Talk:Kevin Trudeau/Archive 3

message: The existing picture being used is an advertisement for his book. Such advertising is not allowed here. It's doubly problematic because it's false advertising. The book doesn't deliver what it promises, and even if it did, quackery shouldn't be promoted here or elsewhere.
We need to find a portrait of him as he appears now, not some fancy picture of him in his youth, or some doctored junk. -- Fyslee 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A fancy picture of him in his youth?  I don't see how a picture of him needs to be immediately current, it still represents him as he was then.  And as far as advertising the book, I can still find his entire premise bunk without considering the inclusion of a fancy book cover to be "advertisement".  I, personally, look at the book and see "they" in quotation marks, and the cover covered with text, and think negatively of the book, not positively.  In any case, I've moved the image of the illustrated cover to the location of the old cover so that there is still an image of him in the article, and an image of the book (which is appropriate to include in the article at that location) and it's not in the header where a more basic image of him should be.  - BalthCat 17:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

message: there's a sentance in the book section "FDA":
:In Trudeau's studies are referenced, but are vague.
Which looks like it might be "In Trudeau's book..."
Also, the first subtopic of "Critisism" is the pharma companies... it is full of Trudeau's claims about the companies. The next subsection, however, is critisism about Trudeau's arguments. If the "critisism" section is critisism about Trudeau, the first section is in the wrong place. If the section is his critisisms about things, the rest of it is in the wrong place. TheHYPO 06:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in the article 

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

message: As others have said, the neutrality of this article is clearly disputable. The article lacks many citations, is filled with ad hominems and fails to give a balanced perspective. I have researched tirelessly about medical issues since my wife became very sick with a form of insulin resistance that the doctors could not (or wouldn't) diagnose. Eventualy, I have found the following articles, which in fact agree and provide evidence in favour of Kevin's opinion (yes, he stated in his book that it was his opinion).
Evidence no1: Medical Guesswork (from Business Week online)
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_22/b3986001.htm
Evidence no2: Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists
The article is filled with citations of studies from various different bodies. You can find the above article in two places: 
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=1802
http://www.newstarget.com/z009278.html
Following the links, you can also find dozens more articles on the subject with many other citations.  
Here's another one, related to evidence no1.
Evidence n03: TODAY'S AMERICAN MEDICINE: THE CURE
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6984
And...
Evidence n04: How the Drug Companies Want Us to Be Sick
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6069
Also, check out the following website:
Evidence no5: Bitter Pill Awards
http://www.bitterpillawards.org/
To end, I would like to cite a huge chunck of Mr. Trudeau's book. It provides us with plenty of detailed information about the regulatory processes of the FDA. With you still don't believe in Kevin Trudeau's opinion, read this carefully and check to see if those regulations are actually valid.
Evidence n06: No-Hunger Bread
http://www.naturalcures.com/NC/ftc_horror_stories/no_hunger_bread.aspx
This can provide us with some information on how the government protects large corporations and how large corporations affect government regulation. anon
All of these are necessary to provide a factual representation of Trudeau and his beliefs. Of course, you people will just hunt down a few typos in the above poster's articles and then decide to drop it ad hominem.
Smith Jones 19:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence in Support of Mr. Trudeau's Allegations on FDA Corruption and Related Issues 

