Does a Belief in Angels Have the Power to Heal? (Dr. Oz show)

[wasapi]

A belief in angels.

In my last year of high school, my friend Susan, was taken in by all things woo, but it was the "guardian angels" she started to be obsessed with. She earnestly told me that she had a protective guardian angel that only she could see, and that meant she would "always be protected from harm".

When I asked her how she knew, her answer was, "A psychic told me."

The summer following high school we went our seperate ways. Towards the end of summer, I read in the paper that Susan had been found dead. She had been raped, beaten, and then buried alive.

No point in telling you what I feel when I even hear the words, "guardian angel."

 

[Ernie M]

So where's my Million?

Oh. And thank you Ernie M for you work.

Thanks for taking one for the team, Ernie.

X 3.

ETA: Was skeptical or scientific rebuttal offered at all?

Thank you, Gord_in_Toronto, Dissolution, and Resume.

Resume: No skeptical or scientific rebuttal was offered.

Dr. Oz was was in charge; NO ONE else was there to question Rebecca Rosen's purported "psychic medium" abilities, or to demonstrate likely ways Rebecca could have come up with the responses she did, which could have involved issues including but not limited to: cold reading^WP or hot reading^WP.

REPREHENSIBLE SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP
I see the Dr. Oz Show and Rebecca Rosen as having a reprehensible symbiosis, or, reprehensible symbiotic relationship; that is, a reciprocal/mutually beneficial relation between somewhat interdependent entities in which each stands to gain from each other.

Examples of "gains" could include:

• financial gain
• social gain
• looking good

For instance, suppose Dr. Oz (and the Dr. Oz Show) gets more viewers and money by pandering to the public, and Rebecca Rosen gets a larger following/more clientele/more book sales from perceived clout from her appearance on the Dr. Oz Show.

 

[Mojo]

On the Dr. Oz show today,
Friday, 17 Jan 2014
4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
Does a Belief In Angels Have the Power to Heal?

See Betteridge's law of headlines.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Thank you, Gord_in_Toronto, Dissolution, and Resume.

Resume: No skeptical or scientific rebuttal was offered.

Dr. Oz was was in charge; NO ONE else was there to question Rebecca Rosen's purported "psychic medium" abilities, or to demonstrate likely ways Rebecca could have come up with the responses she did, which could have involved issues including but not limited to: cold reading^WP or hot reading^WP.

REPREHENSIBLE SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP
I see the Dr. Oz Show and Rebecca Rosen as having a reprehensible symbiosis, or, reprehensible symbiotic relationship; that is, a reciprocal/mutually beneficial relation between somewhat interdependent entities in which each stands to gain from each other.

Examples of "gains" could include:

• financial gain
• social gain
• looking good

For instance, suppose Dr. Oz (and the Dr. Oz Show) gets more viewers and money by pandering to the public, and Rebecca Rosen gets a larger following/more clientele/more book sales from perceived clout from her appearance on the Dr. Oz Show.

Unfortunately, their symbiosis leaks out into the rest of the community. They get mutual support and promotion from each other but the end result is that they suck in more gullible outsiders. It truly is, as you say, a "reprehensible symbiotic relationship". If they could just sit around in a padded room leeching off of each other, I'd be fine.

And another thank you for sitting through this. Kind of an "old school" JREF thread.

 

[Axxman300]

It's just a placebo effect, so it probably will actually work for some ailments, as clinical research on placebos has shown.

A good doctor will tell you there is just as much Woo in a visit to the doc's office or hospital as there is at a faith healer. A doctor with great bedside manner has a higher success rate than the cold-blooded ones (again, this has been studied).

The only problem is having an M.D. promote angels as an effective healing tool, that's where the line has been crossed in my book.

 

[mutile]

A good doctor will tell you there is just as much Woo in a visit to the doc's office or hospital as there is at a faith healer.

That doesn't sound like a good doctor to me.

 

[bruto]

That doesn't sound like a good doctor to me.

I certainly would find another doctor for immunization and bone setting!

Patient: Doctor, my chain saw slipped, and I think I need stitches

Doctor: Think good thoughts.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

It's just a placebo effect, so it probably will actually work for some ailments, as clinical research on placebos has shown.

A good doctor will tell you there is just as much Woo in a visit to the doc's office or hospital as there is at a faith healer. A doctor with great bedside manner has a higher success rate than the cold-blooded ones (again, this has been studied).

