Talk:Kevin Trudeau/Archive 2

Removed
Removed "piece of shit" line -CS-220.245.178.140 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is "Nature Cure" relevant information?
I'm referring to the paragraph in the article as follows:

"Searching Google for "A Complete Handbook of Nature Cure.pdf" (include "quotes" and spelled exactly, Nature Cure, not natural cures) will bring up sources for a free downloadable ebook from Bombay, India, with actual natural cures for ailments ranging from acne to venereal disease, including cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and a hundred other common ailments. In August 2005, the drug store chain Walgreens pulled the book from its shelves. Nevertheless the book has sold 3,000,000 copies."

What exactly does this "Complete Handbook of Nature Cure" have to do with Trudeau? Furthermore, even if it did, what cause is there to state that it contains "actual natural cures"? Perhaps I'm ignorant, but I see no way in which this reference is pertinent to the article, and indeed given its current phrasing in the article it seems to be misleading (leading one to think that the "Nature Cure" ebook was pulled from Walgreens instead of Trudeau's "Natural Cures" book).

63.26.148.184 19:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, the information has been moved and tweaked to the appropriate sections. - RoyBoy 800 07:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have pruned it down further. I haven't removed reference to it entirely but have reworded the section to make it clear that it claims to cure various ailments. Whether it does including the various diseases that were originally listed is highly debateable. I have also removed reference to how to search for it as most people know how to operate Google or whatever search engine they are most familiar with. --MagicMoose 16:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good. - RoyBoy 800 17:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Psychopath?
Knowing what I know about the guy, and especially after reading the Washington Post article, he seems to exhibit all the telltale signs of psychopathy. The only factor on the Cooke & Michie criteria that doesn't fit is lack of realistic, long-term goals (his are pretty obviously to con as many people as possible out of their money). Not really something for the article, just one those things to make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm. --Wasabe3543 09:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Corporation
"Psychopath? Knowing what I know about the guy, and especially after reading the Washington Post article, he seems to exhibit all the telltale signs of psychopathy. The only factor on the Cooke & Michie criteria that doesn't fit is lack of realistic, long-term goals (his are pretty obviously to con as many people as possible out of their money). Not really something for the article, just one those things to make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm. --Wasabe3543 09:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)"

As Trudeau mentions, read "The Corporation" or watch the documentary and you will see that the DSM-IV clinical guidelines for pyscopathic behavior apply to virtually ever corporation. Maybe, it takes one to know one, but I for one am glad that someone is putting their neck on the line to get this information out there. --208.188.113.24 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Putting his neck on the line? I'd say anyone who goes off their diabetes meds because some guy on the tv said that there are special herbs that'll do the trick is putting their neck on the line. Trudeau is just putting their money in his wallet.

Royal Rife
"cancers in a matter of hours using some kind of energy or radio waves, although he does not mention whether this machine was patented or who invented it."

Royal Rife is the inventor. And Trudeau does mention this in the book. Definitely seems to be a problem with NPOV on this page.

"accused" simply isn't the right word
Kevin Trudeau hasn't merely been "accused" of being a confidence trickster, HE'S A CONVICTED FELON, having spent two years in prison. He has been convicted for check fraud, credit card fraud, and has been fined large amounts of money by the FTC for making false claims. He is a liar, and a con-artist. He has literally defrauded thousands of people of millions of dollars.

Check out these links, which I will place on the article, if they aren't already there:

http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/FTCActions/trudeau.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/FTCActions/enforma2.html

http://skepdic.com/trudeau.html

I'll also be changing some wording, because it's inaccurate to say that Trudeau has been "accused" of what he has been convicted of. Maprov 23:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Nightline appearance
KT appeared on (the de-Koppeled) Nightline tonight. Link is here. (unsure how long the link will stay up)

The most damning part would be this:

''Asked for his "natural cure" for diabetes, Trudeau continually cites a study from the University of Calgary, which he says "has 25 years of research" of a natural way to make it so "diabetes can be, if not completely cured and wiped out in America, dramatically reduced by this herbal combination."

