Talk:Kevin Trudeau/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Talk Page

Aside: Read the discussion page at [[1]] and compare to the Chiropractic article. Note now the majority of the article is focused on discrediting it rather than providing objective information. --(Unsigned)

I'm OK with chiropractors as long as they stick to what they're trained to do. Chiropractors go to school to learn how to manipulate bones (especially the spine) as well as to take remedial medical classes. As long as that's what they do, I'm completely OK with it. When they start talking about "toxins" in very general terms without naming a particular chemical (or group), they go over the line. If these "toxins" really do exist, they should be able to test for them, or at the VERY least tell us - even remotely - what toxins they're referring to. I believe they make this stuff up. As a scientist, I know any chemical can be tested for using laboratory equipment, if that chemical is known. The reason they stick to the word "toxin" is that it is so general that a medical lab can't test for something that isn't named or described. This is the same crap that Trudeau is into.
There are several things that bother me about this practice, too. First of all, I don't believe they should be called doctors, because ignorant people often equate a chiropractor with a medical doctor, and there's a HUGE difference. Most of the times I watch a scam-infomercial and "Dr. _____" supports some product, he/she is almost always a chiropractor - not a "real" doctor (an MD). The problem is that many people don't know the difference between a chiropractor and an actual medical doctor, since they're both "doctors" in name, and they're both licensed to practice.
There are also some fringe groups that are 100% pseudoscience. A friend of a friend practices applied kinesiology and my friend talked me into seeing her once. It was totally ridiculous and completely useless. I was really surprised at the weird tests she had me do, such as wearing colored glasses, holding sealed vials of various chemicals against my forehead, then (subjectively) strength testing me. The "medicine" she practiced reminded me of something I'd expect from a witch doctor. Nothing she did to me was in any way grounded in science. It was all subjective and completely ridiculous. I ended up paying her because I didn't want to make my friend look bad, and she did spend 45 minutes with me. But, I would have laughed had I not spent the money.
That's one of the many reasons I won't buy Trudeau's book. I don't want to put even a penny on his pocket - he doesn't deserve my money. If someone wants to send me a used copy I'd be willing to check it out, but I'm not going to support this guy under any circumstances. --ZZYZX 13:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

First off, to say that Trudeau hires people to post positive comments about him is absurd. If thats the case, then the FDA hires people to post bad stuff about him. I wonder how many of you critics actually read the book. Well, you better get ready because there are more like Trudeau, myself included. We are dedicated to exposing the medical establishment for what it is- FRAUD. Look at people who take a lot of drugs. Are they healthy people? NO they are sick, weak, discolored, etc. People like myself who eat right and take herbs, we are healthy. I myself take multivitamins, vitamin c, coral calcium, and garlic. My New Year's Resolution is to become a vegetarian. Now, I don't agree with everything in Trudeau's book and I don't like how he constantly advertises naturalcures.com in his book. But, Trudeau makes enough valid points in his book for me to give it 5 stars. Trudeau, Mercola, Gary Null, Scott Kennedy, me, my friends Brad and Ian, these are the people who will open your eyes to the fraud at Big Pharma and the FDA. One day you people will be lost in the sauce asking people like me for help.

According to one of Trudeau's own infomercials, he once pleaded guilty to two felonies. That should be included but I don't have the details or a reference. Bubba73 16:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Who is deleting my edits. The guy is not primarily an author; he's an infomercial scam artist. I put down all of his past legal trouble, his felony convictions for check fraud and credit card fraud, his problems with the states of Illinois and Michigan, his SEC investigation, and someone goes and deletes it all. Kevin Trudeau must be the one doing it. (unsigned 67.10.90.5)

You must work for the FDA. I support Kevin Trudeau 100%. I just bought his book and I love it. Now I am healthy and happy. Infomercial scam artist my ass. The drug companies are the scam artists. (unsigned 172.159.229.176)
Kevin Trudeau can only be considered a 'genius' (other people's words, not yours) if you think the final Heaven's Gate meeting was a Nike trade show. He's second to ducks in terms of pure quackery. Face it: He is not the next Ralph Nader. I hate the current medical/industrial paradigm as much as anybody, but I don't think the anti-corporate messiah is going to be a credit card defrauder. -67.165.87.40 01:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations on your happy experiences with the placebo effect, but your enthusiasm for Mr. Trudeau's book doesn't undo his criminal record. The man is a crook.

I don't know too much about this subjet, but the article is written in a way that completely discredits Trudeau. It seems like Trudeau's past lends itself to discrediting his claims, but you also should take into account his credibility as an insider in the health/pharmacudical industry. I think the article is too biased against Trudeau and should be made to be less one-sided. (unsigned 68.48.103.250)

Discredits Trudeau? Horrors! How could a Wikipedia article discredit a convicted felon?

Maybe the article should mention that Kevin Trudeau knows how to use proxys to post positive comments about himself.SCVirus 06:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

How is he in any an "insider"? One doesn't need to be an insider to observe the pharmaceutical industry throwing its weight around in politics, research and drug approval process. Anyway, its sins do not in any way absolve Trudeau from his past; and what appears to be using various marketing techniques (including conspiracy theories, which could indeed be true to a large extent), but ultimately which help him sell overpriced alternative medicine advice that you can acquire on your own. - RoyBoy 800 15:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone else seen one of his infomercials where he claims that a doctor invented penicillin to save his dying wife? I could have sworn that I've seen it once or twice. The truth is that Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin on accident by sneezing into a petri dish. Can anyone help me properly edit Trudeau's wiki to reflect this claim? -Eric Davis (edavis0780@yahoo.com).

Deleted this line "SInce I changed my diet the way Kevin recommends, I cut some of the biggest farts of my life!!!! I can't recommend his advice enough. You blow another leg hole in your underwear, I garauntee it!" for rather obvious reasons. Busterphantom 07:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What reasons? O.o Dan 08:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of this has gotta go

  • As much of a scam artist as Kevin Trudeau may be, he deserves an objective article like everybody else. Too much of this entry reads like a critical 'debunking' website...if you can manage to debunk some of his ridiculous statements in an encyclopedic way, go for it.
  • It does not need a detailed description of each point he makes in the book. All we need here is a general overview, maybe one or two paragraphs long, and then a little about the stir it has caused w/ consumer protection boards and even natural doctors.

Before now, this article contained a long, long summary of his book which tossed back-and-forth between praise and sarcastic criticism. That is not what wikipedia is for...go make a website dedicated to the man if you feel so passionately. I'm trimming it down significantly.

As the articles originator, I say you to, good job. Remember to sign your name by using ~~~~ - RoyBoy 800 15:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how a link to an alternative alternative medicine link document from India is particularly relevant here. AndyBoySouthPas

Extra section suggestion

I agree that the article was quite long, but IMHO you trimmed it a bit too much. How about creating a section specifically dedicated to the infomercials he uses to sell the book ("Infomercials"?) There are statements in the infomercial itself that are obviously false. I think those issues should be addressed. Where else could we put these facts if not in this article?

The cancer/pH thing is true - cancer cells can't grow in a alkaline environment. What he doesn't mention is that human cells die at that pH too, and the original study was in-vitro. There's no such thing as "changing body pH"; the only thing coral calcium changes is urinary pH. I really think we should address the lunacy of some of these claims. Truth is, by its very nature, objective. I don't see how exposing his lies is being too subjective.

I removed the line "Although these critics are most likely idiots or liars, since pH is a measurement not a substance. If you can test the ph of water, why couldn't you hypothetically test that water once someone drinks it? I think this whole article should be re-written, the whole thing is just a smear of this guy. I thought Wikipedia actually checked up on this kind of stuff." It is possible to be neither acidic nor basic, it is a neutral state in which the number of free protons and negative ions is 0 (or close to it), with free protons and negative ions being what makes something acidic or basic. Also, the pH of water excreted from a body doesn't necessarily reflect the acidity of the body, since it is what is excreted, not what is kept in the body. Finally, the body can adjust its pH rather easily by increasing breath rate and depth, to blow off carbon-based gases.

As far as people removing relevant facts that may not shed a very good light on Trudeau, he and his employees are just as capable of editing this page as we are.

