Talk:Robert O. Young

Translation

translating this into Spanish. jussayin--T.S.Boncompte (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

More Work

I would like to propose doing some more work on Young's article. I would like to start with some statements that are redundant in criticizing where Young went to school and got his degrees. There is no reason to put in Young's article twice that his graduate degrees are from an unaccredited school. Here are the two statements:

He received several degrees from Clayton College of Natural Health, an unaccredited distance learning school...

...and that none of his graduate degrees was from an accredited educational institution.

I propose removing one of them. I will wait for a couple days to hear from anyone. If there are no opinions for or against removing one of the statements, then I will remove one of them.Honest Research (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently proposed that the redundant statements about Young's schooling and degrees be worked on. I waited, no one responded, I removed one of the statements, and then it was immediately reverted with no explanation statements on the discussion page. So once again I am posting because I do not agree with the revision that was made. I will argue against it here and wait for the comments of other contributors before making a change.

It is not necessary to state twice in Young's article that his degrees are from a non-accredited School. Currently, it is stated twice. Yes, the information is valid and relevant but does not need to be included twice. Let me be clear so as not to be confused. Once again, it is relevant information and should only be included once in Young's article. I propose removing one. I will once again wait for the opinions of others on the discussion page and then take action.Honest Research (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think both should be left this is a very important fact, and relevant to both places in the article. One is simply informative at teh correct place, and the other is well sourced and well founded criticism. Verbal chat 17:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a relevant and appropriately documented fact. I don't feel strongly that it needs to be mentioned in two places; one is probably sufficient, though again I could go either way. MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Does he have any graduate degrees not covered by the more specific statement about Clayton? If so, that clause should be moved from Work to Education; if not, I would be ok with removing it there but leaving the bit about publishing. Also, we should state something about his PhD topic, and state something in the lead regarding the level of acceptance of his work. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. It seems that all are ok with removing the second statement except for Verbal . I will remove it within a couple of days unless Verbal provides more information on why the second statement should not be removed. Once again Verbal, it is understood that it is valid information that is well cited. The problem is that it is stated twice. If Young is a fool then it does not need to be stated twice even if it is valid and well cited. If he is a scholar then once is also sufficient. Currently, the article reads that where Young went to school to get his degrees is not accredited. And then again it reads, that Young's degrees are not from an accredited school. This is like saying Young is a fool and again Young is a fool. Or just as biased, Young is a scholar and again Young is a scholar. Both are inappropriate. So I need a different argument other than it being important and well cited for me not to remove it from Young's article.

In response to 2/0, to my knowledge, he does not have any other graduate degrees other than honorary degrees and training from individuals who work in the holistic field. Perhaps this should be made mention of in his article as well? About the part about publishing that is not redundant, it is understood that it should be kept in the article. About your last statement I am unclear exactly what you mean by "including something about his PhD topic, and the level of acceptance of his work". I would like to pursue it further. Please elaborate further on what you mean so I can do some research into it and present it for including in the article.Honest Research (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Honorary degrees and training seem relevant to Young's life - describe, source, and include away.

What is the title of Young's dissertation for his Clayton PhD? We should include at least that, and perhaps expand on his work for the program. Full treatment belongs, of course, down in the Work section.

The lead currently does not discuss how successful his PH Miracle books are. This point is of course open to disagreement, but I would not be averse to adding to the lead one salient fact, such as the sales figure or an award won. It also omits to mention that the alkaline diet is not recommended by most nutritionists. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Once Again

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)

Are you prepared to omit every redundant statement in the article? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Honest Research that one of the statements is redundant. Both are in their correct places. It is correct to mention that a school is unaccredited in the section about education. It is also correct to mention a reliable source reporting findings about his work. As is work is intimately related to his education, and the source makes a point about that, it is appropriate to report what the source says. One could even make a case for mentioning it a third time in the lead section, but I don't believe the point is important enough to go that far. =Axlq 18:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. It is clear to me that there are more contributors for this article who want both statements in the article to remain, rather than removing one of them. I will not bring this up anymore and will keep it how it is.Honest Research (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Additions

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. 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. Young claims that the one treatment is maintaining the alkaline design of the body through an alkaline lifestyle and diet.

In order to explain Young's theories he repeatedly uses a "fish tank" metaphor to compare the human body to a fish tank. 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.

