Talk:Robert O. Young/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

pH Miracle Books Emphasis

I am new to this article. I have read through the article and for an article that focuses on Robert O. Young as an author, very little is discussed about his most noteworthy books: "The pH Miracle", "The pH Miracle for Diabetes", and "The pH Miracle for Weight Loss". These books have been published by a substantial publishing companyTime Warner Publishers and made international with it being translated into many different languages. The books are considered best-sellers Editorial Review. This is noteworthy whether you are for or against Robert O. Young's opinions and statements. Furthermore it is in complete relevance with the title of the article. Why has there not been more focus on these books? There is more in this article about Robert Young's Religion, legal issues and where he lives than has been written about him as an author. I have compared this article with other author's articles and Robert O. Young(author) seems to be lacking. It appears that contributors who are not favorable of Robert O Young as a Doctor have inserted statements that would make an uneducated reader think Robert O Young is only an author, has enormous issues with the law making him flee to California, and that his research is of no relevance in the medical world. This makes me skeptical about all other claims in the article. So, with the consent of the other contributors I am going to be doing research into each piece of this article. It appears to be very biased and one sided. I would like the help of all other contributors to create some honest transparency for this article. Honest Research (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We should definitely mention his books, particularly those which have been published by major publishing houses or have achieved bestseller status. If these books have garnered any substantial reviews in independent, reliable third-party publications (e.g. major newspapers), then we should cite those. The article should summarize Young's claims in the books, but need not (and should not) be a point-by-point rehash of the claims contained in sources he has authored. The meat of the article should be based on reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject (this is true of all Wikipedia articles). Since such sources cover his legal difficulties, we cover them as well. A good first step is probably to assemble additional independent, reliable sources on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I Agree. Honest Research (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal Issues

I have been researching the references in the Deseret News as well as in the San Diego Tribune. Some valid comments by Robert O. Young have not been included. I will be inserting the omitted statments into the article. In order for this article to be a valid encyclopedic article it cannot take a side for or against Robert O. Young as a living person as it currently appears to be doing. It must state the facts. Remember he is a living person. This article could be in jeopardy of being deleted if it does not comply with the rules for articles for living people. I would encourage the contributors, that when they reference statements dealing with his legal issues, that they state the accusations as well as the defense statements he gives in the same articles. Honest Research (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with including his response to the charges as described by the Deseret News. I did paraphrase it a bit just to reduce our level of verbatim quotation. On the other hand, remember that the first round of charges are not allegations - he pled guilty and was convicted of 2 misdemeanors, according to the newspaper. It's not really "taking a side against Robert Young" to relay a newspaper report of a charge to which he himself pled guilty. We do already give Young's response to the second round of allegations, which were dropped by the prosecutor. MastCell ^Talk 19:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. However, the way you have paraphrased the redundant quoting that I included has changed it so that it could be interpreted in a misleading way. You paraphrased, "He said the women entrapped him by asking to be part of his research..." to "that the women had entrapped him". The ambiguity in the way you have paraphrased the quote could be interpreted to mean that Robert O. Young was entrapped by the woman physically, or sexually, or whatever else the mind can come up with. I respect your advice and expertise very much, but on this one, I think it should be changed back to the original quote. Being: "Young argued that he had never claimed to be a medical doctor, that the women had entrapped him by asking him to be a part of his research, and that he "looked at the women's blood and simply gave them some nutritional advice. Just something more clear and closer to the quote from the Deseret News. Honest Research (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit looks fine to me. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me too. However, this article would be better served by not listing point-by-point refutations of criticism and legal incidents. Per WP:UNDUE we should be focusing more on the majority scientific consensus of Young's claims. =Axlq 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert O. Young's Claims

I am also going to research Robert O. Young's claims in his pH Miracle books and make note of them in the article as referenced by 3rd party sources. Honest Research (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I will begin uploading my research here shortly line by line. I would urge the contributors of this article to please research before altering deleting or paraphrasing what I am about to add. Everything I am adding that comes from Young's site I have personally looked into to see if it is, in fact, true. Please do the same. I also will be changing the outline of the article a bit. I have researched the format of other similar articles and I will be formatting Young's like the bulk of the other author's articles. Especially the ones who have a great deal of statements for and against them. There is always a section dedicated to "Opposing Views" or "Criticism". I think Young's should have this kind of format rather than go line by line and refute or defend every statement. Thanks, and I look forward to hearing your comments, support, and help in honestly portraying who this man is as an author and what he has contributed to humanity. Honest Research (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be careful about relying so heavily on promotional sources directly affiliated with the subject. We're trying to write a neutral, encyclopedic article, and to do so, independent, reliable, third-party sources are essential. They should be the basis of our article. If we're just going to recapitulate Young's press kit, there's no point - people can just go to his website. I toned down some of the language which was overly promotional and grand. In general, I would like to see us briefly summarize the material from Young's website and associated promotional venues, and spend a bit more time on what independent parties have to say (if anything). If Young is as notable as his website claims ("internationally renowned", constantly cited by the mass media, etc) then it should be easy to produce independent, third-party, reliable sources attesting to this notability.

As a general rule, the creation of "Criticism" or "Rebuttal" sections is frowned upon, especially in biographical articles. The goal is not to set up Young's claims and then set up an "opposition" to them. The goal is to give a concise, thorough overview of why he's notable and what independent, reliable third parties have to say on the subject. Criticism ghettos are the mark of a poor Wikipedia article; material (both neutral, supportive, and critical) should be integrated into a readable narrative which properly weights each viewpoint and source. MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You did take out a comment in the intro that stated: "Young is also considered a microbiologist, and nutritionist". This was from the Arizona Tribune. It is also indicated in every one of his books as well as in a news paper in Texas. Why did you take it off?? are those not third party sources? One thing this article needs to include is that he is not just an author but that he is a microbiologist and nutritionist as well. I will put the reference from the Arizona Tribune back up. And if you can wait for a couple more minutes you will see that I have many more third party sources to include. Thanks. Honest Research (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

By whom is he considered a microbiologist and nutritionist? I don't have a major problem with this (though, to me, a microbiologist is someone who conducts academic research in microbiology, rather than someone who teaches live blood analysis). But it's odd to say he's "considered" a member of those professions, because it begs the question: by whom? MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In the Arizona Tribune it refers to Young as a "best-selling author, microbiologist and nutritionist". The wikipedia article claimed he was only an author. As I began reading about Young I realized he is not just an author but that he is also a microbiologist and nutritionist as well. It's affirmative that he conducts academic research in microbiology. Evidence is given in his Microbiology work done in "The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine". See this article - Journal about SRT mediating the effects of EM frequencies. Study used to support these claims: Live Blood Analysis and Dry-blood analysis/Oxidative stress test(OST)Rubik, Ph.D., Beverly. "Sympathetic Resonance Technology: Scientific Foundation and Summary of Biological and Clinical Studies." The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Volume 8, Number 6, 2002, pp. 823-856. URL=http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/10755530260511838?cookieSet=1&journalCode=acm If you read pages 834-842, all of the Microbiology work done is by Robert Young. It looks very Microbiological to me. He did it for a hypothesis in a very new field of study where EM frequencies are being observed being mediated by Sympathetic Resonance Technology(SRT). If you look on pages 838 to 840 you will see Young doing academic research in microbiology. Furthermore, it states he has degrees from University of Utah as well as degrees from Clayton College of Natural Health in Chemistry, Biology, and others. It is clear that Young studied Microbiology and Nutrition and continues to do so. Furthermore he is referenced for his work and research in nutrition and in microbiology by many medical doctors and professionals as not only a nutritionist and a microbiologist but as a doctor. See "Rainbow Green Live-Food Cuisine" by Babriel Cousens, M.D. where in his acknowledgements he said, "...and inspired me to probe more deeply into Dr. Robert Young's research." See also James Redfield's "Secret of Shambhala". The acknowledgments say, "In nutrition, recognition must be given to the acid/alkaline work of Theodore A. Baroody and Robert Young. People are acknowledging him for his microbiology and nutrition work in totally unrelated 3rd party sources. The only source that claims Young is an author is wikipedia. No one I have read references Young as an author, but as a doctor, a microbiologist, and a nutritionist. It is also a given from his books: He has books that are dedicated to Microbiology and nutrition. See "Sick and Tired" and "Back to the House of Health". Have you ever read these? If not, how are you able to contribute to an article for an author you have never read? If you need more references, let me know. In conclusion, I think the article should have a statement like, "Young is a doctor of naturopathy, a microbiologist, and a nutritionist." If because of where he got his degrees from the University of Utah and Clayton is the problem, then it should say "Young researches in the fields of naturopathic medicine, microbiology, and nutrition." All of these claims are represented in his work in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" given above. Honest Research (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm not going to argue about the quality of Young's degrees or claims here. I do think that a newspaper blurb promoting a book signing is not the best source for describing someone in sweeping professional terms, but I don't feel especially strongly about it, so I think we can leave it there. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reversions

I recently reverted a series of edits. I'm concerned because I thought that we were on the same page: the article needs independent, reliable, third-party sources. The edits in question elaborated at great length on Young's claims as if they were fact, relying heavily on promotional sources directly affiliated with Young. I'd like to take these one at a time and discuss whether the sourcing is appropriate, rather than throwing a huge chunk of text into the article rehashing (devoid of context) Young's claims. Where should we start? MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You were too aggressive there. It didn't appear to me that the edits you reverted elaborated on Young's claims as if they were fact. They simply summarized Young's claims and clearly attributed them to Young, stating that this is what he believes, without judging one way or another whether those beliefs have merit.

