Dr. Oz Gets Scolded by Senators

Nutrition
21

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
And heres another just because you made me rage enough to watch more of this guys shit. This clip basically presents everything I believe is wrong with the guy:

So here we have a guy who is full of shit, claims that all of us can be trained to “see our health issues” before medical tests can detect them and then says all we need to do is heal ourselves spiritually. He goes COMPLETELY unchallenged by Oz the entire show and is then completely legitimized by being allowed to make these vague guesses about people (abdominal issues on a young woman … wow, amazing) and then is told what people have and allowed to make a guess which has a 66% chance of being right.

So this guy walks off the show looking like a medical Jesus, and who even knows if the producers of the show were in on any of the segments? I’m privy to some BTS stuff that happens in TV shows due to the nature of my business relationships and I absolutely guarantee that it is not above producers to cook the show 100% to deliver a compelling product… Literally feeding lines to people to repeat verbatim on camera.

This segment is essentially a cookie cutter delivery of every single person he has on the show. Let them tell their story in the only the most positive manner, provide NO valid criticism, and then let them demonstrate their powers on an edited cut of the show that is most certainly going to come out positive because thats what keeps people watching.

I realize most of the show is likely done by producers, but at some point the guy who has his name on the show has to accept responsibility and stand up for reality.

Other than that I have no feelings about the guy ;-)[/quote]

The guy only looks like a medical Jesus if one is devoid of all analytic capacity. Dr. Oz brought the guy on as a guest and in no way shape or form do I see him actually endorse the guy TBH. If one believes that Dr. Oz is endorsing the guy, that is ones own perception which again is a perception devoid of any and all analytic skills.

If one is operating under the assumption of “if it’s on TV it must be 110% true!” then one has far greater concerns than if or if not a TV personality is helping/educating people.

Let’s put it this way, the senate grilling Dr. Oz and implying that Dr. Oz is perpetuating lies has more to do with our government having a completely lacking health education system rather than if or if not Dr. Oz is perpetuating lies. It certainly says something of weight when you are operating under the assumption that you have a nation of people whom honest to goodness believes that what they see on TV must be 110% facts. It demonstrates the underlying problem of a complete lack of education in the first place (if one is not educated to an appreciable extent, yeah, one probably would be incredibly gullible to what one sees on TV including infomercials, why do you think infomercials work so well?).

22

Everything hinges on the fact that he is a medical doctor.

Dr Oz doesn’t outright say “This guy is the real deal” but again, he has the responsibility of not bringing quacks on his show because he operates under the guise of giving real medical advice and his audience expects that the things he is presenting are true… Hence the reason they go out and buy Green Coffee extract by the barrel.

So when he has these people on his show and is completely uncritical of them, or is in fact glowing over them (see: Mercola), he automatically gives them an assumed legitimacy, and then in some cases he lets them demonstrate their “powers” in the most vague of ways, and surprise surprise they are successful.

As a doctor he has a responsibility to his patients, in this case his “patients” are his viewing audience, to filter out the BS and present them with information he knows to the best of his ability is true, he doesn’t get to hide behind the “I need to get ratings for my TV show” gambit for this reason.

I provided enough examples up above that you can form your own opinion of his shtick, I have given you mine. You can blame only the audience if you want for being gullable, and surely they are 100% responsible for whatever they do to their bodies, but that doesnt change what Dr Oz is doing.

23

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Everything hinges on the fact that he is a medical doctor.

Dr Oz doesn’t outright say “This guy is the real deal” but again, he has the responsibility of not bringing quacks on his show because he operates under the guise of giving real medical advice and his audience expects that the things he is presenting are true… Hence the reason they go out and buy Green Coffee extract by the barrel.

So when he has these people on his show and is completely uncritical of them, or is in fact glowing over them (see: Mercola), he automatically gives them an assumed legitimacy, and then in some cases he lets them demonstrate their “powers” in the most vague of ways, and surprise surprise they are successful.

