# Dr. Oz gets a grilled by Senate



## Judge_Dre (Jun 18, 2014)

Dr. Oz found himself in the hot seat at a congressional hearing on weight-loss claims and fraud.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/health/senate-grills-dr-oz/


----------



## Dromond (Jun 18, 2014)

I would say ship him back to Turkey, but the Turks are our allies. That might be an act of war.


----------



## Marlayna (Jun 18, 2014)

Quack Quack. Dr. Phil was pushing a magic diet supplement a while back and got in trouble too.


----------



## vardon_grip (Jun 18, 2014)

Dromond said:


> I would say ship him back to Turkey, but the Turks are our allies. That might be an act of war.



Ship him back to Turkey? He was born in Cleveland. Ship him back there.


----------



## Dromond (Jun 18, 2014)

Ah, his parents were born in Turkey, not him. Okay.


----------



## spiritangel (Jun 19, 2014)

As soon as both Dr Phil and Dr Oz started pushing every new diet fad that came along I lost whatever small amount of respect I had for them

Its crap and I had to laugh looking at one of the daily deal sites here having at least a dozen products touted as the lastest and greatest by Dr Oz

how can you live with yourself knowing you have duped innocent people.


----------



## Marlayna (Jun 19, 2014)

spiritangel said:


> As soon as both Dr Phil and Dr Oz started pushing every new diet fad that came along I lost whatever small amount of respect I had for them
> 
> Its crap and I had to laugh looking at one of the daily deal sites here having at least a dozen products touted as the lastest and greatest by Dr Oz
> 
> how can you live with yourself knowing you have duped innocent people.


I chalk it up to GREED.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 19, 2014)

Judge_Dre said:


> Dr. Oz found himself in the hot seat at a congressional hearing on weight-loss claims and fraud.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/health/senate-grills-dr-oz/



gas or charcoal ?


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 19, 2014)

spiritangel said:


> As soon as both Dr Phil and Dr Oz started pushing every new diet fad that came along I lost whatever small amount of respect I had for them
> 
> Its crap and I had to laugh looking at one of the daily deal sites here having at least a dozen products touted as the lastest and greatest by Dr Oz
> 
> how can you live with yourself knowing you have duped innocent people.



or even killed them or damaged their health


----------



## loopytheone (Jun 19, 2014)

Wow, what a moron. That is... that is appalling, to offer false medical advice to people. He should be imprisoned for professional negligence. 

Alternatively, I could repeatedly feed him green coffee beans until he keels over.


----------



## MrSensible (Jun 19, 2014)

loopytheone said:


> Wow, what a moron. That is... that is appalling, to offer false medical advice to people. He should be imprisoned for professional negligence.
> 
> Alternatively, I could repeatedly feed him green coffee beans until he keels over.



My sister was completely sold on the "green coffee beans" thing and tried her damnedest to convert me to the Dr. Oz camp -- despite how much I argued with her that he was a fraudulent spin doctor (no pun intended.) She even got pissed enough to where we almost weren't on speaking terms, simply because I wouldn't give the guy the time of day, heh. That said, the asshole-ish part of me kind of wants to rub this in her face, but the big brother in me just wants to make sure she's finally aware of the truth about this con-artist.


----------



## Saoirse (Jun 19, 2014)

MrSensible said:


> My sister was completely sold on the "green coffee beans" thing and tried her damnedest to convert me to the Dr. Oz camp -- despite how much I argued with her that he was a fraudulent spin doctor (no pun intended.) She even got pissed enough to where we almost weren't on speaking terms, simply because I wouldn't give the guy the time of day, heh. That said, the asshole-ish part of me kind of wants to rub this in her face, but the big brother in me just wants to make sure she's finally aware of the truth about this con-artist.



Yea my boss went for it too, free samples or something. I think she ended up gaining 5 lbs before she chucked the rest in the trash.


----------



## lypeaches (Jun 19, 2014)

"wouldn't pass scientific muster".... wow. just wow.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Jun 19, 2014)

So now a Senate committee has established that Mehmet Oz has been abusing his status as a physician to scam millions of people. So now what happens? Does he have to pay back those he's defrauded? Does he go to jail? Perform several hours of public service? Go his merry way to scam some more? Who knows?


----------



## MrSensible (Jun 19, 2014)

Saoirse said:


> Yea my boss went for it too, free samples or something. I think she ended up gaining 5 lbs before she chucked the rest in the trash.



I think I remember my sister trying to rationalize their ineffectiveness by saying "The beans don't work with everyone's body chemistry" -- as I believe Dr. Oz has alluded to when products didn't work for people. I'm just glad everyone will now see what an actual hack he is.


----------



## RabbitScorpion (Jun 19, 2014)

Where I really decided Dr. Oz was a quack was when he put up a display comparing how many calories and how much fat was in chicken from a butcher shop versus how fattening chicken sold in packages from the store was - four times the fat and twice the calories, he proclaimed.

*BUT*
The chicken from the butcher shop was skinned without breading and the chicken in the packages was dipped and breaded! A ridiculous comparison, as some butcher shops will sell you dipped and breaded chicken and you can buy skinless chicken at mass-market retailers.

I also notice that he loves to put props on stage that show such things as hoses for arteries and blinking lights for brains, that can be quite interesting to someone with the mind of a third-grader but have nothing to do with legitimate medical science.


----------



## vardon_grip (Jun 19, 2014)

Oprah is responsible for all this. (at least partially)


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 20, 2014)

vardon_grip said:


> Oprah is responsible for all this. (at least partially)



he is a grown ass man who needs to take responsibility for his own lies


----------



## EMH1701 (Jun 20, 2014)

Good. He is a quack. It's about time Congress did something about snake oil products.


----------



## vardon_grip (Jun 20, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> he is a grown ass man who needs to take responsibility for his own lies



He is Oprah's puppet. She owns him and his show.
An endorsement from Oprah is like winning the lottery.


----------



## Marlayna (Jun 20, 2014)

vardon_grip said:


> He is Oprah's puppet. She owns him and his show.
> An endorsement from Oprah is like winning the lottery.


Or winning the Presidency.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 21, 2014)

vardon_grip said:


> He is Oprah's puppet. She owns him and his show.
> An endorsement from Oprah is like winning the lottery.



she may have given him a leg up but he was the one who lied.e is an adult. he knows what a lie is. if he were a puppet he allowed it, unless he is so intellectually challenged that he is that easily manipulated. stupid dishonest greedy people exist everywhere independently. they don't have to be made. they do have choices. we're all presented with choices everyday. we make choices consistent with our character. his personal choice was to lie for money.


----------



## vardon_grip (Jun 21, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> she may have given him a leg up but he was the one who lied.e is an adult. he knows what a lie is. if he were a puppet he allowed it, unless he is so intellectually challenged that he is that easily manipulated. stupid dishonest greedy people exist everywhere independently. they don't have to be made. they do have choices. we're all presented with choices everyday. we make choices consistent with our character. his personal choice was to lie for money.



If we all make choices everyday and the choices we make are consistent with our character and Mehmet Oz made the choice to lie for money...then Oprah Winfrey made the choice to lie for money also.

Oprah Winfrey is the CEO of Harpo productions which owns and produces the Dr. Oz show. The Dr. Oz show is Oprah Winfrey's product. Without Oprah...there is no Dr. Oz. Everything the Dr. Oz show produces comes under her responsibility as CEO. The person in charge has to have at least some culpability for the product/s they shove in the faces of the American public. 

Sure, Dr. Oz lied for money...but Oprah let him lie for money because she makes money also.*




*Unless you feel that a CEO is not responsible for the products their company puts out


----------



## Marlayna (Jun 21, 2014)

Being that Dr. Oz is so health conscious, he preferred being "grilled" to deep-fried. 
I could never sit through more than 10 minutes of his bullshit show. I hope he has to give all the money back and do some jail time for fraud.
He'll learn to love baloney and cheese sandwiches. Lol.:eat1:


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 22, 2014)

vardon_grip said:


> If we all make choices everyday and the choices we make are consistent with our character and Mehmet Oz made the choice to lie for money...then Oprah Winfrey made the choice to lie for money also.
> 
> Oprah Winfrey is the CEO of Harpo productions which owns and produces the Dr. Oz show. The Dr. Oz show is Oprah Winfrey's product. Without Oprah...there is no Dr. Oz. Everything the Dr. Oz show produces comes under her responsibility as CEO. The person in charge has to have at least some culpability for the product/s they shove in the faces of the American public.
> 
> ...



why even bring her into it? lots of people and companies are crooked. i'm not defending her. but he is the one who is a doctor and put himself out there as someone as knowledgeable about health and gave advice and sold products. he should be a man and speak for himself. should he say "MaMa made me? really? he could always have said no just like anyone can say no and whistle blow on CEOs. he didn't. he could have always have started an entire show elsewhere not even using his name. so stop deflecting his personal responsibility as a doctor to the hippocratic oath.


----------



## Dromond (Jun 22, 2014)

vardon_grip said:


> He is Oprah's puppet. She owns him and his show.
> An endorsement from Oprah is like winning the lottery.



Perhaps. He's still wholly responsible for his own actions.


----------



## vardon_grip (Jun 23, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> why even bring her into it? lots of people and companies are crooked. i'm not defending her. but he is the one who is a doctor and put himself out there as someone as knowledgeable about health and gave advice and sold products. he should be a man and speak for himself. should he say "MaMa made me? really? he could always have said no just like anyone can say no and whistle blow on CEOs. he didn't. he could have always have started an entire show elsewhere not even using his name. so stop deflecting his personal responsibility as a doctor to the hippocratic oath.