ZZYZX 09:52, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

From Someone Who's Read the Book

I Agree with RoyBoy, you can believe either side, but whether he's a big scam artist or the health messiah, he needs a neutral and unbiased article like any other subject on wikipedia. Right now this article is against him WAY too much. Sure, some of what the article says right now may be true, but someone needs to put in some reliable sources FOR Trudeau as well. He mentions Dr. Coldwell in his book, appearently the foremost alternative doctor in most of Germany. Why not put some of HIS ideas in here too? Yes, I may be a supporter of Trudeau, but that doesn't mean I want the whole article here to shift to HIS favor either. I'm just saying, give the man some credit! I'm doing a bunch of what he suggests and I wake up happier and healthier each day, and I'm losing weight without trying! Even if you think he's lying, much of what he says has at least SOME truth to it, and anyone can see that there have been MANY MANY worse books written over much worse topics throughout history.

Adonis Albattross 19:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

You assume that a NPOV means where each side receives equal amounts of each side of story. Unfortunately it doesn't - if there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest someone is a con artist and practically zero in defense of him, then a NPOV would reflect that. And in Mr Trudeau's case, that is exactly the situation. So you say you've read his book and are losing weight - great - but so what? Any bookshop has literally hundreds of books that will help you lose weight. I daresay most of them are cheaper too, written by qualified dieticians / doctors and restrict their advice to what is known, safe and verifiable. As for there being "some truth" to what he says, I should hope so, but it doesn't mean that a substantial amount of what he says is truthful, or that the bits where he is untruthful are obvious, avoidable or forgiveable. In fact, consumer associations have slammed the book because it contains total falsehoods and downright dangerous advice which could be extremely hazardous to follow (e.g. sunscreen causes cancer). Hence the reason that many stores have removed it from their shelves. In short, the article may require clarification but the weighting is just fine. --MagicMoose 14:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with MagicMoose here. If the overwhelming consensus of qualified medical professionals is that the guy is a quack and there is evidence that he is, that needs to be stated and explained. I tried to do that in the "criticism" section that I helped author. Personally, I'm not impressed with the guy, but I limited my contributions in this article to medical facts and logical problems with his statements. NPOV doesn't imply that everyone gets a thumbs-up; just a fair article. If you look up Adolf Hitler, most of what you'll read is negative, because he was a bad guy. I'm not trying to say Trudeau is anything near a Nazi, just trying to point out that some NPOV articles are negative (yet truthful) about some people.
Adonis, I'm glad you lost weight, and you're welcome to add to the article if you want to. In fact, if you can add some reliable information in favor of Trudeau, that would be fine. Most of us do think he's a con man, but if you have other information, then have at it. If you think the guy is getting a bad rap, you're welcome to add something about him as long as it's in line with established science or has been proven somehow (such as a double-blind scientific study). If you find some truth in the book, you're welcome to write that, too. Just do yourself a favor and try to verify any claims he makes beforehand. If the community reads something that doesn't add up, they will likely remove it. Perhaps you can even do some research on Dr. Coldwell and create an article on him, then link to it from here. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, as long as the information is correct. ZZYZX 10:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

An Important Point

There's something that I forgot to discuss, and I think it deserves at least a mention. There's something no one has discussed yet - that PEOPLE WILL DIE as a result of this book being published (if they haven't already). Trudeau claims to have a permanent cure for diabetes as well as a permanent cure for cancer, as well as a lot more. I'm sure Trudeau will deny that his book is going to cause deaths, but let's look at the numbers (I'll try to be as conservative as possible on the potential deaths):

Trudeau claims to have sold 3 million copies of this book, but let's assume that he's only sold 1.5 million, as the New York Times said a while back. Now, let's assume that of those 1.5 million, that only 1% of those people have terminal (deadly) conditions - that leaves 15,000 people who have bought the book with terminal illnesses. Now, let's assume that of those 15,000 people with terminal conditions, only one out of one hundred (1%) takes his advice. So some people start "going holistic" - cancer patients put off chemotherapy in favor of calcium supplements, diabetics take his herbal advice and stop insulin, etc. This is an extremely conservative estimate, but still leaves 150 individuals. Even if only one third of these people die, that's still 50 people. It would be great if I'm wrong about this, but I think it's likely that many more than 50 (probably closer to thousands) will die.