Honest Research (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned on WP:BLP grounds that this makes Young look quite foolish, but if it's an accurate representation of what he thinks then maybe we can justify adding it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was a very quick response. Thank you. Yes, this seems to be what he thinks and claims. Would you please elaborate on how it makes him look foolish. It is not my intent to do this. Everything I included is what I found from his own books as well as his blog as well as the sources I posted which are from other peoples books and observations.Honest Research (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For a start, the statement there is only one sickness, one disease, and one treatment implies that he thinks everything from laryngitis to uterine cancer to schizophrenia is all one disease that can be addressed with one treatment. Such a statement would certainly satisfy the dictionary definition of foolish. If it's well documented that he really means that, perhaps we can justify including it. Otherwise the material should be phrased more clearly per WP:BLP. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, young does appear to believe that every disease you mentioned can be traced to an acid/alkaline imbalance. It's an interesting hypothesis that may even be valid for diseases that originate within the body. I think it does make him appear foolish if he extends that idea to infectious diseases and hereditary illnesses, though.

Also, I don't see the need to describe his fish tank metaphor. This is a biography, not an essay to explain or justify his claims. The metaphor simply says that your environment affects your health, which is obvious and doesn't need to be repeated here. =Axlq 15:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Curious assertion about hereditary and infectious diseases. Sepsis and septic shock (usually caused by infection) are among the few conditions where a harmful acidosis is actually seen routinely. Another is type 1 diabetes mellitus (and resulting diabetic ketoacidosis), which is generally thought to have strong hereditary component. And a third common cause of acidosis is toxic ingestion (aspirin, methanol, etc), which is probably not what you have in mind by a "disease originating within the body". MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Helpful comments. Thank you. It seems that in fact, Young believes that "there is only one sickness, one disease, and one treatment". The title of Young's first book is "One Sickness, One Disease, and One Treatment". This theme is also brought up in every other one of his following books so I think it is safe to include this in his article.

About hereditary diseases and contagious diseases, Young claims that these are contributing factors to an acidic environment and thus contributing factors to his "one disease" definition and theory. Young defines "one disease" as "the over acidification of the blood then tissues". He claims microbes or germs and hereditary disorders contribute to the over acidification of the body resulting in disease but it seems Young focuses primarily on an "acidic diet" and "lifestyle" as the primary contributors to an acidic environment(Young's definition of disease). One thing is very clear with Young that must be understood. He claims the acidic environment is the disease and not the specific symptom condition or microbe. he also claims that the environment is the cause or prevention of the disease and not the symptom, condition, microbe, or germ. This is what he claims the one disease is and claims that an acidic diet, an acidic lifestyle, a hereditary disorder, or contagious microbes are all contributors to his definition of "one disease". this is the basis upon which Young treats diseases targeting the acidic environment with alkaline foods and liquids rather than the germs, viruses, and conditions. It can be considered foolish or brilliant. I have heard both. The reason I included these statements is not to state if they are true or not or if he is a fool or not by thinking and writing what he does. Just to represent in the article the common underlying and most apparent themes, theories, and ideas that are continually brought up in Young's books.

About the fish tank metaphor: I included it only because of its consistent reappearance in all of Young's books as well as in articles and other peoples books (see references below). It is a metaphor that he always uses. People who have embraced Young's science use it as an icon of Young's "New Biology" so it is very much unique to Young. He was seen talking about it on Operah and other news stations like fox. That is not scientific, I know, but I only bring it up to show that it is something people associate him with because he associates his theories with it. If you feel the information about the fish tank metaphor, although very common in Young's writings, is not necessary, then I am ok with not posting it. However, I do think a statement saying Young uses the metaphor should be stated.

With all of that said, could I get all of your opinions on the newly proposed statements below. Below is my next proposal for posting how I would do it. I believe it is a good representation and synopsis of Young's main theories and themes found in his books. Let me know if you are ok with it or if you feel parts should be added or taken away.Honest Research (talk) 19:20, 27 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. 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. 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. Young claims that the one treatment is to maintain the alkaline design of the body through an alkaline lifestyle and diet. 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. He believes that the quality of red blood cells produced depends upon the pH of the foods and liquids taken into the body. 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. 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. Foods and liquids the alkaline protocol states should be used in moderation are high-carbohydrate vegetables such as potatoes, some grains, and fresh fish. 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. 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. 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. 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. Some Individuals who have adopted Young's alkaline protocol claim it was a factor in helping them overcome their sickness.

