Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have mentioned this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change its acidity."
That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what we are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow range."
That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the alkaline end of that "narrow range."
Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem to conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the pH of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the range which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in order to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your urine will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good indicator of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is as acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level that will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," which is an unhealthy state to be in.
Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum health. Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a diastolic BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. Is your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that "very narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, but is deliberately trying to mislead.
"Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and symptoms is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not simply a state borderlining death.
My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the alternative health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would be fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. It is not the place to find the truth.
> Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that > acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have mentioned > this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
> Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change > its acidity."
> That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what we > are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are > talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been > completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
> He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow > range."
> That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are > talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the > alkaline end of that "narrow range."
> Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem to > conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the pH > of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all > within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the range > which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we > are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in order > to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is > bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
> It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of > your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your urine > will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute > degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good indicator > of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
> If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is as > acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to > eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level that > will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your > reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that > your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," which > is an unhealthy state to be in.
> Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that > normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - > assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum health. > Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. > For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a diastolic > BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are > healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. Is > your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that "very > narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the > middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin > makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, but > is deliberately trying to mislead.
> "Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and symptoms > is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of > faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are > unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the > absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not > simply a state borderlining death.
> My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed > "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden > agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug > industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the alternative > health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would be > fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and > perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. It > is not the place to find the truth.
Thanks for posting. This points out the same tactics used by our friends from ratbags whose allegiance to "quackwatch" are proven by links to them on their website.
> Rebuttal to "Quackwatch" > Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that > acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have mentioned > this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
I really like it when the quack watchers show their ignorance. This guy is a doctor? If pH levels mean nothing, then why are they measured in a typical urinalysis? http://www.webmd.com/hw/health_guide_atoz/hw6580.asp
> Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change > its acidity."
Well, that's just utter nonsense. Adding water to an acidic medium will dilute said medium and raise the pH level. If Dr. Mirking really believe this statement, he should have his license yanked.
> That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what we > are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are > talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been > completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
> He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow > range."
> That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are > talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the > alkaline end of that "narrow range."
> Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem to > conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the pH > of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all > within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the range > which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we > are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in order > to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is > bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
> It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of > your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your urine > will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute > degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good indicator > of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
> If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is as > acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to > eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level that > will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your > reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that > your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," which > is an unhealthy state to be in.
> Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that > normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - > assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum health. > Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. > For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a diastolic > BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are > healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. Is > your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that "very > narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the > middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin > makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, but > is deliberately trying to mislead.
> "Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and symptoms > is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of > faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are > unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the > absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not > simply a state borderlining death.
> My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed > "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden > agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug > industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the alternative > health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would be > fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and > perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. It > is not the place to find the truth.
I think the most important thing to note here is the idea of the fundamental difference between medical and alternative doctors. In the medical field, the absense of disease = good health. In the alternative field, good health is a constant goal... never actually being attainded because the body is constantly working to repair itself. Disease comes from straying too far from the goal.
> I have not read the original article from Dr. Mirkin, > so I can only assume his quotes below are accurate. > Do you have a link to the original article?
> > I have not read the original article from Dr. Mirkin, > > so I can only assume his quotes below are accurate. > > Do you have a link to the original article?
> Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that > acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have mentioned > this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
> Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change > its acidity."
> That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what we > are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are > talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been > completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
> He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow > range."
> That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are > talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the > alkaline end of that "narrow range."
> Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem to > conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the pH > of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all > within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the range > which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we > are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in order > to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is > bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
> It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of > your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your urine > will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute > degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good indicator > of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
> If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is as > acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to > eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level that > will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your > reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that > your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," which > is an unhealthy state to be in.
> Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that > normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - > assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum health. > Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. > For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a diastolic > BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are > healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. Is > your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that "very > narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the > middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin > makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, but > is deliberately trying to mislead.
> "Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and symptoms > is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of > faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are > unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the > absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not > simply a state borderlining death.
> My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed > "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden > agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug > industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the alternative > health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would be > fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and > perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. It > is not the place to find the truth.
You don't have to care what Quackwatch says if you can support your claims.
None of the usual alternaitve commentators observed that not a trace of evidence offered any of the claims made in this so-called rebuttal. It all devolves back to alternative medicine's preferred lifestyle pursuit of vague, completely speculative ideals of bodily perfection and purity. The made-up concept of "wellness" and notions of "optimal health" simply establish a broader marketplace of essentially healthy people for alternative products, among people who would be far better off health-wise concentrating their time and resources to proven measures, such as a better diet, keeping their weight down and getting more exercise.
Quality of life is also not aided in the slightest by being ultra obsessive about your health, stressing about it the way many alternative gurus want you to, so they can sell you more stuff. Read a good book, go for a walk, talk to someone, rather than spend time testing urine and saliva for no good reason, and then getting all upset and trying harder when inevitably the results are often not what you are told they should be by some very ignorant people. who cannot even decently explain why you should be doing so.
There are not even any valid theoretical grounds offered for the speculations made. It is possible that the acid production from excessive protein intake over a lifetime may have some small influence on the incidence of something like osteoporosis (a proper scientist would have at least offered THIS example of possible health benefits, instead of all the wellness crap) , but a good varied diet as generally recommended, or mainly vegetarian diet, would also deal with that. And you would not even have to buy pH strips and bother testing various bodily fluids
> > Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that > > acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have mentioned > > this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
> > Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change > > its acidity."
> > That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what we > > are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are > > talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been > > completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
> > He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow > > range."
> > That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are > > talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the > > alkaline end of that "narrow range."
> > Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem to > > conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the pH > > of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all > > within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the range > > which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we > > are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in order > > to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is > > bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
> > It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of > > your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your urine > > will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute > > degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good indicator > > of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
> > If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is as > > acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to > > eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level that > > will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your > > reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that > > your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," which > > is an unhealthy state to be in.
> > Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that > > normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - > > assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum health. > > Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. > > For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a diastolic > > BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are > > healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. Is > > your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that "very > > narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the > > middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin > > makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, but > > is deliberately trying to mislead.
