Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Dr. Young, your take on Kevin Trudeau?

  1. #1

    Dr. Young, your take on Kevin Trudeau?

    I watched Mr. Trudeau's infomercial last night for the first time and was shocked by his extreme claims. He writes on his website that:

    "all-natural cures [exist] for virtually every disease. These are the natural cures the drug companies, the FDA, the FTC, the American Medical Association, and government agencies DO NOT want you to know about because it would cut into the profits of multinational pharmaceutical corporations."

    He even goes as far to say that fast food companies put secret chemicals in their foods to intentionally addict us to their product and make us fat, ...reasoning that fat people eat more. These sneaky food vendors apparantly have even made this chemical indetectable!

    Of course, my mother donated $40 to his cause seeing as she bought me his book as a gift.

    Dr. Young, I would really appreciate your take on his movement and its potential danger/promise.

    I help people with their health insurance and am finding that more of my clients seem to be abandoning modern medicine and turning to "herbal" remedies.

    Thanks, in advance, for your reply.
    Last edited by spaceboy; 10-04-2005 at 07:35 PM.

  2. #2
    I watched his infomercial again last night. I mean, come on. He claims there's a natural cure for cancer and they are hiding it from us! And he claims that some wacky electronic frequency machine can also cure ALL types of cancer. Not unlike what the snake oil salesmen of old were selling to those suffering with arthritis pain etc.


    FTC has reviewed infomercials:

    "Trudeau is no stranger to the courtroom. He's a convicted felon. In 1991 he pled guilty to credit card fraud — and has a long past of legal run-ins with federal regulators. In fact, he's barred from selling products on television now, as part of a 2004 settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over allegations involving misleading statements surrounding health care products. Trudeau admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to stop selling health care products."

    But the agreement doesn't prevent him from selling books.


    Be wary. He's a crook. "If it sounds too good to be true then it usually is."

    But I'll stop here and hopefully Dr. Young will comment for you.
    "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria

  3. #3
    Senior Member lynnifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Windsor ON Canada
    I think he's full of hokey but he seems awfully convincing doesn't he?

    I believe in his cause, that pharmaceutical companies aren't too quick to come up with any cures, while they WILL treat symptoms since there's more money to be made there.

    I hate pharmaceutical companies .. I think they're the biggest corporate criminals going. Some of the cops I work with agree, there's no cure here and never will be. Too much money to be made off of sick people - including me.

    When I need to see my doctor for a prescription renewal? He can't call it in? $50 in his pocket for a nonsense visit as far as I'm concerned.
    Roses are red. Tacos are enjoyable. Don't blame immigrants, because you're unemployable.

    T-11 Flaccid Paraplegic due to TM July 1985 @ age 12

  4. #4
    Spaceboy, Kevin Trudeau is a scam artist of the highest order. You should read to see what he has claimed in the past and what he has been prosecuted for, and that was written in 1998. He has been doing this for decades and apparently continues to find dupes for his scams. In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission fined Kevin Trudeau $2 million and banned him from doing any more infomercials because they are so misleading (see but I guess they cannot ban him from writing books. He is now embroiled in a court battle with the New York Consumer Protection Agency which issued a scathing report on the book and said that they were going to try to get cable companies to stop carrying infomercials concerning the book. He is fighting back, claiming that government cannot ban books but, in reality, they are trying to ban him from doing an infomercial on his book He is obviously very good at convincing people and his book is on the New York Times bestseller list. I have never seen any of his infomercials or read his book and thus I don't have any firsthand information. But, you should read these articles before you invest any money into anything that this guy is selling. Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 10-04-2005 at 09:36 PM.

  5. #5

    Tinfoil hat protection..

    Any time I see his disinfomercial, I reach for my tinfoil hat...if it protects me from Aliens invading my brain, it may help me avoid falling prey to the likes of Kevin Trudeau.