There is absolutely no cure for Type-1 diabetes (despite his claims) - there's no way. Type-1 diabetes is caused when the cells that produce insulin die! Dead cells cannot be reanimated by any pharmaceutical, any herb, or anything else, except (possibly) some kind of cell transplant or a miracle. In any case, there are going to be people who follow Trudeau's advice for diabetes and die of diabetic shock as a result. The same applies for cancer, and any other terminal illness he talks about. I'd be really surprised if Trudeau didn't have some kind of disclaimer in the book somewhere. Despite being greedy and willing to profit from indirectly killing people, he's not stupid, so I would be willling to bet there's something in the book such as "consult your doctor before beginning any treatment regimen" or "this book is for informational purposes only," etc. Perhaps someone who's read the book can comment.

I don't think this should have an effect upon the article itself - that would be too POV - but I do believe we should all consider the potential human damage we can do if we phrase things inappropriately in this article. I'm pretty satisfied with what we have right now, but let's try to make sure we always keep this a fair, but truthful article. I know most of you already agree with me about this; it's a sad day in America when a greedy con man with no medical training takes advantage of the most vulnerable, desperate, and naive among us, with deadly consequences. ZZYZX 00:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Do Trudeau's theories have to be absolutely proven in order to be treated fairly? It seems unbalanced to apply such a strict standard to Mr. Trudeau's claims when Wikipedia and other repositories of knowledge are full of unproven theories from great minds and quacks alike. This article is highly biased, I believed due to the passionate anger that Mr. Trudeau has inspired in many people. This anger may well be deserved, but IMHO that doesn't mean this article should be as slanted as it is now.

Yes, "theories" need to be "proved". I look at wikipedia as a somewhat loose peer-review system. The rest of the quacks will be visited upon soon enough. I think this article may have a POV, but it's kinda like saying it's POV to say 4+4=8. --Kvuo 06:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Common Sense

Keep in mind that people will DIE no matter WHAT they do. If people get sick (and amazingly enough, they do) some of those people will die no matter WHAT they do, "traditional" OR "alternative" health care wise. People ALWAYS _ALWAYS_ talk about how natural things cause so many deaths and are unsafe, and never mention the fact that a great deal MORE people die from "safe and effective" medications. What, do they just look at natural things and see frauds and murderers, and then look at drugs and say "well, those are acceptable, no one intended them to die."?

I heard an amazing phrase today. "The politics of health care." What a phrase! I'd never thought about it before, and chances are you haven't either. "Health Care" in America has an ENORMOUS amount of politics in it. The FDA lies about the safty and effectiveness of drugs, and pulls out tiny little abstract effects in a very small group of people and labels them as facts, and then does "studies" on natrual herbs and vitamins on animals given 10-1000 times the dosage recomended for human consumption, and then says that the negative side effects it causes are shown very often in many cases, when they never mention the dosage they give. ANY material, almost without exception, INCLUDING WATER AND OXYGEN, can cause damage to cellular structure if taken in huge doses. But since most of us don't drink 80 gallons of water in a day, we don't really think of it as toxic. The best thing to do is educate yourself and try to see through the political fog to discover what's what in the world. That's the best thing to do in any situation.