> > "Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and symptoms > > is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of > > faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are > > unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the > > absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not > > simply a state borderlining death.
> > My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed > > "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden > > agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug > > industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the alternative > > health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would be > > fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and > > perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. It > > is not the place to find the truth.
> You don't have to care what Quackwatch says if you can support your claims.
> None of the usual alternaitve commentators observed that not a trace of > evidence offered any of the claims made in this so-called rebuttal. It > all devolves back to alternative medicine's preferred lifestyle pursuit of > vague, completely speculative ideals of bodily perfection and purity. The > made-up concept of "wellness" and notions of "optimal health" simply > establish a broader marketplace of essentially healthy people for > alternative products, among people who would be far better off health-wise > concentrating their time and resources to proven measures, such as a better > diet, keeping their weight down and getting more exercise.
> Quality of life is also not aided in the slightest by being ultra obsessive > about your health, stressing about it the way many alternative gurus want > you to, so they can sell you more stuff. Read a good book, go for a walk, > talk to someone, rather than spend time testing urine and saliva for no good > reason, and then getting all upset and trying harder when inevitably the > results are often not what you are told they should be by some very ignorant > people. who cannot even decently explain why you should be doing so.
> There are not even any valid theoretical grounds offered for the > speculations made. It is possible that the acid production from excessive > protein intake over a lifetime may have some small influence on the > incidence of something like osteoporosis (a proper scientist would have at > least offered THIS example of possible health benefits, instead of all the > wellness crap) , but a good varied diet as generally recommended, or mainly >vegetarian diet, would also deal with that. And you would not even have to >buy pH strips and bother testing various bodily fluids
>Peter Moran
Spoken like a true cut-um-up-surgeon. The following comment will soar over the moron's head: he prefers to treat metabolic diseases with a blade. He has no idea how utterly ignorant that makes him look.
The average person would understand that fixing one's metabolism by cutting the person open and removing things goes beyond barbarity. First, you have to take the victim's brain and lower it's function to a point where pain is not experienced, and do this without killing the person by deadening the brain too much. (The recovery process can take a year to recover from.)
Next, you cut them with your blade. Then, metabolically disturbed tissue is severed and removed, sometimes along with healthy tissue. Next, the inside of the victim's body is stitched up at the site that was cut. Finally, the skin is stuck with a sharp needle, sometimes repeatedly, and sewn together.
Meanwhile, the overall metabolism is not addressed. It's not even considered in any meaningful way. Yet almost every surgeon has an ego the size of his ass because he thinks he's doing something extraordinary.
> > > Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that > > > acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have mentioned > > > this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
> > > Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change > > > its acidity."
> > > That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what we > > > are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are > > > talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been > > > completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
> > > He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow > > > range."
> > > That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are > > > talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the > > > alkaline end of that "narrow range."
> > > Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem to > > > conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the pH > > > of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all > > > within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the range > > > which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we > > > are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in order > > > to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is > > > bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
> > > It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of > > > your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your urine > > > will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute > > > degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good indicator > > > of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
> > > If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is as > > > acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to > > > eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level that > > > will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your > > > reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that > > > your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," which > > > is an unhealthy state to be in.
> > > Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that > > > normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - > > > assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum health. > > > Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. > > > For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a diastolic > > > BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are > > > healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. Is > > > your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that "very > > > narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the > > > middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin > > > makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, but > > > is deliberately trying to mislead.
> > > "Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and symptoms > > > is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of > > > faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are > > > unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the > > > absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not > > > simply a state borderlining death.
> > > My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed > > > "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden > > > agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug > > > industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the alternative > > > health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would be > > > fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and > > > perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. It > > > is not the place to find the truth.
> > You don't have to care what Quackwatch says if you can support your claims.
> > None of the usual alternaitve commentators observed that not a trace of > > evidence offered any of the claims made in this so-called rebuttal. It > > all devolves back to alternative medicine's preferred lifestyle pursuit of > > vague, completely speculative ideals of bodily perfection and purity. The > > made-up concept of "wellness" and notions of "optimal health" simply > > establish a broader marketplace of essentially healthy people for > > alternative products, among people who would be far better off health-wise > > concentrating their time and resources to proven measures, such as a better > > diet, keeping their weight down and getting more exercise.
> > Quality of life is also not aided in the slightest by being ultra obsessive > > about your health, stressing about it the way many alternative gurus want > > you to, so they can sell you more stuff. Read a good book, go for a walk, > > talk to someone, rather than spend time testing urine and saliva for no good > > reason, and then getting all upset and trying harder when inevitably the > > results are often not what you are told they should be by some very ignorant > > people. who cannot even decently explain why you should be doing so.
> > There are not even any valid theoretical grounds offered for the > > speculations made. It is possible that the acid production from excessive > > protein intake over a lifetime may have some small influence on the > > incidence of something like osteoporosis (a proper scientist would have at > > least offered THIS example of possible health benefits, instead of all the > > wellness crap) , but a good varied diet as generally recommended, or mainly > >vegetarian diet, would also deal with that. And you would not even have to > >buy pH strips and bother testing various bodily fluids
> >Peter Moran
> Spoken like a true cut-um-up-surgeon. The following comment will soar > over the moron's head: he prefers to treat metabolic diseases with a > blade. He has no idea how utterly ignorant that makes him look.
> The average person would understand that fixing one's metabolism by > cutting the person open and removing things goes beyond barbarity. > First, you have to take the victim's brain and lower it's function to a > point where pain is not experienced, and do this without killing the > person by deadening the brain too much. (The recovery process can take > a year to recover from.)
> Next, you cut them with your blade. Then, metabolically disturbed > tissue is severed and removed, sometimes along with healthy tissue. > Next, the inside of the victim's body is stitched up at the site that > was cut. Finally, the skin is stuck with a sharp needle, sometimes > repeatedly, and sewn together.
> Meanwhile, the overall metabolism is not addressed. It's not even > considered in any meaningful way. Yet almost every surgeon has an ego > the size of his ass because he thinks he's doing something > extraordinary.
