About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
Not Voodoo

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
Realizations in Biostatistics
ChemSpider Blog
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa

Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net

Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine

Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem

Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus

Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Here and There | Main | Explain This, Hot Shot! »

August 15, 2006

Kevin Trudeau Was Born in 1963

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I've taken a few good swings at Kevin Trudeau around here, naturally enough, since he's going around telling everyone that my industry is poisoning them. I get some Google traffic from people searching for information about him, which makes me happy, since what they read here might possibly prevent them from giving this sleazy scam artist their money.

But I've noticed some odd search phrases turning up, things like "How old is Kevin Trudeau" and "Kevin Trudeau real age". Some looking around confirmed my fears. Yes, it seems that Trudeau is going around telling people that he only looks like he's in his forties - when, according to him, he's actually seventy years old. This statement seems to be confined to his personal appearances, because it's hard to track down in print. But it's out there. And it's a lie, as numerous legal records (such as his convictions for credit card fraud) will verify. This shows a combination of greed and contempt for his own audience that you don't come across very often. I'd want to get my clothes dry-cleaned if I brushed up against him by mistake, but you have to admit, he's quite a specimen.

So, for anyone who comes across this page by a Google search, here's the short answer: Kevin Trudeau is not seventy years old. This is an outrageous lie, being told to your face by an equally outrageous excuse for a human being. Trudeau is telling you this whopper for one reason: because he wants your money. Don't give it to him. Too many people have already.

Meanwhile, the marketing practices I spoke about last year continue - he's still slamming phone customers for his book with unwanted subscriptions to his $71 newsletter, for example. Here's one of the many folks who've found that getting Kevin Trudeau's hands off your credit card is next to impossible - and here's another. That applies to the poor suckers who pay $100 each to see him live, too - refunds are mighty slow in coming. And it appears that at least one of his front companies, Media Planet, has officially "gone out of business" in an effort to strand as many people as possible.

Naturally, he has another book out. And naturally, it's accompanied by a mudslide of lies and arrogant nonsense, such as the repeated claims that the FTC "censored" his first book, and that this one has all the good stuff in it that was cut out. (His real interactions with the FTC are considerably more complicated). This is merely a ploy to extract more money from his audience, even the ones who felt ripped off when they paid for his first book only to find it virtually content-free. This one is, naturally, full of the same vacuous gibberish as the first one. Naturally, it's $29.95.

Reputable publishers, though, are looking at the stacks of money that Trudeau is hauling away and wondering how to get some of that health-conspiracy mongering action. And what is this benefactor of humanity doing with some of the cash? Why, bankrolling a professional pool tournament. Where? Las Vegas. Naturally.

Comments (162) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Snake Oil


1. daen on August 16, 2006 6:18 AM writes...

My stepdad really is 75, but he seems about 20 years younger. He smokes and drinks moderately, and is a bit suspicious of anything that looks too green on his plate at dinnertime, so I don't think you can attribute his vigour to anything more that an active mind, a penchant for hard work and a lucky draw in the genetic lottery (which latter attribute, sadly, I'm hardly going to benefit from in my phenotype). And decent medical care, of course. These days, the notion of being old at 60 is pretty outdated. Medicine in the West seems to be the best way to offset at least some of the gerontological processes resulting in an ever-growing population of spry 60+ year olds.

Permalink to Comment

2. Hap on August 16, 2006 9:58 AM writes...

Why isn't KT sponsoring a poker tournament rather than a pool tournament? - poker seems to be the thing these days. Of course, only one of the players actually wins at poker, which might be too much like his business model to escape detection.

Permalink to Comment

3. Dr Toot on August 16, 2006 10:49 AM writes...

He probably helps pharma more than he hurts. This kind of business will always attract criticsm, but it is not guaranteed to come from a nutjob.

Permalink to Comment

4. Still Scared of Dinosaurs on August 16, 2006 11:28 AM writes...

Nothing good that results from the position KT now occupies is sufficient to undo the harm he does to the biopharma industry and society in general. I bet many will excuse his business practices, to an extent, by saying that he's no sleazier than Big Pharma, and at least his products don't kill people.
One of the main reasons I come to this blog is that I can find informed and well-reasoned criticism of the industry in which I work, but I often need every second of experience to keep up. In a way I don't blame others for buying into some of KT's crap, because to me it reads a little like the NEJM Editorial Page for Dummies.

Permalink to Comment

5. dave on August 17, 2006 11:59 AM writes...

