Talk:Kevin Trudeau/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Drug company Stooges Beware

I cant believe there is even a debate here. Dentists are still putting mucury fillings in childrens mouths. Ask your dentist if he or his family has any mercury fillings in thier mouths(he knows the danger). But he will have no problem putting them in your childs mouth. Thats the kind of world we live in. & thats what doctors think of your children! Thier wallet over your health anyday.

I’m going to continue to remove the reference on his bio line that he is a convicted criminal. Reason being that there are many famous people that are convicted criminals but that fact is not included in their bio line. Half of Hollywood has a charge for one thing or another & I don’t see any of you rushing to make that fact know in the 1st line of their Bio. Larry King is a good example of this. He is in the public face nightly, & he is also a convicted of a crime. Why don’t you brave drug company stooges go over to that Wiki piece & put that in his 1st line. Not that brave huh...I thought so.(more like your not paid to do whats right, just paid to smear & plant disinformation)

He did the crime & did his time. I cannot say the same for Big Bizz CEOs. & since you like to hide your sorry attacks behind what your term as fact & so called majority opinion...FACT!!!! The US has paid out 1.1 Billion in damages to children hurt by vaccines(most brain damaged for life)....FACT!!!! Has a single doctor seen jail time from the Tuskegee experiment?(Doctors watched people die & did nothing) Nobody is paying for those crimes & CEOs are dancing all the way to the bank. I could fill this whole page with FACTS!!!...As long as Paid Big Pharma mercenaries haunt this wiki page. I`m going to clean house.

Someone’s crime history is relevant. & should be included. But to use this as a smear tactic in the 1st line of someone’s Bio, is low even for big pharma lackeys(This Wiki piece is infested with them).

The ghost of JFK

72.61.58.28, aka Spring melt

There is an on-going controversy into the amalgam fillings to which you are referring. Dentist will often times ask as to which type of filling you prefer. As to whether or not a dentists children have such filling is irrelavent. Most offer various types of fillings for cost reasons (ie a patient's insurance may only cover certain types), or for others. Porcelain fillings are known to be hard brittle, cause wear on opposing teeth and are not recommended for molars. Glass-ionomer cement fillings contain flouride which Trudeau blasts too.

Kevin Trudeau is a convicted FELON. This point is meant to serve in later reading regarding his larcency convictions and run-ins which various government agencies. Yes there are many celebrities with criminal convictions. Felony convictions due appear in bios though. Also what's this about paid to smear? Article contrinbutions are made by volunteers. You even mentioned that you would remove the references to his conviction yourself (a fact which I am not entirely opposed to as the second paragraph discusses this fact). If I am being paid by Wikipedia, they must be mailing my check to the wrong house. This is begining to read less like a worthwhile rant and more like baseless accusations with information pulled from one's rear. I have to question whether you are on Trudeau's payroll. Aarlin81 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

FACT...Many "doctors" pushing natural remedies have no medical training what-so-ever

FACT...Most receive credentials from non-accredited instituions or institutions which do not exist

FACT...Numerous natural remedy pushers flee the country upon learning of a patient's death

FACT...Clinicians will often times fail to properly keep records to avoid connection to a death

FACT...New clinics pop up all the time in foreign countries ran by individuals fleeing prosecution

FACT...While operating outside of the US, these scam artisits often employ marketing agencies in the US to push products

There's a whole lot more I could write. The scam artists knowingly con people in much the same way as the US governement agencies have with little regard for their well-being. The major difference is that these are often time individuals or small groups charging astronomical fees for little to no real treatment. This means fewer people for which to split the take. You can't demonize or villanize one group while forgetting the other. That's just plain silly.

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study ran from 1932-1972. How many companies had CEOs in 1932? Where was the profit to be made from a denial of an actual treatment?

Since your intrested in facts. Ill tell you about something that happend to my family that finaly got me to see the cold reality of the Drug Bizz.

My father sufferd from the Gout. His foot ballooned up & it looked like someone had beaten it black & blue with a baseball bat. He was seeing a doctor for it & he got from the doctor medication for the pain & A LIST OF FOODS THAT HE SHOULD NOT EAT. As the foods on that list would make his condition worse. Notice the list was of things he should not eat, not of foods that he should eat to make his condition better. Big pharma does not want us to know food can be a drug also. & healing you at the start would mean no long term sales painkillers to my father.

So after seeing my father in pain I decided to do some research online about Gout. I read up & leaned a lot about this affliction. I went back to see my father & tested his PH level. It was very low. That night my father & I ate high PH foods. I stayed the night. The next morning he woke me up at 6am dancing on his legs...saying look no more GOUT!!!...the transformation of his foot was meraculous....It was hard to believe that his foot that was black & blue the night before was now practicaly normal with just slight swelling. My father had suffered for years. & I helped him using basic chemistry. Big Pharma knows all about basic chem. There is no way that they did not know how to cure him on his 1st visit.

I`m willing at anytime to attest to what I witnessed. That the fix for gout is sitting in your house. But no drug company will contact me begging for the cure. Because there is no profit in that. I helped my father. & big pharma wanted to see him suffer for the benifit of thier sharholders. They let my father suffer & you defend them. For that you & them are Unforgiven.

The ghost of JFK

How did you tst his pH level? Saliva? Urine? Unfortunately, anyone with more than a 6th grade education knows the whole acid alkaline body garbage is just that, GARBAGE. I have a friend who suffers from gout. Sitting in your house and supposed high pH foods (I assume you mean acidic foods like citrus) wouldn't do much good as the pH of one's stomach acid is higher. The stomach is an acidic environment the intestines are alkaline. This creates a balance in your body. Perhaps you tested his blood which usually hovers around 7.04. It's not likely your father would have been dancing around the next morning, with a blood pH that was "very low" your fathers gout wouldn't have been his problem. He would likely have been suffering from being dead.

You line up the lawyers & i`ll line up the witnesses. I saw what I saw & judging by the ease that it helped my father (I know he is not a unique case) I`m sure what we did can be replicated in a test group to help others. But I know youll never take me up on my offer to help. as it would not work in the drug company profit model. My father is enjoying good health & a second lease on life. I`m very sorry your not happy about that. I know his health is not good for the drug company bottom line. I`m afraid of what would put a smile on your face if a story of regained health wont.

The ghost of JFK

Lawyers and witnesses? What the hell are you talking about? Any lawyer worth a salt would want to see some actual proof, like you father's medical records (before and after). Are you typing while you're stoned? You failed to answer any of the basic quetions that were asked, like how you checked the pH? Can't do it, can you? Why, because it'd be far too easy to dispute and much too funny. If you really insist though please visit my talk page and I'll be happy set anything up you wish.

Have something to prove, then so be it. A $10,000 (+expenses) challenge. If you can prove it (upon review), it's yours. Oh, one more thing. Why do you keep making comments about how we're all paid stooges and such, then almost immediately delete them? --TheDevilYouKnow 04:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please post the name, address, phone #. of the lawyer that is holding this money. hopefully its an impartial person with no ties to the drug industry. A scan of a letter on a lawyers letter head stating just what your offering(posted on a link to here). & that he/she is holding the money in lew of proof & what proof is exceptable. Its nice to see good people like you willing to pony up money for the benifit of mankind.

