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

[Gary Cook]

I have friends that have. I was only stating my opinion. I make no claims of fact. If people want to take the big pharma route that is up to them.

 

[Soulfly]

I would contend there is no food or collection of foods that are a magic cancer cure. At least not proven to be.

You probably have to pay someone or buy some kit for the secret recipe!

 

[Gary Cook]

Actually, thinking about it more, if I had to be mores specific I would say lack of oxygen is the biggest cause of cancer and therefore stress to be a massive killer. Maybe the biggest.

I think that is partly what KT (Kevin Trudeau) says in his books.

I have met him and that is what his friends call him.

I am quite close to his brother as mates but they dont really get on any-more as KT is putting stress on the family.

 

[Landru]

Actually, thinking about it more, if I had to be mores specific I would say lack of oxygen is the biggest cause of cancer and therefore stress to be a massive killer. Maybe the biggest.

I think that is partly what KT (Kevin Trudeau) says in his books.

I have met him and that is what his friends call him.

I am quite close to his brother as mates but they dont really get on any-more as KT is putting stress on the family.

Is there any evidence to support this? Because this guy says different.

Only 5–10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects, whereas the remaining 90–95% have their roots in the environment and lifestyle. The lifestyle factors include cigarette smoking, diet (fried foods, red meat), alcohol, sun exposure, environmental pollutants, infections, stress, obesity, and physical inactivity. The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25–30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30–35% are linked to diet, about 15–20% are due to infections, and the remaining percentage are due to other factors like radiation, stress, physical activity, environmental pollutants etc.

Content from External Source

 

[Pete Tar]

Are free-radicals a factor in cancer? It mentions it can break down DNA.

So too much oxygen might cause cancer? (although this article doesn't mention cancer..)

The most toxic free radical appears responsible for much of the lung damage that can result from oxygen therapy in the critically ill or injured, Medical College of Georgia researchers report.

Within just a few days, ventilators and oxygen chambers used to significantly increase oxygen levels can also dramatically increase levels of peroxynitrite, an oxidant powerful enough to break down DNA and cause proteins to malfunction, said Dr. Yunchao Su, pharmacologist in the MCG Schools of Medicine and Graduate Studies.

Oxygen toxicity is the most severe side effect of oxygen therapy in newborns and adults. The lungs take the brunt of the damage, which can include inflammation, hemorrhaging and swelling that may result in death or chronic lung problems, said Su, corresponding author of the study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

"We knew it was bad but we did not know why," Su said. The good news is they may also have a solution.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101005104335.htm

Content from External Source

(but this one does...)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8695238
Eur J Cancer. 1996 Jan;32A(1):30-8.
Role of oxygen free radicals in cancer development.
Dreher D, Junod AF.
Author information

• Respiratory Division, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland.

Abstract
In aerobic life, oxidative stress arises from both endogenous and exogenous sources. Despite antioxidant defence mechanisms, cell damage from oxygen free radicals (OFR) is ubiquitous. OFR-related lesions that do not cause cell death can stimulate the development of cancer. This review discusses the effects of oxidative stress at the different stages of carcinogenesis. Mutagenesis through oxidative DNA damage is widely hypothesised to be a frequent event in the normal human cell. A large body of evidence suggests important roles of OFR in the expansion of tumour clones and the acquisition of malignant properties. In view of these facts, OFR may be considered as an important class of carcinogens. Therefore, the ineffectiveness of preventive antioxidant treatments, as documented in several recent clinical trials, is surprising. However, the difficulties of antioxidant intervention are explained by the complexity of both free radical chemistry and cancer development. Thus, reducing the avoidable endogenous and exogenous causes of oxidative stress is, for the present, the safest option. In the near future, new insights in the action of tumour suppressor genes and the DNA repair mechanisms may lead the way to additional tools against carcinogenesis from OFR.

Content from External Source

You might need to revise that theory, or at least define what is not enough oxygen and what is too much.

 

[Dan Wilson]

I have friends that have. I was only stating my opinion. I make no claims of fact. If people want to take the big pharma route that is up to them.

Have friends that have gotten better from holistic treatments? Did they see a doctor? Were they receiving other treatments? Are they sure it was the holistic treatment that cured them? How do they know? If spreading your opinion influences people to forego real tested treatments that could save them, I see a big problem with that.

 

[Landru]

Have friends that have gotten better from holistic treatments? Did they see a doctor? Were they receiving other treatments? Are they sure it was the holistic treatment that cured them? How do they know? If spreading your opinion influences people to forego real tested treatments that could save them, I see a big problem with that.

The real issue is that Gary and his friends have found an alternate cure for cancer, one that basically involves going to Whole Foods, and they are not sharing. Maybe Big Pharma is paying them to keep quiet.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

As for the "cure to cancer". I work in pharma, partly. There is definitely a cure for cancer but there are so many that its obscures the truth. It is a holistic thing basically. More prevention than a cure. Chemo sucks though. Cant advice anybody else but I wouldnt have it myself. People that have are not getting more well. You can just seen that with the naked eye alone even. I would follow friends of mine that cure there own cancer without big pharma.

The obvious reason big pharma dont market the "cure" is because they make more from their drugs than they would from the relative free holistic approach.

What does "there are so many that its obscures the truth" mean?

"There is definitely a cure for cancer" A bold claim. Do you have evidence to support it? What is it that you do in "pharma" that leads you to this conclusion.

How do your friends "cure their own cancer"? After shunning conventional treatment, do they then seek confirmation via scans and Xrays etc.? Only then can they know if their illness is indeed in remission (the term that health pros use because they know there is no cure).

More generally, in countries like the UK where there is a national health/insurance system, a cure for cancers would surely save millions of pounds/dollars/euros etc. Why would their governments obscure such a treatment?

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

Well that is your belief dude. I have had family that took the holistic approach and cure themselves without chemo and radiotherapy. People should be aware that giving money to big pharma is the only solution. Their treatments seem to kill you and the cancer and just see which one dies first before trying to bring you back from the brink. People on chemo hardly look like they are getting more healthy. Do they. Its generally lack of health that causes cancer.

It's generally lack of health that causes cancer? Seriously?

You've had members of your family that were diagnosed with cancer and cured themselves? I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound true to me. If they were diagnosed with cancer, and then managed to cure themselves of the greatest curse of the modern era ... why haven't they shared this technique? Seriously?

My mother spent 10 years working for an oncologist in NYC. There were success stories, there were far more sad stories. As for giving money to Big Pharma, don't you think they could get more money if the patients didn't fucking die? Right down the line. The moment your client kicks the bucket, the profit is gone.

 

[Gary Cook]

It is clearly obvious that there is going to be a natural cure for cancer re/discovered.

This is a potential one here posted about in a government website but I am an not an expert enough to verify it fully.

When one is discovered everybody who doubted it and ridiculed those who were looking for one should question if their bullying cost lives.

Its about a cure in the sense that the chemical mentioned, bromelain, is naturally occurring in Pineapples.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377593

 

[Gary Cook]

It's generally lack of health that causes cancer? Seriously?

You've had members of your family that were diagnosed with cancer and cured themselves? I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound true to me. If they were diagnosed with cancer, and then managed to cure themselves of the greatest curse of the modern era ... why haven't they shared this technique? Seriously?

My mother spent 10 years working for an oncologist in NYC. There were success stories, there were far more sad stories. As for giving money to Big Pharma, don't you think they could get more money if the patients didn't fucking die? Right down the line. The moment your client kicks the bucket, the profit is gone.

People have shared their techniques but you are ignoring them.

Cancer treatments cost a fortune and do tend to keep the victim alive for awhile before they die.

Ok sometimes it saves lives but I wouldnt accept it. I would not of got cancer from a lack of radiation in my diet. For example.

 

[Gary Cook]

What does "there are so many that its obscures the truth" mean?

"There is definitely a cure for cancer" A bold claim. Do you have evidence to support it? What is it that you do in "pharma" that leads you to this conclusion.

How do your friends "cure their own cancer"? After shunning conventional treatment, do they then seek confirmation via scans and Xrays etc.? Only then can they know if their illness is indeed in remission (the term that health pros use because they know there is no cure).

More generally, in countries like the UK where there is a national health/insurance system, a cure for cancers would surely save millions of pounds/dollars/euros etc. Why would their governments obscure such a treatment?

Governments tend to thrive on transferring money from the public to their private accounts via relatives and associates.

Then again for some reason I seem not to be allowed to answer direct questions asked of me on this forum.

 

[Soulfly]

It is clearly obvious that there is going to be a natural cure for cancer re/discovered.

This is a potential one here posted about in a government website but I am an not an expert enough to verify it fully.

