Re: POLITICS: kevin trudeau #2

[Guest guest]

Jeanmarie,

> Trudeau's claims of persecution and martyrdom are hard to swallow for

> many. " He wasn't censored -- that's just total fantasy, " says Dr.

> Barrett, a health-fraud expert who runs a network of watchdog

> Web sites, including Quackwatch. " What's happened is that he's just

> not allowed to sell products with false claims. That's the only

> censorship going on. "

I don't know if these posts were aimed at me, but I didn't take a

stand one way or the other on Trudeau. I posted two videos - one

negative, one positive - without comment.

What I did object to in your original post was the idea that being in

trouble with the FDA or the FTC somehow lessens one's credibility. It

may or may not mean anything other than that you have run afoul of the

corporatist interests that dominate the alphabet soup agencies in

government that are supposedly protecting us.

What is even worse is that the article you posted uses Quackwatch as a

source. I usually view that as a badge of honor and almost makes me

want to read Trudeau's book. If there is anyone who is a pawn for

establishment nutrition and medicine **and** who has a **serious**

credibility problem, it is Barrett.

---

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American

decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the

back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I

meant people. " - Pravda.ru (originally an official organ of the

Central Committee of the Communist Party between 1912 and 1991. This

online incarnation is run by former Pravda employees).

[Guest guest]

I agree, Barrett has his problems; I could have used a better

citation. It's been a long time since this came up, but he's not my

original source of information about Trudeau, whom I've been

aware of for many years, ever since he did infomercials for Atkins,

then switched to hawking some other weight-loss program or other

products, then came out with his first book. The whole conspiracy

thing about him is so cheesy.

Barrett has his own problems, but I think he's right about Trudeau.

And you're right that being in trouble with the FDA by itself doesn't

tell you anything; the FDA is persecuting raw milk farmers, for

instance. Generally I'd rather we err on the side of freedom to buy

and sell supplements and let the buyer beware. However, when it comes

to safety issues, or out and out fraud, I think it's not a bad idea

for that to be illegal. Usually the FDA lets the big things slide

while they persecute the little guy. I don't think that's the case

with Trudeau. He's not the little guy, he's made a ton of money taking

advantage of poor, sick, elderly and unsophisticated folks who, for

instance, think his overpriced coral calcium will save them from end-

stage cancer. His claims start with a shred of truth but are way

overblown. When things are so blatant it's fitting that two government

agencies are on the case. I think Trudeau is so far out on the fraud

end of things that they should go after him.

My conclusions aren't based on any one thing I read. I have read many

articles, pro and con, about him over the years. Barrett's article

made some good points and summed up the problems with Trudeau pretty

well, as I recall (I'm working from memory here and really don't plan

to waste more time reading about KT). My problem with Barrett is that

he doesn't seem to think any supplements or alternative medicine can

possibly have any value. It seems like he's making a business out of

being a curmudgeon and skeptic, much as Trudeau makes a living being

the opposite. But in Trudeau's case, his actions are so extreme and so

offensive, he just strikes me as such a major con artist, that he

needs to be stopped. But hey, nobody's wrong about everything. Even

Trudeau is right on some issues, as far as that goes. Just because he

supports, say, raw milk, though, doesn't mean he isn't a crook. He's

nothing if not a trend-spotter. He was with Atkins when it was hot,

then he moved on to the next trend, and the next. That which is of any

value in his book is largely basic common sense that in no way

measures up to his hype. It's been awhile since I've seen it so I

can't be more specific.

This pretty much exhausts my interest in the subject.

Cheers,

Jeanmarie

On Sep 1, 2009, at 5:58 PM, wrote:

> Jeanmarie,

>

> I don't know if these posts were aimed at me, but I didn't take a

> stand one way or the other on Trudeau. I posted two videos - one

> negative, one positive - without comment.

>

> What I did object to in your original post was the idea that being in

> trouble with the FDA or the FTC somehow lessens one's credibility. It

> may or may not mean anything other than that you have run afoul of the

> corporatist interests that dominate the alphabet soup agencies in

> government that are supposedly protecting us.

>

> What is even worse is that the article you posted uses Quackwatch as a

> source. I usually view that as a badge of honor and almost makes me

> want to read Trudeau's book. If there is anyone who is a pawn for

> establishment nutrition and medicine **and** who has a **serious**

> credibility problem, it is Barrett.

