It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You to Know About

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
They dont want you to know! just buy my book and for 59.99 I will tell you what they are trying to hide from you.

Sadly the con is always the same, and always brings in the same people. You are a little angry at the establishment for lying to you, so you believe the next lie because they claim it's what the establishment is trying to hide.



Not sure if anyone remembers Kevin Trudeau's "Natural cures, 'they' don't want you to know about" and his other gimmicky schemes he's pushed over the years. I remember seeing the infomercial for the cures book, and I used to wonder how he got away with it. Well, besides his early flubs at being a guru, and ending up busted. He preempted the FTC and fought using his freedom of speech for the right to publish and sell his books.

Which is great and all, but make sure you don't lie through your teeth about it. Oops, he lied through his teeth about it.

So while he racked up some FTC fines and whatnot, the axe finally came down in regards to millions he swindled from gullible marks, to which he has to payback. Since he wasn't, he ended up in jail.



Kevin Trudeau is the TV pitchman and author of books like Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About and The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About. The former book is the one that is possibly the most dangerous, considering that in it Trudeau informs readers that the sun doesn't cause cancer. If readers wanted to know more information on these natural cures, they were directed to register for Trudeau's email newsletter – $499 for a lifetime membership, which isn't a great deal if you're basing the length of your lifetime on tips from Trudeau. But it's the latter book that finally allowed the US government to put Trudeau away for a significant period of time, much like Al Capone being busted for tax evasion.

1990: Trudeau poses as a doctor to deposit some fake checks and is jailed for larceny as well as for credit card fraud after he stole millions from people who bought his "megamemory system." To his credit, Trudeau doesn't claim that the customers just forgot that they gave him permission to use their cards. Instead, he claims that it was someone else's fault. He goes to federal prison for two years.

1998: Trudeau is fined by the FTC for making unsubstantiated claims while selling the previously mentioned mega memory system in his infomercials, as well as other products and services like "hair farming."

2004: Trudeau is fined by the FTC for selling coral calcium as a cancer cure, and is banned from selling products or services on infomercials.

2005: Trudeau self-publishes Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About and uses informercials to sell it. He also launches several lawsuits against the FTC asserting that it is his first amendment right to sell his books. The informercials sell the books and the books sell his website subscriptions and he makes millions.

2007: Trudeau publishes The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About, and uses infomercials to sell it. The informercials sell the books and the books sell his website subscriptions and he makes millions more.

2007 (later): The FTC strikes back and claims Trudeau's latest effort violates the 2004 ruling because he makes more unsubstantiated claims, like saying his weight loss strategy was easy to follow and that dieters could eat whatever they wanted. In fact, the book recommended strict dietary changes that readers would have to follow for the rest of their lives in order to keep the weight off. Additionally, he recommended hormone injections, and colon cleanses every other day. It was possibly the least easy-to-follow weight loss plan in history, and I'm including Breatharians in that pronouncement. Trudeau was fined $37.6 million.

2014: Trudeau is finally sentenced to prison for ten years for failing to pay a single dime of the $37.6 million he owes. Trudeau claimed he had no money, which doesn't appear to hold up to scrutiny. (Read about my friend Carrie Poppy visiting an auction of his things to pay the bill.) Had the judge followed sentencing guidelines, Trudeau would have been imprisoned for 20-25 years.


Link

Heres some happy people buying up his possessions at auction...


As Kevin found out, when you say things like this, knowing full well that people may stop taking their insulin or bipolar medicine or any number of life-saving medications, and you have no evidence to back up your claims, sometimes you end up in prison.

Mr. Trudeau ended up behind bars last November with a $37.6 million fine to pay back the American public for peddling potentially lethal nonsense. At first, Trudeau claimed he was too broke to pay up, but when the FTC pointed out that he had recently spent $900 at a liquor store, $920 on cigars, and $180 on a haircut (twice!), a federal judge incarcerated Trudeau, saying “This is not an infomercial. You can’t talk your way out of this.” Since then, Trudeau has been forced to liquidate his possessions, including his Ojai home (listed at $1.2 million) and everything in it.

edit on 20-3-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Wow, interesting thread man, S&F, I'd never heard of this guy, hopefully because his books never took off in Scotland .. Gives the rest of us who are talking about things "they" actually don't won't us to know look bad... I bet he writes a book about prison, "things about prison THEY don't want you to know" and writes in it that prison is a myth, that if you commit crimes they actually take you to LA LA land where you live in 5* accommodation and no one follows you into the showers..



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


exploiting human weaknesses and deficiencies. It's happening on all levels...brought to you by...profit first, consequences later crowd.

Turn on your TV...almost every add out there is lying about the product it sells or an agenda it pushes.




posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
being into herbs for years
there is nothing wrong with trudeau or his books on health
his books are comparable in quality with Dr James A Duke PHD...only nicer lay out and much better promoted

he was shafted by a system that can not do any better..in fact they usually do worse
like the incredible amount of oncologists that wont take chemotherapy when they get cancer...
or the dingbats that prescribe SSRIs and create school shooters...
or geez
obama care...and people are down on trudeau...?
place sad laff smiley here



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I think that anything that needs to be advertised is probably not needed .If someone has something that is worth having then word of mouth will propagate to a level that most would find it .It is interesting though what some seemingly intelligent people will by into .It's nice to see that justice can be served as well as this case shows .The Judge sounds like a Judge Judy in not buying into his infomercial defense lol



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

sun doesn't cause cancer.
(from the op)
right ....



Some sunscreens only protect against UVB radiation, and not against the more dangerous UVA component of the spectrum. Incomplete protection against the full ultraviolet spectrum, combined with increased time spent in the sun, can lead to an increase in the risks of developing malignant melanoma, a rarer but more deadly form of skin cancer.[weasel words][citation needed]
Some sunscreen ingredients (including oxybenzone, benzophenone, octocrylene, octyl methoxycinnamate, diisopropyl adipate, retinoic acid, and retinyl palmitate) may be potentially carcinogenic or have other health risks.[weasel words][citation needed]
Reduced exposure to ultraviolet light in sunlight can contribute to Vitamin D deficiency.

These issues have precipitated various levels of disagreement within the academic community over the benefits and risks of sunscreen use. Most health authorities and medical associations have concluded that, on the whole, sunscreen use is beneficial.
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on Thuam3b20143America/Chicago36 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


the same fda that rumsfeld got to approve aspertame

edit on Thuam3b20143America/Chicago20 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


So you stand by what he says in his books?


All non-prescription, over the counter and prescription drugs and medications of any kind absolutely, 100% are proven to lead to weight gain and obesity. All non-prescription, over the counter and prescription drugs and medications of any kind absolutely, 100% cause illness and disease. This is proven.[1]
Every time you take even the smallest amount of even the most common medications you are causing severe damage to the human body. It is advised... that you avoid any and all non-prescription, over-the counter medications, and prescription drugs.[2]
[1] [Emphasis mine.] Trudeau, Kevin. The Weight Loss Cure “They” Don’t Want You to Know About, Alliance Publishing Group, 2007. pp. 90-91.


And what are you implying with your post, that sun causing skin cancer is a myth and all along it is solely the lotion that has caused melanoma?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Danbones
being into herbs for years
there is nothing wrong with trudeau or his books on health
his books are comparable in quality with Dr James A Duke PHD...only nicer lay out and much better promoted

he was shafted by a system that can not do any better..in fact they usually do worse
like the incredible amount of oncologists that wont take chemotherapy when they get cancer...
or the dingbats that prescribe SSRIs and create school shooters...
or geez
obama care...and people are down on trudeau...?
place sad laff smiley here


I might not agree with everything you say here but that statement about oncologists not taking chemo struck a chord with me. I don't know those statistics, but my uncle was the doctor in town when I was growing up and when he developed colon cancer he never sought any treatment for it. No one knew until he died that he had it except him. He knew the treatment was worse than the disease.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 



ike the incredible amount of oncologists that wont take chemotherapy when they get cancer...


This is a deconstructing disinformation, so no reason to spread lies, falsehoods and myths in this thread:


While there is no truth in the claim that doctors refuse chemotherapy on themselves, on almost every website dedicated to the promotion of alternative cancer treatments it says that most – if not all – doctors on principle would refuse chemotherapy on themselves because of its high toxicity and ineffectiveness. Yet these same doctors are said to be perfectly happy to pour this poison into their patients – merely for profit, as is the standard insinuation.



jli managed to find more information on the study mentioned by Philip Day, which includes information on a follow-up study dating from 1997, and he also found another study from 1991: “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies“.

The first thing that stands out is that the 1985 (!!) survey was not, as Philip Day claims, about all available therapies for lung cancer, but about cisplatin, a then new chemotherapy with considerable side effects. The question also pertained to the use of cisplatin as a palliative treatment for “symptomatic metastatic bone disease,” i.e. for incurable (non-small-cell) lung cancer. The 1985 survey found that about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy in a situation like this.

A follow-up survey was conducted in March 1997 at a session on NCCN clinical practice guidelines, in which the participants were asked to respond to the same question regarding chemotherapy:

“You are a 60-year-old oncologist with non-small-cell lung cancer, one liver metastasis, and bone metastases.
Your performance status is 1. Would you take chemotherapy? Yes or no?”

Of approximately 300 people in attendance, 126 (42%) responded to the survey. The majority of respondents (51%) were oncologists and hematologists.

Among oncologists/hematologists, 64.5% said that they would take chemotherapy, as did 67% of nurses. The two nonmedical administrators both voted no. In the “other” category, which included a mix of radiation oncologists and other types of physicians, 33% said that they would take chemotherapy.

The overall results of the 1997 follow-up survey show that 64.5% would now take chemotherapy – which is almost a doubling from 34% to 64.5% of those willing to have chemotherapy and radiotherapy and a quadrupling from 17% to 64.5% of those who would take chemotherapy alone.

The study from 1991, “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies,” pertains not just to lung cancer, but to many kinds of cancer and cancer stages, from early stage to terminal, as well as to experimental therapies. It shows percentages as high as 98% of doctors willing to undergo chemotherapy, while the remaining 2 % were uncertain, and none answered “definitely no” or “probably no” to chemotherapy.


anaximperator.wordpress.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wtbengineer
 



I might not agree with everything you say here but that statement about oncologists not taking chemo struck a chord with me. I don't know those statistics, but my uncle was the doctor in town when I was growing up and when he developed colon cancer he never sought any treatment for it. No one knew until he died that he had it except him. He knew the treatment was worse than the disease.


Or he'd rather just die than have his family see him in a state of disarray. Many people do not want to go through chemo because it's taxing on them, their self image and their family.

No matter though. The "statistics" quoted are from the very early days of a specific chemo drug, which was in trials, before scientific evidence was widely available, and still misinterpreted, but follow up surveys did show willingness to undergo chemo, around a 98% acceptance rate.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
"Mr. Trudeau ended up behind bars last November with a $37.6 million fine to pay back the American public for peddling potentially lethal nonsense"

So how does a fine paid to the government help those who were scammed by purchasing his books. Seems like a bribe to help the ones in the government, not something to help the people. Scamming people is allowed as long as you either pay the bribes(fines) or if you follow a set of rules that govern scamming.

Evidently this guy did not learn the legal way to scam people, he should have studied politics or law before starting this venture.

edit on 20-3-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

rickymouse
"Mr. Trudeau ended up behind bars last November with a $37.6 million fine to pay back the American public for peddling potentially lethal nonsense"

So how does a fine paid to the government help those who were scammed by purchasing his books. Seems like a bribe to help the ones in the government, not something to help the people. Scamming people is allowed as long as you either pay the bribes(fines) or if you follow a set of rules that govern scamming.

Evidently this guy did not learn the legal way to scam people, he should have studied politics or law before starting this venture.

edit on 20-3-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)


So you agree people should stop taking any prescription medication they are taking? And say if they have cancer give up any treatment options while strictly rely on coral calcium to cure it...

You can hawk botanicals and tinctures all you want. Hell, you can even write books about it. When you start giving medical advice as fact though, you best consider what you are saying.

Odd that the last time big pharm was caught lying I don't remember people being so forgiving to them....

So is it okay for big pharm to lie or promote off label prescribing to doctors?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I hear those ab rollers aren't all that great either. Thanks for the heads up Boncho.

I am sure you saved a lot of ATS readers from falling in that pit trap.

Also never play the "ball and cups" game. You are going to get shafted people.

Just sayin'. It's a dog eat dog world out there.

Stay safe!



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I study the basis of the drugs. Most of them can be found in nature, some right under our noses. Once you have an aggressive cancer, it is hard to cure it with the foods and herbs. It might need concentrated doses like the meds have.

It is better to incorporate the food chemistry cures into the diet on a rotational basis to fight the cancer when it is very small, this way the operations and chemotherapy drugs are not needed because the cancer cells have been taken care of.

If you eat this chemistry on a regular basis every day, the side effects can be like the chemtherapy and be hard on many organs including the thyroid. Once every couple of weeks is fine for some like rutabaga and celery can be eaten about once a week with no ill effects. Understanding the basics of this is complex, even bacon can help to stop cancer formation if the pig eats lots of pigsweed.

I have not read this book, some of these books do have some good info. If I were to write a book about what I know, I would call it a fiction since I do not want to reference every research article I have read.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   


"In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that in the previous year, the average oncologist had made $253,000 of which 75% was profit on chemotherapy drugs administered in his/her office. Yet, surveys of oncologists by the Los Angeles Times and the McGill Cancer Center in Montreal show that from 75% to 91% of oncologists would refuse chemotherapy as a treatment for themselves or their families. Why? Too toxic and not effective. Yet, 75% of cancer patients are urged to take chemo by their oncologists."

www.naturalnews.com...#


Death by Medicine article, which, unfortunately, shows more of the same:

In a June 2010 report in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, study authors said that in looking over records4 that spanned from 1976 to 2006 (the most recent year available) they found that, of 62 million death certificates, almost a quarter-million deaths were coded as having occurred in a hospital setting due to medication errors.
An estimated 450,000 preventable medication-related adverse events occur in the U.S. every year.
The costs of adverse drug reactions5 to society are more than $136 billion annually -- greater than the total cost of cardiovascular or diabetic care.
Adverse drug reactions cause injuries or death in one of five hospital patients.
The reason there are so many adverse drug events in the U.S.6 is that so many drugs are used and prescribed – and many patients receive multiple prescriptions at varying strengths, some of which may counteract each other or cause more severe reactions when combined.

articles.mercola.com...

Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Killing 225,000 People Every Year

articles.mercola.com...

compared to his competition, I don't think trudeau is that big a problem.
edit on Thupm3b20143America/Chicago00 by Danbones because: fixed link i hope



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 

In one article he says that a quarter of a mllion deaths occured over 30 years and in the other 225K in a single year.

Someones math is wrong.

ETA: The second article then links to a report that states an estimate of 44k to 98K deaths. ???


edit on 20-3-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


I already debunked that with this post. The least you could do is actually read my post (let alone check the source yourself.)

I admit I can be biased at times, but I still check peoples sources and I still give everything the benefit of the doubt. I am seriously disappointed in myself when I don't and I've been known to make retractions.

In any case, the McGill survey was about a specific experimental treatment at the time. Stuff that could not even be done without being part of a trial.


The first thing that stands out is that the 1985 (!!) survey was not, as Philip Day claims, about all available therapies for lung cancer, but about cisplatin, a then new chemotherapy with considerable side effects. The question also pertained to the use of cisplatin as a palliative treatment for “symptomatic metastatic bone disease,” i.e. for incurable (non-small-cell) lung cancer. The 1985 survey found that about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy in a situation like this.


and you entirely fail to address the later survey of 98% willing to undergo chemo including all available chemo therapies:


The study from 1991, “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies,” pertains not just to lung cancer, but to many kinds of cancer and cancer stages, from early stage to terminal, as well as to experimental therapies. It shows percentages as high as 98% of doctors willing to undergo chemotherapy, while the remaining 2 % were uncertain, and none answered “definitely no” or “probably no” to chemotherapy.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Natural News is such a joke that they may as well try and demonize radiography stating that when Marie Carie was making breakthroughs a high percentage of doctors were unwilling to get themselves x-rayed.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


i consider you the new weedwacker, boncho. There are many scams, for sure. But not all are. But keep eating your big mac im sure it has benefits on you.



reply to post by boncho
 


Exactly. Cancers of all sort are purely human made. Why in the hell would the sun cause these cancer? Because it hurt the skin when you stay too long? Please tell me its not the reason you think the sun to be the cause or we reach the bottom there! But maybe the lie is so big, you just cant think out of your box? Anyways, keep using your lotions too. People like me need guinea **** like you so i dont fall in the same trap. Gratitude for that...
edit on 20-3-2014 by _damon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
This guy has done more to hurt the idea of Holistic or integrative, natural medicine than anyone.

He took common sense and folk remedy treatments and cures and tried to market them for profit - turning the Eye of Sauron..erm, I mean government regulatory agencies toward every alternative type of health option that dared to oppose or contravene big pharma.



Ironically - he got tagged for doing the same thing pharmaceutical companies do..profit off of poor health.

Healthcare should be a human right, not a business opportunity.




top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join