Talk:Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About/Archive 1

Response to Criticism
In response to the criticism section of this article, it may behove the article writer to know that the claims made in the book are consistent with the findings anyone studying eastern medicine or ayurvedic practices would discover. The alkalinity claim in particular has been substantiated by individual discoveries in the US population, but has been used in Asia for centuries. There is a product started by someone whose mother was cured of cancer by the use of a cultured tea known as Kombucha which restores alkalinity to the body. These things are commonly known to non-western practitioners of medicine, where they are taught not simply pharmaceuticals and surgery as western medicine does. Pharmaceutical products themselves, many people forget, are derived from natural sources, but are dosed in unhealthy amounts that cause severe problems (side-effects); the theory behind homeopathy, herbalism, and ayurvedics is simply the ability to live in a way to prevent disease and allow the body it's own ability to combat it - this can mean taking herbs, vitamins, minerals, and certain substances as a supplemental, those same substances used in pharmaceuticals that are too potent to be healthy. Trudeau is simply bringing to public notice all those things known in the underbelly of naturalist subculture. Personally, I trust the Jews who rate products as being kosher far above the FDA that considers what products are harmful or edible; I think the FDA should be sued along with the pharmaceutical companies who's statistics are more often than not fraudulent themselves (if anyone would bother to look into it).

Also, anyone who calls in to the infomercials has to realize that they are automatically entered into a 30 trial period that they have to cancel before the end of the 30 days (just like credit-card membership benefits programs) or you are automatically enrolled for a specified amount of time (usually a year). Any patron's failure to acknowledge the contract is likely the same person who cashes those $5 checks from benefits programs without realizing the contract they just entered into - this is why you cannot cancel the membership, it's called a contract.

Jerthelost 19:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Jer


 * Please find a reliable source for the above. — DavidMack 17:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Neutrality
I have again made an effort to move this article to a more neutral position while still allowing for the inclusion of several points from the antagonistic contingency. By the same token, I still do not see the necessity to include wholesale reprint of the book's contents as some supporters would wish. Wikipedia is not interested in obtaining licensing to reprint portions of any book. In an effort to clarify my position on this and all matters wikipedian, please see the following statement I made in the section earlier under the subheading Revert:

Please make an effort to step outside of your emotional opposition and see the negative effect that the contributions of editors with that much passion about a subject bring to the process. The fundamental difference between contribution and contortion is what lies at the heart of this debate. If an editor feels strongly about the rightness or wrongness of an article's subject they perhaps should recuse themselves from the process due to their conflict of interest. The conflict being between an individual's ability to write dispassionately about an entry. Passion for a subject, be it in support or opposition, contradicts the basic premise of a reference project such as Wikipedia. The reason you don't go to mommy and daddy any more for your reference point is because a long time ago you outgrew the need to have someone tell you what and how to think. Now, I would wager, you simply want the data and then freedom to draw your own conclusions. Why continue to insult the intelligence of those who wish to utilize this promising resource? Regardless of what specific references you include from the text you are still removing the individual's right to find importance in the text where they want to find it. Returning to the analogy of Catcher in the Rye, if you were to include under a subheading of Criticism a singular quote from the book in which Caulfield pays to have a prostitute sent to his room, one could surmise that this particular line or subject was viewed negatively by you. It would therefore betray your passion and there you have strayed from the true intention of the resource. If I can be excused from stating this too crudely: no one comes to Wikipedia to find what how you feel about a subject. Bizfixer 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bizfixer 20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have actually gotten rid of all the criticisms without indicating that there are any. Sure, you mention that he believes the government is conspiring to shut him down, and one reference to his book being controversial. However, I think there needs to be a criticism section. In the External References at the bottom, there is a link to analysis of his commercial by an MD. There are plenty of other sources with relevant information, including how some of his 'remedies' actually injured people. I think this needs to be included, and can be done in an NPOV manner. Anyone deduce the same as I did? KyleGoetz 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved
Moved the following from the article: Natural cure they dont want you to know about:


 * A book written by Kevin Trudeau promoting a variety of non-drug, non-surgical and all-natural cures for virtually every disease, and criticizing the United States government, the FDA, and pharmaceutical companies for censoring these methods and cures on the basis that it would cut into their profit-margin.

Just in case anything can be merged. - RoyBoy 800 05:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Major work being done on the article
I am doing some major copyediting. The major problem with this article is that there is alot of redunancy and the external links section is way way way too long. Bear with me. I won't put the "editing in progress" tag on this, but I'm doing some major cleanup work. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

From an NPOV angle here is my proposal for a more neutral article:

-Start of Edit-

A book written by Kevin Trudeau promoting a variety of non-drug, non-surgical and all-natural cures for virtually every disease, and criticizing the United States government, the FDA, and pharmaceutical companies for censoring these methods and cures on the basis that it would cut into their profit-margin.

Premise

In the book, Trudeau claims that there are "all-natural" cures for serious illnesses including cancer, herpes, arthritis, AIDS, acid reflux disease, various phobias, obesity, multiple sclerosis, lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, attention deficit disorder, muscular dystrophy, and that these are being deliberately hidden from the public by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission because the government cannot regulate and control all-natural cures. Trudeau cites a pattern of payoffs, conflicts of interest, and bribery, as well as commissioners from the FDA going to work directly for drug companies upon leaving the FDA and use their clout to protect their companies' interests. Trudeau also argues that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is also involved, shutting down alternative health care providers like Trudeau and others who advocate all-natural cures in order to protect the drug companies' profits.

The book has been the focus of much controversy since its publication, and it has sold more than 3 million copies and remained on The New York Times best-seller list for over nine weeks.

Versions of the book

The original book contained 271 pages. An "Updated Edition" was sold shortly thereafter, containing 563 pages. This adds a new Introduction, a Frequently Asked Questions chapter and a chapter on website information. It also adds three appendices, containing newsletter articles, "No-Hunger Bread: A True FDA Horror Story," and locations of several health care practitioners. The FDA article, originally a short letter and summary of the case in the original book, is included in its entirety in the updated edition. One omission in the updated edition is a Glossary section containing several New Age techniques.