Because Young's claims are basically the only thing about him that makes him notable, they should be represented in this article. And for describing claims that Young himself makes, the best source is Young himself. 3rd party sources aren't necessary when citing someone's beliefs.

Therefore, I believe your reasoning for reverting is flawed. I will wait for a response containing a better rationale than you have given, before I revert your reversion. =Axlq 02:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Axlq. It was very undemocratic to delete everything on such a whim. With no questions asked, many 3rd party references were deleted that were completely valid, academic, and encyclopedic. I sincerely doubt that any time was spent tracking my cited research to find that, in fact, the references were 3rd party and unbiased before they were unconstitutionally deleted. If an article shows someone's work as favorable or successful, it does not mean it is promotional. If the reverse were true, the references from quackwatch, Deseret News, and San Diego Tribune must also be deleted for talking about Young in a unfavorable and skeptical way. Young does not control nor is he directly affiliated with the Arizona Tribune, WC Messenger, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, the Chicago Tribune, and many third party websites, pdf articles, and other references that were deleted. Revert the article back to the way it was and let all the contributors decide about the research I have done about Young and his claims.Honest Research (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune article didn't even mention Young, as far as I could see - did I miss something? If not, then it isn't really useful as a source here. I didn't remove the Arizona Tribune article, so I'm not sure what I'm being accused of there. Websites are only useful as sources if they have some mechanism and reputation for fact-checking, editorial oversight, and accuracy (detail in WP:V and WP:RS). Simply listing various websites where Young is mentioned doesn't help create a neutral, encyclopedic article - there has to be some evaluation of the reliability of these sites (as Wikipedia defines the term). I would like to see reliable sources on Young (as defined here). Two dozen questionable or poor-quality sources are not really any more useful than one questionable source. If there's a question about specific sources, we can always solicit additional input at the reliable sources noticeboard. Similarly, if there are issues about whether we are properly weighting our coverage of Young, then we can ask for additional input at the fringe theories noticeboard or through a request for comment. MastCell ^Talk 05:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you missed something. The Chicago Tribune mentioned Sean Stephenson, Young's patient. Please read the references within the context. The point of referencing the Chicago Tribune was to explain Sean Stephenson's incurable brittle bone condition. Remember that Young's primary work is healing people from sicknesses, not authoring books. The Chicago tribune displayed Sean's condition and Sean's book showed exactly what Sean has done to live as long as he has without breaking anymore bones. Sean Stephenson is a person Young has been working with and a case that has gained widespread attention. Evidence of this is Sean's recent book. See Sean's book in conjunction with the Chicago Tribune and it will make more sense. I cited the Chicago Tribune to show how many bones Sean had broken. It was to give an example of Young's protocol, not Young himself. It was a very valuable reference showing Young taking on a case most doctors would not and doing it in a way unheard of and totally different than any other treatment for Sean's disease. If you read both references you will see this is not synthesis. If someone has broken more than 200 bones and then haphazardly stopped breaking bones, it is notable to find out why. Sean's book attributes this to Young's protocol. The Chicago Tribune confirms the severity of Sean's illness and how many bones he had broken. Honest Research (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What I was referring to about the Arizona Tribune was the statements you removed that referenced the Arizona Tribune about Young's science. There was an entire section explaining Young's science and protocol. Rather than cite Young's books, as I could of, I used the best third party sources I could find which were the WC Messenger and the Arizona Tribune. From those two articles I found a pretty good representation of what Young says in his books. All of the statements from those articles were deleted. That is what I was referring to. I don't know how those are ok to delete when I quoted them, and the Deseret News, Quackwatch, and the San Diego Tribune are completely valid? So being more clear, the statements in the WC Messenger and Arizona Tribune should be put back up, or a representation of what Young claims are should be put up from his own books.Honest Research (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not simply listing websites where Young was talked about. The websites I was referring to were not even about Young, but about those who studied similar areas of Microbiology that came before Young which is completely relevant. See http://www.pnf.org/compendium/Antoine_Bechamp.pdf and see http://www.pnf.org/compendium/About_Pleomorphism_Bleker.pdf. It should be understood that there are a few researchers who came long before Young that researched and came to similar conclusions that Young has. However, Young has gone about the same conclusions and findings in a totally unique way. This is what I was trying to display. Please put the text back up and let all the contributors work this out.Honest Research (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been waiting for MastCell to respond to Axlq about reverting all of the content I had previously contributed to the article. I am confident that MastCell has seen Axlq's comment by now. I do not know if the response was on a talk page? If it is I am sorry I missed it. I will begin adding the content back up again in sections. My goal is not to make an enemy but to justly represent what Young claims. I will begin paragraph by paragraph. If there is a problem tell me where the specific problem is and I will delete it, change it, or explain it. I will start with the section explaining Young's influence, Antione Bechamp and Gunther Enderlein. If MastCell should respond to Axlq before I finish then please revert it back to how it was.Honest Research (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay. I saw your reinsertion of the "microbiologist and nutritionist" line, and as I noted in the above thread, I'm not that enthused but I can live with it. As to the material on influences, can you remind me what sources are being used, and what the content is? I'm not opposed to a sentence or two sourced to Young's books along the lines: "Young identifies X and Y as major influences on his worldview." What do you have in mind? MastCell ^Talk 03:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

MastCell doesn't need to respond directly to my comments. Participation in this discussion section satisfies me. That said, I agree with MastCell that any text going into detail about Young's "science", protocol, purported cures, and whatnot, must have meticulous attention given to neutrality, and that the text inserted by Honest Research could be interpreted as advocacy (I didn't interpret it that way, but MastCell evidently did, otherwise it wouldn't have been deleted). Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, especially when dealing with fringe science. Extraordinary claims should also not be presented as unchallenged.

I am in favor of giving Honest Research a chance to write all that needs to be written and get it cleaned up before I weigh in with my own criticism -- and that's why I admonished MastCell for being too aggressive with reversion. There is no harm in having work-in-progress be present in the article, as long as it is being worked. =Axlq 04:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this was reinserted, since I thought I had complied with the request for additional discussion. I have the same problems with it. It goes on about pleomorphism and somatids with a straight face, without bothering to note that somatids are universally rejected by current medical and scientific knowledge. That's a major problem. The sourcing is also inappropriate and does not meet the bars set in WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. A single article (letter to the editor?) from 1967, which no one can actually verify easily, doesn't mean that we can present these frankly outlandish claims as fact. Let's see what reliable, third-party sources have to say. If (as I suspect) they have nothing to say, then we can briefly - as in 1-2 sentences - summarize Young's claims from his book in his own words, making clear that they are Young's claims. MastCell ^Talk 04:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey now, you just reverted it again, right after I stated that I want to give Honest Research a chance to have a work-in-progress present in this article. If this is how it's going to be, I recommend that Honest Research writes his proposed changes on a personal subpage, such as User:Honest Research/Drafts or something similar, post here when it's done, and request for comments and criticism before inserting it into the article. =Axlq 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Let me try to explain the "Influence" paragraph, why it is relevant, and the sources I used. Then, please show me the exact phrases that sound like they are advocating him and his theories, and the exact references which are problematic, and I am glad to alter them and hopefully we can come to a mutual agreement and end this putting up and taking down business.

The influence paragraph needs to be included because it shows the foundation of everything Young's books and theories are about. The theory of pleomorphism. The theory of pleomorphism is just as much a theory as is the "germ theory" which is the cornerstone of modern medicine. See germ theory and you will see that modern medicine is also based on a theory that germs cause disease. The theory of pleomorphism is that disease is caused by the enviornment; the theory Young uses as a foundation for all of his work. This theory came during the same time that the germ theory was created in literally the same country. The germ theory from Louis Pasture and the theory of pleomorphism from Antoine Bechamp during the 1800's. Treatment of sickness and cancer is radically different depending on which theory you believe in. If you believe germs cause disease you try to get rid of germs. If you believe that enviornment causes disease you try to change the enviornment.

Most of the western world has come to accept and adopt Pasture's theory. This is what make Young noteworthy, he boldly does not. He is one of the few who has adopted the pleomorphism theory and the only, I am aware of, who claims to know why it happens. For this reason I added up the picture where Young claims to document pleomorphism in the blood. There are other people who also studied and believed in the pleomorphism theory. The most notable is Gunther Enderlein. Young studied the works of Bechamp and Enderlein from Maria Bleker. When reading Young's books in comparison with the works of Bechamp, Enderlein, and Bleker it is very clear that Young was influenced hugely by their theories. I felt it was wise to show this relationship to show that Young had found similar results that other past researches did. The most noteworthy fact of all is that none of the past researches explained why pleomorphism was happening, but only that it was happening.

Young's books are about why he thinks pleomorphism is happeing. Young believes it is the pH levels that trigger pleomorphism. He believes this, because when he looks at blood in a acidic pH liquid it plemorphically transmutates into bacteria yeast and fungus, and when he looks at blood cells of someone who is alkaline the plemorphic transmutation does not happen. Bechamp called the anatomical element that transmutates a "microzyma". Enderlein called this a "Protit", and people think a man named Gaston Naessens called the same thing a "somatid". It has never been disproved that it exists. In fact, just like the germ theory, it has never been proven, only postulated to my understanding. Everything Young does and says hinges on this theory. All of Young's books start by explaining this. If this is not understood about Young, he will not be represented correctly. He will be represented as he is now as "a proponent of an alkaline diet". He is not a proponent of an alkaline diet, he is a proponent of an Alkaline environment which encompasses far more than what one eats and drinks that would entail a "diet".

