Gently Warning Friends about Kevin Trudeau

[streetsmart1980]

I have a friend who keeps trying to tell me about Kevin Trudeau's Natural Cures book. He gets very angry that I don't share his love and appreciation for Kevin Trudeau.

My friend is an interesting character in and of himself. This question is not so much about how I can convince my friend that Kevin Trudeau is a scammer and his book a lie, but rather something else. I want to know what would be the best way to try to gently reason with my friend. This is probably more of a psychology question than a medical/scientific analysis of the Natural Cures book.

Here are some things I have tried.

I have told my friend I am not interested in the book. I have asked my friend why he believes in Trudeau and the book and he claims he has experienced absolutely certain personal success with the cures. I can't argue with that. My friend is absolutely convinced of his own subjective experiences. He doesn't care what the news says, what scientists say, what court documents say or what doctors say. He knows it in his heart and that is it.

I know this is scary, but my friend is a fun guy to hang out with. I just fear that he might be unteachable and unreachable in his old age. Is he beyond help? Can one even reason with such a person? I didn't want to get into it with him, but he is angry that I am 'unwilling to accept the truth'!

We ended up talking about the subject for quite a while. I didn't rip into him or anything. I just kept telling him that he should discuss the book with people who will show interest in it. I was trying to impart a life lesson to him, saying essentially that he shouldn't share things with people who don't appreciate the things he treasures. I don't appreciate Kevin Trudeaus Natural cures, therefore he shouldn't talk to me about it. I will just end up raining on his parade.

As the night went on he said that he would "look at both sides" and would "read the internet articles against Trudeau's natural cures' and 'watch the John Stossel Video', but of course he is convinced those are all corporate conspiracies. He begged me to also consider "both sides". I said I only know of one side and that is "science" and not just some random guy saying the opposite of thousands of years of research. You can imagine my friend becoming more angry.

The final realization I came to was this. There must be a compelling story / truth in the book called Natural Cures. I validated my friends discovery of those truths. That calmed him down. In the end I agreed to read the book or at least to skim it. I think this will give me more credibility in talking with my friend. See, because science and reality don't reach him. Apparently only personal relationships do. (Maybe that's kind of how children are)

It is so strange, because he does not have any sort of compass to determine what is truth vs self deception. He does trust me, but he also "really trusts his inner feelings and intuitions", although they can change every few weeks. He has zero perspective unless I remind him of things.

I know this is getting complex, but my friend is like a specimen from another planet. That is part of the intrigue.

Ok, so while we were talking I got to one point I thought was meaningful. I asked him: "How does the sun rise and fall?" My hope was to have him recount the true scientific fact that the earth rotates around the sun (and spins around on its axis). He admitted that the suns apparent rising and falling has to do with the earths movement. I kind of got him to admit that what he knows/believes about the sun is different than what he personally sees / feels / and or can personally verify (without science).

Anyway it seemed like he kind of got it. He understood that there are things in reality that are very different from the way they seem or feel to us. And he kind of got the fact that even he believes certain 'scientific facts' although they contradict what he sees. I didn't have a chance to ask him why he believes the scientists in some cases and not in others. My ultimate goal is to show him that scientists and science are a reliable source compared to Infomercial Book Sellers.

I think the next step I should take is to do some sort of simple experiment with him. The same way you would do it with a child. Can you guys / gals think of any small experiment I could do with him to show him that what he sees and believes can be wrong sometimes. Maybe the experiment can show him that there are 'ways' to verify reality independently of our feelings and subjective thoughts. Any suggestions?

I am also up for any sort of advice. Like I said, this is more of a psychology experiment for me. I can never predict what will work with my friend.

[krelnik]

I would research a handful of specific claims in Trudeau's book that can be debunked with good scientific evidence. Make sure you know the names and backgrounds of the scientists who did the studies that contradict, and some details on the studies themselves (how big, how long, where they were done).

Then bring them up the next time.

What about "___insert wacky claim here____"? Where do you think Kevin Trudeau got that? What was his basis for recommending that? Now, you know Trudeau has no medical qualifications or training, do you trust his judgment on this?

Let him answer.

Then bring up your details. You know it was odd, but the book doesn't mention that this exact cure was studied with 200 patients in Switzerland in 2003. (fill in actual details) Talk about the scientists who did the study and what their training was. Then tell him the results.