What most people fail to mention is that Trudeu's book is basically a front for Scientology. I'm surprised that with all the press that this guy gets, not one person has mentioned the blatant and underlying Scientology pitch that is laced throughout his book.

Evidently, reporters don't read the book, they just comment on it.

Permalink to Comment

6. Matthew Holt on August 18, 2006 3:00 AM writes...

C'mon Derek. Isn't Trudeau the great American success story? peddling lies and crap, protected by clever use of the first Amendment and what power he has over the airwaves from having to tell the truth; and making buckets of cash into the bargain...

surely a takeover of Fox News and then a spot on the Republican ticket are logical next steps!

Permalink to Comment

7. Jeremiah on August 18, 2006 7:46 AM writes...

You know, the number of Kevin Trudeau's is proportional to the number of Mary Baker Eddy's.

Permalink to Comment

8. GATC on August 18, 2006 1:23 PM writes...

Kevin Trudeau is to Pharm what Al Gore is to climatology. And even more unfortunate, they both appear on the new "Non-fiction" table down at Borders.

Permalink to Comment

9. jim on August 18, 2006 3:36 PM writes...

No personal offense (i don't want a war here), but your comparison is kind of dumb. While Gore may be suspect as a spokesman (as most politicians are wrt almost all of the issues they discuss), he is nevertheless presenting the consensus opinion of nearly all of the experts in the field. I don't know about you, but in the absence of significant evidence to the contrary, I usually believe the experts (not a popular viewpoint right now, I realize, that experts are more qualified to speak on a subject). Obviously the weight of scientific expertise is not behind Trudeau.

Permalink to Comment

10. dan on August 19, 2006 2:28 AM writes...

His book is at least 50% true. That isn't too bad in this day and age. You should be able to glean at least something from it. The pharmaceutical industry is absolutely evil and so is much of our loveable little government. My opinion is that the government should stay the hell out of the way until KT actually whips out a gun and hurts someone otherwise we or "THEY" are admitting that we are not intelligent enough to make our own decisions and therefore need "THEY" to make even the most important $20.00 purchase decisions for us.

Permalink to Comment

11. GATC on August 19, 2006 4:51 PM writes...

No offense taken Jim, but please read the link below and get back to us with your "consensus opinion of nearly all the experts". A definition of "nearly" would also be helpful.

Permalink to Comment

12. Eric on August 19, 2006 5:50 PM writes...

Amen, Derek. Kevin Trudeau is a real slimeball. My blood pressure rises everytime I see him on TV.

Permalink to Comment

13. Anonymous on August 20, 2006 6:10 AM writes...

Yes, it's funny how Steven J. Milloy ("Junkman"), also coincidentally a columnist for FoxNews and investment advisor to the Free Enterprise Action Fund (whose portfolio contains Exxon Mobil, Conoco, Chevron, Occidental etc etc), finds an angle which gets the oil companies off the hook. Oh, and being involved with the Free Enterprise Education Fund (part supported by ... ExxonMobil!) must help to spread the truth, too ...

Excuse my cynicism and sarcasm, GATC, but JunkScience is a pseudoscientific lobbying group for the energy industries, not a public education service.

Permalink to Comment

14. shawn on August 20, 2006 8:12 AM writes...

hi derek - you have an interesting website. I'm glad I found it. I understand why so many people are anti-Kevin Trudeau, we have been taught that modern medicine is the only way to go. I like to educate my self in many different areas and for that reason I did buy both of KT's books regarding natural cures. I found a lot of good information in the 2nd book and some very good websites and references. I don't believe everything kt says, then again, I don't believe most of what the FDA says either. The fact is, the FDA is "poisoning" the American public in my opinion. We are the wealthiest country in the world and have more disease (which by the way modern medicine can or will not cure]. It is highly suspicious to intelligent Americans that with all of their education and all of their money, they are still unable to find a remedy for the simplest of symptons...which are now being called "diseases". Our grandmothers knew better how to cure some of these things with simple home made remedies. Not to mention that we are being bombarded daily with ads telling us how sick we are and how to "cure" ourselves with "modern medicine". Our brains are being inundated with "you are fat" "you have cancer" "you are depressed" etc campaigns that in my opinion have a very negative effect on the human body and mind. These ads at the very least stress people and as we all agree (I believe), stress really is a killer. You seem so intelligent to me and I see you are educated, yet it only takes the slightest amount of common sense to realize America is going down a bad path. Why wouldn't you, with all your education and seemingly real interest in healing people, want Americans to wake up and look for alternive ways of getting healthy. I have always taken the "devil's advocate" approach to anyone who emphatically denies another's point of view. It raises questions in my mind as an intelligent person, that anyone would be so critical of another's opinions without first looking at all of the angles. After all, the American people are waking up and realizing that our government, Pharma, FDA etc. really can't or won't help us. It's always been bothersome to me just the name of the "FDA" It seems there is something fundamentally wrong with the fact that the Food and Drug are together in an Administration at all. In my opinion, they should be separate entities, as a check and balance for one another, not as bed-partners. While I do understand that KT is not 70...never understood why he put that in his book Natural "Cures" Revealed, page 17, I have found some very valuable information in his index of websites at the back of the book. I challenge you to open your mind a little and look at the state of affairs in this country regarding health. And yes, I do believe we are being slowing killed by the food we eat and the drugs we feed ourselves and our children. As my grandmother always said "eat healthy, work hard, relax as often as possible...and everything in moderation". Now that's a wise person!!!! She lived a long and healthy life. Have a great day! Thanks for listening, Shawn

Permalink to Comment

15. Anonymous on August 20, 2006 9:18 AM writes...

Jim, the consensus of the experts is that temperatures are rising slightly (probably less than 1 degree in the last century), and that human activity is contributing to this - not that the sea level will rise 20 feet in this century or any of the other doomsday scenarios Gore rants about.

Permalink to Comment

16. qetzal on August 20, 2006 10:08 AM writes...

And yes, I do believe we are being slowing killed by the food we eat and the drugs we feed ourselves and our children.

I guess that's why life expectancies keep going up. It takes longer to kill ourselves slowly.

Permalink to Comment

17. eugene on August 20, 2006 10:28 AM writes...

In terms of curing you, the government and the drug industry owes you nothin' shawn except to make sure you're not worse off after treatment (that includes monetary situation). Pay them more money and they'll cure you of cancer in 50 years. If you want to go to a place where the government doesn't bother you, go to a place without one, like Somalia. You can eat right and exercise there.

If you want the government to be accountable for curing you of all your diseases, then stay in the States and try to convince everyone of your fairytale view. When the hell did people wake up and realize that "Pharma and the FDA can't or won't help us" with curing death? No, when did people fall asleep first and become such whiners? I was sold a better story of the American public than the lazy, ignorant slobs who blame everyone else and expect somebody to grant them miracles if enough money is thrown at the problem, when I moved here. I demand my money back for false advertising!

Seeing such stupid and unaccountable people in America has given me unhealthy amounts of stress. Far above what I would have had in my native country.

Permalink to Comment

18. shawn on August 20, 2006 11:46 AM writes...

Sorry for the stress I caused you. I wasn't saying that the government is responsible for curing me or that KT is some kind of god. I was only trying to point out that as Americans we are experiencing a lot of health issues like obesity and teenage depression, teenage diabetes and the like and that possibly it is due the foods we ingest and the mass amounts of antibiotics and drugs. I apologize to all readers who I offended by stating my opinion that the food we eat in America actually does/does not contribute to the status of our health. Yes, we are living longer and there is a place for modern medicine. I couldn't agree more. I just wonder if we are being too dependent on drugs and not looking for other ways of staying healthy. I guess I did not state my views clearly, which is my fault, but I was trying to play "devils advocate" here. I do believe that there is most definitely a time and place for modern medicine...just maybe not to the degree we are using it. And by the way, I love America and would not wish to live anywhere else in the world. I especially love freedom of speech and truly enjoy these discussions. Thanks quetzel and Eugene for your comments. Have a great day! shawn

Permalink to Comment

19. qetzal on August 20, 2006 3:28 PM writes...


I was only trying to point out that as Americans we are experiencing a lot of health issues like obesity and teenage depression, teenage diabetes and the like and that possibly it is due the foods we ingest...

Pretty much a given for obesity. Also reasonable for diabetes, since obesity is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes. Not so obviouis for depression, unless maybe you argue obesity -> negative body image -> depression.

...and the mass amounts of antibiotics and drugs.

This I strongly doubt. Do you have any believable data that taking "mass amounts of antibiotics and drugs" contributes to obesity, depression, or diabetes? Any data for other health issues? (I assume you don't mean illegal, recreational drugs.)

I just wonder if we are being too dependent on drugs and not looking for other ways of staying healthy.

I don't know if we are "too" dependent on drugs, but I agree we should encourage behaviors that maintain health. That's certainly better than assuming drugs will save us from the consequences of our unhealthy activities.

