Kevin Trudeau on 20/20

[Vagabond]

While I would agree that stupid people killing themselves by listening to nutjobs like Trudeau is a perfectly acceptable "natural selection" process; the problem is that many of these stupid people have children, elderly parents, or disabled individuals under their care. People who may also be denied insulin and other life-saving therapies by their caregivers, because of Trudeau and his ilk.

Of course that is a valid concern. But, you could argue that taking 30 bucks from sick people so they might not be able to afford their medicine is "harmful" to them. I think Trudeau is a pathetic waste of space and they should have locked him up and thrown away the key long ago. However, the original question that got this started was how he could get away with doing "harm" to people. If taking money from stupid people is harm, then few business could survive that scrutiny.

 

[blutoski]

If taking money from stupid people is harm, then few business could survive that scrutiny.

Completely true, but medicine is considered a special case because the conseqeuences are such that often a victim cannot seek justice (he's dead). There exists a method for vetting medical claims prior to watching millions of trusting customers die. In Canada, it's Health Canada's approval system, and it has analogues elsewhere, such as the FDA in the US and the NHS' approval system in the UK.

Trudeau is peddling conspiracy theories, which is completely legal. Where he crosses the line is in overselling the product's value proposition. People think the book contains a list of cures.


The setup in this case is four-tiered, but not very inventive:

Step 1: informercial that says there are cheap, reliable, safe alternative treatments for many illnesses, but they're suppressed by a collusive scheme involving Big Pharma/Government/Media/Medicine, and if you want to learn more, buy the book. Incidentally, stop taking any drugs, because it is a scientific fact that none of them work, and all of them are harmful.

Step 2: the book says there are cheap, reliable, safe alternative treatments for many illnesses, but they're suppressed by a collusive scheme involving Big Pharma/Government/Media/Medicine, and if you want to learn more, go to his website. Incidentally, stop taking any drugs, because it is a scientific fact that none of them work, and all of them are harmful.

Step 3: the website says there are cheap, reliable, safe alternative treatments for many illnesses, but they're suppressed by a collusive scheme involving Big Pharma/Government/Media/Medicine, and if you want to learn more, pay $9.95/mo for a subscription to his newsletter. Incidentally, stop taking any drugs, because it is a scientific fact that none of them work, and all of them are harmful.

Step 4: the newsletter says there are cheap, reliable, safe alternative treatments for many illnesses, but they're suppressed by a collusive scheme involving Big Pharma/Government/Media/Medicine, but it would be illegal for him to give medical advice because of they way the conspiracy has corrupted the legal system and denied him his first amendment rights. Please buy a lifetime membership to aid the fight. Incidentally, stop taking any drugs, because it is a scientific fact that none of them work, and all of them are harmful.



This is a mundane scam, but run by an expert with years of experience and an established apparatus. Each level squeezes more money out of the mark. The fact that he doesn't specify any treatments is actually some protection from redress. The fact that each handoff is to learn "more", not to learn "what these treatments are, specifically" is also strategically worded to hamper allegations of not providing what was advertised. He's trying to operate within the letter of the law by selling opinion by calling it medical advice.

 

[tsg]

I don't disagree with you. But, this makes the advice in the book potentially harmful. The person bears major culpablity by being dumb enough to buy the book and do anything that it says. There is a such thing as death by stupidity.

The advice in the book is potentially harmful. But yes, someone has to follow it in order for it to be actually harmful. I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions[1], but people who are sick and desperate don't always make smart decisions. Trudeau is taking advantage of this desperation and fear and that makes him a complete scumbag whether or not he is responsible for people following his advice.

[1] Along with the freedom for making your own decisions is the responsibility for making bad ones. I'm not suggesting that this should be any different.

 

[asmodean]

Insulin doesn't cure diabetes it just moderates it. If you were going to try some kind of alternate treatment. To me that is the kind of thing you would want to try it on. There are diabetics who feel the disadvantages of insulin outweigh the gains and don't take it. Johnny Cash was one of those.

Have had type 1 diabetes for over 25 yrs now. What do you think will happen if I try "alternate" treatments and starts skipping my insulin?

All hours spent daily at the gym, and careful diet doesn't mean squat if I don't get insulin. That some type2 diabetics seldomly requires insulin injections and can manage their condition with excercise and diet only doesnt' mean all diabetics can.