As a doctor he has a responsibility to his patients, in this case his “patients” are his viewing audience, to filter out the BS and present them with information he knows to the best of his ability is true, he doesn’t get to hide behind the “I need to get ratings for my TV show” gambit for this reason.

I provided enough examples up above that you can form your own opinion of his shtick, I have given you mine. You can blame only the audience if you want for being gullable, and surely they are 100% responsible for whatever they do to their bodies, but that doesnt change what Dr Oz is doing.[/quote]

His show is to provide daytime entertainment first and foremost. It is implied.

On top of this, haven’t you ever heard of the concept of getting a second, third, fourth, etc. opinion on a medical exam? Why do you think this is? Because a doctor at the end of the day is going to give you his/her opinion and an opinion is pretty much what it is. The difference between their opinion and a person whom have not have the training is that they have better foundational knowledge to form an opinion around.

As for your quack doctor point, that quack doctor’s opinion is not entirely without merit. After all, placebo sometimes works all too well does it not? So that topic of discussion in that particular episode isn’t entirely just nonsense. It’s only complete nonsense to you because it appears that you are operating under very black and white terms. Science itself isn’t even absolute, it’s all based off of theories and trying to demonstrate the theories. I mean, for goodness sakes, psychology is indeed a science but lets face it, it’s a study of mental functions and behaviors which is absolutely NOT black and white and VERY much in the grey.

I don’t see how the onus is on Dr. Oz for people’s lack of education and their complete absence of any analytic skills.

24

Oz has medical credentials and is actually an MD. That automatically makes him a “fake”.

Good to have you back on here, man :slight_smile: Love the way you schooled our new internet nutrition expert mertdawg.

[quote]anonym wrote:
hips: as an ardent advocate and practitioner of BioSignature Modulation, what would you say the big difference between Dr. Oz and Charles “Anabolic Mango” Loliquin is?

Just wondering.[/quote]

25

[quote]kissdadookie wrote:
His show is to provide daytime entertainment first and foremost. It is implied.[/quote]

I disagree. As I have stated multiple times over now, BECAUSE HE IS A DOCTOR, his show first and foremost must be committed to providing sound medical advice, with a close but secondary focus on doing so in an entertaining way. He is not Oprah at Katie Couric.

[quote]On top of this, haven’t you ever heard of the concept of getting a second, third, fourth, etc. opinion on a medical exam? Why do you think this is? Because a doctor at the end of the day is going to give you his/her opinion and an opinion is pretty much what it is. The difference between their opinion and a person whom have not have the training is that they have better foundational knowledge to form an opinion around.

As for your quack doctor point, that quack doctor’s opinion is not entirely without merit. After all, placebo sometimes works all too well does it not? So that topic of discussion in that particular episode isn’t entirely just nonsense. It’s only complete nonsense to you because it appears that you are operating under very black and white terms. Science itself isn’t even absolute, it’s all based off of theories and trying to demonstrate the theories. I mean, for goodness sakes, psychology is indeed a science but lets face it, it’s a study of mental functions and behaviors which is absolutely NOT black and white and VERY much in the grey.[/quote]

The quack doctors point is entirely without merit, as Magic should not be considered a medical opinion. If someone tells you to cut out your lung cancer with a bread knife in your own kitchen and everything will be fine, that holds equal weight in your mind with the consensus of scientific literature on treatment options? Not all opinions are worthwhile.

I am very open to shades of grey, but if it looks and smells like shit I dont taste it to make sure it isn’t chocolate.

Some things in life and medicine or not subject to shades of grey… Telling people psychic mediums can CURE THEIR ANXIETY (or choose any of the other items I listed) is one of these things. If you disagree with this then clearly we do not see eye to eye and will just part ways on the matter here.

