Kevin Trudeau - Diet Conspiracy Theorist - Found Guilty of Criminal Contempt

Well my preference would be natural. Less side effects.

It depends, really. The term "natural" has become too much of a blanket statement and isn't always better or different from whatever its counterpart might be. It helps to be specific when talking about what is meant by "natural."
 
Well that is your belief dude. I have had family that took the holistic approach and cure themselves without chemo and radiotherapy.
I'm glad your family (and friends that you alluded to in a previous post) became well.
Did they use an holistic approach to diagnose their cancers? If their confimation of the illness was via conventional scans, xrays, biopsy etc. How come they were happy to trust the diagnosis but not the treatment? If not, how do you holistically diagnose cancer?
 
Interesting reading. Good man.

He is a good man, isn't he.

He's a clinical neurologist. I find him very articulate and enjoy listening to his podcast, The Skeptics Guide to the Universe. This week they had a segment in which they examined what scientific ideas are ready to be retired. That is to say, what ideas are so outdated and lead to dead ends, that we should no longer waste any time thinking about them?

Here is Steve Novellas answer...


Anything I would come up with is actually pseudo scientific.

But the thing that is pseudo scientific that is doing the best job of posing as scientific, and has infiltrated every level of academia and science and the institution of science, is alternative medicine. It has it's own journals, it has own clinics, its own degrees, it has surrounded itself with all the trappings of scientific legitimacy, and it is 100% bullshit.

The very concept of alternative medicine exists to create a double standard where the rules of science and evidence are on their head, specifically to manufacture the result that is desired by cranks, charlatans, snake oils salesmen and self proclaimed gurus. It needs to completely go away. The world would be a much better place.

There is 'medicine', there is no double standard. There is just medicine. Either it works or it doesn't work and you have one standard of evidence to tell us what is likely to work and what is likely not to work. In what other science is there an alternative? Is there alternative engineering? Is there alternative physics? There is alternative history, but that's bullshit too.


http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/446

Content from External Source
 
I'm glad your family (and friends that you alluded to in a previous post) became well.
Did they use an holistic approach to diagnose their cancers? If their confimation of the illness was via conventional scans, xrays, biopsy etc. How come they were happy to trust the diagnosis but not the treatment? If not, how do you holistically diagnose cancer?

Depends on the cancer. For example skin cancer can be very visible. I have also had an aunt that died from cancer although I believe it was actually the chemotherapy that killed her, technically.

I just think that general good health to be a sensible and effective precaution, if not a cure.

There are lots of "natural cures" being bandied around as the one cure to end the need for any others but I don't think we are there yet and we may need some human refining of the responsible chemicals for said cure as the causes for cancer are man made more and more.

I know something isnt right and their is some collusion for a fact. I just cant present it here because it is mostly here-say among those in the industry. My ex was doing really well in that industry, in fact a director for one of the biggest pharma companies. Had lots of famous doctors etc as friends and they openly talked about real cure suppression and conspiracies. They were part of them. For example one was a director for the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and I read emails about how ineffective some expensive medicine is that I cant name but they were still going to pass it through anyway.

And then look at how the Swine Flu debacle worked out. We were being told 100,000 people in London would be killed and they had to spend millions on vaccines etc which they didn't even administer. Ok mistakes happen but there is clear collusion in those circles. Its not crazy to think there are conspiracies as such. It is just wrong to claim them without evidence which is not what I am doing. Just talking points for people with genuine concerns for others.

Anyway this thread is basically about the author, Kevin Truduea. He told some people I know that he had secrets and charged 75,000 for a CD about it. All it was about was how he thinks they have alien DNA like he says he has and the evidence being that they had the good thinking to buy the CD lol.

I believed some of his rubbish as it was mixed with sincere seeming revoluitinary thinking but in the end it just turns out he is just another guy that would sell his own grandmother for a buck, in my opinion.
 
He is a good man, isn't he.

He's a clinical neurologist. I find him very articulate and enjoy listening to his podcast, The Skeptics Guide to the Universe. This week they had a segment in which they examined what scientific ideas are ready to be retired. That is to say, what ideas are so outdated and lead to dead ends, that we should no longer waste any time thinking about them?

Here is Steve Novellas answer...


Anything I would come up with is actually pseudo scientific.

But the thing that is pseudo scientific that is doing the best job of posing as scientific, and has infiltrated every level of academia and science and the institution of science, is alternative medicine. It has it's own journals, it has own clinics, its own degrees, it has surrounded itself with all the trappings of scientific legitimacy, and it is 100% bullshit.