The only problem is having an M.D. promote angels as an effective healing tool, that's where the line has been crossed in my book.

No, When I go to a hospital I am very confident the people there aiding my recovery are using proven medicine and techniques. Faith healing however is an abominable scam which does more harm than good.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's just a placebo effect, so it probably will actually work for some ailments, as clinical research on placebos has shown.

A good doctor will tell you there is just as much Woo in a visit to the doc's office or hospital as there is at a faith healer. A doctor with great bedside manner has a higher success rate than the cold-blooded ones (again, this has been studied).

The only problem is having an M.D. promote angels as an effective healing tool, that's where the line has been crossed in my book.

Sorry to jump in with others, because I'm sure I know what you were driving at, but the unfortunate choice of "woo" has us lathered up.

The psychological effects of a competent and convincing bedside manner don't really fit into "woo" and more than quinine is herbal medicine.

 

[Zelenius]

There are few things I would love to see as much as Dr Oz getting fully exposed for what he really is. He truly is the Peter Popoff of medical doctors. And I bet even if Dr Oz was exposed, just like Popoff was by Randi, he would still have a cult-following.

If there is one profession where it is absolutely necessary for a person to have to tell you what you have to hear, rather than what you want to hear, it is medicine. We're talking life or death here. Dr Oz puts this in reverse, when he does his show anyway. It is obvious that Dr Oz, when he is performing cardiothoracic surgery, or when he is giving one-on-one advice to patients under his care at Columbia can be described as a "skeptic", otherwise he'd quickly lose his medical license and likely get charged with multiple counts of murder.

Yet when he goes on TV, he has a completely different persona. It's like 2 completely different people in the same body. This is why I believe he is a liar, and not delusional.

 

[Ernie M]

Brain scans were SPECT images (and their significance)

Correction: SPECT scans
In my post 33 I mistakenly stated that the brain scan images were fMRI. The correct term for the brain images should be SPECT (Single-photon emission computed tomography^WP) images.

SPECT images on Dr. Oz appeared on an ABC TV show 8 years earlier
To the best of my knowledge, the SPECT images shown on The Dr. Oz Show Does a Belief In Angels Have the Power to Heal? are the same images first shown on an ABC TV show, Heaven: Where is it? How do we get there? That show originally aired on 12/20/2005. Transcript click here. The Dr. Oz segment originally aired 1/17/2014. So the same brain scan images seen on Dr. Oz were shown on another ABC TV show– 8 years earlier.

Brain scan images in the 2005 show I believe were made by Dr. Andrew Newberg, a neuroradiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, shows a marked increase in brain activity in the frontal regions of the brain.

SPECT images + "psychic" ability = pseudoscience
I got the impression that Dr. Oz presented the SPECT scans as evidence that there was a causation and correlation between increased brain activity and "psychic" ability. If so, that would be pseudoscience.

If there was scientific evidence that SPECT brain images prove a causation-correlation with "psychic" ability, how come there's no new, scientific, peer-reviewed studies that support what was shown on various Dr. Oz shows?

Dr. Steven Novella's highly informative article
Dr. Steven Novella's article Brain Scans and Psychics pertains to the pseudoscientific use of SPECT scans with "psychic" Theresa Caputo, known as The Long Island Medium and the deceptive way the SPECT images are interpreted and portrayed.

Dr. Steven Novella's article is his response to the pseudoscientific use of SPECT brain scans by Dr. Daniel Amen shown on Dr. Oz that originally aired 5/19/2013 called, Long Island Medium: Inside a Psychic's Brain.

 

[Giordano]

On the Dr. Oz show today,
Friday, 17 Jan 2014
4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
Does a Belief In Angels Have the Power to Heal?
from the Dr. Oz Show website:
"Dr. Oz is joined by bestselling author and spiritual medium Rebecca Rosen to discuss how she uses angels to help physical, mental and spiritual healing. Plus, the three signs you're aging too fast!"

It should be interesting to see what Dr. Oz will present...

I myself have seen many angels during my medical treatments. They took off their white coats and went home at the end of their (often lengthy) work days, but they were angels none-the-less. Doctors, nurses, technicians, etc. They definitely helped me heal. They had no wings- just talent, knowledge and caring.

As to the three signs that I am aging too fast: only three? I've seen more.

 

[Butter!]

With all his real-world medical achievements, his woo-embracing and peddling truly is both discomfiting AND granted undue credibility in the eyes of regular folks who don't know any better.

He really irks me.