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)

Additions 2

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)

Could you provide some third party RS for these, then I'll have a look. Verbal chat 07:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there are 3rd party reliable sources for the personal claims and beliefs of Robert Young. His own words should be sufficient.

Personally, I think that a biography article should be about a person, and shouldn't become primarily a description of that person's claims. The suggestion above should probably be in a general article about alternative dietary health claims.

Probably better would be to explain Young's concept of "one disease, one cure" and briefly list bullet points describing each disease that Young claims is applicable. The two paragraphs from Honest Research at the start of this section could be condensed down to two 1-line bullet points. =Axlq 21:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

More Updates

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 claims underlying alkaline diets like Young's are believed to be medically implausible. "Studies of alkaline diet are limited to animal and test tube trials. There's no scientific evidence at this time that alkaline diets are beneficial to humans."[26]"

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)

The studies you cite discuss the effect of pH manipulation on tumor xenografts in a immunodeficient mouse model. Neither of them details research in humans, contrary to your statement above. They are in complete agreement with the Intelihealth summary that we cite ("Studies of alkaline diet are limited to animal and test tube trials. There's no scientific evidence at this time that alkaline diets are beneficial to humans.") I hope that these studies lead to the successful development of an effective anti-cancer therapy in humans. If they do, then that will be to the credit of the researchers who actually explored this hypothesis scientifically.

Whether we choose to remove the "medically implausible" statement is of less importance to me. I think one could make an argument for biological plausibility on the basis of in vitro and animal data. I do think that the Intelihealth statement remains a correct and appropriate summary, in that studies remain limited to animal and test-tube trials, and there remains no scientific evidence of benefit in humans. I'm not sure I'd consider the Intelihealth author - a "nurse/massage therapist", as you mention - either more or less authoritative than someone with a couple of distance-learning degrees from an unaccredited college, but that's neither here nor there. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I am thinking.Honest Research (talk) 01:20, 21 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. As well as that acid-mediated tumor invasion is plausible through mathematical modeling.

[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)

It appears to me that that the sources listed above are solid and support the changes suggested by pHmiraclesecrets. Also, I agree that it only need be mentioned once that the academic degree doesn't come from an accredited school. I say go ahead and make the changes and add the articles cited to the "References List." ObserverBA (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with only a single mention of the source of Young's degrees. On the other hand, I disagree with trying to turn this article into a coatrack for various claims about alkaline diets. First of all, there are scattered reports of benefit in cellular and animal models (which we note) but no convincing evidence to date of benefit in humans. The handful of largely obscure primary sources cited here have not led to the adoption of alkaline diets or their recommendation by any reputable medical or scientific body that I'm aware of, although I'm happy to be corrected.

Furthermore, detailed reviews of scientific research about various forms of alkaline diets belongs in an article on alkaline diets. These articles say nothing about Young or the particular claims that he makes. As far as I am aware (again, I'm happy to be corrected), Young's specific claims have never been subjected to published scientific analysis, neither by Young himself nor by anyone else, so we shouldn't give the impression that his claims are scientifically supported by dumping a bunch of tangentially related literature into a "References" section. That's misleading at best, in that it overwhelms the reader with impressive-sounding citations that don't actually address the substance of Young's claims, and it's against Wikipedia policy.

Since this is a biography of Young, we should give the reader a short, honest summary of his claims. That includes the fact that they have not been scientifically investigated, and perhaps the fact that alkaline diets are supported by some in vitro and animal models but lack demonstrated efficacy in humans at present. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If a coatrack statement about alkaline diets is going to be allowed, then these proposed refrences, that appear to me to come from “recognized scientific journals” and are not “obscure,” should be admissible. They don’t mention Young or his work, but then the subject of the sentence in question isn’t Young, but “alkaline diets.” A coatrack as MastCell astutely pointed out.

However, the best practice likely is to remove any coatrack comment made about the efficacy of so called alkaline diets, as such a judgement—good or bad—is beyond biographical. I agree it belongs in an article focused on alkaline diets and not in a biography.

