Dr Oz Jumps the Shark -- Long Island Rare

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I suppose give the other frauds that Dr Oz has promoted, I should not have been too surprised that he would fawn over the incredibly bad cold readings given by the so called Long Island Medium, but there they both were this afternoon on his show as I happened to walk by the TV.

She's a fraud Dr. Oz. She does Cold Readings. There are good prestidigitaters who can do much better.

Why should I believe your promotion of Hoba Hoda juice or whatever miracle fruit of the week you are promoting to clean "out my toxins" when are so credulous of such a poor act?

 

[RayG]

It's no coincidence that Dr. Oz has won JREF's Pigasus award two years in a row.

RayG

 

[xjx388]

What's sad is that the books that gave Dr. Oz his reputation (the "YOU" series) are actually filled with some pretty good information. I was actually quite shocked to hear some of the woo that fills his show.

 

[Bikewer]

He's also good buds with John Edwards. Deluded? Or cynically using woo to increase ratings.

 

[Brown]

Some I know is a close acquaintance of Dr. Oz, and is impressed with Dr. Oz's intelligence. I have no difficulty at all seeing the Dr. Oz has a high IQ.

But...

Dr. Oz has some serious concerns as a TV personality that he does not have as a physician. He needs topics, for one thing, a steady supply of new topics. He can't keep harping on the same thing every day or every week. Also, he needs to keep up his ratings, so he has to select topics of interest to his audience. Some topics are depressing or just not interesting, even though they are very important. Topics such as weight loss are far bigger ratings-getters, but how many times can you tell your audience that losing weight is a function of spending more calories than one takes in? Also, his stories need to have a surprise or "gee-whiz" factor, which run-of-the-mill medical stories often lack. He further needs to be "current" and talk about what is "new"; even though what is new might not yet be shown to be valid by way of rigorous study. Novelty and potential are more important than actual validity and utility.

These are some of the drivers that lead Dr. Oz to tout excrement: the exciting possibilities that might or might not ever pan out; the golly-gee-whiz "discoveries" that may or may not turn out to be dead ends; the "alternative approaches" that might or might not be recognized by practicing physicians, ever.

The one question that I think Dr. Oz OUGHT to answer, every time he talks about one of these gee-whiz therapies or alternative approaches is whether he would prescribe such a thing for one of his patients. It's one thing to speculate about medical wonders that might be (but usually aren't) legitimate; it's quite another thing to make a call for a patient at the risk of professional discipline. I have previously observed, with respect to ABC News's show about "John of God," that while Dr. Oz supposedly supported the validity of this Brazilian quack, Dr. Oz would not actually recommend the quack to his patients, for damn good reason:

Item: Those that did experience an objective effect could not scientifically show causation. The patients themselves attributed causation (of course!), but even Dr. Oz wishy-washied around the issue.

Item: Dr. Oz spoke in terms of probabilities, as did the reporter. Things like: This type of tumor is usually aggressive, or Maybe the tumor burned itself out (a phenomenon that is not unknown in medical circles). The manner of presentation, however, implied that these probabilities were virtual certainties. Were weren't told the probabilities of non-miraculous recovery, or rates of remission, success rates with conventional therapies. And a lot of Dr. Oz's remarks were chock full of speculation, the kind of thing he would never tell a patient (unless he wanted to be hauled before the medical licensing board).

Item: Dr. Oz wouldn't send his patients to Brazil. This point was made parenthetically.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Some I know is a close acquaintance of Dr. Oz, and is impressed with Dr. Oz's intelligence. I have no difficulty at all seeing the Dr. Oz has a high IQ.

I think Dr. Oz's background as a heart surgeon has led him to rely on testimonials as solid evidence that something works or is real. Heart surgery is that rare practice where testimonials are actually a strong indicator of efficacy...if you are able to give testimony about it, then you must have survived the surgery.

 

[Brown]

Something else about Dr. Oz may be this: an utter dependence upon staff who are not as educated as he is. Lots of talk show hosts have mentioned that they rely upon their staffs to find guests and do the write-ups of stories and take care of most of the editorial content. The host can be, for most purposes, little more than a figurehead. Put another way, there is no way on Earth Dr. Ox could put the show together by himself, and there may be little opportunity for him to exercise significant editorial control of the content. It is possible that he might not even have the legal right to veto a story that he thinks might be crap, especially if it means that such a veto would mean that there would not be enough material for that day's TV show. (Given the choice between dead air and broadcasting complete crap, television ALWAYS opts to air the crap.)

Thus, Dr. Oz may well throw his credentials and credibility behind assertions made by others, some of whom may not be qualified to make such assertions in the first place.