Gosh. You're really not happy that Peter pointed out that the article offered not a trace of evidence for any of the claims it made, are you?
>> My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed >> "quack busters."
Yeah, I'll bet it is. If people read quackwatch, they'd be far less inclined to accept the sort of blither that these "alternative" health sites are pushing -- nor would they be inclined to buy the products that so many such sites are also pushing.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. I used to think that spammers should be hanged, but I've changed my mind. They should be tortured first.
>> > > Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that >> > > acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have >> > > mentioned >> > > this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
>> > > Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change >> > > its acidity."
>> > > That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what >> > > we >> > > are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are >> > > talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been >> > > completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
>> > > He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very >> > > narrow >> > > range."
>> > > That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are >> > > talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the >> > > alkaline end of that "narrow range."
>> > > Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem >> > > to >> > > conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the pH >> > > of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all >> > > within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the range >> > > which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we >> > > are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in order >> > > to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is >> > > bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
>> > > It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of >> > > your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your urine >> > > will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute >> > > degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good >> > > indicator >> > > of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
>> > > If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is as >> > > acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to >> > > eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level that >> > > will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your >> > > reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that >> > > your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," >> > > which >> > > is an unhealthy state to be in.
>> > > Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that >> > > normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - >> > > assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum >> > > health. >> > > Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. >> > > For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a diastolic >> > > BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are >> > > healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. >> > > Is >> > > your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that "very >> > > narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the >> > > middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin >> > > makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, but >> > > is deliberately trying to mislead.
>> > > "Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and symptoms >> > > is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of >> > > faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are >> > > unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the >> > > absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not >> > > simply a state borderlining death.
>> > > My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed >> > > "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden >> > > agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug >> > > industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the alternative >> > > health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would >> > > be >> > > fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and >> > > perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. >> > > It >> > > is not the place to find the truth.
>> > You don't have to care what Quackwatch says if you can support your >> > claims.
>> > None of the usual alternaitve commentators observed that not a trace of >> > evidence offered any of the claims made in this so-called rebuttal. >> > It >> > all devolves back to alternative medicine's preferred lifestyle >> > pursuit of >> > vague, completely speculative ideals of bodily perfection and purity. >> > The >> > made-up concept of "wellness" and notions of "optimal health" simply >> > establish a broader marketplace of essentially healthy people for >> > alternative products, among people who would be far better off >> > health-wise >> > concentrating their time and resources to proven measures, such as a >> > better >> > diet, keeping their weight down and getting more exercise.
>> > Quality of life is also not aided in the slightest by being ultra >> > obsessive >> > about your health, stressing about it the way many alternative gurus >> > want >> > you to, so they can sell you more stuff. Read a good book, go for a >> > walk, >> > talk to someone, rather than spend time testing urine and saliva for no >> > good >> > reason, and then getting all upset and trying harder when inevitably >> > the >> > results are often not what you are told they should be by some very >> > ignorant >> > people. who cannot even decently explain why you should be doing so.
>> > There are not even any valid theoretical grounds offered for the >> > speculations made. It is possible that the acid production from >> > excessive >> > protein intake over a lifetime may have some small influence on the >> > incidence of something like osteoporosis (a proper scientist would have >> > at >> > least offered THIS example of possible health benefits, instead of all >> > the >> > wellness crap) , but a good varied diet as generally recommended, or >> > mainly >> >vegetarian diet, would also deal with that. And you would not even have >> >to >> >buy pH strips and bother testing various bodily fluids
>> >Peter Moran
>> Spoken like a true cut-um-up-surgeon. The following comment will soar >> over the moron's head: he prefers to treat metabolic diseases with a >> blade. He has no idea how utterly ignorant that makes him look.
>> The average person would understand that fixing one's metabolism by >> cutting the person open and removing things goes beyond barbarity. >> First, you have to take the victim's brain and lower it's function to a >> point where pain is not experienced, and do this without killing the >> person by deadening the brain too much. (The recovery process can take >> a year to recover from.)
>> Next, you cut them with your blade. Then, metabolically disturbed >> tissue is severed and removed, sometimes along with healthy tissue. >> Next, the inside of the victim's body is stitched up at the site that >> was cut. Finally, the skin is stuck with a sharp needle, sometimes >> repeatedly, and sewn together.
>> Meanwhile, the overall metabolism is not addressed. It's not even >> considered in any meaningful way. Yet almost every surgeon has an ego >> the size of his ass because he thinks he's doing something >> extraordinary.
> Gosh. You're really not happy that Peter pointed out that the article > offered not a trace of evidence for any of the claims it made, are you?
Sheesh. Mirkin, Moran, now cathyb. Remind anyone of Larry, Moe and Curly? Or dumb, dumber, dumber still, and gettin' dumberer all the time. Pet rocks are absolute geniuses when compared to those stooges. Heck, Larry, Moe and Curly got way more sense than those clowns. Does Barnum and Bailey know about them? Quick, send them the fools. The circus is where they belong. They've missed their life's calling here.
But Seriously. There's been an 1/2 hours silence in this corner folks after never reading so much idiotic tripe in my life as I've read from Mirkin and Moran tonight! Really.....the sheer stupidity renders one speechless! Unbelievable! One finds it hard to make an adequate rebuttal to such magnificent lame inanity! I've never read nothing so stupid and comical since maybe Don Quixote and the Man of La Mancha. WOW! What will they write next for an encore I wonder? It's going to be hard to surpass this.
>>> > > Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that >>> > > acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have >>> > > mentioned >>> > > this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
>>> > > Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can >>> > > change >>> > > its acidity."
>>> > > That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what >>> > > we >>> > > are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are >>> > > talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been >>> > > completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
>>> > > He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very >>> > > narrow >>> > > range."
>>> > > That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are >>> > > talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the >>> > > alkaline end of that "narrow range."
>>> > > Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem >>> > > to >>> > > conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the >>> > > pH >>> > > of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all >>> > > within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the >>> > > range >>> > > which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we >>> > > are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in order >>> > > to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is >>> > > bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
>>> > > It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of >>> > > your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your urine >>> > > will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute >>> > > degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good >>> > > indicator >>> > > of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
>>> > > If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is as >>> > > acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to >>> > > eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level that >>> > > will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your >>> > > reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that >>> > > your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," >>> > > which >>> > > is an unhealthy state to be in.