message: While stopping confidence con men is an admirable goal, perhaps all such material herein that is not directly citable with a referece attached, on a section by section, claim by claim basis, should be annotated with the "citation needed" clause or "unsubstantiated" issue. Probably double or triple references: It begins to look very suspicious when a dated pending Court reference (1994) above is that badly out of date. Personal opinions and warnings are well and good, but being disenfranchised by hear-say about media allegations about obstreperous conduct without video, review, or factual content analysis tends to create the impression that words on a page constitute truth in a shouting match. This in turn trains younger societal members to accept and adopt the confidence methods ostensibly being railed and ranted aganst by the "good guy". And removal of such entries as the ones just referred to as usubtstantiated (when so or not) or this edited add on, creates the impression of falsehood where such may or may not be the case. A full archival history of edited changes and a validity analysis on each such change, with fully non-redacted annotations of argument ad angst (in turn recursively reanalyzed) should be the standard for any online "reference" work. Otherwise, all that accumulates as a work of Dephi method, with the most persistent shouters and voting cliques winning. Even insmuch as anyone happens to dislike sales pitch hucksters, eithr free market, medicl authority based, or the currently accepted for of replacing the scientists in the administration with shills who use political correctness methods to determine "science". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy.crabtree@gmail.com (talk • contribs) 
:In case it is unclear as to why *I* am adding his comments here... he mistakenly placed them in the article, and I moved this text here. - BalthCat 22:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I think I speak for most of the kevin supportors here by posting the following.
I recently had surgery. I researched the procedure. I talked to my doctor. I asked a lot of questions. I looked into alternatives. & this was a clear case of strightforward surgery as the only logical way to acomplish the desired results.
My family doctor was amazing. The surgeon was tremendous & the hospital staff suportive & friendly. 
My point here is there is nothing wrong with an educated patient who is in the driver seat concerning thier own treatment. I give big pharma a hard time. But the medical field is full of people trying thier hardest to bring happiness to the patients they serve. 
We (the medical industry & myself) both won from this interaction.  
There are bad eggs in all industries & thats what were after when we take Big pharma to task. Since the goverment has gone into colusion with big Bizz. Its up to the consumer to do all thier own research & footwork. I double checked all my options & moved forward with the best option. this time it was surgery. For my family memebers gout it was a round of PH altering food. So each situtaion is diffrent.  
Ghost of JFK
:Yep there's a whole lot of finger pointing from the "alternative cures" camp.  What they really want is for you to watch this hand while they do something else with the other.  They don't attack the FDA and the FTC because they are trying to expose a conspiracy?  No.  Look at all the claims from day one.  It's grown bigger and bigger to all out attacks on agencies which have routinely denied their requests to make curative claims or modify, repeal or make them exempt from laws which would allow them to do so and enforcing them.  Oh they love to tell half the story and mention articles on sites like ABCNews.com but they hope you're not smart enough to go to those sites and actually read the article.  If you are smart enough they hope you won't dig any deeper and start researching things like how things like the FDA approval process actually works.
:I would like to note that if you had seriously done any real research you would know that the pH claims are nonsense and any educated person knows you're full of it.  All these alkaline and pH manipulation claims are largely based on Barefoot's misrepresentation of research.  Oh yes, those cited studies which were conducted in-vitro and not on living tissue, prove that cancer cells can't survive in an alkaline environment.  What he doesn't mention is that niether can healthy cells.  The body's pH is constantly maintained at an optimal level (roughly neutral).  Any variations and the body will immediately correct itself.  Claiming that eating pH altering foods will cure someone of gout is pure nonsense.  If this were true then eating an entire bottle of antacids would cure somebody of cancer.
My father is still doing ok. Thank you for the sicere intrest. His Gout was getting worse at each episode. But since our intervention he has not had an incidence. He is drug free & doing great. I know news like that will warm the heart of a person like you who is only intrested in the best intrests of people & not drug company stock values.
I`m going to ask you to do something for me. & I know your going to jump at this. Cause its right up your alley. If you ever suffer a heart attack.(I hope you never do) when your wheeled into the hospital they will take a few vials of your blood. They will analyse it & then give you a saline solution containing PH correctors & other chemistry correcting solutions. I want you to stay true to your convictions. & reject that saline solution. Pull that IV right out of your arm. Cause they are trying to correct your PH imbalance & we both now that in your current belief system PH is a devil that you dont want in your viens. Since the body is electrical. PH & other chemistry aids in electrical pulses to the body parts. Patients often feel better after having thier blood work corrected. Some dont need any corrective action other then this simple correction. Acording to you that is all in thier heads. This is orthodox medicine were talking here. But I know you have such a dislike of PH talk that you wont except it from anywhere.
Just in this one instance. Organized Medicine is commiting 3 crimes. Testing a patient in a life & death situation & not telling them why. Correcting thier imbalance & not telling them how. Sending them home & not telling them to watch for these tell tale signs of future trouble. I know a heart attack is only life or death & not as important as drug company stock prices. But silly me wants to educate the poor consumer.
You raise another great point. That Big Pharma has not made availible a cheap easily accessable way of testing ones own PH. They make great glucose testers, but thats so they can sell Insulin. Since testing ones own PH would not lead to any drug sales, there is no motivation to develop one. I`m glad you pointed this very sore point out. I can always count on you to move medicine forward.
As you saw above I posted a news item about the FDA saying mercury in fillings are just peachy with them. Since your a lover of the othordox way. Can you please post here your support of Mercury being installed in childrens mouths. I know you only want the best for them. Please fire away with your proofs that will make me look stupid & re-asure readers they should put one of the most toxic substances known to man in the mouths of thier babes.
The Ghost of JFK
:I'm giving you fair warning, this is about discussing the article. Testimonials of ones relative (may they live in good health), mercury have limited to no use for the article. Also the length of this argument is problematic if it doesn't lead anywhere. Finally, there is a cheap way to test blood PH, its call litmus paper. Further conspiracy banter is not welcome here; and may be removed. - RoyBoy 800 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Other posters move on; you should do the same if you aren't going to discuss the article. - RoyBoy 800 05:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for responsible medicine 

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

message: What's up with the references section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.59.69 (talk • contribs) 
:These edits seem to have screwed it up. I've reverted those sections to how they were before the changes. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

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

message: I find it odd that the Category: Quackery was removed but others such as Fraudsters and Confidence tricksters were left.  Without a quality explanation of why this one should be removed and not the others I see no reasoning behind the edit.  I will await such an explanation and will consider putting it back within the next couple of days.  TheDevilYouKnow 04:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aparently, the category was removed because it was deleted: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_11#Category:Quackery Deli nk 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category Removal