Ghost of JFK

New book is full of laughs

Stephen Barrett, M.D. has updated his analysis of Kevin Trudeau on his website quackwatch.org. Here is a small bit of that analysis. It contains a paragraph from Trudeau's new book. As it's only a paragraph it's well within the realm of Fair Use Rights, just in case Trudeau's supporters start screaming about copyright violations. The following is from page 11 of 'More Natural Cures Revealed'.

As a member of this secret society I have sat in private meetings with the heads of state from countries around the world. I have attended secret international business meetings where business leaders, politicians, and media moguls coerce together to create the new world order with global control over individual people everywhere. I have been shown and have seen with my own eyes secret government and corporate documents. I have heard with my own ears how BigPharma, the food industry, and the oil industry are working together with governments and media outlets around the world. I have been in over sixty countries, yet there are no stamps of evidence in any of my passports. I have been to Area 51 in Nevada. (This top secret military installation is still denied to exist by the U.S. government.) This is where much of our technology has been developed. Area 51 houses most extraterrestrial artifacts, including a working spacecraft and dead alien bodies. I've seen these things with my own two eyes. As a member of this secret society I was used in covert operations around the world.

Aarlin81 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Aarlin81, while you have no proof that what he says is true, it is also true that you have no proof towards the contrary. I mean if you were in a secret society and had been one of the few people to leave that behind, wouldn't the best way to avoid being harmed (or killed) be to just reveal everything? Also, wouldn't that explain how he knows so much about the FDA/FTC and also the natural remedies? Just something to think about. By the way, could someone PLEASE make this article a TAD more neutral?

Funny, that reads almost like every answer to a question about L. Ron Hubbard's military career. It's also just as unbelievable.

Wouldn't that exaplain how he knows, WHAT!?! Trudeau doesn't know squat. Secret serums that cure cancer in 45 minutes? Not true. Read Trudeau's latest idiocy about a 30 year old cure for cancer at TheWhistleBlower.com (links to article). He claims it was invented by a "a senior oncologist at a prominent New York hospital". He's talking about Dr. Lawrence Burton, Ph.D. a zoologist. He is NOT a medical doctor and is not licensed in any state in the US. See where I'm going with this?

The other two people? Morons and liars. Most of the lies are spread by "clinics" claiming to continue their research after some "miracle researcher" dies. Heck, the part about Dr. Johanna Budwig, a six-time Nobel Award nominee (or seven depending on the source) should be a BIG tip off. Why, because the Nobel prize commitee does not reveal information about nominations, even to the nominees! It's just another way to get people of below average intelligence to go "oooohh" and "ahhhh". Trudeau's book is nothing more than re-printings of long since debunked garbage but with him pretending to be the only one that knows about them. Just like those nimrods claiming that astronauts saw an alien base on the dark side of the moon, the details of his fish stories keep changing everytime they're debunked, or simply because he can't keep it straight (so much for Mega Memory, huh?). If you bother to dig a little deeper you'd find out how full of it he really is.

Burton received his Ph.D. in zoology from New York University in 1955. He had no formal graduate training in immunology, oncology, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy. His research began with fruit flies (Drisophila melanogaster) and later included mice. His doctoral dissertation was entitled "Carcinogenic Activity of Larval Donor Extracts in Drosophila." He was a biology research associate at the California Institute of Technology from 1955 to 1957 and at New York University in 1958. From 1959 through 1973, he held various research positions at St. Vincent's Hospital in New York City. Although Burton claimed to have been a "senior oncologist" at St. Vincents, hospital documents indicate that only medical doctors were titled "oncologists."

The complete report on Burton and IAT can be read here. All references are cited at the end of the page. I suggest that Trudeau [and Burton] supporters take note of that. TheDevilYouKnow 21:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Facelift in a Bottle

The section about the non-surgical facelift is likely Aloette. The black background seems to indicate that it may be "A Closer Look" in which Kevin Trudeau appears as a host with a blonde Brit or as a guest depending on whether it was his product or a partner's. Anyone with footage?

Too against Kevin trudeau

it seems theres too much against him! there needs to be more supporting things on him, people who tell about how natural remedies WORK how the FDA is a fraud and FTC are censoring amendment breaking commie bastards!

So why don't YOU add this information? I think it's rather silly that Trudeau's fans think that someone else should put all this supporting info into the article. They of course find it necessary to start a brand spanking new section despite the fact that this has been discussed to death.

The reason there are no entries into natural cures working is because this is an article about Trudeau and not natural remedies. Also there isn't any beyond common sense stuff. Vitamins, minerals, the basic food groups, blah blah blah. A perfect example is one Trudeau misrepresents. Scurvy is caused by insufficient intake of vitamin C. Unforunately things like this feed the stupidity that diseases like cancer are caused by a lack of vitamins. No wait it's stress. No an acidic body. Where the problems lies is in the moongaboonga roots and wallikobble dingdong seed oils (used as example) they try to pass off.

Lastly, natural cure peddlers love testimonials (they mean squat) and hate scientific review. If someone takes this junk while taking a proven treatment, guess which of the two these nimrods give credit? -TheDevilYouKnow (Talk)

University of Calgary

Removed the anon contribution:

He also claimed that theres a product that was develped by the University of Calgary called diamaxol, that can cure diabetes. He attacked Nightline in his new book which he claimed that he sent all the research of diamaxol to dateline, but they lied about it.

If true it can be added to the existing reference to U of C, rather than replacing it as the anon had done. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not true at all. Here's what I was able to dig up

• "Publications" claim that ELEOTIN was discovered and perfected by the University of Calgary’s Julia MacFarlane Diabetic Research Institute of Canada
• Dr. Kim appears nowhere in official documentation for the JMDRIC
• There is no mention of any studies dealing with natural cures.
• Dr. Kim is listed as the products manufacturer and/or creator on numerous advertisements
• There are also claims that Roche Pharmaceuticals tried to buy the rights to ELEOTIN in 1997 for AU$25 million. The name of the supposed company and the country in which it operates is often changed or omitted.
• Eleotin has gone through numerous marketing name changes including P700, Diabiticine, and Diamaxol.
• Any breakthroughs would likely become the property of the University preventing Kim from marketing the formula directly.
• The company seeking to purchase the rights to the product would have gone to the U of C and NOT Kim.
• Dr. Kim is now credited as the U of Calgary researcher who discovered the cure rather than his supposed research leading to the cure being found. His anecdotes in advertisement make this claim as well.
• Dr. Kim has appeared on a number of mock newcast infommercials similar to Trudeau's "A Closer Look" telling the amazing story of the Malaysian woman with diabetes and how the cure was developed.
• Biographical information on Dr. Kim is nearly impossible to find given the NUMEROUS different spelling of his name including Yung Soo Kim, Yong Su Kim, Yung Su Kim, Yunsasoo Kim, among others.
• Fake endorsements and studies by the US Department of Agriculture claiming the product is effective litter some sites.
• Endoresements from various individuals also litter site. This includes Dr. Charles C. Thao, Ph.D, NMD Board certified Naturopathic Physician and Chief Cellular Health Researcher. No information can be found regarding his Ph.D. and the title NMD (Naturopathic Medical Doctor) has no legitimate academic or professional standing.
• Dr. Thao is the manufacturer of a possible competing product Glucofast which may or may not be a rebranding of Diamaxol. It is ALSO listed as the "Final Cure for Diabetes.
• Dr. Thao, on numerous sites, infommercials, and publications is listed as the creator of Diamaxol replacing Dr. Kim (or atleast side-lining his role).
• Thao does not appear in any JMDRIC documentation

