Talk:Kevin Trudeau/Archive 1

message: * As much of a scam artist as Kevin Trudeau may be, he deserves an objective article like everybody else.  Too much of this entry reads like a critical 'debunking' website...if you can manage to debunk some of his ridiculous statements in an encyclopedic way, go for it.
* It does not need a detailed description of each point he makes in the book.  All we need here is a general overview, maybe one or two paragraphs long, and then a little about the stir it has caused w/ consumer protection boards and even natural doctors.
Before now, this article contained a long, long summary of his book which tossed back-and-forth between praise and sarcastic criticism.  That is not what wikipedia is for...go make a website dedicated to the man if you feel so passionately.  I'm trimming it down significantly.
:As the articles originator, I say you to, good job. Remember to sign your name by using ~~~~ - RoyBoy 800 15:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of this has gotta go 

message: There's something that I forgot to discuss, and I think it deserves at least a mention.  There's something no one has discussed yet - that PEOPLE WILL DIE as a result of this book being published (if they haven't already).  Trudeau claims to have a permanent cure for diabetes as well as a permanent cure for cancer, as well as a lot more.  I'm sure Trudeau will deny that his book is going to cause deaths, but let's look at the numbers (I'll try to be as conservative as possible on the potential deaths):
Trudeau claims to have sold 3 million copies of this book, but let's assume that he's only sold 1.5 million, as the New York Times said a while back.  Now, let's assume that of those 1.5 million, that only 1% of those people have terminal (deadly) conditions - that leaves 15,000 people who have bought the book with terminal illnesses.  Now, let's assume that of those 15,000 people with terminal conditions, only one out of one hundred (1%) takes his advice.  So some people start "going holistic" - cancer patients put off chemotherapy in favor of calcium supplements, diabetics take his herbal advice and stop insulin, etc.  This is an extremely conservative estimate, but still leaves 150 individuals.  Even if only one third of these people die, that's still 50 people.  It would be great if I'm wrong about this, but I think it's likely that many more than 50 (probably closer to thousands) will die.
There is absolutely no cure for Type-1 diabetes (despite his claims) - there's no way.  Type-1 diabetes is caused when the cells that produce insulin die!  Dead cells cannot be reanimated by any pharmaceutical, any herb, or anything else, except (possibly) some kind of cell transplant or a miracle.  In any case, there are going to be people who follow Trudeau's advice for diabetes and die of diabetic shock as a result.  The same applies for cancer, and any other terminal illness he talks about.  I'd be really surprised if Trudeau didn't have some kind of disclaimer in the book somewhere.  Despite being greedy and willing to profit from indirectly killing people, he's not stupid, so I would be willling to bet there's something in the book such as "consult your doctor before beginning any treatment regimen" or "this book is for informational purposes only," etc.  Perhaps someone who's read the book can comment.
I don't think this should have an effect upon the article itself - that would be too POV - but I do believe we should all consider the potential human damage we can do if we phrase things inappropriately in this article.  I'm pretty satisfied with what we have right now, but let's try to make sure we always keep this a fair, but truthful article.  I know most of you already agree with me about this; it's a sad day in America when a greedy con man with no medical training takes advantage of the most vulnerable, desperate, and naive among us, with deadly consequences.   ZZYZX 00:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "theories" need to be "proved". I look at wikipedia as a somewhat loose peer-review system. The rest of the quacks will be visited upon soon enough. I think this article may have a POV, but it's kinda like saying it's POV to say 4+4=8. --Kvuo 06:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An Important Point

message: For anyone who isn't aware, see this official Wikipedia policy:
Popularity of viewpoint determines amount of weight that viewpoint gets in the article
It states "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."
In other words, since most of us are of the opinion that K.T. is a scam artist, by this policy, we should be given more weight.  Those that are convinced he is a decent guy who is trying to help people get less weight.  ZZYZX 08:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if they lose weight following his advice. - RoyBoy 800 07:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Wiki NPOV Rules 

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

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

message: This guy is no better than a god damn TV evangelist.  Only because Chapter 1 is a little on point, yes, drug companies are not charities, does not mean the rest is correct.  This guy is using a very complex marketing strategy to sell these books at 29.99!!! Why is this book so expensive?  There is really no reason for a book that has this information to be this expensive.  Inside the book there are really no cures, he said on TV that it includes it, then you get to that chapter and he says that it has been censored.  This guy is nuts... Also, see his past.  This guy was doing fraud!!!!!! What character traits do you think are needed to go on TV and sell this BS.  I'm sure he's thrilled all of this is going on.
And the book even goes further to point you to membership to the website... "In one of the infomercials, Trudeau tells Tammy Faye Bakker Messner — former wife of televangelist Jim Bakker — that the book includes the method Trudeau used to quit smoking. But in the book, argues the Consumer Protection Board, Trudeau simply points people to the Web site: “If you want to know the exact method that I used to quit smoking, go to www.naturalcures.com and become a private member."
:Most of us (and myself) agree with you.  The question is how best to give the article a neutral point of view yet include as many facts as possible.  I don't see a problem with including quotes from Trudeau, whether from infomercials or the book, since those are factual quotes.  Regardless of whether he diagnosed and cured his own mitral valve prolapse, if he claims in writing or verbally to have done it, it's fair game.  I am also in favor of keeping at least some sections.  I notice other unproven pseudoscience articles typically have a criticism section, so I don't think that is a problem either.  My suggestion is to move anything that is obviously biased into the Criticism section and stick with verifiable facts elsewhere.  ZZYZX 11:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCAM ARTIST 

message: Who contends this article is violating NPOV? Please provide specific things you believe violate WP:NPOV; if nothing passes muster and/or is not submitted, the tag will be removed in a few days. - RoyBoy 800 05:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  The pro-Trudeau crowd probably won't be happy until we come up with a pro-Trudeau article.  I'm in favor of removing the tag, especially now that the article has been rewritten a few times.  --ZZYZX 20:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, removing tag... but before I did that I removed "describes himself" from the lead. If he isn't an executive etc., then that should be noted and describes can be reinserted. Otherwise, I see little reason to doubt his self description. - RoyBoy 800 21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Substituted at 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment