Monday, November 20, 2006

Review: Kevin Trudeau's Natural Cures, Part 2

Previous entries about Trudeau:
Review: Kevin Trudeau's Natural Cures, Part 1
The Pseudoscience of an "Infomercial" Conman

In Part 1 of my review of Trudeau's Natural Cures (linked above), I spent a bit of time examining his claim that he "should be dead" and that his mitral valve prolapse was cured by a "dermatron." I also commented on his claims that cellular injection therapy are legitimate. The post continues to draw quite a few hits and there are several comments made by some significance-junkies and Trudeau followers that are offended that someone would dare choose science over quackery.

I'll continue the series with a bit more brevity.

In chapter 2 of his book, "what's wrong with health care in America?," Trudeau continues with logical fallacy after logical fallacy and with his refusal to cite any sources of verifiable information. He states that the medical establishment is "absolutely, 100%, failed in curing and prevention of illness, sickness, and disease." Not a single source for his information. Not a single statistic cited. Nada.

Obviously this is completely and utterly false. One need only think of diseases such as polio and small pox and realize that it is medical science that eradicated these from most of the world. A casual look at a biology book or text on sociology that examines global trends and it becomes clear that where western medicine is prevalent in the world, infant mortality declines and longevity increases. Such data is so easy to come by, I'll not even bother to link or cite it. Of course, the significance-junkies and conspiracy-nutters that see Trudeau as a hero turn blind eye to any facts that don't already fit their conclusions.

Trudeau continues his chain of logical fallacies by stating in this chapter that more people get "X" than ever before. For "X," simply insert whatever disease or condition you prefer: MS, cancer, diabetes, lupus, asthma, acne, dandruff, etc.

This is actually true. More people today *are* afflicted with these diseases than, say, 100 years ago. Of course, the population in the United States has more than tripled since 1900! So it shouldn't even be surprising that more people are also being treated medically than "ever before."

The gist of Trudeau's 2nd chapter is that medical science has failed "absolutely, 100%." Yet he fails the reader by at least this same measure since he utterly refuses to show how he arrived at that conclusion, an insult to the intelligence of the reader as it seems that such a failure assumes them incapable of understanding the reasoning. Or, more likely, because the data exist only in Trudeau's head, invented and concocted for the sole purpose of appealing to popularity in making himself appear as though he's a voice for the people, fighting against the "establishment" bent on keeping us all sick and in need of medicine.

I'll not pretend that there are no problems with the the health care industry. There are. Trudeau may even be right about some of them. However, one cannot solve real problems by lumping the entirety of medical science in with those that engage in price-gouging, monopolistic control of specific drugs, pressuring physicians to back specific drugs, convincing the public they need unnecessary drugs for vague symptoms advertised on television, etc, etc

Trudeau's exploits the natural frustrations that people have with health care to make a dollar. He's a criminal.

3 Epigraphic Artifacts:

Clark Bartram said...

No argument here. I'll add that in addition to there being more people than ever before, a reason why there are more cases of various diseases is that people live considerably longer than ever before. But recent data shows that the diseases of older age, like heart disease, are occuring 10 to 15 years later than they did 50 years ago.

I'm suprised that he didn't throw out the old canard about medical errors being the 3rd leading cause of death in America. I've lost count of how many quacks, particularly chiropractors, use that one as "proof" that what they do is the better way. What they fail to mention is that the study was based on 30 year old data and didn't take into account that most of the patients who died did so as a result of their disease process and not because of the medical error. Medical errors are a problem to be sure, and it is being addressed with the increasing use of technology, but they are not a reason to listen to K-Tru or any other quack.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Has anyone compared longevity stats and infant mortality in countries that use evidence-based medicine but where CAM quackery is prevalent -- such as ours -- to those societies which use EBM and which, for the most part avoid CAM. That might be an interesting one. True there are other factors, including our own private health care system compared to more sensible universal health care systems.

It might also be useful to compare areas of given societies where CAM is prevalent -- usually among religiously strong sectors, to those where it is not, though here the rural/urban split would be hard to correct for. (Cities have greater pockets of poverty, while rural societies are generally poorer overall.)

Just a couple of top of the head thoughts.

Mar Michael Abportus said...

Comparing private health care to public, in the United Kindgom, the average person diagnosed with cancer takes six months to start treatment. In the US, with private care, the average person takes two weeks to start treatment after diagnosisl

M. J Thannisch

Template Designed by Douglas Bowman - Updated to Beta by: Blogger Team
Modified for 3-Column Layout by Hoctro