I am beginning to repeat myself here so this will be the last time I say this, The onus is on Doctor Oz to provide accurate health information because he is a doctor and the people watching his show are doing so to both be entertained (apparently I have to put this in here so people dont accuse me of missing this glaringly obvious fact) AND TO BE EDUCATED BY A DOCTOR.

Obviously the onus eventually falls upon the person receiving the information to make a decision about their own health, but in the absence of education many people defer these kinds of decisions to professionals who have sworn an oath to protect their patients and only provide them with sound information. I believe I have provided a very representative sampling of the kind of stuff he promotes. The clips I have linked to make up a single digit fraction of the terrible and dangerous stuff that is on his show.

Doctor Oz is especially dangerous because he also provides plenty of GOOD health advice, which lends further legitimacy to the complete crap that he sells. He mixes the two interchangeably, without caution, and without so much as a warning label that says these things might not be true.

26

Of course my detailed message doesn’t post…

Anon: Looked me up eh? :wink: Im not really disagreeing with you and my overall, blanket statement is that this is an alarming trend nowadays especially in America where a team makes a puppet and then an empire. We’ve seen this in music, health, fitness, writing, money making, real estate, etc etc. My amazement is how it just keeps happening, people keep getting swindled, the cycle just rolls on. I understand why, Im just still in shock by it, that’s all Im saying. Not “how could good Dr. Oz do this to us!!!” Money!!! Ive never heard of that ever taking over a persons morals…come on…

I also really don’t think comparing Oz to Charles is exactly apples to apples by any means. And LaValle definitely has a lot on the ball now for the “group.”

Jer: Yep, totally schooled… So you seem to think that certified makes it all ok? You’ve never met an incompetent lawyer? Mechanic? Contractor? Business owner? Coach? Paper is paper. Proof is something different. If you think that degrees and credentials gets you far in the medical world, jog over to the steroids and TRT thread, just on this site, and read about how many people encounter Dr.s, certified, graduated, recognized, etc etc etc who completely screwed them. Just straight up misinformed.

27

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

[quote]kissdadookie wrote:
His show is to provide daytime entertainment first and foremost. It is implied.[/quote]

I disagree. As I have stated multiple times over now, BECAUSE HE IS A DOCTOR, his show first and foremost must be committed to providing sound medical advice, with a close but secondary focus on doing so in an entertaining way. He is not Oprah at Katie Couric.

[quote]On top of this, haven’t you ever heard of the concept of getting a second, third, fourth, etc. opinion on a medical exam? Why do you think this is? Because a doctor at the end of the day is going to give you his/her opinion and an opinion is pretty much what it is. The difference between their opinion and a person whom have not have the training is that they have better foundational knowledge to form an opinion around.

As for your quack doctor point, that quack doctor’s opinion is not entirely without merit. After all, placebo sometimes works all too well does it not? So that topic of discussion in that particular episode isn’t entirely just nonsense. It’s only complete nonsense to you because it appears that you are operating under very black and white terms. Science itself isn’t even absolute, it’s all based off of theories and trying to demonstrate the theories. I mean, for goodness sakes, psychology is indeed a science but lets face it, it’s a study of mental functions and behaviors which is absolutely NOT black and white and VERY much in the grey.[/quote]

The quack doctors point is entirely without merit, as Magic should not be considered a medical opinion. If someone tells you to cut out your lung cancer with a bread knife in your own kitchen and everything will be fine, that holds equal weight in your mind with the consensus of scientific literature on treatment options? Not all opinions are worthwhile.

I am very open to shades of grey, but if it looks and smells like shit I dont taste it to make sure it isn’t chocolate.

Some things in life and medicine or not subject to shades of grey… Telling people psychic mediums can CURE THEIR ANXIETY (or choose any of the other items I listed) is one of these things. If you disagree with this then clearly we do not see eye to eye and will just part ways on the matter here.

I am beginning to repeat myself here so this will be the last time I say this, The onus is on Doctor Oz to provide accurate health information because he is a doctor and the people watching his show are doing so to both be entertained (apparently I have to put this in here so people dont accuse me of missing this glaringly obvious fact) AND TO BE EDUCATED BY A DOCTOR.

Obviously the onus eventually falls upon the person receiving the information to make a decision about their own health, but in the absence of education many people defer these kinds of decisions to professionals who have sworn an oath to protect their patients and only provide them with sound information. I believe I have provided a very representative sampling of the kind of stuff he promotes. The clips I have linked to make up a single digit fraction of the terrible and dangerous stuff that is on his show.

Doctor Oz is especially dangerous because he also provides plenty of GOOD health advice, which lends further legitimacy to the complete crap that he sells. He mixes the two interchangeably, without caution, and without so much as a warning label that says these things might not be true.[/quote]

To summarize: You’re placing way too much faith in labels. Him being a doctor is more or less a label. End of the day, they provide their medical opinion, but it’s still an opinion. If a doctor tells you that you need a certain medication but you feel like you don’t, do you not go out to seek a second or third or fourth opinion? Yes, you. Where does that responsibility lie? Lies with the patient. This whole senate hearing is simply deflecting the blame but does not deal with the actual issue. Why are people eating loads of crap and getting fat? Why do kids these days incapable of knowing the difference of good foods and bad food? Shoddy education, that is the root of the issue here. For goodness sakes, we have that food pyramid do we not? Us whom are more knowledgeable on the subject of nutrition knows better do we not? When a doctor tells us that creatine will kill our liver (and many still claim this to patients), we know better do we not?

28

Perhaps I’m misreading something here, but on the subject of personal responsibility, if I spout complete and utter BS and someone gets hurt because of it, am I allowed to wash my hands of it simply because they should have done their own research on the subject? We could extend this to other types of behaviour, while I may be an idiot for getting suckered into a scam, does that mean the scammer should not be brought to account?

While I agree with you on personal responsibility, I believe it’s a two way street and that the doctor has some responsibility to his audience as well. Especially since, as has been pointed out, the target audience is essentially a bunch of idiots.

29

[quote]238 wrote:
Perhaps I’m misreading something here, but on the subject of personal responsibility, if I spout complete and utter BS and someone gets hurt because of it, am I allowed to wash my hands of it simply because they should have done their own research on the subject? We could extend this to other types of behaviour, while I may be an idiot for getting suckered into a scam, does that mean the scammer should not be brought to account?

While I agree with you on personal responsibility, I believe it’s a two way street and that the doctor has some responsibility to his audience as well. Especially since, as has been pointed out, the target audience is essentially a bunch of idiots.[/quote]

Might as well ban religion then eh? Plenty of examples where religion has caused massive mortality rates.

If your audience are a bunch of numb skulls, the ultimate question one should be posing here is what has led to this massive number of numb skulls? That is the root of the issue. The TV programs of course does not help revert this issue of un-educated numb skulls but how is this magically the responsibility of mass consumerism media to properly educate people? So we place the responsibility on mass consumerism media as opposed to proper health reforms and health education? You do realize that ketchup is considered a serving of vegetables correct? Same goes for french fries. So if you have children in public schools, even though the regulations says there should be X servings of vegetables served to each child, it’s perfectly ok to count the ketchup and french fries as part of those servings. Alas, last time I’ve checked, a potato in general is a starch and does not actually belong in the fruits and vegetables category.

30

It comes down to the phraseology of it.
As a massage therapist while working on someone, if their spine shifts or moves and they ask me if I have “adjusted them”
I say no, That was your body self correcting. Chiropractors “own” the term “adjustment”.

Same here, whether you like him or not, just by his use of the word “miracle” they can and will tear him apart for it.

Pretty sad really, that people have less brain cells than the number of cyclinders in their car !

31

At the end of the day, whether you think he is the devil or not, does anyone think that this is a good use of taxpayer money?