''But when asked, the University of Calgary told ABC News that "there is no scientific evidence that any herbal remedy can cure any form of diabetes. In our review of the claims made by Kevin Trudeau's book, we have established that there have been no human studies conducted at the University of Calgary in the past 20 years on herbal remedies for diabetes."

''Trudeau responded that he was "shocked and amazed" and that he would send us documentation he was referring to. We never did receive that documentation.'' --216.165.33.63 04:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20/20 gets Nightline's sloppy seconds: . They even used some of the same footage. John Stossel was involved, natch. --216.165.33.63 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What Kevin Trudeau Represents
69.201.12.248 17:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC) I think Kevin Trudeau represents a new ideology, which is why his character gets constantly attacked. People don't really have a problem with the person, but what he's currently marketing, and the fact that people are believing him. If everyone actually listened to what Trudeau is now saying, the face of American business would completely change. In fact, it already is. Huge companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds are starting to carry organic products, over half of America's population over 55 has tried alternative medicine, and drug companies' image has been getting progressively worse with each passing year. I think this is the issue that so many people are trying to combat, and they know that Trudeau has a checkered past, so they attack the person in an attempt to discredit the information he presents to the public. Unfortunately for these people, discrediting Trudeau doesn't change any of the facts that he has already presented.


 * While that may be true, it is also true he lies through his teeth (re: Calgary research) and with a smile. To do this while dispensing medical advice (despite saying to consult a doctor, he is giving medical advice based on "research") and raising peoples hopes. That's fine by itself (because it encourages a placebo effect), but to line his own pockets and possibly hurt people... that's less than fine. Proclaim Trudeau as an advocate of the "alternative" all you want, what remains is he's doing it for the money. Kind of like ohhh, let's say, drug companies. Imagine that, making money and helping people. But when Trudeau does it, his lies and half-truths are even easier to uncover. The "facts" he presents about the pharmaceutical industry can be found out by doing a little research, perhaps watching a documentary or two; while what he says may for the most part be true, it is merely a marketing technique he employs to sell his book, and there are more reputable sources to consult about corruption in the FDA and drug industry. Anyway Trudeau's "image has been getting progressively worse with each passing year". All the best in your alternative quest, I'd suggest getting alternative advice from others who are trained in such matters; rather than confirmed (and convicted) liars. - RoyBoy 800 07:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto RoyBoy. Kevin Trudeau is doing immeasurably more harm than good to the popular acceptance of alternative medicine.  To say that Trudeau "represents" some new paradigm of health is to align alternative medicine with snake oil and pseudoscience.  If anything, what Trudeau and his methods represent is a growing culture of fear and distrust, directed especially against the operations of government and big business.  Consider the title: Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About.  The line sells so well because so many of us already believe that "they" can't be trusted.  Kevin Trudeau gazes out of the cover, beneficent, wise, the enlightened rebel telling "truth" to power.  We want so much for it to be true that we convince ourselves to believe it.  We buy the book.  And the conman gets a little richer.   lesmana 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is there only bad info on this article,i thought there was supposed to be a neutral policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.30.202.28 (talk • contribs).


 * The WP:NPOV policy isn't about making an article neutral (whitewashed), it is about stating facts neutrally. If there is an abundance of criticism about Trudeau, our policy actually requires us to put that in the article. It also requires us to treat minority views (such as those expressed by Trudeau in his infomercials) as a minority view; and to contrast it to the majority view. - RoyBoy 800 15:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your statement completely proves why this article is biased. His book is New York Times Bestseller. He's appeared on numerous news shows. Millions of people are buying his book. Fast food chains are finally adding healthier choices (which that alone can be debated for days, because the new "healthy" choices at these places contain more fat than their normal items when you put salad dressing and other things on it. Subway advertises Jared all the time, but he's obviously in the vast minority of people losing weight from eating Subway), drug companies are pulling more and more FDA-approved drugs off the shelf or slapping Black warning labels on them. Whether you agree or disagree with his statements, it's not the type of minority you're trying to say it is. Wouldn't you say the majority of people that took Vioxx felt perfectly fine? And studies would show you it was fine. But where were all the studies showing just the opposite. Nothing happened until people started dying, from the recommended doses.