>

>

> ---

>

>

> RECENT ACTIVITY

> 17

> New Members

> Visit Your Group

> Give Back

> for Good

> Get inspired

> by a good cause.

> Y! Toolbar

> Get it Free!

> easy 1-click access

> to your groups.

>

> Start a group

> in 3 easy steps.

> Connect with others.

> .

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jeanmarie,

> I agree, Barrett has his problems; I could have used a better

> citation.

Indeed. He either doesn't have a medical license or had it stripped

away, and IIRC there were a few other problems with his " credentials "

and getting paid off.

> It's been a long time since this came up, but he's not my

> original source of information about Trudeau, whom I've been

> aware of for many years, ever since he did infomercials for Atkins,

> then switched to hawking some other weight-loss program or other

> products, then came out with his first book. The whole conspiracy

> thing about him is so cheesy.

>

> Barrett has his own problems, but I think he's right about Trudeau.

> And you're right that being in trouble with the FDA by itself doesn't

> tell you anything; the FDA is persecuting raw milk farmers, for

> instance.

They are doing a **lot** more than that.

> Generally I'd rather we err on the side of freedom to buy

> and sell supplements and let the buyer beware. However, when it comes

> to safety issues, or out and out fraud, I think it's not a bad idea

> for that to be illegal.

Fraud is indeed illegal, but how the government defines fraud and what

actually constitutes fraud are not necessarily one and the same.

> Usually the FDA lets the big things slide

> while they persecute the little guy. I don't think that's the case

> with Trudeau. He's not the little guy, he's made a ton of money taking

> advantage of poor, sick, elderly and unsophisticated folks who, for

> instance, think his overpriced coral calcium will save them from end-

> stage cancer.

This paragraph is loaded with so many assumptions in several key areas

that I don't even know where to begin. So I won't because I wouldn't

have the time to follow through. :-) But on the issue of safety we are

probably worlds apart.

Should The Modern State Regulate What We Eat?

http://tinyurl.com/mdw6lt

What Keeps Us Safe?

http://tinyurl.com/nv2aqv

> His claims start with a shred of truth but are way

> overblown. When things are so blatant it's fitting that two government

> agencies are on the case. I think Trudeau is so far out on the fraud

> end of things that they should go after him.

There are no real loopholes for fraud. If the gov't is pursuing a

civil case it is usually because the standard of proof is much lower.

There are loopholes however when you are making claims the government

doesn't particularly approve of but can't show are demonstrably false

or involve a certain willingness on the part of the consumer. And if

you have deep pockets its your money they want anyway, not consumer

safety.

> My conclusions aren't based on any one thing I read. I have read many

> articles, pro and con, about him over the years. Barrett's article

> made some good points and summed up the problems with Trudeau pretty

> well, as I recall (I'm working from memory here and really don't plan

> to waste more time reading about KT).

I don't plan on reading anything about Trudeau in the future.

The last I read about him he was having problems with a national

billards tour he was supposedly underwriting. And I only read that

because it was in an article in one of my favorite magazines.

Nonetheless I don't fully buy the Kool-Aid that the FDA, FTC, and

Barrett try to sell in this area. Whatever Trudeau has done, it

doesn't even ***remotely*** approach the harm the FDA has done. And

Barrett himself has caused untold damage by traveling the country

getting involved in lawsuits (usually as a supposed expert) about

health approaches he doesn't like.

> My problem with Barrett is that

> he doesn't seem to think any supplements or alternative medicine can

> possibly have any value. It seems like he's making a business out of

> being a curmudgeon and skeptic, much as Trudeau makes a living being

> the opposite. But in Trudeau's case, his actions are so extreme and so

> offensive, he just strikes me as such a major con artist, that he

> needs to be stopped. But hey, nobody's wrong about everything. Even

> Trudeau is right on some issues, as far as that goes. Just because he

> supports, say, raw milk, though, doesn't mean he isn't a crook. He's

> nothing if not a trend-spotter. He was with Atkins when it was hot,

> then he moved on to the next trend, and the next.

I'm not sure what the problem is per se with being a " trendsetter "

> That which is of any

> value in his book is largely basic common sense that in no way

> measures up to his hype.

I do recall he had a guaranteed weight loss program that he wrote

about that was anything but commonsense. In fact you couldn't do it

without a medical prescription if you could even find a doctor who

offered it, although he didn't mention that in his book.

> It's been awhile since I've seen it so I

> can't be more specific.

No need to be since Trudeau per se wasn't the issue I was addressing.

> This pretty much exhausts my interest in the subject.

> Cheers,

Works for me. I have already overshot my time allotment for being on

these boards.

---

“The trouble with people is not that they don’t know but that they

know so much that ain’t so.†- Josh Billings

[Guest guest]

According to a bio of his I read, he's a retired psychiatrist.

Or maybe I'm mixing him up with someone else. It's too late.

Jeanmarie

On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:30 PM, wrote:

> > I agree, Barrett has his problems; I could have used a better

> > citation.

>

> Indeed. He either doesn't have a medical license or had it stripped

> away, and IIRC there were a few other problems with his " credentials "

> and getting paid off.

>

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

I said trend-spotter, not trendsetter, and I didn't say there's

anything wrong with that. The point was that Trudeau is good at

spotting trends and taking advantage of them, which is what you want

in a marketing guy, but it doesn't exactly instill confidence in

someone you're looking to for health advice.

Enough digital ink wasted on this guy.

Jeanmarie

On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:30 PM, wrote:

> Even

> > Trudeau is right on some issues, as far as that goes. Just because

> he

> > supports, say, raw milk, though, doesn't mean he isn't a crook. He's

> > nothing if not a trend-spotter. He was with Atkins when it was hot,

> > then he moved on to the next trend, and the next.

>

> I'm not sure what the problem is per se with being a " trendsetter "

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes I meant trend spotter. Sorry about that. He certainly is not

setting any trends.

---

“The trouble with people is not that they don’t know but that they

know so much that ain’t so.†- Josh Billings

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Jeanmarie Todd<jaytee3@...> wrote:

>

>

> I said trend-spotter, not trendsetter, and I didn't say there's

> anything wrong with that. The point was that Trudeau is good at

> spotting trends and taking advantage of them, which is what you want

> in a marketing guy, but it doesn't exactly instill confidence in

> someone you're looking to for health advice.

> Enough digital ink wasted on this guy.

> Jeanmarie

[Guest guest]

you actually damage your own credibility by even mentioning Barrett as a

source in even a vaguely positive light. People who embrace skepticism

wholeheartedly are just as mentally lazy as blind followers of various extremist

religions. It's like quoting Jerry Falwell. Extremists have so little

credibility with the center that you risk guilt by association. I'm not saying

that you, yourself, are a mentally-lazy skeptic. However, Barrett isn't even

SINCERE, so far as I can tell, let alone ACCURATE. He and Trudeau are two peas

in a pod. Neither are sincere, and both should be taken with a grain of salt.

In my humble opinion, anyway.

mike

[Guest guest]

Okay okay, I repent of quoting Barrett...I don't like him, either, but

he did nail Trudeau accurately. Now can we drop this already? <g>

Jeanmarie

On Sep 2, 2009, at 2:42 PM, cherimoya_kid wrote:

> you actually damage your own credibility by even mentioning

> Barrett as a source in even a vaguely positive light. People who

> embrace skepticism wholeheartedly are just as mentally lazy as blind

> followers of various extremist religions. It's like quoting Jerry

> Falwell. Extremists have so little credibility with the center that

> you risk guilt by association. I'm not saying that you, yourself,

> are a mentally-lazy skeptic. However, Barrett isn't even SINCERE, so

> far as I can tell, let alone ACCURATE. He and Trudeau are two peas

> in a pod. Neither are sincere, and both should be taken with a grain

> of salt. In my humble opinion, anyway.

>

> mike

>

>

> __

[Guest guest]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Jeanmarie Todd<jaytee3@...> wrote:

>

>

> According to a bio of his I read, he's a retired psychiatrist.

> Or maybe I'm mixing him up with someone else. It's too late.

> Jeanmarie

LOL! Yeah a quick google and you will see his " credential " problem. Or

check the archives. He has been the subject of a few posts on this

list.

---

“The trouble with people is not that they don’t know but that they

know so much that ain’t so.†- Josh Billings

>

> On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:30 PM, wrote:

>> > I agree, Barrett has his problems; I could have used a better

>> > citation.

>>

>> Indeed. He either doesn't have a medical license or had it stripped

>> away, and IIRC there were a few other problems with his " credentials "

>> and getting paid off.