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

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.

The pH of your blood is tightly regulated by a complex system of buffers that are continuously at work to maintain a range of 7.35 to 7.45, which is slightly more alkaline than pure water.

If the pH of your blood falls below 7.35, the result is a condition called acidosis, a state that leads to central nervous system depression. Severe acidosis - where blood pH falls below 7.00 - can lead to a coma and even death.

If the pH of your blood rises above 7.45, the result is alkalosis. Severe alkalosis can also lead to death, but through a different mechanism; alkalosis causes all of the nerves in your body to become hypersensitive and over-excitable, often resulting in muscle spasms, nervousness, and convulsions; it's usually the convulsions that cause death in severe cases.

The bottom line is that if you're breathing and going about your daily activities, your body is doing an adequate job of keeping your blood pH somewhere between 7.35 to 7.45, and the foods that you are eating are not causing any wild deviations of your blood pH.

...


When you ingest foods and liquids, the end products of digestion and assimilation of nutrients often results in an acid or alkaline-forming effect - the end products are sometimes called acid ash or alkaline ash.

Also, as your cells produce energy on a continual basis, a number of different acids are formed and released into your body fluids. These acids - generated by your everyday metabolic activities - are unavoidable; as long as your body has to generate energy to survive, it will produce a continuous supply of acids.

So there are two main forces at work on a daily basis that can disrupt the pH of your body fluids - these forces are the acid or alkaline-forming effects of foods and liquids that you ingest, and the acids that you generate through regular metabolic activities. Fortunately, your body has three major mechanisms at work at all times to prevent these forces from shifting the pH of your blood outside of the 7.35 to 7.45 range.

These mechanisms are:

  1. Buffer Systems
    • Carbonic Acid-Bicarbonate Buffer System
    • Protein Buffer System
    • Phosphate Buffer System
  2. Exhalation of Carbon Dioxide

  3. Elimination of Hydrogen Ions via Kidneys
It's not in the scope of this post to discuss the mechanisms listed above in detail. For this article, I only want to point out that these systems are in place to prevent dietary, metabolic, and other factors from pushing the pH of your blood outside of the 7.35 to 7.45 range.

When people encourage you to "alkalize your blood," most of them mean that you should eat plenty of foods that have an alkaline-forming effect on your system. The reason for making this suggestion is that the vast majority of highly processed foods - like white flour products and white sugar - have an acid-forming effect on your system, and if you spend years eating a poor diet that is mainly acid-forming, you will overwork some of the buffering systems mentioned above to a point where you could create undesirable changes in your health.
...
http://drbenkim.com/ph-body-blood-foods-acid-alkaline.htm
Content from External Source
Read the full article for a better idea of what's going on.
And yes, generally the science is understood. (not by me, but by those who study it.)
 
*Does, sorry. It is 5am where I am an I am not wearing my glasses.
Okay, that's a pretty damned funny typo…opened a whole new can of worms…

but I'm still curious about how you're using the term "science."


p.s. I think we all wish Trudeau had used his talents more honestly…the first time…and second time…and third time…and

p.p.s. Are we discussing "alkalized blood theory" as if it were taken seriously by the scientific community?
 
Science is a a verb, something you do, a systemised approach to learning. What exactly don't we understand about it?

If you mean 'the science OF....' you should say so.
 
Okay, that's a pretty damned funny typo…opened a whole new can of worms…

but I'm still curious about how you're using the term "science."


p.s. I think we all wish Trudeau had used his talents more honestly…the first time…and second time…and third time…and...

True although he has done some good. It just doesn't excuse the bad. I could sell ice to Eskimos' thanks to his training. I just like to think I have the wisdom to use the knowledge to help people.
 
Science is a a verb, something you do, a systemised approach to learning. What exactly don't we understand about it?

If you mean 'the science OF....' you should say so.

I was saying it like that as a figure of speech. What I mean for example is that we dont even know how we came about. Not exactly. We dont know if we know all the different types of energy. Or if there are other planes of existence. But based on established rules that we do know I would agree that the alkalising theory sounds like bunk and a scam. I just wouldn't be as bold to say it definitely is. That approach to life isnt my thing. I prefer just to raise theories with people.

It is like the cancer being a fungus theory. I would say it is or it isnt. It seems to have similarities for sure but I would not say it was actually just a fungus either or that we should treat fungus' with alkaline because we dont for even the non-cancerous types.
 
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.
And this article is a bit simpler.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/coral2.html

You should not believe that it matters whether foods are acidic or alkaline, because no foods change the acidity of anything in your body except your urine. Your stomach is so acidic that no food can change its acidity. Citrus fruits, vinegar, and vitamins such as ascorbic acid or folic acid do not change the acidity of your stomach or your bloodstream. An entire bottle of calcium pills or antacids would not change the acidity of your stomach for more than a few minutes.

All foods that leave your stomach are acidic. Then they enter your intestines where secretions from your pancreas neutralize the stomach acids. So no matter what you eat, the food in stomach is acidic and the food in the intestines is alkaline.