The sources I used were 1: Young's books, "Sick and Tired" and "The pH Miracle" because they explain his acceptance of the pleomorphic theory and further show demonstrations of him claiming to prove it. I then used weblinks to PDF's that quoted Enderlein's work and Bechamp's work. These are the two pdf's online that are put online by followers of Enderlein, not Young. I can just as well use the original books and notes that Bechamp and Enderlein wrote 100's of years ago. It will yield the same results but not be as accessible online. I then used a peer reviewed article from the Annals of New York where researches, totally unaffiliated with Bechamp, Ederlein, or Young, and not looking for pleomorphism, began observing it. They did not know what was happening and postulated why it could be happening. They only came to the conclusion that cancer cells biologically trans-mutated depending upon the environment they were placed on and not because of germs. If you do not have access to this journal I suggest you go through a University. This is what I did. The goal here is not to promote Young but to promote the fact that there is a theory that is in complete objection to the germ theory and Young happens to be the person claiming it is true, and further writing and researching about it. This should be known and it should be known that Young seems to be the only researcher using treatment protocols based on it being true.

After reading this, please re-read the Influence paragraph and references. Tell me what the problems are. I will fix them and come to you with a new version. If no problems are mentioned within a reasonable amount of time, then I will put it back up as is.Honest Research (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, the problem with all of this is that it simply rehashes Young's claims, at extraordinary length. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. It should be based on independent, reliable third-party sources and leave the reader with an accurate, proportionate understanding of Young's views and their level of acceptance. If Young's claims are notable, then we should be able to produce reputable independent sources documenting them. If such sources do not exist, then we should not artificially inflate his importance or stature, but should instead honestly reflect the quality and breadth of available sources. I've elaborated further in the next section. MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Section under contention

This is the "Influence" section that MastCell deleted. I will add my comments below.

Pleomorphism in the Blood, Documented by Young

Young is an advocate of, and has been said to be continuing the research of Antoine Bechamp, Gunther Enderlein. Like Bechamp and Enderlein, Young claims that the microzyma (same as protit or somatid) is the smallest anatomical element and that it makes up all living forms such as blood and tissue. Furthermore, like Bechamp and Enderlein, Young has documented pleomorphism occuring within living organisms and explains that it is the environment that is triggering this phenomenon to occur. Pleomorphism is the phenomenon observed when living organisms change forms in response to their environment such as when human blood cells biologically transmutate into bacteria and yeast-like forms.

Young, like Bechamp and Enderlein, believes that disease is a general condition of one's internal environment. Enderlein is documented having observed in small pox victims that the biologically transmutated forms reacted strongly to small amounts of alkaline solutions such as sodium bicarbonate and stated, "Boundless work awaits here". The bulk of Young's writings, research, and theories seek to explain, prove, and validate that an acidic pH of the fluids of the environment of the body is what triggers pleomorphic biological transmutation in the blood and is the ultimate cause and source of disease, sickness, and death as well as the key to its prevention and cure. These claims are unique to Young and are what he and many others have come to refer to as "The New Biology". It is referred to as "The New Biology" because if Young's theories concerning disease are proven, accepted and adopted by mainstream medical science the ways cancer disease and sickness are perceived explained and treated would be radically changed. Young believes that "as research regarding the impact of acid in the body becomes more popular, treatments and theories of cancer will change."

OK. Overall I find these two paragraphs to be neutrally written, taking care to attribute claims and avoid having Wikipedia make any specific claims.

The first paragraph looks mostly fine to me, except for the last sentence about transmutation. I have seen Young's dubious claims about transmutation before, such as claiming light elements transmute into heavy elements under the ocean, without any backing except extrapolation from cellular observations that are centuries old and likely erroneous. The 1967 reference cited (from what I can find online) seems to concern bacteria that are known to be highly pleomorphic in the first place; I don't see how that reference adds anything to the text about Young's claims, except to define pleomorphism.

The second paragraph is also fine until the last couple of sentences. Explaining "New Biology" isn't necessary and steps over the line into advocacy. It's enough to state Young's buzzword "New biology" and delete the weasel word "many others".

That's my $0.02. Delete the last sentence in the first paragraph, and the last 2 sentences in the second paragraph, do a bit of copy editing. After that, what this section desperately needs is an explanation why current medical thought followed the footsteps of Pasteur and not Bechamp, and what science says about Young's claims. If they aren't falsifiable, then it isn't a "theory" in a scientific sense. =Axlq 04:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a number of concerns with the proposed text, which I will attempt to detail:

• We should be clear that it is Young himself who claims to be continuing the research of Bechamp and Enderlein, rather than using the passive voice as if a reputable third party has linked them.
• We probably shouldn't mention somatids without at least informing the reader that they do not exist.
• Young has not "documented" pleomorphism - that wording suggests that his findings are generally accepted, or independently validated, or at least that they have some scientific currency. I don't see any demonstration of that. Neutral and source-based wording would be something like: "Young claims in his book to have observed pleomorphism."
• The description of pleomorphism is ludicrously counterfactual - human blood cells do not "transmutate" into bacteria or yeast - yet we present it credulously, devoid of context.
• The reference to Enderlein's 19th-century work on smallpox is a non-sequitur and does not appear to relate directly to Young, other than to indirectly and editorially attempt to buttress his claims.
• I agree that the "New Biology" should be more briefly described.

Most to the point, this is a biography, not a WP:COATRACK for discussing the history of now-discredit microbiological ideas. We can certainly summarize Young's claims and note that he identifies Enderlein and Bechamp as his intellectual forebears, but this is absolutely the wrong place for a lengthy discourse on Pasteur, or germ theory, or the like. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. Allow me some time to rewrite the Influence paragraph.Honest Research (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to this platform; though, not new to writing or copy-editing. I've read everything posted here form July of last year to the present. I want to take some time to digest all of this some more, but I do have some initial comments: I agree with Axlq about the closing sentences of the two paragraphs---they stray a bit beyond the bounds of statement to conjecture.

Philosophically, I do think that this article is difficult because science is a quest for the absolute but in that quest there are constant changes. Paradigms often shift. Consider how many times and how quickly atomic theory has changed. Young is operating around an establishment that is hesitant to associate with him due to current science; but, he may be as Galileo arguing that the earth revolves around the sun to people positive the earth is central. . .or he may be off base. We don't know how the world will view him in a hundred years. So I don't think we can exclude explanations of the theories that drive his work just because somatids haven't been proven to absolutely exist, or that pleomorphism is "ludicrously counterfactual," because we don't absolutely know. We're still questing to know. They may be. Time will tell. But we do need to address "mycrozyma" and "pleomorphism" as theoretical concepts that are apparently central to who Young is and Young's work---his books are based on these ideas.

If we're just careful to couch these explanations in terms of Young's theories, beliefs, and claims so that it is clear what has and has not been substantiated by the establishment, then we should be able to give a robust explanation of Young and still maintain neutrality.

This is a biography, and the theories are integral to explaining who Young is and why he does what he does. Just be sure to state his work as theory. I liked MastCell's suggestion to use language such as: "Young claims in his book to have observed pleomorphism." Use that same type of language in explaining what Young believes pleomorphism to be and I think we'll be on track. ObserverBA (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I reiterate, that this article needs a discussion of Young's ideas, because there isn't anything else about him that makes him notable (or notorious). It isn't enough to merely summarize his ideas, they need to be put into a meaningful context, and that context happens to contain descriptions of medical concepts off the beaten path. Honest Research made a good attempt at it, but I agree it needs some work. =Axlq 04:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Here it is with the changes asked for. How do you feel about posting it like this?

Young claims in his book to have observed Pleomorphism

Young claims to be continuing the research of Antoine Bechamp and Gunther Enderlein. Like Bechamp and Enderlein, Young claims that the microzyma or protit is the smallest anatomical element and that it makes up all living forms such as blood and tissue. Furthermore, like Bechamp and Enderlein, Young claims to have observed pleomorphism occurring within living organisms and explains that it is the environment that is triggering this phenomenon to occur. Pleomorphism is the phenomenon observed when living organisms, such as bacteria, change forms in response to their environment. Pleomorphism is understood to occur in bacteria, however, unique to Young is his unproven claim that it also occurs in human blood cells as a result of an acidic environment.

Young, like Bechamp and Enderlein, believes that disease is a general condition of one's internal environment. The bulk of Young's writings, research, and theories seeks to explain, prove, and validate that the enviromental factor of an acidic pH of the fluids of the body is what triggers pleomorphic biological transmutation in the blood and is the ultimate cause and source of disease, sickness, and death as well as the key to its prevention and cure. These claims are unique to Young and are what he calls "The New Biology".

Honest Research (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is appropriate for consulting contributors to make syntactical suggestions; but, I have a couple style comments and citation observations.

First paragraph second sentence, I'd change it to: "Like his intellectual forebears, Young claims that the microzyma or protit. . ." This will make the language sound less redundant. Also, have you tried searching for a reference for "protit" outside of Young's work? I'd like to see one here.

First paragraph: after "response to their environment" you placed the footnote [7]. It appears that footnote is out of place as the [7] references the Utah County Property Owners 2008. Check that, please.

First paragraph final sentence change: "Pleomorphism is understood to occur in bacteria; however, Young claims that it also occurs in human blood cells as a result of the pH level of the environment where the cell is found." Qualifying the claim as "unique" would be hard to substantiate (dropped "unique"). It appears to me that Young believes the cell can morph negatively in an acidic environment and positively in alkaline environment, so I'd change from specifying the pleomorphism phenomenon as a result of just "acidic environment," as Young seems to believe in progressive and regressive morphing. Am I reading him right? Finally, we ought to look for a reference for bacteria as having pleomorphic abilities to cite in this sentence. Doing a cursory search I found a couple possibilities that you could look closer at: (www.whale.to/y/wainwright.html is flagged by WP) and http://www.joimr.org/phorum/read.php?f=2&i=108&t=108 as well as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19040453.