>>> > > Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that >>> > > normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - >>> > > assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum >>> > > health. >>> > > Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. >>> > > For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a diastolic >>> > > BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are >>> > > healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. >>> > > Is >>> > > your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that "very >>> > > narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the >>> > > middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin >>> > > makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, but >>> > > is deliberately trying to mislead.
>>> > > "Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and symptoms >>> > > is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of >>> > > faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are >>> > > unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the >>> > > absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not >>> > > simply a state borderlining death.
>>> > > My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other >>> > > self-proclaimed >>> > > "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden >>> > > agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug >>> > > industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the >>> > > alternative >>> > > health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would >>> > > be >>> > > fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and >>> > > perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. >>> > > It >>> > > is not the place to find the truth.
>>> > You don't have to care what Quackwatch says if you can support your >>> > claims.
>>> > None of the usual alternaitve commentators observed that not a trace >>> > of >>> > evidence offered any of the claims made in this so-called rebuttal. >>> > It >>> > all devolves back to alternative medicine's preferred lifestyle >>> > pursuit of >>> > vague, completely speculative ideals of bodily perfection and purity. >>> > The >>> > made-up concept of "wellness" and notions of "optimal health" simply >>> > establish a broader marketplace of essentially healthy people for >>> > alternative products, among people who would be far better off >>> > health-wise >>> > concentrating their time and resources to proven measures, such as a >>> > better >>> > diet, keeping their weight down and getting more exercise.
>>> > Quality of life is also not aided in the slightest by being ultra >>> > obsessive >>> > about your health, stressing about it the way many alternative gurus >>> > want >>> > you to, so they can sell you more stuff. Read a good book, go for a >>> > walk, >>> > talk to someone, rather than spend time testing urine and saliva for >>> > no good >>> > reason, and then getting all upset and trying harder when inevitably >>> > the >>> > results are often not what you are told they should be by some very >>> > ignorant >>> > people. who cannot even decently explain why you should be doing so.
>>> > There are not even any valid theoretical grounds offered for the >>> > speculations made. It is possible that the acid production from >>> > excessive >>> > protein intake over a lifetime may have some small influence on the >>> > incidence of something like osteoporosis (a proper scientist would >>> > have at >>> > least offered THIS example of possible health benefits, instead of >>> > all the >>> > wellness crap) , but a good varied diet as generally recommended, or >>> > mainly >>> >vegetarian diet, would also deal with that. And you would not even have >>> >to >>> >buy pH strips and bother testing various bodily fluids
>>> >Peter Moran
>>> Spoken like a true cut-um-up-surgeon. The following comment will soar >>> over the moron's head: he prefers to treat metabolic diseases with a >>> blade. He has no idea how utterly ignorant that makes him look.
>>> The average person would understand that fixing one's metabolism by >>> cutting the person open and removing things goes beyond barbarity. >>> First, you have to take the victim's brain and lower it's function to a >>> point where pain is not experienced, and do this without killing the >>> person by deadening the brain too much. (The recovery process can take >>> a year to recover from.)
>>> Next, you cut them with your blade. Then, metabolically disturbed >>> tissue is severed and removed, sometimes along with healthy tissue. >>> Next, the inside of the victim's body is stitched up at the site that >>> was cut. Finally, the skin is stuck with a sharp needle, sometimes >>> repeatedly, and sewn together.
>>> Meanwhile, the overall metabolism is not addressed. It's not even >>> considered in any meaningful way. Yet almost every surgeon has an ego >>> the size of his ass because he thinks he's doing something >>> extraordinary.
>> Gosh. You're really not happy that Peter pointed out that the article >> offered not a trace of evidence for any of the claims it made, are you?
> Sheesh. Mirkin, Moran, now cathyb. Remind anyone of Larry, Moe and Curly? > Or dumb, dumber, dumber still, and gettin' dumberer all the time. Pet > rocks are absolute geniuses when compared to those stooges. Heck, Larry, > Moe and Curly got way more sense than those clowns. Does Barnum and Bailey > know about them? Quick, send them the fools. The circus is where they > belong. They've missed their life's calling here.
> But Seriously. There's been an 1/2 hours silence in this corner folks > after never reading so much idiotic tripe in my life as I've read from > Mirkin and Moran tonight! Really.....the sheer stupidity renders one > speechless! Unbelievable! One finds it hard to make an adequate rebuttal > to such magnificent lame inanity! I've never read nothing so stupid and > comical since maybe Don Quixote and the Man of La Mancha. WOW! What will > they write next for an encore I wonder? It's going to be hard to surpass > this.
Well, this is sad. All I have said is that there is no evidence, and no valid theoretical basis for pH balancing as practiced by alternative medicine. I say it again..
>>> My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed >>> "quack busters."
> Yeah, I'll bet it is. If people read quackwatch, they'd be far less > inclined to accept the sort of blither that these "alternative" health > sites are pushing -- nor would they be inclined to buy the products > that so many such sites are also pushing.
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > I used to think that spammers should be hanged, but I've > changed my mind. They should be tortured first.
Now, I have a killfile, and it has quite a few people in it, though I think the only ones who are frequent posters are Jan Drew, Ilena, Andrew Chung, Joel Eichen, and Gastaldo. Killfiles are quite useful if you employ them to get rid of people who have nothing more to contribute once you've read them a few times. Not to mention removing trolls, spammers, and the like.
Guess I'll just have to limp by with what I've got. Filtering Jan and Ilena is a good start; beyond that, I just tend to skip by most articles that start out with a first line that shows they're a reply to Jan or Ilena.
Anyway, someone has a page about Ilena? She's in my killfile so if she was ranting about that, I missed it. If someone does have a page about her, I'm in a position to supply a couple of unflattering images of her.
>>>> > > Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that >>>> > > acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have >>>> > > mentioned >>>> > > this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
>>>> > > Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can >>>> > > change >>>> > > its acidity."