BTW, I wasn't offended by your comments. It's just that many of them are either unsupported or simply indefensible. Rather than taking a devil's advocate approach, I respectfully suggest you consider an evidence-based approach instead.

Good health to you.

Permalink to Comment

20. Matthew on August 20, 2006 9:45 PM writes...

Ok, now I'M MAD! I am a Kevin Trudeau fan and I am a member of his website Which in my opinion is the best site for health information.

FIRST OF ALL! If you read kevin's second book, and if you read all of the chapter that Page 17 was apart of, you would know that he says in the beggining that "IT DOES NOT MATTER IF I BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING". HE THAN GOES Onto say that drugs are good for you, the FDA love us, and we should all listen to the doctors more than anything. Than he says he's 70. Can you now see you all wrote an article THAT IS COMPLETELY DUMB! Your accusing Kevin of lying when he never said HE WAS 70.

Please, if your going to attack kevin, read what your accusing him of first. sheesh.

He said in the beggining that the following wasn't true! HE TOLD YOU UP-FRONT THAT THE FOLLOWING WAS A LIE! So he never lied to anyone!


Permalink to Comment

21. shawn on August 20, 2006 11:06 PM writes...

Hey qetzal, again, thanks for the comment. Actually, if you want support for some of my views, you can find them at under Center for Disease Control and Prevention which states as their purpose to "oversees all foods"... "maintains a nationwide system of food-borne disease surveillance, designs and puts in place rapid electronic systems for reporting food-borne infections...". I'm really not as ignorant as you think. I try to gather as much information as I can from ALL sources. I would like to talk with you on a more friendly basis, as I learn so much from others (as yourself). With all due respect - Shawn

Permalink to Comment

22. shawn on August 21, 2006 9:16 AM writes...

Good morning Qetzal!
P.S. I only listed food-borne disease as I didn't want to insult your intelligence by listing the abundance of diseases such as heart disease, stroke, high cholestoral, etc. that are discussed in almost every health care magazine and many newspapers on a regular basis. I'm sure you[re well-read and for that reason I assume you have read about the correlation between food and disease. I hope this doesn't come across rude, as one cannot fully express through the writtem word inflection or tone of voice etc. I mean this respectfully. I do worry that although we are living longer now, the same may not be true for our children if we don't start taking personal responsibility for the foods we eat. This is why I do a lot of exploring. Any by the way, I'm not anti-FDA, but as an American whose food supply is monitored and governed by this administration, I feel it is my responsiblity to "cast my vote" so to speak regarding these issues. I hope you have a great day...and we BOTH stay healthy! tee hee. After all, that is our goal, right?

Permalink to Comment

23. on August 21, 2006 9:24 AM writes...


CDC and FDA are independent agencies. In any case, citing FDA's homepage does not support your claim that mass amounts of antibiotics and drugs contribute to health issues like obesity, diabetes, and depression.

I'm not accusing you of being ignorant. I'm objecting to your contentious and unsupported statements. I think it's great that you try to gather information from many sources, conventional and alternative. But I think you accept some of that information too uncritically. Just because someone says "FDA is 'poisoning' the American public" doesn't mean it's true.

When you see such claims, you should ask whether there is evidence to support them. I respectfully suggest it's wrong to make such statements unless you can back them up.

Permalink to Comment

24. shawn on August 21, 2006 12:27 PM writes...

You are absolutely right. "poisoning" anyway is VERY strong word. I accept responsiblity for improper word choice. And actually I am searching for evidence regarding these issues. It can be difficult to decipher hidden agendas and the like regarding each and every article I read. My understanding (although, I do not claim it is an accurate understanding at this point) is that the overuse of antibiotics and certain drugs were contributing to health issues, ie. antibiotics no longer working due to overuse/misuse, thereby weakening their affect, overuse of drugs causing toxicity in the body, etc. I will search further. I stand corrected. I will try to cite particulars in my future comments. Great talking with you ! Shawn

Permalink to Comment

25. Harry on August 21, 2006 2:55 PM writes...


One way to start deciphering hidden agendas is to ask yourself "Qui bono?" (Latin for "who benefits?") when you read some of these extravagent claims. Like Kevin Trudeau, many of these fearmongers and charlatans benefit greatly from false and misleading statements.

As far as your other point- certainly antibiotic resistance is a serious problem. It stems from many, causes some of which are: poor hygiene and infection control procedures in hospital settings, poor compliance in patients that take antibiotics, physicians overprescribing and/or misprescribing antibiotics and lastly, use of some antibiotics in animal feed.

As far as some sort of generalized "toxicity in the body" caused by "drugs", I'd have to say this is a come-on by hucksters peddling books, "herbal" regimins, and other nostrums. I'm not aware of any reliable evidence of such a problem. Once again- ask yourself "Qui Bono?" and things will become much clearer.

My $0.02 YMMV

Permalink to Comment

26. SRC on August 21, 2006 9:53 PM writes...

he is nevertheless presenting the consensus opinion of nearly all of the experts in the field

Scientific issues are not decided by a show of hands, but rather by dispositive data. One man with the latter "outvotes" 100,000 opinions. (See, e.g., the H. pylori story.)

The very fact that one needs to cite opinion proves unequivocally that the dispositive data do not exist. No one asserts that most experts believe that, e.g., DNA transmits genetic information. If the matter is open to opinion, then it is not settled. The majority opinion couldn't possibly be less relevant.

To global warming advocates: Minnesota used to be covered in glaciers. It isn't now. Explain.

Permalink to Comment

27. shawn on August 22, 2006 9:02 AM writes...

Haryy, thank you for such a wonderful and positive comment! Your 2 cents are priceless!! Shawn

Permalink to Comment

28. Hap on August 22, 2006 10:09 AM writes...


Huh? The concept that climate changes over time disproves the theory that human activities are changing the climate as well? I must have missed something - I thought that they were both changing the climate, and that there was at least some data that the rate of change in overall temperature is not commensurate with previous climate change and uncomfortably closely correlated with CO2 concentrations for many's people's taste.

I don't know enough to tell whether our CO2 output is changing temperature or whether CO2 is being changed by temperature (and the information I've seen has been too biased for me to make a reasoned opinion), but the fact that glaciers existed over the northern third of the continental US and don't now doesn't seem to be a reasoned disproof of the theory of global warming.

Permalink to Comment

29. Sigivald on August 22, 2006 12:08 PM writes...

It's kinda terrifying that I can't tell is Matthew is some sort of brilliantly subtle satirist or serious and utterly clueless.

Well played, if the former. God help us, if the latter.

Where's Derek gotten off to?

Permalink to Comment

30. SRC on August 22, 2006 1:32 PM writes...

The concept that climate changes over time disproves the theory that human activities are changing the climate as well? I must have missed something - I thought that they were both changing the climate, and that there was at least some data that the rate of change in overall temperature is not commensurate with previous climate change and uncomfortably closely correlated with CO2 concentrations for many's people's taste.

I didn't make my point clearly enough. It was that over geological time the Earth's climate has previously undergone massive changes for reasons no one understands, so that arguing about trifling changes in temperature over the last century is like discussing the pea under the mattress. When someone can account for the big changes, then we can meaningfully discuss little ones.

(To put this point in the chemistry context, it's pointless to attribute reaction outcomes to anomeric effects when we don't understand covalent bonds. Start with the big terms first, then add the little ones as perturbations - not the other way around. Here we can measure the perturbations (CO2) more readily than the big terms (e.g., solar activity, water vapor), so it's tempting to focus on them, but I think fallacious to do so.)

Even over less than geological time the climate has changed dramatically. The medieval period was warmer than now, and was followed by the Little Ice Age, after which the current period of global warming began. To extrapolate from the last 100 years of temperature records is like predicting the direction of the stock market from looking at the last ten minutes of the DJIA.

Two further comments. The notion that human activities are changing the climate is not a theory. It's scarcely even a hypothesis. It's more like a conjecture.

Also, my comment was not intended to disprove anything, but to place the controversy in context. I'm agnostic on global warming/cooling (I'm old enough to remember a Time magazine cover 30 years ago bleating about the latter), and in the absence of dispositive data, I'm sceptical about the whole thing.

Permalink to Comment

31. GATC on August 22, 2006 1:43 PM writes...

Poor Derek, sorry to be still moving away from the Pharma side of things again, but that's what happens when you leave town and forget to pull the plug on your server!

And since I would assume that the majority of readers here have some type of science background, and considering what Anonymous #13 pointed out; God forbid if any of us watch something other than CNN or not feed at the Soros muck bucket, this article is an interesting read from of all places:

I assume Harris' source is the UN IPCC, where he quotes the total yearly human activity net CO2 contribution as 3 Gigatons (that's 3X10^9 tons or 3,000,000,000.0 for you CNN afficinados). Geologic and biological (natural) sources contribute 210 GT/yr, and the total atmospheric content is 750-830 GT. The kicker here is that our uncertainty in making these measurements is rather large (reported as +/- 80 GT), or as Harris states "making three GT seem hardly worth mentioning".

