![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I am new to this article. I have read through the article and for an article that focuses on Robert O. Young as an author, very little is discussed about his most noteworthy books: "The pH Miracle", "The pH Miracle for Diabetes", and "The pH Miracle for Weight Loss". These books have been published by a substantial publishing company Time Warner Publishers and made international with it being translated into many different languages. The books are considered best-sellers Editorial Review. This is noteworthy whether you are for or against Robert O. Young's opinions and statements. Furthermore it is in complete relevance with the title of the article. Why has there not been more focus on these books? There is more in this article about Robert Young's Religion, legal issues and where he lives than has been written about him as an author. I have compared this article with other author's articles and Robert O. Young(author) seems to be lacking. It appears that contributors who are not favorable of Robert O Young as a Doctor have inserted statements that would make an uneducated reader think Robert O Young is only an author, has enormous issues with the law making him flee to California, and that his research is of no relevance in the medical world. This makes me skeptical about all other claims in the article. So, with the consent of the other contributors I am going to be doing research into each piece of this article. It appears to be very biased and one sided. I would like the help of all other contributors to create some honest transparency for this article. Honest Research ( talk) 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been researching the references in the Deseret News as well as in the San Diego Tribune. Some valid comments by Robert O. Young have not been included. I will be inserting the omitted statments into the article. In order for this article to be a valid encyclopedic article it cannot take a side for or against Robert O. Young as a living person as it currently appears to be doing. It must state the facts. Remember he is a living person. This article could be in jeopardy of being deleted if it does not comply with the rules for articles for living people. I would encourage the contributors, that when they reference statements dealing with his legal issues, that they state the accusations as well as the defense statements he gives in the same articles. Honest Research ( talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I am also going to research Robert O. Young's claims in his pH Miracle books and make note of them in the article as referenced by 3rd party sources. Honest Research ( talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I will begin uploading my research here shortly line by line. I would urge the contributors of this article to please research before altering deleting or paraphrasing what I am about to add. Everything I am adding that comes from Young's site I have personally looked into to see if it is, in fact, true. Please do the same. I also will be changing the outline of the article a bit. I have researched the format of other similar articles and I will be formatting Young's like the bulk of the other author's articles. Especially the ones who have a great deal of statements for and against them. There is always a section dedicated to "Opposing Views" or "Criticism". I think Young's should have this kind of format rather than go line by line and refute or defend every statement. Thanks, and I look forward to hearing your comments, support, and help in honestly portraying who this man is as an author and what he has contributed to humanity. Honest Research ( talk) 22:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, the creation of "Criticism" or "Rebuttal" sections is frowned upon, especially in biographical articles. The goal is not to set up Young's claims and then set up an "opposition" to them. The goal is to give a concise, thorough overview of why he's notable and what independent, reliable third parties have to say on the subject. Criticism ghettos are the mark of a poor Wikipedia article; material (both neutral, supportive, and critical) should be integrated into a readable narrative which properly weights each viewpoint and source. MastCell Talk 00:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently reverted a series of edits. I'm concerned because I thought that we were on the same page: the article needs independent, reliable, third-party sources. The edits in question elaborated at great length on Young's claims as if they were fact, relying heavily on promotional sources directly affiliated with Young. I'd like to take these one at a time and discuss whether the sourcing is appropriate, rather than throwing a huge chunk of text into the article rehashing (devoid of context) Young's claims. Where should we start? MastCell Talk 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the "Influence" section that MastCell deleted. I will add my comments below.
Young is an advocate of, and has been said to be continuing the research of Antoine Bechamp, Gunther Enderlein. [1] Like Bechamp and Enderlein, Young claims that the microzyma (same as protit or somatid) is the smallest anatomical element and that it makes up all living forms such as blood and tissue. [2] [3] [4] Furthermore, like Bechamp and Enderlein, Young has documented pleomorphism occuring within living organisms and explains that it is the environment that is triggering this phenomenon to occur. [2] [3] [4] Pleomorphism is the phenomenon observed when living organisms change forms in response to their environment such as when human blood cells biologically transmutate into bacteria and yeast-like forms. [5]
Young, like Bechamp and Enderlein, believes that disease is a general condition of one's internal environment. [2] [3] [4] Enderlein is documented having observed in small pox victims that the biologically transmutated forms reacted strongly to small amounts of alkaline solutions such as sodium bicarbonate and stated, "Boundless work awaits here". [4] The bulk of Young's writings, research, and theories seek to explain, prove, and validate that an acidic pH of the fluids of the environment of the body is what triggers pleomorphic biological transmutation in the blood and is the ultimate cause and source of disease, sickness, and death as well as the key to its prevention and cure. [6] [7] These claims are unique to Young and are what he and many others have come to refer to as "The New Biology". [8] [9] It is referred to as "The New Biology" because if Young's theories concerning disease are proven, accepted and adopted by mainstream medical science the ways cancer disease and sickness are perceived explained and treated would be radically changed. [8] [2] Young believes that "as research regarding the impact of acid in the body becomes more popular, treatments and theories of cancer will change." [6]
OK. Overall I find these two paragraphs to be neutrally written, taking care to attribute claims and avoid having Wikipedia make any specific claims.
The first paragraph looks mostly fine to me, except for the last sentence about transmutation. I have seen Young's dubious claims about transmutation before, such as claiming light elements transmute into heavy elements under the ocean, without any backing except extrapolation from cellular observations that are centuries old and likely erroneous. The 1967 reference cited (from what I can find online) seems to concern bacteria that are known to be highly pleomorphic in the first place; I don't see how that reference adds anything to the text about Young's claims, except to define pleomorphism.
