Dr. Oz: I'm a diet scam victim too (CNN)

[aleCcowaN]

This thread is about Dr. Oz appearing before a US Senate hearing. There are other Oz threads in this forum where the crap he promotes is discussed.

A major problem with Dr Oz is that he does not understand how science works. He will take one small scientific paper that says, "We studied the effect of GoogaGoola juice in a double-blind test with 67 subjects and found that there was a slight, self-reported improvement in their flexibility," and suggests to the gullible millions in his audience that they should use GoogaGoola juice (at $42 a pint) to get in better shape.

You cannot derive any conclusion from such a small study except, "That's interesting let's investigate further." Six years later, when have a dozen other more expansive experiments have been done, the scientific concensus is that GoogaGoola juice is worthless. In the meantime hundreds of millions have been spent on something useless. Money that could have been spent on something useful.

Thank you for taking the time to explain the crux of this topic to me. What I see is a cultural problem: an overwhelming majority of forum members here use exactly the same technique while quoting papers in threads. Why are they right here while Dr. Oz is wrong?. As I would be deeply surprised -and flee immediately- to learn that people from the USA who participate here is "clearly below average" culturally speaking, I have to conclude that education couldn't keep there the pace of material progress making possible this kind of things. And government seems to be the great absentee in this picture. And that includes stunts from congresspeople, the best way to do nothing while pretending they are doing something. Destroying Dr. Oz will only send people in a search for replacements that won't be better.

I myself used adds -taken from add-exclusive tv channels- about garcinia cambogia and other two fat reducing supplements as part of critical thinking courses. Here, we have many physicians in the media but we have no Dr. Oz, maybe a side effect of poverty as the kind of endorsements this Oz guy seems to do are a no-no with educated people, and uneducated people don't have much money to spend in such products, so there's still not a market here for an Oz-like. Maybe, it will be in the future. By then I hope education will embrace critical thinking as an essential part of K-12 education in all provinces.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Thank you for taking the time to explain the crux of this topic to me. What I see is a cultural problem: an overwhelming majority of forum members here use exactly the same technique while quoting papers in threads. Why are they right here while Dr. Oz is wrong?. As I would be deeply surprised -and flee immediately- to learn that people from the USA who participate here is "clearly below average" culturally speaking, I have to conclude that education couldn't keep there the pace of material progress making possible this kind of things. And government seems to be the great absentee in this picture. And that includes stunts from congresspeople, the best way to do nothing while pretending they are doing something. Destroying Dr. Oz will only send people in a search for replacements that won't be better.

I myself used adds -taken from add-exclusive tv channels- about garcinia cambogia and other two fat reducing supplements as part of critical thinking courses. Here, we have many physicians in the media but we have no Dr. Oz, maybe a side effect of poverty as the kind of endorsements this Oz guy seems to do are a no-no with educated people, and uneducated people don't have much money to spend in such products, so there's still not a market here for an Oz-like. Maybe, it will be in the future. By then I hope education will embrace critical thinking as an essential part of K-12 education in all provinces.

I'm sorry but I don't have the time, energy or inclination to discuss the "Dr Oz Effect" with you in any great detail or the purported cultural differences between your country and the USA. However I must point out that nothing anyone ever posts in this forum has any impact outside of our small circle of friends and, almost universally when someone does post the results of a scientific study that is somewhat dubious, they are called upon it and it does not result thousands of people rushing out to buy worthless crap sold by con-artists.

 

[aleCcowaN]

...

However I must point out that nothing anyone ever posts in this forum has any impact outside of our small circle of friends...

You don't think much of this website, do you? randi.org is ranked around the 50,000th position, what is not much but not little either. Only half a million visitors each month (in this metrics all "active members" in the fora only can amount to 70k if they all come daily without fail). And certainly, it's ranked less than 35,000th in the USA, meaning 40% of its visitors come from the USA, some 15% from UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and 45% from the rest of the world. Most of the public visits the forum section.

Yeah, I know for "most of the guys" this is just a place to join, chitchat and riot, hence the irresponsibility and complete disregard for what they post.

And this topic is still devoid of any content other than belonging to social or current issues.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You don't think much of this website, do you? randi.org is ranked around the 50,000th position, what is not much but not little either. Only half a million visitors each month (in this metrics all "active members" in the fora only can amount to 70k if they all come daily without fail). And certainly, it's ranked less than 35,000th in the USA, meaning 40% of its visitors come from the USA, some 15% from UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and 45% from the rest of the world. Most of the public visits the forum section.