 

[Almo]

I think they usually cause more trouble than they solve. We are the most over medicated society on the planet.

Point 1: No way. Not "Usually."
Point 2: True

I'd hate having to go without my migraine medication. It knocks those suckers out in about 5-10 minutes.

 

[Psi Baba]

That was a good program. Actually, I'm glad that Stossel didn't interview Trudeau directly. That type of arrangement always goes the same way, the interviewer throws softball questions which the subject dodges and dances around leaving viewers no wiser or with no change of opinion. There's no longer any point in giving Trudeau a chance to defend himself. I thought Stossel's profile-type presentation as opposed to a direct interview was much more effective. It's more important in this case to simply inform people that Trudeau is a liar, a fraud, and a menace. He has a personal vendetta against the FTC and the medical/pharmacological industry and is using readers of his book as pawns in his attempt at revenge while making big bucks in the process. Eventually, he is going to rob someone so entirely of hope or screw up their life so terminally that they will hunt him down and exact their own revenge.

BTW, Stossel did give several examples of people who stopped or suspended taking their medication to try Trudeau's cures and came to regret it.

 

[HeyLeroy]

He's telling diabetics to stop taking insulin.

My local library system has five copies of his book, with another two on order. It's currently on a 'short lend' of several days, instead of the usual two weeks due to demand. I read most of the book, but I couldn't find where specifically he advises diabetics to stop taking insulin. Can anyone provide a page number? He describes 'cures' for many serious diseases. He did say that sunscreen causes skin cancer, and advises people to sunbathe for an hour every day without sunscreen. Having read most of this piece of crap I think the guy's either completely delusional or his sociopathy rivals Ted Bundy's.

 

[Ducky]

Why is he dangerous? Everything already said and the fact that he's a convicted fraud.

Not only does he not have any type of medical degree to base any of this on, but he's shown that he doesn't give one fart about who gives money to him.

 

[Bob Klase]

Incidentally, stop taking any drugs, because it is a scientific fact that none of them work, and all of them are harmful....

He's trying to operate within the letter of the law by selling opinion by calling it medical advice.

I would say he's pretending his opinion is medical advice and selling it as such, but calling it opinion (and no doubt it's not really his opinion- I'll bet if he gets cancer/diabetes/etc he'll be looking for a doctor and not taking his own advice).

 

[Ducky]

I would say he's selling pretending his opinion is medical advice but calling it opinion (and no doubt it's not really his opinion- I'll bet if he gets cancer/diabetes/etc he'll be looking for a doctor and not taking his own advice).

Man do I wish I could be there when that happens.


"Whatcha doing Kevin, getting chemo? How interesting..."

 

[HeyLeroy]

There's a chapter where he's explaining the motivations of others, y'see, and how bad all these other greedy people are. But he wrote it all in first-person, and I couldn't help but laugh at the irony.

And he uses the word "virtually" on virtually every page. It was very annoying.

 

[HeyLeroy]

I would say he's pretending his opinion is medical advice and selling it as such, but calling it opinion (and no doubt it's not really his opinion- I'll bet if he gets cancer/diabetes/etc he'll be looking for a doctor and not taking his own advice).

He put a big ol' disclaimer at the start of the book, but by his tone you could tell he did it begrudgingly.

 

[Glite]

I happened across his infomercial the other night, the parts I saw before I started ranting at the TV. were some of the most incredible statements I'd ever heard. Incredible meaning, that they were true, but did'nt really mean anything.

His first that I latched onto was that "people nowadays take more medication than anytime in history". Well, that seems logical, we also use computers more than at anytime in history, but is that a bad thing?. We also can treat diseases, and symptoms that they couldnt treat at any other point in history. This statement shows just how good this sonuvab*&ch is as a salesman.

The other one was that "we take all these meds yet we have so many diabetic sufferers, you'd think we'd be the healthiest people on the planet"
Well Kev, we also eat alot of sugar, we consume alot of crap, we dont exercise as much as we should, etc. All the drugs in the world can't help you if you don't live a healthy active lifestyle. The human body needs some preventative maintenance.

this is about as far as I got before I shut him off............I can't stand this man.

 

[Glite]

oh yeah, and every statement about "BIG PHARMA" ended with him saying, very quickly, "thats my opinion".

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.................