The second paragraph is also fine until the last couple of sentences. Explaining "New Biology" isn't necessary and steps over the line into advocacy. It's enough to state Young's buzzword "New biology" and delete the weasel word "many others".
That's my $0.02. Delete the last sentence in the first paragraph, and the last 2 sentences in the second paragraph, do a bit of copy editing. After that, what this section desperately needs is an explanation why current medical thought followed the footsteps of Pasteur and not Bechamp, and what science says about Young's claims. If they aren't falsifiable, then it isn't a "theory" in a scientific sense. = Axlq 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm new to this platform; though, not new to writing or copy-editing. I've read everything posted here form July of last year to the present. I want to take some time to digest all of this some more, but I do have some initial comments: I agree with Axlq about the closing sentences of the two paragraphs---they stray a bit beyond the bounds of statement to conjecture.
Philosophically, I do think that this article is difficult because science is a quest for the absolute but in that quest there are constant changes. Paradigms often shift. Consider how many times and how quickly atomic theory has changed. Young is operating around an establishment that is hesitant to associate with him due to current science; but, he may be as Galileo arguing that the earth revolves around the sun to people positive the earth is central. . .or he may be off base. We don't know how the world will view him in a hundred years. So I don't think we can exclude explanations of the theories that drive his work just because somatids haven't been proven to absolutely exist, or that pleomorphism is "ludicrously counterfactual," because we don't absolutely know. We're still questing to know. They may be. Time will tell. But we do need to address "mycrozyma" and "pleomorphism" as theoretical concepts that are apparently central to who Young is and Young's work---his books are based on these ideas.
If we're just careful to couch these explanations in terms of Young's theories, beliefs, and claims so that it is clear what has and has not been substantiated by the establishment, then we should be able to give a robust explanation of Young and still maintain neutrality.
This is a biography, and the theories are integral to explaining who Young is and why he does what he does. Just be sure to state his work as theory. I liked MastCell's suggestion to use language such as: "Young claims in his book to have observed pleomorphism." Use that same type of language in explaining what Young believes pleomorphism to be and I think we'll be on track. ObserverBA ( talk) 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Young claims to be continuing the research of Antoine Bechamp and Gunther Enderlein. [1] Like Bechamp and Enderlein, Young claims that the microzyma or protit is the smallest anatomical element and that it makes up all living forms such as blood and tissue. [2] [3] [4] Furthermore, like Bechamp and Enderlein, Young claims to have observed pleomorphism occurring within living organisms and explains that it is the environment that is triggering this phenomenon to occur. [2] [3] [4] Pleomorphism is the phenomenon observed when living organisms, such as bacteria, change forms in response to their environment. [5] Pleomorphism is understood to occur in bacteria, however, unique to Young is his unproven claim that it also occurs in human blood cells as a result of an acidic environment. [2]
Young, like Bechamp and Enderlein, believes that disease is a general condition of one's internal environment. [2] [3] [4] The bulk of Young's writings, research, and theories seeks to explain, prove, and validate that the enviromental factor of an acidic pH of the fluids of the body is what triggers pleomorphic biological transmutation in the blood and is the ultimate cause and source of disease, sickness, and death as well as the key to its prevention and cure. [7] These claims are unique to Young and are what he calls "The New Biology". [8]
I don't know if it is appropriate for consulting contributors to make syntactical suggestions; but, I have a couple style comments and citation observations.
First paragraph second sentence, I'd change it to: "Like his intellectual forebears, Young claims that the microzyma or protit. . ." This will make the language sound less redundant. Also, have you tried searching for a reference for "protit" outside of Young's work? I'd like to see one here.
First paragraph: after "response to their environment" you placed the footnote [7]. It appears that footnote is out of place as the [7] references the Utah County Property Owners 2008. Check that, please.
First paragraph final sentence change: "Pleomorphism is understood to occur in bacteria; however, Young claims that it also occurs in human blood cells as a result of the pH level of the environment where the cell is found." Qualifying the claim as "unique" would be hard to substantiate (dropped "unique"). It appears to me that Young believes the cell can morph negatively in an acidic environment and positively in alkaline environment, so I'd change from specifying the pleomorphism phenomenon as a result of just "acidic environment," as Young seems to believe in progressive and regressive morphing. Am I reading him right? Finally, we ought to look for a reference for bacteria as having pleomorphic abilities to cite in this sentence. Doing a cursory search I found a couple possibilities that you could look closer at: (www.whale.to/y/wainwright.html is flagged by WP) and http://www.joimr.org/phorum/read.php?f=2&i=108&t=108 as well as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19040453.
I'm noticing that Young's works are frequently cited in this article, particularly [4] [5] and [6]. It would be a good idea to cite Bechamp and Enderline's work additionally and exclusive from Young's work to independently solidify the link---not just having Young claim an intellectual link. That would just be nice to have some verification separate from Young's publications.
Second paragraph, final sentence: Again I balk a the assertion that the "claims are unique to Young." That's a statement that is difficult to back up, because to prove that the idea is truly unique you have to exhaustively prove that no one in the world has the same view. That can't feasibly be done. The assertion that it is "unique" sounds more like marketing speech than a neutral overview.