Aarlin81 02:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Weird. Thanks for the update. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone inserted into the section title "No Proof of Claims" that Trudeau's latest informmercial cites that Dr. Kim (or is it Dr. Thao?) is suing the University of Calgary. However, referenced link does not point to any information regarding any lawsuit or claims filed. Also the entry stated that the Doctor is Japanese. Dr. Kim's nationality changes from website to website. He's Korean at one, Japanese at another, and Chinese and yet another. At some it's stated that he studied in Korea, did research for a diabetic researcg firm in China, and so on an so forth. Aarlin81 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yungsoo Kim the principal owner of Eastwood Biomedical Research in Richmond, B.C. has filed a lawsuit against the University of Calgary alledging defamation and breach of contract. The U of C discovered two natural herbal compounds and did perform limited animal testing involving research into diabetes. No human trials were ever conducted.

EBR then purchased/licensed the two compounds along with accompanying research materials [by Ji-Won Yoo] from University Technologies International, patented them and immediately began marketing a product called Eleotin. The marketing materials included endorsements from yet to be verified sources throughout the Asian medical community as "the final cure for diabetes" (fine print often includes statements that it is meant for only non-insulin dependent diabetics).

According to statements by the U of C, Eleotin does not contain either of the two compounds in its list of ingredients. These statements also note that the research did not point to either of those compounds as being a cure for diabetes. Ji-Won Yoon has verified these statements and has personally contacted Yungsoo Kim over the years in this regard.

Beyond diabetes many distributors and testimonials claim the product helps with weight loss, cancer, children's disorders, sleep problems, sexual disfunction and regularity.

TheDevilYouKnow 21:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Problematic picture used here of Trudeau

The existing picture being used is an advertisement for his book. Such advertising is not allowed here. It's doubly problematic because it's false advertising. The book doesn't deliver what it promises, and even if it did, quackery shouldn't be promoted here or elsewhere.

We need to find a portrait of him as he appears now, not some fancy picture of him in his youth, or some doctored junk. -- Fyslee 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A fancy picture of him in his youth? I don't see how a picture of him needs to be immediately current, it still represents him as he was then. And as far as advertising the book, I can still find his entire premise bunk without considering the inclusion of a fancy book cover to be "advertisement". I, personally, look at the book and see "they" in quotation marks, and the cover covered with text, and think negatively of the book, not positively. In any case, I've moved the image of the illustrated cover to the location of the old cover so that there is still an image of him in the article, and an image of the book (which is appropriate to include in the article at that location) and it's not in the header where a more basic image of him should be. - BalthCat 17:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really problematic as a book cover is encyclopedic, regardless of its "ad" potential. Tony Robbins does the same thing, it isn't a problem. There is also no requirements that a picture needs to be undoctored or current; although I concede that is preferable... IF available. Moreover, Trudeau is notable primarily because of the book; making its prominent inclusion logical. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not; and having the picture or not does not change the articles tone drastically. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems in the article

there's a sentance in the book section "FDA":

In Trudeau's studies are referenced, but are vague.

Which looks like it might be "In Trudeau's book..."

Also, the first subtopic of "Critisism" is the pharma companies... it is full of Trudeau's claims about the companies. The next subsection, however, is critisism about Trudeau's arguments. If the "critisism" section is critisism about Trudeau, the first section is in the wrong place. If the section is his critisisms about things, the rest of it is in the wrong place. TheHYPO 06:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations, please

This article is extrodinarily negative. While I don't mind that, can we at least get some citatoins rolling? Otherwise it might be removed per WP:BLP. Hbdragon88 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Retail

Yesterday I added Vitamin Shoppe to the list of stores that are selling or have sold Trudeau's book. Someone has removed the Vitamin Shoppe from that list without giving any reason. So I have added it again, with a link to the Vitamin Shoppe's product page. If the Vitamin Shoppe is not "worthy" of being on that list, then perhaps the list ought to simply be removed entirely. Hi There 07:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have once again restored Vitamin Shoppe as a retailer of Trudeau's book. Firstly, this chain has 290 stores in approxiamtely 30 states - i.e it is not a local mom-and-pop store. (This is even aside from its presence on the internet.) Secondly, unlike all the other stores mentioned, it is a HEALTH AND NUTRITION store, and such a book being available in such a store might well seem to be equivalent to that store's endorsement. Hi There 16:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

While The Vitamin Shoppe may have a number of stores scattered throught 30+ states it is not a nationally recognized chain. There are no locations anywhere in the midwestern United States. The list of stores are all nationally recognized and are also non-niche market retailers (so-called mainstream).

I have issues with the statement that should a retailer carry the book that it should be viewed as an endoresement of the publication. People buying the book are more likely to purchase products mentioned in the book which are likely sold a TVC. I am removing the mention of Vitamin Shoppe as no other specialty or niche market retailers of comparable size are or have ever been listed. TheDevilYouKnow 21:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This issue is not if a HEALTH STORE that carries the book constitutues an endorsement of the book, the issue is whether a consumer would INTERPRET it as an endorsement. I am putting the Vitamin Shoppe back for the reasons I previously stated. I think that 290 stores in 30 states in sufficient for them to be mentioned. If you would like to show me official guideline of what retailers can and can not be mentioned, I will be glad to take a look Hi There 22:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but on a global scale, the chain is middling at best. It doesn't even have its own article. You also just tack it on to the end of the paragraph, so that it looks like an advertising appendage. I'm removing it until such a point as the chain can be proven to be more notable. Versus the other stores listed, it is dwarfed. And if you start adding chains that size, you're going to have to add an awful lot, which is unhelpful. (For example it is for sale at Canadian Chapters/Indigo stores.) - BalthCat 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another neutrality rant

Is this really considered NPOV? I tseems to be overly cirtical of Mr. Trudeau without offering many positive viewpoints. Many, many people have purchased his books and cured diseases such as type-1 diabetes, muscular dystrophy, eating disorders, Downs syndrome, and others using the information and techniques provided by the book. But this article reflects none of that. Smith Jones 01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think these rants are being posted by Trudeau or his employees. Rather than reading existing discussion on this very topic they insist on creating new discussions and often inject it into random places within unrelated topics. So I've given it a heading.

EVERYONE of them asks for "someone else" to make changes to the article and show Trudeau in a more positive light. The simple fact is that every argument they make cannot be proven. Simply stating that Trudeau's books have helped anyone (which is highly doubtful) is not something that will be included. Anecdotes and testimonials don't mean squat and certainly do NOT belong here.

