Dr. Oz is a quack
Moderator: Global Moderator
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14301
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
I can see why he's popular these days, but yeah, he's nuts. He provided some common sense advice in 'Esquire', but there's a lot of unscientific crap in his preachings.
"Oprah and Oz
spreading superstition at the speed of night"
http://skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia5.html
"Oprah and Oz
spreading superstition at the speed of night"
http://skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia5.html
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
I wouldn't say he is a quack. That implies a practitioner is practicing snake oil and knowing it is snake oil (oncologists, etc.). No, he's a huckster.
I don't watch him because I think he's puerile, but he's doing a good service in raising heterodox awareness to Boobus Americanus. Just look at the audience on his show. Fat, sick and nearly dead. So hold your nose and bear it.
I don't watch him because I think he's puerile, but he's doing a good service in raising heterodox awareness to Boobus Americanus. Just look at the audience on his show. Fat, sick and nearly dead. So hold your nose and bear it.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Fri Dec 19, 2014 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
My mother's crazy about his show and makes me watch it every time I visit. A lot of the stuff he talks about are folk remedies. Nobody is going to spend millions studying a remedy that can't be patented, so he's presenting them on the basis of anecdotal evidence only. That's what the BMJ slammed him for. I don't have a huge problem with that but it would be useful if he admitted that up front. I do find that his basic medical facts are pretty accurate.
I think his show is supposed to be more about promoting general health in a way that those with below average IQs can understand. This is a valuable public service. It makes the constant hawking of manuka honey, coconut oil, oregano oil etc ad infinitum easier to put up with.
I think his show is supposed to be more about promoting general health in a way that those with below average IQs can understand. This is a valuable public service. It makes the constant hawking of manuka honey, coconut oil, oregano oil etc ad infinitum easier to put up with.
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
Dr. Oz had some very interesting books AGES ago. I happened to catch one show (only one I've ever seen) and he had some good info having to do with healthy foods and the dangers of remaining seated all day.
It does seem like he has succumbed to what many people with good info succumb to in the long run which is selling stuff for money. I don't know any details, but I'd be suspect, just like I would be suspect of stuff sold by mercola, or anyone selling stuff.
Snake oil contains omega 3s ;-)
It does seem like he has succumbed to what many people with good info succumb to in the long run which is selling stuff for money. I don't know any details, but I'd be suspect, just like I would be suspect of stuff sold by mercola, or anyone selling stuff.
Snake oil contains omega 3s ;-)
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
But he doesn't profit directly from anything he recommends, so in my mind its hard to peg him as a snake oil salesman. I'm more comfortable with the term huckster because he blows things out of proportion for purposes of entertainment value, i.e. a carnival barker. A huckster and a snake oil salesman are not mutually exclusive. And if I were to argue that snake oil salesman got a bad rap because they represented economic competition to burgenoning petroleum-derived patent medicine back in the day, even that slight would be overrated, but I digress.MangoMan wrote: Not to quibble with the semantics, but he is definitely a snake oil salesman [per the article] and he must know it. Not sure what you mean re the oncologists; are you saying that current mainstream cancer treatment is nonsense?
Last edited by MachineGhost on Fri Dec 19, 2014 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
The other comment worth making, is that if you look at the dietary/supplement advice which is the "consensus" for this forum including that cholesterol ain't "bad" for you, wheat is, etc. most MDs would tell you that it is all quackery.
Point not being to defend Oz (since I've no idea of all of what he is saying/not saying), but to point out how useless being called a quack by conventional medical types is.
Point not being to defend Oz (since I've no idea of all of what he is saying/not saying), but to point out how useless being called a quack by conventional medical types is.
Simonjester wrote: Dr oz is an entertainer.... paid to produce entertaining shows that can sell advertising time.. to sell crap... to a TV watching audience.....
after teaching some grade school/junior-high biology and running through some basic, simple, common sense advice, there is little left to fill hour after hour of show every week, besides fads, hype, and feelgood blather.. the show must go on...
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
Some interesting information on Dr. Oz from Cracked.com....
#6. Dr. Oz: One of the Most Brilliant Doctors of his Generation
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-dumb-cele ... you-think/
#6. Dr. Oz: One of the Most Brilliant Doctors of his Generation
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-dumb-cele ... you-think/
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
Very good point.Benko wrote: ...but to point out how useless being called a quack by conventional medical types is.
