The Alkaline Diet

[porchrat]

Lets try not to stray too far off the beaten track shall we? I'd hate to have to send Blu out looking for you with a whistle.

Come to think of it, I don't w a n t your opinion. You're too closed minded.

I don't know how your brain works but from casual observation it's pretty rigid and you work to a particular system but if something's not accepted mainstream or is out of your comfort zone with too little data to back it up you immediately call "conspiracy theory" and imply (in my case,) that I think that Big Bad Pharma is the root of all evil. Well Big Pharma has its uses but like everything in life its about the money. If you read up on the materials mentioned earlier in the thread a lightbulb will pop on in your brain and you may well be going hmmm. Maybe there is something to this New Biology after all.

Yes I am incredibly close minded. How unreasonable of me to want to see some reliable evidence that something works before I conclude that it works and then try it on my body or worse, recommend that others try it on their bodies. Shame on me!

Could you point to where I once called it a conspiracy theory because it wasn't mainstream?... if I recall correctly I only called it a conspiracy theory once you started going on about Big Pharma and how it is the only one doing the research and a whole lot of other whackadoo claims.

This alkaline diet thing isn't a conspiracy theory. It is based on pseudo-science but it isn't a conspiracy theory. That would be like saying tarot card reading or astrology are conspiracy theories. Makes no sense.

Don't haggle me for info. As I said go and look it up yourself. Nobody cares whether you do or don't but there's enough case studies floating around to lend credibility to a new way of living- Alkaline. The basis upon which we need to build new blood and we accomplish this (and I pulled this from a random web site ) Whether the study I pulled randomly from the net is from 1973 or 1997 it doesn't matter. Heat will change micronutrients. That's why we Juice and eat as raw as possible and it's expensive but then again at what price do you put good health? Big Pharma wants to sell you pills and potions to manage your diabetes, to raise or lower your blood pressure, to get your dick up or down, to make you happy, to make you sleep, to make to wake, and even to make you walk around like a zombie. The list is endless but if we eat right and hydrate right and start by building new blood and alkalizing our bodies we actually can reverse a lot mid life medical problems which have caught up with us since childhood- especially diabetes .(and Big Pharma doesn't like this- no conspiracy- just common sense) There are documented case studies in Young's book The PH miracle for Diabetes - the Revolutionary Diet plan for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes and yes people have cured themselves.
I don't personally care what anyone thinks. The FDA is in bed with the drug manufacturers and sorry, I can't get the data for you but if you read around you'll find enough circumstantial evidence.
Full disclosure: I have no personal vested interest in any of this, but I've seen enough to remain convinced of the benefits and hell why not give it a go... and that's pretty strong coming from one of the worst skeptics I know- me.

Man you complain about me pegging you as a conspiracy theorist and then you post something like this that just further cements it. Heavy implications that Big Pharma is controlling it all, talk of "circumstantial evidence" (the conspiracy nuts love this term, it isn't actually circumstantial evidence but merely anecdotal evidence (which I'm sure I don't need to remind you is highly unreliable and next to worthless) and some pseudo-science) and definitive claims despite an inability to provide any supporting scientific investigations (demonstrating that you don't base your opinions on the results of scientific inquiry, on repeatable demonstrable results, but on something else entirely... anecdotes and hearsay by the looks of it).

Then there are the claims that the pH diet cures diabetes with no significant studies presented at all to demonstrate the efficacy, just, as is expected from conspiracy theorists and those pushing alternative stuff that hasn't managed to cobble together any significant research at all, useless anecdotal evidence written down in a book. You would think a scientist would take some time out of his busy schedule of writing books to actually do some research to determine conclusively whether the stuff he is claiming works actually does work. Hmmm... guess not.

For crying out loud man how is it that some anecdotal accounts written in a book are able to convince you of something? There is something wrong with the average human being's bullschit detector these days.


As to your claim that it doesn't matter what year your study is from it does indeed matter. You yourself were just earlier ripping into dieticians about how they don't keep up with the latest literature. When I see a date like 1997 I usually go out and take a look to see if there is anything newer that challenges the older work. 1997 is not the "latest literature". For all you know what you are reading and accepting as truth could have been invalidated already.

 

[DJ...]

Hosehead, you keep referring to Young's book, and to his "work". Please just read this before you go on the offensive using anything Young and his wife have ever written as evidence of anything - http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/young3.html

You will notice that as usual, Quackwatch has cited its sources and references. Robert Young is a quack, and a dangerous one at that.

Please also research the Kim Tinkham cancer case and Young's actions here. He claimed outright that could cure this woman (on Oprah's show iirc), so she dropped conventional treatment in favour of Young's alkaline diet. She died from what most oncologists claim could and should have been a treatable cancer.

He is the very epitome of a quack...

 

[Hosehead]

Hosehead, you keep referring to Young's book, and to his "work". Please just read this before you go on the offensive using anything Young and his wife have ever written as evidence of anything - http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/young3.html

You will notice that as usual, Quackwatch has cited its sources and references. Robert Young is a quack, and a dangerous one at that...

I'd expect you'd be more jacked up...

ZZZZZZ quackwatch entry was written by none other than Stephen Barrett. M.D. Here's a bit of juice on him and Plenty more elsewhere.
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

 

[porchrat]

I'd expect you'd be more jacked up...

ZZZZZZ quackwatch entry was written by none other than Stephen Barrett. M.D. Here's a bit of juice on him and Plenty more elsewhere.
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

Which parts of what Barrett said in that article were incorrect?

I'm not saying Barrett is a nice guy but that doesn't mean his simple background check is automatically incorrect... please point out the parts that are incorrect.

As far as I'm aware this part of your article is wrong BTW: "And worse, the "double-blind study" is considered to be heinous, and was banned by world government during the Helsinki Accord in 1964."

Not only does the Declaration of Helsinki not explicitly ban double-blind studies as far as I know, it isn't a legally binding document at all and so can effectively ban nothing and certainly not on the scale of "world government".

 

[DJ...]

I'd expect you'd be more jacked up...

ZZZZZZ quackwatch entry was written by none other than Stephen Barrett. M.D. Here's a bit of juice on him and Plenty more elsewhere.
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

Read it. Their claim is that he makes money from his actions. So what?

And then:

It was in that basement, where Barrett took up "quackbusting" - which, in reality, means that Barrett attacks "cutting-edge" health professionals and paradigms - those that ARE achieving success in their segment of health care.

Really? Really now, Hosehead?

They also do not cite a single source for their vacuous personal assault on his career - they merely state as fact, conclude, and move along. They kinda remind me of a holistic medicine site. There is a whole heap of hot air being blown and a lot of venting going on there, but very little in the way of substantiated facts provided.

But it all makes perfect sense when you actually research the guy's medical license which you can do here - http://www.licensepa.state.pa.us You'll notice that his medical license was retired in good standing. Not revoked as per the un-cited page you seem to have lapped up as fact. In fact here is the direct link to his license details - http://www.licensepa.state.pa.us/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=528406&

They then claim that he is a failed MD but do not back this up in any way.
He was a practising physician for decades. What on earth were they expecting of him? Are MDs expected to have some sort of following, or publicly respected peer-reviewed research? Does yours?

They also claim that:

Records show that Barrett never achieved any success in the medical profession.

Not sure where they were or weren't looking, but this is simply not true. The guy has received accolades for his work in debunking medical quackery, which he dedicated his life to, pretty much. Their claim about his number of patients is akin to most doctors who retire by the way. They are simply concluding bullschit from work they didn't bother to research, or, the more likely scenario, they are simply ignoring facts for fiction, in defence of their quackery.

They then move on to the lunacy that is the conspiracy world with their assumptions about his own personal finances. It is a ludicrous bit of propaganda that you've bought in to if you believe that website is to be trusted...

 

[porchrat]

They also do not cite a single source for their vacuous personal assault on his career - they merely state as fact, conclude, and move along. They kinda remind me of a holistic medicine site. There is a whole heap of hot air being blown and a lot of venting going on there, but very little in the way of substantiated facts provided.

Well they cite the original decision statement from the judge in the case. Though that ruling is obviously only within the bounds of that case and doesn't extend to everything the guy does or is (in the case he argued against homoeopathy in general instead of demonstrating specifically that the products in question were ineffective).

But it all makes perfect sense when you actually research the guy's medical license which you can do here - http://www.licensepa.state.pa.us You'll notice that his medical license was retired in good standing. Not revoked as per the un-cited page you seem to have lapped up as fact. In fact here is the direct link to his license details - http://www.licensepa.state.pa.us/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=528406&

Actually his license says it is still active and expires in 2014, looks like he is just retired but can still actually practice. Oops, article fail.

Citing sources with zany claims, not reading his sources he posts properly but speaks with authority nonetheless, draws conclusions on the efficacy of alternative medicines based on "circumstantial evidence", anecdotes and hearsay and distrusts mainstream medicine. Well I think we have found a new empirex.

 

[DJ...]

However all of that is irrelevant because it appears that you have decided not to believe Quackwatch's analysis on the basis of that single page, and have concluded that whatever he has written must be nonsense. Again, significant mental gymnastics required because sources are cited there.

Furthermore:

Frequently, unethical attorneys use Barrett's writings to discredit victims in a courtroom, or administrative hearing, situation. This activity is, literally, a "Fraud on the Court" and should be dealt with in the harshest manner possible - including a request for Sanctions and a complaint to the local Bar Association against the attorney's license to practice law.

Should the attorney using Barrett's writings, be an employee of a government agency, acting in that capacity, then this activity is cause for discipline, including termination. Use this situation to stop any, and all, proceedings, and make the "use of Barrett" the issue immediately. Every government agency has an internal investigative branch - go there immediately and file a complaint against the employee, and the employee's supervisor. Also, file a complaint to the local Bar Association against the attorney's license to practice law.

Sometimes, but not as often as before, journalists quote Barrett. This activity constitutes outright libel, every time, and is actionable immediately. Start by filing a formal complaint to the top Editor or Publisher of the media.

Is some of the biggest heap of schit I have ever come across. That is not how the law works. Precedent is not set for expert witnesses the way that precedent based on final judgements is made, as they claim it is. Moreover, expert testimony is dependent on the case and the case details. Their conclusions appear to be the ramblings of a mildly retarded chimp, bashing on a keyboard.

Moreover, the judgement referred to was heavily criticised legally, and that is public information that you can find with a quick google. The judge ruled that Barrett is biased on the basis of Barrett operating Quackwatch and is therefore incapable of being impartial. His testimony is what needed critical analysis at the time, not his affiliations. Was his testimony in any way biased? Can it be adequately rebuffed by the defendant's expert witness? That is the role of the judge to determine. Instead, it was determined that because Barrett had written harshly of the profession in the past, he was not considered an expert witness. The technicality used here was that the expert witness had a conflict of interest because he was directly affiliated with the plaintiff. Seems a certain judge let personal emotions get in the way of a balanced ruling. Ironic.

If it isn't personal bias, then the ruling itself, which was won on a technicality of law, not on merit, is evidence of naivety of the law in these respects. The ruling was made on the basis that they were required to prove that the specific remedy didn't work, not that homeopathy didn't work. It is an incredibly pathetic ruling but legal in terms of the law. i.e. the law needs to catch up here.

Why is it that I can make a claim that a certain water will cure you, and I am not bound by any medical research and approval requirements if I simply call it homeopathic? That is nonsense and it is dangerous. The homeopathy world likes to compare itself to the medical world when it suits it, except when proven not to work, and except when it comes to the legalities of their claims...

 

[DJ...]

Well they cite the original decision statement from the judge in the case.

I was referring specifically to their assault on his career, not the judgement. Their claims about his career failings are not backed up by a single source. They're merely claims that upon inspection, do not hold water...

 

[porchrat]

I was referring specifically to their assault on his career, not the judgement. Their claims about his career failings are not backed up by a single source. They're merely claims that upon inspection, do not hold water...

Oh I see. Beyond that judge's statement which is not universally applicable the rest is unsupported yes.

My bad, carry on.

 

[Hosehead]

Dr Young for the record ,introduced nothing new...the addition of green plants...and especially sprouts and wheat grass, go back to Ann Wigmore. All Dr. Young did was to take information, that was available during pre-internet age and had not reached mainstream and he took it out to the wider public and flogged the **** out of it-and making an enormous fortune... where he continues to be pilloried by certain special interest groups (FDA, AMA etc) Remember both he and Tony Robbins, are primarily motivators and communicators to a certain type of "seeker". The alkaline information precedes both these men, Dr. Young was not even born when Ann Wigmore was experimenting with wheat grass and since the explosion of what Porchrat and DJ call "Pseudoscience"...many others subsequently have jumped on the band wagon mostly for self gain and financial enrichment . The real reason there is no scientific data is that there is a disparity of view point among all these people I have never swallowed another persons teaching without reading as much information as I can on the subject, then observing the process in others before even thinking of trying it out on my own body. i am personally adhering in the main to a mostly alkaline food intake. Once the intestinal villi are back functioning, and the chewing habit is well established,,then one can delve into variety of other things. However as many of us well know...we are so led by our taste buds and our various addictions. The taste buds are not reliable indicators to obtaining nutritionally dense foods. We tend to stray to either sugars or fats or other comforts.
I am just pointing out the published interpretations of Youngs and while he was one of the pioneers to bring the concept mainstream to the unwashed masses thanks to the internet.
When I endorse for lack of a better word, the reading of his books- Scientific or not, they will give the layman a very good understanding of how the Alkaline lifestyle works. So just take it or leave it but for god's sake don't end up on a diet like blu because it will turn her into an axe murderer

 

[porchrat]

what Porchrat and DJ call "Pseudoscience"

It isn't what I call pseudoscience, it is pseudoscience. When something makes conclusive claims about physiology and biochemistry but doesn't properly follow the scientific method that claim is pseudoscience. Fsck me that is pretty much the definition of pseudoscience. Look it up.