The author states that the chapter "The Cures For All Diseases" was completely censored by the FTC in the original book. The chapter is included titled as "Natural Cures for Specific Diseases" in the updated edition.

Further reading


 * Trudeau, Kevin, Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About, Alliance Publishing, 2005. ISBN 0-9755995-1-8
 * Candice Choi, Associated Press, No Sure Cure, The Detroit News, page 3b, 25 Sep 2005, in court records. [2]

-End of Edit-

The fact that currently the article is 75-80% critical of the book places it more in line with an opinionated review of the text than an unbiased encyclopedic entry. Moreover, several vitriolic comments by editors betray their lack of neutrality. Examples follow:

"...even if it is polite insults to idiotic content. -Tyciol 05:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)"

All responses listed in this discussion under the heading: neutrality dispute

"...Then just explain how it's relevant to the article... - febtalk 01:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't.TheDevilYouKnow 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)"

"I have no problem with this con artist being called a criminal; the way it's done now doesn't seem encyclopedic though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Feba (talk • contribs) 17:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)."

"...Earlier today, I saw one of this guy's informercials...now he's trying to... febtalk 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)"

Bizfixer 06:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a wiki book review website?
I wish to see this bullshit artist called on his crap without couching it in NPOV. -68.76.145.201.
 * I don't know of any current wiki book review, though there may be one. Normally reviews are done on book-selling sites like amazon.com or on private web sites. Including them in Wikipedia is good enough for now. It is not NPOV to review the content, if it is being reviewed in a fair unbiased and polite manner, even if it is polite insults to idiotic content. -Tyciol 05:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Book summary from previous version
In responce to this spam posted by an IP below... well... I don't really want it cluttering this talk page here. It seems like they put a lot of work into it though so I feel bad deleting it... maybe move it to some other article? Perhaps the user desires to return and incorporate some of the relevant information here into the article? No clue... Tyciol 06:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed is it that they mistook this page for the actual article or do they believe this? Cryo921 07:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Claims

 * The only two reasons a person becomes ill are: The person catches a virus or bacteria, or a disease is developed through an imbalance in the body, such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, acid reflux, or arthritis.
 * The body develops a disease in "genetically weak" areas, due to a weak immune system or toxins attacking the body.
 * All disease is caused by a combination of too many toxins in the body, nutritional deficiencies, electromagnetic chaos, and mental and emotional stress.
 * The main cause of toxins in the body is "what comes in the body, what goes out of the body, exercise, rest, thoughts, and what you say."
 * Toxins are absorbed through the skin (lotions and cosmetics), nose (mold, dust, pollen, air fresheners, carpeting, mattresses, glue, paint, air conditioning, and detergent), eyes (violent and disturbing images) and ears (sound of air conditioning, computer, alarm clock, loud music, appliances, car engines, and car horns). (p. 95)
 * Certain music, sounds, and frequencies cause plants to thrive, while others cause plants to wither and die. Unnatural man-made frequencies negatively affect cells in the human body. (p. 99)
 * Unnatural electromagnetic energy affects the natural electromagnetic field of the body, including cell phone towers, cell phones, high tension power lines, electric wiring, computers, fluorescent lights, microwave overs, satellites, and other people. Sitting in a laundromat, using an electric hairdryer, or air flowing between buildings produces positive ions, leading to fatigue.  Ocean waves, water running in a stream, or wind blowing through trees produce healthy negative ions. (p. 102)
 * Using a microwave oven weakens the immune system, causes depression and anxiety, and poisons foods including baby food and water. (p. 145)
 * Nonstick cookware emits fumes at high temperatures, leading to respiratory disease, weakening of the immune system, cancer, depression, asthma, headaches, and other health problems. (p. 148)
 * Vitamin E can prevent heart disease, eliminate varicose veins, improve sexual performance, and reduce or alleviate depression. (p. 160)
 * Digestive enzyme supplements can eliminate acid reflux, heartburn, indigestion, gas, bloating, and constipation. (p. 161)
 * Cellphones, laptops, wireless devices, high definition TVs, irradiated food, and microwaved food suppress the immune system, lead to disease, and cause cancer. (p. 164)
 * White or bright clothing emits positive energy (p. 167)

Recommendations
General recommendations:


 * Eliminate toxins that have built up in your system
 * Stop or reduce toxins entering the body
 * Make sure elimination systems are clean and no longer sluggish
 * Get proper amounts of vitamins, minerals, enzymes, cofactors, and life sustaining energy
 * Neutralize or reduce electromagnetic chaos
 * Reduce stress
 * Use minds and words to alkalize the body and change genetically defective DNA structures into healthy DNA structures

Lifestyle changes (p. 128):


 * See natural health care providers regularly
 * Get treated by a bioenergetic synchronization technique practitioner [www.morterhealthctr.com]
 * Get a chiropractic adjustment
 * See an herbalist
 * See a homeopathic practitioner
 * See a naturopath
 * Stop taking prescription and non-prescription drugs
 * Use energetic rebalancing machines such as Intero, Vegatest, or Dermatron
 * Check "body pH" levels

Toxin elimination (p. 134)


 * 15 colonics in 30 days
 * Colon cleanse
 * Liver/gallbladder cleanse
 * Kidney/bladder cleanse
 * Heavy metal cleanse
 * Parasite cleanse
 * Candida cleanse [www.lifeforceplan.com]
 * Full body fat tissue/lymphatic cleanse [www.purification.org]
 * Drink eight glasses of pure water daily
 * Use a mini-trampoline rebounder daily
 * Walk one hour per day
 * Stretch muscles and tendons
 * Practice deep breathing
 * Sweat with a dry sauna or infrared sauna
 * Have a dry brush massage
 * Have a Swedish deep tissue massage
 * Practice Chi Kung
 * Practice Tai Chi [www.shaolinwolf.com]
 * Perform a seven to thirty day fast
 * Use specialized treatments such as reflexology, acupuncture, cranial-sacral therapy, reiki, *Essential oil treatments, and other holistic therapies.