>>>> > > That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what >>>> > > we >>>> > > are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are >>>> > > talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been >>>> > > completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
>>>> > > He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very >>>> > > narrow >>>> > > range."
>>>> > > That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are >>>> > > talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the >>>> > > alkaline end of that "narrow range."
>>>> > > Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem >>>> > > to >>>> > > conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the >>>> > > pH >>>> > > of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all >>>> > > within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the >>>> > > range >>>> > > which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we >>>> > > are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in >>>> > > order >>>> > > to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is >>>> > > bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
>>>> > > It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of >>>> > > your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your >>>> > > urine >>>> > > will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute >>>> > > degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good >>>> > > indicator >>>> > > of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
>>>> > > If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is >>>> > > as >>>> > > acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to >>>> > > eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level >>>> > > that >>>> > > will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your >>>> > > reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that >>>> > > your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," >>>> > > which >>>> > > is an unhealthy state to be in.
>>>> > > Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that >>>> > > normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - >>>> > > assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum >>>> > > health. >>>> > > Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. >>>> > > For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a >>>> > > diastolic >>>> > > BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are >>>> > > healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. >>>> > > Is >>>> > > your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that >>>> > > "very >>>> > > narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the >>>> > > middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin >>>> > > makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, >>>> > > but >>>> > > is deliberately trying to mislead.
>>>> > > "Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and >>>> > > symptoms >>>> > > is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of >>>> > > faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are >>>> > > unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the >>>> > > absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not >>>> > > simply a state borderlining death.
>>>> > > My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other >>>> > > self-proclaimed >>>> > > "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden >>>> > > agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug >>>> > > industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the >>>> > > alternative >>>> > > health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would >>>> > > be >>>> > > fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and >>>> > > perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. >>>> > > It >>>> > > is not the place to find the truth.
>>>> > You don't have to care what Quackwatch says if you can support your >>>> > claims.
>>>> > None of the usual alternaitve commentators observed that not a trace >>>> > of >>>> > evidence offered any of the claims made in this so-called rebuttal. >>>> > It >>>> > all devolves back to alternative medicine's preferred lifestyle >>>> > pursuit of >>>> > vague, completely speculative ideals of bodily perfection and purity. >>>> > The >>>> > made-up concept of "wellness" and notions of "optimal health" simply >>>> > establish a broader marketplace of essentially healthy people for >>>> > alternative products, among people who would be far better off >>>> > health-wise >>>> > concentrating their time and resources to proven measures, such as a >>>> > better >>>> > diet, keeping their weight down and getting more exercise.
>>>> > Quality of life is also not aided in the slightest by being ultra >>>> > obsessive >>>> > about your health, stressing about it the way many alternative gurus >>>> > want >>>> > you to, so they can sell you more stuff. Read a good book, go for a >>>> > walk, >>>> > talk to someone, rather than spend time testing urine and saliva for >>>> > no good >>>> > reason, and then getting all upset and trying harder when inevitably >>>> > the >>>> > results are often not what you are told they should be by some very >>>> > ignorant >>>> > people. who cannot even decently explain why you should be doing so.
>>>> > There are not even any valid theoretical grounds offered for the >>>> > speculations made. It is possible that the acid production from >>>> > excessive >>>> > protein intake over a lifetime may have some small influence on the >>>> > incidence of something like osteoporosis (a proper scientist would >>>> > have at >>>> > least offered THIS example of possible health benefits, instead of >>>> > all the >>>> > wellness crap) , but a good varied diet as generally recommended, or >>>> > mainly >>>> >vegetarian diet, would also deal with that. And you would not even >>>> >have to >>>> >buy pH strips and bother testing various bodily fluids
>>>> >Peter Moran
>>>> Spoken like a true cut-um-up-surgeon. The following comment will soar >>>> over the moron's head: he prefers to treat metabolic diseases with a >>>> blade. He has no idea how utterly ignorant that makes him look.
>>>> The average person would understand that fixing one's metabolism by >>>> cutting the person open and removing things goes beyond barbarity. >>>> First, you have to take the victim's brain and lower it's function to a >>>> point where pain is not experienced, and do this without killing the >>>> person by deadening the brain too much. (The recovery process can take >>>> a year to recover from.)
>>>> Next, you cut them with your blade. Then, metabolically disturbed >>>> tissue is severed and removed, sometimes along with healthy tissue. >>>> Next, the inside of the victim's body is stitched up at the site that >>>> was cut. Finally, the skin is stuck with a sharp needle, sometimes >>>> repeatedly, and sewn together.
>>>> Meanwhile, the overall metabolism is not addressed. It's not even >>>> considered in any meaningful way. Yet almost every surgeon has an ego >>>> the size of his ass because he thinks he's doing something >>>> extraordinary.
>>> Gosh. You're really not happy that Peter pointed out that the article >>> offered not a trace of evidence for any of the claims it made, are you?
>> Sheesh. Mirkin, Moran, now cathyb. Remind anyone of Larry, Moe and Curly? >> Or dumb, dumber, dumber still, and gettin' dumberer all the time. Pet >> rocks are absolute geniuses when compared to those stooges. Heck, Larry, >> Moe and Curly got way more sense than those clowns. Does Barnum and >> Bailey know about them? Quick, send them the fools. The circus is where >> they belong. They've missed their life's calling here.
>> But Seriously. There's been an 1/2 hours silence in this corner folks >> after never reading so much idiotic tripe in my life as I've read from >> Mirkin and Moran tonight! Really.....the sheer stupidity renders one >> speechless! Unbelievable! One finds it hard to make an adequate rebuttal >> to such magnificent lame inanity! I've never read nothing so stupid and >> comical since maybe Don Quixote and the Man of La Mancha. WOW! What will >> they write next for an encore I wonder? It's going to be hard to surpass >> this.
> Well, this is sad. All I have said is that there is no evidence, and no > valid theoretical basis for pH balancing as practiced by alternative > medicine. I say it again..
> >>> Spoken like a true cut-um-up-surgeon. The following comment will soar > >>> over the moron's head: he prefers to treat metabolic diseases with a > >>> blade. He has no idea how utterly ignorant that makes him look.