Permalink to Comment

32. Hap on August 22, 2006 3:35 PM writes...


Thank you for the clarification. Sorry.


I think the error is (+/-) 40 GT (the range of estimates for the CO2 present in the atmosphere is 80 GT). It's still significantly bigger than the estimated yearly output of CO2 from human sources.

Permalink to Comment

33. JSinger on August 22, 2006 4:40 PM writes...

Actually, Matthew seems to have a valid point, even if expressed in a style that outdoes any possible parody.

Shawn, the problem of antibiotic resistance caused by their overuse is certainly real -- that has nothing to do with the rest of the things you link them to.

Permalink to Comment

34. daen on August 22, 2006 5:45 PM writes...

GATC, find me a climate change sceptic who is not affiliated to the energy industry, and I'll concede a point. Until then, do your research better.

Permalink to Comment

35. GATC on August 23, 2006 8:23 AM writes...

Well Daen, we could start with Fred Seitz, past pres. of the National Academy of Science; Pres. Emeritus of the Rockefeller University, or better yet, the >17K signers of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition Project.


I doubt that all of these folks are on the payroll of Exxon-Mobil. Sorry to burst your bubble dude.

Permalink to Comment

36. GATC on August 23, 2006 8:28 AM writes...

Well Daen, we could start with Fred Seitz, past pres. of the National Academy of Science; Pres. Emeritus of the Rockefeller University, or better yet, the >17K signers of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition Project.


I doubt that all of these folks are on the payroll of Exxon-Mobil. Sorry to burst your bubble dude.

Permalink to Comment

37. Jeremiah on August 23, 2006 9:05 AM writes...

Ahahhah you actually used Seitz? Jesus. That's retarded. He's chairman emeritus of the George C Marshall institute, which has a long proud history of taking grants from ... who else? Exxon-Mobil. His dubious exploits don't end there either.

Permalink to Comment

38. GATC on August 23, 2006 9:26 AM writes...

Does that go for Bruce Ames too?

Permalink to Comment

39. One OF KT's Ex MInions on August 23, 2006 11:40 AM writes...

Mr. Tru (not so) Deau and I used the term Mr. so very lightly is a scammers, scammer. This so called International Pool Tour is a scam. He started it so pool rooms had to buy his products. So many players still have not received money they won from last year. I was scammed by Not So Tru-deau as well. You are doing humanity a service by outing this fake.

Permalink to Comment

40. Jeremiah on August 23, 2006 12:57 PM writes...

Bruce Ames? Bruce Ames and Seitz go way back with the same organizations, namely the George C Marshall and the Science and Environmental policy project. Regardless, Ames is a biochemist, not a climatologist.

Permalink to Comment

41. Harry on August 23, 2006 1:22 PM writes...

Never mind, GATC. Your're dealing with true believers.

If Seitz was on their side in this matter they'd proudly claim him and say that his being there, even after taking Exxon's dirty money was PROOF that their position was totally right.

If you are not on their side, then thats proof enough that that you're simply a whore for "Big Oil". No one could POSSIBLY disagree with them out of conviction.

Permalink to Comment

42. GATC on August 23, 2006 1:34 PM writes...

Oh well, just trying to move the conversation, ever-so-slightly, back to the Pharma realm. Let's see; Bruce Ames > Ames Test > ICH S2A Guidance on genotoxicity testing of pharmaceuticals, etc., etc., etc.

Bruce Ames is a biochemist, no s--t!

And they ask me why I drink............

Permalink to Comment

43. SleeplessInSF on August 23, 2006 2:13 PM writes...

Daen: I'm a climate change skeptic, and I have absolutely no link to the energy industry (other than buying their fine products). I hereby grant GATC permission to cite me as the skeptic you require. Now, what's the point that you've conceded? I suspect all you'll concede is that you value my opinions less than those of Al Gore's posse, despite the fact that -- unlike the Gore folks -- I try to avoid having hysteria cloud my judgement of the adequacy of current climatological models.

Permalink to Comment

44. daen on August 23, 2006 3:40 PM writes...

Harry: No, I'm not a "true believer", just trying to point out that GATC is completely wrong when he says that there is no "consensus opinion of nearly all the experts" (see post #11). And that's precisely my point about Seitz: why is he arguing in the face of the hurricane? Why hasn't he concluded that the "consensus opinion of nearly all the experts" is, in fact, correct? Because he is unlikely to come to such a conclusion when there is energy company money involved, is he?

