Talk:Robert O. Young

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Once Again

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Here is what I am thinking.Honest Research (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: More Updates

message: 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;  ALSO IN   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".Op.Cit. 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 [], and he belongs in the Category:Pseudoscientists []; 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 pKa being −25. (pKas are apparently pH's at 50% dissociation, so additional pH units of dissociation would occur. Furthermore, any pH that high would have to be based on the newer purely theoretical/calculated "activity" version of pH, and could not be based on an actual concentration of H+ that high.)
The calculated density (protons alone) of Young's "Vinegar pH = −39.4" would be a black hole.  [H+] = 1039.4 = 2.512 × 1039  moles/liter.   1.0079 g/mole H × (1835 / 1836) = 1.0074 g/mole H+. 2.512 × 1039 moles/liter × (1000 liter / m3) × 1.0074 g/mole H+ × (1kg / 1000g) = 2.53 × 1039 kg/m3
Lutefisk's pH is presumably higher than that of nearly any other food ("lutefisk" translates directly to "lye fish" and is cod preserved by soaking in lye). {Hmm, a strong base used to kill microbes—should be on Mr. Young's list of recommendations. I'd heartily recommend that fish—to him and any of his supporters.}
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 Red bold quotation marks added throughout indicate that Young's usage of the enclosed "terms" often differs from the standard usage.===
 Comparison of pH ValuesBackground coloring is red for acid and blue for base. Background coloring in Young's column corresponds to his definitions of "acid" and "alkaline" from his relevant source tables. Note that Young's "neutral" there is at zero, not at 7.
Food             	ActualpH  	Young's"pH";  ALSO IN    NOTE The most relatively‑noticeable page numbers (within a given reference pointing to these two books) will generally be the source of any quotation(s).
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
Cherries         	3.2 to 4.0	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
Bananas          	4.5 to 4.7	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	Ocean Fish −20.0
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 Op.Cit ;  ALSO IN (exceptions noted herein)  Op.Cit.  of "acid" (pH below 7), "neutral" (pH = 7), and "base" or "alkaline" (pH above 7) agree with scientific consensus definitions; Op.Cit.  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]The calculated density (protons alone) of Young's "Vinegar pH = −39.4" would be a black hole.  [H+] = 1039.4 = 2.512 × 1039  moles/liter.[Op.Cit. ]    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 (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. Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN (exception noted herein)  Op.Cit. 
Young recommends a "battery‑operated pH electron meter". Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN (exceptions noted herein)  Op.Cit.  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,Google searches on September 20, 2012. Searching "alkaline electron meter" (in quotes) yields 9 total hits (including the omitted results) all of which are quoting Young and dated after Oct 2008. Searching "ph electron meter" (in quotes) yields 88 total actual hits (including the omitted results) most of which are quoting Young. NONE of these hits (including the ads) link to anyone selling any such device. The generated ads are for pH meters. 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],Op.Cit.  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.Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN  Op.Cit. Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN  Op.Cit.  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").Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN (exception noted herein)  Op.Cit.  He also says to "avoid hidden harmful foods, especially citric acid". Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN  Op.Cit.  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. Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN   Op.Cit. 
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.Definitions of "eat" and "drink".  See far right.
Young's writes "it takes about twenty times as much "base" to "neutralize" any given amount of "acid"".Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN  Op.Cit.  The Arrhenius equation of acid–base chemistry expresses scientific consensus:  (aq) +  (aq)   [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."Op.Cit.  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."Op.Cit . 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".Op.Cit. ;  AND/OR  (see herein)  Op.Cit.  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]Op.Cit. , 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).Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN (exception noted herein)  Op.Cit.  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.Op.Cit.  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].Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN  Op.Cit.  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)
thread_title:  Facts necessary to understand ''The pH Miracle'': in re commentary below '''"Deleted"''': 

message: Comparison of pH ValuesBackground coloring is red for acid and blue for base. Background coloring in Young's column corresponds to his definitions of "acid" and "alkaline" from his relevant source tables. Note that Young's "neutral" there is at zero, not at 7.
Food             	ActualpH  	Young's"pH";  ALSO IN    NOTE The most relatively‑noticeable page numbers (within a given reference pointing to these two books) will generally be the source of any quotation(s).
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
Cherries         	3.2 to 4.0	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
Bananas          	4.5 to 4.7	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	Ocean Fish −20.0
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 Op.Cit ;  ALSO IN (exceptions noted herein)  Op.Cit.  of "acid" (pH below 7), "neutral" (pH = 7), and "base" or "alkaline" (pH above 7) agree with scientific consensus definitions; Op.Cit.  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]The calculated density (protons alone) of Young's "Vinegar pH = −39.4" would be a black hole.  [H+] = 1039.4 = 2.512 × 1039  moles/liter.[Op.Cit. ]    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 (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. Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN (exception noted herein)  Op.Cit. 
Young recommends a "battery‑operated pH electron meter". Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN (exceptions noted herein)  Op.Cit.  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,Google searches on September 20, 2012. Searching "alkaline electron meter" (in quotes) yields 9 total hits (including the omitted results) all of which are quoting Young and dated after Oct 2008. Searching "ph electron meter" (in quotes) yields 88 total actual hits (including the omitted results) most of which are quoting Young. NONE of these hits (including the ads) link to anyone selling any such device. The generated ads are for pH meters. 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],Op.Cit.  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.Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN  Op.Cit. Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN  Op.Cit.  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").Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN (exception noted herein)  Op.Cit.  He also says to "avoid hidden harmful foods, especially citric acid". Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN  Op.Cit.  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. Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN   Op.Cit. 
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.Definitions of "eat" and "drink".  See far right.
Young's writes "it takes about twenty times as much "base" to "neutralize" any given amount of "acid"".Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN  Op.Cit.  The Arrhenius equation of acid–base chemistry expresses scientific consensus:  (aq) +  (aq)   [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."Op.Cit.  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."Op.Cit . 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".Op.Cit. ;  AND/OR  (see herein)  Op.Cit.  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]Op.Cit. , 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).Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN (exception noted herein)  Op.Cit.  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.Op.Cit.  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].Op.Cit. ;  ALSO IN  Op.Cit.  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)
thread_title: ''The <span style="color:red">'''"'''</span>pH<span style="color:red">'''"'''</span> Miracle: Balance Your Diet, Reclaim Your Health''<ref name="red" group=RfC9> Red bold quotation marks added throughout indicate that Young's usage of the enclosed <span style="color:red">'''"'''</span>terms<span style="color:red">'''"'''</span> often differs from the standard usage.</ref>

message: 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)
thread_title: Section break

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Recommendations for deleting sections

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article and Books 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BBC article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Young Sentenced ... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  QuackWatch and the guilty plea 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: It wasn't exactly removed, it was mentioned twice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Dawn Kali