"All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone."
Pascal
Pascal
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14301
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
I feel as if a website is assuring us what a talented linguist someone is, but I can't help noticing that he just says hodor most of the time. With incorrect grammar.MangoMan wrote:No one ever said he wasn't a brilliant MD. My issue with him is the unsubstantiated garbage he spews on TV and how it misleads the generally uninformed public....madbean wrote: Some interesting information on Dr. Oz from Cracked.com....
#6. Dr. Oz: One of the Most Brilliant Doctors of his Generation
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-dumb-cele ... you-think/
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
Kudos to Columbia for not censoring Dr. Oz. They are viewing it as a case of academic freedom: as a full professor, he's entitled to have an opinion and voice it. The only thing he can be censured for is making statements that are provably false. So far, no one has done that.
It's interesting that a group of physicians are taking him to task specifically over his denouncement of GMOs. Does that mean they're saying that genetically modified crops are safe? Provably safe? That's no more accurate than what Oz says.
As far as hawking products...yes, I think he sometimes goes too far with that and should rein it in - and PARTICULARLY if he is getting any financial paybacks from these companies that he is not revealing. However I think he mostly promotes the generic items on his show rather than brands, e.g. he talks about coconut oil but not any specific brand.
A side note: many, many physicians give talks on behalf of brand name drugs, for the enrichment of pharmaceuticals and for pay from said pharmaceuticals. And much of what they say is not necessarily critically reviewed; it all comes from studies but there is a lot of selective reporting. I've never given one of these talks but know many people who have, and the way it works is that you get a set of slides from the company that you have to use. IMHO, if Dr. Oz should be fired so should everyone who has ever been paid to give a drug talk. Which would be probably more than half of all academic physicians.
It's interesting that a group of physicians are taking him to task specifically over his denouncement of GMOs. Does that mean they're saying that genetically modified crops are safe? Provably safe? That's no more accurate than what Oz says.
As far as hawking products...yes, I think he sometimes goes too far with that and should rein it in - and PARTICULARLY if he is getting any financial paybacks from these companies that he is not revealing. However I think he mostly promotes the generic items on his show rather than brands, e.g. he talks about coconut oil but not any specific brand.
A side note: many, many physicians give talks on behalf of brand name drugs, for the enrichment of pharmaceuticals and for pay from said pharmaceuticals. And much of what they say is not necessarily critically reviewed; it all comes from studies but there is a lot of selective reporting. I've never given one of these talks but know many people who have, and the way it works is that you get a set of slides from the company that you have to use. IMHO, if Dr. Oz should be fired so should everyone who has ever been paid to give a drug talk. Which would be probably more than half of all academic physicians.
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
Benko wrote: The other comment worth making, is that if you look at the dietary/supplement advice which is the "consensus" for this forum including that cholesterol ain't "bad" for you, wheat is, etc. most MDs would tell you that it is all quackery.
Point not being to defend Oz (since I've no idea of all of what he is saying/not saying), but to point out how useless being called a quack by conventional medical types is.
Good Point - I could argue the consensus of mainstream medicine is mostly based on hearsay, tradition, flawed studies, paid off researchers, etc. Cochran Analysis have shown most of what mainstream medicine recommends is not based on sound data and reasoning.
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
What kind of crap does he spew? There's always a factual basis for what he recommends due to legalities. The problem is the quality of the facts aren't checked out, i.e. raspberry ketones. But that's like the pot calling the kettle black because facts underlying patent drugs are not much better.MangoMan wrote: No one ever said he wasn't a brilliant MD. My issue with him is the unsubstantiated garbage he spews on TV and how it misleads the generally uninformed public. Lots of very smart people spew crap. For example: Obama.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
- MachineGhost
- Executive Member
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am
Re: Dr. Oz is a quack
It only takes but one from the "other side" to stand up and shine light on the "other side"'s open secret to flummox and shut up all the "other side" critics up.WiseOne wrote: A side note: many, many physicians give talks on behalf of brand name drugs, for the enrichment of pharmaceuticals and for pay from said pharmaceuticals. And much of what they say is not necessarily critically reviewed; it all comes from studies but there is a lot of selective reporting. I've never given one of these talks but know many people who have, and the way it works is that you get a set of slides from the company that you have to use. IMHO, if Dr. Oz should be fired so should everyone who has ever been paid to give a drug talk. Which would be probably more than half of all academic physicians.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!