Actually, pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to administer those same doses, not just 10-1000x but enough to cause half of the test animals to die (see LD50) before a drug can even be tested on humans. I think the problem many people have with herbal treatments is that they contain hundreds or thousands of chemicals and most of the time the people pushing them don't even know which chemicals are helpful, detrimental, or inactive. For example, licorice root contains glycyrrhizin, which can raise blood pressure substantially, but is not necessarily the component useful to the herbalist. Now they have deglycyrrhized licorice root, but this is the exception, not the rule. It would make me much happier if the people involved in natural medicine would at least try to identify and isolate the active ingrediants, rather than prescribing what amounts to ground up plant matter. I'm not against natural medicine - I just think it should be approached in a more scientific matter. Alexander Fleming discovered that certain molds make antibiotics, but he didn't just grind up the mold and feed it to people; he extracted penicillin from it.
Still, I agree with most of the points you make. I completely agree that there are too many politics involved in healthcare. The reason I focused primarily on diabetes (instead of cancer) in my comment is that diabetics can live long, healthy lives with insulin. I had a girlfriend who had Type-1 diabetes, and a really bad case of it. If she went without insulin for more than a few hours, her blood glucose would rise and soon she would be in a diabetic coma. She almost died several times while I was dating her. So yes, people (especially the very sick) will die regardless of what is done, but I disagree with you about diabetics - they die when/if they stop taking insulin. I researched the diabetes remedy Trudeau is pushing (Diabeticine). As it turns out, it has never been tested as a sole agent against diabetes - only in combination with insulin or other pharmaceutical drugs. But in general, I do agree that some percentage of people will die from disease regardless of the treatment modality they choose.
I also agree that it is likely that a greater number of people with cancer (and other diseases) die after traditional therapy than alternative/herbal treatments. That's because in the western world, the vast majority of people seek western, accepted treatments for cancer, etc. So raw numbers alone aren't a valid measure. I would be willing to bet that if you looked at the percentage of people who die after traditional versus alternative treatments, you would see a much higher death rate with the alternative treatments. But then again, we'll probably never know because people taking alternative treatments usually aren't monitored by anyone, so when they die, they don't contribute to any kind of statistic. To that end, I completely support alternative medicine credentials and the required recordkeeping that goes with being a medical practitioner. I believe that people should always have the right to treat their diseases in whatever way they want to, but I'd never send a friend or family member to an alternative practitioner.

ZZYZX 10:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Read the book

Don't buy the book, but do read it, instead of basing information on someone else's review. Get the information straight from the book, and decide whether you agree or disagree for yourself. I'm borrowing a copy from someone who bought it.

Would you let us know what you think about it when you're done? Everyone in this discussion group seems to have a fairly polarized opinion about it.

I don't believe there any of these people actully believe in Trudeau, but are part of his sinister marketing campagin. Check out Amazon for a flood of phoney five star reviews from people who have reviewed nothing but Natural cures.

I have also read the Amazon reviews, and quite frankly they nearly stopped me from purchasing "Natural Cures" at all. But I decided to give it a try and ended up purchasing a used copy. I want to keep an open mind and assume one of the following: (a) Kevin Trudeau is a scam artist at worst or misguided at best, or (b) Kevin Trudeau is mostly or entirely correct in his claims, or (c) a combination of (a) and (b). In the absense of comprehensive proof either way, I implore the author of this article to reconsider his opposition to neutral treatment of this subject. --Josh
I've seen his commercials on TV. I wouldn't trust the asshole with my healthcare decisions any more than I'd trust Ron Popeil for good barbeque. --Kvuo 06:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC) (or trust either of them to write a book on the subject)
Does that mean that Trudeau doesn't deserve a fair article that conforms to NPOV policy? Even the article on Ron Popeil manages to remain neutral, as do the articles on Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Are we really more afraid of Trudeau than we are Hitler or Stalin (or Popeil)? So what if he's probably a crook. A neutral article is still called for. --Josh
Pretty much. Because he's still an active crook that is currently stealing money from people that don't know any better. The man has been banned from selling anything on television except for publications and he'd be banned from selling those too if it wasn't for the First Amendment. That says a lot. I agree with others that point out an explicit description of his past tends to reflect negatively on him. That shouldn't be hidden or covered up. To the contrary it should be highlighted and people warned. And no, I'm not making a judgment about his character, I'm letting his documented history do that for me. I see no problem with that. 24.7.88.13 10:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler. Check it out. It manages to stay fair. Why can't KT's article be fair? I really am not in the mood to clean up this mess. TheKillerAngel 01:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Tell us specifically why you think its unfair... as making generalized comments accomplishes nothing. As does comparing it to Hitler since he is a historical figure (hence a lot of other information about him is notable, not just the naughty bits), Trudeau is not nearly as notable. - RoyBoy 800 04:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
No, he's not as important. The parts which are unfair do not directly attempt to debunk Trudeau, but the way the statements are worded clearly attempt to discredi him. 151.200.61.178 20:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No matter who or what he is, this article CANNOT stay in this biased state

I will first start off that I am in no way a supporter or critic of Kevin Trudeau. I am just looking for the facts.

Please stop editing my original post.

