[photon]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Then as I first began - this has zero business being used as to confirm anything. Thank you for agreeing with me.

I'm obviously not saying that, and I'm not saying just because he's got some letters behind his name and a blog that what he says is unquestionable either.

It's a blog, it's someone posting their opinion about something. Some blogs are better than others because the blog's author has demonstrated a history of being in a relevant field, having experience, etc.. blog entries are like wikipedia entries, not authoritative in and of themselves, but they are good for focusing in on the important things, referencing resources that might be otherwise hard to find, finding out what opinions are out there, how those opinions are supported, etc..

The blog entry linked from Orac is only tangentially related to this anyway, I think we can both agree that the idea that cancer (and all disease) is caused by acidification of the blood is complete baloney, which is the quackery that Orac is trying to refute in his blog post.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

If a claim is made and is to be taken as truth it should have a name next to it, no? I demand it.

No claim that's made should be "taken" as truth.. if there's a name beside it it doesn't make any difference to the truth of the claim. And has been said, Orac's name is easily found and he also posts on sciencebasedmedicine.org. So now we've got the identity, we can move on.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Again my original point - This site should not be used by Troutman to forward his argument.

I disagree, I don't see it as a black and white issue. Basically we're talking about source credibility, and I would find a source with an established history more credible than another where I knew there name but had no history. I don't think his using a pseudonym hurts his credibility, you think it does, but ultimately a link to a blog post isn't the end of a discussion, it's usually the start of one or helps direct or focus it.

So is there anything in the actual content that you disagree with that's relevant here? Or should we just leave Orac as he is?

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I searched a long time to find some medical journal on this topic, and none seem to exist.

Or we just don't know what to look for, or because of the understanding of how the body manages pH makes the whole idea silly.

I kind of suspect it's the latter.

http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTutorials/Buffer/Buffer.html

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I find it curious however, that it is getting bunked as it has not been tested to confirm or deny. They say it works. Others say it doesn't. Lets get a study done on it then.

The quote you said is a lie says this:

"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."

At this point there's no scientific evidence to support the idea, so there's absolutely no basis for thinking it's worth doing. And yet there's a whole industry built up around the idea. One would think the people profiting from the industry would do the $tudie$, but that doesn't often happen.

This is a perfect example of the whole problem with the magical thinking non-evidence based "medicine" facilitates and promotes.. "it's not disproven", "some say it works", etc..

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I didn't want to get the site in trouble and I couldn't locate a study in Canada or USA as of yet... So I changed it.

I wasn't worried about the site, I highly doubt it'd come up on her radar. I was more hopeful you'd change it because it's wrong and it'd be the honest thing to do.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I believe she has lied in her life.

You can't dig your way out of a hole. This truly unbecoming.

Your claim was that she lied, and you provided the statement that you thought was a lie. Your claim was not that she has lied in her life. If she has or not is irrelevant. One more try?