.3 |
Turnips | 5.2 to 5.6 | +8.0 |
Asparagus | 5.4 to 5.8 | +1.1 |
Wheat Flour | 5.5 to 6.5 | Wheat −10.1 |
Potatoes | 5.6 to 6.0 | +2.0 |
Peas | 5.8 to 6.4 | ripe +0.5 fresh +5.1 |
Tuna | 5.9 to 6.1 | Ocean Fish −20.0 |
Salmon | 6.1 to 6.3 | |
Corn | 6.0 to 6.5 | −9.6 |
Butter | 6.1 to 6.4 | −3.9 |
Oysters | 6.1 to 6.6 | −5.0 |
Dates | 6.2 to 6.4 | −4.7 |
Milk, Cow's | 6.3 to 6.6 | −1.0 |
Water, Drinking |
6.5 to 8.0 | Distilled "neutral" |
Eggs, Fresh White |
7.6 to 8.0 | −18.0 to −22.0 |
Young's definitions here [RfC9 5] of "acid" (pH below 7), "neutral" (pH = 7), and "base" or "alkaline" (pH above 7) agree with scientific consensus definitions; [RfC9 6] but in 2002 he defined "pH" as "a scale of 1 [sic [RfC9 7] to 14". [RfC9 5] [RfC9 1] In 2010 his definition is "pH" scale is "0 to 14"; [RfC9 5] which now agrees with the commonly cited definition: [RfC9 7] that pH is a logarithmic scale, which measures the concentration of hydronium = hydrogen ions = [H+] = protons: [an incomplete but sufficient definition of pH, within the scope of this article]. [RfC9 6]
In his "The "pH" of Foods" tables [see comparison table at right], Young's numbers range from −39.4 [sic [RfC9 8] [RfC9 7] [RfC9 5] (vinegar) [sic [RfC9 3] to +39.4 [sic [RfC9 7] [RfC9 5] (summer black radish). [RfC9 4] [RfC9 1] In Young's Tables, he defines "acidity" as (−) [sic and "alkalinity" as (+) [sic, (which also shifts the "neutral" point from 7 to 0). [RfC9 4] [RfC9 6] He provides no explanations regarding his four pairs of dual‑definition‑usages. [RfC9 9]
Young recommends a "battery‑operated pH electron meter". [RfC9 10] [RfC9 1] He says that "alkaline" foods are made "alkaline" by the electrons in them, and that those can be measured with an "alkaline electron meter" (only in 2010). [RfC9 10] [RfC9 9] Those devices are not readily available to the general scientific community, [RfC9 11] [RfC9 12] nor are they available where Young says they are "cutcat.com"; unless Young means a " pH meter". [RfC9 10]
Young also recommends the use of paper pH strips (i.e. pH indicators) [the commonly available range is from 0.0 to 14.0 pH], [RfC9 13] or pH meters [the maximum commonly available range is from −2.0 to 22.0 pH] [RfC9 11] to measure pH. [RfC9 10]
Various sugars and alcoholic beverages are listed in his Tables as "acidic", [RfC9 4] but not until 2010 did Young regularly equate sugars and alcohol with "acid" in the rest of his text. [RfC9 14] [RfC9 15] [RfC9 9] [RfC9 1] He says "sugar is not a source of energy but an "acidic" waste product" [his italics]; "all sugars are "acid""; and "[a]lcohol is an "acid"." [RfC9 14] [RfC9 15] Scientific consensus is that sugar (which is a carbohydrate) is a source of energy (for plants and animals), and that both sugar and alcohol are neutral substances. [RfC9 7] [RfC9 16]
Young says limes, lemons, grapefruit, tomatoes, and (adds in 2010) pomegranates are all "alkaline" (or "alkaline‑forming"). [RfC9 17] [RfC9 1] He also says to "avoid hidden harmful foods, especially citric acid". [RfC9 18] Young recognizes that nearly everyone else recognizes these fruits as acid, but says that when they're metabolized, they're "alkalizing". [RfC9 17] In 2002, he says it's because of their low sugar content and the "alkaline" ash that they form, and in 2010, he adds that it's due to their high "sodium and potassium bicarbonate salts" content. [RfC9 17] [RfC9 19]
The "H" of " pH" stands for Hydrogen, in its ion form [H+, and pH's inventor invented it for food chemistry—to help brew better barley‑pop. [RfC9 20] Scientific consensus is: When you eat or drink more H+ (acid, low [actual] pH stuff), there is more H+ (acid, low [actual] pH stuff) in your body. [RfC9 21] [RfC9 6] [RfC9 7] [RfC9 5] See far right.
Young's writes "it takes about twenty times as much "base" to "neutralize" any given amount of "acid"".
[RfC9 22]
[RfC9 1] The
Arrhenius equation of acid–base chemistry expresses
scientific consensus: H+
(aq) + OH−
(aq) ⇌ H
2O [One acid + one base (both in aqueous solution) are in equilibrium with water].
He says "within your stomach ... being slightly "acidic" is what you're after" and "protein digestion requires a highly "acid" environment and takes place in the stomach." [RfC9 23] [RfC9 1] Scientific consensus is that gastric contents are strongly acidic, pH 1.0 to 3.0. [RfC9 3]
Young says the "small intestine should be "basic" [pH] (7.5–8.0)" and "a mildly "acidic" environment is required to initiate peristalsis" in the intestine. [RfC9 23] [RfC9 1]
Young states: "MICROFORMS ... Candida [yeast] is normally found in the gastrointestinal tract ... (We'd actually die without it [Candida].)" and "Ideally, the small and large intestines will be clean and free of all microforms." [RfC9 24] See Gut flora.
In 2002 Young advocated daily intake of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) by everyone, describing them as "safe, " stable" substances that release oxygen in the body". [RfC9 25] [RfC9 1] In 2010 the only mention of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is in his "References" section. [RfC9 9] In its place, he now recommends sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3), " magnesium carbonate (MgHCO3) sic [RfC9 26], potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3), and calcium carbonate (CaHCO3) sic [RfC9 26]" (he continues to recommend chlorine dioxide (ClO2)). [RfC9 25] Young says to avoid foods that "acidify" your body by leaving "acid" ash, which he says chlorine does. [RfC9 19] He says that most municipal tap water is "poisoned with chlorine", and isn't healthy, even if filtered (by most filters). [RfC9 27] In 2010, he recommends his "two to three thousand dollars" filter/ionizer, or a reverse osmosis system. [RfC9 27]
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) describes both chlorine dioxide and chlorite as "very reactive chemicals". [RfC9 28] ClO2 and H2O2 both form potentially unsafe free radicals. [RfC9 29] [RfC9 30] [RfC9 31] Young also describes some of the dangers of free radicals. [RfC9 31] Note the safety issues of ClO2, toxicity issues of chlorite, alternative medicine uses of H2O2, and safety of H2O2.
Young also recommends ingesting various metals: including gallium [Ga], germanium [Ge], gold [Au], iridium [Ir], osmium [Os], palladium [Pd], platinum [Pt], rhodium [Rh], ruthenium [Ru], silver [Ag], and sometimes vanadium [V]. [RfC9 32] None of those elements have a " Dietary Reference Intake" as determined by the US Government's Institute of Medicine (IOM). [RfC9 33]
U.S. Food and Drug Administration research has concluded that germanium, when used as a nutritional supplement, "presents potential human health hazard". [RfC9 34] The IOM finds "no justification for adding vanadium to food and vanadium supplements should be used with caution". [RfC9 33] Note germanium's supplement use; vanadium's issues and safety; gallium's precautions and applications; iridium's precautions; osmium's precautions and applications; palladium's precautions; platinum's health issues; and silver's consumption and medical uses. Gold's toxicity and rhodium's precautions may be of interest.
As Stephen Barrett M.D., says: The "pH" Miracle "contains so many dubious passages that it would take a book to respond to them all." [RfC9 35] [RfC9 1]
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); ALSO IN {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
67.91.184.187 ( talk) 01:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 67.91.184.187 ( talk) 21:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 67.91.184.187 ( talk) 22:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 67.91.184.187 ( talk) 20:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 67.91.184.187 ( talk) 00:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC) 67.91.184.187 ( talk) 20:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC) 67.91.184.187 ( talk) 19:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Minor comment: the anon says "Amatulić also cites a WP:NOTRS to assert that it is true that lemons are alkalinizing, while the actual pH is acid. Those assertions are false."
That assertion is true. Perhaps the anon should read up on the citric acid cycle, or speak to an actual food scientist. Or maybe even look up some academic peer-reviewed literature on the subject. See for example alkaline diet, which cites a reliable source for this claim. And maybe PubMed, for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22500592 -- this is non-controversial, and widely-known. It just isn't known to this anonymous editor.
That lapse in knowledge, unfortunately, extends to other statements in the anon's proposed text above, and certainly does nothing to enhance credibility — hence my statement "grounded in ignorance" the anon complained about earlier, in a long-ago comment regarding this dispute. The Wikipedia:Original research evident in the text above boggles the mind, using primary sources to draw conclusions about that primary source, and using secondary reliable sources that say nothing about Young to create conclusions about Young in Wikipedia's voice.