Look at this:

"Kevin Trudeau begins his book, Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About, with a personal story: at the age of 21 he discovered he had a mitral valve defect in his heart, and claims that this was an incurable debilitating condition according to established medicine. He writes that his life was saved by a procedure which was performed in Mexico because it was banned in the United States. The story makes little medical sense. The condition he names (mitral valve prolapse) usually causes few or no symptoms; and the treatment he describes could not possibly have altered the structure of his heart. This inaccuracy in his story probably comes from his total lack of any medical training."

This is so blatantly biased that I feel it is a disgrace to Wikipedia. The statements such as, "total lack of medical training", "little medical sense" and others, clearly imply that the author's intent is to debunk Trudeau. We cannot afford to be unfair in both directions by giving credit and debunking. We can have a section for criticisms, but they have to be fair and supported with proof.


I agree wholeheartedly. While I strongly agree with the current article, I am forced to admit that it is a biased, poorly organized rant.
I would almost suggest moving the entire existing article into the discussion section, and starting from scratch with JUST THE FACTS.
I can't emphasize this enough: THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY UNSUBSTANTIATED/UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS IN THIS ARTICLE!
He was convicted of fraud & larceny, and is prohibited from operating in Michigan: fact - include it.
There's no way he could've diagnosed his mitral valve defect because this defect doesn't show symptoms; he probably claims this because he had no medical training: biased opinion - doesn't belong here.
--205.156.188.254 22:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Upon becoming a little more familiar with Wikipedia since my last comment, I must now agree with this. Stick to the FACTS only and let's not add any conjecture or bias opinions. However, that does not mean the entry for this guy needs to be non-negative. The facts about his past are indeed negative and those facts alone do a sufficient job a painting a negative picture of this guy. Any added opinions about how "sleezy" everyone thinks he is only has the effect of taking away credibility from Wikipedia. There's no need to call him a "criminal" when you can easily just state the cut and dry facts like, "during X time period he spent at X penitentiary after his guilty conviction for defrauding the public" or something like that. Facts speak much more convincingly than anyone's single opinion.Outpatient 18:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, why wouldn't you call a convicted felon a criminal? What do you mean "no need"?
We don't need to because it is redundant.
Because once that convicted felon has paid their debt to society and/or are not engaged in criminal activity, then they are no longer a "criminal". Saying they engaged in criminal activities such and such is factual, and more convincing. - RoyBoy 800 04:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Official Wiki NPOV Rules

For anyone who isn't aware, see this official Wikipedia policy:

Popularity of viewpoint determines amount of weight that viewpoint gets in the article

It states "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."

In other words, since most of us are of the opinion that K.T. is a scam artist, by this policy, we should be given more weight. Those that are convinced he is a decent guy who is trying to help people get less weight. ZZYZX 08:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if they lose weight following his advice. - RoyBoy 800 07:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Image (TV capture?)

I noticed the image of Trudeau from his website was removed. If it was a matter of fair use, I can just get a TV capture of him which should be fair use. Any problem with that? - RoyBoy 800 04:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Did someone actually remove that image? I thought the wiki-powers-that-be did it automatically everywhere a few weeks back, because of copyright worries.. I know I was warned to go back thru my own uploaded images and fix some tags. I support your idea of a tv capture. that should definately be fair use. --Kvuo 03:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

American Memory Insitute??

He aparently founded this "American Memory Insitute", but I can't find anything on internet relating to it besides, "Kevin Trudeau, fouder of the American Memory Insitute" on book jackets and the like. The closest thing that comes up is the "American Memory Fellows", which seems to be history related. Anyone else have any info?? --Japonai Narya 16:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess everyone forgot about the American Memory Institute. How ironic. Apparently its only members are Kevin Trudeau and Matthew Goerke, so it doesn't seem to be legit. At the least, it's not the world's largest memory school. I work as a medical journalist with a focus in neurology and recently did an exhaustive review of the organizations in both American and the world for real medical and scientific professionals, yet strangely found no refence to this group. --TheNate 00:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

About Biases

Now i do not agree or disagree with the author. I have not put enough research into either. But it seems that no one is noticing some things. First things, in the latest addition of his infomercial he does refer to specific individuals and tests/drugs. To discredit that claim. Also many people of great regard (or high office), are convicted of crimes. The only thing that disproves him, are government approved items, tests, and articles(which we know are always telling the truth). The same people that created "Reefer Madness", The Skull and Bones Society, the ban of hemp in the united states (the same material that Mr. Drug War George W.'s Daddy came in on during WWII), and of course my favorite Mr George W. Himself. Also the same organization that currently has 30+ individuals on a list for indictment for bribery and accepting gifts. Some people are flat out fraudulent, others just stupid, some good liars, and others are good liars in high power. I think that we should really take a look at everything from both sides.