When one is discovered everybody who doubted it and ridiculed those who were looking for one should question if their bullying cost lives.

Its about a cure in the sense that the chemical mentioned, bromelain, is naturally occurring in Pineapples.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377593

That doesn't translate to eating pineapples cures cancer.

 

[Gary Cook]

That doesn't translate to eating pineapples cures cancer.

I never said it did. It is all work in progress.

 

[Gary Cook]

Just for the record. I am not defending Kevin. His brother Robert is one of my best friends and they do no get along.

Kevin gives our movement a bad name.

 

[Mick West]

It is clearly obvious that there is going to be a natural cure for cancer re/discovered.

Why is it obvious?

While it's certainly possible, I think it's far more likely that a cure will involve discovering how the various forms of cancer work, and then engineering targeted solutions like gene therapy, or even (in many years) nanobots. I think "the" cure will be highly artificial.

 

[Soulfly]

I never said it did. It is all work in progress.

How is a cure for cancer derived from a natural source automatically going to be cheaper than the unnatural one?

edited for clarity

 

[Trigger Hippie]

When one is discovered everybody who doubted it and ridiculed those who were looking for one should question if their bullying cost lives.

Its about a cure in the sense that the chemical mentioned, bromelain, is naturally occurring in Pineapples.

Do people really dismiss and ridicule medicines just because they're "natural"?

I find people dismiss natural/alternative medicines for which there is no scientific evidence demonstrating their effectiveness. There are plenty of proven effective medicines derived from "natural" sources. Aspirin, opiates and quinine comes to mind.

Now Bromelain may be added to that list.

 

[solrey]

It is clearly obvious that there is going to be a natural cure for cancer re/discovered.

This is a potential one here posted about in a government website but I am an not an expert enough to verify it fully.

When one is discovered everybody who doubted it and ridiculed those who were looking for one should question if their bullying cost lives.

Its about a cure in the sense that the chemical mentioned, bromelain, is naturally occurring in Pineapples.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377593

They were comparing the efficacy of recombinant bromelain to commercially available bromealin on ONE specific type of breast cancer:

Commercially available bromelain is obtained through tedious methods; therefore, recombinant bromelain may provide a cheaper and simpler choice with similar quality. Materials and Methods: This study aimed to assess the effects of commercial and recombinant bromelain on the cytokinetic behavior of MCF-7 breast cancer cells and their potential as therapeutic alternatives in cancer treatment.

Content from External Source

Doesn't sound like eating pineapples is gonna cut it if the commercial process is "tedious". BTW, recombinant bromelain is produced using genetically engineered E. coli.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336426

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359511311002935

 

[Gary Cook]

Why is it obvious?

While it's certainly possible, I think it's far more likely that a cure will involve discovering how the various forms of cancer work, and then engineering targeted solutions like gene therapy, or even (in many years) nanobots. I think "the" cure will be highly artificial.

Good question. From how well some natural cures are already doing. for example Bromine the one I mentioned above. The chemical tested was the synthetic version and apparently the natural chemical is even more effective but to be honest that is only hear-say right now as I haven't seen more tests just claims. So I dont want that submitted to the debate as evidence as such but I certainly think its an indicator that we will find something natural that works well enough to be considered a cure. Then again ,people could argue that if we refine it then it is artificial anyway.

My point was never really about natural cures as such. More about neutral prevention and I think that's where the conspiracy is so to speak. It i played down out how much difference there is between people getting cancer that live healthy lives and how often people get it that don't.

Would anybody think contrary if I said the biggest cause of cancer is likely bureaucracy?

If my writing is not the best it's because I am "cockney" and I write how I speak. Micheal Caine is my Nans cousin and we have similar speech patterns. =)

 

[Balance]

.... Micheal Caine is my Nans cousin and we have similar speech patterns. =)

Not a lotta people know that.

Sorry, I'll get me coat.

 

[Gary Cook]

Trust me, I had worse. =)

 

[Mick West]

My point was never really about natural cures as such. More about neutral prevention and I think that's where the conspiracy is so to speak. It i played down out how much difference there is between people getting cancer that live healthy lives and how often people get it that don't.

How much difference is there? 50%? 1%?

