Talk:Kevin Trudeau/Archive 2

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Looks good. - RoyBoy 800 17:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Nature Cure" relevant information? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "accused" simply isn't the right word 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nightline appearance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality of this Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another book? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Please Add this information from kevin's book

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kevin Trudeau's Infomercials