That said, I commend the anon for getting Young's book and giving this a try. Also, I don't object to adding a section explaining briefly the main ideas promulgated by Young in his books. I have advocated this before. The above text (basically arguing with the primary source rather than finding reliable sources that address the book specifically) is the wrong way to go about it, and judging by the reverts I've seen in this article lately, I am not alone in this view. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to make the recommendation that the section on "Legal" be completely deleted. The reason for this deletion is Dr. Young has had both arrests expunged and he has been exonerated. The Judge in the case ordered that this happen in 2004 and we are still talling about this in 2012. The Judge also stated in the record that the arrests were "false arrests". All the newspapers that did articles on this arrest will also be deleted soon if not already deleted. Dr. Young was never convicted of any crime. If you check the Utah County Court records you will find that the records no longer exist. Please vote to have this section deleted. It is the right thing to do since the section is inaccurate. Thank you for considering this change. drjoven Drjoven ( talk) 20:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I would also suggest that the section on Kim Tinkham be deleted as well. Kim died of liver cancer after many months of chemotherapy. Her original diagnosis of breast cancer was still in remission. The last year of Kim's life she was not on Dr. Young's program. I am willing to post emails from Kim to Dr. Young to prove the statements above. Please consider with me to delete this felacious information inaccurately protrays the truth. drjoven Drjoven ( talk) 20:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Finally, I would recommend the change in the wording concering Dr. Young's advance degrees where it is stated that he attended "nonaccredited" schools. If you call the Board of Education in Washington DC you will find that holistic and alternative schools were NOT required and they were not accrediting alternative or nutritional schools up until 2007. I would recommend a change in the language to note this fact. drjoven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjoven ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Drjoven ( talk) 20:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Note that this new account Drjoven (from the Latin "juventis" meaning "youth") uses the same characteristic and eccentric misspelling of fallacious ("felacious") as the IP 70.234.3.220, which claimed to be Dr. Young, and which we blocked back in June for making legal threats (see above). I have therefore blocked Dr. Young's newest account for block evasion. -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I have restored twice the consensus version, which User:Techimpossible has reverted twice. I warned him about edit warring. Verifiable information from reliable sources should not get removed without obtaining consensus from the talk page. He/she has no consensus for removal. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
QuackWatch has been repeatedly shown to be a reliable source, see WP:RSN archive. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Quackwatch passes WP:PARITY and the press statement of the California Medical Board passes WP:MEDASSESS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey, here is an article written by Young. I'd like to include it on his page:
Alkalizing Nutritional Therapy in the Prevention and Reversal of any Cancerous Condition [1]
Also there are more books he has written:
"Reverse Cancer Now" and "The pH Miracle For Cancer" [2]
I'm thinking of adding a section for "Published articles" for the article and then adding the two additional books to the "Published books" section.
All good? TequilaBrown ( talk) 04:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); |volume=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
How should we best qualify that he's not a licensed naturopath per [7]? -- Ronz ( talk) 17:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
If it helps add more context and details, The dying officer treated for cancer with baking soda (BBC News - Magazine section). Carcharoth ( talk) 11:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: I read this news on NBC article about Mr. Young and it says, "As part of entering his guilty plea, Young had to state that he has no post high school educational degrees from any accredited schools.". I understand Mr. Young may have degrees from unaccredited schools but I believe the nature of those unrecognized degrees should therefore require the removal of "naturopath" from his occupation infobox and intro line. I welcome discussion before I unilaterally undertake those edits as I realize this gentleman is still living and therefore subject to the protection of WP:BLP. Thank you and good day. 67.134.204.55 ( talk) 00:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought that I would let the regular wikipedians know that Young has been sentenced, and that part of his guilty plea stipulated that he was not a naturopath (so his profession is wrong in the box), according to this article: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/pH-Miracle-Author-Robert-O-Young-Sentenced-431659933.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStapler ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
In the WP:MEDRS tradition, QuackWatch is by default the preferred WP:RS for WP:FRINGE medical topics, when there are no high-quality sources. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking over the state of this article, past discussions, and recent editing, I think we could use more and better sources. Here are a few potential refs: -- Ronz ( talk) 21:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The edit summaries weren't enough to understand why this was removed. I'd guess it's redundant, but I've not looked at the refs. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
In November 2018 a jury awarded $105 million to a cancer patient, Dawn Kali, for negligence and fraud, after after Young advised her to forgo chemotherapy treatment in favor of alkaline treatment theories. [1]
References
My addition of "unlicensed" was reverted with an edit summary which stated "an 'unlicensed naturopathic practitioner' makes no sense because no license is required", but this is incorrect. First, it doesn't matter particularly whether they are required, but rather if they exist. Regardless, in both Utah and California, where he "practiced", accredited naturopathic licenses do exist and are required. Naturopathic Doctor Licensure "In the United States: 25 jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands all have laws regulating naturopathic doctors.... States currently offering licensure or registration to naturopathic physicians:... California... Utah...". NonReproBlue ( talk) 03:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The same or similar content was added and is being edit-warred over at least four articles:
All but the last are BLPs. All are FRINGE-related.
There's a discussion at Talk:Hulda_Regehr_Clark#Contested_deletion, where BLP doesn't apply. I think it would be best to see how we can resolve it there before going into the BLPs.