 * And? What does that have to do with the article and Trudeau? He regurgitates what others have been saying for quite some time; he is riding the wave of "alternative" medicine and healthier food. What I was referring to as minority views, was not in reference to those things... what I'm referring to is his particular brand of FDA criticism, and overemphasis of natural "cures" and over-skepticism of the FDA and drug companies.

I have read Kevin Trudeau's book and honestly, you can completely disagree with everything he's saying, but if you read up on the chapter where he gives 101 things to improve your life, you would be amazed how much better you feel by just doing a few here and there. The things he is saying are not huge conspiracies, they are blantantly obvious when you take and a minute and think about it. Honestly, I wish I had thought of that to make money. Who wouldn't want to do that?


 * Indeed, that's good stuff. A mention of that list can be made, and providing it had the correct context. Such as where the ideas from the list originated.

He mentions many things in there that are complete facts (drug companies are forced to make profits, because they are a publicly traded company, this is a fact). He does go off the limb sometimes with his beliefs, but if you're a Democrat, do you believe in 100% of your party's beliefs, and vice versa? You're not forced to take everything he says and you're not forced to abide by anything. If you went to a doctor's office and he diagnosed you with something and wrote a prescription for you, I can almost guarantee you if you then went to another doctor, he would prescribe you something else, and might even diagnose you with something else. Try the same at a dentist's office.


 * However, Trudeau uses peoples mistrust of big government and big corporate to improve his sales. When he goes on a limb without solid references to back him up, that's when he losses credibility and garners criticism. The criticism then improves sales too; its quite slick of him. But will not help him much on Wikipedia. (btw, the limb stuff is what I was referring to as minority opinions)

And if you've never tried a tablespoon of apple cider vinegar for heartburn, you're completely missing out on the easiest treatment I've ever had, and I rarely get heartburn. I worked at a pharmacy for 5 years, and I knew people who would be on prescription heartburn meds their entire life... but if you simply read the information that comes with the bottle, you'll see that the meds are only supposed to be used for about 3 months, and then cure you of acid reflux disease. Do you ever see someone take these meds for that period and stop? What about Ambien? Ambien is supposed to cure your sleeplessness in 6-8 days and should not be prescribed longer than that, yet we always had month long prescriptions for it.


 * That's good information, and that information should go elsewhere. Doesn't have too much to do with this article, except perhaps a mention "drugs are overprescribed, leading to a deterioration in health etc etc."

It's kind of like the guy that walks into the doctor and tells him whenever he tries to do 10 back-flips, he lands on his head and now his head hurts. "Ok, well how about you stop doing that?" Just as any normal doctor should tell someone, "Ok, well, why don't you stop eating so many ridiculously high-acidic foods??" So many people have this belief that the meds allow them to still be completely uncaring of their own bodies, when the meds really work best when you change your lifestyle anyway. "Yea, my cholesterol is bad and I'm still eating completely unhealthy, but I'm taking Lipitor so I'll be ok." Drugs can help you stay alive until you hit the right path, but then you should not be on these drugs long term.


 * Again, suitable for another article.

When Trudeau speaks on his informercials, of course he is going to be extreme. He wants you to buy the book. Would anyone even attempt to listen to him if he just said, "I have a book and it mentions some natural cures in there, ho-hum."


 * Yes, its a sales technique.

Fact: Almost all drug studies are performed on healthy young to middle-aged men. If you don't believe me, just look it up. It was a question on my pharmacy tech certification.


 * And? That's to provide meaningful results for complications etc, without putting someones life at risk. That is a matter of scientific rigor, not pharmaceutical evil doing... not carrying out further studies on target age groups for the drug would be evil doing.