Toxin prevention (p. 141)


 * Do not eat any brand name product or product sold by a publicly traded corporation
 * Remove metal from any dental work
 * Stop smoking
 * Do not drink tap water
 * Use a shower filter
 * Eat 100% organic food
 * Do not eat in fast food restaurants
 * Do not eat anything use in a microwave oven
 * Eliminate Aspartame (Nutrasweet) and MSG
 * Eliminate Splenda and other artificial sweeteners
 * Do not drink diet sodas, do not eat hydrogenated oils
 * Do not eat homogenized and pastuerized dairy products
 * Do not eat high fructose corn syrup
 * Use toothpaste with no fluoride
 * Do not use nonstick cookware
 * Eat only organic kosher meat and poultry
 * Do not eat farm raised fish
 * Do not eat pork
 * Do not eat shellfish
 * Do not put anything on the skin that cannot be eaten
 * Get an air purifier
 * Use non-toxic 100% organic cleaning supplies
 * Do not drink canned or bottled juice
 * Do not use sunblock
 * Do not take vitamins
 * Do not use antiperspirants or deodorants
 * Do not eat white processed sugar
 * Do not eat food bars
 * Do not eat diet or protein shakes
 * Avoid hot tubs, steam rooms, and swimming pools
 * Do not use air fresheners
 * Eliminate fluorescent lighting
 * Reduce or eliminate air conditioning
 * Avoid dry cleaning
 * Make your own beer and wine
 * Buy a vacuum cleaner with a hepa filter

Nutritional changes (p. 157)


 * Eat organic fresh fruits and vegetables
 * Use a juice machine
 * Eat raw organic nuts and seeds
 * Get natural sunlight [www.sungazing.com]
 * Eat an organic apple daily
 * Take coral calcium
 * Take all-natural vitamin E
 * Take liquid colloidal minerals daily
 * Drink Noni, Goji, Mangosteen, Aloe Vera, and Acai Berry juices
 * Take a whole food supplement such as chorella, blue-green algae, spirulina, and royal jelly
 * Eat raw organic honey, bee propolis, royal jelly, and bee pollen
 * Get an oxygen water cooler
 * Take digestive enzymes
 * Use organic sea salt
 * Eat organic dark chocolate
 * Take an Omega-3 supplement
 * Eat snacks such as organic apples, pears, raw nuts and seeds, celery, carrots, cucumbers, chicken salad, tuna salad, organic beef and poultry, fruit and vegetable juice, whole grain toast or sprouted bread, and organic honey.

Neutralize electromagnetic chaos (p. 164):


 * Use an electromagnetic chaos eliminator
 * Use electronic and wireless devices sparingly
 * Use a "gentle wind project" instrument [www.gentlewindproject.org]
 * Reduce television use
 * Get a magnetic mattress pad
 * Use magnetic finger and toe rings
 * Avoid electric tumble dryers
 * Add living plants in your home
 * Wear white or bright clothing
 * Use Feng Shui

Stress reduction (p. 168)


 * Listen to de-stressing CDs [www.goodlifefoundation.com]
 * Do alphabiotics [www.alphabiotics.com]
 * Laugh
 * Smile
 * Get and give hugs
 * Speak powerful words
 * Don't use a cell phone and drive at the same time
 * Sleep eight hours
 * Rest from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown
 * Go to bed at 10:00 pm and rise at 6:00 am
 * Take an afternoon fifteen minute break
 * Have a Rolf deep tissue massage
 * Avoid reading the newspaper
 * Avoid watching the news
 * Have sex
 * Commit reckless acts of kindness
 * Listen to nice music, including Baroque
 * Get out of debt
 * Drive less
 * Be thankful
 * Get an inversion table
 * Use foot orthotics
 * Get a range of motion machine
 * Be lighthearted
 * Avoid psychiatrists and psychologists
 * Use a gentle low volume alarm clock or gradual light alarm clock
 * Use aromatherapy
 * Use Callahan techniques [tftrx.com]
 * Get a pet
 * Write down goals
 * Plant a garden
 * Cook
 * Don't eat after 7:00 pm
 * Dance and sing
 * Find your life purpose

Food and beverages

 * Fruit juices are made with fruit grown using chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and genetic engineering, then are pastuerized to 220 degrees, destroying nutritional value. (p. 95)
 * Carbonated beverages block calcium absorption. (p. 95)
 * Flouride and Chlorine are found in tap water, swimming pools, and irrigation. Eating products grown with irrigation water, bathing in tap water, or drinking tap water is considered "toxic" due to chemicals destroying living cells. (p. 93)
 * Milk has been altered by dairy companies in the following ways: genetically modified cows intended for milking, use of sick and diseased cows, machine milking that allows blood and pus to enter the milk, and pasteurization to 220 degrees for thirty minutes.
 * The process of homogenization, intended to preserve shelf life, scars arterial walls and leads to arteriosclerosis. This is due to "clusters of molecules" scarring arteries and clogging the digestive system, leading to acid reflux disease, obesity, allergies, constipation, and arteriosclerosis. (p. 79)
 * "Over 15,000" chemicals are placed by food companies in to food products, these chemicals do not have to be listed on the label. (p. 85)
 * Artificial sweeteners such as caccharine, aspartame, and sucralose cause obesity and depression. (p. 88)
 * Food is converted from matter to energy when digested. Natural food contains "healthy energy," while unnatural food contains "unhealthy energy." (p. 84)
 * Cooked food destroys natural enzymes. (p. 84)
 * Food additives block absorption of nutrients. (p. 81)
 * Natural food has one fifth of the nutrition of natural food fifty years ago. (p. 81)
 * Highly toxic feed and chemicals are used to help farmed fish grow faster, while freshwater and ocean fish contain abnormally high levels of toxic chemicals due to chemical dumping. (p. 80)
 * Livestock are fed antibiotics, leading to an unbalanced immune system that promotes disease. Meat eaters then consume these diseases and antibiotics.  In addition, aged meat contains significant bacteria when eaten. (p. 79)
 * Non-organic food contains pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, growth hormone, and food additives. (p. 78)
 * Shellfish and sea life that do not have scales will absorb toxins from the water, causing sickness and death. Fish with scales and fins do not absorb these toxins easily.
 * White table sugar is grown with dangerous chemicals, processed, stripped of nutritional value when heated, and causes cancer in sea turtles. (p. 154)
 * White processed flour is chemically treated, stripped of natural fiber and nutrients, and becomes indigestible paste when eaten. It lacks nutrition, has no life force, spikes insulin, and causes constipation. (p. 154)