Can you offer up any hard evidence? No? Didn't think so. Trudeau's books have helped no one. Down syndrome!?! DS is a genetic condition not a disease that can be cured with crocodile protein peptide, enemas, or hoogey boogey seed oil extract. TheDevilYouKnow 02:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No way! Trudeau's book can cure genetic disorders like down syndrome? I've got a friend that was born without a foot. What advice dooes Trudeau's book have for that? Fifteen colonics a month? Oh, I know. Hydrogen Peroxide!

You people are just deluded by the media and the goverment. Down's Syndrome is SOMETIMES caused by extra chromosome but it can also be replicated by a physical illness that is only exacerbated by the use of drugs. Trudeau's remedies DO work for many people; the only reason why this isn't reflected in the article about him is because all of the Trudeau-bashers on this website are unwilling to look for any informationt hat doesn't support their narrow-minded guesses. ANd I thought that this website was supposed to be about FACTS, not OPINIONS. Smith Jones 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

DS is only caused by an extra chromosome, if something else causes similar symptoms (which I have never heard of) it would have another name. The least you can do is source this outlandish claim. - BalthCat 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The remedies aren't by Trudeau and if they do or do not work is not the concern of this article. Testimonials also have no place on the article. As I've previously stated, Tony Robbins has undoubtedly helped people, but as you can see from his article there is no mention of it; with the exception of his charity work, which is a verifiable/notable activity. Also Wikipedia does permit opinions, sourced opinions. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You would be hard pressed to find sources specific to that since most of the Internet sources are biased against the theory. But that's not the only thing. There has to be some positive assertions on Trudeau on the Internet that are considered "valid" by the editors on this Wikipedia. I also contest the label 'quackery' since Trudeau being a quack is obviously POV. Smith Jones 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends on who's making the assertion and why; and if it can be considered a WP:Reliable source. If you think you've found such links please post them here. While "quackery" is a POV, it is a POV held by some notable people in medicine, government, media and alternative medicine. As I've pointed out Wikipedia does permit such opinions. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh this is just too much fun. Can't confirm anything, scream bias or conspiracy. Positive assertions don't mean anything and they seem to be the same old tired crusade by Trudeau, his employees and his supporters.

Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe the unethical practice of promising health-related benefits for which there is little or no basis. Quack is also a term used for an incompetent medical doctor, or any other person who dispenses false medical advice or treatment. Seems pretty dead on. Don't get stressed over it though. According to Trudeau, stress causes cancer.

The Only Way to Know the Truth

After reading this article I have been able to see a very important truth. This article is very biased, one-sided, and it should be re-written and reveal all sides of the matter. This is the problem with wikipedia because those who write these articles can input opinionated statements that he/she personnaly beleives and the beleifs, in this case, of the majority media.

But then again, this is an open encyclopedia and I expected this to happen. However, when did the Washington Post become so ignorant? I am suprised to see them attack Trudeau the way they did. They tried to attack Natural Cures based on how Trudeau was dressed. "Notice he has a nice watch on.", "A ring big enough for a child to choke on." I used to be able to trust the media and now I see that Kevin was right when he says that you cannot trust the media. In my eyes I see that the media is confirming Trudeu's statement in that sense.

Yes he is a convicted felon, and yes, he is a salesman. So I can't support the man on anything unless I can see for myself that Trudeau is telling the truth. In other words, research! Find reports of these scientific studies and come to your own conclusions. Better yet, experiment! Peform experiments on the effects of natural remedies! Learn for yourself and stop letting the newspaper tell you the "truth".

The newspaper doesn't tell me the truth. Lies, lies I tell ya. I haven't read a paper in years. Now I only listen to what my rice Crispies tell me.

Exactly. A lot of the Trudeau-bashers seem to consider scientists and the media to be infallible, when that's just not the case. Remember when everyone thought that the the earth was flat? Were they correct just because they kept making the assertion? I am NOT a Trudeau employee (although I do thinks that his ideas have more merit than popular media credit them for) but even I can see how biased this article is against the man and his ideas. Perhaps if we stopped being blinkered by our own beliefs and looked at the facts then we could finally get some NPOV arund here. Smith Jones 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Stop being blinkered and look at the facts"? OK, feel free to insert some FACTS into the article. Quit whining how someone else should do it. If you have FACTS then put them into the article. All I ever read is "can we make this more neutral?". Then do it!!! No one is stopping you from making FACTUAL additions (testimonials count for nothing) to the article. The FACTS about Trudeau point to the negative. Mind you, stuff like "his books have helped people" will be DELETED. Not because we want to keep the article negative, but because it's a claim by supporters (read: marketing) that they can't back up. Get to work!

One more thing. The Earth IS flat. At least that's what my Rice Crispies told me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.47.237 (talk • contribs)

Leave the page as it is

This Wiki page is a great example of a drug company hit piece. It is a clasic example of thier propaganda & disinformation machine in action. It features all the relavent key players in the battle for the minds of the public. many of the disinformtaion styles are used. Years from now in ethics cources they will study great works like these as if it was shakespear.

Kevin is not the only one feeling the sting of the corporate fire. Tom Cruise had the balls to express an opinion about pharma drugs & clinical help. I dont agree with most of what he said. but he learned the hard way that movie companies, magazines & other media venues bow & bend over backwards to thier advertising masters. Big Pharma can ruin anyone at anytime, they have unlimited resources & the man power to dig anyone a grave. Tom Cruise career whatever is was. is ruined(i`m not even a fan but I have the eyes to see when someone is being made an example of, so as to keep the rest of the media/stars inline)

This Wiki page is testiment to big pharma. I say leave is the way it is. Let it hang around big pharma`s neck. Its a testiment to what they realy want to build in this country. A world ruled by them with not one decenting voice.

Ghost of JFK

His movie career is in the toilet because he's a whack job. Read up on Scientology please. He attacked Brooke Shields, ranting and raving because she didn't seek natural or meditative alternative for her postpartum depression. He's appeared numerous times on television looking extremely disheveled and sometimes speaking incoherently.

People like actors because they're entertaining. When the start preaching conversion to their whacky believe (ie religious) people quickly lose interest. There are a lot of people that like Toim Cruise's movies but don't like Tom Cruise. TheDevilYouKnow 19:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He was a ("Whack Job" as you say) before he said what he said about big pharma. But they did not mind him then did they?...cause he pulled the party line. But his demise is a classic example of carreer assasination by way of corporate intrest. You can spin it anyway you like. but when even movie reviewers in news papers are reviewing his movies judged by way of his off screen antics. something is rotten in the coporate core. His incredible carreer back luck just so happend to start after he spoke out on Big Pharma & therapy. Like I said I dont agree with everything he said. But you would have to be blind not to see the combined effort on all fronts to bury him & make an example to any other star that might think about stepping out of line. Do you think this is lost on the other stars who are witnessing his demise. Its all out war on him from every front. CNN even ran a hit piece on him. But what is realy funny is you cant find that original interview anywhere. where he first attacked big pharma. Its like its lost down the memory hole. I`ve seen pictures but no video. Things that make you go hmmmmm.