I know I am going off the path here, but the point is that these drug companies do have many good and helpful products, but they also have many products that should have never seen the light of day, yet people walk in, get their meds, and assume the FDA and drug companies are their pal. Point is, feel free to not believe every Trudeau says in his book, but I truly believe you should take some of it and just try it. You will notice a difference, for the better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.251.176.172 (talk • contribs).


 * There is useful information, and I'll do my best to add in mentions of some of the things you have outlined here. But this isn't a matter of believing Trudeau; it simply a fact his credibility and motives are entirely suspect... regardless of the helpful information/lists and valid cricitism he has managed to include in his book. The former is more notable and pertinent to include in the article, than the latter (since useful health information and drug/FDA criticism is done better by credible sources); that is why his credibility is the focus of the article. The rest can be filtered in slowly, thanks in part, to suggestions by you. - RoyBoy 800 23:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of this Article
I agree with whoever posted right above me, that this article is not neutral in its view of Mr. Trudeau. It is incredibly negative, and while listing EVERY thing he's ever done wrong, it does not list the things that he's done right, or the people that his book HAS HELPED! While he may have lied about the Calgary research, that does not warrant him being portrayed in such a bad light. This article needs to be changed to a more neutral state. BloodLinedBandLead 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article contains verifiable, objective information. It avoids hearsay and rumor-mongering.  That the overwhelming body of public information on Kevin Trudeau happens to be negative does not impugn the neutrality of the article.  However, it likely does speak to the credibility of the subject. lesmana 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree,there are plenty of good things he did and people he helped,this article barley,if at all names any,and maybe you are just on his opposition too.User:Rodrigue


 * Which people are these? If you are speaking to people who have used his products; there is little doubt people find them useful, but to add testamonials is contrary to Wikipolicy. I could add a sentence about this linking perhaps to Amazon which contains testamonials. If there are further suggestions; please make them, but this is not a serious problem for the article. And as I have added a sentence, it has received attention. - RoyBoy 800 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * After skimming the article I remembered and saw that Amazon has already been employed as an advertising tool for Trudeau. I'll reiterate Wikipedia is not a place for testimonials and marketing material. If there are specific instances of Trudeau helping people; perhaps doing charity work; please list them. Otherwise there is little to be done in the article. - RoyBoy 800 19:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying something about how people have been helped by his book does not make it a 'testimonial.' All that needs to be done to it is something similar to "Even though he has critics, his book has helped a number of people." Once again, saying something like this does NOT constitute a testimonial. BloodLinedBandLead 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the statement that "his book has helped some people" is one that cannot be verified. There is a section in the article about this very topic.  Sure you could say it but without evidence to back it up or whether or not these people's health statement have been evaluated by a LICENSED medical practioner makes the statement questionable at best.  This statement could only be made based on those testimonials.  Aarlin81

BloodLinedBandLead said: "All that needs to be done to it is something similar to "Even though he has critics, his book has helped a number of people."" - sorry, but thats not encyclopedic at all. It is noted in the article that his book has sold millions, and he obviously has his supporters. The allegedly "biased" tone of the article is really just a necessity of it being a neutral biography: the guy has been convicted of some bad stuff, and he's constantly under investigation to this day. The article notes which charges he'd denied, and which ones he has dismissed for various reasons, but Wikipedia can't be trying to balance each negative fact with something positive.

If you've got something to add, do it, and others will evaluate whether it's encyclopedic or not. Also, if you have some specific instances of guideline violations regarding nuetrality, bring them up here and tag the article again. As it is, seeing as you've not provided any violating passages (or missing, noteworthy facts) I'm removing the NPOV tag. --relaxathon 17:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another book?
First it was Natural Cures. Then the updated version said to actually contain cures that were supposed to be in the first book (not really though). Now it's "More Natural Cures Revealed". I can't wait to read the reviews (not the book) on this one. Note: All Amazon.com reviews are actually copied over from the Natural Cures. They are not specific to MNCR Aarlin81 21:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the worst articles on Wikipedia
I have no opinion of this guy and came here for biographical information and found a seriously one-side view of this guy. It's one thing to tell the truth about someone, another to use a Wikipedia entry as an attack on someone. There are far worse people than this guy on Wikipedia and the articles are done very well. Those of you who are on a personal campaign against this guy really need to show more professionalism. This resource is for information, not opinion. If you want to attack the guy, make your own website about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.9.195 (talk • contribs)