Disease

 * More people are sick today "than ever before." This includes the flu, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, lupus, muscular dystrophy, asthma, migraine headaches, joint/neck/back pain, acid reflux, ulcers, stomach problems, menopause problems, frequent and severe PMS, ADD and ADHD, chronic fatigue, acne, dandruff, depression, stress, anxiety, sexual dysfunction, infertility, allergies, arthritis, constipation, fybromyalgia, cold sores, herpetic breakouts, prostate problems, and yeast infections. (p. 9)
 * Disease is caused by acidity. (p. 77)
 * Medical conditions are commonly labeled "diseases" in order to have drugs developed for them. (p. 10)
 * Heart disease is caused when cholesterol attaches to scarred arterial walls (arteriosclerosis). This scarring occurs primarily due to chlorinated water, hydrogenated oils and trans fats, and homogenized dairy products. (p. 92)
 * Dehydration causes pain, stiffness, arthritis, asthma, allergies, and other medical issues. (p. 91)
 * People with a strong immune system and a body in balanced homeostasis should "never show any symptoms of viruses or bacteria." (p. 72)
 * Headaches, bloating, indigestion, heartburn, nausea, allergies, asthma, fibromyalgia, arthritis, diabetes, constipation, yeast infections, dandruff, acne, halitosis, fatigue, depression, stress, and inability to lose weight can all be caused by a "candida yeast overgrowth," caused by taking any antibiotics. (p. 137)
 * AIDS is not caused by HIV, but is caused by recreational drugs and AZT. (AIDS, Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. and John Yamouyiannis, Ph.D.)
 * Arthritis can be cured by an immuno-modulator known as CMO (''Arthritis Defeated At Last: The Real Arthritis Cure, Len Sands, N.D., Ph.D., ACRP)
 * Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's Disease, and neurodegenerative diseases are caused by aspartame, MSG, and other food additives. (Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.)

Drugs

 * All drugs have negative side effects. (p. 73)
 * Drugs suppress symptoms while creating side effects. Drugs are never manufactured to cure diseases or conditions. All prescription and nonprescription drugs are the cause of disease. (p. 74)

Environmental toxins
Antibiotics, nonprescription and prescription drugs, chlorinated water, and fluoridated water eliminate digestive enzymes, reduce metabolism, and block absorption of nutrients. (p. 162)
 * Toxins are easily absorbed through human skin. (p. 96)
 * Herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers suppress the immune system, and cause acidity in the body.
 * All cholesterol lowering drugs have an adverse effect on the liver, leading to diabetes, acid reflux, constipation, colon cancer, heart disease, asthma, arthritis, and dozens of other diseases. (p. 75)
 * All disease comes from an inability to fight off germs due to a weak immune system, and genetic weakness due to toxins attacking the body. (p. 73)
 * All illness comes from toxins, nutritional deficiency, electromagnetic chaos, and physical and emotional stress. (p. 73)