A fair biographical comment of fact is: “According to the National Council Against Health Fraud, a 2005 MEDLINE search indicated that Young had yet to publish any research in recognized scientific journals.” In consideration of avoiding coatrack, I’d recommend this be the only sentence left to make up the third paragraph under “Work.”ObserverBA (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever we leave about alkaline diets must include current medical consensus on the matter, per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality of sourcing in this article

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)

WP:BLP doesn't give us many options. If we can't find reliable sources, we need to trim. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That is my general feeling. In addition, the use of self-published/questionable primary sources here falls afoul of WP:SELFPUB. In particular, the material quoted is somewhat promotional/self-serving, and the article seems based primarily on such material. MastCell ^Talk 20:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS allows for the use of ta Living Person’s self published work; however, it cautions that such work can not be “unduly self-serving.” As for the tone of this article, I don’t think it is self-serving, as it seems to be properly framed in a neutral way by asserting Young’s beliefs/work as “claims” and not fact, which would be self-serving. Generally I think it does maintain a NPOV but I agree there may be areas were it could be trimmed. “Influence?”ObserverBA (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if editors disagree on whether or not it's unduly self-serving, there's BLPSPS #5, "the article is not based primarily on such sources." --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 19 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

Both are reliable sources, though NCAHF should be used as a skeptical viewpoint. See WP:RS.

The court records, being primary sources, should not be used alone. See WP:PSTS. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We are specifically cautioned not to use court transcripts or other primary sources in isolation on biographical articles (see WP:BLP). On the other hand, the Deseret News appears to be a reputable newspaper and a reasonably reliable secondary source, as Wikipedia defines the term. I think it would be reasonable to submit this Wikipedia article to a deletion discussion. I, for one, would be happy to be rid of it, since it's a time sink to deal with repeated attempts to turn the article into a promotional advert. And believe it or not, even I occasionally get tired of being called a drug-industry shill for trying to rein in promotional material.

If you (phmiraclesecrets/70.234.0.145) are Robert Young, then a request from the subject of a biography to have it deleted is often honored, particularly in cases where the notability is marginal. There is no intent to malign Young, at least on my part - only to try to produce a neutral, encyclopedic biography honestly representing the content of reliable secondary sources (I've been removing inappropriately critical material since at least 2007). MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that submission to a deletion discussion may be the best course. This was controversial when I first looked at the article, it is now, and I’m sure it will continue to be.ObserverBA (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

I agree that the “Influence” and “Work” sections are the most problematic. However, I do like the first sentence of the “Influence” section and being able to link to Béchamp and Enderlein. I appreciate those links, the historical perspective. And knowing Young aligns himself with these men’s theories informs me more about Young and his views. It’s the rest of the section that seems to have the BLP issues and addresses other topics beyond the scope of biography.ObserverBA (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Without an independent source, we're stuck. Besides, if we present the history, we have to present how it's been disproved. --Ronz (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source: http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/young3.html ? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the article on Quackwatch (which goes into some depth about notability and reliability) and the archived discussions on WP:RSN, likely yes. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dutch source about Young

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)

No. These are all blogs, full of editorializing and personal opinion, certainly not formal articles that you'd expect from a legitimate news source. Unless a blogger is a recognized expert in the field he or she is blogging about, they can't be considered reliable sources suitable for a Wikipedia article, and they certainly can't be quoted. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

David Gorski is a breast cancer surgeon. I'd say he's a reliable critic of Young. Not all blogs are banned as sources. Ultra Venia (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But if you actually look at that particular blog, you will see that is written as a personal, rambling editorial, not an academic critique. As such, it deserves little more attention than any other blog. To his credit, he focuses on his area of expertise (cancer) rather than on critiquing the alkaline diet. It may be appropriate to reference him in the context of cancer only, but not otherwise.

Remember, not everyone with an physician's credential has credible views on a specific diet, and some notable bona-fide doctors have established records of being unreliable sources (see the article on Joseph Mercola for example). Gorski seems reasonable but one must be careful to use that reference in the proper context. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:12, 21 June 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)

Assuming that the above IP is in fact RO Young, that post is clearly what we call a wp:Legal threat. The poster was blocked. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted

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)

The whole thing promotes a point of view in Wikipedia's voice, using sources that don't criticize Young in any way at all. This is a gross violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Find a critic who makes these points. It is not Wikipedia's business to editorialize on such matters, as this proposed section does. Removing the editorializing, out-of-context quotations, POV-pushing, etc., results in two sentences:

In The pH Miracle Young developed a "pH of Food" scale ranging from -39.4 to 39.4, which differs from the standard scale of 0 to 14. He also advocates daily intake of chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) and hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) as "safe, stable substances that release oxygen in the body."