The very concept of alternative medicine exists to create a double standard where the rules of science and evidence are on their head, specifically to manufacture the result that is desired by cranks, charlatans, snake oils salesmen and self proclaimed gurus. It needs to completely go away. The world would be a much better place.

There is 'medicine', there is no double standard. There is just medicine. Either it works or it doesn't work and you have one standard of evidence to tell us what is likely to work and what is likely not to work. In what other science is there an alternative? Is there alternative engineering? Is there alternative physics? There is alternative history, but that's bullshit too.


http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/446

Content from External Source


Alternative history is bullshit? That sounds a bit bonkers though. History is often taken from the perception of what happened based on data. Not always directly from the data itself like some footprints in the sand on a beach. For example, the Nazis are portrayed even in school as the worst evil that ever happened to society but look how bad it was that us British bombed Dresden and killed so many people. Anything that made the British authorities look bad wasnt taught to me in school. Violence is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. The only time it is excusble is in immediate self-defence. Are we not supposed to be civlised beings?
 
I thought 'cause you were from England... but damn that's still a lot of money.

Most of the people in the "Inner-Circle" would of paid a least $100k to G.I.N if not a lot more.

It had 33,000 members at its peak. Revenue was like $2 million a month for Kevin.

He has amazing talents. I am convinced he could of made more as an honest business man than a scammer.

Some people are just addicted to conning others.

I wouldn't be surprised if it came from the trauma of being adopted. Not that everybody adopted reacts like that, of course.

Saying that i weas making thousands from G.I.N in commissions but my referrals forgave me as it was obvious I had genuine intentions.
 
Depends on the cancer. For example skin cancer can be very visible. I have also had an aunt that died from cancer although I believe it was actually the chemotherapy that killed her, technically.

That's very sad. Do you mean that the chemo ended her life earlier than the cancer would have? Or that without the chemo but with non conventional treatments, she would have survived?

I just think that general good health to be a sensible and effective precaution, if not a cure.
I think most would agree that a healthier life will help to make cancers less likely. Most health professionals advocate this. However, very healthy people do succumb to such , so good general health is clearly not the complete answer.



Anyway this thread is basically about the author, Kevin Truduea. He told some people I know that he had secrets and charged 75,000 for a CD about it. All it was about was how he thinks they have alien DNA like he says he has and the evidence being that they had the good thinking to buy the CD lol.

I believed some of his rubbish as it was mixed with sincere seeming revoluitinary thinking but in the end it just turns out he is just another guy that would sell his own grandmother for a buck, in my opinion.

Amen.

(Edited because of bod spulling).
 
I would not of got cancer from a lack of radiation in my diet. For example.

I don't get the connection here. You are obviously being sarcastic (I figure) because I can't imagine you think people get radiation when they have cancer because they need the nutrients it provides.

I'm sorry about the EX quotes below. For some reason this is the only quote I see in the information bar.

Would anybody think contrary if I said the biggest cause of cancer is likely bureaucracy?
Content from External Source
With the handful of real, concrete problems I have in real life, bureaucracy plays absolutely NO part in my stress or my life even. YMMV.

You are saying cancer is a group of illness basically and I am saying surely that means the best solution is just to stay well.
Content from External Source
Of course! Just don't get sick! Why didn't my friend who had a mastectomy think of that? For that matter, why didn't I think of it before I caught the cold I'm fighting right now. Just stay well.


Although of course people that are in otherwise good health get cancer too. But not as often as somebody who doesnt look after themselves.
Content from External Source
Is that true or do people who do not "look after themselves" just get different cancers?
 
Alternative history is bullshit? That sounds a bit bonkers though.

I think he was referring to 'alternate history' as in the type of fiction. At least that's what I took it to mean.

I just think that general good health to be a sensible and effective precaution, if not a cure.

Every general practitioner would most likely agree with you. I'm willing to bet not one of them would say, "Nah... forget diet and exercise, just take this pill from Big Pharma." The magic bullet salesmen are the alternative medicine hucksters and scammers.
 
I find it slightly odd that people moan and groan about big pharma and how they want to sell you something but none of their alternative holistic approaches are offered for free.
 
Last edited:
Here's a few causes of cancer that affect "normal" people: melanoma, radon induced lung cancer, lung cancer from asbestos, cancer from actual radiation exposure, and a host of others. The fact is cancer has a ton of vectors to develop in your body. While "staying healthy" helps fight these things, there are other ways to get cancer other than poor diet. For instance, children get brain cancer. Were those kids "busy" in ship yards or smoking a pack a day...
 
Here's a few causes of cancer that affect "normal" people: melanoma, radon induced lung cancer, lung cancer from asbestos, cancer from actual radiation exposure, and a host of others. The fact is cancer has a ton of vectors to develop in your body. While "staying healthy" helps fight these things, there are other ways to get cancer other than poor diet. For instance, children get brain cancer. Were those kids "busy" in ship yards or smoking a pack a day...
Children get leukemia too.

As you say, keeping fit and eating healthy is always the best thing to do, but it's not going to prevent a body developing cancer. Ever. Quite a number of cancers, much like other diseases, are genetic. Others are environmentally provoked. Still others we have no real understanding of the initial cause. One thing we do know, once a cell has mutated and cancer begins, then there are a huge number of ways of the disease developing. At the moment we have the know-how to deal with quite a lot of them. 20 years ago the diagnosis of cancer was pretty much a hint to start saving for a coffin. Today, there's a lot of hope for patients, especially for those who get an early diagnosis, and therefore an early start to treatment.

But once diagnosed, I'd be slow to bet on the survival of anyone who chose to fight the illness by relying on a regime of healthy eating and exercise. Of course, some people recover anyway, a very, very small fraction. But it is nature of anecdotal evidence that their stories will be heard very often.
 
I find it slightly odd that people moan and groan about big pharma and how they want to sell you something but none of their alternative holistic approaches are offered for free.


I think he was referring to 'alternate history' as in the type of fiction. At least that's what I took it to mean.



Every general practitioner would most likely agree with you. I'm willing to bet not one of them would say, "Nah... forget diet and exercise, just take this pill from Big Pharma." The magic bullet salesmen are the alternative medicine hucksters and scammers.

Some would consider chemo et al to be magic bullet cures also, my friend.
 
I don't get the connection here. You are obviously being sarcastic (I figure) because I can't imagine you think people get radiation when they have cancer because they need the nutrients it provides.

I'm sorry about the EX quotes below. For some reason this is the only quote I see in the information bar.

Would anybody think contrary if I said the biggest cause of cancer is likely bureaucracy?
Content from External Source
With the handful of real, concrete problems I have in real life, bureaucracy plays absolutely NO part in my stress or my life even. YMMV.

You are saying cancer is a group of illness basically and I am saying surely that means the best solution is just to stay well.
Content from External Source
Of course! Just don't get sick! Why didn't my friend who had a mastectomy think of that? For that matter, why didn't I think of it before I caught the cold I'm fighting right now. Just stay well.


Although of course people that are in otherwise good health get cancer too. But not as often as somebody who doesnt look after themselves.
Content from External Source
Is that true or do people who do not "look after themselves" just get different cancers?

You are being more than a little vexatious. I have clearly said multiple times that I accept being healthy alone isnt a sure way to stop yourself getting cancer.
 
Some would consider chemo et al to be magic bullet cures also, my friend.

No they wouldn't. Nobody claims chemo is guaranteed successful, you know that.

If you don't agree, then start a thread debunking the effectiveness of chemo therapy over some alternative treatment.
 
Last edited:
I fully agree that a healthier life style helps prevent cancer, as well as several other diseases. It's kind of obvious that people who exercises and eat healthy food are less likely to be ill, as it's obvious that there are exceptions. As was said in this thread, kids with terrible diseases and 110 yo folks who spent their lives drinking and chewing tobacco are indeed frequent, but they are exceptions.

Other thing that's obvious is that CT and RT do work. They are terrible and often decrease the life expectancy of the patient, but they are the best thing out there right now. There are natural remissions, there are people who would live longer without CT, but they are again exceptions.

My sister-in-lax had breast cancer at 33yo. She went through CT (2x) and RT and is very well now. Odds are she wouldn't be with us without the treatment. My father-in-law had lung cancer at 68yo, and lasted 2 months after the diagnosis, even with CT. He couldn't endure the violence of the treatment. The CT probably made it worse and shortened his life by some months, and he spent the last 2 months in ICU.

Two very different stories and two very different endings.

Everybody that went through this know that the medics explains all risks, advantages and aftermaths of the treatments. I don't think anyone is obligated to be treated.

CT and RT are terrible and violent, but there are no better solutions right now. They need to keep studying these exceptions, they need to research every and all bizarre remissions so that something better than CT and RT is discovered.
 
I think I was actually being fair, thinking about it. I agree that they talk about healthy eating in school etc but they dont talk bout how eating alkaline based foods is better than acidic, etc etc. As far as I know. Schools do not do research they just teach what ever they are told to. Out of all my friends its the ones that dont know about this that seem to get cancer more. Just personal observation.
 
It depends, really. The term "natural" has become too much of a blanket statement and isn't always better or different from whatever its counterpart might be. It helps to be specific when talking about what is meant by "natural."

