1. I agree that Trudeau is one among a relative few who may help get a newby on the right path. The concern I have is that most of us people - myself included, have been programmed most of our lives to not be familiar with the concept of discernment. Example newby scenario - a young person meets up with a partner, experiences good sex for the first time in their life. The resultant state of euphoria and afterglow this leaves them in, a sort of zombified mental effect that predictably leaves people in this misguided condition for for days....months, or however long it takes them to parlay this experience into a situation they will never be able to undo, they are then convinced that they have found their soul mate, the person of their dreams, that one person that the collective world has long preached is out there for everyone. Days, weeks, month, however long, go by before the googley-eyed person succeeds in walking down the isle, speaking the nuptials that, technically, in the eyes of their God, commits/chains them and their life to their lover. Somewhere between an hour, week or year post, they finally realize the error of their undiscerning ways.....basicallly the same as the famous punch line of that old SNL skit performed by Gilda Radner & Steve Martin - Hey You. It is only then that the previously zombified newby wakes up to the reality of their errors of their ways. This is not a phenom that only a Trudeau exploits. As far as this goes, he's just one of countless me toos to exploit the phenom. The bottom line is, people have been trained to have a great propensity for lacking discernment. People have been conditioned to go gaga googley eyed the instant they bump into somebody able to enlighten them a bit. All I'm saying is that people need to consider learning how to discern, how to take whatever genuine information is dispensed by the purveyors of such, be it a Trudeau, a Ophra, a Kissinger, a Pauling, a Schulze, whomever, they need to learn how to parse information, get to the meat of it, grab & store the genuine & relevant parts, then discard the lies, the fat, and the purveyor of such as necessary, continue on with their life; repeat.
2- no argument on quackbuster. The problem here is the habit of people to always compare. So, Barrett is a worse quack than, for instance, Trudeau. It takes the world's social engineers about 30 seconds to spin this into the moral relativity of "by comparisson, Trudeau is good by virtue of being less bad than Barrett", and the undiscerning world marches on, see # 1 above. I'm not necessarily saying that Trudeau is all that bad, per se. Yeah, he says some truthful things that some people should know if they don't already, but he's bad enough to be allowed onto TV. There are roughly 6 billion people on this world who could be allowed on TV to get out whatver message they have to the masses being broadcast to 24-7-365, but somehow, the managers of TV generally limit this to a relative select few hundreds to maybe few thousands of people routienly allowed to get out to the public whatever message they have. Why? That's a loaded question of course, and it has far more to do than just a matter of those people who are able / willing to "pay" for their airtime.
3 - "Trudeau pays for his air time". This is really 'nuff said. It makes my point even further - Trudeau is permitted to buy airtime. This only reinforces the misguided notion we've been trained to have about the so-called free press: " a free press is a wonderful thing to have, especially for anyone who can afford to own one". You don't think a Schulze or any other person with a genuinely legitimate message to get out on the airwaves is willing/able to purchase airtime if they would only be permitted to buy some? If no, see # 1 above.
4 - it's by the time we get to your point # 4 that I realize that you and I are arguing with each other as much as we may be arguing against each other :) This is further confirmed by your point # 5, which corroborates a point I made in # 1 above :) :)
Yes, we could go on and on for days. The sad reality is, there are so many critical issues we people often times need to go on and on for days - health just one among countless many, that it then becomes easy & acceptable to not go on and on about any issues :( I've had a serious change of opinion about Pauling. Back in the 80's, I read one of his books and at that time it changed my life, got me onto Vitamin C. In retrospect some 20 years later, I now realize that he helped get me onto "vitamin C" and not actual/genuine Vitamin C. Therein lies the big rub. Note to the world: a person annointed twice as "nobel laureate", no matter how hard the mainstream world attempts to portray otherwise, is a well-placed stooge of the nobel-appointing world. Took me a long time to get to this on Pauling. I was already most of the way there when I found a paritcular telling passage from Schulze during his Natural Healing Crusade video. Therein he was giving a basic explanation of how the U.S.P. historically does what it does. To them, it is not important to inform people the actual sources of a given substance so long as that substance - molecularly, can be portrayed in the ways that people like the U.S.P. like to scientifially portray the many substances they are known for nattering on incessantly about. To the U.S.P. and their ilk, if a substance can be derrived from Coal Tar, or Carbolic Acid, or Fecal Matter, or Horse Hooves, or rotted Dog Vomit, or Pig Puss, or an herb/plant, and this substance still shows the same molecular structure no matter which of these sources it was derived from, as far as the U.S.P. is concerned, "it's all the same". Isn't THAT special? It took the likes of a Linus Pauling, over several decades, to convince the world of that kind of mentality.
Right now, I am still on a Richard Schulze high, so to speak....but not to worry, I am not so zombified that I intend to dub him "my soul mate that I must spend the rest of my life with" ;) After spending two weeks going through Schulze 8 video series - Herbal Remedies (and taking copious hand written notes), I am now into # 6 of 8 of his Natural Healing Crusade video series, and yes, I've found much of genuine worth.
Somebody else in this part of the thread asked for references to these videos; below they are.
A list of links to videos of Richard Schulze, with emphasis in the Natural Healing Crusade filmed in 1997.
The other series was sort of mixed up by the person who posted the video to Google, they did not use the same consistent name for all 8 tapes. This makes it much more difficult to put all 8 video links on one easy list. Here are a couple to get you started.