The FDA, Government organizations, and pharmaceutical companies

 * Pharmaceutical companies, food companies, trade associations, charities and foundations, lobbyists, and government agencies are all concerned with making a profit over the wellfare of the people. (p. 24)
 * Approximately $800 million is needed to patent and approve a drug. Politicians and members of the FDA own stock in research companies, as the companies can make $1 billion from a single drug patent. (p. 27)
 * An FDA law stating "Only a drug can cure, prevent, or treat a disease" allows the FTC to ban any product with a health claim that is not a drug, such as food and natural cures. It also allows the FDA to categorize a number of conditions as "disease" in order to promote new drugs for them. (p. 28)
 * The pharmaceutical company spends $10 billion a year in advertising, using celebrities paid to make certain claims, or paid actors portrayed as real doctors. (p. 30)
 * The FDA gets funding directly from the drug industry. Over 1500 FDA employees who review new drugs are paid directly by pharmaceutical companies. (p. 31)
 * News organizations are sponsored by drug companies, and cannot produce negative reports about them. Many news reports and studies are used as free advertising for drug companies. (p. 32)
 * Drug companies use web sites to promote certain products, while denouncing natural cures. (p. 35)
 * The anthrax attacks in Washington may have been used to promote sales of the drug Cipro.
 * Members of Congress have passed a law that allows them to buy and sell stocks based on insider information. Members of Congress know in advance whether a drug will be approved or not, as pharmaceutical companies put employees in the FDA, and funnel money through lobbyists. (p. 37)
 * The FDA, FTC, health care associations, pharmaceutical companies, and major news organizations have a coordinated effort to suppress the ineffectiveness of drugs, while claiming natural remedies are ineffective and hiding them from the public. (p. 42)
 * The FDA and the FTC specifically target small and medium sized businesses, while leaving big businesses alone. The FTC collects money for "consumer redress" without returning the money to consumers. (p. 44)
 * Ephedra, a compound found in Ma Huang, is an effective remedy for obesity and asthma, used to increase metabolism and decrease appetite. The FDA has banned Ephedra due to 153 deaths, which the author claims were not conclusively linked to Ephedra.  In comparison, 2000 people die yearly from taking aspirin in regular doses. (p. 44)
 * St. John's Wort was stated as ineffective in one study, while Prozac was also found to be ineffective in the same study. The results of Prozac were suppressed.  Another study showed that a high sugar diet compared to a diet with 30% more sugar had no effect on hyperactivity or learning and behavioral problems.  The author claims the study was funded by sugar companies and used inaccurate data. (p. 45)
 * News and information has been suppressed on chiropractors in Illinois who were proven in court to be more effective than medical doctors, and a doctor who was sued by the FDA and found not guilty by the New York Supreme Court for using an all-natural method of curing AIDS. (p. 48)
 * Bill Clinton is making millions of dollars exporting pharmaceutical drugs. (p. 49)
 * Lawsuits are filed against companies that sell all-natural products that can cure or prevent disease. An "Operation Cure All" campaign allows the FTC to make deceptive claims against natural products, while consumers are prohibited from telling truthful information on the product.  Drug companies routinely promote false information for their own drugs in television, newspaper, and radio advertisements. (p. 50)
 * The FDA has purchased vitamin, mineral, herbal, and homeopathic companies in order to sell and advertise them without being affected by the FTC. A major drug company sells and controls Echinacea in Europe, while vitamins are prescription only or illegal in certain doses. (p. 51)
 * Thousands of medical doctors are denouncing drugs and surgery. (p. 52)
 * Pharmaceutical drugs are intended to treat disease without curing or preventing disease. 5,000 Americans are killed daily from diseases with no cure, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and other chronic diseases.  Over 100,000 Americans die from pharmaceutical drugs per year.  Medical liability reform under President Bush is intended to protect drug manufacturers from compensating patients.  The pharmaceutical industry was the largest sponsor of the Bush election campaign. (p. 53)
 * The pharmaceutical industry has blocked information on vitamins and micronutrients in biology, biochemistry, and medical textbooks. Non-patentable therapies are are outlawed so that companies can continue to produce drugs. (p. 54)
 * The FTC presents suits are held in a court within the FTC building, before an "administrative law judge" who is an FTC employee. Not one judge has ruled against the FTC. (p. 56)
 * The FTC waits for companies to generate profits before shutting them down, in order make money for themselves. The FTC does not file against major corporations, even those that promote false or misleading information. (p. 57)
 * Lobbyists have convinced municipalities to dump fluoride in to tap water, due to regulations on dumping fluoride after being manufactured from superphosphic fertilizer. The reasoning for fluoride to exist in tap water to promote dental health is a "lie." (p. 91)
 * Food companies want to convince consumers that chemically produced food is superior to naturally made food. (p. 88)
 * The drug Celebrex was allowed to continue running ads despite being labeled "false and misleading advertising" by the FDA. (p. 58)
 * Almost all press releases by the FTC are false and misleading. (p. 58)
 * The FTC has threatened to seize and burn the book "Natural Cures "They Don't Want You to Know About." (p. 59)
 * The website Web M.D. is a publicly traded company with "millions and millions in profits," and exists as a front for pharmaceutical companies to encourage drugs. (p. 59)
 * Many man-made ingredients are listed as all-natural due to lobbyists, who want more food to be sold. (p. 85)
 * Food is made to be chemically addictive, and cause depression, in order to provide business for drug companies. These chemicals are created by antidepressant manufacturers. (p. 83)
 * Illegal and toxic chemicals that are used in food are produced in laboratories "where the security is higher than Fort Knox." Lobbyists bribe congress to allow these chemicals in order to preserve food, add taste and texture, increase hunger, increase obesity, cause addition, and cause disease. (p. 85)

Research claims

 * Examples of corporate greed include automobile companies suppressing carburetors that would allow automobiles to run "a thousand miles to a gallon," and dismantling the Redline Train System in California in order to force consumers to purchase more automobiles. (p. 16)
 * Animals in the wild never develop heart attacks or cancer, and most do not get sick. Chimpanzees and gorillas do not have diabetes, asthma, allergies, constipation, or insomnia, and live to be 180 years old.
 * 100 percent of women tested in one study were found to have rocket fuel in their breast milk, likely as a result of the environment. (p. 80)
 * Merck, the manufacturer of the prescription drug Vioxx, and the FDA, knew in advance that over 100,000 people would die from its effects. (p. 74)
 * Anthrax attacks did not affect all people in the targeted building due to their strong immune system resisting Anthrax. (p. 72)
 * Over "900 studies from around the world" prove the premise of the book. (p. 319)
 * Approximately 2.4 million operations performed every year are unnecessary and cost about 12,000 lives. In six New York hospitals, 43 percent of performed hysterectomies reviewed were found to be unjustified.  Historically, when doctors have gone on strike, the mortality rate has dropped.  (Confessions of a Medical Heretic, Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.)
 * Over 130 million Americans are chronically poisoned by water companies for profit (Flouride: The Aging Factor, John Yiamouyannis, Ph.D.)

Neutrality dispute
"Unfortunately, one pays for the book but then reads in the book that many of the cures or remedies are on the website, which costs additional. If one was given a few weeks free to access the website, then it would not seem like such a rip-off. Some customers do not feel they are getting what they paid for. Furthermore, he weaves his complaints about the FDA in with the health cures so that one has to read through the complaints just to get to the health cures in the book."

Someone who's good at writing from NPOV can please fix it, or at least explan how this is NPOV if it is?


 * It sounds like anti-NPOV to me. Please remove it. Or add words like 'some critics say that people pay for the book and then reads in the book that many of the cures and rememdies are on the website, which costs additionall.... Smith Jones 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, this article is littered with criticism instead of true NPOV.


 * I'll go through the article and delete all of the UN-SOURCED criticisms. Smith Jones 16:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The simply fact is that the criticism are valid and the statement is in fact true. I was lucky enough to find a copy of the book in PDF format on a Trudeau appreciation/fan page.  Trudeau does give cures for some of the diseases he lists.  However, not all ailments listed are diseases.  Some have no cure listed.  Those list the SAME quack therapies (chelation) and cleanses over and over and over.  Only one or two list anything relevant but Trudeau claims he can't mention them and they aren't even properly referenced in the book (just sort of thrown in there).


 * To see anything you are referred to his website where these cures are not even listed (just information about the with a claim that a natural cure exists. However, they are mentioned in his newsletters which are full of misinformation and read almost like the ads sites promoting the quackery.  Pepper it with more ramblings, conspiracy theories, his opinions co-mingled with source information (it's hard to tell where the source ends and his opinion begins) and an utter lack of knowledge or common sense and you have the supposed cures.  You are also treated to Press Releases from PR Wire which Trudeau claims is breaking news when PR Wire is just a place where spin-doctors can write any kind of baloney they want and not an actual news outlet.


 * You also won't find a list of super secret ingredients Trudeau claims make us fat and/or addicted to food. He simply prints the long since debunked (though he claims that HE is EXPOSING it) conspiracy that the food industry lobbyist are allowed to hide them by referring to them as natural and artificial flavors.  It's not listed on his site either.  He does TRY to convince the reader he exposes such things by listing the ingredients compared to those in organic foods.  This fails as most of what is listed are the chemical names for vitamins like sodium ascorbate (Vitamin C).  TheDevilYouKnow 00:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This document has become biased for the article in that aren't really any criticisms of him anymore except one off-hand reference to the book being 'controversial.' I think this needs to be rectified. KyleGoetz 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Smith Jones
See this discussion on this user's talk page. AvB ÷ talk  12:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Convicted Felon status
Can someone explain to me how this is relevant to the article? Even if it could be referenced, it seems like it belongs on his bio page, NOT the book page -- febtalk 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if it COULD be referenced? Check his bio page.  He was convicted of LARCENY, which is a FELONY.  He plead quilty!  TheDevilYouKnow


 * Then just explain how it's relevant to the article... - febtalk 01:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't. However, I wrote that it COULD be referenced.  It is one of the criticisms towards Trudeau and the believability of his book.  TheDevilYouKnow 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * feb seems to argue that the "convicted felon" status should not be mentioned in the article. However, as argued by TheDevilYouKnow, it is eminently sourcable: most reviews of the book remark on his felonious past; and the convictions directly and adversely affect the credibility of the book as argued by hundreds of sources. Trudeau also links the book with his past, claiming he is now a law-abiding citizen in order to promote the book. All in all, removing the information from the article is not an option.


 * Should this be in the first sentence? The only viable discussion I see here would be about a proposal to remove both the "convicted felon" AND the almost ad-like "well-known infomercial pitchman" qualifications. The article correctly explains the relevant facts in more detail further on in intro and body, and users can always click on the Trudeau link, so no information would be lost. However, I sort of like the balanced directness of the current version that gives even lazy or hurried readers an opportunity to grasp the situation at once. For now I would prefer to leave things as they are. AvB &divide; talk  08:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to it being in the article, the way it's placed just seems like a huge insult though. Something like "Many Reviewers and critics have pointed out the author has been convicted of theft and scamming before, as a way of questioning his reliability". I have no problem with this con artist being called a criminal; the way it's done now doesn't seem encyclopedic though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Feba (talk • contribs) 17:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Your proposal boils down to a request for references in a similar sentence already in the intro: "Some skeptics accuse Trudeau of exploiting consumers, as he has been convicted and jailed for misleading his customers and even misusing their credit card information in the past." The citations are also in the article already, albeit in the external links section. Feel free to turn them into proper references.


 * As to "convicted felon": yep, it reads like an insult, but it's balanced with "infomercial entrepreneur." How about dropping "infomercial entrepreneur and convicted felon"? AvB &divide; talk  17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Equal amounts of POV isn't NPOV. How about just "controversial infomercial spokesman" or "controversial infomercial salesman"? -- febtalk 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I perfer "controversional informerical spokesmans" because there is NO INDICCATION THAT Trudaeu sells informercials but he does spoke on emformationals. Smith Jones 04:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Look before you leap" AvB &divide; talk  06:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Equal amounts? According to WP:NPOV, "convicted felon" is the majority view. Nevertheless, I like "controversial infomercial salesman." AvB &divide; talk  06:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's clear that it's true, it just seems offensive. I've edited it since the two of you agree that controversial.. sounds better anyway. Earlier today, I saw one of this guy's informercials...now he's trying to advertise a miracle weightloss cure. Funny thing is, he tried to make it seem like it was an actual interview. -- febtalk 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WHY idi you guys move my "convicted felon" with citattion from the article? DO YOU HAVE any idea wholog it takes for me to get that up there and oow much research i had to do? The current revision isnt even very well written. it says 'informercial produce' even though there is no such thing. i managed to revise it into a better form so i want everoyne to go alnd look to see if this is better tahn what you guys pu tup, there. Smith Jones 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it's unneeded with the current statement. And it didn't say "informercial produce", it said infomercial salesman, which is more correct than spokesman, since he claims to be the person who created these products, and not just someone who stands in and says for the company "it's good". It's like the difference between Chuck Norris doing boflex ads, and Ron Popeil selling various cooking gadgets. I'm going to change it back to infomercial product salesman, unless you can think of something more correct. -- febtalk 06:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * okay fine but i think that the word "salesman" implies that he sellsl informericals but it hink it makes sense to call him an "author" or "health product salesman who works through infoermcerials" rather than cal him a "informerical salesman". Smith Jones 20:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "infomercial product salesman", how does this imply he sells infomercials? It clearly says infomercial PRODUCT salesman. -- febtalk 20:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, well mabe we should site the calaim that he seells products on his informericalS. the standard of wrtiing and sources for a lviign person article is very high and i odnt think that we are doing th ebest job we possibly cna to meet it in th case of Mr. Trudeau and other alternative health care providors. Smith Jones 00:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, don't use caps like that (See WP:TPG.) Secondly, he very obviously uses infomercials to promote and sell his products. I don't really see what you're arguing with here -- febtalk 01:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Who uses infomercials to do anything but sell products (or services, ideas)? That's right against the very definition of the word. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * iy is possibly to use infomericals to sell informations instead of just products. so it should be indicated using a source exxactly what he seels uns on his informericals. Smith Jones 19:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Information can be a product. His books have information within them, but are themselves products. Products that he's selling. As a salesman. If you need this part to be cited, there are again several hundred sources; however, considering that it's common knowledge, and mentioned in other sources and links in the article, it might be excessive and unnecessary to cite this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Arrr, not to mention that it is cited on Kevin Trudeau, where it's more relevant. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I addded the citation thanks for your coooperation. Smith Jones 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Folks, I have to admit I do not understand SJ one bit. Nevertheless, at least his recent contributions are obviously good faith edits and deserve to be treated as such. Please cut him some slack. Thanks. AvB &divide; talk  01:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Utter Garbage
I bought this book as a joke and burned it in disgust. I'm not one to burn shit either even though im a godless atheist. 71.245.76.249 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientology
Can someone explain why the bit about Scientology and Dienetics was removed. If the book actually gives this advise, I don't see how it would qualify as opinion.--Blackmagicfish 09:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the edit I'm talking about was made by Bizfixer on April 29. --Blackmagicfish 09:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Black Magic Fish, The edit was done with the note that your contribution was "opinion and selective".

I'll address the latter critique, "selective", first. I don't see how the isolation of one line in the book is anything but selective. The only way it would not be selective is if it were included in a section citing all the other recommendations, as has been suggested. However, I would as quickly argue against such an inclusion as it is not the purpose of this environment to reprint or republish. I think most users of this service simply want an overview when researching a text. If they wanted to read the text, they would obtain the text.

I hold that the other purpose I stated for my edit, "opinion", is self-evident and applies not only to your contribution but to the growing list of contributions to this entry. The entry began originally, according to the "History", in this way:

"A book written by Kevin Trudeau promoting a variety of non-drug, non-surgical and all-natural cures for virtually every disease, and criticizing the United States government, the FDA, and pharmaceutical companies for censoring these methods and cures on the basis that it would cut into their profit-margin."

and now it begins like this:

"Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About is a book authored by controversial infomercial product salesman Kevin Trudeau.[1] It is marketed as revealing compromising information about drug companies as well as a variety of natural cures for serious illnesses. Some skeptics accuse Trudeau of exploiting consumers, often citing his past fines and convictions. He now claims to be on the straight and narrow, presenting his book an act of consumer advocacy."

The first is far closer to the intent of the NPOV spirit on which this resource has been built. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

The opposition to this book and the promotion of that opposition in the general media makes it necessary to include the fact that the text has generated controversy. However, this entry has become entirely about the controversy and digressed from a simple encyclopedic overview. Would it not be more appropriate to include in that original introduction paragraph the adjective "controversial" after the opening article and before the first noun than to further endanger the entire Wiki project by having Wiki now lumped in with the other opponents to this book.

Shouldn't we be standing outside the controversy as opposed to contributing to it?

Bizfixer 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The book might be rubbish but the gradual light alarm clock idea works. 217.175.222.130 (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert
I'm sorry I had to revert your edit Bizfix, but I don't think that it was appropriate to delete the entire criticism section. The articles for numerous books from The Catcher in the Rye to State of Fear have such sections. This particular book has garnered a large volume of criticism and I think that it is the duty of an encyclopedia article to talk about them. Furthermore, I think that the section about scientology deserves to be in the article because I believe it is notable that one of his recommendations is religious in nature and tells the reader to become a part of a particular religious activity. If the book told the reader confess their sins to a Catholic priest, I would include that information because it would add a valuable insight into the book.

If you would like to edit the article to make it more NPOV, please do so, but don’ t delete large sections that are relevant and factually correct.

Lastly, I must correct your assumption that the statements about Scientology were my contribution. I did not in-fact write that part of the article, I merely added a couple links. I also can't help but ask why you assumed I was a “Mr.” --Blackmagicfish 08:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a sad commentary on the state of this enterprise and an ideal example of how Wikipedia has garnered the negative reputation that it has for scholarly resource that an obvious attempt to move an article to an encyclopedia level has been denigrated into an all out assault on some guy's literary efforts. In the Encyclopedia Brittanica the book Catcher in the Rye does not even have it's own listing, it is merely mentioned as a book written by the author J.D. Salinger under a listing for him. As I cited in my comments under the section: "Major Work Being Done on This Article", the lion's share of this article is tabloid criticism of the author and not an objective statement. Exhibit A would be the opening paragraph which, again as I stated in the above section, was previously a dispassionate statement of the basic fact that a book had been published and what is is about. However, it became revised to include a character review of the author and took on a decidedly negative slant. Likewise for the entire article. As I also stated in a previous post to this article, I do not condone the republishing of the portions of the book within Wikipedia as it is the responsibility of the individual to obtain the text if they want to read it. Reprinting such a major portion of the text betrays promotion of the product itself. It is apparent I have stumbled onto an intense conflict between the supporters and non-supporters of this author. What both sides need to understand is that it serves neither purpose to use a benign environment such a Wiki to engage in this battle. As participants in the creation of this medium you are responsible for it's ultimate utility. Right now both sides are not exercising that responsibility. The bad news for the Pro-Trudeaus is that they are sadly outnumbered in this engagement. The bad news for the Anti-Trudeaus is that their venom is so apparent. They bear the greater guilt for the emotion that has infected this little corner of Wikipedia.
 * Bizfixer 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Bizfixer.


 * In the chapter "How to Never Get Sick Again", recommendation number 36 is to "Do dianetics/scientology". His opinion is that the simplest, most complete and effective system of eliminating psychosomatic illness, traumas, and emotional issues is the procedure of Dianetics and Scientology auditing.


 * This is the fly in the cake. Kevin Trudeau may have a point. But this ugly fly spoils the cake.


 * Tito58 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. It looks that Bizfixer responded to other editor in his below post: I see no connection to what I said above about Hubbard's cult. Tito58 04:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please make an effort to step outside of your emotional opposition and see the negative effect that the contributions of editors with that much passion about a subject bring to the process. The fundamental difference between contribution and contortion is what lies at the heart of this debate. If an editor feels strongly about the rightness or wrongness of an article's subject they perhaps should recuse themselves from the process due to their conflict of interest. The conflict being between an individual's ability to write dispassionately about an entry. Passion for a subject, be it in support or opposition, contradicts the basic purpose of reference. The reason you don't go to mommy and daddy any more for your reference point is because a long time ago you outgrew the need to have someone tell you what and how to think. Now, I would wager, you simply want the data and then freedom to draw your own conclusions. Why continue to insult the intelligence of those who wish to utilize this promising resource? Regardless of what specific references you include from the text you are still removing the individual's right to find importance in the text where they want to find it. Returning to the analogy of Catcher in the Rye, if you were to include under a subheading of Criticism a singular quote from the book in which Caulfield pays to have a prostitute sent to his room, one could surmise that this particular line or subject was viewed negatively by you. It would therefore betray your passion and there you have strayed from the true intention of the resource. If I can be excused from stating this too crudely: no one comes to Wikipedia to find what how you feel about a subject. Bizfixer 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like another editor has done considerable work to create a new version of the article that is something of a compromise. I suggest we use that version as a template and make changes on that instead of just reverting to previous versions, or deleting large sections. I see your point that the scientology thing has no place in the criticism section, but would you have a problem with it appearing in some other section of the article? I think that it gives a valuable insight in the nature of the book.
 * I don't think of myself as being strongly emotionally invested in this article; I haven't purchaced the book and I don't know anyone that has. I also have never met the author, and while I suspect that the book contains some degree of quakery, I'm not terribly commited to that view. I apologise if I am coming across as being highly emotionally charged. about this topic.
 * While you're correct that no one comes to wikipedia to read my opinion, some people, me included, find it usefull to read about criticism and controversy surrounding various works or fiction and non-fiction.--Blackmagicfish 03:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So, if I take your meaning correctly, you come to this resource for controversy and criticism? To quote a popular book of philosophy, the author Luke says:"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." Or to put it another way, I would challenge that your intentions monitor your perceptions and guide your directions. Please give some thought to the idea that looking for these things has you focussed upon them and that could color your judgment.Bizfixer 00:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Recurring billing
Can someone politely incorporate there are many complaints of recurring billing after your order the book, even if you decline over the phone, but if you don't cancel in writing... what a mess!

Anyways, I hired a cheap lawyer to fight it for me, and his "demand letter" got all my charges refunded.

My point is that I think its relevant to include unsolicited recurring billing charges as part of the book. I used yahoo-answers, and found its common practice. This was May 2007, for my incident, so we would need a more current verification, to include. Can anyone else confirm my allegation? 198.70.210.88 (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs a reliable source to be verified. We can't confirm, only outside sources can.  Testimonials are not useful as sources on wikipedia.  WLU (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
The bias in this article is so blatant that it actually makes me further believe this man's testimony about the domineering FDA. it would be helpful if someone a bit more open minded shed some light on his remedies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.130.38 (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm very openminded. The man is a conartist.  He's selling snake oil, but charging you twice for it.  There is literally nothing in the book that will help anyone.  try writing an unbiased article on satan.  You'll have an easier time finding people who adore him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed

I have to agree, whiel his methodfs are falwed his points are vallid. There are nasturl cures that variosu comanys in the compl;ex dotn want you to knwo about, and factry farming is even further decrmed in smialr documrty Food, INc. The poitn is thsi page is very biased and i hav ehalf a mind rto rept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.134.115 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to not totally despise this man and esp. this book. I was riding the bus the other day and some crazy woman was telling me how amazing this book is. After I explained to her it's all a scam her eyes glossed over and she looked at me like I was one of "they" that don't want "you to know about." It was eire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.185.17 (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite possible flaws, this page loses neutrality even in the Premise section. It needs revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.60.95 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that to report in a neutral manner this article must necessarily refer to the convictions for fraud and several other legal battles that arose from this book and the business practices that brought it to market. Just last month he was caught airing an infomercial for this same book, in direct defiance of court order, and it is quite likely the FTC will be asking the court involved to add time to his current sentence for contempt before he is released. Neutrality in this case means reporting the pattern of persistent fraud and resultant criminal convictions and does not require any of us to play "devil's advocate" for the sake of providing an illusion of balance. More references can be found in the main article for Kevin Trudeau and copied here if anyone wishes to flesh out the Criticism section. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wording
"Trudeau claims his complete lack of medical training or expertise are not required to investigate alternative medicine, and report his opinions in a self-published book. The first edition of the book lacked any mention of specific, brand-name products for any illnesses within its pages, as Trudeau claims the FDA and FTC censored this information and prohibited him from publishing it in the book. Instead, the book contained references to Trudeau's subscription-based website where the actual 'cures' were supposedly posted and accessible for a monthly fee."

This article obviously is flawed for reasons all too apparent but I just wanted to point out this one mistake. As I read it, "claims his complete lack of medical training or expertise are not required" does not make sense. I guess it should say "claims medical training or expertise are not required" I guess I'll just go ahead and make this change myself Five- (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

After reading through it again, it's not really as biased as it first seemed to me. Guess I am tired. I had originally changed it to "Trudeau claims that his lack of medical training or expertise is what makes him most qualified to investigate alternative medicine, which he claims to report in his books." I don't edit wikipedia much so I don't know if it's really necessary for me explain these small edits, but I had originally taken out self-published from that line as I had looked it up and saw a publishing company, but I see now that it's his own publishing company. I'll put that back in. Five- (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)