Good work, Honest Research. It's getting better. ObserverBA ( talk) 22:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Young bases his theories, research, and written works off of his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [2] From the Journal of alternative and complementary medicine it states that these blood analysis are commonly used to assess the status of the biologic terrain and the patient's nutritional state. [10] They are qualitative in scope and complementary to the quantitative blood testing of conventional medicine. [10] Empirical data correlates the live and dry blood analysis with quantitative blood testing and clinical manifestations. [10] The tests are particularly useful for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level, and are often done in tandem. [10] Young is documented doing a pilot study as well as a double-blinded controlled study using both live and dry-blood analysis to test a hypothesis if an environment of EM is diminished with SRT [10]. Young uses these tests to "test for disturbances in the biologic terrain caused by environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [10] Young is documented in these studies showing how the quality of the blood in certain areas indicated in different patients bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [10]
Young offers a course in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [11] Young insists that "live blood cell analysis is a tool for research and education." [11]
According to the Health and Human Services Office and Quackwatch, live blood analysis is an unestablished test with no scientific validity. [12] [13]
The references have been deleted so I will put them here: [ The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine] [ Sick and Tired] [ SanDiego News] Please feel free to make comments and critiques before I add this paragraph to Young's article. Honest Research ( talk) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The journal sited does, in fact, make mention of Young and goes on in great detail explaining how live and dry blood analysis are done and what they are used for on page 834. Then from pages 835 to 844 is where Young is documented doing live and dry blood tests and displaying the results. This is an excellent source to describe Young's primary basis from which all of his claims are based off of because it is in a 3rd party source that has been peer reviewed. Every statement that I put was directly quoted from the journal. If it sounded like fact, it is because that is how the journal described Live and Dry blood analysis. So taking into consideration both Axlq's and MastCell's valid feedback, here it is again. Please let me know of any other problems you see with it, before I put it up again.
Honest Research (
talk)
20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Young bases his theories, research, and written works off of his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [2] Young uses these tests to "test for disturbances in the biologic terrain caused by environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [10] Young is documented in studies showing how the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [10] Live and Dry blood analysis are used primarily by alternative medicine practitioners for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level. [10] Alternative practitioners like Young believe that live and dry blood analysis allows them to analyze the state of the blood cells as well as the fluids that surrounds them and that the state of the cells and fluid correlate with a persons health. [10] Young offers a course in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [11] According to the Health and Human Services Office and Quackwatch, live blood analysis is an unestablished test with no scientific validity. [12] [13] However, Young claims that it does have scientific validity. [11]
I echo MastCell's concerns. J.AltCompMed is not a reliable source for matters of medical fact or expert opinion. Also, "off of" is an awful construction. Verbal chat 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Young bases his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [2] Young uses these tests to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [10] Young is documented in studies using live and dry blood analysis claiming that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [10] Live and Dry blood analysis are used primarily by alternative medicine practitioners for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level. [10] Alternative practitioners like Young believe that live and dry blood analysis allows them to analyze the state of the blood cells as well as the fluids that surrounds them and that the state of the cells and fluid correlate with a persons health. [10] Young teaches courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. Young claims that live and dry blood analysis have scientific validity. [11]
[11] According to the Health and Human Services Office and Quackwatch, live blood analysis is an unestablished test with no scientific validity. [12] [13]
Young bases his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [2] Young uses live and dry blood analysis to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by acidic environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [10] Young is documented in studies using live and dry blood analysis claiming that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [10] Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. [10] Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [14] Young claims that live and dry blood analysis does have scientific validity. [11] Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level. [10] The Department of Health and Human Services has evaluated live blood analysis as a unestablished laboratory test signifying that its methods are not generally accepted by many of the people involved in traditional laboratory practice and oversight. [12] It has also reported on the validity of live blood analysis stating that The Department of Health and Human Services has not endorsed or condemned it as a laboratory test. [12]
Here is the revised version of the Microscopy paragraph, with the correct phrases from the Health and Human Services CLIA report included on live blood analysis, as well as the unreferenced statement removed that "live blood analysis has no scientific validity". I will post it tomorrow unless I hear of a just change that is required. Honest Research ( talk) 23:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why phrases were deleted that were cited by third party sources. Also, I fixed the paraphrasing of the CLIA report; referencing it word for word. Those were valid so I put them back up. Also, clarified that the medical expert was Edzard Ernst. Honest Research ( talk) 02:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have redrafted it and would like to present it. I feel like this line that I stated in the second paragraph needs an explanation:
I included this line to represent why alternative practicioners believe live blood analysis is valid. As I researched, I found that the prominent figure in America doing this is, and making statements about it, besides Young, is Dr. Gabriel Cousens. In Cousen's own book it says he is "the leading holistic medical doctor in the United States". I also found out that both Young and Cousen's claim to be trained by the same person, "Maria Bleker" in Germany. I also found out that the explanation of live blood analysis taken from the JAltMed journal cites Maria Bleker for all its information about live blood analysis. So I cited her statements from the JAltMed journal and Cousne's statements from his book. Bleker seems to be the foremost expert in Blood analysis. I would have cited directly from her book but it is not online but in a library one can look at it. I found that her same statements are found in the JAltMed Journal article so I felt this represented her opinion about the matter sufficiently. So that is the reasoning behind that line. Bleker, Cousen's and Young seem to all be doing the same kind of blood testing and doing it for the same reasons so I tried to represent their reasoning for claiming it is valid. I also made some small changes you will notice, as well as include an brief explanation about the HHS report. With that said, how does this sound?:
Young bases his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [2] Young uses live and dry blood analysis to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by acidic environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [10] Young has claimed in a study that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [10] Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. [10]
Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [14] Young has also stated that he teaches live blood analysis solely for research and educational purposes, and not for use in diagnosing medical conditions - an important legal distinction. [11] Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain. [10] [15] However, Live blood analysis has also been considered by medical experts as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". [11] [16] [17] It should be understood that Live blood analysis is currently a controversial test and has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", signifying that its methods are not generally accepted in traditional laboratory practice and that its validity as a laboratory test has not yet been determined. [12]
Honest Research ( talk) 18:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
After reading your words, I will take off the statements that do not have to do with Young directly. I will then add the statements we have worked on to the live blood analysis page. I think this would make MastCell as well as Levine2112 both agree that the correct information is placed in the correct articles and is available for the reader to gain access to the views specifically about live blood analysis and specifically about Young in their respective articles. Honest Research ( talk) 02:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Should general information about live blood analysis and alkaline diets that does not specifically mention Young or his specific claims go into Young's article or into the live blood analysis and alkaline diets articles? 06:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
There is information that is valid about live blood analysis and alkaline diets. Currently it is being put into Young's article to represent what some consider as "mainstream views" about live blood analysis and alkaline diets. The statements are against live blood analysis and alkaline diets and do not make mention of Young or his specific claims about live blood analysis or alkaline diets. The question at hand is about the information that does not refer to Young or his claims directly such as Intrigued by the spectacular claims made for Live Blood Analysis? Don't be. It doesn't work and [5] and CLIA regulation of unestablished laboratory tests but not this Naturopathic technique stirring bad blood because it refers to Young and his claims directly. Should the general information about live blood analysis and alkaline diets remain on Young's page or should it not? If this information should remain in Young's bio, then should we also include the opinions of medical experts who speak in favor of live blood analysis and alkaline diets on Young's page, such as Maria Bleker, and Gabriel Cousens? Honest Research ( talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This debate has been mentioned at the Fringe theories noticeboard. - 2/0 ( cont.) 02:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Young bases some of his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [RfC1 1] Young uses live and dry blood analysis to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by acidic environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [RfC1 2] Young has claimed in a study that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [RfC1 2] Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. [RfC1 2] Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [RfC1 3] Young has also stated that he teaches live blood analysis solely for research and educational purposes, and not for use in diagnosing medical conditions - an important legal distinction. [RfC1 4]
Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain. [RfC1 2] [RfC1 5] Some medical experts consider live blood analysis as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". [RfC1 4] [RfC1 6] [RfC1 7] Other medical experts consider live blood analysis to be a qualitative assessment of the biological terrain and a way to monitor the clinical progress of a persons health and wellness. [RfC1 5] [RfC1 8] It should be understood that Live blood analysis is currently a controversial test and has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", signifying that its methods are not generally accepted in traditional laboratory practice and that its validity as a laboratory test has not yet been determined. [RfC1 9]
sickTiredLostChapter
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EMvsSRT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).youngmain
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).sdut-2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Young bases some of his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [RfC2 1] Young uses live and dry blood analysis to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by acidic environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [RfC2 2] Young has claimed in a study that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [RfC2 2] Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. [RfC2 2] Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [RfC2 3] Young has also stated that he teaches live blood analysis solely for research and educational purposes, and not for use in diagnosing medical conditions - an important legal distinction. [RfC2 4]
Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain. [RfC2 2] [RfC2 5] Some medical experts consider live blood analysis as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". [RfC2 4] [RfC2 6] [RfC2 7] Other holistic doctors consider live blood analysis to be a qualitative assessment of the biological terrain and a way to monitor the clinical progress of a persons health and wellness. [RfC2 5] [RfC2 8] It should be understood that Live blood analysis is currently a controversial test and has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", meaning that without conducting any scientific evaluation, pro or con, they understand that it is not an accepted part of laboratory medicine. [RfC2 9]
sickTiredLostChapter
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EMvsSRT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).youngmain
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).sdut-2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Young bases some of his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [RfC3 1] Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. [RfC3 2] Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [RfC3 3] Young has also stated that he teaches live blood analysis solely for research and educational purposes, and not for use in diagnosing medical conditions - an important legal distinction. [RfC3 4]
Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain. [RfC3 2] [RfC3 5] Medical experts consider live blood analysis as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". [RfC3 4] [RfC3 6] [RfC3 7] Holistic doctors consider live blood analysis to be a qualitative assessment of the biological terrain and a way to monitor the clinical progress of a persons health and wellness. [RfC3 5] [RfC3 8] Live blood analysis is currently a controversial test and has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", or test that is not generally accepted in laboratory medicine. [RfC3 9]
I think I am pretty much ok with the first paragraph, but I made a
few changes to the second. The biggest change was merging two sentences describing the opinions on alternative practitioners, removing the statement about "most" alternative medicos. I removed the clause describing LBA as "controversial", as it does not really add anything to about Young that is not expressed by the cited opinions - show rather than tell. I also removed the statement that dry blood analysis is an alternative technique, as it seems to be an alternative medicine synonym for
blood test. We could include how Young uses those, and expand on any non-standard uses.
The term "biological terrain" appears not to be in common use. Perhaps the second sentence of the first paragraph could be converted into two, the first expanding on the term and the second completing the thought.
As a side note,
dark field microscopy and
phase contrast microscopy are well-established techniques for getting data out of a slide, and are not unique to live blood analysis. Also, last I checked, the Nobel committee seals the list of nominees until it will be only of historical importance. -
2/0 (
cont.)
17:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
sickTired
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
TexasNews
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
EMvsSRT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).youngmain
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).DrGabrielCousens
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Cite error: There are <ref group=RfC3>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=RfC3}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I am new to this article. I have read through the article and for an article that focuses on Robert O. Young as an author, very little is discussed about his most noteworthy books: "The pH Miracle", "The pH Miracle for Diabetes", and "The pH Miracle for Weight Loss". These books have been published by a substantial publishing company Time Warner Publishers and made international with it being translated into many different languages. The books are considered best-sellers Editorial Review. This is noteworthy whether you are for or against Robert O. Young's opinions and statements. Furthermore it is in complete relevance with the title of the article. Why has there not been more focus on these books? There is more in this article about Robert Young's Religion, legal issues and where he lives than has been written about him as an author. I have compared this article with other author's articles and Robert O. Young(author) seems to be lacking. It appears that contributors who are not favorable of Robert O Young as a Doctor have inserted statements that would make an uneducated reader think Robert O Young is only an author, has enormous issues with the law making him flee to California, and that his research is of no relevance in the medical world. This makes me skeptical about all other claims in the article. So, with the consent of the other contributors I am going to be doing research into each piece of this article. It appears to be very biased and one sided. I would like the help of all other contributors to create some honest transparency for this article. Honest Research ( talk) 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been researching the references in the Deseret News as well as in the San Diego Tribune. Some valid comments by Robert O. Young have not been included. I will be inserting the omitted statments into the article. In order for this article to be a valid encyclopedic article it cannot take a side for or against Robert O. Young as a living person as it currently appears to be doing. It must state the facts. Remember he is a living person. This article could be in jeopardy of being deleted if it does not comply with the rules for articles for living people. I would encourage the contributors, that when they reference statements dealing with his legal issues, that they state the accusations as well as the defense statements he gives in the same articles. Honest Research ( talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I am also going to research Robert O. Young's claims in his pH Miracle books and make note of them in the article as referenced by 3rd party sources. Honest Research ( talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I will begin uploading my research here shortly line by line. I would urge the contributors of this article to please research before altering deleting or paraphrasing what I am about to add. Everything I am adding that comes from Young's site I have personally looked into to see if it is, in fact, true. Please do the same. I also will be changing the outline of the article a bit. I have researched the format of other similar articles and I will be formatting Young's like the bulk of the other author's articles. Especially the ones who have a great deal of statements for and against them. There is always a section dedicated to "Opposing Views" or "Criticism". I think Young's should have this kind of format rather than go line by line and refute or defend every statement. Thanks, and I look forward to hearing your comments, support, and help in honestly portraying who this man is as an author and what he has contributed to humanity. Honest Research ( talk) 22:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, the creation of "Criticism" or "Rebuttal" sections is frowned upon, especially in biographical articles. The goal is not to set up Young's claims and then set up an "opposition" to them. The goal is to give a concise, thorough overview of why he's notable and what independent, reliable third parties have to say on the subject. Criticism ghettos are the mark of a poor Wikipedia article; material (both neutral, supportive, and critical) should be integrated into a readable narrative which properly weights each viewpoint and source. MastCell Talk 00:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently reverted a series of edits. I'm concerned because I thought that we were on the same page: the article needs independent, reliable, third-party sources. The edits in question elaborated at great length on Young's claims as if they were fact, relying heavily on promotional sources directly affiliated with Young. I'd like to take these one at a time and discuss whether the sourcing is appropriate, rather than throwing a huge chunk of text into the article rehashing (devoid of context) Young's claims. Where should we start? MastCell Talk 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the "Influence" section that MastCell deleted. I will add my comments below.
Young is an advocate of, and has been said to be continuing the research of Antoine Bechamp, Gunther Enderlein. [1] Like Bechamp and Enderlein, Young claims that the microzyma (same as protit or somatid) is the smallest anatomical element and that it makes up all living forms such as blood and tissue. [2] [3] [4] Furthermore, like Bechamp and Enderlein, Young has documented pleomorphism occuring within living organisms and explains that it is the environment that is triggering this phenomenon to occur. [2] [3] [4] Pleomorphism is the phenomenon observed when living organisms change forms in response to their environment such as when human blood cells biologically transmutate into bacteria and yeast-like forms. [5]
Young, like Bechamp and Enderlein, believes that disease is a general condition of one's internal environment. [2] [3] [4] Enderlein is documented having observed in small pox victims that the biologically transmutated forms reacted strongly to small amounts of alkaline solutions such as sodium bicarbonate and stated, "Boundless work awaits here". [4] The bulk of Young's writings, research, and theories seek to explain, prove, and validate that an acidic pH of the fluids of the environment of the body is what triggers pleomorphic biological transmutation in the blood and is the ultimate cause and source of disease, sickness, and death as well as the key to its prevention and cure. [6] [7] These claims are unique to Young and are what he and many others have come to refer to as "The New Biology". [8] [9] It is referred to as "The New Biology" because if Young's theories concerning disease are proven, accepted and adopted by mainstream medical science the ways cancer disease and sickness are perceived explained and treated would be radically changed. [8] [2] Young believes that "as research regarding the impact of acid in the body becomes more popular, treatments and theories of cancer will change." [6]
OK. Overall I find these two paragraphs to be neutrally written, taking care to attribute claims and avoid having Wikipedia make any specific claims.
The first paragraph looks mostly fine to me, except for the last sentence about transmutation. I have seen Young's dubious claims about transmutation before, such as claiming light elements transmute into heavy elements under the ocean, without any backing except extrapolation from cellular observations that are centuries old and likely erroneous. The 1967 reference cited (from what I can find online) seems to concern bacteria that are known to be highly pleomorphic in the first place; I don't see how that reference adds anything to the text about Young's claims, except to define pleomorphism.
