Re: ..do U have anything that could pass for evidence?

Reread your paragraph that starts,"Thanks for the help I will pick the words I like..." What your posts have shown, especially your recent one, is that you can pick out adjectives from a list and type them. You haven't proven anything. Your adjectives are not tied to anything in the infomercial or the book and consequently cannot be shown to be true or not true.

What you, #1211, and others who agree with you do, is to pick out descriptive adjectives that you like and apply them to Trudeau's book without offering any proof (of the truth of those adjectives or statements). Just because you are able to pick out words that you like, does that mean they reflect the reality that is present outside of your head?

You can feel one way and somebody else will feel another way. How do you prove that your list of adjectives is an accurate description to people who disagree with you or haven't heard of the book?

If I get the meaning of "sales technique" the way you used it, you're saying, "Sensationalism equals sensationalism." A lot of words saying nothing. You appear not to understand what he said (in the infomercial).

You are the one relying on the fantasies in your head in order to prove something. Don't be so quick to say you know what empirical evidence is and then not provide any examples of your empirical evidence.

There is nothing inherently wrong if Trudeau is using the work of famous people, like scientists, to back up what he says. #1211 finds something wrong with this. No one would ever get a scientific paper published if they couldn't rely on related work from those who published before them. There is nothing wrong with getting information from educated people when it is relevant to your work. #1211 finds something wrong with this.

Just because the information is old, does not mean it is wrong. It has been known for centuries that the earth revolves around the sun. Just because your grandparents knew it as a fact, does not make it wrong because it is an old fact.

By discussing the findings of well-known scientists and doctors he is helping make the public aware of the tremendous scientific base the natural cures he talks about are based on and by which they are proven. Why are these findings known only to those few in scientific circles? He explains why so few people in the public arena know it.

Unless you were taught by your parents how to cleanse internally (like a colon or liver cleanse), where else could you learn it if not by reading? He is making people aware that they can decide for themselves if they want to read the book. And decide after they try it out on themselves if it works for them. If people already know how to do the cleanses and what to expect each step of the way, so much the better for their health.

CureZone has several forums where people are documenting their personal experience with internal cleansing (or flushes). This is empirical evidence.

Your comments are based on intuition not empirical evidence. In this case they are wrong.

Where are some experiential examples that show that the CONTENT of what the infomercial or what Trudeau says in his book is wrong?

You seem to like #1211's comments. Why is applying old facts from educated people sensationalism? It seems you agree with this since you didn't provide any examples (of sensationalism) of your own.

Do you think its fair to say someone is selling books based on sensationalism when you don't give any examples how what you have observed (empirically) contradicts the content of the informercial?

"Duh" is not empirical evidence for sensationalism. Do you think your post is?






Tweet