 

[Jas]

Sounds like you have actually read the book, so I defer. This is probably crap, but if you don't think the pharmical companies don't make crap up you are nuts. Biggest one I found lately is I am quite positive the vets used to tell me that dogs got heartworms from stepping in the feces of another dog that has it. But, now recently I got told and online sources say it's spread by mosquitos. All these freaking "mosquito" diseases are an attempt to make people think the threat to get something is much higher than it actually is so you will spend money on preventative. I don't buy it one bit.

Wow, that story certainly convinced me!

Any sources you would care to cite?

(As an aside, are you at all familiar with what science is? I'm thinking no)

 

[roger]

Did anyone watch the following story? Apparently they felt it necessary to produce a news program devoted to telling us that people lie. I was frickin amazed. I never knew that before.

Of course, I suppose it was kind of funny after the Trudeau bit, but still, talk about the bleedin obvious.

 

[Vagabond]

Wow, that story certainly convinced me!

Any sources you would care to cite?

(As an aside, are you at all familiar with what science is? I'm thinking no)

Are you familiar with what a "skank" is? I am thinking no. How about a troll? I am thinking no again.

 

[blutoski]

Wow, that story certainly convinced me!

Any sources you would care to cite?

(As an aside, are you at all familiar with what science is? I'm thinking no)

Easy. Vagabond is playing Devil's Advocate, here. However, veterinary examples are a little off since the profession and industry are nowhere near as monitored as human medicine. For example, no doctor would be allowed to engage in a conflict of interest by opening a pharmacy in their office, but vets can sell prescriptions at the front desk. There is lots of racketeering in vet that would not be tolerated in med.

Also, nobody's saying that pharma doesn't exaggerate or even deceive - this is considered an occupational hazard for doctors. Legitemate quackbusters are just as bent out of shape about vioxx or tamiflu as they are about chiro.

Doctors have established organizations like No Free Lunch. Where are the altmed movements to reduce questionable sales tactics in their industry?
URL: http://www.nofreelunch.org

 

[Vagabond]

Easy. Vagabond is playing Devil's Advocate, here. However, veterinary examples are a little off since the profession and industry are nowhere near as monitored as human medicine. For example, no doctor would be allowed to engage in a conflict of interest by opening a pharmacy in their office, but vets can sell prescriptions at the front desk. There is lots of racketeering in vet that would not be tolerated in med

Thanks for the troll deflection Blutoski.

I know they aren't exactly the same but I haven't ever been sick so I have no first hand knowledge about human doctors. I do about vets. I am sure there are the equivalent in human doctors as well. Recommending unnecessary tests and unneeded medicine, exaggerating the benefits, down playing the side effects all the time.

Not only did heartworms go from being directly caught to mosquito borne but they also went from only recommending preventative for summer time only to all year long too.

The vet in question tricked me into approving a $50 dollar test my dog didn't need so she could tell me my dog has heartworms. The cost $400 and my dog stays overnight. How can I know my dog actually has them? How do I know that they aren't just gonna feed her for a day and charge me $400 bucks for it? My dog isn't even sick! Can't imagine how much it might cost if she was.

The vet mentioned during her attempt to convince me to do this that the heartworms might go away on their own. The ONLY reason for her to make such an admission when she is trying to convince me to pay her $400 bucks to get rid of them is she is covering her ass in case I go to another vet for a second test.

 

[blutoski]

Thanks for the troll defection Blutoski.

Did you mean defection, or deflection? Or is this like in Moscow on the Hudson? (Russian: "I'm defecting" Cashier: "Down the hall, third door on the left")

I know the aren't exactly the same but I haven't ever been sick so I have no first hand knowledge about human doctors. I do about vets. I am sure there are the equivelent in human doctors as well. Recommending unnecessary tests and unneeded medicine, exaggerating the benefits, down playing the side effects all the time.

Well, sure. It's called "malpractice", and reports can lead to college discipline and/or loss of licence. They're very different professions in terms of their business practices. Night and day. Veterinary medicine is less regulated than computer repair, whereas medicine is probably the most regulated profession in the western world. I would say that they're similar in quality of training, though.

Not only did heartworms go from being directly caught to mosquito borne but they also went from only recommending preventative for summer time only to all year long too.

I guess I still don't understand the example. You found a discrepancy between what your vet told you versus some information on a website?