> >>> The average person would understand that fixing one's metabolism by > >>> cutting the person open and removing things goes beyond barbarity. > >>> First, you have to take the victim's brain and lower it's function to a > >>> point where pain is not experienced, and do this without killing the > >>> person by deadening the brain too much. (The recovery process can take > >>> a year to recover from.)
> >>> Next, you cut them with your blade. Then, metabolically disturbed > >>> tissue is severed and removed, sometimes along with healthy tissue. > >>> Next, the inside of the victim's body is stitched up at the site that > >>> was cut. Finally, the skin is stuck with a sharp needle, sometimes > >>> repeatedly, and sewn together.
> >>> Meanwhile, the overall metabolism is not addressed. It's not even > >>> considered in any meaningful way. Yet almost every surgeon has an ego > >>> the size of his ass because he thinks he's doing something > >>> extraordinary.
> >> Gosh. You're really not happy that Peter pointed out that the article > >> offered not a trace of evidence for any of the claims it made, are you?
> > Sheesh. Mirkin, Moran, now cathyb. Remind anyone of Larry, Moe and Curly? > > Or dumb, dumber, dumber still, and gettin' dumberer all the time. Pet > > rocks are absolute geniuses when compared to those stooges. Heck, Larry, > > Moe and Curly got way more sense than those clowns. Does Barnum and Bailey > > know about them? Quick, send them the fools. The circus is where they > > belong. They've missed their life's calling here.
> > But Seriously. There's been an 1/2 hours silence in this corner folks > > after never reading so much idiotic tripe in my life as I've read from > > Mirkin and Moran tonight! Really.....the sheer stupidity renders one > > speechless! Unbelievable! One finds it hard to make an adequate rebuttal > > to such magnificent lame inanity! I've never read nothing so stupid and > > comical since maybe Don Quixote and the Man of La Mancha. WOW! What will > > they write next for an encore I wonder? It's going to be hard to surpass > > this.
> Well, this is sad. All I have said is that there is no evidence, and no > valid theoretical basis for pH balancing as practiced by alternative > medicine. I say it again..
> Peter Moran
Allow me to correct Moran's error. What he meant to say is that there is no proof that bypass surgery increases one's lifespan....that little fact hasn't discouraged him and his crowd from supporting
Come to think of it, how could bypass surgery save lives?? Arterial blockage is a metabolic disease, and we've got about 75,000 miles of blood vessels in our body. Cutting out six inches of them with your blade is not likely to fix the problem.
Meanwhile, all that cutting and cracking of ribs could kill the patient on the table or within 24 hours... it happens every day.
And then there is the condition known as "bypass brain." That's where brain cells are killed due to the lack of oxygen to the brain during a critical part of the surgery.
And let's not forget the long term effect of all that anesthesia for several hours.
Moral of the story: Moran doesn't care about evidence when it doesn't suit his prejudices. As for his desire for a "theoretical basis" for bypass surgery...it must be one helluva theory that argues that severing six inches of arteries would be beneficial in a disease that affects 75,000 miles.
> > > > Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that > > > > acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have mentioned > > > > this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
> > > > Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change > > > > its acidity."
> > > > That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what we > > > > are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are > > > > talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been > > > > completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
> > > > He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow > > > > range."
> > > > That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are > > > > talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the > > > > alkaline end of that "narrow range."
> > > > Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem to > > > > conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the pH > > > > of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all > > > > within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the range > > > > which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we > > > > are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in order > > > > to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is > > > > bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
> > > > It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of > > > > your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your urine > > > > will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute > > > > degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good indicator > > > > of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
> > > > If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is as > > > > acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to > > > > eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level that > > > > will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your > > > > reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that > > > > your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," which > > > > is an unhealthy state to be in.
> > > > Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that > > > > normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - > > > > assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum health. > > > > Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. > > > > For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a diastolic > > > > BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are > > > > healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. Is > > > > your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that "very > > > > narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the > > > > middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin > > > > makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, but > > > > is deliberately trying to mislead.
> > > > "Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and symptoms > > > > is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of > > > > faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are > > > > unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the > > > > absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not > > > > simply a state borderlining death.
> > > > My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed > > > > "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden > > > > agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug > > > > industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the alternative > > > > health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would be > > > > fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and > > > > perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. It > > > > is not the place to find the truth.
> > > You don't have to care what Quackwatch says if you can support your claims.
> > > None of the usual alternaitve commentators observed that not a trace of > > > evidence offered any of the claims made in this so-called rebuttal. It > > > all devolves back to alternative medicine's preferred lifestyle pursuit of > > > vague, completely speculative ideals of bodily perfection and purity. The > > > made-up concept of "wellness" and notions of "optimal health" simply > > > establish a broader marketplace of essentially healthy people for > > > alternative products, among people who would be far better off health-wise > > > concentrating their time and resources to proven measures, such as a better > > > diet, keeping their weight down and getting more exercise.
> > > Quality of life is also not aided in the slightest by being ultra obsessive > > > about your health, stressing about it the way many alternative gurus want > > > you to, so they can sell you more stuff. Read a good book, go for a walk, > > > talk to someone, rather than spend time testing urine and saliva for no good > > > reason, and then getting all upset and trying harder when inevitably the > > > results are often not what you are told they should be by some very ignorant > > > people. who cannot even decently explain why you should be doing so.
> > > There are not even any valid theoretical grounds offered for the > > > speculations made. It is possible that the acid production from excessive > > > protein intake over a lifetime may have some small influence on the > > > incidence of something like osteoporosis (a proper scientist would have at > > > least offered THIS example of possible health benefits, instead of all the > > > wellness crap) , but a good varied diet as generally recommended, or mainly > > >vegetarian diet, would also deal with that. And you would not even have to > > >buy pH strips and bother testing various bodily fluids
> > >Peter Moran
> > Spoken like a true cut-um-up-surgeon. The following comment will soar > > over the moron's head: he prefers to treat metabolic diseases with a > > blade. He has no idea how utterly ignorant that makes him look.