Dietary modification cannot change the acidity of any part of your body except your urine. Your bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow range. Anything that changed acidity in your body would make you very sick and could even kill you. Promoters of these products claim that cancer cells cannot live in an alkaline environment and that is true, but neither can any of the other cells in your body.
Content from External Source
 
...based on established rules that we do know I would agree that the alkalising theory sounds like bunk and a scam. I just wouldn't be as bold to say it definitely is. That approach to life isnt my thing. I prefer just to raise theories with people.
Everyone has their own style: I'm fine with yours and with Pete's.

For my own self, I'd express it more like: "I see no real reason to accept that or treat it as credible."
 
I wouldnt say it was baseless. Things are not always about empirical data. We dont fully understand science yet.

The alkaline diet claims are baseless though, the label applies for good reason. In addition to completely disregarding well-established understanding of biochemistry, they're completely ineffective for combating complex afflictions like cancer. There's no plausible mechanism for such an approach to work. The diet's principles are based on incorrect ideas which are over a century old.

Whether or not other scientific unknowns exist doesn't somehow assign merit to specific claims which are easily refuted.
 
... Nobody can tell me its completely fine to have the flesh of an animal that was tortured and killed inside of me. ...

Nobody has. I doubt anybody will. How a person eats is pretty much up to themselves, Dahmler types excluded. It's only when they push their dietary habits as being better than average, or better than a different type of diet, that they'll be challenged. As a previous poster pointed out, there's no evidence that an alkaline diet is better or worse than any other. To argue that we don't understand the science is double-edged. If we don't understand the science enough to say that this diet isn't better than another, then it's obvious we would not understand the science enough to say it is.

As it happens, we do understand the science. The fields of human dietetics and nutrition are very well understood. Sadly, when it comes to diet there are so many quacks out there the issues are often clouded. Quacks tend to be louder than the voices of the scientists. How long was Trudeau on the radio? He must be worth a considerable fortune if he was making millions every month from his radio show alone.
 
Nobody has. I doubt anybody will. How a person eats is pretty much up to themselves, Dahmler types excluded. It's only when they push their dietary habits as being better than average, or better than a different type of diet, that they'll be challenged. As a previous poster pointed out, there's no evidence that an alkaline diet is better or worse than any other. To argue that we don't understand the science is double-edged. If we don't understand the science enough to say that this diet isn't better than another, then it's obvious we would not understand the science enough to say it is.

As it happens, we do understand the science. The fields of human dietetics and nutrition are very well understood. Sadly, when it comes to diet there are so many quacks out there the issues are often clouded. Quacks tend to be louder than the voices of the scientists. How long was Trudeau on the radio? He must be worth a considerable fortune if he was making millions every month from his radio show alone.

A lot of Doctors that are respected now will be remembered as quacks one day I am sure. Especially in big pharma. But I get and appreciate your point about science.
 
A lot of Doctors that are respected now will be remembered as quacks one day I am sure. Especially in big pharma. But I get and appreciate your point about science.
Gary, you seem like a nice guy, but your reasoning puzzles me.

Surely you don't think for one second that adding "I am sure" to the end of any sentence, is the same as offering even the tiniest bit of evidence.

If I said "Kim Kardashian is actually just a very convincing butter sculpture, I am sure"
you would have no reason to respond as if I'd made a compelling argument, would you?
 
A lot of Doctors that are respected now will be remembered as quacks one day I am sure.

Future doctors will look back on us and chuckle at our relative ignorance and naivety. But here's the thing, doctors that are practising science based medicine today are doing so based on the best and most current information available. Medicine will continue to improve and adapt as long as it's based on science.

The quacks are those that claim, without evidence, that a good diet will cure cancer, or that vaccines cause autism. They are quacks of today and will continue to be considered quacks far into the future... of that, I am sure.
 
UPDATE. KT got sentenced this week. Bit late with the update but I actually know him and his family. They have pretty much disowned him but are obviously upset still.

"TRUDEAU GIVEN 10 YEARS!"
http://gintruth.com/gnt/wpver/?p=2320

[Excuse font size. It seems too big or too small.]
 
Last edited:
I woke up with the TV on....Mr Trudeau was there, pitching the same stuff as before.
I did notice his excessive use of the term, "in my opinion"....at the end of nearly every claim.
 
In 2013, he was twice briefly jailed for continued failure to pay fines related to his conviction, pleading poverty while continuing to live a lavish lifestyle.[6] In November 2013, Trudeau was convicted of criminal contempt and incarcerated;[7] and on March 17, 2014, Trudeau was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison.[8]

Despite his imprisonment, infomercials for (and featuring) Trudeau continue to air on US television stations to this day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau
Content from External Source
The guy is incorrigible, in my opinion.
 
In 2013, he was twice briefly jailed for continued failure to pay fines related to his conviction, pleading poverty while continuing to live a lavish lifestyle.[6] In November 2013, Trudeau was convicted of criminal contempt and incarcerated;[7] and on March 17, 2014, Trudeau was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison.[8]

Despite his imprisonment, infomercials for (and featuring) Trudeau continue to air on US television stations to this day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau
Content from External Source
The guy is incorrigible, in my opinion.

He does seem like a compulsive liar and greedy. Although, people could debate all day whether the sentence is fair on not. It's subjective and arbitrary, in my mind.
 
Back
Top