 * Why you felt a need to start another section on whether or not the article is one-sided is beyond me. This is a subject that has been debated up and down and side to side above.  The article mentions FACTS not speculation nor opinion.  The fact that Trudeau's actions seem to fall on the negative side, and that there is no proof of positive actions, beyond testimonials, does not amount to KT bashing.  Trudeau's [blind] supporters, and anyone else is more than welcome to contribute to this article.  If you (or they) have anything tangible to add which would otherwise seem to change the views of this article please do so.  Aarlin81 19:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Biographical information on Trudeau has been hard to find; if you come across some let us know and it will be included in the article. And while some people here indeed may not like Trudeau; we are not attacking him, but rather detailing notable "attacks"/criticism by others. Also this isn't a measure of how "bad" someone is; as Hitler is a historical figure, there is much more known/researched/documented and much more to detail about Hitler than just his atrocities. If Trudeau becomes a historic figure, the article will evolve to reflect that. One thing that can certainly be conceded, this article reflects the bias of Wikipedia towards researching online. Little is known about Trudeau himself online, but criticism of him is abundant on the internet. This article reflects that reality. - RoyBoy 800 15:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to step in here and say that while the article does mention facts, it does so in a rather unencyclopedic manner. The problem is not whether or not Trudeau is a good person doing good things, but that the article is biased toward that idea. The bias lies not in an excess representation of negativity, but rather in the fact that too much of a percentage of the article relates to the issue of "Kevin Trudeau, good or bad?", even if it does not state an opinion.


 * I have no doubt that this article features FACTS. I do not believe that any more FACTS would change the article's overall representation as negative (which I have no problem with). My problem is that this article should have a good deal more relative information that is unrelated to the whole argument.


 * As much as some may hate to admit it, this article is severely lacking in biographical information. It barely even contains a biographical summary. Has anyone seen the Yuri Geller article? He's generally considered (and rightfully so) to be a fraud, but a significant portion of the article contains information that does not relate to that concept. In this article, however, there is little information that does not relate to the controversy.


 * In addition, the article provides information about criticism of things that it does not provide basic information about. For example, there is information about criticism of his infomercials, which I do not object to, but there is little factual information about his infomercials themselves; information which I believe would flavor this article rather satisfyingly. I believe that this article should follow the structure of the two opening paragraphs. The first paragraph provides information about Trudeau, the second provides information about how others criticize him. The rest of the article, however, seems much more to follow the structure of the second paragraph, and provides very little factual information unrelated to the criticism.


 * The problem with the article is not neutrality, but supplement. I am not criticizing anybody who contributed to it, but am instead saying that there is a lot more that can be contributed to it. The fact that this article is broken up into information about Kevin Trudeau's criminal record, information concerning the controversy around his book, and other criticisms concerning him just helps to hilight the FACT that there is little information given. Despite the length that the controversy sections add, biographically and supplementarally, this article is a stub. So let's treat it like a stub, and add the information that it needs. Enough about the criticism. I want to know about the man.

205.188.116.9


 * Unfortunately you seem to forget that this is a constantly evolving online encyclopedia. Submissions are made by individuals in areas which they see fit.  It can be added to and revised at anytime.  If you feel that this article is lacking in those areas you are more than welcome to add them.  The sections regarding criticism is valid as it points to false public statements as well as the general press statements about him.  As I mentioned you are more than welcome to include any information in areas you feel needs to be addressed.  However, do NOT critize a lack of information as many of the contributors do so voluntarily.  Aarlin81 05:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you come across a credible source on Trudeau's life, let us know. - RoyBoy 800 15:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read over this article and found that the wording may in places be lacking in neutrality. I've reworded the FDA section to something that I believe is both more unbiased and more professional.