Beyond that, the article should not coach, guide, or nudge the reader concerning what to think about those facts. That is why we have Wikilinks for further information. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is that remaining silent in the face of such pseudoscientific claptrap would make us to some degree complicit in misleading the reader. Better to simply juxtapose such statements with the most relevant science, of course with proper citations, as for the toxicity issues.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So, add a couple more sentences. The multi-paragraph rant (and that's exactly what it is) isn't acceptable. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The pH Miracle

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). Unfortunately, his "pH" numbers have no correlation to actual pH numbers of those various foods.

Young could not have generated his "pH" numbers with commonly available pH indicators (range from 0.0 to 14.0 pH), nor with commonly available commercially manufactured pH meters (range from -2 to 20 pH).

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"] 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..." 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...". However, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) describes both chlorine dioxide and chlorite as "very reactive chemicals". ClO₂ and H₂O₂ both form potentially unsafe free radicals. Surprisingly, Young also describes some of the dangers of free radicals. Note the safety issues of ClO₂ and toxicity issues of chlorite and alternative medicine uses of H₂O₂ and safety of H₂O₂.

Comments

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)

Without having read Young's book, but being familiar with the issues by virtue of having been involved with this article for years, I'd say that Young's pH scale is his own invention, and he does not claim that it has any correlation to the standard pH scale. Rather, his pH scale appears to be more related to the effect a food has on the acid-alkaline balance, and doesn't relate in any way to the actual pH of the food.

You'd have to look up actually what he says in context, before you start making possibly meaningless comparisons to food chemistry. One well-known and non-controversial example is citric acid, which is chemically acidic, yet its metabolic product in the body is alkaline (see citric acid cycle). Young would therefore put lemon juice on the alkaline side of his scale. (Indeed, this list indicates that he does.)

Based on that, it seems Young's scale has no correlation with the chemical pH of a food, but so what? Young apparently doesn't make that claim, so bringing it up in this article is a non sequitur. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's rather reminiscent of "It depends what your definition of 'is' is." For anyone with any significant background in chemistry, medicine, or biology (remember Young's educational claims) there's no serious questioning the everyday meaning of "pH". In simple terms it's a logarithmic 0 to 14 scale for the amount of free hydrogen ions in a solution. To say someone with an education in the field is coincidentally using the same name for an unrelated scale measuring the same thing simply beggars credibility. Simply by using the term "pH" he is making that claim. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And that is what we call synthesis, to state that he is using an unrelated scale for measuring the same thing, when he obviously isn't. Wikipedia has no business putting words in the mouths of others. Young appears to state pretty clearly that he is using an unrelated scale to measure an unrelated thing that has pH in common. While I agree Young has no credibility, he nevertheless should not be misrepresented. Glancing through stuff I can find online, it's pretty obvious that the purpose of his scale is to classify the pH effects (I recall a term "acidifying potential") of food on the body.

Wish I had the book; maybe I can find it in a library. Anyway, this link (self published and unacceptable for citing but presented for illustration) suggests that Young doesn't call his scale a "pH scale" but rather "pH reactivity scale" that shows the "relative potential" for a food to have an acidifying or alkalinizing effect. And as I mentioned above, it lists lemons as alkalinizing (which is true) while recognizing that the actual pH of lemons is acid.

The article should fairly represent what Young actually claims and also present reliably-sourced criticism. It should not fabricate straw-man criticism using sources that don't even mention Young's claims. Find reliable sources that do criticize this scale and we could have something, but the proposed text above, bluntly, is junk. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever SYN problems there might be are overwhelmed by the WP:FRINGE problems here. The problem in trying to deal with claims from someone like Young is that we simply cannot treat them as if they are consistent or rational - they are neither. Best to minimize what we present of his claims and present them in a way where readers will also be presented with the relevant science and medicine. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. When writing about an author notable for his fringe claims, it is reasonable, and I would argue necessary, to describe those claims for which he is notable, rather than minimize them. All I am saying above is that this can be done without resorting to synthesis, and also without arguing with the author in Wikipedia's voice. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The claims from the person are inconsistent and irrational. They don't belong in an encyclopedia for the most part, and they need to be treated as fringe claims and pseudoscience. They absolutely must be presented in a manner where the reader can understand the real science and medicine surrounding the claims.

"I'd say that Young's pH scale is his own invention, and he does not claim that it has any correlation to the standard pH scale. Rather, his pH scale appears to be more related to the effect a food has on the acid-alkaline balance, and doesn't relate in any way to the actual pH of the food." That would be original research. It would be one thing if Young carefully and consistently defined what he means by pH, how he measures it, why he uses the misleading label, and what pH actually means. Does he do any of this, ever? --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he does, maybe not. You'd have to look at the book. Until you or me or someone actually does that, continuing this discussion won't go anywhere productive. And yes, based on my online browsing on the subject, it does seem that he knows exactly what pH is, and he also knows exactly what his "pH potential" scale is, and how they are different. It is not original research to look at the source for which he's notable, and simply state what he claims, warts and all. Young is notable for those claims, so yes, they emphatically do belong in an encyclopedia, else there is no reason to have this article at all. Any text that has a foundation of ignorance, such as that proposed above, doesn't belong here. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but someone being notable doesn't open the gates to ignore WP:FRINGE and present nonsense as something other than what it is. I don't have to look at his book. I simply look at his website and look for editors to provide references to demonstrate that their personal perspective on what might be is something other than original research. --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That said, while I agree that some material needs to be added, the attempts to date have been far too lengthy. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Facts necessary to understand The pH Miracle: in re commentary below "Deleted":

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 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". 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."

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."

"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. 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. 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 pK_a being −25. (pK_as 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 ] = 10^39.4 = 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.}

I think that it would be best to combine the existing sections "Books" and "Work" into one section "Books and Work"; as they are generally intimately related, and to make this a part of that.

The "pH" Miracle: Balance Your Diet, Reclaim Your Health

Comparison of pH Values

Food	Actual pH	Young's "pH"
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 of "acid" (pH below 7), "neutral" (pH = 7), and "base" or "alkaline" (pH above 7) agree with scientific consensus definitions; but in 2002 he defined "pH" as "a scale of 1 [sic] to 14". In 2010 his definition is "pH" scale is "0 to 14"; which now agrees with the commonly cited definition: 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].

In his "The "pH" of Foods" tables [see comparison table at right], Young's numbers range from −39.4 [sic] (vinegar) [sic] to 39.4 [sic] (summer black radish). In Young's Tables, he defines "acidity" as (−) [sic] and "alkalinity" as ( ) [sic], (which also shifts the "neutral" point from 7 to 0). He provides no explanations regarding his four pairs of dual‑definition‑usages.

Young recommends a "battery‑operated pH electron meter". 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). Those devices are not readily available to the general scientific community, nor are they available where Young says they are "cutcat.com"; unless Young means a "pH meter".

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], or pH meters [the maximum commonly available range is from −2.0 to 22.0 pH] to measure pH.

Various sugars and alcoholic beverages are listed in his Tables as "acidic", but not until 2010 did Young regularly equate sugars and alcohol with "acid" in the rest of his text. 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"." 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.

Young says limes, lemons, grapefruit, tomatoes, and (adds in 2010) pomegranates are all "alkaline" (or "alkaline‑forming"). He also says to "avoid hidden harmful foods, especially citric acid". Young recognizes that nearly everyone else recognizes these fruits as acid, but says that when they're metabolized, they're "alkalizing". 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.

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. 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. See far right.

Young's writes "it takes about twenty times as much "base" to "neutralize" any given amount of "acid"". 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." Scientific consensus is that gastric contents are strongly acidic, pH 1.0 to 3.0.

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.

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." 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". In 2010 the only mention of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) is in his "References" section. In its place, he now recommends sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃), "magnesium carbonate (MgHCO₃) [sic], potassium bicarbonate (KHCO₃), and calcium carbonate (CaHCO₃) [sic]" (he continues to recommend chlorine dioxide (ClO₂)). Young says to avoid foods that "acidify" your body by leaving "acid" ash, which he says chlorine does. He says that most municipal tap water is "poisoned with chlorine", and isn't healthy, even if filtered (by most filters). In 2010, he recommends his "two to three thousand dollars" filter/ionizer, or a reverse osmosis system.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) describes both chlorine dioxide and chlorite as "very reactive chemicals". ClO₂ and H₂O₂ both form potentially unsafe free radicals. Young also describes some of the dangers of free radicals. 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]. None of those elements have a "Dietary Reference Intake" as determined by the US Government's Institute of Medicine (IOM).

U.S. Food and Drug Administration research has concluded that germanium, when used as a nutritional supplement, "presents potential human health hazard". The IOM finds "no justification for adding vanadium to food and vanadium supplements should be used with caution". 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."