The real reason there is no scientific data is that there is a disparity of view point among all these people

and this stops these people doing research how exactly... more voodoo?... I'm going to guess that their are magical creature called research pixies and that they do not like it when there are competing views on a subject and as a result they then sabotage all attempts to actually find out which view, if any, is correct thereby preventing all research.

The actions of these pixies therefore naturally leaves these dudes to peddle their diets without actually bothering to test any of the very strongly worded scientific and medical claims they make surrounding their diets. Wow that is sure convenient for the diet peddlers

I have never swallowed another persons teaching without reading as much information as I can on the subject

It doesn't really matter how much you read, it matters what you read. I can read 1 or all of the Harry Potter books that doesn't mean the concept of sorcerers and magic becomes any more scientifically validated.

You can read all the anecdotal accounts and unsupported claims about curing diabetes you want but, just like reading Harry Potter novels, the number of them doesn't make them any more reliable as evidence. Well, it shouldn't if you want to be honest with yourself anyway. Only carefully controlled studies with large enough sample sizes can tell us with a reasonable degree of certainty whether a treatment option is effective or not (nd even then it isn't ever 100%). Otherwise you have no way of even beginning to determine what is coincidence and what isn't.

The worst is you draw conclusions from nothing but circumstantial evidence and anecdotal accounts and then have the nerve to call yourself a sceptic. Sceptics are supposed to question claims. Did you ever think to say "wait... how do they actually know that what they observed wasn't simply coincidence and not a result of their wonder diet? and worse, how do I know they didn't just make these anecdotes up in the first place?". Not very sceptical.

When I endorse for lack of a better word, the reading of his books- Scientific or not, they will give the layman a very good understanding of how the Alkaline lifestyle works.

Without scientific inquiry you can't reasonably know it works at all in the first place.

 

[Hosehead]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Sorry my Narcolepsy kicks in when you go off on wayward tangents.

 

[porchrat]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Sorry my Narcolepsy kicks in when you go off on wayward tangents.

Yea I agree, whether or not this alkaline diet is scientifically sound is so boring, total snoozeville, why bother with whether or not the guys pushing this stuff have actually attempted to demonstrate the efficacy of their product in any reliable manner. Then why be concerned when those pushing it seem totally unconcerned with the lack of validation for the rather amazing claims being made. Silly me.

Lets rather just get back to the unsubstantiated claims of how this diet will most definitely cure your diabetes and your cancer. Far more constructive and not all dull and filled with big sciencey words that hurt my noggin.

/sarcasm

 

[Hosehead]

My Narcolepsy keeps getting the better of me so I reckoned with a bowl of sunflower sprouts we should watch a movie for a change

[video=youtube;UvzMKQL0wwI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvzMKQL0wwI&list=PL08FB79B388502C33[/video]

 

[porchrat]

Cancer cells become dormant when you are at a pH of 7.4?!?!?!

References please!

Please tell me this isn't the sort of thing you consider, as a self proclaimed sceptic, to be convincing??


I also love the comparison between oil and blood. It is a load of schit as oil is basically just a lubricant while blood in no way functions as a lubricant but man it is funny when layman get ahold of a concept!


Oh man now it is telling me about how blood cells always whizz through the body at high speed as opposed to the actual case of how they slow down tremendously when in finer capillaries in order to better facilitate gaseous transfer. Now it is saying if they travel slowly they cannot transfer gasses. Wait no not just gasses this video is actually claiming that red blood cells absorb not just oxygen but nutrients and water too as though they are part of that transfer mechanism as well!!!! This is better than Two and a Half Men! Seriously who wrote this crap?

 

[Hosehead]

Now munching my Tofu infused Magreb coca nib flakes before hitting the Steam Room and Sauna. (gotta keep Medical aid happy by attending gymmy y'know) Here. Listen from 38 min. Just drag the damn slider.[video=youtube_share;IEglELSp6QU]http://youtu.be/IEglELSp6QU[/video]

 

[porchrat]

Seriously Hosehead, please tell me these sorts of youtube videos citing anecdotal evidence aren't the stuff that has convinced you of the efficacy of this stuff?

That is just insane. You are drawing conclusions from very very weak evidence.

EDIT: I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. This is not the first time I have been exposed to people pushing pseudoscience. It still amazes and saddens me every single time though.