And repeat for however many other examples you can find. If you can show him that specific things in Trudeaus book have been scientifically debunked, you can undermine his faith in the rest of the book.

[Ocelot]

FYI

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/04/is_injecting_yourself_with_a_h.php

[streetsmart1980]

Thanks for the reply krelnik.

I knew I was onto something when I posted my dilemma. When I initially talked to my friend about the Natural Cures last night I thought about what you said here in the post. I gently tried to see if I could try your approach, but I came to the conclusion that this path was too agressive. Smart, but not quite what I needed.

Thank you however for laying it out so clearly and succinctly. Once I have won more of my friends trust and helped him develop more of an appreciation for science through personal experience, then I will try your approach. It is however too advanced as of yet.

I must say that you did spark some major insights for me. I wrote you a long response, which I will not post. But by journaling out my response to you I think I came to some wonderful conclusions.

My friend is not convinced by the 'facts of the book' so much, but rather by the psychology of it. That is the key. I now have thought about the psychology of the book and I think I now know what is so appealing to him. I also know my friends psychology very well and the two completely match up.

[Mister Agenda]

I wish I could reach my Dad about this stuff, but really, what can you say to someone who finds the idea that doctors know coral calcium cures cancer but keep it a secret because they can make more money from expensive cancer treatments plausible?

[TheDeeMan]

Like I mentioned in the other thread about this, his "natural cures" are more or less just old fashioned home remedies with a new shine on them. Relatively harmless, except to the suckers who paid the price of his book to find this out.

Dee

[Dragonrock]

One thing to remember about Trudeau is that the "cures" are only half of the story, the other part is the grand conspiracy to make us all sick. Perhaps poking a few holes in the ability of conspiracies of that magnitude to exist would shake the foundations of your friends faith.

[Careyp74]

I find that self humiliation is the easiest way to get someone to listen to you. Instead of telling them that they are wrong, tell them about a time in your life when you were where they are sitting, and how you came to the realization that you were wrong.

I talked to my sister about ghosts once, and she swore that her house was haunted. She saw ghosts before, and wanted me to explain it. Well, of course I couldn't, but I got the sense that she was just relaying third person anectdotes on me. Maybe her friend said that she saw a ghost, for whatever reason. I can think of many reasons to say things like that, from being included in a conversation, to appearing interesting.

Anyways, I told her about a time when someone told me a story, and before I knew it, I was telling someone else, as if it happened to me. I didn't realize I was doing it, and could have sworn it happened to me, until that person told me that he was the one that told me that story. It was so real in my mind that I believed it happened to me.

The point is, she was not confrontational by me telling her that I was wrong, and she was able to see similarities in both our stories. She came away with the knowledge that you can't believe people even when they think they are telling the truth, because they themselves could be mistaken.

[Moochie]

Sometimes these kinds of arguments devolve into the butting of heads of the protagonists for personal reasons that have little, if anything, to do with the verbalized context. It's always worthwhile to step back and reexamine one's own rationale for pressing one's case; the real motives aren't always obvious.


M.

[Leftus]

There are parts of this world that are dirt poor and rich in diseases. Places where "big pharma" and corporate interests have no control whatsoever. Trudeau has been peddling his wares for years and has enough money to go to these places, set up shop, hire some private security, and become the hero of these nations. He could take these cures and prove he is right all over the world and force this issue.

Yet what he does is sell books. Where there is the best medical care in the world and all of the money, Trudeau is there. Where they have little to no medical care and no money, Trudeau is not to be found. If you could cure AIDS on the cheap, as he claims, and you couldn't do it in America because "big pharma" is blocking you, why wouldn't you go to Africa where AIDS is decimating the population and cure all of them? He could start in Egypt and work his way down. He would have no trouble with the FDA, FCC and even the IRS over there. They might even make him king. So why is he here selling books and not somewhere else doing what he claims?

Those would be the questions I would ask of someone supporting Trudeau. Essentially, where is his basic humanity in not taking these free cures to the people who need it the most.

[Edges]

I think the next step I should take is to do some sort of simple experiment with him. The same way you would do it with a child. Can you guys / gals think of any small experiment I could do with him to show him that what he sees and believes can be wrong sometimes. Maybe the experiment can show him that there are 'ways' to verify reality independently of our feelings and subjective thoughts. Any suggestions?



You could always use the straw in a glass of water experiment. You know the one where the straw seems to be split in two pieces with the split at the waterline. It's a perfect example that what appears to be true is not the same as what is true. It takes objective knowledge about refraction and that the straw is not split to understand what is being witnessed.

[shadron]

Some older folks (and I don't except myself) are prone to this sort of persuasion, and Gary Trudeau (and marketing people) are not unaware of it. Brought up in rural areas, they are basically conservative and skeptical, but unfortunately are also somewhat ignorant of science; if it was taught in the school they attended, it has long been forgotten in the hurly-burly of making a living. My own father (who still lives in Oklahoma, in his 90's) is this way - he's a pragmatist to the bone. He's a Democrat thanks to his 35 years as a union man, but every habit he has reeks of conservative motivation. Thankfully, he soured on religion as a teenager and therefore isn't religious now, but that's just a (for me, blessed) accident.

Such people are stolid in their paths. Once they latch onto an idea, it takes great force to change their course. Normally an admirable trait, modern marketing has found ways to pierce the armour and make it work for them. There is likely a lot of anecdotal truth in what GT says in his book, and quite a lot of real truth, if rather incomplete and banal. Aspirin relieves pain, and is, at base, a natural derivation of willow bark. This fact and other similar facts can be used to convince people that natural ways are best, regardless of the fact that science was/is involved in every step of the extraction, synthesis and production of the modern article, and the reason it is so cheap and that willows still grow unmolested. But that's a harder, more abstract, less "natural" sell.

Of course, I'm not saying anything new; this reasoning (at least the marketing stuff, if not the rural conservatism angle) is basic to understanding medical quackery.

[Madalch]

Some older folks (and I don't except myself) are prone to this sort of persuasion, and Gary Trudeau (and marketing people) are not unaware of it.
What do you have against Doonesbury?

[korenyx]

Tell him that the book refers readers to the website for more information and it costs to join. Trudeau makes money any way the FCC can't bust him (again) for.

[dudalb]

Tell them about Trudeau's criminal past. That should clue in anybody that he is a con artist.

[dudalb]

Like I mentioned in the other thread about this, his "natural cures" are more or less just old fashioned home remedies with a new shine on them. Relatively harmless, except to the suckers who paid the price of his book to find this out.

Dee



BS. He is dangerous becuase people will not get real medical help because they buy into Trudeau's "Modern Medicine Is Out To Get You" crap and will rely on Trudeau's worthless remedies instead. If that is harmless I would like to see what your defination of harmful is.

[borealys]

I find that self humiliation is the easiest way to get someone to listen to you. Instead of telling them that they are wrong, tell them about a time in your life when you were where they are sitting, and how you came to the realization that you were wrong.

That's an approach that I like. If you push too hard on the "you're wrong and here's why" angle, you come across as if you think they're stupid. To even consider that you might be right might make them think they're stupid, or at least a bit foolish. That's a hard pill to swallow. If you play up the yeah-it's-easy-to-fool-yourself angle, and admit to some foolishness of your own, the whole thing becomes less threatening. Or so I would think. I have only a handful of experiences to go by.

Aspirin relieves pain, and is, at base, a natural derivation of willow bark. This fact and other similar facts can be used to convince people that natural ways are best, regardless of the fact that science was/is involved in every step of the extraction, synthesis and production of the modern article, and the reason it is so cheap and that willows still grow unmolested. But that's a harder, more abstract, less "natural" sell.


My version of that argument is this: When The Medical Establishmenttm figured out that willowbark really did relieve pain, they didn't cover it up; they studied it. They identified the active chemical, figured out a way to mass-produce it in its pure form, and ta-daa, we've got Aspirin. The claim that "they" don't want you to know about natural cures because "they" won't be able to profit if you do doesn't hold up against the example of Aspirin. It's a very popular, widely-used drug, and it wouldn't exist at all if Big Pharmatm had conspired to hide the fact that willowbark is effective in pain management.

[borealys]

He is dangerous becuase people will not get real medical help because they buy into Trudeau's "Modern Medicine Is Out To Get You" crap

This is a valid point. Trudeau pushes the idea that there's some sort of evil establishment pulling the strings of all of modern medicine. Is this aspect of Trudeau's narrative part of what appeals to your friend about his writings? If so, that issue might be the first and most important thing to worry about.

[shadron]

What do you have against Doonesbury?

Well, dang it, he's an old codger too. Gotta be. Older than me. I think. Back to he mines, Rastus.

[streetsmart1980]

Leftus

I like what you said about taking the "Natural Cures" to the poorest part of the world and solving the AIDS crisis etc. I think that is a compelling point, and if I get a chance I will gently test that one out on my friend.


Edges

Thanks for the advice of showing my friend a glass of water with a straw in it. I found a picture of it on the internet and I saw immediately what you were getting at. I will sit down with him and talk about it and then have him analyze the results. I am convinced that once he does some of these experiments himself and processes them with his own mind he will have a better understanding of science. I am going to have to think out exactly how I want to use the experiment to reason with him. That's going to be a little challenge.

Dudalb

I thought about mentioning Trudeaus criminal past, but that didn't really work. My friend has been to jail himself and he knows many people who have been wrongfully imprisoned and falsely accused etc. The fact that Trudeau has had problems with the law, merely shows that he is a brave man who is willing to stand up to a corrupt system. That is how my friend sees it. I was at a loss when it came to undermining Trudeaus credibility because of his criminal record.

[TheDeeMan]

BS. He is dangerous becuase people will not get real medical help because they buy into Trudeau's "Modern Medicine Is Out To Get You" crap and will rely on Trudeau's worthless remedies instead. If that is harmless I would like to see what your defination of harmful is.

Oh please. You live in a country where people don't go for regular check ups until they get a pain that advil can't make go away. And then of course it may be too late. Oh, but this guy ius the devil for hawking his home remedies?

Dee

[TheDeeMan]

There are parts of this world that are dirt poor and rich in diseases. Places where "big pharma" and corporate interests have no control whatsoever. Trudeau has been peddling his wares for years and has enough money to go to these places, set up shop, hire some private security, and become the hero of these nations. He could take these cures and prove he is right all over the world and force this issue.

Yet what he does is sell books. Where there is the best medical care in the world and all of the money, Trudeau is there. Where they have little to no medical care and no money, Trudeau is not to be found. If you could cure AIDS on the cheap, as he claims, and you couldn't do it in America because "big pharma" is blocking you, why wouldn't you go to Africa where AIDS is decimating the population and cure all of them? He could start in Egypt and work his way down. He would have no trouble with the FDA, FCC and even the IRS over there. They might even make him king. So why is he here selling books and not somewhere else doing what he claims?

Those would be the questions I would ask of someone supporting Trudeau. Essentially, where is his basic humanity in not taking these free cures to the people who need it the most.

This is a great point.

Dee

[arthwollipot]

Oh please. You live in a country where people don't go for regular check ups until they get a pain that advil can't make go away. And then of course it may be too late. Oh, but this guy ius the devil for hawking his home remedies?Dee, he's doing a whole lot more than "hawking his home remedies". He's actively discouraging people from seeking legitimate medical help by claiming that it's the doctors that are making them sick. What's more, while he's doing this, he's fleecing them for everything he can get. He's been censured by the FDA and convicted of fraud, but he still keeps on doing it by whatever method he thinks won't get him imprisoned.

You're failing to recognise what a monster this man is.

[TheDeeMan]

See. I've never heard him say "don't go to the doctor". If he does, then that's a different story. But no different then the preacher who tells you not to go to the doctor because God will heal you.

Dee

[Ocelot]

See. I've never heard him say "don't go to the doctor". If he does, then that's a different story. But no different then the preacher who tells you not to go to the doctor because God will heal you.

Dee

I've never heard him say anything at all. But a little research turns up this annotated transcript of his inofrmercial for his first book.

http://www.infomercialwatch.org/tran/trudeau.shtml

Whilst the exact phrase "don't go to the doctor" is not used there's certainly an overall impression being created that doctors are part of a conspiracy to keep you ill to sell you ineffective drugs. Hardly a ringing endorsement of medical science.

[blutoski]

Dee, he's doing a whole lot more than "hawking his home remedies". He's actively discouraging people from seeking legitimate medical help by claiming that it's the doctors that are making them sick. What's more, while he's doing this, he's fleecing them for everything he can get. He's been censured by the FDA and convicted of fraud, but he still keeps on doing it by whatever method he thinks won't get him imprisoned.

I think it's important to point out that the FDA has not been very involved in Trudeau's legal problems: he has run afoul of the FTC. The primary complaint is that his infomercial selling a book of cures was fraud because the book does not contain the cures advertised. Additional complaints were that he was fabricating endorsements, reselling customer information to database marketers after promising he would not, and adding undisclosed additional charges to the booksale transactions.

Unfortunately, as long as a book has the boilerplate disclaimer "not to be used to diagnose or treat," it is probably untouchable under DHSEA and First Amendment.

[blutoski]

I've never heard him say anything at all. But a little research turns up this annotated transcript of his inofrmercial for his first book.

http://www.infomercialwatch.org/tran/trudeau.shtml

Whilst the exact phrase "don't go to the doctor" is not used there's certainly an overall impression being created that doctors are part of a conspiracy to keep you ill to sell you ineffective drugs. Hardly a ringing endorsement of medical science.

The best example I could locate of specifically telling people to stop their meds is in the book on page 226 where he tells people that certain mental illnesses are best treated with Dianetics. Dianetics exclusively forbids the use of medications.

[blutoski]

See. I've never heard him say "don't go to the doctor". If he does, then that's a different story. But no different then the preacher who tells you not to go to the doctor because God will heal you.

This is debatable. Especially since in many jurisdictions, if clergy tell people to go off their medications they are liable for damages.

Consider the case in Russia where the exorcism of a mentally ill woman went wrong and the subject died. The priest is in prison now.

In most jurisdictions, commercial speech is regulated differently than personal speech. As soon as somebody's charging for something, there are basic requirements that the product match the representation. (Truehope employed some attempts to circumvent this, such as pointing out that adverse side effects to their product were during a free trial, so there was no 'sale' involved, and the victim had no right to seek damages.)

Also, in most jurisdictions, diagnosis and treatment requires a medical license. Where Trudeau's book would normally cross the line is that it is filled with diagnosis and treatment, which strongly resembles practicing medicine without a license. But at the same time, it explicitly disclaims it is not to be used to diagnose or treat illness. This does technically meet the requirements to skirt FDA oversight, and means it probably falls under the "HE" part of DSHEA.

[HeyLeroy]

Point out to your friend that in the opening chapter of his book he recommends wearing white clothes all the time. It does... er, something for your health, according to Trudeau.

And then point out the picture of Trudeau on the cover... wearing a black suit.

[AliasN]

I thought about mentioning Trudeaus criminal past, but that didn't really work. My friend has been to jail himself and he knows many people who have been wrongfully imprisoned and falsely accused etc. The fact that Trudeau has had problems with the law, merely shows that he is a brave man who is willing to stand up to a corrupt system. That is how my friend sees it. I was at a loss when it came to undermining Trudeaus credibility because of his criminal record.
Fair enough about his criminal past, but how about his criminal present? http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/10/trudeau.shtm is a link to the FTC ruling against him for violating court orders about misrepresenting claims in his infomercials, just a couple of weeks ago. Although, like you said, a true believer will just say that it's the corrupt system trying to get him. *sigh*

I'm not sure what this ruling means, though. If he's banned from infomercials for three years, does that mean just banned from any new ones, or do all of his infomercials have to be pulled (I'm hoping it's the latter)?

[borealys]

I thought about mentioning Trudeaus criminal past, but that didn't really work. My friend has been to jail himself and he knows many people who have been wrongfully imprisoned and falsely accused etc. The fact that Trudeau has had problems with the law, merely shows that he is a brave man who is willing to stand up to a corrupt system. That is how my friend sees it. I was at a loss when it came to undermining Trudeaus credibility because of his criminal record.

Ah, the "brave maverick battling a corrupt system" narrative. People eat that up. Probably why it's such a popular stance among frauds and charlatans, not just in health care, but in every area of science, culture, and politics where charlatans can be found. Maybe it's worth taking the time to look a little more closely at that narrative, and how easy it is to exploit. There's nothing wrong with admiring a brave maverick, but is there any evidence at all to support Trudeau's claims that he actually is one? Or is he just putting on the role the better to exploit the people he's claiming to help?

(We all know the answer to that question ... but still, it's a good idea to frame it as a question and not a foregone conclusion.)

[arthwollipot]

I think it's important to point out that the FDA has not been very involved in Trudeau's legal problems: he has run afoul of the FTC...I stand corrected. Thanks for that, blutoski.