And is it really played down? Listed on the government page along with the other risk factors:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/cancer/page3

Risk Factors
Doctors often cannot explain why one person develops cancer and another does not. But research shows that certain risk factors increase the chance that a person will develop cancer. These are the most common risk factors for cancer:

• Growing older
• Tobacco
• Sunlight
• Ionizing radiation
• Certain chemicals and other substances
• Some viruses and bacteria
• Certain hormones
• Family history of cancer
• Alcohol
• Poor diet, lack of physical activity, or being overweight

Content from External Source

And they go into some detail:

Poor Diet, Lack of Physical Activity, or Being Overweight
People who have a poor diet, do not have enough physical activity, or are overweight may be at increased risk of several types of cancer. For example, studies suggest that people whose diet is high in fat have an increased risk of cancers of the colon, uterus, and prostate. Lack of physical activity and being overweight are risk factors for cancers of the breast, colon, esophagus, kidney, and uterus.


Choose a diet rich in fruits and vegetables.

Having a healthy diet, being physically active, and maintaining a healthy weight may help reduce cancer risk. Doctors suggest the following:

• Eat well: A healthy diet includes plenty of foods that are high in fiber, vitamins, and minerals. This includes whole-grain breads and cereals and 5 to 9 servings of fruits and vegetables every day. Also, a healthy diet means limiting foods high in fat (such as butter, whole milk, fried foods, and red meat).
• Be active and maintain a healthy weight: Physical activity can help control your weight and reduce body fat. Most scientists agree that it is a good idea for an adult to have moderate physical activity (such as brisk walking) for at least 30 minutes on 5 or more days each week.

Content from External Source

 

[Pete Tar]

It is clearly obvious that there is going to be a natural cure for cancer re/discovered.

This is a potential one here posted about in a government website but I am an not an expert enough to verify it fully.

When one is discovered everybody who doubted it and ridiculed those who were looking for one should question if their bullying cost lives.

Its about a cure in the sense that the chemical mentioned, bromelain, is naturally occurring in Pineapples.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377593

Pretty much all medicine comes from studying the actions of natural compounds and then refining and synthesising them. Do you think if a substance in pineapple were found to be efficacious they would just grow a lot of pineapples to extract the substance, or would they find a way to sythesise and refine it? Would it still be 'natural' then?

And who's ridiculing and bullying cancer researchers? What are you talking about?

 

[Gary Cook]

How much difference is there? 50%? 1%?

And is it really played down? Listed on the government page along with the other risk factors:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/cancer/page3

Risk Factors
Doctors often cannot explain why one person develops cancer and another does not. But research shows that certain risk factors increase the chance that a person will develop cancer. These are the most common risk factors for cancer:

• Growing older
• Tobacco
• Sunlight
• Ionizing radiation
• Certain chemicals and other substances
• Some viruses and bacteria
• Certain hormones
• Family history of cancer
• Alcohol
• Poor diet, lack of physical activity, or being overweight

Content from External Source

And they go into some detail:

Poor Diet, Lack of Physical Activity, or Being Overweight
People who have a poor diet, do not have enough physical activity, or are overweight may be at increased risk of several types of cancer. For example, studies suggest that people whose diet is high in fat have an increased risk of cancers of the colon, uterus, and prostate. Lack of physical activity and being overweight are risk factors for cancers of the breast, colon, esophagus, kidney, and uterus.


Choose a diet rich in fruits and vegetables.

Having a healthy diet, being physically active, and maintaining a healthy weight may help reduce cancer risk. Doctors suggest the following:

• Eat well: A healthy diet includes plenty of foods that are high in fiber, vitamins, and minerals. This includes whole-grain breads and cereals and 5 to 9 servings of fruits and vegetables every day. Also, a healthy diet means limiting foods high in fat (such as butter, whole milk, fried foods, and red meat).
• Be active and maintain a healthy weight: Physical activity can help control your weight and reduce body fat. Most scientists agree that it is a good idea for an adult to have moderate physical activity (such as brisk walking) for at least 30 minutes on 5 or more days each week.

Content from External Source

Good info and I was writing it I did think about when I was at school and they wrre teaching me about making sure we eat from each of the different food groups but like I said how much stress is Beuracracy. Does the money it raises for so called society warremnt the stress caused from the threats of vieoence for not paying taxes and so forth and so on.

Anyway I dont mean to rant and I am not making excuses but I am not always the best at getting my points across.