Ghost of JFK

Can't find the video? Ahhhh. My Rice Crispies told me to search Google for Tom Cruise and Big Pharma. I was able to find so many articles links to videos from news sites to herbal remedy pushers talking about the same video and a few others. I won't post links to all of them, because you didn't bother to give any real details for me to look for. Interesting you claim the video has fallen off the face of the Earth. I have come to the conclusion that you love a good conspiracy, not matter how ridiculous.

I looked on Google also but could not find it. If you know the name of the video. Then post it. After you finish your rice Crispies of cource..;)

Ghost of JFK

This Just in:Sept 2 2006

FDA says mercury in dental fillings won't hurt you WASHINGTON This could give you reason to smile. Researchers say silver dental fillings aren't dangerous, despite exposing patients to toxic metal mercury.

After going over 34 recent studies, the Food and Drug Administration says there's nothing to make them think otherwise. The only concern is in rare cases where a patient has an allergic reaction.

But some activist groups insist the F-D-A has it wrong. A group called Consumers for Dental Choice insists there's no safe level of exposure to mercury. The group is calling for an immediate ban.

Despite the name, silver fillings are about half mercury. Chewing releases mercury vapor. Significant levels can cause brain and kidney damage. But the F-D-A says that even among people with a mouth full of fillings, exposure levels are well within safe limits.

I posted this recent news article to make a point. When profits are at stake or reputations. Anything is possible. What next?? mercury is going to be promoted as an essential nutrient? or vitamin?. Mercury is one of the most dangerous elements known to man. & its still being installed in childrens mouths`. 100 years from now they will point back to this & call us barbaric. But we live under corporate rule so anything can be called true if thier is a dime to be saved or profit to be turned. How Dentist can watch this take place & say nothing just has to make you shake your head.

There comes a time when you have to say. Enough is enough. I cant swallow anymore of this corporate drivel. I`m not that big a fan of Kevin Trudeu. but he is not promoting mercury in childrens mouths. so at some point you have to make a choice about who is telling the truth & who has his heart in the right place. I for one cant trust a single thing the FDA publishes after this. they in my mind have reached a new low. for them to point a finger at kevin trudeau now is at best the pot calling the kettle black.

Ghost of JFK

Exactly! Ghost of JFK is the only making sense around this talk page lately. I don't understand why the Trudeau-bashers put so much faith in the government studies and the media (both of which have PROVED to be biased) while casually disregarding the evidence from the many people who have been helped and healed by Trudeau's discoveries. It's almost like if it doesn't fit into your world view, you just ignore and delete it from the article as if this was some kind of totalitarian state where any knowledge that doesn't agree with the current political and economic paradigms is discredited and removed so that people can't make a decision based on the facts.

Casually disregarding the evidence? What evidence? Please, please, show us. Perhaps the evidence that lead to a 60 minutes program blindly praising Dr. Lawrence Burton, PhD (a quack) for curing a man of cancer? That man died within 2 weeks after the program aired. In 1984, at a Congressional hearing held by Representative Claude Pepper, a pathologist from Alabama described how his father-in-law had been tricked into believing that IAT had cured him. How is that for proof? Trudeau's books, infomercials, and websites are littered with stories and praise for Burton and how is "miracle cure" is being kept secret by the FTC, FDA and "cancer industry".

Kevin Trudeau's opinions on the medical abilities of Dr. Lawrence Burton have NOTHING to do with the validity of his claims. As for your demands of proof, I cite the following CRITICALLY-ACCLAIMED BOOKS that were published by a legitimate publishing company:

1) Racketeering in Medicine by James T Carter. 2) A Classic Expose on the Cancer Establishment by Ralph W. Moss. 3) Questioning Chemotherapy: A Critique of the Use of Toxic Drugs in the Treatment of Cancer Both of these offer support for Trudeau's claims and even a cursory glance will tell all but the thickest of readers that the science behind their theories is sound. And unlike the media and the vast majority of the medicine industry fanatics, they actually did their research instead of mindlessly regurgitating the same old garbage that had been used time and time again. Of course, knowing you people you'll probably find some minor, irrelevent detail and pick it at it and pick at it until you've "disproved" it. Smith Jones 01:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What does the publishing company have to do with the validity of the material? Nothing. They wanna get paid. If someone wrote a book about how their bunghole itched they would print it if they thought enough people would by it. Only in cases where there is so much negative publicity do publishers refuse.

Racketeering in Medicine was written by James P. Carter, MD, Ph.D. (no biographical info, or dissertation). This has to be pretty much the most worthless book I've ever encountered. It details a vast "conspiracy" against the American people on the part of every reputable scientist who has ever walked on this earth (as vs. Dr. Carter's tame circle of quacks, who are of course perfect in Dr. Carter's estimation despite the fact that their so-called "studies" violate every principle of double-blind controlled research). He seems to be an avid promoter of Chelation Therapy (a bogus scam, with unproven results). Amazinglt all his research papers and simple question like "what is Chelation Therapy must begin with a rant about how medical doctors are threatened by by new things and financial conspiracies. I suppose if you asked him "how's the weather today" you'd like get the same garbage rant.

Next. Ah, Ralph W. Moss. Oh you're making this WAAAAAY too easy. All of his books are repeat garbage from a 1980 edition The Cancer Syndrome. Let's take a look at another of his books "The Cancer Industry". Part one "Proven Methods (That Often Don't Work)"- is intended to undermine confidence in scientific methods. Part two (majority) promotes unproven and debunked therapies. The rest is just more conspiracy theory garbage about supressing the research of a "nobel prize nominee" (dead give away that a quack is really a quack because the commitee doesn't reveal this info even to nominees). Although the book is loaded with carefully selected facts, it is also loaded with distortions and misrepresentations. For example:

• Insinuating that an executive-level position made him privy to the inner workings at Sloan-Kettering Institute, Moss represents that he was assistant director of public affairs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center during the mid-1970s. However, Sloan-Kettering officials indicate that his only title was "science writer."
• Moss suggests that a Sloan-Kettering researcher, Kanematsu Sugiura, found that laetrile was effective against cancer in mice and that his work was never repeated or refuted. The book fails to mention that at least six major cancer research institutions did repeat Sugiura's experiments and had negative results.
• Moss endorses the work of the late Dr. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler, who claimed that cancer is caused by a bacterium she named Progenitor cryptocides. He neglected to mention that scientists don't believe her hypothesis because there is no proof that the organism exists. Neither Dr. Wheeler nor anyone else has been able to produce a cancer by injecting her alleged organisms into experimental animals. Independent researchers have found numerous cases where cancer tissues did not contain the organism. In addition, cultures of "Progenitor cryptocides" from Dr. Wheeler's own lab, which were grown in other labs, turned out to be common forms of Staphylococci that inhabit the skin.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.28.47.237 (talk • contribs) .

So what?

You see? Instead of debating the facts in a fair and neutral manner, you decide to insult Mr. Moss and Mr. Carter while nitpicking at me (yeah, it was a P and not a T. What does have to do with my argument)? Carter's book was groundbreaking at the time when it was published; most scientists and knowledgeable people were terrifided at being steamrollered by the might of the health-industry machine. They saw things and they knew things but they also knew that if they spoke up and tried to defend the consumer they'd only be silenced by the gov't, which is only interested in protecting the interests of the rich and powerful drug companies. Any idea that threatens to shift the social paradigm is automatically a 'conspiracy theory' and denied without so much as a fair look at it. And THIS is what passes for fair and impartial around here?

If you can't argue with logic, then I won't even waste my time on this talk page any more. Go ahead and turn this encyclopedia into a bash-site so you can ridicule your favorite targets. Whatever. Smith Jones 23:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't argue with logic that isn't there. The Ps and Ts were obviously just an easy jab (a pot shot). Your latest argument is based on what? A conspiracy theory spread by debunked authors and peddlers? You would like us to believe that the lonely "scientist" or quackpot claiming to be a medical doctor is cowaring in fear in some lab with a miracle cure? We want proof. We want FACTUAL additions to the article to bring about this neutrality you whine for. Instead you give us articles and more quackpots with more excuses than cures.

Link to studies and articles in scientific/medical journals, not the same old repackaged ramblings with new titles. You present something, I (or another) debunks it, and you whine about cover ups (you do know the definition of conspiracy don't you?) and silencing these noble nut jobs. Yes, these individuals are fighting rich and powerful system, and doing so by charging tens of thousands for bogus treatments. Unitl you can present something based on facts it will continue to be debunked. And you will contiue to whine about it. TheDevilYouKnow 00:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Specific objections (saying this article is "biased" doesn't qualify) and/or specific notable and verifiable additions are always welcome. "Logic" isn't if it criticizes verifiable notable criticism (something we are required to include), or refers to tangential concepts which are debatable (or laughable) in their own right. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence in Support of Mr. Trudeau's Allegations on FDA Corruption and Related Issues

As others have said, the neutrality of this article is clearly disputable. The article lacks many citations, is filled with ad hominems and fails to give a balanced perspective. I have researched tirelessly about medical issues since my wife became very sick with a form of insulin resistance that the doctors could not (or wouldn't) diagnose. Eventualy, I have found the following articles, which in fact agree and provide evidence in favour of Kevin's opinion (yes, he stated in his book that it was his opinion).

Evidence no1: Medical Guesswork (from Business Week online)
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_22/b3986001.htm

Evidence no2: Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists
The article is filled with citations of studies from various different bodies. You can find the above article in two places:
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=1802
http://www.newstarget.com/z009278.html

Following the links, you can also find dozens more articles on the subject with many other citations.

Here's another one, related to evidence no1.

Evidence n03: TODAY'S AMERICAN MEDICINE: THE CURE
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6984

And...

Evidence n04: How the Drug Companies Want Us to Be Sick
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6069

Also, check out the following website:

Evidence no5: Bitter Pill Awards
http://www.bitterpillawards.org/

To end, I would like to cite a huge chunck of Mr. Trudeau's book. It provides us with plenty of detailed information about the regulatory processes of the FDA. With you still don't believe in Kevin Trudeau's opinion, read this carefully and check to see if those regulations are actually valid.

Evidence n06: No-Hunger Bread
http://www.naturalcures.com/NC/ftc_horror_stories/no_hunger_bread.aspx

This can provide us with some information on how the government protects large corporations and how large corporations affect government regulation. anon

All of these are necessary to provide a factual representation of Trudeau and his beliefs. Of course, you people will just hunt down a few typos in the above poster's articles and then decide to drop it ad hominem. Smith Jones 19:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations

While stopping confidence con men is an admirable goal, perhaps all such material herein that is not directly citable with a referece attached, on a section by section, claim by claim basis, should be annotated with the "citation needed" clause or "unsubstantiated" issue. Probably double or triple references: It begins to look very suspicious when a dated pending Court reference (1994) above is that badly out of date. Personal opinions and warnings are well and good, but being disenfranchised by hear-say about media allegations about obstreperous conduct without video, review, or factual content analysis tends to create the impression that words on a page constitute truth in a shouting match. This in turn trains younger societal members to accept and adopt the confidence methods ostensibly being railed and ranted aganst by the "good guy". And removal of such entries as the ones just referred to as usubtstantiated (when so or not) or this edited add on, creates the impression of falsehood where such may or may not be the case. A full archival history of edited changes and a validity analysis on each such change, with fully non-redacted annotations of argument ad angst (in turn recursively reanalyzed) should be the standard for any online "reference" work. Otherwise, all that accumulates as a work of Dephi method, with the most persistent shouters and voting cliques winning. Even insmuch as anyone happens to dislike sales pitch hucksters, eithr free market, medicl authority based, or the currently accepted for of replacing the scientists in the administration with shills who use political correctness methods to determine "science". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy.crabtree@gmail.com (talk • contribs)

In case it is unclear as to why *I* am adding his comments here... he mistakenly placed them in the article, and I moved this text here. - BalthCat 22:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Support for responsible medicine

I think I speak for most of the kevin supportors here by posting the following. I recently had surgery. I researched the procedure. I talked to my doctor. I asked a lot of questions. I looked into alternatives. & this was a clear case of strightforward surgery as the only logical way to acomplish the desired results. My family doctor was amazing. The surgeon was tremendous & the hospital staff suportive & friendly. My point here is there is nothing wrong with an educated patient who is in the driver seat concerning thier own treatment. I give big pharma a hard time. But the medical field is full of people trying thier hardest to bring happiness to the patients they serve. We (the medical industry & myself) both won from this interaction. There are bad eggs in all industries & thats what were after when we take Big pharma to task. Since the goverment has gone into colusion with big Bizz. Its up to the consumer to do all thier own research & footwork. I double checked all my options & moved forward with the best option. this time it was surgery. For my family memebers gout it was a round of PH altering food. So each situtaion is diffrent.

Ghost of JFK

Yep there's a whole lot of finger pointing from the "alternative cures" camp. What they really want is for you to watch this hand while they do something else with the other. They don't attack the FDA and the FTC because they are trying to expose a conspiracy? No. Look at all the claims from day one. It's grown bigger and bigger to all out attacks on agencies which have routinely denied their requests to make curative claims or modify, repeal or make them exempt from laws which would allow them to do so and enforcing them. Oh they love to tell half the story and mention articles on sites like ABCNews.com but they hope you're not smart enough to go to those sites and actually read the article. If you are smart enough they hope you won't dig any deeper and start researching things like how things like the FDA approval process actually works.

I would like to note that if you had seriously done any real research you would know that the pH claims are nonsense and any educated person knows you're full of it. All these alkaline and pH manipulation claims are largely based on Barefoot's misrepresentation of research. Oh yes, those cited studies which were conducted in-vitro and not on living tissue, prove that cancer cells can't survive in an alkaline environment. What he doesn't mention is that niether can healthy cells. The body's pH is constantly maintained at an optimal level (roughly neutral). Any variations and the body will immediately correct itself. Claiming that eating pH altering foods will cure someone of gout is pure nonsense. If this were true then eating an entire bottle of antacids would cure somebody of cancer.

My father is still doing ok. Thank you for the sicere intrest. His Gout was getting worse at each episode. But since our intervention he has not had an incidence. He is drug free & doing great. I know news like that will warm the heart of a person like you who is only intrested in the best intrests of people & not drug company stock values.