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)

Section break

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)

Recommendations for deleting sections

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)

The section is not inaccurate, and this is not a vote. The arrests have sufficient coverage to be of encyclopedic interest. The fact that he may have been exonerated is not a reason to remove facts that have had significant coverage and contributed to Young's notoriety. If anything, the section should be expanded to include any additional information that can be adequately referenced. The fact that arrest records disappear after a time does not erase the fact that it happened. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:17, 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)

The material is adequately referenced with sources deemed reliable. If you have a problem with the sources, take it up on WP:RSN. We cannot use private communications as sources, only sources that comply with the guidelines Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you have such sources, please produce them. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:17, 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)

Accreditation of universities is something recognized by the US Department of Education or by CHEA, not by a local board of education. In fact this news article says that Clayton College of Natural Health claimed to be accredited by the American Association of Drugless Practitioners, which is not recognized by the federal government as legitimate. Furthermore, Oregon lists Clayton College as a diploma mill. Should this article call it a "diploma mill" instead of "unaccredited"? Can you suggest a wording that doesn't contradict the fact that other government agencies refer to that institution as unaccredited, according to the article on Clayton College of Natural Health? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:17, 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)

Additionally, Drjoven's claim to have access to private emails of Dr Young suggests that they're the same. However, I must point out that there are no legal threats evident from this new Drjoven account. If it's indeed the same person, then it's pretty clear that he's gone from legal bluster to a failed AFD, and has now moved on to attempting to work constructively with the community. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

the only non established editor at the afd was the IP that !voted keep. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the anonymous editor who demanded of OTRS that the AFD be initiated. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP's block expired some time ago, so that was not block evasion. I have reverted my own error. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

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)

Agreed. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Article and Books

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

Also there are more books he has written:

"Reverse Cancer Now" and "The pH Miracle For Cancer"

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)

• Oppose. First, http://medcraveonline.com/IJCAM/IJCAM-02-00046.php is a better link for that journal article. It's a fairly new, fringe-science journal, and the article isn't even indexed by Google Scholar. He has probably published a number of articles in such journals. Unless that article is significant somehow (that is, multiple other authors have cited it), there is no point in listing it. We don't list journal publications for legitimate scientists either, why should we make an exception for Robert Young?
  Second, we don't link to shopping sites. Go ahead and add the book reference, without the link, but it's definitely not OK to link to some site that's selling the book. There is no requirement that every reference be hyperlinked. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: The article is best improved with third-party sources. His publications might only be used to describe his wacky ideas but must be written in the context of pseudoscience, per WP:FRINGE. Delta13C (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  The proposal is just to list his works. I think this would be appropriate for the book (without linking to a shopping site) but not the journal article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose We'd need independent sources meeting our criteria to show that this has any significance. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Unlicensed naturopath

How should we best qualify that he's not a licensed naturopath per [7]? --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is clear that he is not a licensed naturopath. First, he self identifies as a "naturopath". Licensed NDs almost always call themselves "naturopathic doctor" or "naturopathic physician". Second, he was convicted of practicing medicine without a license. Therefore, he was not a licensed naturopath. Delta13C (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's clear to me too, but also WP:OR. It doesn't really need to be stated. The source doesn't even mention the word "naturopath" or licenses thereof. Practicing medicine without a license isn't quite the same thing as practicing naturopathy without a license. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Young is not licensed either as a medical or a natropathic doctor. " --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: being licensed and having been granted a degree in naturopathy which is alleged to be at the doctoral level ("granted" because "earned" is probably not the right word to use when dealing with what I assume to be a diploma mill).Cosmicaug (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Addressing the second issue (and only the second issue), while the previously linked San Diego Tribune piece[8] claims an N.D. degree from Clayton College of Natural Health, a Times of San Diego article at https://timesofsandiego.com/crime/2017/04/12/ph-miracle-author-admits-hes-no-md-microbiologist-or-trained-scientist/ claims that "The defendant also admitted that he was not a microbiologist, hematologist, medical doctor, naturopathic doctor or trained scientist.". I do not know if this is meant to indicate an admission that he never even had that correspondence degree from Clayton College of Natural Health or if, instead, it is meant as an acknowledgment that such a "degree" from an unaccredited correspondence school does not even merit calling oneself a doctor of naturopathy. I do not know how this should be dealt with. Cosmicaug (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The answer to the question "Is he an ND?" varies by state: in some states it is illegal to claim having degrees based upon diplomas from unaccredited schools, in others it is not illegal. The answer to the question "Is he licensed to practice as ND in the state of California?" can be answered by yes or no (I guess the answer is "no"). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

BBC article

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)

• Thanks for finding this article! I will have a look. -Delta13C (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No actual degrees

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)

Just because he has no degrees from accredited schools doesn't mean he isn't a naturopath. If he passed the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations then he has the right to call himself a naturopath regardless of what fake degrees he has. Even if he hasn't passed such exams, it is perfectly valid to call him a naturopath on Wikipedia, per WP:FRINGE, since the term "naturopath" is a recognized pseudoscience term.