205.188.116.9


 * Reverted to previous version. 1.) It contained grammatic errors. 2.)  Context limited to "in his book".  This is NOT true as Trudeau has made such claims in his infommercials (available at his website), CNN, ABCNews, Good Morning America, The Today Show, and others.  Aarlin81 05:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This guy is pretty bad. He is making millions of dollars from his garbage books, while at the same time giving credence to the negative claims made by the FDA, the pharmaceutical industry, and QuackWatch on botanical medicine. He is doing nothing but lending supprt for their propaganda. ''Kevin Trudeau is not a scientist; he is not a researcher. As a matter of fact, he never even went to college. What qualifies him to speak about medicine?''--Dan Asad 18:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Kevin Trudeau would like people to believe that these very things are what make him the perfect person to talk about these subjects. He's not a doctor and doesn't work for the FDA or FTC or the "food industry".  Neither do I but it doesn't qualify me as any kind of expert.  Just because I once flew on a plane doesn't qualify me as an expert in aeronautical engineering does it?  Apparently in Trudeau's world, it does.  What a tard.  Aarlin81 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is so obvious that he is simply reiterating the claims made by genuine authorities to promote his scam and pseudoscience (viz. those of Mike Roizen, Mehmet Oz, James A. Duke, Richard C. Jensen, Ray D. Strand, and Evan Levine). It just kills me to see the Amazon rankings of their books compared to his, with exception to Roizen and Oz.--Dan Asad 05:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Aarlin81's arguments supporting this article is that every time an attempt to defend the article, the defense includes very biased statements against the supporters of Trudeau. Their is constant arguments here saying that there is no proof to claims that he has helped people. What about the few people that have come on here and have argued the article is biased? What about the millions that have bought the book, or attended a conference, or joined his website... has every single one of them returned information saying they were tricked? As for a personal support bias, I worked in a cancer pharmacy for about a year (as well as a regular retail pharmacist for 4 years), and I can tell you that when people took herbal supplements and vitamins and minerals with their chemo, they ALWAYS pulled through and never seemed to have any struggles, while people who did not would suffer severely from the intense treatment. In fact, more deaths occurred from the chemo itself, not the cancer. These are not opinions. Do I agree with everything Trudeau says? No. But can't that be said for everyone? John Kerry would run his mouth about how honorable he was for serving his country in Vietnam, but would never mention all of his protests and speeches he would give completely opposing the war... yet 49% of the voters in America supported him. The FDA constantly states bad things about many of their drugs and how much time and studying they put into each and every drug. My wife is in pharmacy school. Did you know that 700 drugs were approved by the FDA in 2004? Seven hundred??? Where do they have the time, man-power, and money to do that many necessary tests themselves? Yet they magically have extra time to denounce the positive effects of green tea. How long did it take until public pressure finally made the FDA agree to let cranberry juice contain a label stating the positive effects it does for your kidneys? If not for personal testimonies and public opinions, the government agencies and drug companies would continue to do what they are required to do, by law... make profits. Kevin's book is truly an eye-opener if you sit and read it, especially if you've had any personal experience with the drug companies and healthcare field, like I have. You're constantly sitting there saying to yourself, "Yep, he's exactly right, and I can't believe he's actually opening his mouth and saying it." Like I said, I don't agree with everything he says, and yes, the fact that he has a criminal record does hurt his image and his trust-level. But like I said, when you've had personal experiences, or even tried to do some of the things he suggest in there, it's amazing the differences you see (and not even the drug suggestions, just the simple lifestyle changes).

This brings up the section on the book. The book does not completely disregard or "trick" you after you read it (that is a biased statement that is taking the OPINION of other people). He mentions 101 things in their that he believes will improve your life. That is not censored, and many of these things are related to other chapters in the book. The chapter that is missing is because the FTC banned and censored that chapter from the book, but because of Internet laws being less strict, the cures are all found there with the exact meds to take. In his newest book, that chapter, along with other things, is now in there after a court win against the FTC. Also, in the original book, he gives an entire lists of books and authors to reference for hundreds of illnesses. Many of these authors are doctors or scientists, while some are probably not experts. A non-biased view on this section would state that the book has parts missing that he claims to say is in his book, but that the FTC has censored this section, but is now shown in his new book. To state people feel "tricked" is going completely by opinion, and disregarding any facts of what is there and not there. To simply state it's missing and people are tricked is not completely explaining the book and other works he has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.251.176.172 (talk • contribs).


 * I would remind you Wikipedia is not a place for testimonials; even the article on Tony Robbins doesn't contain a listing of people his products have apparently helped. Could you please provide references for the court win that allowed censored parts to be in the next edition; and a reliable reference clarifying the FTC did indeed censor the book/cures to begin with? - RoyBoy 800 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I got a BIG kick out of the part mentioning the chapter that was supposedly banned or censored by the FTC. Uh, sorry but no.  It's just a sympathy tactic.  The part about "Internet laws" being less strict was also laughable.  The FTC has stated many times that they are merely keeping an eye on the book and the only issue they (and the FDA) have is the use of the word CURES in the title.


 * If you READ the settlement between the FTC and Trudeau you will see that it forbids him from selling or endorsing any product or service EXCEPT for truthful publications. For clarification purposes he can go on TV and promote say Vitamin E but not NatureBlend brand Vitamin E.  Despite the obvious lack of truthfulness Trudeau's book is safe as he uses phrases like "I believe" or "it's my opinion".  Need I remind you that Trudeau entered this settlement willingly.  He was offered an opportunity to defend himself.  However, despite having "millions of pages of evidence and research" he settled (though he claims the FTC could find no wrong-doing which is a twisting of the facts).


 * I enjoy the fact that testimonials have absolutely no place in this or any other article. This is the exact reason that I, even before becoming a registered user, contributed the section to this article about testimonials.  However, I used the term "anecdotal" as this is how Trudeau describes why the FTC won't allow them in his earlier infommercial "A Closer Look".  Please read the section entitled NO PROOF OF CLAIMS.    Aarlin81 17:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Add this information from kevin's book
Ok, even though I am a new user. I have read kevin's book. Kevin is a whistle blower on the FDA and FTC. However, the reason other people can write books with more information is according to kevin "He was previously in trouble with both the FDA and the FTC." So he is on a watch so to say. As stated this is pretty one-sided. Also the reason those medical experts disagree with him is because of the pharmacuetical industry. I'm sorry if i sound kind of one sided. I am new to wikipedia. But can you please put up a thing questioning the impartiality of this page?


 * Ah the world according to Trudeau. I will ask that you read the other numerous sections regarding this very subject BEFORE beating yet another dead horse.  No matter how his supporters attempt to present their argument, they cannot deny the facts.  That's what wikipedia is about.  Facts.  Not opinions or testimonials.
 * Trudeau is NOT a whistleblower. Heck, he's got a website, whistleblower.com, that for years has made the same accusations and promises that the truth will be revealed.  Yet, nothing.  Waiting, waiting, still NOTHING.  It's rather difficult to consider Trudeau a whistleblower when a vast majority of his statements begin with "It's my opinion..." or "I believe".
 * I ask that you read the history of Mr. Trudeau's run-ins with the FTC (the FDA is not the gun-toting organization he claims it is) as well as read the settlement before blindly believing every word he says or writes. As far as the neutrality tag, it's long been removed since those accusations from users crying foul have been largely blown to pieces.  Aarlin81 06:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * While some experts are certainly in the pocket of big corporations; medical experts, and alternative medicine experts are quite capable of disagreeing with Trudeau based on him making unverified claims. If pharmaceutical companies are able to understate natural remedies; Trudeau is more than capable of overstating them as natural "cures". Also, Wikipedia is not the place to list information from books; Wikisource would be more appropriate for that. - RoyBoy 800 02:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Trudeau's Infomercials
Kevin Trudeau's infomercials are way better than Three's Company and other stupid sitcoms.--64.12.116.200 00:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)