 

[Gary Cook]

Pretty much all medicine comes from studying the actions of natural compounds and then refining and synthesising them. Do you think if a substance in pineapple were found to be efficacious they would just grow a lot of pineapples to extract the substance, or would they find a way to sythesise and refine it? Would it still be 'natural' then?

And who's ridiculing and bullying cancer researchers? What are you talking about?

I have had my own but I left the school playground a long time ago. Shame some adults still think they are there.

There are those like you and Mick who care about people and debunk things for the right reasons and those that just get kicks from being nasty to people.

 

[Mick West]

Good info and I was writing it I did think about when I was at school and they wrre teaching me about making sure we eat from each of the different food groups but like I said how much stress is Beuracracy. Does the money it raises for so called society warremnt the stress caused from the threats of vieoence for not paying taxes and so forth and so on.

That's a bit of a reach - taxes causing cancer?

I know you are very into the anti-government, anarchist utopia type philosophy. But you should recognize that most people are not, and those that have heard of it actually consider it a bit silly. If you keep injecting it into conversations, it's not going to help you get other point across.

 

[Gary Cook]

That's a bit of a reach - taxes causing cancer?

I know you are very into the anti-government, anarchist utopia type philosophy. But you should recognize that most people are not, and those that have heard of it actually consider it a bit silly. If you keep injecting it into conversations, it's not going to help you get other point across.

Good point. Maybe some would but I think most would agree with me if they had full disclosure of all the data governments held. Although I would challenge anybody to a debate about false-authority in a more appropriate forum for that particular subject. This is me on my best behaviour. =)

 

[cosmic]

Recommended reading:

1. Why haven’t we cured cancer yet?
2. The Hidden Cancer Cure

 

[Gary Cook]

Recommended reading:

1. Why haven’t we cured cancer yet?
2. The Hidden Cancer Cure

Interesting reading. Good man.

That reminds me of something I was going to say but didnt bother too.

Not meaning people her per se but too many people in general still have a bicameral monkey brain and can only see things in boolean terms. True or false. Left and right. Up and down. black and white. Good and evil.

Like, people who say cancer is spore and other say it isn't and its just a mutation.

It can be both and it is. It has similarities with both.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Like, people who say cancer is spore...

Who says cancer is a spore?

 

[Gary Cook]

Who says cancer is a spore?

That was just for want of the word I was looking for. It will come to me. Brain freeze. lol =)

 

[cosmic]

On the importance of avoiding black-and-white thinking: as noted in those SBM articles, since cancer isn't a singular affliction but hundreds of different diseases, the likelihood of finding one simple, effective "silver bullet" solution is highly unlikely.

 

[Gary Cook]

On the importance of avoiding black-and-white thinking: as noted in those SBM articles, since cancer isn't a singular affliction but hundreds of different diseases, the likelihood of finding one simple, effective "silver bullet" solution is highly unlikely.

Indeed but surely that just points back to maintaining ones health naturally, ideally.

 

[cosmic]

Indeed but surely that just points back to maintaining ones health naturally, ideally.

Could you elaborate please? What exactly do you mean?

 

[Gary Cook]

Could you elaborate please? What exactly do you mean?

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. Although of course people that are in otherwise good health get cancer too. But not as often as somebody who doesnt look after themselves.

 

[Balance]

Risk-management, same with all things. Of course, chance can really screw up the statistics also. For instance, peolpe of near perfect health dropping dead in their prime for no known medical reason.

But as someone that doesn't treat his body like a temple, I say "who wants to die healthy? Live a little!" Life is a terminal disease after all.

 

[cosmic]

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. Although of course people that are in otherwise good health get cancer too. But not as often as somebody who doesnt look after themselves.

Okay. Given the earlier responses in the thread, I wasn't sure if "maintaining ones health naturally" was just a figure of speech or more promotion of holistic philosophy.

 

[Gary Cook]

Risk-management, same with all things. Of course, chance can really screw up the statistics also. For instance, peolpe of near perfect health dropping dead in their prime for no known medical reason.

But as someone that doesn't treat his body like a temple, I say "who wants to die healthy? Live a little!" Life is a terminal disease after all.

Lol yeah that is true. Although cancer if a messed up way to go. Lost family like that.

 

[Gary Cook]

Okay. Given the earlier responses in the thread, I wasn't sure if "maintaining ones health naturally" was just a figure of speech or more promotion of holistic philosophy.

Well my preference would be natural. Less side effects. People nowadays take meds for side effects from other meds.