> > The average person would understand that fixing one's metabolism by > > cutting the person open and removing things goes beyond barbarity. > > First, you have to take the victim's brain and lower it's function to a > > point where pain is not experienced, and do this without killing the > > person by deadening the brain too much. (The recovery process can take > > a year to recover from.)
> > Next, you cut them with your blade. Then, metabolically disturbed > > tissue is severed and removed, sometimes along with healthy tissue. > > Next, the inside of the victim's body is stitched up at the site that > > was cut. Finally, the skin is stuck with a sharp needle, sometimes > > repeatedly, and sewn together.
> > Meanwhile, the overall metabolism is not addressed. It's not even > > considered in any meaningful way. Yet almost every surgeon has an ego > > the size of his ass because he thinks he's doing something > > extraordinary.
> Gosh. You're really not happy that Peter pointed out that the article > offered not a trace of evidence for any of the claims it made, are you?
Gee willikers, do you really want me to point out the absence of reading skills you've just adduced?
The original article was in response to Gabe Mirkins' total misunderstanding of what the pH argument is all about. Mirkin ignorantly focused on stomach acid as the sole basis for determining whether adjusting one's pH is a valid method for healing.
The response merely lays out how far off base Mirkin was.
It's easy to criticize an article for what isn't in it. For instance, one could criticize the Gettsyburg Address because it makes no mention of the authors of the Declaration of Independence. Yet the Gettysburg Address stands on its own merits. Likewise, the article that kicked off this thread stands on its own merits.
It takes more skill to address what is written...it takes no skill to argue for a different article.
> >> My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed > >> "quack busters."
> Yeah, I'll bet it is. If people read quackwatch, they'd be far less > inclined to accept the sort of blither that these "alternative" health > sites are pushing -- nor would they be inclined to buy the products > that so many such sites are also pushing.
Incredibly (and surely by chance) David begins to raise an excellent point. Those who respond to fringe claims by shady sellers (mainly dealing in cheap offshore herbals) are the same people who fall for the false claims of the drug makers. Big Pharma is upset because it wants the "magic pill" crowd all to itself. If it can get FDA to regulate the fringe sellers out of existence, it has the added bonus of ensnaring reputable U.S. sellers, many of whom are either publicly traded, comply with GMP standards, or provide material assays to customers on request. If the real concern was safety, Big Pharma would have imploded and vanished in a puff of smoke.
Ilena Rose wrote: > Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change > its acidity."
If Dr. Mirkin actually said this, then he didn't study Shelton's explanations of food combining rules carefully. Shelton did not say that food changes the acidity of the stomach.
The theory of food combining rules is that the stomach makes digestive juices appropriate for the food, and that in some cases there will be a conflict, so certain combinations of foods should be avoided for maximum efficiency of digestion.
Food does not act on the stomach. The stomach acts on food.
BTW, many years ago I read Shelton's little book about food combining made simple. Then I went to the store and bought foods to violate as many food combining rules as possible in one meal. The result was a major stomach upset. I did not repeat that experiment.
> > Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that > > acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have mentioned > > this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
> > Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change > > its acidity."
> > That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what we > > are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are > > talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been > > completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
> > He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow > > range."
> > That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are > > talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the > > alkaline end of that "narrow range."
> > Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem to > > conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the pH > > of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all > > within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the range > > which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we > > are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in order > > to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is > > bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
> > It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of > > your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your urine > > will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute > > degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good indicator > > of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
> > If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is as > > acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to > > eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level that > > will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your > > reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that > > your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," which > > is an unhealthy state to be in.
> > Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that > > normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - > > assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum health. > > Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. > > For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a diastolic > > BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are > > healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. Is > > your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that "very > > narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the > > middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin > > makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, but > > is deliberately trying to mislead.
> > "Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and symptoms > > is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of > > faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are > > unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the > > absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not > > simply a state borderlining death.
> > My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed > > "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden > > agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug > > industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the alternative > > health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would be > > fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and > > perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. It > > is not the place to find the truth.
> Thanks for posting. This points out the same tactics used by our > friends from ratbags whose allegiance to "quackwatch" are proven by > links to them on their website.
> PeterB
Why do you believe this conspiracy theorist over Dr. Mirkin? Are you a doctor?
>>> Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that >>> acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have mentioned >>> this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
>>> Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change >>> its acidity."
>>> That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what we >>> are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are >>> talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been >>> completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
>>> He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow >>> range."
>>> That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are >>> talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the >>> alkaline end of that "narrow range."
>>> Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem to >>> conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the pH >>> of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all >>> within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the range >>> which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we >>> are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in order >>> to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is >>> bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
>>> It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of >>> your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your urine >>> will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute >>> degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good indicator >>> of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
>>> If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is as >>> acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to >>> eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level that >>> will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your >>> reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that >>> your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," which >>> is an unhealthy state to be in.
>>> Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that >>> normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - >>> assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum health. >>> Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. >>> For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a diastolic >>> BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are >>> healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. Is >>> your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that "very >>> narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the >>> middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin >>> makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, but >>> is deliberately trying to mislead.
>>> "Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and symptoms >>> is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of >>> faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are >>> unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the >>> absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not >>> simply a state borderlining death.
>>> My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed >>> "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden >>> agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug >>> industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the alternative >>> health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would be >>> fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and >>> perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. It >>> is not the place to find the truth. >> Thanks for posting. This points out the same tactics used by our >> friends from ratbags whose allegiance to "quackwatch" are proven by >> links to them on their website.
>> PeterB
> Why do you believe this conspiracy theorist over Dr. Mirkin? Are you a > doctor?
Petey is of the school where facts are always outweighed by wacko conspiracy crap.
>>>> Dr. Mirkin of "Quackwatch" wrote an article claiming that >>>> acid/alkaline imbalance is quackery. Many of my readers have mentioned >>>> this article so I felt it necessary to provide this brief rebuttal.
>>>> Dr. Mirkin stated, "Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change >>>> its acidity."
