Dr Oz under attack

#1
I'm surprised it's taken this long. Anyone in a public position who is offering anything that may pose a threat to the medical establishment and/or big pharmaceuticals is going to be targeted.

I'm not going to debate whether all the things Oz has promoted on his show work or not. That isn't the point. The point is that there is a consistent and obvious push to belittle or demonize anything outside the mainstream

A current headline: "Real-world doctors fact-check Dr. Oz, and the results aren't pretty" Whoa! Let's look at what that really conveys. It implies that Dr Oz is not a "real-world" doctor. Yet even Wikipedia has the facts:
Oz has been a professor at the Department of Surgery at Columbia University since 2001.[13] He directs the Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital.[14] His research interests include heart replacement surgery, minimally invasive cardiac surgery, and health care policy.

In 2009, Oz joined Jeffrey T. Arnold as co-founder of Sharecare, Inc.,[15] providing an interactive QA platform that allows industry experts to answer health-related questions.[16]
IOW Oz is more "real-world" doctor than many of those "fact checking" him. But that fact will not get in the way of the push.

We could also ask that since - by my calculations - Oz is likely featuring over 200 things a year ask how many of them did the goons "fact-check." I've never watched a Dr Oz show but this sort of attack is far from limited to him.
 
#2
I agree with what you say, it's similar to the reaction by one particular organization (name I forgot) when the AWARE study finally came out, titled, "AWARE Study authors aren't total frauds," or something to that effect. Having the title to an article imply that a doctor with actual medical credentials is incompetent, as shown by... other doctors with actual medical credentials, is a hypocritical appeal to authority, though we must remember the article author may have had the editor choose the title.
 
#3
Just because he's a qualified doctor/scientist doesn't mean he isn't capable of spouting utter shit. Look at James Watson's bollocks on race and intelligence. In any case, Dr Oz is a Fraud.
 
#4
Just because he's a qualified doctor/scientist doesn't mean he isn't capable of spouting utter shit. Look at James Watson's bollocks on race and intelligence. In any case, Dr Oz is a Fraud.
The lack of coherent understanding you display in this post is startling. The post also strongly suggests that you have a mindset not at all conducive to leaving the boxes you've become familiar with.

- Your first sentence is valid, accurate and one that I agree with. But if you understood what I posted you'd realize it doesn't address the points I made.
- Your second sentence is out-of-context and offers nothing pertinent to the topic.
- Your final sentence is utterly stupid. Of course the man is not a fraud.

A question - what about your mindset/approach do you see as radical? Do you mean radically conservative?
 
#5
The lack of coherent understanding you display in this post is startling. The post also strongly suggests that you have a mindset not at all conducive to leaving the boxes you've become familiar with.
- This is rich coming from you I must say. The whole time I have been here, I have regularly seen you so vociferously attack every part of the current paradigm, and anyone who questions your opinions. You don't seem to even consider that there is a lot about the current view that is probably correct

- Your second sentence is out-of-context and offers nothing pertinent to the topic.
how so? The point seems perfectly salient. Credentials and intelligence do not prevent one from promoting nonsense.

- Your final sentence is utterly stupid. Of course the man is not a fraud.
- in his own words. The weight loss stuff he sells is crap

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/dr-oz-congress_n_5504209.html - and again

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news...re-actually-supported-by-evidence-121914.html - fewer than 50% of his 'cures' do not hold up to scientific tests. But of course, the whole science community is conspiring against him.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/17/health/senate-grills-dr-oz/ - he's been under federal investigation.

So yeah, totally not a fraud. In addition, his pushing against the 'mainstream' doesn't seem to have compromised his finances, his bank balance must be quite healthy, unless the congressional investigation puts a massive dent in it.

- question - what about your mindset/approach do you see as radical? Do you mean radically conservative?
My mindset probably pisses off most proponents and skeptics. To the latter, I'm a woo supporter for thinking there's something in psi research. For the former, I'm probably seen on the forum and by other strong proponents as some sort of dogmatic materialist.
 