At the very least, Young does practice naturopathy, licensed or not, so the article should state that somehow. Instead of calling him a naturopath, we could call him a naturopathy practitioner. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we should stick to "naturopath", as this is the umbrella term for a naturopathic practitioner. Delta13C (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Young Sentenced ...

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)

Young is not a "naturopathic doctor", but he is a "naturopath". He cannot get licensed, but he did function as a naturopath given his methods and philosophy. Delta13C (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing the sources, he used the claim of being a naturopath as cover for his quackery. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

QuackWatch and the guilty plea

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)

I think "not a trained scientist" should be restored. I believe it's covered in other refs or in the potential refs I listed below. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Potential refs

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)

• https://www.health.com/celebrities/alkaline-diet-creator-jail-time
• http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-phmiracle-sentence-20170628-story.html
• https://cancerscience.pulsusconference.com/2019/speaker/robert-o-young-director-r-nph-miracle-medical-association-r-nusa
• https://www.businessinsider.com/alkaline-ph-diet-founder-arrested-2017-1

Oh, boy, if a cancer conference lists him as a speaker, that conference is dogshit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep. I don't think we could use it alone, but it's a heads up that we're likely to get more COI problems here. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-ph-miracle-young-20170405-story.html

Dawn Kali

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.

It wasn't exactly removed, it was mentioned twice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Licensing

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)

Additionally, see the RS supported statement "The 44-month sentence in the plea agreement included a declaration by Young that he has no degrees from any accredited schools, and that he is not 'a microbiologist, hematologist, medical doctor, naturopathic doctor, or trained scientist'" (emphasis added). Regardless of the fact that licensed naturopaths are in no way comparable to actual doctors (in terms of training, efficacy, not practicing quackery, etc.), there is such a thing as a licensed naturopath, and he had to specifically admit that he wasn't one. If we are going to call him a "naturopathic practitioner" in Wikipedia's voice (as opposed to fraudster, convicted felon, etc.), we must also call attention to this fact, per the policies regarding fringe theories and pseudoscience. By not doing so at the beginning, it removes any mention of his fraud and convictions and falsely presenting himself as a doctor from the brief blurb that appears in the summary pulled from Wikipedia when his name is googled, giving readers who do not open the page a false impression of respectability. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article claim he's a "naturopathic physician" or "naturopathic doctor", and the article cannot claim it because he is not one. He is described as a "naturopathic practitioner". My own mother is the same: she practices naturopathy. One does not need a license for that. And it wouldn't be appropriate to describe him as an "unlicensed naturopathic doctor" because, well, he isn't a doctor.

Furthermore, there is no source stating that he is unlicensed. We have only a source quoting what he is not, and that quotation doesn't mention licenses. He was found guilty of practicing medicine without a license, not that he was practicing naturopathy without a license. For all we know, he may have a license, if not in California, then somewhere else. The article or the cited sources say nothing one way or the other about it. Concluding he is unlicensed from the current sources is WP:SYNTHESIS, which isn't permitted here.

I agree that the lead paragraph needs to make it clear that he's a fraud, but slappiing the word "unlicensed" without proper sourcing isn't the way to do it, and violates WP:BLP. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: I see a conversation above (#No actual degrees) that I was involved in and forgotten about (see a few sections up) about calling him a "naturopath" vs "naturopatic practitioner". Maybe the generic term "naturopath" would be better, or "naturopath convicted of fraud". ~Anachronist (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Naturopath convicted of fraud" seems like a good alternative to me. NonReproBlue (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No reference was indicated demonstrating that WP:LABEL is WP:DUE. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist, quack would work. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Not in an encyclopedia, no, we don't engage in name-calling unless a preponderance of MEDRS sources calls him that, and even then I would be hesitant about doing it without attribution. What we do have are sources that refer to him as a naturopath convicted of fraud. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Clayton College description

The same or similar content was added and is being edit-warred over at least four articles:

• Robert O. Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gillian McKeith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lyn-Genet Recitas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hulda Regehr Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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.