[streetsmart1980]

Hi Blutoski,

Are you sure that Trudeau mentions dianetics on page 226? I could not find it. I read the page twice.

[Ocelot]

Hi Blutoski,

Are you sure that Trudeau mentions dianetics on page 226? I could not find it. I read the page twice.

He's apparently written more than one book.

[arthwollipot]

And isn't there a revised edition of Natural Cures?

[Shrike]

My friend has been to jail himself and he knows many people who have been wrongfully imprisoned and falsely accused etc.

And as we all know, 99% of the persons in jail are really wrongfully imprisoned and/or falsely accused. The judges are just out to get them...
Sorry, neither the place or the time to be sarcastic, but I couldn't help myself.

[Psi Baba]

from the Infomercialwatch site Ocelot linked to:
In 2006, he published a third book called More Natural "Cures" Revealed in which he claims to have gotten his inside information from a "secret society" that gave him "health secrets, access to the inner circles of the rich and powerful, and the ability to live a life of luxury." On page 11, he states:

As a member of this secret society I have sat in private meetings with the heads of state from countries around the world. I have attended secret international business meetings where business leaders, politicians, and media moguls coerce together to create the new world order with global control over individual people everywhere. I have been shown and have seen with my own eyes secret government and corporate documents. I have heard with my own ears how BigPharma, the food industry, and the oil industry are working together with governments and media outlets around the world. I have been in over sixty countries, yet there are no stamps of evidence in any of my passports. I have been to Area 51 in Nevada. (This top secret military installation is still denied to exist by the U.S. government.) This is where much of our technology has been developed. Area 51 houses most extraterrestrial artifacts, including a working spacecraft and dead alien bodies. I've seen these things with my own two eyes. As a member of this secret society I was used in covert operations around the world.
So all this stuff is supposed to be secret, yet Trudeau is permitted to reveal it all, reap all the profits from it, and even reveal the existence of this "secret society" and their taking him into their confidence, and they don't care that he's doing this (whoever "they" are). Right. He is either a pathological liar or a complete wacko, or both. My money is on him just being a pathological liar.

[blutoski]

Hi Blutoski,

Are you sure that Trudeau mentions dianetics on page 226? I could not find it. I read the page twice.

I'll recheck the edition and page when I get home. It's possible that he's revised the copy between editions.

[dudalb]

from the Infomercialwatch site Ocelot linked to:

So all this stuff is supposed to be secret, yet Trudeau is permitted to reveal it all, reap all the profits from it, and even reveal the existence of this "secret society" and their taking him into their confidence, and they don't care that he's doing this (whoever "they" are). Right. He is either a pathological liar or a complete wacko, or both. My money is on him just being a pathological liar.


Or the third possibility: He knows what he is pushing is complete garbage but figures the suckers will eat it up.

[VespaGuy]

Like I mentioned in the other thread about this, his "natural cures" are more or less just old fashioned home remedies with a new shine on them. Relatively harmless, except to the suckers who paid the price of his book to find this out.


It all depends on your definition of "relatively harmless". As far as I know, he doesn't give out remedies that cause harm in and of themselves, however following his advice can definately cause harm.

Trudeau claims that sunscreen causes cancer, not the sun. This is about as harmless as claiming that condoms don't help prevent aids, or obesity doesn't lead to diabetes.

[borealys]

Trudeau claims that sunscreen causes cancer, not the sun. This is about as harmless as claiming that condoms don't help prevent aids, or obesity doesn't lead to diabetes.

Actually, it's more akin to claiming that condoms cause AIDS. Which is something I actually have heard.

[arthwollipot]

And of course this is one reason you don't find his books very much in Australia - the skin cancer capital of the world.

[Brian-M]

And of course this is one reason you don't find his books very much in Australia - the skin cancer capital of the world.


Of course Australia is the skin-cancer capital of the world... we use the most sunscreen! :hypnotize :rolleyes:

[arthwollipot]

Of course Australia is the skin-cancer capital of the world... we use the most sunscreen! :hypnotize :rolleyes:That's exactly right.:cool:

[blutoski]

I'll recheck the edition and page when I get home. It's possible that he's revised the copy between editions.

It's probably just an edition thing. The pagination may vary, izzal.

I found that I'm not the only person concerned: this page has been scanned into wikipedia for the article about his lawsuit: [link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kevin-Trudeau-Dianetics.png)]