#6
- This is rich coming from you I must say. The whole time I have been here, I have regularly seen you so vociferously attack every part of the current paradigm, and anyone who questions your opinions. You don't seem to even consider that there is a lot about the current view that is probably correct

[]



My mindset probably pisses off most proponents and skeptics. To the latter, I'm a woo supporter for thinking there's something in psi research. For the former, I'm probably seen on the forum and by other strong proponents as some sort of dogmatic materialist.
My goodness. What a lengthy reply. Defensive any?

- Yes. Challenging the status quo is the point of using this forum. And even if I was in my own boxes, they are much bigger boxes than the one showing in your post. Where you fail again is in not remarking that my "vociferous attacks" are almost all on instances where the old paradigm is being advanced as the be all and end all.

- Using Watson's comments on race is out-of-context. It is not a valid comparison by any stretch.

- That you don't see the difference between "he's a fraud" and "some things he recommended have been shown not to work as he originally claimed" is, given your first post, not surprising. I won't bother to explain that difference. I will state that I have no issue with anyone discussing the ins and outs of any specific thing recommended by Oz or anyone else.

- Your mindset as expressed in that post - which I'll admit is not enough to validate forming an opinion overall - was limited and off the mark. Had you posted anything that addressed the points in my OP my response would have been different.
 
#7
My goodness. What a lengthy reply. Defensive any?
I wonder why with an attitude like that. In that sentence you seem to mock the length and then say that I am being defensive. It's hard not to defend oneself when being attacked. I

- Yes. Challenging the status quo is the point of using this forum. And even if I was in my own boxes, they are much bigger boxes than the one showing in your post. Where you fail again is in not remarking that my "vociferous attacks" are almost all on instances where the old paradigm is being advanced as the be all and end all.


Again, you display a profound arrogance here, you confidently imply in that post that you are categorically right, and I'm wrong. The last part of this paragraph is patently false too. When anyone dares to question the proponent groupthink that I sometimes see, they are attacked. This is notable in Max's and Kai's posts. Whilst I disagree with Kai on psi, and probably find some of Max's stuff odd, I am not keen to berate them that they are wrong. Moreover, you've done the same with me. When I've questioned the efficacy of survival research.

- Using Watson's comments on race is out-of-context. It is not a valid comparison by any stretch.
Not really. It's a demonstration that being smart doesn't stop one from promoting pseudoscientific concepts. Watson and Oz are prime examples. Again, I repeat, Oz's bullshit has made him pretty rich no doubt, hardly suffering from an attack by the mainstream.

- That you don't see the difference between "he's a fraud" and "some things he recommended have been shown not to work as he originally claimed" is, given your first post, not surprising. I won't bother to explain that difference. I will state that I have no issue with anyone discussing the ins and outs of any specific thing recommended by Oz or anyone else.
Claiming stuff works when it doesn't pretty much fits the bill for fraud.

From the Oxford English Dictionary http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fraud?q=Fraud

":Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result infinancial or personalgain:" Deceiving people about fake cures to make money certainly seems to achieve these criterion. Anyway, if you object to the term fraud, Snake Oil Salesman seems more appropriate.

-- Your mindset as expressed in that post - which I'll admit is not enough to validate forming an opinion overall - was limited and off the mark. Had you posted anything that addressed the points in my OP my response would have been different.
I'm fairly sure I'm addressing the points. The OP is a complaint that poor old Dr Oz is being attacked by the mainstream scientific community. When in fact it is perfectly justified as he has been hawking faux cures for profit. Bogus medicine that could endanger people's lives preventing them from getting the treatment they actually need.
 
#8
I wonder why with an attitude like that..
I'll happily respond to more concise posts. But one go through a long sectional post was enough for me. And your follow-up to my point on your "he's a fraud" shows that I'm correct in saying there are basic things that you can't or will not grasp. The terminology means something specific. That you don't get that is on you. So . .I'm out.
 
#9
I'll happily respond to more concise posts. But one go through a long sectional post was enough for me.
Translation: Avoidance

...your follow-up to my point on your "he's a fraud" shows that I'm correct in saying there are basic things that you can't or will not grasp. The terminology means something specific. That you don't get that is on you. So . .I'm out.
Wow, the hubris is strong here, as is the rudeness.
 
Top