Formal fact-checking of Dr Oz

[EricKei]

Many of the claims made by Doc Oz (who is an actual doctor, to be fair) on his TV shows have been formally called into question.

Wait, "he may be full of shit" is new information to some people?

On the one hand, it's a bit disturbing, although this isn't exactly the first time the guy's advice has been openly regarded as suspect.

On the other hand, this is daytime TV we're talking about, here. It's all pablum. It's entertainment...My issue with it is that there are plenty of people who are willing to take him at his word, simply because he has the title of "Doctor," and that's potentially dangerous -- although, in this day and age, "Popular TV show host" may carry just as much weight, if not more.

[wolfie]

The problem with calling Dr. Oz a quack is that you're running the risk of snake oil salesmen suing you for libel.

[Andara Bledin]

Doc Oz is, specifically, a chest doctor. Surgeon, no less. A relfective person might pause to consider why he doesn't do surgery as opposed to peddling new age junk on TV.

He's been a recipient of the Randi Foundation's Pigasus Award a record three times.

He claims that his meditation takes him to "that place where truth lives" and yet he has backed products that more often than not provide no benefit and 3 times out of 20 have been scientifically proven to not provide the benefits they claim.

But, hey, he's totally charismatic and rich, so he must know what he's talking about, right?

[EricKei]

AB - I had that thought, as well. Kinda like when I happen across a court show (Judge Judy is my go-to example for this) and note that these judges -- who are acting as arbitrators, not mediators -- are all "retired." That screams "OK, but WHY are they no longer sitting judges?" to me; especially the younger ones.

[s_stabeler]

For Judge Judy, I'll point out that some of her rants- especially when she cuts off a defendant/plaintiff- seem somewhat unprofessional to me. That's probably why, if she was like that as a sitting judge.

[Nyoibo]

AB - I had that thought, as well. Kinda like when I happen across a court show (Judge Judy is my go-to example for this) and note that these judges -- who are acting as arbitrators, not mediators -- are all "retired." That screams "OK, but WHY are they no longer sitting judges?" to me; especially the younger ones.

Because there's a hell of a lot more money in what they're doing.

[Jetfire]

Well People's Court and JJ are the grand parents of the current "Court" show fad, and both of them started with retired judges that did have long hauls in the court systems; so legit retirement is feasible for them.

The crop they spawned, could be a factor of producers/show people encountering charismatic judges somehow, and recruiting them for the shows, which, as pointed out, tend to pay more for less work (if you can stand the stupidity of humanity), and can be more reliable. (Most of these shows tend to last decades if you can get through the initial year or two stabilization period).

As for the shows themselves; Judge Judy has been increasingly getting less professional as she goes on; we've noted that on other boards. Most people figure it's more a case of her getting older and less patient, along with getting out of touch with what is and isn't possible nowadays.

IMO, People's Court is the best nowadays. Despite the fame the show may bring, she still seems in touch with today's reality, and just comes across as fairer in her arbitrations. She's more accepting of technology to prove cases, and seems to have enough personal background (especially in home improvement type cases) to have a good 'gut feel' on what's right.

[TheHuckster]

IIRC Judge Judy was a somewhat controversial yet respected family law judge who gained some publicity from her abrasive demeanor. She would basically look at a dead beat in the face and give him/her a very honest opinion about their attitude, and eventually it got her a 60 Minutes spot (before Judge Judy ever came about). It was after she got that publicity that she was offered the role of Judge Judy.

She very likely would have remained a judge had she turned down the role. And, yes, she can be very unprofessional and rude, but quite frankly, the defendants and plaintiffs choose to use her as an arbitrator, so I can't really feel bad for anyone who goes before her and gets talked down. Part of it is just the way Judge Judy is, but clearly a good other part of it is all about ratings.

[Hyena Dandy]

She very likely would have remained a judge had she turned down the role. And, yes, she can be very unprofessional and rude, but quite frankly, the defendants and plaintiffs choose to use her as an arbitrator, so I can't really feel bad for anyone who goes before her and gets talked down. Part of it is just the way Judge Judy is, but clearly a good other part of it is all about ratings.

Another part of it is that you get, well, money either way. The settlements get divided one way or another, but they're never MORE than your fee for appearing on the show. So if you and I disagree over $100, we go on Judge Judy, I get yelled at, and then I get $100 and you get $300. Sweet gig, if you can get it.

[Estil]

At least Dr. Oz isn't like "Dr." Phil who hasn't been a practicing psycologist/psychirast (or whatever) for many years and comes off as a know-it-all blowhard, especially in terms of marriage counseling (let's just say his own marriage has been far, far less than ideal)

As for "Judge" Judy, I wouldn't go on that show even if I was a Plaintiff with an open and shut case or a Defendant who was as innocent as a newborn kitty. Both she and "Judge" Milian are in no way like Judge Wapner...he was far more respectful and judge-like. Yet when he tried to express his concern about Judy and others like her giving people the wrong idea about how real small claims courts/judge really work, Judy essentially told him (to put it nicely) to go to hell. Never mind Mr. Wapner pretty much founding the whole "small courts arbitration" TV genre, which allows "Judge" Judy to earn about 10x more a year then all nine Supreme Court justices combined.

[Andara Bledin]

Dr Oz is a quack. Dr Phil is a dangerous (unconvicted) criminal.

They're both societal cancers.

[Hyena Dandy]

As for "Judge" Judy, I wouldn't go on that show even if I was a Plaintiff with an open and shut case or a Defendant who was as innocent as a newborn kitty.

Again, I'd be pretty happy with the fact that even if I lost, I would end up with a payday. That's worth being called an idiot over.

[Estil]

Not if you end up getting posted on YouTube for all the world to see it's not!! Especially if most don't realize that people on shows like that are often eh, "encouraged" to say stupid things like that on the show to create drama.

[KabeRinnaul]

Not if you end up getting posted on YouTube for all the world to see it's not!! Especially if most don't realize that people on shows like that are often eh, "encouraged" to say stupid things like that on the show to create drama.

That kind of implies that anyone actually cares about Judge Judy anymore.

You could spend ten solid minutes on her show talking about how ancient alien conspiracy theories are true and that's why your neighbor owes you $20 for the garden gnome of yours they broke or whatever, and it would be forgotten in 15 minutes, not become a viral example of idiocy.

[Hyena Dandy]

Not if you end up getting posted on YouTube for all the world to see it's not!!

If you don't want to be known to say stupid shit, don't say stupid shit.