Yeah, I know for "most of the guys" this is just a place to join, chitchat and riot, hence the irresponsibility and complete disregard for what they post.

And this topic is still devoid of any content other than belonging to social or current issues.

If you say so, who am I to disagree?

PS. IT'S ONLY THE INTERNET.

 

[Roboramma]

The value of this forum is at stake. It has suffered recently a blast of quirky threads including petty personal whims, born from curiosity or boredom, like "why -3 by -3 is 9 and not -9" which for me is a motive for banning, not for replies.

Good point, people who are studying math and having a hard time understanding should be banned if they ask questions here to try to understand better. We don't want that kind of riffraff around here!

 

[fuelair]

Good point, people who are studying math and having a hard time understanding should be banned if they ask questions here to try to understand better. We don't want that kind of riffraff around here!

Agreed, but then I'm a retired teacher who is perfectly happy A)learning new stuff and B) still teaching others the stuff I know.

 

[rjh01]

<snip> However I must point out that nothing anyone ever posts in this forum has any impact outside of our small circle of friends and, almost universally when someone does post the results of a scientific study that is somewhat dubious, they are called upon it and it does not result thousands of people rushing out to buy worthless crap sold by con-artists.

Here is a test for you. Google a thread title from this forum and unless you have picked a very popular topic then this forum will be on the front page. For example the results of this thread are https://www.google.com.au/search?nu...j1.2.0....0...1c.1.47.serp..2.0.0.ma7p5T2Ces0

 

[pakeha]

I think he understands perfectly well. I think he is that worst sort of scam artist who uses his knowledge and position not only to peddle what he knows is flim flam but also to do it in such a way that he can conveniently deny wrongdoing, such as he is doing now.

He's smart and slick, and he knows what keeps his show popular and therefore what keeps fame and money coming in.

That's my take as well.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Here is a test for you. Google a thread title from this forum and unless you have picked a very popular topic then this forum will be on the front page. For example the results of this thread are https://www.google.com.au/search?nu...j1.2.0....0...1c.1.47.serp..2.0.0.ma7p5T2Ces0

And? What does this prove? Dr Oz for once is in the press for all the right reasons. His claims are being examined in public and that search phrase is very specific. Try just Googling for |Dr Oz|. You get the current negative news but JREF is not on the first page. JREF makes its appearance somewhere in the 300's. Wait a week and any skepticism will be buried even further.

I would love to think what we post here has a major impact on people's thinking but I am not that deluded.

 

[Corsair 115]

John Oliver's take on it from Last Week Tonight. Yes, it's a bit biting.

 

[sphenisc]

A VERY simple formula...forget diets, forget expensive fads...If Kilocalories in are greater than Kilocalories burned off, you GET FAT.

Oh yeah? Explain liposuction then!

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The documentary, "Bigger, Faster, Stronger" also has quite an exposé of the supplement industry, though it's main focus is anabolic steroids.

 

[steve s]

John Oliver's take on it from Last Week Tonight. Yes, it's a bit biting.

Ouch! Wouldn't you love to force Dr. Oz to watch that with his eyelids pried open à la Clockwork Orange? Maybe he'd see what he has become.

Steve S

 

[Foolmewunz]

John Oliver's take on it from Last Week Tonight. Yes, it's a bit biting.

Bumping recently deceased thread because this sixteen minute video should be required viewing for forumites. It makes reference to a forum-favorite author, women throwing wine on each other, a marching band, a puppy, and Steve Buscemi tap dancing. What could possibly be more perfect for the ISF?


ETA: I'm really bumping this because I only recently found the video elsewhere and I was going to start a thread just for it, but thought I'd check first and found it referenced in Corsair115's post. But it is really worth it. It's the kinda funny that the Daily Show gets on its best nights.

 

[SezMe]

And? What does this prove? Dr Oz for once is in the press for all the right reasons. His claims are being examined in public and that search phrase is very specific. Try just Googling for |Dr Oz|. You get the current negative news but JREF is not on the first page. JREF makes its appearance somewhere in the 300's. Wait a week and any skepticism will be buried even further.(

Speaking of bumping ...

I asked Prof. Google about "Dr Oz" just now. ISF was not in the results (14 pages) AT ALL. Nada. Zip. Your skepticism is buried deeper than Dr. Oz has his head up his ***.