I'm noticing that Young's works are frequently cited in this article, particularly [4] [5] and [6]. It would be a good idea to cite Bechamp and Enderline's work additionally and exclusive from Young's work to independently solidify the link---not just having Young claim an intellectual link. That would just be nice to have some verification separate from Young's publications.

Second paragraph, final sentence: Again I balk a the assertion that the "claims are unique to Young." That's a statement that is difficult to back up, because to prove that the idea is truly unique you have to exhaustively prove that no one in the world has the same view. That can't feasibly be done. The assertion that it is "unique" sounds more like marketing speech than a neutral overview.

Good work, Honest Research. It's getting better. ObserverBA (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the feedback. I have taken all of the suggestions into consideration and made the changes. I will now post the paragraph. I am sure there will be more changes in the future. If there are any more issues please make note them.Honest Research (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a major improvement. I have basically the same feedback as ObserverBA (talk · contribs) about the use of the word "unique" - it seems a bit hard to prove, conclusively, that these are uniquely Young's ideas. It might be preferable to say: "In particular, Young has argued..." or "Specifically, Young has claimed..." without broaching the subject of "uniqueness". I don't think we should cite Bechamp and Enderlein's work in the absence of any independent connection between them and Young. If Young is the only one drawing this link, then it should be attributed and sourced explicitly to Young. MastCell ^Talk 19:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bechamp and Enderlein's work needs to be cited in this article because of the great deal of influence their work had on Young's works. It is the "Influence" paragraph and Bechamp and Enderlein's work is Young's main influence. I referenced their work so that people reading this article could see that Young had drawn from Bechamp and Enderlein by reading from their own work and being able to see the similarities. I referenced their work not because it has a connection between Young, Bechamp, and Enderlein, in name but because of the connection in Young's science using words like "pleomorphism", "microzyma", and "the enviornment as the source of disease"...etc. These words come from Bechamp and Enderlein's work and are also found in Young's book. This is why Young and Bechamp's and Enderlein's work are cited. Young cannot be seen as not "Unique" in his theories and at the same time have nowhere to draw his influence from.

Soon, I will be posting a new paragraph here on the discussion page for your comments about Young's theories and protocol.Honest Research (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Honest Research, does Bechamp and Enderline have any published works that use the words and phrases you referenced above that could be cited in the footnotes? ObserverBA (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure that we need to cite the actual work of Bechamp and Enderlein here. We should mention that Young cites it, and that should be sufficient for the purposes of this article, which is after all a biography. Enderlein and Bechamp both have articles here which elaborate in much more depth on their work. MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bechamp's book: "The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element (see: www.whale.to/v/bechamp_b.html) is the best example for the exact phrases I cited coming from his work. For Enderlein, it seems that his works are harder to find translated version online but there are a lot of people who have documented his work like the one I cited from Maria Bleker and here is another describing his theories and work. (See: books.google.com/books?id=_UoGtTTgVasC&pg=PA39&dq=Works+of+Gunther+Enderlein.)Honest Research (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

MastCell brought up that we may not even need to cite Bechamp and Enderlein's work. I don't see why not. I think putting the specific references to the exact work that influenced Young and his books is very valuable to the reader. I also think that putting the references to the specific blood work of Bechamp and Enderlein is valuable because Bechamp and Enderlein did work that spanned many fields and Young was only influeced by their blood work. I can't see a really good reason why we should delete them but I see practical and logical reasons for keeping them.Honest Research (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As a technical problem, whale.to has been blacklisted on Wikipedia because it is both an unencyclopedic source and has been the subject of efforts to spam links to the site on Wikipedia. As a practical matter, I may claim that my work is influenced by Galileo, Cervantes, and Friedrich Nietzsche, but if no one else makes such a claim, then there would be no reason to cite Don Quixote and Also Sprach Zarathustra in my biography. It would be enough to note that I had made such claims, and perhaps to provide a wikilink to the other articles for the curious. MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You can see Bechamp's book other places than whale.to. See Google: [Bechamp's "Third Anatomical..."] So the whale.to is no longer an issue. As for who claimed that Young was continuing the research of Bechamp and Enderlein; It was Jeremy A. Stowell, M.D. See page 10 and 11 of Sick and Tired. See:[Jeremy A. Stowell, M.D.].Honest Research (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, blurbs from the foreword to Young's book are not independent sources. Have independent sources - that is, independent of Young himself and his books/websites - made this link? MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search and found this [Gabriel Cousens, MD] After Dr. Cousens explains Bechamp's and Enderlein's theories it states: "This theory was further developed by Dr. Robert Young." This is totally third party and unaffiliated with Young from an M.D.. Bechamp's and Enderlein's work should stay cited in Young's article as it is.Honest Research (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What is dailyom.com? Why is the bar for encyclopedic sourcing so low here? The bar for notability cannot possibly be that someone with an MD after their name has mentioned something on an obscure website. Or if it is, please let me know, because I can rapidly start generating such sources. In all seriousness, I would like to see some recognition of the importance of encyclopedic, reliable sourcing as defined here and here. This source doesn't meet that bar. MastCell ^Talk 04:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote I said was not from an obscure website but from Cousens' book. See: ["Rainbow Green Live-Food Cuisine"] This information could be seen on dailyom.com but it was clear it was displaying some pages from Cousins' book. Cousens' book is a perfectly valid reference that states Young is furthering the research of Bechamp and Enderlein. So we should keep their work cited on the page as is.Honest Research (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Microscopy Section under Contention

Nutritional Microscopy

Young bases his theories, research, and written works off of his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. From the Journal of alternative and complementary medicine it states that these blood analysis are commonly used to assess the status of the biologic terrain and the patient's nutritional state. They are qualitative in scope and complementary to the quantitative blood testing of conventional medicine. Empirical data correlates the live and dry blood analysis with quantitative blood testing and clinical manifestations. The tests are particularly useful for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level, and are often done in tandem. Young is documented doing a pilot study as well as a double-blinded controlled study using both live and dry-blood analysis to test a hypothesis if an environment of EM is diminished with SRT. Young uses these tests to "test for disturbances in the biologic terrain caused by environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. Young is documented in these studies showing how the quality of the blood in certain areas indicated in different patients bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress.

Young offers a course in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. Young insists that "live blood cell analysis is a tool for research and education."

Live Blood Analysis Skepticism

According to the Health and Human Services Office and Quackwatch, live blood analysis is an unestablished test with no scientific validity.

The references have been deleted so I will put them here: [The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine] [Sick and Tired] [SanDiego News] Please feel free to make comments and critiques before I add this paragraph to Young's article.Honest Research (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You really need to wait until a holiday weekend (Memorial Day in this case) is over before you go ahead and add contentious things. My objection to the above section is that it presents details about this blood analysis as if it were proven and factual. I have attempted to copy-edit the text in the article to establish that only alternative medicine practitioners see validity in this. There are also meaningless sentences that I tagged with "jargon" that need to be deleted or rewritten.

Another thing that bothers me is that most of the paragraph discusses one source from the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine as if it has anything to do with Young, who has never published in that journal or any other journal, as far as I know. It seems to be a kind of misdirection, to start out talking about Young, spend most of the time talking about a journal article, and then conclude with Young's work again. Conflating the two is a form of original research. If the journal mentions Young, then that's another matter, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. =Axlq 05:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Live blood analysis is variously described by reputable sources as anywhere from highly questionable to an out-and-out scam. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine is a reasonable source for describing an alternative-medicine viewpoint, but not for matters of medical fact or expert opinion (see WP:MEDRS for more). The proposed text doesn't work for me. MastCell ^Talk 05:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The journal sited does, in fact, make mention of Young and goes on in great detail explaining how live and dry blood analysis are done and what they are used for on page 834. Then from pages 835 to 844 is where Young is documented doing live and dry blood tests and displaying the results. This is an excellent source to describe Young's primary basis from which all of his claims are based off of because it is in a 3rd party source that has been peer reviewed. Every statement that I put was directly quoted from the journal. If it sounded like fact, it is because that is how the journal described Live and Dry blood analysis. So taking into consideration both Axlq's and MastCell's valid feedback, here it is again. Please let me know of any other problems you see with it, before I put it up again.Honest Research (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nutritional Microscopy

Young bases his theories, research, and written works off of his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. Young uses these tests to "test for disturbances in the biologic terrain caused by environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. Young is documented in studies showing how the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. Live and Dry blood analysis are used primarily by alternative medicine practitioners for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level. Alternative practitioners like Young believe that live and dry blood analysis allows them to analyze the state of the blood cells as well as the fluids that surrounds them and that the state of the cells and fluid correlate with a persons health. Young offers a course in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. According to the Health and Human Services Office and Quackwatch, live blood analysis is an unestablished test with no scientific validity. However, Young claims that it does have scientific validity.

I echo MastCell's concerns. J.AltCompMed is not a reliable source for matters of medical fact or expert opinion. Also, "off of" is an awful construction. Verbal chat 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If we discuss live blood analysis at all, its status needs to be much clearer. It's not just Quackwatch that has criticized it. Edzard Ernst, an authority on complementary and alternative medicine, has called it "fraudulent" and lacking anything resembling a valid scientific basis [1]). Practioners have been fined or disciplined for claiming that live blood analysis can diagnose illness ([2]). State medical boards in the US have described live blood analysis as a "moneymaking scheme" designed to sell dietary supplements, and have stated that the public should be "very suspicious of any practitioner who offers this test" ([3]). And so on. Presenting it as simply a he-said, she-said is inaccurate and misleading; this is a technique which essentially all reliable sources describe as invalid. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is fine to state the various opinion's about live blood analysis who are not if favor of it. The correct place to do this is on the live blood analysis page and put references to it on Young's page just like I did with the Bechamp's and Enderlein's work. For Young's article we should make sure to state Young's opinion about it. It is the main source from which he tests his claims. So he is for it. If there are so many against it and Young is for it then all the more reason why Young is noteworthy for being an advocate of live blood analysis. But understand he also does Dry blood analysis. So the claims against live blood analysis might not include dry blood analysis?

Here is the paragraph again with great effort to not state any medical facts and only stating Young's claims as his own opinions. Young is not noteworthy because he is in align with mainstream "medical fact" but because he contradicts it. I am not trying to state his claims as medical fact but just trying to state his claims. The J.AltCompMed is a perfectly valid source to cite Young's own claims and opinions about live and dry blood analysis if they are not represented as medical fact. Also, I have divided the paragraph so that the opinions for and against live blood analysis can be represented. Remember that Young also uses dry blood analysis which is very different from Live blood analysis. This should be understood. And it should also be understood that he used both test which were documented in Honest Research (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nutritional Microscopy

Young bases his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. Young uses these tests to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. Young is documented in studies using live and dry blood analysis claiming that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. Live and Dry blood analysis are used primarily by alternative medicine practitioners for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level. Alternative practitioners like Young believe that live and dry blood analysis allows them to analyze the state of the blood cells as well as the fluids that surrounds them and that the state of the cells and fluid correlate with a persons health. Young teaches courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. Young claims that live and dry blood analysis have scientific validity.

Criticism against Live Blood Analysis

According to the Health and Human Services Office and Quackwatch, live blood analysis is an unestablished test with no scientific validity.

Let me know if there are any specific statements with issues and I will respectfully make changes, if they are just.Honest Research (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I read over the paragraph I had posted and looked into some things that need to be restated. I have looked into the Quackwatch statements and the Department of Health and Human Services report and have not found where it says live blood analysis has "no scientific validity". Where is this statement coming from? What I did find out is that the report from the Health and Human Services stated: "This study did not address the validity or accuracy of LBA or any other unestablished laboratory test. Nothing in this report should be construed as an endorsement or condemnation of any laboratory test." Also it gives the definition of what unestablished means, being: "not generally accepted by many of the people involved in traditional laboratory practice and oversight." I am going to rewrite the nutritional microscopy paragraph to better reflect what this report was truly meaning about live blood analysis. Currently it sounds as if live blood analysis has been debunked or is a fraudulent practice with no scientific validity when their report did nothing of the sort. I looks like synthesis. The report only solidified that Live Blood Analysis needs a form of regulation and that it's validity has not been determined.Honest Research (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I found nowhere on quackwatch or the Health and Human services that Live blood analysis had "no scientific validity". I will delete this statement unless someone points it out to me where it says Live Blood Analysis has "no scientific validity".Honest Research (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nutritional Microscopy

Young bases his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. Young uses live and dry blood analysis to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by acidic environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. Young is documented in studies using live and dry blood analysis claiming that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. Young claims that live and dry blood analysis does have scientific validity. Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level. The Department of Health and Human Services has evaluated live blood analysis as a unestablished laboratory test signifying that its methods are not generally accepted by many of the people involved in traditional laboratory practice and oversight. It has also reported on the validity of live blood analysis stating that The Department of Health and Human Services has not endorsed or condemned it as a laboratory test.

Here is the revised version of the Microscopy paragraph, with the correct phrases from the Health and Human Services CLIA report included on live blood analysis, as well as the unreferenced statement removed that "live blood analysis has no scientific validity". I will post it tomorrow unless I hear of a just change that is required.Honest Research (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith here: immediately above your post, I cited at least 3 reliable sources supporting the contention that live blood analysis lacks scientific validity. That's not counting Quackwatch, which is acceptable but less than optimal as a source here. I'm curious why you consider this contention "unreferenced" or "unsourced" when sources are immediately available. Would you like help in incorporating those sources? MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason I called the contention "unreferenced" and "unsourced" is because neither the CLIA report nor Quackwatch said anywhere that live blood analysis has "no scientific validity" and these were the references cited. Such a bold claim needs a direct reference. The other references you brought up were valid, but none of them are as authoritative in the matter of live blood analysis as The Department of Health and Human Services CLIA report. So we should use the statements from their report. Their report explains that right now, it is simply not determined whether live blood analysis has scientific validity or not. So the paragraph needs to represent this, and it does. The report states that the Department of Health and Human Services has neither endorsed or condemned live blood analysis and that it is an unestablished test. It also defines what "unestablished test" means. I have included all of these statements in the paragraph about microscopy. I have also documented Young's opinions and claims, not as medical fact, but as his own. The paragraph is currently representing Young's claims and the most authoritative statement on live blood analysis. The paragraph should stay as is unless there is a more authoritative reference than The Department of Health and Human Services shedding more light on live blood analysis. I will post it as is unless there are any further challenges to this paragraph going up as is.Honest Research (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think we pick one reliable source and disregard all of the others - that would be odd. The HHS report is fine, but the other reliable sources actually have more to say about live blood analysis specifically, and are probably better overall sources on that particular subject. Any "authoritative" statement on live blood analysis would probably include Edzard Ernst's publication on the topic - after all, he is one of the foremost authorities on complementary and alternative medicine - as well as the words of various medical boards and licensing agencies which have deemed the promotion of live blood analysis as misleading to downright fraudulent. MastCell ^Talk 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If you feel this way, then how would you propose to represent the information from the references you gave, in Young's article? Please validate why. Also, please validate why the statements you include should be going into Young's bio and not the live blood analysis page. Also, please let me know if there are any specific phrases you do not agree with in the current microscopy paragraph I posted. If I do not hear of any specific phrases, I will post what I have now and we can add to it, if needed.Honest Research (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why phrases were deleted that were cited by third party sources. Also, I fixed the paraphrasing of the CLIA report; referencing it word for word. Those were valid so I put them back up. Also, clarified that the medical expert was Edzard Ernst.Honest Research (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably, it had something to do with the following:

• It's not just Edzard Ernst, though he is one expert who has stated that live blood analysis is nonsense. You'll note that the other sources include a health column from a major newspaper as well as several officials from the medical board, all of whom indicate that live blood analysis is anywhere from nonsense to out-and-out fraud. You don't have to agree with that mainstream view, but you do need to be honest enough to acknowledge that it is the mainstream view, and the proposed text doesn't do that.
• Again, way too much credulous detail on Young's claims, lacking in reliable third-party sources. "It is documented"? No, a single article in an obscure fringe alt-med journal repeats Young's claims - that's not "documentation".
• You're trying to spin the HHS report to minimize the basic fact that it describes live blood analysis as an "unestablished laboratory test". We don't need stuff about how "traditional" laboratories are too hidebound to recognize it - that's spin.

Again, I'm not that happy with the text either way, but it needs at least minimal honesty about the actual status of live blood analysis as a starting point. MastCell ^Talk 04:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you MastCell for explaining your reasoning behind some of your decisions. However, like yourself, I still don't feel entirely satisfied with the current state of the "Nutritional Microscopy" paragraph. I would like to bring up some issues that I still don't feel are resolved in this paragraph and ask for the opinions of all contributors of Young's article.

• I have a question about the HHS report and how we are representing its contents in Young's article. The HHS report explains that the validity of live blood analysis has not yet been determined. We are currently stating that "Live blood analysis is generally considered to lack scientific validity;" and we are referencing the HHS report on this statement. This is false. Further the current article states that: "It(live blood analysis) has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test"". This is true but it seems like jargon. No one knows what that means. For this reason they define what it means in their specific article being: "For the purposes of this study, we use the term “unestablished laboratory tests” to mean tests that are not generally accepted by many of the people involved in traditional laboratory practice and oversight." I feel like we are misrepresenting what the test means to be an "unestablished test". People could think "unestablished test" means non-scientific or fradulent or proven false and that is not what it means.

• My next question is why we are putting references in Young's article that criticize live blood analysis? Currently we are putting the statements that live blood analysis is considered a "fraudulent" and "money-making scheme".... on Young's page. We do not know if Young uses live blood analysis as a "fraudulent" and "money-making scheme". These are blanketed statements that, I feel should not go on Young's page unless they specifically involve Young. These kinds of statements should be put on the "live blood analysis" page, in my opinion and not on Young's. Also, if we are going to cite Edzard's and a Rhode Island medical board's opinion about live blood analysis then why are we not citing the medical experts who speak in favor of live blood analysis? Such as Maria Bleker, and Gabriel Cousens. They both are some of the primary people who write and research and claim that live blood analysis has scientific and medical validity? If we are to keep the opinions of the medical experts who speak against the scientific validity of live blood analysis on Young's page, then we should reference the statements from the medical experts who speak in favor of its scientific validity. Both opinions hold equal relevance on Young's page, which I feel is none. But if we are to put one opinion from a medical expert, we should represent the other side until the true validity of the test has not been determined by a substantial test.

• lastly, I would like to know why these phrases were deleted:"Young claims that live and dry blood analysis does have scientific validity.[13] Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners for examining the effects of oxidative and other types of stress on the body at the cellular level.[12]" I put the first in because it is one of Young's biggest claims that makes him noteworthy. I put the second phrase in because it is cited in both the HHS report and the JAltMed article.