There may be a further wrinkle to all this, namely, that Dr. Oz might be assumed to be smart enough to prevent any major mistakes in content from being made. The problem, though, is that even if he is smart in some things, he is not smart in everything, and there are plenty of examples of really smart people getting hoodwinked by simple scams. The self-attestation to one's own credibility, "I'm really smart, they can't fool me!" has been shown time and again to be an empty boast.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Something else about Dr. Oz may be this: an utter dependence upon staff who are not as educated as he is. Lots of talk show hosts have mentioned that they rely upon their staffs to find guests and do the write-ups of stories and take care of most of the editorial content. The host can be, for most purposes, little more than a figurehead. Put another way, there is no way on Earth Dr. Ox could put the show together by himself, and there may be little opportunity for him to exercise significant editorial control of the content. It is possible that he might not even have the legal right to veto a story that he thinks might be crap, especially if it means that such a veto would mean that there would not be enough material for that day's TV show. (Given the choice between dead air and broadcasting complete crap, television ALWAYS opts to air the crap.)

Thus, Dr. Oz may well throw his credentials and credibility behind assertions made by others, some of whom may not be qualified to make such assertions in the first place.

There may be a further wrinkle to all this, namely, that Dr. Oz might be assumed to be smart enough to prevent any major mistakes in content from being made. The problem, though, is that even if he is smart in some things, he is not smart in everything, and there are plenty of examples of really smart people getting hoodwinked by simple scams. The self-attestation to one's own credibility, "I'm really smart, they can't fool me!" has been shown time and again to be an empty boast.

All this says is that, not only is he a credulous cretin, he can't manage.

Hire the right people. Trust them. And things will look after themselves.

Many Moons ago the late and lamented Pierre_Burton^WP had an half-hour TV interview show. One episode he had on a psychic who did all the standard stuff - seeing inside sealed envelopes, selecting cards, remote reading, and etc. I did not see that particular show but did see the next one. Pierre started out by saying he had a call from a stage magician who had told him it was all fraud and trickery and he could do the same acts without need of contact from the Great Beyond. So Pierre invited him on the show to do so and the magician repeated every single trick.

Come on Dr Oz. If you want to be thought of a supporter of unscientific crap, continue to do what you are doing; I hope you can sleep at night. However, what better legacy could you leave than to have warned your devoted sheeple about the con artists of the World.

 

[Brown]

All this says is that, not only is he a credulous cretin, he can't manage.

Well, it says that, but that's not all it says.

Television is a strange beast. As was once said, "Television destroys everything it touches. And it touches everything." So much of what you see on it is fake; even the stuff that is supposedly real is fake. Like the late Paddy Chayefsky wrote more than 35 years ago, in one of Howard Beale's "Network" diatribes:

We deal in illusions, man! NONE of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds ... we're all you know! You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here, you're beginning to think that the tube is reality, and that your own lives are unreal!!

And television is ALWAYS hungry; hungry for ratings, hungry for new material, hungry for the thing that will tease and entertain the viewers (viewers prefer NOT to be educated). Careful reporting and verification and fact-checking ... those all get in the way, and sometimes they ruin the story completely.

So in a very real sense, Dr. Oz's show isn't real. It is not really Dr. Oz's show. He may be the front man, he may be the star; but there is no way he could possibly do all the research or all the writing, or schedule guests or demos. There's no way he could check the content or verify the reports.

There is no way that all of those words could be his.

And, knowing TV to be what it is and the pressures it brings to bear, there's no way at least some of what Dr. Oz utters couldn't be sheer nonsense.

He may throw his credibility and credentials behind it, but in the end, that doesn't count for squat. It's TV.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Why all the apologetics for dr oz? The guy is a tool, simple as that

 

[Jeff Corey]

The trouble left the tellie on and up comes the "Dr." (Guidance EdD) with an 700+ lb. (50+ stone) woman whose goal was 1500 lbs.

 

[Brown]

Why all the apologetics for dr oz? The guy is a tool, simple as that

He may not always have been that way. Television corrupts a lot of people, even people who have some brains and plenty of good intentions.

 

[Cuddles]

He may not always have been that way. Television corrupts a lot of people, even people who have some brains and plenty of good intentions.

But does that really matter? As things stand he's actively promoting things that are at best false, and at worst actively harmful. To quote the great philosopher Rachel Dawes - "It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you." Good intentions are famous for making great paving stones on a certain road. Dr Oz may have intended all kinds of things, but in practice he's just another credulous jerk abusing his influence to promote lies and nonsense.

As for blaming television, no. TV doesn't make people do anything they're not willing to do. There are still plenty of programs around that don't rely liars and frauds to get people to watch them. That some people are willing to compromise their ethics in an attempt to make their programs more popular is not a problem with TV, it's a problem with those people.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

He may throw his credibility and credentials behind it, but in the end, that doesn't count for squat. It's TV.

It certainly does count. It is the authority implied by those credentials and that credibility which deceives trusting but gullible viewers into believing the over-ripe tripe he hustles. And I don't believe for a minute that he is not completely aware of the junk quotient of what he is hustling. Those credentials are more than a mere "cardiac surgeon".

Nor is "TV" to blame. In spite of McLuhan's rather incoherent claims, the medium is not the message. The message is the message.