    Yes, back in the 80's I did know someone who had breast cancer, a very young woman, too. She had the tumor removed, and since she was single and without children, she decided to take her chances. Followed a strick macrobiotic diet for years, and at the 5 year post -op time, she was declared cancer free. Never had radiation or Chemo...
    If it's too good to be ALWAYS is!

  6. #6
    So true lynnifer! I've been taking the same prescription for 2+ years: however, a few months ago my doctor told me I had to come in every three months for check-ups to renew the SAME medication!

    Thats 4 times a year at $75, then I pay a PCA $12/hr for 2 hours each visit to drive... so it's just short of $400 a year the insurance company and I must now bare. He's a very nice and conscientous Dr./person, but simply says, "Those are the rules,... sorry, I've got to play by them." ...No wonder health insurance is going out of control.

  7. #7
    Thanks for the information Wise. It's scary how passionate and convincing he comes across while preaching such blatant lies. Now it makes sense why he constantly refers to himself as a whistle-blower uncovering the dark FTC & FDA conspiracies, offering explanations on why they want to shut him up.

    It is also funny how he repeatedly confesses that he is neither endorsing nor selling ANYTHING... as if he is not concerned about money, but simply about revealing hidden "truth." Little did I know it is because he is banned from doing so.

  8. #8

    About natural remedies

    Well it might be that Kevin Trudeau is over stating some claims, but make no mistake there are instances where the FDA prohibits the use of homeopatic medicines. There is a well known ayurvedic doctor in Nepal who has developed and very potent medicine for breast cancer. It has about 132 different plants and roots and the FDA only allows 38 of those to be imported into the US. Also all the garbage and chemicals people put into their wonder that we have allergies, asthma and the list goes on. As for fast food..our meat is full of antibiotics and growth hormones our veggies are full of chemicals, do you think that is good for you?
    Do you not think that the government and the FDA has no hidden agenda? Look at all the obese is becoming an epidemic..gee i wonder what the cause of all that.
    All he is saying that one should eat pure foods and that all this garbage makes us sick. I have read his book and numerous others, I have seen the power of ayurveda and chinese medicine. If you only know what you have heard from others and haven't educated yourself about this matters learn first and speak next.
    Maybe he is talking some shit, but the basis of what he is saying are true. If they going to ban him than ban all the shows where they sell some useless garbage, ban all the evangelists since all of them talk shit too and make claims that are not true. Stem cells are a good example. By the way how many millions are going to those tv evangelists who pray upon the vulnerable and the stupid?

  9. #9

    It is true that the system in the United States is designed to present an obstacle to approvals of new drugs and treatments for diseases. The thicket of regulations that a treatment must penetrate to get approval in the United States has gotten thicker. The evidence now required for approval of drugs and other treatment present a very high bar for FDA approval of therapies. Without FDA approval, insurance companies will not cover the treatment. One has to carry out phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials that meet both FDA and peer review standards. In general, this requires a deep-pocketed company to pay for the clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the treatments. Such trials also require years to carry out. For this reason, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Association of America estimates that it takes, on average, $800 million of investment and nearly a decade for a company to move a treatment from discovery to FDA approval.

    In the beginning, the pharmaceutical industry went along with the regulatory hurdles because it eliminates competition. However, it is getting to the point that even very large pharmaceutical companies can no longer afford to develop therapies for diseases that have less than $1 billion per year market. It is easier for companies to get approval for a new "me-too" drugs that are similar to ones that have been approved. This is called product-cycle development (i.e. capsules, sustained release, or a slightly different version of the same drug). For this reason, a lot of research dollars in the pharmaceutical companies in the past decade have gone into "me-too" drugs or product-cycle development.

    The system needs reform. Unfortunately, I don't think that it will happen soon. The pharmaceutical companies were amongst the largest contributors to political campaigns in the last election. Their agenda is to get the government and insurance companies to continue to pay high prices for drugs (higher than they are selling the drugs overseas, for example). This is of course because the very high costs of developing drugs that would meet the high hurdles applied to everybody. I have been trying to think of ways of getting around this problem. Here are several possible ways of reforming this system that might be acceptable to Congress and would appeal to the people of the United States.

    1. Establish an intermediate class of treatment approval for conditions that currently do not have effective therapies. As long as the treatments meet safety standards, evidence for efficacy can be relaxed for a period of seven years or until another treatment is shown to be effective for the same indication. This would lower the evidentiary bar for approval of a new treatment so that it can be used to treat conditions that currently have no effective therapy. However, the moment that an effective therapy is demonstrated, the new therapy would of course be approved and companies marketing drugs that have less evidence for efficacy will need to come up with the data to prove that it is effective. Of course, doctors and patients should know that this class of approval does not guarantee efficacy.
    2. Match safety standards with the risks of the condition that being treated. We all know that it is ethical to use more risky drugs to treat more risky conditions. In other words, it does not make sense to withhold a drug that kills 10% of people to treat a condition that kills 90% of people. Therefore, safety and risk evaluation should take into the condition into consideration. Setting up new risk standards will obviously be very controversial and difficult. However, it is important that the risk standards also include quality of life and not just mortality.
    3. Establish tax incentives for pharmaceutical companies to become non-profit. I know that this sound like a radical idea but, once upon a time, many pharmaceutical companies were non-profit. For example, many major pharmaceutical companies in Europe started as foundations. A non-profit pharmaceutical company has several major advantages over a for-profit company and should allow the creation of more companies that will target their research and development at smaller market conditions:
      1. The non-profit company does not have to pay taxes and that money can be funneled directly back to research.
      2. The non-profit company does not have to pay a substantial portion of their profits to investors and therefore can put more money into research.
      3. The non-profit company usually does not have to pay their executives so much. For example, a non-profit company may pay its CEO $1 million per year salary rather than $22 million in stock options, etc. This would allow more of the revenues of the company to be plowed back into the development of new drugs.
      4. The non-profit company may take longer views of their products than for-profit companies who are driven essentially by investors who want to see the bottom line as rapidly as possible.

    I know that it is easy to succumb to anger and frustration over the current way that the therapeutic industry is being run. It is detrimental to people and it is running out of control. In the upcoming Presidential election in 2008, I would definitely support a candidate that proposes such reforms of the therapeutic industry. This, in the long run, is much more important than even more government funding of research. The main bottleneck in research today, in my opinion, is moving therapies from laboratory to clinical trial.


  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    at Craig hospital right now
    For almost 5 months I have been witness to how our Doctors, hospitals and pharmicutical companies work. I can honestly tell you that they are not concerned about our health. More so on what drugs they can use to treat the next symptom. And their drugs cause the next symptom!!, know as side effects that they don't tell you about.!! Nutrition is of no concern to them (doctors) as I have had several different doctors at a quote "# 1 Rehab Center in the world", tell me that, "there is no proof that nutrition plays any role in ones recover from surgery, mass antibiotics and other meds due to treatment for SCI". And even the head doctor told me that "he knows nothing about nutrition and to please refer else were". So we did, with a perfessional with a PHD several degree's and a strong practice and well respected in the feild of nutrition, only to be told
    "not in our hospital it was against the hospital rules".

    The FDA Pharmicutical companies hospitals and some Doctors don't really want cures or healthy people- They might be out of a job.

    180- days,Three hospital, over 20 so called top doctors all conclude that there is no redeeming value for nutrition or homeopathic remedies in SCI patients. These guys are the real criminals.

    I watched my mother beat breast cancer without radiation or Chemo, surgery yes but all other treatments done on natural foods and herbs, as well she beat several other illnesses.

    So believe what you want, but keep and educate an open MIND-

    By the way I am keep my son alive by making sure he gets the right nutrition.

Similar Threads

  1. Paralyzed Dutch Fork student Kevin Kimrey experiencing better days
    By Max in forum Ability & Disability News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-29-2002, 12:55 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-29-2002, 12:38 PM
  3. 'I used to be a doer. That's what I miss.' (sci)
    By Max in forum Ability & Disability News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-27-2002, 03:24 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-16-2001, 08:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts