John of God farce

materia3 said:
Dr. Oz's only interest in anything termed alternative involves his belief that healing shouldbe accompanied by a positive outlook and love -- his healing from the heart thesis which he bases on several eastern philosophies. He does not back any other alternative or so-called complementary therapies but rather the opposite. His CV which I post herewith will tell readers who he is and whether his credentials are credible or he is merely an alternative medicine apologist (whatever that is) as you label him.
I assume you have read his book (I have and have met and heard him speak at medical conferences) which leads you to this conclusion. What I heard Oz say is that in order to recover he has found greater success in patients with a will to live, with those who have people around them who care and love them and want them to get better and make that known to them. People without support of this type, tend to not have a will to live when facing overwhelming illness (from which recovery is possible) and fare poorly to not at all. I think this is a fairly reasonable assesment which anybody in the medical field caring for patients has observed.
Click to expand...
I haven't read Oz's book and I'm not sure what his personal opinions of alternative medicine and it's relationship to traditional medicine are. However I am sure that he appeared on a program making statements supporting a quack healer.

Assuming that the healers methods aren't dangerous in themselves (although in my not-so-expert medical opinion, they certainly seem as though they could be), they could potentially result in a patient delaying qualified medical help to seek treatment in Brazil (potentially hazzardous in itself) from a flim-flam artist. This "complimentary care" may help improve a patients positive outlook, however if they aren't receiving proper medical treatment for their problem, a positive outlook is probably not going to help cure cancer.

If Dr. Oz thinks that having alternative care along with traditional treatments can help by improving a patients attitude, then that point should have been driven home far more strongly than his theories on how JOG's methods might work, even though he had no proof that they do. Instead, we see a respected medical expert providing expert medical theories supporting JOG's claims that he can heal the sick. On the negative side we have an out-of-context sound byte from a grumpy old magician. Who do you think the viewers are going to respond more favourably to?

It was irresponsible of the producers to make the show, it was irresponsible of the network to broadcast the show, and it was irresponsible of Oz to lend his expertise to the cause by providing expert theories without any evidence that the treatment even works in the first place.

However there is always the possibility that the programs producers excercised the same creative editing to Oz's comments as they did to Randi's, so I suppose he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
 
Seems no-one wants to give the old man a little hand up. :D

Well, let it be me then.
(He's about my height, I believe, but a fair bit heavier, but I'll try)

All Randi was trying to say was that, when faced with the reality of their Guru's failure to do as promised, the victims quite simply.....lie. This is how they resolve the cognitive dissonance between their absolute belief in the Guru's powers and the Guru's complete failure to make any difference. They quite simply....lie. So much do they want their Guru to be the miracle worker he claims to be.

It may not be politically correct to call the victims liars, but something has to wake up and face reality.

regards,
BillyJoe


PS: But I do like Bob Park's and Michael Shermer's way of handling things.
 
BillyJoe,

Agree.

One of the major reasons why scammers can continue to scam is because an astonishing number of their victims don't speak out against them.

We've seen it with believers in John Edward: They make up all sorts of excuses for him, despite the fact that he is a proven cheat. He was caught red-handed using previously attained information in a subsequent reading.

This made no impression whatsoever on his believers.

Oh, and, since Uri Geller isn't caught every time, he sure must be doing something paranormal at least part of the time... :rolleyes:
 
While Mr. Randi is rightly vexed at the poor selection of his comments aired in the TV show, a natural explanation for this must be taken into account:

In some cases this kind of programs are paid advertisements, ordered by the company whose activities are "examined" in the "documentary". At least in local radio stations pre-paid "documentaries" of this kind are very common.
 
Hang on a second -- that first step onto the bandwagon is a big one...

OK, now I'm aboard. Did anyone else notice where Dr. Oz's expertise, training, certification and patents applied? Has the pituitary gland moved since I took Human P&A? But he's a MEDICAL DOCTOR, he must be extremely intelligent and wise and knowing and...and...and...willing to go on television and provide ABC with nothing derogatory... hmmmm.

How many of those patients had cardiac symptoms? Neurologic, soft-tissue tumor, spinal cord injury, vague possibly psychosomatic mutlifunctional malaise... still looking for cardiac....ancient rotator cuff (but not sufficiently problematic to drive JQ to his own doctor!) injury - that's pretty close to the heart, isn't it?

ABC's only desire in producing, hyping and showing this disinfomercial was to gain income from sponsors.
 
JOG

My mother has visited John of God twice. This is as close to a firsthand account as I care to get.

I can assure you that the discussions I had with my mother upon her return bordered on "interrogation". I have a medical background but am NOT a licensed physician. After reviewing the videos she bought while there, several interviews with her, and the ABC special I came to a few conclusions.

1.) These people are put into a particular mental state before meeting John of God which explains their inability to feel pain as he cuts them or jams forceps up their nose. They go through an intense amount of meditation, prayer, and other wu wu. I don't think John could walk up to a stranger on the street and jam forceps up their nose without them feeling pain: that WOULD be a miracle!

2.) The forcep/pituitary claim must be rejected for several reasons. First, I do not believe he is not going up the nasal cavity far enough. Second, he does this for a number of ailments besides breast cancer (debunking the pituitary/breast cancer theory). Third, what medical evidence is there that "striking" the pituitary makes it work better? None that I am aware of. It leads me to an additional question; why forceps at all? Isn't there a more humane instrument (read BLUNT) that would do this more effectively?

3.) My mother and the group of four she went with experienced everything from no effect to short-term healing effects. Which can easily be explained by their restricted diet while in a relaxing environment. No magic involved...

They basically just had an odd vacation that included a heavy dose of christian-based spirituality mixed with hypnotic suggestion and mysticism. Neither trip had any long-term healing of my mother. I am just thankful that her problems are not terminal. The most major illness she has is due to a few decades of exposure to a virulent ideology called catholicism.
 
Re: JOG

rwgain02 said:
The most major illness she has is due to a few decades of exposure to a virulent ideology called catholicism.
Click to expand...
That was not necessary.


:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom