[photon]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

It may have many well respected scientists but I politely disagree with you. It is important to have your name beside anything health care related. The disclaimer is the so they can discuss what ever they feel like. Orac is definitely irresponsible by not discussing who he is simply because of his stature and claims.

It's a blog, not a medical journal. The point is discussion of things, not to make medical statements. That's the whole point of the disclaimer, it's not an appropriate venue for actual medical diagnosis or advice. If someone read something and took it to be medical advice and had a problem, they would sue. If he was giving medical advice and then hiding behind the disclaimer then I would agree with you, but he's not, he's blogging on current events and information.

And as to having his name beside it, really he's not hiding, as he says you can figure out who he is pretty easily, it took me two minutes.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

My reasoning is not flawed. I demand to know what a doctor's name is if he is claiming someone's work is bunk.

What relevance does someone's name have with respect to the veracity of something?

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

All you need is one clause or point to render everything else unimportant "For entertainment purposes only" is such a clause.

Right, because the discussion is for entertainment, it's not intended to be a medical journal to determine veracity, and it's not intended to give medical advice for people to make life altering decisions on.

That doesn't mean what's being said is or is not true. You and I are anonymous but we can still have a discussion about our positions on topics.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

That's fine but WHY? Why are these foods harming us. This PH science helps to further explain and understand that.

Different foods are harmful for different reasons, but you haven't established that acidic or alkaline food even changes blood pH, so to say pH science explains why foods are unhealthy is premature, at least in this discussion so far.

And the link you posted explains how the body balances out the pH, if you look at the chemical reactions I don't see anywhere in there that it is using Calcium or Iodine, so the idea that it takes nutrients away from the body to balance pH isn't supported by that article either; that too could be a bogus claim for all I know.

Which also raises the question of an alkaline diet being just as harmful, if one assumes that the body uses nutrients to bring "up" an acid, then you could also assume that the body uses different nutrients to bring "down" a base.

So to sum up the things that have to be established for this to have any merit:

a) that eating acidic or alkaline foods alters the blood pH
b) that the body "consumes" important nutrients to balance the blood's pH
c) that those nutrients are consumed to a significant degree
d) that an alkaline diet either does not consume other important nutrients, or that if it does the alkaline diet is more advantageous (i.e. consumes less nutrients, or ones that are more easily replaced, etc).

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Nope, but I will adjust it (Stephanie Vangsness is misleading - There is no scientific proof that she will support at this time nor has offered to conduct for the better of Cancer Patients)

That's not an adjustment, that's a complete change. I think you are being disingenuous. This is what you said:

Stephanie Vangsness, R.D., L.D.N. has lied.

"No. Studies of alkaline diet are limited to animal and test tube trials. There's no scientific evidence at this time that alkaline diets are beneficial to humans."

You said she lied, and then you gave what you claim is the lie. You have not established that she in fact lied. To establish that she lied you must first establish that there is in fact evidence that alkaline diets are beneficial to humans, which you haven't done (all's you've done is shown that the body maintains a pH level). Second you have to establish that she knowingly ignored such evidence intentionally, so rather than just being mistaken, or ignorant of such evidence, that she intentionally ignored that evidence when making that statement.

We're waiting.

So now your adjustment.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Stephanie Vangsness is misleading - There is no scientific proof that she will support at this time nor has offered to conduct for the better of Cancer Patients

So changing the statement to something completely irrelevant establishes diet having an impact on blood pH how exactly?

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

the BBC article still supports my point. Our body must be at a proper PH balance.

I thought your point was that diet can impact your pH? No one is questioning that the body maintains a tight pH.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

It talks about how PH is measured which was argued on a link troutman gave, saying it is impossible to measure your PH balance.

Um, what? I think you had better read again.

Originally Posted by The BBC Article

If you need to have your blood gases or acid/base status measured, then a medical professional will need to take a sample of your arterial blood: an arterial blood gas (ABG).

Originally Posted by The InteliHeath Article

Are Urine and Saliva pH Test Strips a Good Way To Measure the Body's pH?

The only way to directly measure the body's pH is by testing your blood. Testing your urine only tells you the pH of your urine. Urine is naturally more acidic and has a lower pH (~ 6.0). Similarly, saliva test strips only measure the pH of your saliva, not the pH of your blood.

Originally Posted by Your Alkaline Video

Use Litmus strips to measure the pH of your saliva or urine.

So uh yeah, not only does troutman's link NOT say it's impossible to measure your pH, the link you provided agrees with it and both disagree with the video.

So after all that, we're still in agreement that a healthy diet is better for you, and we still don't have any evidence that an acidic diet is harmful.