Sleepless: As for "Al Gore's posse", I neither value their opinions less or more than yours but I am more likely to put credence in those hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals which confirm the climate change consensus than I am in the personal opinions of one sceptic. How is it that I keep reading paper after paper, dozens of them, in Nature and Science whose data match the consensus, and never one against? Have you considered that the science really is correct, or is it just too unfashionable to believe that these days? If you disagree, then you can always come up with an alternative hypothesis that matches all of the data, and get it published in Nature or Science. Then I'll start to value your opinions.

Permalink to Comment

45. daen on August 23, 2006 3:51 PM writes...

And, by the way, I give a certain amount of credence to Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus in that the cost of actually rolling back the effects of climate change would be enormously prohibitive. Lomborg is often touted as a climate change sceptic, but he is not - he is simply sceptical about the Kyoto Protocol, a very different thing. Let's accept that the damn climate has changed because of our technology, and use technology to find creative ways of mitigating the damage that don't send whole economies down the drain.

Permalink to Comment

46. Harry on August 23, 2006 4:16 PM writes...


You make my point, even as you say you're not a true believer, you say exactly what I said, only in different phrasing.

"Who is HE to stand against the hurricane?" Why doesn't he just give in and be assimilated? He MUST be taking oil money!

Maybe, just maybe you don't see skeptical papers published, simply BECAUSE of the consensus. Hey- if the question is settled, why publish papers by cranks who don't agree wth us? After all- we KNOW they must be tainted with dirty oil money.

Maybe, just maybe he thinks the consensus is wrong, or partly wrong, or at least in a rush to judgement. I note that you still don't address the issue that AFIK, the models don't explain; the Medieval Warm Spell, or the Litttle Ice age among others. This seems to be a major problem. I also note reports that indicate that Mars, as well as other possibly other planets seem to be undergoing warming. I'm pretty sure that our technology has little to no effect on Mars.

I think that the magnitude of warming, the causes of warming the pattern of warming, and the human contributio to warming are not settled questions. I also think that we'd be much better off to define the problem before we act on it. Certainly Kyoto would have done little to nothing, even using the most optimistic models, especially considering that China and India would not have had to address their emissions.

Make energy production more efficient- sure. Use more nukes- sure. Jump head first into what may be very shallow water to address an ill-defined problem- paybe not a good idea.

My $0.02 YMMV

(BTW I've never taken even $1 of Big Oil's filthy lucre- although I'm open to a generous bribe).

Permalink to Comment

47. daen on August 23, 2006 6:30 PM writes...

Harry: let's separate out the issues. There are three questions to be answered:

1) Is climate change happening?
2) Is it (at least partly) anthropogenic in origin?
3) What can be done about it?

Regarding the first question, there is little doubt that something has changed the climate over the last 150 years.

The second question is not, as you say, "settled", although the IPCC's Third Assessment Report attaches a 66% to 90% probability of there being at least some anthropogenic cause through increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Could there be other, coincident, natural drivers? Maybe there are; but maybe we won't get to find out: for example, GWB's big push to Get Off Planet Earth Before It's Too Late (GOPEBITL?) means that NASA has had to divert funding intended for climate study satellites into the Great Martian Land-Grab instead.

The third question is hardest of all to answer, because the costs of almost any solution to climate change are potentially enormous and the political implications are gobsmackingly complicated, as Kyoto shows. I suspect, as I said earlier, that it will take an ingenious set of technological solutions to find a fix. Sorry, I don't have anything specific in mind: maybe you can come up with something.

In the meantime, head for the hills.

Permalink to Comment

48. GATC on August 23, 2006 6:54 PM writes...

OK.........., so Derek, do you guys run many Grignard reactions these days? I remember having great fun back in organic chemistry class with all of the ether fumes churning through the labs. It's a wonder we didn't blow-up the building. I wonder if they still allow that reaction in the undergraduate labs these days due to safety considerations? Hurry home, OK?