Poison ivy is "natural".
 
I think I was actually being fair, thinking about it. I agree that they talk about healthy eating in school etc but they dont talk bout how eating alkaline based foods is better than acidic, etc etc. As far as I know. Schools do not do research they just teach what ever they are told to. Out of all my friends its the ones that dont know about this that seem to get cancer more. Just personal observation.
The idea that alkaline foods affect the body in the way claimed is without merit. You can effect the ph of urine, but that's about it.

Proponents of the alkaline diet have put forth a few different theories about how an acidic diet harms our health. The more ridiculous claim is that we can change the pH of our blood by changing the foods we eat, and that acidic blood causes disease while alkaline blood prevents it. This is not true. The body tightly regulates the pH of our blood and extracellular fluid, and we cannot influence our blood pH by changing our diet. (5, 6) High doses of sodium bicarbonate can temporarily increase blood pH, but not without causing uncomfortable GI symptoms. (7, 8) And there are certainly circumstances in which the blood is more acidic than it should be, and this does have serious health consequences. However, this state of acidosis is caused by pathological conditions such as chronic renal insufficiency, not by whether you choose to eat a salad or a burger. In other words, regardless of what you eat or what your urine pH is, you can be pretty confident that your blood pH is hovering around a comfortable 7.4.
Content from External Source
http://chriskresser.com/the-ph-myth-part-1
 
I agree that they talk about healthy eating in school etc but they dont talk bout how eating alkaline based foods is better than acidic, etc etc.

That's probably because the claims made about alkaline diets are scientifically baseless.

Robert O. Young, a major proponent of alkaline "health" claims, and mentioned in these articles, has just pleaded not guilty to 18 felony charges, including practicing without a license and grand theft.

@Pete Tar : While Kresser's takedown of the alkaline claims seems reasonable enough, it should be noted that he promotes alt-med nonsense as well (including acupuncture and "leaky gut" syndrome). I would generally steer clear of his website entirely.
 
That's probably because the claims made about alkaline diets are scientifically baseless.

Robert O. Young, a major proponent of alkaline "health" claims, and mentioned in these articles, has just pleaded not guilty to 18 felony charges, including practicing without a license and grand theft.

@Pete Tar : While Kresser's takedown of the alkaline claims seems reasonable enough, it should be noted that he promotes alt-med nonsense as well (including acupuncture and "leaky gut" syndrome). I would generally steer clear of his website entirely.

I wouldnt say it was baseless. Things are not always about empirical data. We dont fully understand science yet. Its the same with easting meat. Nobody can tell me its completely fine to have the flesh of an animal that was tortured and killed inside of me. I like the acidic theory as a general rule of thumb since the food on the alkaline
lists are generally more healthy than those of the acidic lists.
 
While it is in my mind, I would just like to write, I think that there are good and bad essentially in both the natural and artificial health industries. At least I try and take all opinions in to consideration but too many people seem to be addicted to making money and wont change when new information comes to light.
 
Yes they are but not because they 'alkalise your blood'.



:O

Was this a misprint?

You are telling me you understand everything in science? Do you even know everything in science? I doubt any human dies. I am just saying I would be mindful or making extremely absolute claims in support or in criticism of anything.
 
Anyway back to Kevin. He is a con-man and very good at it, sadly. I wish he would apply his talents to really being honest rather than pretending to be. I think his sentence was harsh and unlawful. People should not be physically punished for non-physical crimes in my opinion. Society kinda gave him an excuse for his behaviour.
 
Can blood have normal PH levels regardless of what we consume? Just asking. So even if we only consume acid our bodies could still have blood other day very acidic blood? Just asking for info/opinions.
 
You said we don't fully understand science yet.
That is very different to 'I don't understand *the* science'.

The principles of Science are very well understood.
 
You are telling me you understand everything in science? Do you even know everything in science? I doubt any human dies. I am just saying I would be mindful or making extremely absolute claims in support or in criticism of anything.
Gary, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "science" in this context.
Actually, a definition of "dies" would also be helpful.
 
You said we don't fully understand science yet.
That is very different to 'I don't understand *the* science'.

The principles of Science are very well understood.

I would contest that every principle of science is understood or even known to humans. Although the alkalised blood theory didnt sound right to me either. Especially as there are such things as oranges and lemons on the alkaline list. I don't know which way around it is but I am pretty sure at least one of the two are acidic.

Kevin based a lot of his radio shows around the alkalised blood theory. he was literally making millions every month on the basis. In my opinion. (Having to say that for legal reasons).
 
Back
Top