The second paragraph is also fine until the last couple of sentences. Explaining "New Biology" isn't necessary and steps over the line into advocacy. It's enough to state Young's buzzword "New biology" and delete the weasel word "many others".
That's my $0.02. Delete the last sentence in the first paragraph, and the last 2 sentences in the second paragraph, do a bit of copy editing. After that, what this section desperately needs is an explanation why current medical thought followed the footsteps of Pasteur and not Bechamp, and what science says about Young's claims. If they aren't falsifiable, then it isn't a "theory" in a scientific sense. = Axlq 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm new to this platform; though, not new to writing or copy-editing. I've read everything posted here form July of last year to the present. I want to take some time to digest all of this some more, but I do have some initial comments: I agree with Axlq about the closing sentences of the two paragraphs---they stray a bit beyond the bounds of statement to conjecture.
Philosophically, I do think that this article is difficult because science is a quest for the absolute but in that quest there are constant changes. Paradigms often shift. Consider how many times and how quickly atomic theory has changed. Young is operating around an establishment that is hesitant to associate with him due to current science; but, he may be as Galileo arguing that the earth revolves around the sun to people positive the earth is central. . .or he may be off base. We don't know how the world will view him in a hundred years. So I don't think we can exclude explanations of the theories that drive his work just because somatids haven't been proven to absolutely exist, or that pleomorphism is "ludicrously counterfactual," because we don't absolutely know. We're still questing to know. They may be. Time will tell. But we do need to address "mycrozyma" and "pleomorphism" as theoretical concepts that are apparently central to who Young is and Young's work---his books are based on these ideas.
If we're just careful to couch these explanations in terms of Young's theories, beliefs, and claims so that it is clear what has and has not been substantiated by the establishment, then we should be able to give a robust explanation of Young and still maintain neutrality.
This is a biography, and the theories are integral to explaining who Young is and why he does what he does. Just be sure to state his work as theory. I liked MastCell's suggestion to use language such as: "Young claims in his book to have observed pleomorphism." Use that same type of language in explaining what Young believes pleomorphism to be and I think we'll be on track. ObserverBA ( talk) 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Young claims to be continuing the research of Antoine Bechamp and Gunther Enderlein. [1] Like Bechamp and Enderlein, Young claims that the microzyma or protit is the smallest anatomical element and that it makes up all living forms such as blood and tissue. [2] [3] [4] Furthermore, like Bechamp and Enderlein, Young claims to have observed pleomorphism occurring within living organisms and explains that it is the environment that is triggering this phenomenon to occur. [2] [3] [4] Pleomorphism is the phenomenon observed when living organisms, such as bacteria, change forms in response to their environment. [5] Pleomorphism is understood to occur in bacteria, however, unique to Young is his unproven claim that it also occurs in human blood cells as a result of an acidic environment. [2]
Young, like Bechamp and Enderlein, believes that disease is a general condition of one's internal environment. [2] [3] [4] The bulk of Young's writings, research, and theories seeks to explain, prove, and validate that the enviromental factor of an acidic pH of the fluids of the body is what triggers pleomorphic biological transmutation in the blood and is the ultimate cause and source of disease, sickness, and death as well as the key to its prevention and cure. [7] These claims are unique to Young and are what he calls "The New Biology". [8]
I don't know if it is appropriate for consulting contributors to make syntactical suggestions; but, I have a couple style comments and citation observations.
First paragraph second sentence, I'd change it to: "Like his intellectual forebears, Young claims that the microzyma or protit. . ." This will make the language sound less redundant. Also, have you tried searching for a reference for "protit" outside of Young's work? I'd like to see one here.
First paragraph: after "response to their environment" you placed the footnote [7]. It appears that footnote is out of place as the [7] references the Utah County Property Owners 2008. Check that, please.
First paragraph final sentence change: "Pleomorphism is understood to occur in bacteria; however, Young claims that it also occurs in human blood cells as a result of the pH level of the environment where the cell is found." Qualifying the claim as "unique" would be hard to substantiate (dropped "unique"). It appears to me that Young believes the cell can morph negatively in an acidic environment and positively in alkaline environment, so I'd change from specifying the pleomorphism phenomenon as a result of just "acidic environment," as Young seems to believe in progressive and regressive morphing. Am I reading him right? Finally, we ought to look for a reference for bacteria as having pleomorphic abilities to cite in this sentence. Doing a cursory search I found a couple possibilities that you could look closer at: (www.whale.to/y/wainwright.html is flagged by WP) and http://www.joimr.org/phorum/read.php?f=2&i=108&t=108 as well as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19040453.
I'm noticing that Young's works are frequently cited in this article, particularly [4] [5] and [6]. It would be a good idea to cite Bechamp and Enderline's work additionally and exclusive from Young's work to independently solidify the link---not just having Young claim an intellectual link. That would just be nice to have some verification separate from Young's publications.
Second paragraph, final sentence: Again I balk a the assertion that the "claims are unique to Young." That's a statement that is difficult to back up, because to prove that the idea is truly unique you have to exhaustively prove that no one in the world has the same view. That can't feasibly be done. The assertion that it is "unique" sounds more like marketing speech than a neutral overview.
Good work, Honest Research. It's getting better. ObserverBA ( talk) 22:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Young bases his theories, research, and written works off of his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [2] From the Journal of alternative and complementary medicine it states that these blood analysis are commonly used to assess the status of the biologic terrain and the patient's nutritional state. [10] They are qualitative in scope and complementary to the quantitative blood testing of conventional medicine. [10] Empirical data correlates the live and dry blood analysis with quantitative blood testing and clinical manifestations. [10] The tests are particularly useful for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level, and are often done in tandem. [10] Young is documented doing a pilot study as well as a double-blinded controlled study using both live and dry-blood analysis to test a hypothesis if an environment of EM is diminished with SRT [10]. Young uses these tests to "test for disturbances in the biologic terrain caused by environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [10] Young is documented in these studies showing how the quality of the blood in certain areas indicated in different patients bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [10]
Young offers a course in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [11] Young insists that "live blood cell analysis is a tool for research and education." [11]
According to the Health and Human Services Office and Quackwatch, live blood analysis is an unestablished test with no scientific validity. [12] [13]
The references have been deleted so I will put them here: [ The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine] [ Sick and Tired] [ SanDiego News] Please feel free to make comments and critiques before I add this paragraph to Young's article. Honest Research ( talk) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The journal sited does, in fact, make mention of Young and goes on in great detail explaining how live and dry blood analysis are done and what they are used for on page 834. Then from pages 835 to 844 is where Young is documented doing live and dry blood tests and displaying the results. This is an excellent source to describe Young's primary basis from which all of his claims are based off of because it is in a 3rd party source that has been peer reviewed. Every statement that I put was directly quoted from the journal. If it sounded like fact, it is because that is how the journal described Live and Dry blood analysis. So taking into consideration both Axlq's and MastCell's valid feedback, here it is again. Please let me know of any other problems you see with it, before I put it up again.
Honest Research (
talk)
20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Young bases his theories, research, and written works off of his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [2] Young uses these tests to "test for disturbances in the biologic terrain caused by environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [10] Young is documented in studies showing how the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [10] Live and Dry blood analysis are used primarily by alternative medicine practitioners for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level. [10] Alternative practitioners like Young believe that live and dry blood analysis allows them to analyze the state of the blood cells as well as the fluids that surrounds them and that the state of the cells and fluid correlate with a persons health. [10] Young offers a course in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [11] According to the Health and Human Services Office and Quackwatch, live blood analysis is an unestablished test with no scientific validity. [12] [13] However, Young claims that it does have scientific validity. [11]
I echo MastCell's concerns. J.AltCompMed is not a reliable source for matters of medical fact or expert opinion. Also, "off of" is an awful construction. Verbal chat 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Young bases his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [2] Young uses these tests to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [10] Young is documented in studies using live and dry blood analysis claiming that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [10] Live and Dry blood analysis are used primarily by alternative medicine practitioners for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level. [10] Alternative practitioners like Young believe that live and dry blood analysis allows them to analyze the state of the blood cells as well as the fluids that surrounds them and that the state of the cells and fluid correlate with a persons health. [10] Young teaches courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. Young claims that live and dry blood analysis have scientific validity. [11]
[11] According to the Health and Human Services Office and Quackwatch, live blood analysis is an unestablished test with no scientific validity. [12] [13]
Young bases his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [2] Young uses live and dry blood analysis to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by acidic environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [10] Young is documented in studies using live and dry blood analysis claiming that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [10] Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. [10] Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [14] Young claims that live and dry blood analysis does have scientific validity. [11] Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level. [10] The Department of Health and Human Services has evaluated live blood analysis as a unestablished laboratory test signifying that its methods are not generally accepted by many of the people involved in traditional laboratory practice and oversight. [12] It has also reported on the validity of live blood analysis stating that The Department of Health and Human Services has not endorsed or condemned it as a laboratory test. [12]
Here is the revised version of the Microscopy paragraph, with the correct phrases from the Health and Human Services CLIA report included on live blood analysis, as well as the unreferenced statement removed that "live blood analysis has no scientific validity". I will post it tomorrow unless I hear of a just change that is required. Honest Research ( talk) 23:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why phrases were deleted that were cited by third party sources. Also, I fixed the paraphrasing of the CLIA report; referencing it word for word. Those were valid so I put them back up. Also, clarified that the medical expert was Edzard Ernst. Honest Research ( talk) 02:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have redrafted it and would like to present it. I feel like this line that I stated in the second paragraph needs an explanation:
I included this line to represent why alternative practicioners believe live blood analysis is valid. As I researched, I found that the prominent figure in America doing this is, and making statements about it, besides Young, is Dr. Gabriel Cousens. In Cousen's own book it says he is "the leading holistic medical doctor in the United States". I also found out that both Young and Cousen's claim to be trained by the same person, "Maria Bleker" in Germany. I also found out that the explanation of live blood analysis taken from the JAltMed journal cites Maria Bleker for all its information about live blood analysis. So I cited her statements from the JAltMed journal and Cousne's statements from his book. Bleker seems to be the foremost expert in Blood analysis. I would have cited directly from her book but it is not online but in a library one can look at it. I found that her same statements are found in the JAltMed Journal article so I felt this represented her opinion about the matter sufficiently. So that is the reasoning behind that line. Bleker, Cousen's and Young seem to all be doing the same kind of blood testing and doing it for the same reasons so I tried to represent their reasoning for claiming it is valid. I also made some small changes you will notice, as well as include an brief explanation about the HHS report. With that said, how does this sound?:
Young bases his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [2] Young uses live and dry blood analysis to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by acidic environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [10] Young has claimed in a study that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [10] Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. [10]
Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [14] Young has also stated that he teaches live blood analysis solely for research and educational purposes, and not for use in diagnosing medical conditions - an important legal distinction. [11] Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain. [10] [15] However, Live blood analysis has also been considered by medical experts as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". [11] [16] [17] It should be understood that Live blood analysis is currently a controversial test and has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", signifying that its methods are not generally accepted in traditional laboratory practice and that its validity as a laboratory test has not yet been determined. [12]
Honest Research ( talk) 18:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
After reading your words, I will take off the statements that do not have to do with Young directly. I will then add the statements we have worked on to the live blood analysis page. I think this would make MastCell as well as Levine2112 both agree that the correct information is placed in the correct articles and is available for the reader to gain access to the views specifically about live blood analysis and specifically about Young in their respective articles. Honest Research ( talk) 02:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Should general information about live blood analysis and alkaline diets that does not specifically mention Young or his specific claims go into Young's article or into the live blood analysis and alkaline diets articles? 06:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
There is information that is valid about live blood analysis and alkaline diets. Currently it is being put into Young's article to represent what some consider as "mainstream views" about live blood analysis and alkaline diets. The statements are against live blood analysis and alkaline diets and do not make mention of Young or his specific claims about live blood analysis or alkaline diets. The question at hand is about the information that does not refer to Young or his claims directly such as Intrigued by the spectacular claims made for Live Blood Analysis? Don't be. It doesn't work and [5] and CLIA regulation of unestablished laboratory tests but not this Naturopathic technique stirring bad blood because it refers to Young and his claims directly. Should the general information about live blood analysis and alkaline diets remain on Young's page or should it not? If this information should remain in Young's bio, then should we also include the opinions of medical experts who speak in favor of live blood analysis and alkaline diets on Young's page, such as Maria Bleker, and Gabriel Cousens? Honest Research ( talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This debate has been mentioned at the Fringe theories noticeboard. - 2/0 ( cont.) 02:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Young bases some of his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [RfC1 1] Young uses live and dry blood analysis to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by acidic environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [RfC1 2] Young has claimed in a study that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [RfC1 2] Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. [RfC1 2] Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [RfC1 3] Young has also stated that he teaches live blood analysis solely for research and educational purposes, and not for use in diagnosing medical conditions - an important legal distinction. [RfC1 4]
Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain. [RfC1 2] [RfC1 5] Some medical experts consider live blood analysis as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". [RfC1 4] [RfC1 6] [RfC1 7] Other medical experts consider live blood analysis to be a qualitative assessment of the biological terrain and a way to monitor the clinical progress of a persons health and wellness. [RfC1 5] [RfC1 8] It should be understood that Live blood analysis is currently a controversial test and has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", signifying that its methods are not generally accepted in traditional laboratory practice and that its validity as a laboratory test has not yet been determined. [RfC1 9]
sickTiredLostChapter
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EMvsSRT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).youngmain
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).sdut-2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Young bases some of his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [RfC2 1] Young uses live and dry blood analysis to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by acidic environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. [RfC2 2] Young has claimed in a study that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. [RfC2 2] Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. [RfC2 2] Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [RfC2 3] Young has also stated that he teaches live blood analysis solely for research and educational purposes, and not for use in diagnosing medical conditions - an important legal distinction. [RfC2 4]
Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain. [RfC2 2] [RfC2 5] Some medical experts consider live blood analysis as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". [RfC2 4] [RfC2 6] [RfC2 7] Other holistic doctors consider live blood analysis to be a qualitative assessment of the biological terrain and a way to monitor the clinical progress of a persons health and wellness. [RfC2 5] [RfC2 8] It should be understood that Live blood analysis is currently a controversial test and has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", meaning that without conducting any scientific evaluation, pro or con, they understand that it is not an accepted part of laboratory medicine. [RfC2 9]
sickTiredLostChapter
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EMvsSRT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).youngmain
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).sdut-2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Young bases some of his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. [RfC3 1] Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. [RfC3 2] Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. [RfC3 3] Young has also stated that he teaches live blood analysis solely for research and educational purposes, and not for use in diagnosing medical conditions - an important legal distinction. [RfC3 4]
Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain. [RfC3 2] [RfC3 5] Medical experts consider live blood analysis as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". [RfC3 4] [RfC3 6] [RfC3 7] Holistic doctors consider live blood analysis to be a qualitative assessment of the biological terrain and a way to monitor the clinical progress of a persons health and wellness. [RfC3 5] [RfC3 8] Live blood analysis is currently a controversial test and has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", or test that is not generally accepted in laboratory medicine. [RfC3 9]
I think I am pretty much ok with the first paragraph, but I made a
few changes to the second. The biggest change was merging two sentences describing the opinions on alternative practitioners, removing the statement about "most" alternative medicos. I removed the clause describing LBA as "controversial", as it does not really add anything to about Young that is not expressed by the cited opinions - show rather than tell. I also removed the statement that dry blood analysis is an alternative technique, as it seems to be an alternative medicine synonym for
blood test. We could include how Young uses those, and expand on any non-standard uses.
The term "biological terrain" appears not to be in common use. Perhaps the second sentence of the first paragraph could be converted into two, the first expanding on the term and the second completing the thought.
As a side note,
dark field microscopy and
phase contrast microscopy are well-established techniques for getting data out of a slide, and are not unique to live blood analysis. Also, last I checked, the Nobel committee seals the list of nominees until it will be only of historical importance. -
2/0 (
cont.)
17:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
sickTired
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
TexasNews
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
EMvsSRT
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).youngmain
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).DrGabrielCousens
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Cite error: There are <ref group=RfC3>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=RfC3}}
template (see the
help page).