Permalink to Comment

49. Anonymous on August 23, 2006 6:57 PM writes...

I say that all this global warming stuff is inequivocally directly related to the foods we eat! I mean, look at cows, they eat grass and seem to expel a lot of C02. Yeah, you got me, I have absolutely no science background...except a little science fiction maybe...soemtimes it's hard to tell the difference. OR global warming could be due to a lot of hot air blowing around - dunno...(Just having a little fun!) Have a great night guys! Shawn

Permalink to Comment

50. Shawb on August 23, 2006 7:16 PM writes...

See it's like this. Have you ever noticed how cows are fat...and dumb. Well, I think I've figured it all out! It's like those logic problems in algebra... A=B, B=C, therefore, A=C. Well, A=cows are fat and dumb and expel C02, B=cows eat grass (which is organic?), therefore C eating organic foods causes one to be fat and dumb and expel C02 which in turn destroys the ozone causing global warming. We could go on to say that KT advocates eating organic foods and therefore he is trying to destroy our Earth as we know it by causing global warming....I think I'm on to something!!!!! I definitely feel we need to discuss this situation. Any takers??

Permalink to Comment

51. Anon on August 23, 2006 8:55 PM writes...

WOW! I have to say, even to those of you who hate KT, you have made him a god. Shame. Anyway. Just writing my "free"ly given opinion to say that I also have read both of KT's books on "Natural Cures..." In the beginning of the second one, he states very emphatically (as much as can be in wording) that you should NOT skip around in the book. If you are going to read it, read it front to back, straight thru. (That way you won't think he was truly claiming to be 70.) Maybe he foresaw the masses hacking away at comments he made, such as his being 70 years old. In fact, I'm sure of it. It was probably something he knew he could later go back on and say something similar to, "BOOYA!! In yo face!!" His books make him appear to enjoy proving others wrong after they have failed at proving him wrong. :) Who knows... Anyway, I completely agree with his statements. If I never did a bit of research my entire life-which I have and will not even waste time arguing about because many of you have, as well-but just say I hadn't, I would still be able to look at the world and know something was up. People like money, people waste lives over money daily. That is something we all have seen without research. People are afraid of age, lack of health and ultimately death. They will pay others much money to prolong life so they do not have to face death. We have all seen firsthand accounts with no research needing to be done. Nevertheless, we get unhealthier and unhealthier and unhealthier. No research need be done to prove to me that I lost an uncle to a heart attack, and aunt to breast cancer, and another aunt to leukemia all within 6 months of each other. Furthermore, many doctors themselves will warn patients (I have been warned myself) on dangers of meds (esp. antibiotics) and foods. And furthermore, I tend to my family and myself with natural cures and we get along perfectly fine. My son has not been to a doctor for anything other than a check-up since he was 4 (he is 7 now). He has not been for illness since about 2. No research can tell me that. The point I am trying to make is that we are all going to believe what we are going to believe and it doesn't really have anything to do with all of our wonderful "research." We go into our studies with a perception, a belief, already set in our minds. We are actually, perhaps subconciously, looking for research to back up what we already believe. I think I can just about hit the nail on the head when I state that those of us who agree with KT already had our own suspicions, whereas those that disagree, did not. Maybe those that agree rank health very high on their agendas, or maybe many or like me: they know death is coming, want to stay pretty healthy (tho not anal) until it gets here, but are just completely ticked off that the "powers that be" think they can do what they do. Oh we can eat what we choose, go to health care where we want, and believe what we like, but it is just downright wrong to even try and get away with it in the first place. Anyone hearing me? Anyway. I've got people close to me that eat stuff my dog wouldn't eat, drug their kids regularly for "their health" and don't offend me in the least. They choose what they want, it is their life, and let's face it-we are all gonna go into the dust eventually anyhow. I choose not to live that way, and they are not offended by me. I do not give my opinion or advice unless asked to do so, and I am 'there' for them thru every sickness they may or may not have. All life is that way you know-we believe what we want about school, education, outerspace, religion. Most of the time our studies are only to back up what we already believe and we can either fight our lives away about it or choose to use it in a productive way. I try to remain open to others opinions and ideas. Even if I figure I'll never agree, I have to think about the fact that I often sound the same way... Well, I've been nice and lengthy and to those of you who have chosen to endure, it all boils down to this: we will all die (research did not help us figure that one out), what we do and choose now matters. We can eat right every day, shove herbal remedies down our throat and internally cleansing colonic tubes up our rectums, but we will die and face God. And if we're going to spend our lives arguing about something, let's argue about how to get on His good side...only one way there-the Way, the Truth and the Life-Jesus! You never really KNOW what it's like to be in a wreck unless you've been in one, and you never really KNOW what He's all about until you really KNOW Him.

PS. Some REALLY good info on SCIENCE facts to back up the Bible are found at (of course you may visit the site with your mind already made up-so be open)

Oh and a really good site on God and your family (with not so much scientific info) can be found at --it covers everything from "normal" yet unhappy marriages, to porn addiction, to child molestation.

Permalink to Comment