I`m going to ask you to do something for me. & I know your going to jump at this. Cause its right up your alley. If you ever suffer a heart attack.(I hope you never do) when your wheeled into the hospital they will take a few vials of your blood. They will analyse it & then give you a saline solution containing PH correctors & other chemistry correcting solutions. I want you to stay true to your convictions. & reject that saline solution. Pull that IV right out of your arm. Cause they are trying to correct your PH imbalance & we both now that in your current belief system PH is a devil that you dont want in your viens. Since the body is electrical. PH & other chemistry aids in electrical pulses to the body parts. Patients often feel better after having thier blood work corrected. Some dont need any corrective action other then this simple correction. Acording to you that is all in thier heads. This is orthodox medicine were talking here. But I know you have such a dislike of PH talk that you wont except it from anywhere.

Just in this one instance. Organized Medicine is commiting 3 crimes. Testing a patient in a life & death situation & not telling them why. Correcting thier imbalance & not telling them how. Sending them home & not telling them to watch for these tell tale signs of future trouble. I know a heart attack is only life or death & not as important as drug company stock prices. But silly me wants to educate the poor consumer.

You raise another great point. That Big Pharma has not made availible a cheap easily accessable way of testing ones own PH. They make great glucose testers, but thats so they can sell Insulin. Since testing ones own PH would not lead to any drug sales, there is no motivation to develop one. I`m glad you pointed this very sore point out. I can always count on you to move medicine forward.

As you saw above I posted a news item about the FDA saying mercury in fillings are just peachy with them. Since your a lover of the othordox way. Can you please post here your support of Mercury being installed in childrens mouths. I know you only want the best for them. Please fire away with your proofs that will make me look stupid & re-asure readers they should put one of the most toxic substances known to man in the mouths of thier babes.

The Ghost of JFK

I'm giving you fair warning, this is about discussing the article. Testimonials of ones relative (may they live in good health), mercury have limited to no use for the article. Also the length of this argument is problematic if it doesn't lead anywhere. Finally, there is a cheap way to test blood PH, its call litmus paper. Further conspiracy banter is not welcome here; and may be removed. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your selective comment here is telling. When other posters are clearly out to disparage this article & get it burried under disinformtion. Sir, there is nothing fair about the article. Or this dicussion page. I dont want some fair warning. What I want is for you to show this community what your really all about & start censoring & deleting information you dont like & let the massaging of history begin. Dont give me a warning like you care. I`m sorry your side got blasted by my very effective points. & this is your only option left.

Each humans method of chaging opinions is diffrent. Mine is very effective & often lays waste to the opositions position. If your warning is really to tell me to go softer on the paid medical mercenaries that haunt this page. I`m sorry, but I only know one way to take out the oposition. I did my job, I`m sorry I was too effective. They need to send in better people to smear this article. One volunteer took out a whole team of mercecinaries. Sometimes the little guy wins. So I suggest you ban me from here. Its your only chance to regain control.

Ghost of JFK

Not really. Other posters move on; you should do the same if you aren't going to discuss the article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Standards

It looks like the editors will be putting in some long hours trying to cleanup this article. Lately there have been a number of contributors making additions which read more like a 3rd grade book report than an encyclopedia.

Exactly. Whenever the unofficial establishment of ideas gets challenged, you can always see the warnings and the bannings come out. They don't have any real, cited sources that Kevin Trudeau is a crackpot, but they choose to believe that he is and accept the idea that repeating the same slander over and over somehow gives it more credence. Of course, anyone who dares to point this out quickly finds himself blocked, but that just goes to show you how things work around here. Smith Jones 21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a TON of evidence Trudeau is a crackpot, but that's not the point I was trying to make up so can it. I meant the poor sentence structure, grammatical errors, and such. Some sentences, or even paragraphs read more like some a "what I did on my summer vacation" paper. Geesh. One more thing. Trudeau doesn't have real cited sources either. Vague references to studies and crackpot claims made by cracpot doctors and half stories (yes only half), not too mention skewed statistics based on creative math don't account for much. Trudeau himself could confess and I bet you'd still be licking his boots.

External links

Also I removed:

• BusinessWeek.com

While the article details how doctors have a financial interest in ineffective treatments, and raises good points about America spending more than Britain for less health care return; it does not mention Trudeau. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Only one link to Looking Glass News should be included; they are all the same website and the link I left links to related stories. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Influence On Infomercials

Ok, I can't sleep because the neighbor's dog is going NUTS!!!!!!! As I am writing this I've got one of the latest Trudeau/ITV scamercials playing in the background. I have read through some of the comments posted in the discussion and noticed a new trend. On one or more occassion (here and/or elsewhere) someone has mentioned something about claims of "leading researchers" as being "Nobel Proze nominees". This is of course a tale tell sign of a quack because information about nominees isn't revealed to anyone including the nominees.

So what do I hear within the first 10 minutes? Nobel Prize winner! Yep no more talk of nominees but WINNERS! The first was some doctor who won the prize in Medicine twice for finding a vitamin when taken in it's purest/natural form can cure all disease. First vitamins are chemical compounds. The is no difference from ones extracted from a natural source and one created in a lab. Hell the extraction process from natural source alone destroys most of the source compounds. So according to Trudeau, since he won't reveal it on TV, you could cure every disease on the planet with a multivitamin (to make sure you get them all) like Centrum. Ok back to this Dr. Poles/Polis/Poalis (?). I went over to the Nobel Foundation website and looked at the list of prize winners. There isn't even a single winner for Mecidine, even once, with a name that could even remotely be confused with Polis/Poles/whatever.

I'm really getting a kick out of Trudeau going on about the First Amendment but hiding behind censorship the next.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.28.59.69 (talk • contribs) .

How is this WP's influence on infomercials? - BalthCat 07:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been a number of folks discussing this very topic. Come on. You'd have to be retarded not to think that Trudeau's trolls were lurking about the article and discussion. Obviously it's filtered back and certain statements are being "tweaked". They want something new to read? Trudeau claims the law states that only a drug can cure, prevent or treat disease. Not so Trudeau. Nice misquote. What does it actually say? Here comes the layman ---

Federal law states that any product (except a device) intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or cure of disease is regulatable as a drug and that it is illegal to market new drugs that have not been recognized by experts as safe and effective for their intended purposes.

Basically, the product, such as a supplement is regulatable under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act.

I believe that only products pushed by big pharma qualifies under that regulation. Face it; the drug companies and the government are only looking out for each other. I don't agree with Trudeau's claims as to the applicability of his treatments, but I do see the truth in his words regarding the suppression of actual, effective treatments that might threaten the current global power structure. What's really embarassing is blatant posturing and hiding behind inconsequential details shown by the Trudeau-bashers on this article.

LABELING OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act and FDA’s implementing regulations, the label of a dietary supplement must include:

• a statement of identity (product name) that identifies the product as a dietary supplement
• nutrition information in the form of a Supplement Facts panel
• a list of any ingredients not listed in the Supplement Facts panel
• the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor
• the net quantity of contents

In addition, if the labeling includes a claim that the product affects the structure or function of the body, a claim of general well-being, or a claim of a benefit related to a classical nutrient deficiency disease, the product must also bear a disclaimer stating that FDA has not evaluated the claim and that the product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. If a product that is marketed as a dietary supplement includes claims that the product is intended for the use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of a disease, it is considered a drug within the meaning of the Act.

-- The Unsigned One

Ok. to respond to the writer above who could not find the name of the nobel prize winner. His name is Linus Pauling. He only won the nobel prize 2 times & is the only person to win it twice by himself. Yah...you must be right what would he know about anything. He only won the nobel prize 2 times. Also for your information Linus Pauling 1st started to teach university chemistry back in the 1950s or 1940s I cant remember exactly. But he could not find a good chemistry text book to teach from. So he wrote his own. GO TO YOUR LOCAL BOOK STORE & SEE...this chemistry text book written 50 years ago was so good that it is still sold on book store shelves. & used as a text book in classes. I bought my own copy 4 months ago. Think about that an educational book thats still relavent & current 50 years later. That man knew his stuff. So if he says something maybe you should investigate it. before making up your mind withouth knowing both sides(I`m not giving advice or endorcing him, maybe Pauling is wrong) . But he wrote the chemistry book every FDA Scientist has learned from.

As far as I know he won one pirze for chemistry & the other for getting the USA to stop nuclear testing in Nevada.

The Ghost of JFK

Hooray! -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What does Linus Pauling have to do with Trudeau making claims about a Dr. Polis/Poles/however it's spelled? Nothing. Again, there is NO nobel prize winner in MEDICINE with a name which might confused with the one stated by Trudeau. I have watched the infomercial twice (it aired twice on two different local stations lmost within hours of each other). Unless you have info on this fictional two time Nobel Prize winner in Medicine it's all just empty blah blah.

HE just GAVE you the name. Linus Pauling. It may have been a mistake of Trudeau's pronunciation. There is no need to nitpick. Smith Jones 17:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Trudeau's pronounciation? Pauling one prizes for Peace and Chemistry. Trudeau's ficticious Doc is supposed to have on two for Medicine. Try again. All this talk about Pauling reminded me of something...

Sodium ascorbate is one of the "additives" that should maybe be banned (scare quotes theirs). You've probably heard of that by another name: vitamin C. You know, the stuff Linus Pauling said we should all take in megadoses? I guess when Linus tells us to take 2-3 grams a day it's OK, but when Hormel puts it in our bacon, watch out! That stuff might kill you, man!

What is that quote about? Smith Jones 00:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think he/she is poking fun at KT's claims of secret ingredients in food and tying that into all the discussion about Linus Pauling. Oh man I really wish I could find some link from the Internet Archive or Wayback from before KT started sanitizing the comments section on his site TheWhistleBlower.com. There was an article where he mentioned how a "certain brand name product" contained MSG. KT was apparently looking for it listed as MSG. A comment was written by someone that it was listed as Monosodium glutamate. The company and product had gone the way of the Dodo brid well before the article was even written.

Reverted some stuff

[1]. Calling Trudeau a "medical professional", and basing an argument on that is giving it undue weight. He can make as many claims as he wants, but he's not an MD. There was some other stuff about "naturalists VS. doctors". Again, undue weight. Overrepresenation of a small minority viewpoint. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the "some people point to his felony conviction....." bit should be placed under "other critisms". You can't google "Kevin Trudeau" and read an article without it mentioning this.

Yeah, but it should also be fairly obvious that a felony conviction hurts someone's reputation. The way it was written was kind of poor, it sounded just like some childish attack. If it could be added in a more well written way, and preferably with sources, then it might be fine. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there at all. Blatant ad hominems belong on big pharma websites, not on a Wikipedia article. Whatever he was convicted for, he did it on his own time and has absolutely no bearing on the validity of his medical advice. Smith Jones 22:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No but the article is biographical and should include more about Trudeau than his Natural Cures books and his claims. It should be noted under critisms as almost every other well cited critism is listed. Proper wording is necessary if this is to be included in any section beyond his criminal history.

It's already noted in his history. Is it really necessary to say that "some people think he shouldn't be trusted because of this"? It's fairly easy for the reader to draw their own conclusion, one way or the other. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[2]. Just reverted again. The edits stink of BS and advertising. This tidbit (from said diff) is especially horrible: "The issue of health is not just between Trudeau and the medical community, it is the question of who to trust for the most accurate information about health; the hebralist method or prescribing medication and surgerical practices of doctors." -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Resolved

 – Fixed.

What's up with the references section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.59.69 (talk • contribs)

These edits seem to have screwed it up. I've reverted those sections to how they were before the changes. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"No proof of claims" closing

The last three sentences of the "No proof of claims" section looks unclear and tacked-on to me. It starts with, "This statement is false." Well, which statement? The previous sentence refers to a supposedly nonexistent study that Trudeau claims exists. Is it the statement that it is "nonexistent" or the statement that it exists that is false? I read the big debate in the archives here[3] where it talks about the University of Calgary study, but I am still unclear how much of it is real. It certainly looks like at the very least like Trudeau's claim is misleading, if not outright false. The last sentence in that section says, "The source is listed below." Where is it listed? Why not link to it normally? I think those last three sentences should either be fixed or deleted. The paragraph works fine without them. -- HiEv 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically it amounts to vandalism. Someone found it necessary to include state which were utterly inaccurate.

This statement is false. Dr. Youngsoo Kim was under contract with the University of Calgary and he did indeed do a 20 year study on diabetes and natural ways to cure them under the authority of the University. The source is listed below.

Dr. Kim was never under contract with UofC and he himself was not part of the study. His own sites press releases states that the compounds being studied in relation to diabetic research were licensed to Eastwood Bio-Medical Research Inc (Kim's company). UofC officials have denied that there have ever been clinical trials. In fact Kim claims that he marketed Eleotin/Diabeticine/Diamaxol/whatever it is this week because the UofC research said they cured diabetes (again his claim which UofC denies). Those compounds aren't even in Diamaxol.

So I have removed what amounts to vandalism. Due to the increased amounts of it, I believe that edits should not be allowed to the article by unregistered users. TheDevilYouKnow 00:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this page probably needs to be protected. Somebody is out to fight the pharmaceutical/FDA conspiracy by erasing Trudeau's criminal history from Wikipedia.Jermor 05:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be protected from unregistered users. I thought we had a decent article 6-8 months ago. The article I read today doesn't seem to have even one sentence that hasn't been messed with. Some of the criticism sections don't even contain criticisms anymore. I'd edit it again but I'm getting tired of rewriting this article only to see unregistered users remove my edits. ZZYZX 14:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why rewrite when you can revert? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia or message to the reader

Please remember that you are editing an online encyclopedia and not writing directly to the reader. Avoid phrases such as a "whether or not YOU" or "you should know". TheDevilYouKnow 18:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Category Removal

I find it odd that the Category: Quackery was removed but others such as Fraudsters and Confidence tricksters were left. Without a quality explanation of why this one should be removed and not the others I see no reasoning behind the edit. I will await such an explanation and will consider putting it back within the next couple of days. TheDevilYouKnow 04:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Aparently, the category was removed because it was deleted: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_11#Category:Quackery Deli nk 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)