Everyone should read this article

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

then read about DiHydrogen Monoxide somewhere else and tell me something about biases. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Super spaz (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I ran into that a few years ago. It's hilarious. You do know it's intended as a joke, right? I guess you have to know something about basic chemical nomenclature to know what dihydrogen monoxide really is (think H2O). It was a good laugh when I first read it though.
One could also just read this:
dihydrogen monoxide
ZZYZX

SCAM ARTIST

This guy is no better than a god damn TV evangelist. Only because Chapter 1 is a little on point, yes, drug companies are not charities, does not mean the rest is correct. This guy is using a very complex marketing strategy to sell these books at 29.99!!! Why is this book so expensive? There is really no reason for a book that has this information to be this expensive. Inside the book there are really no cures, he said on TV that it includes it, then you get to that chapter and he says that it has been censored. This guy is nuts... Also, see his past. This guy was doing fraud!!!!!! What character traits do you think are needed to go on TV and sell this BS. I'm sure he's thrilled all of this is going on.

And the book even goes further to point you to membership to the website... "In one of the infomercials, Trudeau tells Tammy Faye Bakker Messner — former wife of televangelist Jim Bakker — that the book includes the method Trudeau used to quit smoking. But in the book, argues the Consumer Protection Board, Trudeau simply points people to the Web site: “If you want to know the exact method that I used to quit smoking, go to www.naturalcures.com and become a private member."

Most of us (and myself) agree with you. The question is how best to give the article a neutral point of view yet include as many facts as possible. I don't see a problem with including quotes from Trudeau, whether from infomercials or the book, since those are factual quotes. Regardless of whether he diagnosed and cured his own mitral valve prolapse, if he claims in writing or verbally to have done it, it's fair game. I am also in favor of keeping at least some sections. I notice other unproven pseudoscience articles typically have a criticism section, so I don't think that is a problem either. My suggestion is to move anything that is obviously biased into the Criticism section and stick with verifiable facts elsewhere. ZZYZX 11:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought he wasn't allowed to push products?

I thought that ol' Kev was only able to do his "Natural Cures" crap because of a loophole that didn't prevent him from selling information, but he was still prohibited from selling products and making claims about them. However, just tonight I saw an infomercial (using the same black background "Kevin Show" set) and he had some blonde woman on and was selling her makeup and face creams. He was explicitly selling and promoting her products, making the same outrageous claims, and had the makeup jars sitting between them on the desk. Isn't this illegal? I thought he wasn't allowed to do this anymore.

If it *is* against the law, can we report him to the FDA and/or FCC?


~Kurt ChildeRolandofGilead 15:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Kevin's legal status, but I would guess it prevents him from selling a product and profiting from it; not from being hired as a spokesman for someone else's product. - RoyBoy 800 05:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


I think it is his product. However, he is allowed to sell it because books are protected under the 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech)

NPOV tag

Who contends this article is violating NPOV? Please provide specific things you believe violate WP:NPOV; if nothing passes muster and/or is not submitted, the tag will be removed in a few days. - RoyBoy 800 05:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. The pro-Trudeau crowd probably won't be happy until we come up with a pro-Trudeau article. I'm in favor of removing the tag, especially now that the article has been rewritten a few times. --ZZYZX 20:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I concur, removing tag... but before I did that I removed "describes himself" from the lead. If he isn't an executive etc., then that should be noted and describes can be reinserted. Otherwise, I see little reason to doubt his self description. - RoyBoy 800 21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Drug commercials

by coincidence, Trudeau's commercial is on my tv right now in the background. I just heard him decry the amount of prescription drug advertising on TV. I dare guess that Trudeau's infomercials spend more time on TV than all the prescription drug ads combined. It's gotta be close.