Oz has prostituted his education and experience for celebrity and wealth. He emcees an hour long infomercial five days a week. The only difference between his show and QVC or any of the other shopping channels is that he pretends to be trying to help people whom he pretends he cares about.

The shopping channels are pedestrian marketing. Oz is actively participating in potentially harmful disinformation. For the bucks.

He's despicable.

 

[pgwenthold]

It certainly does count. It is the authority implied by those credentials and that credibility which deceives trusting but gullible viewers into believing the over-ripe tripe he hustles. .

Clearly.

If the authority implied doesn't count, then why wear the scrubs?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Clearly.

If the authority implied doesn't count, then why wear the scrubs?

He's forced to do that by the nasty TV people that control his life.

Anyone for FreeDrOz.something? We can collect money to hire someone from one of the "reality" shows (I suggest Dog: The Bounty Hunter) to spring him.

 

[Brown]

He's forced to do that by the nasty TV people that control his life.

Anyone for FreeDrOz.something? We can collect money to hire someone from one of the "reality" shows (I suggest Dog: The Bounty Hunter) to spring him.

Just in case anybody is missing the tongue-in-cheek nature of the discussion, let's remember that we all agree that Dr. Oz is in the wrong when he endorses (or reports on, without critical analysis) woo stuff. He is in the wrong because such stuff is not scientifically valid, and his audience--which deems him a medical authority by virtue of his position and credentials--will be misled about matters of health. And not to put too fine a point on it, matters of health can be matters of life and death.

My point is that he might be in the wrong not because he's inherently lacking in integrity, but because he has been influenced to compromise his integrity.

Try to imagine yourself in a similar position. Someone offers you millions of dollars (in salary, benefits, perqs, endorsements, advertising, good will, etc.), in exchange for which you are to be placed in a position where you will as a matter of practicality have to cut corners or water down your ethics or prostitute your message, at least just a little. Sure, WE would all say that WE would have the integrity to turn down such a deal. Cut corners? Shave our ethics? Prostitute ourselves? NEVER! It doesn't matter how much money would come flowing into our pockets, we'd take the ethical high road, wouldn't we? Even if it meant we'd be foregoing enormous profits, nobody could convince US to compromise our integrity!! Right?

It's truly amazing to see how people can compromise their integrity when huge sums of moeny are at stake, while convincing themselves that they are not doing so, and that they never will.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It certainly does count. It is the authority implied by those credentials and that credibility which deceives trusting but gullible viewers into believing the over-ripe tripe he hustles.

Indeed. The show is not called "Mr. Oz" or even "Oz" (comparable to "Oprah").

 

[Lucian]

Aside from his promotion of potentially dangerous woo on television, Oz practices trancendental meditation, is an admirer of Emanuel Swedenborg, Director of the Complementary Medicine Program at New York Presbyterian Hospital and

is a spokesman and advisor for the website RealAge.com, which The New York Times has criticized for its pharmaceutical marketing practices. The site solicits medical information from visitors to determine a visitor’s biological age and then uses the visitor's medical profile for pharmaceutical marketing purposes. As The Times reporter explained the significance of this fact: "While few people would fill out a detailed questionnaire about their health and hand it over to a drug company looking for suggestions for new medications, that is essentially what RealAge is doing.

Link

His wife/collaborator is a reiki master. I don't think TV is entirely to blame for his faults as a peddler of medical woo.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Just in case anybody is missing the tongue-in-cheek nature of the discussion, let's remember that we all agree that Dr. Oz is in the wrong when he endorses (or reports on, without critical analysis) woo stuff. He is in the wrong because such stuff is not scientifically valid, and his audience--which deems him a medical authority by virtue of his position and credentials--will be misled about matters of health. And not to put too fine a point on it, matters of health can be matters of life and death.

My point is that he might be in the wrong not because he's inherently lacking in integrity, but because he has been influenced to compromise his integrity.

Try to imagine yourself in a similar position. Someone offers you millions of dollars (in salary, benefits, perqs, endorsements, advertising, good will, etc.), in exchange for which you are to be placed in a position where you will as a matter of practicality have to cut corners or water down your ethics or prostitute your message, at least just a little. Sure, WE would all say that WE would have the integrity to turn down such a deal. Cut corners? Shave our ethics? Prostitute ourselves? NEVER! It doesn't matter how much money would come flowing into our pockets, we'd take the ethical high road, wouldn't we? Even if it meant we'd be foregoing enormous profits, nobody could convince US to compromise our integrity!! Right?

It's truly amazing to see how people can compromise their integrity when huge sums of moeny are at stake, while convincing themselves that they are not doing so, and that they never will.

Well. You may very well be correct about me.

But, then, I'm not a member of The American Medical Association, and thus do not have to follow their Code of Ethics:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/phy...edical-ethics/principles-medical-ethics.page?

Or then again, "What profiteth it a man if he gain the whole world and loseth his Soul?" -- Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25, Matthew 16:25 and etc.