Maybe just me, but any time I see one of these senate things or whatever, they seem more designed to give the people sitting at the table some kind of glory then deal with a problem. Like they were all failed drama students who just never got the big part or the kid who was never good at anything and is desperate to get attention and “respect” from the people around them.

Honestly, if what he has done is criminal, aren’t there police who could just charge him instead of this piece of theatre?

32

[quote]kissdadookie wrote:

[quote]238 wrote:
Perhaps I’m misreading something here, but on the subject of personal responsibility, if I spout complete and utter BS and someone gets hurt because of it, am I allowed to wash my hands of it simply because they should have done their own research on the subject? We could extend this to other types of behaviour, while I may be an idiot for getting suckered into a scam, does that mean the scammer should not be brought to account?

While I agree with you on personal responsibility, I believe it’s a two way street and that the doctor has some responsibility to his audience as well. Especially since, as has been pointed out, the target audience is essentially a bunch of idiots.[/quote]

Might as well ban religion then eh? Plenty of examples where religion has caused massive mortality rates.

If your audience are a bunch of numb skulls, the ultimate question one should be posing here is what has led to this massive number of numb skulls? That is the root of the issue. The TV programs of course does not help revert this issue of un-educated numb skulls but how is this magically the responsibility of mass consumerism media to properly educate people? So we place the responsibility on mass consumerism media as opposed to proper health reforms and health education? You do realize that ketchup is considered a serving of vegetables correct? Same goes for french fries. So if you have children in public schools, even though the regulations says there should be X servings of vegetables served to each child, it’s perfectly ok to count the ketchup and french fries as part of those servings. Alas, last time I’ve checked, a potato in general is a starch and does not actually belong in the fruits and vegetables category. [/quote]

As I stated before, responsibility a two way street. It’s the responsibility of the individuals and the public health/education systems as you point out, but it’s also on the part of the media. Dr Oz (or his backers) has put himself in a position of authority by virtue of his title and the subject matter of his show as Lonnie has stated. Hence he also has responsiblity for this situation.

With that, why are you pushing so hard for better education (which I agree with) but arguing against/dodging the concept of Oz having responsibility for his (or his show’s) own actions? Especially since it’s obvious to him that people take what he puts on his show seriously. Surely it’s better to do both instead of just one, which leads back to my initial statement that responsibility is a two way street. My original question still stands, if someone is hurt by my actions, do I not have some responsibility for the whole sorry situation?

And I have no idea why you’re talking about banning religion. I could just as easily say that freedom and democracy have led to lots of deaths so we should ban that as well, and it would be just as relevant. The question is ultimately about responsibility and being accountable for one’s actions, that goes for both the audience and Oz. Maybe that results in banning something, but in this case it would be much more beneficial for everyone if Oz just stuck to sound medical advice.

33

[quote]238 wrote:

[quote]kissdadookie wrote:
Might as well ban religion then eh? Plenty of examples where religion has caused massive mortality rates.

If your audience are a bunch of numb skulls, the ultimate question one should be posing here is what has led to this massive number of numb skulls? That is the root of the issue. The TV programs of course does not help revert this issue of un-educated numb skulls but how is this magically the responsibility of mass consumerism media to properly educate people? So we place the responsibility on mass consumerism media as opposed to proper health reforms and health education? You do realize that ketchup is considered a serving of vegetables correct? Same goes for french fries. So if you have children in public schools, even though the regulations says there should be X servings of vegetables served to each child, it’s perfectly ok to count the ketchup and french fries as part of those servings. Alas, last time I’ve checked, a potato in general is a starch and does not actually belong in the fruits and vegetables category. [/quote]

As I stated before, responsibility a two way street. It’s the responsibility of the individuals and the public health/education systems as you point out, but it’s also on the part of the media. Dr Oz (or his backers) has put himself in a position of authority by virtue of his title and the subject matter of his show as Lonnie has stated. Hence he also has responsiblity for this situation.

With that, why are you pushing so hard for better education (which I agree with) but arguing against/dodging the concept of Oz having responsibility for his (or his show’s) own actions? Especially since it’s obvious to him that people take what he puts on his show seriously. Surely it’s better to do both instead of just one, which leads back to my initial statement that responsibility is a two way street. My original question still stands, if someone is hurt by my actions, do I not have some responsibility for the whole sorry situation?

And I have no idea why you’re talking about banning religion. I could just as easily say that freedom and democracy have led to lots of deaths so we should ban that as well, and it would be just as relevant. The question is ultimately about responsibility and being accountable for one’s actions, that goes for both the audience and Oz. Maybe that results in banning something, but in this case it would be much more beneficial for everyone if Oz just stuck to sound medical advice.[/quote]

  1. I bring up education because that is the root of the problem as opposed to this suggestion folks are making that mass consumerism media is the problem. Mass consumerism media having such an impact on gullible people is only allowed to happen because these gullible people are gullible due to a lack of education/understanding/knowledge of a topic. It’s NOT a two way street. There’s ONE street and that ONE street leads to the core cause of a problem. To solve a problem you need to treat the cause, not the peripheral odds and ends which sprouts up around the problem. How is this so hard for one to understand?

  2. I brought up religion as an example because if you’re going to put this much blame/fault/responsibility on mass consumerism media, why stop there? Why create this arbitrary limitation and pick and choose what should be blamed and what shouldn’t? All you’re doing is being subjective at this point rather than objective. (I’m neither for or against religion as an FYI)

  3. How is it obvious to Dr. Oz that people have a complete lack of analytic skills? He’s bringing up topics more or less to spur conversation around these topics. It’s the Dr. Oz Show, it’s not the Dr. Oz Here to Give You Medical Advice Show. Just like it’s not obvious to you how this whole senate hearing is nonsensical to begin with, it’s not necessarily obvious to Dr. Oz that people are this incapable of using their brains.

  4. Like the above poster mentions, it’s a waste of time and funds that this hearing took place in the first place. This is just that committee shifting the blame and being completely blind to the root cause of why people are so obese these days. Let’s be perfectly honest shall we? Long before Dr. Oz came along, this trend towards unhealthy lifestyles and increase in obesity has been occurring and increasing year over year. There’s obviously an underlying cause to this as it has been perpetual long before Dr. Oz came along, if one thinks about this logical and objectively, it’s very evident that the Dr. Oz show is not the problem here.

  5. There’s obviously a problem that has been going on and steadily growing year over year, how is shifting the blame on to Dr. Oz going to help? I mean, in public school cafeterias, ketchup, let me repeat again, KETCHUP is considered as part of the vegetable servings along with french fries. KETCHUP IS CONSIDERED A VEGETABLE. Let me pose this question to you, how is any of this a multiple path street and how is Dr. Oz partially to blame when you have a society/government/regulators whom/which deems KETCHUP and FRENCH FRIES as vegetables? You’re having a senate hearing on the harms of quack doctors and dietary supplements and Dr. Oz when in the schools where we have the future of our nation growing and supposedly getting an “education” has it in the rule book that KETCHUP and FRENCH FRIES are qualified as servings of vegetables.

34

I would just like to emphasize, just so everyone is clear here:

We have:

  • KETCHUP and FRENCH FRIES counting as vegetable servings in public school cafeterias.
  • Dr. Oz and his daytime talk show mostly aimed at housewives and mainly is a form of TV entertainment.

So we have the above two truths yet we are here debating on if Dr. Oz has or has not the responsibility to educate people whom lack the education due to failures at the national system level? Are you going to honestly sit there and argue that Dr. Oz has all these massive responsibilities to educate people whom should have received fundamental baseline education at the national system level in the first place when your children (if you have any) are basically being taught in school that KETCHUP and FRENCH FRIES are interchangeable with blueberries, raspberries, broccoli, spinach, asparagus, etc.?