Respectfully, I would like to hear from the contributors of this article what their opinions are on these issues.Honest Research (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• As I've stated repeatedly, numerous sources refer to the questionable nature of live blood analysis, not only the HHS report. The HHS report calls it an "unestablished laboratory test". Yes, it's jargon - that's why it's in quotes. I'm fine with a short elaboration on what they mean by "unestablished".
• Well, Young has been charged, twice, for analyzing people's blood and telling them they were sick and needed to buy some supplements from him or go on a special diet. That would seem to make the questionable status of live blood analysis at least somewhat relevant to this article. The link is drawn more explicitly by this independent, reliable source, a major newspaper. Additionally, you were the one who inserted long and credulous rehashes of Young's claims. If we do elaborate at length on these claims, then we need to make appropriate reference to mainstream expert opinion in the field rather than trying to rewrite this content from the fringe perspective. I'm fine with varying the detail on live blood analysis, but you seem to mean that we should cut the independent, reliable third-party sources while retaining the poorly sourced promotional material. I think that's backwards from a policy standpoint.
• Our policies on undue weight make clear that when we talk about "experts" and "expert opinion", we mean people who are generally recognized as experts by reputable, scholarly bodies. That would include Edzard Ernst, a professor of alternative medicine at a major university. It would not, I believe, include low-profile advocates of fringe practices. This is a common argument: people who are here to promote miracle cure X say: "The National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Clinic don't know anything about miracle cure X! The expert is the guy who discovered it on his website." But that's not actually how it works, since the goal is build a serious, respectable reference work rather than simply repeat people's claims devoid of context or reliably sourced analysis. MastCell ^Talk 07:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have redrafted it and would like to present it. I feel like this line that I stated in the second paragraph needs an explanation:

Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain.

I included this line to represent why alternative practicioners believe live blood analysis is valid. As I researched, I found that the prominent figure in America doing this is, and making statements about it, besides Young, is Dr. Gabriel Cousens. In Cousen's own book it says he is "the leading holistic medical doctor in the United States". I also found out that both Young and Cousen's claim to be trained by the same person, "Maria Bleker" in Germany. I also found out that the explanation of live blood analysis taken from the JAltMed journal cites Maria Bleker for all its information about live blood analysis. So I cited her statements from the JAltMed journal and Cousne's statements from his book. Bleker seems to be the foremost expert in Blood analysis. I would have cited directly from her book but it is not online but in a library one can look at it. I found that her same statements are found in the JAltMed Journal article so I felt this represented her opinion about the matter sufficiently. So that is the reasoning behind that line. Bleker, Cousen's and Young seem to all be doing the same kind of blood testing and doing it for the same reasons so I tried to represent their reasoning for claiming it is valid. I also made some small changes you will notice, as well as include an brief explanation about the HHS report. With that said, how does this sound?:

Nutritional Microscopy

Young bases his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. Young uses live and dry blood analysis to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by acidic environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. Young has claimed in a study that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices.

Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. Young has also stated that he teaches live blood analysis solely for research and educational purposes, and not for use in diagnosing medical conditions - an important legal distinction. Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain. However, Live blood analysis has also been considered by medical experts as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". It should be understood that Live blood analysis is currently a controversial test and has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", signifying that its methods are not generally accepted in traditional laboratory practice and that its validity as a laboratory test has not yet been determined.

Honest Research (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph is fine. The first two sentences of the second paragraph are fine. Everything after that should be cut out of this article and used in the live blood analysis article. General information and arguments both for and against live blood analysis in general are tangential here unless they are positions posed by Young or specifically about Young. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really in agreement. On the one hand, we seem to feel that Young's use of live blood analysis is noteworthy enough to take up quite a bit of airtime in the article. But while we can spend time rehashing Young's claims about live blood analysis, we don't have space to incorporate a single independent, reliable source providing any sort of context about it? To me, that would seem to fall under WP:NPOV's prohibition on using these sorts of tangential articles to "rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." If we're going to mention live blood analysis, then we probably have an obligation to the reader to provide at least minimal context beyond a one-sided, poorly sourced recitation of Young's claims on the subject. To top it off, one of the small handful of actual independent, reliable secondary sources in the article explicitly links Young to questionable promotion and use of live blood analysis ([4]). MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's make this simple then. If the citation from the source is explicitly discussing Young, then we can use it. If it does not deal with Young specifically, we cannot. This is an article about Young, not about live blood analysis. The "obligation" to the reader is fulfilled by linking to the live blood analysis article, where they can read all about the trials and travails of said process. The Sign on San Diego article is entirely usable in the Young article as it specifically is about Young. Alternatively, the Providence Journal (Projo) article which Honest Research uses in the proposed text doesn't mention Young at all and is therefore tangential and unusable in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As the article is about Young and not live blood analysis, I could be happy with a short appositive (e.g., "live blood analysis, an alternative procedure whose validity is rejected by medical authorities"). I guess my major concern is that this article is constantly veering to WP:COATRACKhood, and constantly rewriting majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. I don't think I can be happy with an article that one-sidedly presents Young's claims on live blood analysis at great length, citing poor-quality sources largely directly affiliated with the man himself, while simultaneously barring independent, reliable sources on the actual status of live blood analysis. I think that threatens to mislead the reader. We don't need a major diatribe about live blood analysis as quackery, but we need something more than a wikilink. I'm open to suggestions for text. MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We can present Young's views on live blood analysis (LBA), as long as we are clear that they are Young's views. I believe Honest Research's proposal does just that. We can also include criticism of Young's views, but the sources we cite should be about just that - criticisms of Young's views. Just like we shouldn't cite sources which detail LBA in general but don't mention Young, we shouldn't cite sources which are critical of LBA in general but don't mention Young. We went through a very similar discussion at Atropa belladonna where the mere mention of the homeopathic usage of the plant meant that to some editors, we should include a general invective on homeopathy. In the end, all that was included (and I believe rightfully) are statements from sources specifically dealing with the homeopathic usage of Atropa belladonna - some informational, some critical. The same should be applied here (with even more care though, as this is a BLP). No general diatribes on LBA; however we can include criticisms of Young's position on LBA from sources specifically discussing Young. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is different from the dispute at Atropa belladonna. That plant is notable in and of itself as a botanical entity, with a sub-issue about how much to say about its homeopathic use. Here, Young is notable specifically for making claims about live blood analysis and an alkaline diet. If we believe he fulfills notability criteria (I am somewhat doubtful since the only independent, reliable sources are those detailing his legal difficulties or criticizing his promotion of live blood analysis), then we need to discuss the context of his notability. I don't believe I'm asking for a "general diatribe" on live blood analysis; however, I think we are being less than honest with readers if they leave the article unaware of its widespread rejection by mainstream medical and scientific experts. Again, I would be satisfied with a brief appositive, citing whatever sources are necessary and indicating that live blood analysis is rejected/considered scientifically invalid or fraudulent/take-your-pick. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

After reading your words, I will take off the statements that do not have to do with Young directly. I will then add the statements we have worked on to the live blood analysis page. I think this would make MastCell as well as Levine2112 both agree that the correct information is placed in the correct articles and is available for the reader to gain access to the views specifically about live blood analysis and specifically about Young in their respective articles.Honest Research (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read a statement in Young's article:

• The claims underlying alkaline diets like Young's are believed to be medically implausible, and there is no scientific evidence that such diets are beneficial.

This seems to have the same problem that the information about Live Blood Analysis had. I will remove it and put it on the alkaline diet page. Nowhere in the reference cited does it refer to Young, only to alkaline diets in general.Honest Research (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It does have the same problem as live blood analysis - you are selectively removing any material which is independent, reliably sourced, or reflects a mainstream viewpoint. You are leaving behind only material which one-sidedly recapitulates Young's claims from poor-quality sources directly affiliated with him. In other words, these edits violate both fundamental Wikipedia policy and this site's goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work providing overviews which are in line with mainstream scientific thought. MastCell ^Talk 04:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, I am not selectively removing. Did you not see what I wrote. I took the information from Young's article and put it on the live blood analysis page as well as the alkaline diets page where it belongs. The information about alkaline diets was not even on the alkaline diets page and yet it was on Young's. This makes no sense. Nowhere does the reference talk about Young but only about "alkaline diets" in general. There are other people who have created "alkaline diets". Young's is not like Dr. Hay's diet, or Felicia Kliment's "alkaline diet". They consider different foods to be "Alkaline" such as Salt. Young is the only proponent of taking in high amounts of salt because he believes its alkaline. Other alkaline diets discourage salt. This is why general statements about "alkaline diets" need to go in the alkaline diets page. If there is a reference about Young's specific alkaline diet then it should go into Young's page. Levine2112's argument makes perfect sense for all statements in Young's article. The same goes with the live blood analysis page. The full information from the CLIA report was not even on the live blood analysis aticle until I added it; and yet it is going onto Young's article. This, once again makes no sense. What even makes things weirder is that you are a contributor on both, the "alkaline diets" page as well as the "live blood analysis" page and yet you do not include this information on those pages but unyielding fight for it on Young's page. This is very bizarre a looks like prejudice against Young himself and not prejudice against live blood analysis or alkaline diets which I assume you mean. I am not selectively removing, you are selectively adding information. Mainstream views on Young should go on Young's article. Mainsteam views about live blood analysis and alkaline diets should go on the live blood analysis page and the alkaline diet page, not Young's. I am going to revert your last edit. What you are doing is wrong. If you put the mainstream information about alkaline diets and live blood analysis information up on Young's article again, I will have no choice but to report you and this incident. MastCell, your are in error on this one. It is obvious which articles the information should go in.Honest Research (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, but would welcome outside opinion (in fact, I have solicited some at the fringe theories noticeboard since this dispute deals with how to cover fringe claims). There are multiple serious encyclopedic concerns here. Foremost among them: if Young's claims have not been seriously discussed in any reputable, reliable, mainstream sources, then they lack the notability necessary to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. You can't have it both ways - you can't argue that Young's claims deserve coverage on Wikipedia and then systematically exclude any independent, reliable source which addresses those claims. That's what I see happening here. MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream opinion is clearly relevant in order to contextualise Young and his claims. I fully agree with MastCell and 2/0. There's three opinions for you :) Verbal chat 17:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, my position that contextualization of Young's ideas is important is based on sections of the Neutral point of view policy and the Fringe theories guideline. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To go back to specific content proposals, I'm not arguing that this article should contain an extensive "debunking" of live blood analysis. I am suggesting that a short phrase - less than 1 sentence - is reasonable to provide the reader with some context. Something along the lines of "...live blood analysis, an alternative medical technique which is considered scientifically invalid and in some cases fraudulent by the medical community (sources)." I don't think that 0.5 sentences is going to unduly slant the article, given the great length at which we dilate upon Young's claims; in fact, I think it's the absolute minimum required by the content policies that 2/0 mentions above. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for voicing your opinions about the matter. I would also like to get the opinions from others who have nothing to do with Young's article or who have made no previous edits to it. I am perfectly willing to cooperate with you guys if I am found in error.Honest Research (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Should general information about live blood analysis and alkaline diets that does not specifically mention Young or his specific claims go into Young's article or into the live blood analysis and alkaline diets articles? 06:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is information that is valid about live blood analysis and alkaline diets. Currently it is being put into Young's article to represent what some consider as "mainstream views" about live blood analysis and alkaline diets. The statements are against live blood analysis and alkaline diets and do not make mention of Young or his specific claims about live blood analysis or alkaline diets. The question at hand is about the information that does not refer to Young or his claims directly such as Intrigued by the spectacular claims made for Live Blood Analysis? Don't be. It doesn't work and [5] and CLIA regulation of unestablished laboratory tests but not this Naturopathic technique stirring bad blood because it refers to Young and his claims directly. Should the general information about live blood analysis and alkaline diets remain on Young's page or should it not? If this information should remain in Young's bio, then should we also include the opinions of medical experts who speak in favor of live blood analysis and alkaline diets on Young's page, such as Maria Bleker, and Gabriel Cousens? Honest Research (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Minor notes from an involved editor: Maria Bleker and Gabriel Cousens do not appear to be recognized medical experts, or at least such recognition has not been demonstrated. From my perspective, the question is whether our discussion of live blood analysis or alkaline diet here should solely recapitulate Young's promotional claims on the subject (as sourced directly to Young's books), or whether it should briefly include some independent, reliably sourced indication that live blood analysis is considered invalid and potentially fraudulent by the medical community. MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To address MastCell's concerns about Maria Bleker and Gabriel Cousens, here are their bios Bleker Bio Cousens Bio. I am not sure if they are considered "Medical Experts", but they are traditionaly schooled medical doctors who have written extensively about live blood analysis. I am not trying to put promotional statements in Young's article, just state what Young's claims are. This is why I took the bulk of the Microscopy statements from the JAltMed Journal article which is where the most information about Microscopy and Yound are found.Honest Research (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Minor note from an involved editor: No one is arguing against including an independent, reliably sourced opinion that Young's specific claims are considered invalid, if such a source (one which discusses Young and his claims specifically) is presented. The dispute is whether to include any opinions (positive or negative) about the validity of live blood analysis claims in general -- opinions not specifically about Young's claims but rather just generally about live blood analysis, regardless of whether Young even stands by such claims. It seems if we are going to apply opinions about general claims to the subject's more specific beliefs then we risk violating WP:NOR. And in a case such as this, where words such as "fraudulent" is being bandied about, we risk violating WP:BLP as well. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Reliably sourced fact: Young promotes live blood analysis. Reliably sourced fact: Live blood analysis is rejected as unsound by experts in the field. Devoting half a sentence to the latter fact doesn't seem to violate WP:NOR. I don't see how the article can call itself "encyclopedic" if it simply rehashes Young's claims (sourced only to Young's website and books) while avoiding any independent, reliably sourced evaluation or context for those claims. MastCell ^Talk 00:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Just because two bits of information are factual doesn't necessarily mean that we can put them together without violating WP:NOR. To quote specifically from WP:SYN: Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. It seems that we have a) sources which say that LBA is invalid and b) sources which say that Young bases some of his theories on observations he makes using LBA and now you want to say or imply c) Young's theories are therefore invalid and fraudulent. Remember, per WP:SYN, "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That seems like a misapplication of policy, or at least prioritization of letter over meaning. If Joe Smith says the world is flat, we are presumably allowed to mention that it is in fact round, even if the sources attesting to its rotundity do not call out Joe Smith by name. MastCell ^Talk 03:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
        • As I interpret it, Original synthesis forbids us to take Young uses live blood analysis + DHHS says LBA is an "unestablished laboratory test" → DHHS says Young uses dubious tests. The [[Fringe theories guideline advises that [i]deas that have been rejected ... should be documented as such, using reliable sources, and the Neutral point of view policy stipulates that [w]hen discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. I do not see anyone arguing that we should coatrack a full analysis onto this article, just that we should briefly mention how Young's views fit in with the medical community as part of our coverage of Young. By way of analogy, our articles on the anti-Stratfordians outline their views and arguments, but do so in the context that most scholars consider Shakespeare to be the author of the plays and poems commonly attributed to him. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Levine2112, I believe use common sense is useful here. There was a similar situation in Noah's Ark Zoo Farm where there was contention over whether or not it violated original research policy to say that that the views promulgated at Noah's ark zoo farm were contrary to the scientific consensus without a source that specifically mentions Noah's ark zoo farm's views are contrary to scientific consensus. The consensus was that a source specifically mentioning Noah's ark zoo farm wasn't required because it is an obvious logical jump. Robert Young advocates live blood analysis which is considered a dubious science by the mainstream.

At the same time, it is important not to overextend the scope of the references; it would be inappropriate to say all of the theories Young promulgates are dubious if only some of them are based off LBA when using a reference that only mentions LBA related theories. Adding appropriate qualifiers fixes this problem. "Some of Robert Young's theories are based off of live blood analysis and are thus not accepted by mainstream scientists because live blood analysis is considered dubious science by the mainstream." Ignoring the horrible sentence construction, the important part is that what is called unaccepted by mainstream science is limited to the theories which are based off of live blood analysis. Sifaka ^talk 21:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • WP:SYN forbids articles from drawing conclusions synthesized from sources that don't draw the same conclusions. There is nothing about WP:SYN, especially in the context of WP:FRINGE, that prevents an article from laying out facts in a balanced way and let the reader draw his own conclusions. I don't see WP:SYN as relevant to this discussion. It is perfectly fine to state that Young's work is off the mainstream, that he engages in research that the scientific and medical communities regard as dubious. Those are neutral facts. =Axlq 05:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This debate has been mentioned at the Fringe theories noticeboard. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• The answer is, quite obviously, yes. There's nothing wrong with providing well-sourced information to the reader. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments so far. However, something has been overlooked from the HHS report Health and Human Services Report on Live Blood Analysis. I would like to bring to attention some direct statements from the report and explain their importance in the decisions we are currently making. The report states on page 04: "This study did not address the validity or accuracy of LBA or any other unestablished laboratory test. Nothing in this report should be construed as an endorsement or condemnation of any laboratory test." Also on page iii: "To help address this situation, we are recommending that CMS take the following actions: Conduct a study to determine whether Live Blood Cell Analysis has value as a diagnostic tool." The fact about LBA from the HHS report is that we do not know if LBA is a valid or invalid medical test or if it has scientific validity or not. We do not know if it is a fraudulent money making scheme or if it is the test that will help find missing links for cancers and diseases because we have opinions inferring both options. It is simply not tested yet. Currently we are representing in Young's article that mainstream medical view of live blood analysis is "generally considered to lack scientific validity; it has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", and by medical experts as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". Currently we are representing LBA as an "unestablished test". The definition of "unestablished test" in the HHS report is, "For the purposes of this study, we use the term “unestablished laboratory tests” to mean tests that are not generally accepted by many of the people involved in traditional laboratory practice and oversight." It does not mean scheme, fraudulent, scientifically invalid or their opposites. The way the current article is does not necessarily represent the truth about live blood analysis nor should it be put on Young's article in my opinion. It may be the truth, but we currently do not know if it is. So it is the opinions of some medical experts. This information from the HHS report has not been justly represented in Young's article and the opinions of some medical experts have become the mainstream general consensus for LBA in Young's article. This is simply false and not reality. But from most comments the general feeling is to put up refernced sources about LBA in Young's article. So if this is how everyone wants to leave it, we should also include what other medical experts have said concerning LBA as well as a much better representation of what the HHS report states.

With that said, I will propose a new version of the paragraph that includes Young's own claims and observations regarding LBA, the opinions of medical experts against LBA, the full statement made by the HHS, and the opinions of medical experts for LBA.

Nutritional Microscopy

Young bases some of his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. Young uses live and dry blood analysis to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by acidic environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. Young has claimed in a study that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. Young has also stated that he teaches live blood analysis solely for research and educational purposes, and not for use in diagnosing medical conditions - an important legal distinction.

Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain. Some medical experts consider live blood analysis as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". Other medical experts consider live blood analysis to be a qualitative assessment of the biological terrain and a way to monitor the clinical progress of a persons health and wellness. It should be understood that Live blood analysis is currently a controversial test and has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", signifying that its methods are not generally accepted in traditional laboratory practice and that its validity as a laboratory test has not yet been determined.

Please let me know if this is ok, and I will post it. If not, please inform me what exact parts are in error and I will change them.Honest Research (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're reading things into the HHS report that aren't there. The report explicitly did not address the scientific validity of live blood analysis. Fine. Other sources do directly address its scientific validity. We shouldn't set up the HHS report as "opposing" those sources, when in fact it simply abdicated the question completely. You seem to want to use the HHS report to offset the reliable sources critical of live blood analysis, but the HHS report itself cautions against "construing it as an endorsement". You're doing exactly what the HHS report asks you not to do. Again, this can be solved relatively simply with recourse to independent, reliable sources, a path which has met with a surprising degree of resistance:

• HHS calls it an "unestablished laboratory test", meaning that without conducting any scientific evaluation, pro or con, they understand that it is not an accepted part of laboratory medicine.
• Edzard Ernst, perhaps one of the top handful of experts on alternative medicine, has assessed live blood analysis critically.
• The medical boards of various states and countries have described live blood analysis variously as medically unfounded and sometimes promoted fraudulently.
• Young himself was the subject of at least one arrest based in part on his promotion of live blood analysis, and his views on the topic were criticized in another of our independent reliable sources (the San Diego Union-Tribune).

It seems pretty clear which direction we should go here, assuming that our content policies are to be respected. And again, we need to be a bit more discerning in throwing around the term "expert" - let's suppose that at least some outward recognition of one's expertise is necessary. I know of no such medical experts who endorse live blood analysis, and no reliable sources endorsing it have been presented despite quite a bit of dialogue on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have tried to take into account all of your concerns about the paragraph. Here it is again.

Nutritional Microscopy

Young bases some of his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. Young uses live and dry blood analysis to test for disturbances in the biologic terrain which he claims are caused by acidic environmental toxicity, poor elimination of wastes, nutritional imbalances, and/or radiation toxicity. Young has claimed in a study that the quality of the blood in certain areas can indicate bowel congestion, severe tissue stress, challenges in the chest cavity, reproductive system challenges, iron deficiency, adrenal and psychological stress, pancreas, liver, and/or kidney stress. Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. Young has also stated that he teaches live blood analysis solely for research and educational purposes, and not for use in diagnosing medical conditions - an important legal distinction.

Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain. Some medical experts consider live blood analysis as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". Other holistic doctors consider live blood analysis to be a qualitative assessment of the biological terrain and a way to monitor the clinical progress of a persons health and wellness. It should be understood that Live blood analysis is currently a controversial test and has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", meaning that without conducting any scientific evaluation, pro or con, they understand that it is not an accepted part of laboratory medicine.

I changed the words "medical experts" to "holistic doctors", if you prefer a different title let me know. Here are their qualifications in bios I found about them:Bleker Bio Cousens Bio I have also used your exact words to represent the HHS report. I have included all of your references. So let me know if this is ok to post as is. Thanks.Honest Research (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Some advice: Don't muddy the consensus of medical opinion with weasel words. Instead of "Some medical experts" say "Medical experts". Instead of "Other holistic doctors" say "Holistic doctors". Remove "It should be understood that" because Wikipedia isn't an advisory service; the sentence works well without that phrase. A Wikipedia article should also never interpret statements for the reader, so the entire phrase starting with "meaning that..." can go.

In your first proposed paragraph, the second and third sentences area unnecessary detail for a biography article. =Axlq 19:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made all of the proposed changes. Thank you for your constructive criticism. How does this sound?Honest Research (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nutritional Microscopy

Young bases some of his theories, research, and written works from his observations of live blood analysis and dry blood analysis. Young believes that live and dry blood analysis allows him to analyze the biological terrain and that the state of the blood cells and the fluids that surround them correlate with a person's lifestyle and dietary choices. Young teaches microscopy courses in which he trains people to perform live blood analysis as well as dry blood analysis. Young has also stated that he teaches live blood analysis solely for research and educational purposes, and not for use in diagnosing medical conditions - an important legal distinction.

Live and Dry blood analysis are mostly used by alternative medical practitioners that claim it is a valuable test for examining a persons state of health, represented by the amount of pleomorphic degeneration or regeneration in the biological terrain. Medical experts consider live blood analysis as lacking any scientific foundation, as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements, and as a medically useless "money-making scheme". Holistic doctors consider live blood analysis to be a qualitative assessment of the biological terrain and a way to monitor the clinical progress of a persons health and wellness. Live blood analysis is currently a controversial test and has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", or test that is not generally accepted in laboratory medicine.

My family GP considers the "whole person", so is holistic doctor. He's not keen on live blood analysis. The term "holistic doctor" should be replaced with a term that means something. Many alternative practitioners are not doctors. Also, the reference doesn't contain either the phrase "holistic doctors" or "live blood analysis" (live blood appears only in a caption). And is "Rainbow Green Live-Food Cuisine" really an MED/RS? Verbal chat 20:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, I am not exactly sure that I understand all of your concerns, but I will do my best to answer them? I do make out that you do not agree with including the title "holistic doctor". Do you prefer I use "alternative practitioner" or something else? If you read their bios above you will see their credentials. As for the references, I am not sure where you are looking, but Cousen's and Bleker's books are full of pages about LBA. You may be reading "darkfield" microscopy which is the same thing as "live blood analysis". The people who do LBA use the words "phase-contrast" microscopy and "darkfield" microscopy to mean LBA. These are both LBA just a difference of how the cells look under the microscope. One way the light is coming from underneath and the other way the light is coming from above. Both ways are used to do Live blood analysis from what they state in their books. About Bleker's reference, I could not find an online version of Bleker's book so I referenced a web page that clearly stated it was taking content about LBA directly from her book. Then I checked it against her book and it was the same. Your question about "Rainbow Green Live-Food Cuisine" is if it is really a MED/RS? If you are meaning "medical reference" by "MED/RS", then yes it is a MED/RS. He claims, and recommends food as a medicine rather than prescription drugs.Honest Research (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that by MED/RS, Verbal means Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles), which outlines many issues of sourcing in medical articles. The issue, then, is whether Rainbow Green Live-Food Cuisine would be considered reliable by most doctors for statements in the field. For attributed comments, the bar is somewhat lower at whether the source may be relied upon for an accurate depiction of "holistic doctors". - 2/0 (cont.) 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I put the references for the proposals into groups so we can actually see the sources outside of edit mode. Description and best-practices may be found at WP:FOOT. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the references 2/0. The pages and isbn were wrong on Bleker's book so I went in and fixed them. From the conversation above, I am still unsure if everyone is ok with the paragraph and references as is. If there are still problems with the paragraph or references let me know. If not, I will go ahead and post it as is. If Cousens' book as a reference is an issue then perhaps Lida H. Mattman's book can work. She uses and shows the use of live blood analysis for cancer research in human blood and animal blood. See:Cell Wall Deficient Forms pages 237-238,244,345. If Cousens' book does not work for representing that some medical people think live blood analysis has scientific validity then perhaps Lida Mattman's could work. I feel like, until LBA has been determined to have no scientific validity, we should represent the reasons for why certain people use it and why others do not. Currently the paragraph only shows why people do not use LBA. It should also represent why certain people value LBA as a medical test. I have tried to represent that with Cousens' and Bleker's book. If that is not ok, then let me know if Mattman's is ok.Honest Research (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are still problems, such as the term "holistic doctor" and the poor references supporting fawning views of this technique. Verbal chat 17:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok what would you like to call Bleker, Cousens, and Mattman? They are all doctors and use alternative methods in their practices. I don't really care what they are referred to? Also, I looked at both Cousens, Bleker's, and Mattman's books and they are all fine references. I don't see what the problem is with them. Could you let me know? I understand there are many who hold LBA as useless but that is not the point here. You guys don't want Young's article to be written from the minority point of view and yet you are critical against representing the minority point of view in any way. Did you even look at Mattman's book? It is a very good reference. She apparently was nominated for a nobel prize so I am sure a reference from her will be valid. And yes, she wrote extensively about LBA. Once again because I am sure this will come up with you Verbal. LBA is the same thing as Darkfield Microscopy, or phase-contrast microscopy, or bright-field microscopy. Young, bleker, Cousens, and Mattman all refer to it as Darkfield microscopy or phase-contrast microscopy. They are all using the same methods to look at cells. We are referring to it as Live blood analysis. I am not sure why but we are, that is how it was referred to when I began working on this article. I will wait for a short time to hear your reply and then post the new paragraph. you are free to change the word "holistic doctors" to whatever you feel justly represents Bleker's, Cousens' and Mattman's credentials. The references look fine to me to represent why people do validate using LBA.Honest Research (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I am pretty much ok with the first paragraph, but I made a few changes to the second. The biggest change was merging two sentences describing the opinions on alternative practitioners, removing the statement about "most" alternative medicos. I removed the clause describing LBA as "controversial", as it does not really add anything to about Young that is not expressed by the cited opinions - show rather than tell. I also removed the statement that dry blood analysis is an alternative technique, as it seems to be an alternative medicine synonym for blood test. We could include how Young uses those, and expand on any non-standard uses.
The term "biological terrain" appears not to be in common use. Perhaps the second sentence of the first paragraph could be converted into two, the first expanding on the term and the second completing the thought.
As a side note, dark field microscopy and phase contrast microscopy are well-established techniques for getting data out of a slide, and are not unique to live blood analysis. Also, last I checked, the Nobel committee seals the list of nominees until it will be only of historical importance. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)