>>>> That statement indicates to me that he has no understanding of what we >>>> are talking about. Stomach acid has nothing to do with it. We are >>>> talking about the pH of the ash of the food after it has been >>>> completely metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream.
>>>> He said, "Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow >>>> range."
>>>> That is correct and that "very narrow range" is exactly what we are >>>> talking about - whether your blood is toward the acid end or the >>>> alkaline end of that "narrow range."
>>>> Dr. Mirkin and others who seem to completely miss the boat all seem to >>>> conveniently assume that we are talking about large changes in the pH >>>> of the body fluids. We are talking about minute changes, but all >>>> within that range they call "normal." (Which essentially is the range >>>> which is necessary to prevent death.) But most importantly, what we >>>> are talking about is the stress put on your body's reserves in order >>>> to MAINTAIN the pH within that narrow range, especially when it is >>>> bombarded continuously by a high acid-forming diet.
>>>> It is important to remember that we are not claiming that the pH of >>>> your urine is the same as the pH of your blood. The pH of your urine >>>> will vary widely, while the pH of the blood will vary in minute >>>> degrees. But nevertheless the pH of the urine is a very good indicator >>>> of what is going on in the body fluids. It is an indicator only.
>>>> If the urine is highly acid, we are not saying that your blood is as >>>> acid as your urine, we are saying that your body is having to >>>> eliminate a lot of acids in order to maintain the pH at a level that >>>> will sustain life. This not only places a lot of stress on your >>>> reserves (your calcium reserves for one) but it also indicates that >>>> your body fluids are toward the acid end of that "narrow range," which >>>> is an unhealthy state to be in.
>>>> Dr. Mirkin assumes that as long as your body fluids are within that >>>> normal range everything is fine. This is a common medical problem - >>>> assuming that lack of death and disease is the same as optimum health. >>>> Health is not all or nothing. There are varying degrees of healthy. >>>> For example, doctors might define high blood pressure as a diastolic >>>> BP greater than 90. So if you are 89, they will say that you are >>>> healthy. But is a BP of 89 as healthy as a BP of 80? Of course not. Is >>>> your body pH as healthy when it is toward the acid end of that "very >>>> narrow range" as it is when it is at the optimum point within the >>>> middle of that "very narrow range"? Of course not. But Dr. Mirkin >>>> makes the assumption that it is. I believe that he knows better, but >>>> is deliberately trying to mislead.
>>>> "Quackwatch" always assume that lack of obvious disease and symptoms >>>> is synonymous with optimal health. They constantly use this kind of >>>> faulty logic as an excuse to claim that alternative therapies are >>>> unnecessary. But we know the truth: That health means more than the >>>> absence of disease. Health is an optimal state of well being, not >>>> simply a state borderlining death.
>>>> My advice is to stay away from "quackwatch" and other self-proclaimed >>>> "quack busters." My experience is that they always have a hidden >>>> agenda, notably protecting the financial interests of the drug >>>> industry by casting aspersions on their competition - the alternative >>>> health care industry. If they would stick with the truth that would be >>>> fine. But they are constantly misrepresenting the facts and >>>> perpetuating outright lies in order to further their hidden agenda. It >>>> is not the place to find the truth. >>> Thanks for posting. This points out the same tactics used by our >>> friends from ratbags whose allegiance to "quackwatch" are proven by >>> links to them on their website.
>>> PeterB
>> Why do you believe this conspiracy theorist over Dr. Mirkin? Are you a >> doctor?
> Petey is of the school where facts are always outweighed by wacko > conspiracy crap.
Robert wrote: > Why do you believe this conspiracy theorist over Dr. Mirkin? Are you a > doctor?
> Robert
You don't need to be a doctor to see that some of the claims in that article are totally insane. Mark Thorson kindly provided a link to the quackwatch page containing the article. It's here:
"You should not believe that it matters whether foods are acidic or alkaline, because no foods change the acidity of anything in your body except your urine."
Good golly! No doctor should display ignorance such as this. What about saliva? What about lymph fluid? What about mucous? The body has several amazing mechanisms designed to maintain blood pH. If blood pH shifts only a small percent, death is a possibility. Other body fluids will shift pH long before the blood. Urine is just one of those fluids.
"Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change its acidity."
Oh brother! One word... "Antacids." Obviously antacids aren't designed to be a food, but many of them are made from calcium carbonate. Foods that have been "calcium enriched" are often done so using calcium carbonate. Furthermore, anyone that has taken a high school chemistry class knows that you can't maintain a low pH when you keep adding alkaline things to it. This statement goes beyond ignorance. I'm really glad quackwatch has crap like this on its site. The pH of stomach acid is around 1. Search the internet and you can find measured pH levels of stomach acid ranging from 1 to as high as 5 (maybe higher, but 5 is the highest I've found.) Obviously *something* is causing that pH shift.
And just so you don't think I'm making this up, here's a link: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio115/pepsin.htm "The presence of food dilutes the hydrochloric acid, so stomach pH is a little higher when food is present, stimulating the secretion of more gastric juice."
This also brings up another issue. As we age, many people begin to lose the ability to produce adequate amounts of hydrochloric acid. Inadequate hydrochloric acid production is a common cause of indigestion. Surely the good doctor would have learned at least SOMETHING about indigestion in school.
Then Dr. Mirkin says: "An entire bottle of calcium pills or antacids would not change the acidity of your stomach for more than a few minutes."
To which I must reply *prove it.*
The article goes on (and on) to talk some more about blood pH and how the body must maintain a proper blood pH. At least he got that part right. However, Dr. Mirkin seems know little of the lymphatic system... and apparently every other fluid in the body except urine. Fitting in a way.
Now, let's get something straight. I'm not advocating eating a certain food because of its pH. Rather, it's what that food will do to your body's pH levels that's more important. As I posted recently, an orange has an acid pH level, but the minerals that are left over after digesting the orange (the ash) are alkaline. Eat too many oranges and your body's various fluids will begin to shift to an alkaline state. That's what happens to a fluid when you continue to add alkaline minerals to it.
So basically, if you've read the above referenced page and you use Dr. Mirkin, I'd advise you to find a new doctor. He's greatly misinformed on what most would consider a very elementary issue.
|