Please think about that for a moment there.

I’m pretty certain that I also do not need to mention how ridiculous it is that home ec has basically been removed from most curriculums in this nation. Last time I’ve checked, there’s three main basic things humans needs to survive: oxygen, food, water. You don’t need to learn how to breath and water is pretty self explanatory, but somehow it’s a good idea to just not teach society about the basics of food?

35

Kissadookie you and I agree about much more than we disagree about.

I tried planting a bottle of ketchup one time, not much grew.

I couldnt agree more about the education issue you are bringing up, but I would add that Dr Oz contributes to that lack of education further by being in an assumed position of authority and spouting nonsense on his shows. I know you dont put much faith in labels (and truthfully I do not as well, but the MD label SHOULD be held to a very high standard, and I think other MD’s would agree) but as a casual viewer I think it is reasonable to assume that when an MD says something there is a bit of weight behind it and probably the assumption that some research has been done on the matter.

I wont type anymore because this piece sums up my qualms with Oz very nicely, and links to plenty more articles that share my opinion on the man: Dr. Oz and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day | Science-Based Medicine

36

I personally have never placed all that much faith in doctors TBH. I’ll go see one if something goes seriously awry or if I am curious about my bloodwork, but apart from that, IMO a doctor mostly knows about you what you mostly know about yourself (the first thing they always do is assess you by asking you about you after all).

There’s also the whole issue of over-prescribing medication and running needless tests just because it’s become the trend or that a patient demands it to be done and the medical professional does not wish to get sued later down the line (it use to be symptoms-based, now many doctors would do some very questionable things just because a demanding patient demands XYZ and the doctors don’t want to be sued on the off chance that some which is asymptomatic becomes symptomatic).

There’s of course also the fact that prostate cancer screening is done left and right even though evidence points to prostate cancer screening doing much of nothing just like how early detection of breast cancer statistically doesn’t save lives (the claims are being made that early detection saves lives because they are now treating anything they find as something that will kill the patient, basically over-diagnosis, thus if you are treating a bunch of people that were not going to die from what you found in the first place and then they don’t fall ill or die, that ends up counting as a saved life). Just so many things wrong with doctors in general and what not these days, it’s mind blowing.

So maybe that’s why I don’t really see how a person that is a doctor and has a TV show is and should be treated as a rock solid reliable source of health advice.

I essentially treat the Dr. Oz show like I treat the Joe Rogan Experience. There’s often times good information, there’s often times bad information, but all it is in reality is a platform to spur thought and discussion rather than to be treated as an encyclopedia. Like Joe Rogan mentions on numerous episodes, he knows about as much as the average Joe knows about the topics he has on his shows and the reason he has these topics and guests in the first place is to learn, but at the end of the day the listener still needs to do their own legwork to dig into subject matters more deeply.

37

Again we agree on almost everything you wrote there.

I’m actually an RN and work hand in hand with doctors and I can certainly vouch for the “fear of getting sued” aspect of medicine. Indeed, some of what the patient gets is in fact because of “demand” and not out of necessity, but this is more of a societal issue than an issue with the doctors themselves… Its either order the CT Scan or get sued and lose your job or face a long and costly legal battle, or prescribe an unnecessary medicine or get a negative patient survery and get fired because it reduces the hospitals patient satisfaction scores (for serious). Unfortunately the patients have been given more power than they deserve, but again this is a legal problem more than a medical problem in my opinion and experience.

I completely agree about your point with Joe Rogan, I definitely part ways with that way of thinking with Dr Oz though and have explained why in nearly every post in this thread, and I doubt you want to read it again about as much as I want to retype it.

38

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Again we agree on almost everything you wrote there.

I’m actually an RN and work hand in hand with doctors and I can certainly vouch for the “fear of getting sued” aspect of medicine. Indeed, some of what the patient gets is in fact because of “demand” and not out of necessity, but this is more of a societal issue than an issue with the doctors themselves… Its either order the CT Scan or get sued and lose your job or face a long and costly legal battle, or prescribe an unnecessary medicine or get a negative patient survery and get fired because it reduces the hospitals patient satisfaction scores (for serious). Unfortunately the patients have been given more power than they deserve, but again this is a legal problem more than a medical problem in my opinion and experience.

I completely agree about your point with Joe Rogan, I definitely part ways with that way of thinking with Dr Oz though and have explained why in nearly every post in this thread, and I doubt you want to read it again about as much as I want to retype it. [/quote]

Think it’s a difference in perspective. Never placed complete faith in docs :stuck_out_tongue:

39

It seems like you’re putting words into my mouth. In no way am I completely blaming mass media (remember that I agreed with you regarding education and personal responsibility being issues), all I’m saying is that both parties have some responsibility. Same as with any problem, blame is proportionate to responsibility and not this binary “all fine” vs “ban it” viewpoint that you seem to have. Your complete fixation on there being a single cause for this issue is misguided in my opinion. Surely you’ve heard of a problem with multiple causes? How is that so hard to understand?

As for it being a two-way street and why blame rests on Oz as well as the government, Lonnie’s covered that fairly thoroughly. By virtue of him being an MD and the show being advertised as such, he’s put up there as a figure of authority on health. Same way that you’d expect someone with an aerospace engineering degree to have some idea about designing planes, or a certified plumber knowing how to put together some pipes. Why should this logic suddenly fail to work when he’s on TV?

And with that I’m out of here. While I can agree with you on a lack of education being part of the problem, probably a large part, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t think Oz should be held accountable for what he says, and I just can’t agree with that.

40

[quote]238 wrote:
It seems like you’re putting words into my mouth. In no way am I completely blaming mass media (remember that I agreed with you regarding education and personal responsibility being issues), all I’m saying is that both parties have some responsibility. Same as with any problem, blame is proportionate to responsibility and not this binary “all fine” vs “ban it” viewpoint that you seem to have. Your complete fixation on there being a single cause for this issue is misguided in my opinion. Surely you’ve heard of a problem with multiple causes? How is that so hard to understand?

As for it being a two-way street and why blame rests on Oz as well as the government, Lonnie’s covered that fairly thoroughly. By virtue of him being an MD and the show being advertised as such, he’s put up there as a figure of authority on health. Same way that you’d expect someone with an aerospace engineering degree to have some idea about designing planes, or a certified plumber knowing how to put together some pipes. Why should this logic suddenly fail to work when he’s on TV?

And with that I’m out of here. While I can agree with you on a lack of education being part of the problem, probably a large part, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t think Oz should be held accountable for what he says, and I just can’t agree with that.[/quote]

Actually, you bringing up my points being too black and white is kind of ironic because in reality, I’m not making it very black and white. The problem here is that you have not seemed to look in deep enough and confusing correlation with causation. Let’s put it this way, way before Dr. Oz, obesity has steadily rose year over year. Why is that? Is Dr. Oz now also a cause of the issue or is it in reality that him and his show is actually more of a product spawned from the actual issue here? Need I also point out that we are discussing this on a forum that is funded by a big supp company? Majority of us here discussing this subject right now are also customers of Biotest. The ad copies on this site is up there with the flowery language Oz uses on his show when he talks about topics or supplements. However, we (at least I hope so) mostly would go and do research on the products we are interested in. So what makes the Dr. Oz Show any different? It’s essentially the same thing but presented in a different way.

Problems have causes. Dr. Oz Show is a product of the problem if one cares enough to look deeper into the matter. You appear to be taking it only at face value instead of digging deeper into the problem. For goodness sakes, ketchup has been considered a vegetable since 1981 and yet you’re placing so much weight on Dr. Oz a TV personality? Really? He may not be helping matters but I can’t sit here and really blame him due to the platform he’s on (TV entertainment).