Why bring her into it? Did you not read the post you quoted in your reply? I think I did a decent job spelling out why I hold Oprah Winfrey responsible. I never said Mehmet Oz is not responsible for his actions. He is. I don't think that he should lay the blame at Oprah's feet. He shouldn't. 

I said in an earlier post..."Oprah is responsible for all this. (*at least partially*)" She is.
I also said that Dr. Oz lied for money. He lied because he wanted to. I did not say Oprah _made_ him lie. I said she _let_ him lie. She _gave_ him a forum to push his quackery. I think she _allowed_ him to do this, either by design or by negligence, because his show brings her the ducats.

You can speculate that Dr. Oz would push snake oil on his own IF he he wanted to, but thats not what happened. Mehmet Oz was a nobody in the television world. He didn't make a show for himself. He didn't put his own time, money and staff into producing a television show or infomercial to sling hash. Oprah Winfrey did that. Oprah vetted Dr. Oz, chose him over other hopefuls, introduced him on her show and then brought him back over and over again to push on her audience and the American public. People trusted Dr. Oz because Oprah said they should. Because of his popularity on THE OPRAH WINFREY SHOW Oprah thought to herself..."hmmm, this guy could make me even more money if I sign him to a contract and give him his own show under my production company!" The reality is...no one would know who Dr. Oz was if not for Oprah Winfrey.

I think that makes her culpable. *(at least partially)*

Barack Obama doesn't drive a boat, fly a jet, drive a Humvee or carry a rifle; but as the commander-in-chief, he is responsible for all actions of the armed forces. Oprah Winfrey is the commander in chief of Harpo Productions Inc. One branch of her "armed forces" is The Dr. Oz. Show. Ultimately, she is responsible *(at least partially)* when one of her drones drops a bomb.


----------



## Yakatori (Jun 23, 2014)

The point is, we would have no idea of who Dr. Oz is, he would be just another quack Dr., were it not for Oprah's stamp of approval. Same for Dr. Phil. So, if we vilify Dr. Oz; then, equally, we have to at least begin to wonder if Oprah is not crazy as well.


----------



## moore2me (Jun 23, 2014)

Ladies and Gentlemen, If you haven't watched the new new comedy/news update show on HBO - *Last Week With John Oliver*, you really must watch the show airing the week of today (June 23, 2014). This comedian/news anchor takes everyone that needs it to the woodshed - and this week it's Dr Oz's turn. No holes barred. Doc is flayed, fileted, and stir fried. And in a brief 30 minute show, Oliver also discusses royalty in Europe, Thailand, and problems at the South Pole.

Plus he also works in a personal appearance by George Martin (Yeah that one). He also has Steve Buscemi tap dance to an entire song live on stage, he has a full marching band, he has three scantily clad tarts throw wine at each other (think skank talk show), he has live puppies, and I forgot what else.

The man is a wealth of facts and presents them in a concentrated and entertaining manner. He calls things just what they are - or how he sees them - and you probably will too. The new militant front in Iraq has become the "Turbo Al Qaeda (because they work so fast). Back to Oz, his best supporters as two law makers from Utah who a backed by the lobby in that state. That powerful group of folks are trying to keep the green coffee and the rest of those seeds (or other stuff) out of government regulation.

Well, almost enough fun for the night. Did you know that Queen Elizabeth visited the scene of the filming GoT Scotland?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 23, 2014)

vardon_grip said:


> Why bring her into it? Did you not read the post you quoted in your reply? I think I did a decent job spelling out why I hold Oprah Winfrey responsible. I never said Mehmet Oz is not responsible for his actions. He is. I don't think that he should lay the blame at Oprah's feet. He shouldn't.
> 
> I said in an earlier post..."Oprah is responsible for all this. (*at least partially*)" She is.
> I also said that Dr. Oz lied for money. He lied because he wanted to. I did not say Oprah _made_ him lie. I said she _let_ him lie. She _gave_ him a forum to push his quackery. I think she _allowed_ him to do this, either by design or by negligence, because his show brings her the ducats.
> ...



Well, maybe not culpable but definitely irresponsible. True, Oprah has influence with her opinions and it was she that gave us Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, Iyanla Vanzant and some of her awful book recommendations. People follow in behind her and she makes pretty bad choices. She's only human and the logical thing a person in possession of this knowledge should do would be to stop taking advice from her. I merely cite her as having terribly poor taste. Dr. Oz however should be held accountable for what he's done. He's a doctor and he duped us all, including Oprah whose appeal is slowly fading.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 23, 2014)

moore2me said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, If you haven't watched the new new comedy/news update show on HBO - *Last Week With John Oliver*, you really must watch the show airing the week of today (June 23, 2014). This comedian/news anchor takes everyone that needs it to the woodshed - and this week it's Dr Oz's turn. No holes barred. Doc is flayed, fileted, and stir fried. And in a brief 30 minute show, Oliver also discusses royalty in Europe, Thailand, and problems at the South Pole.
> 
> Plus he also works in a personal appearance by George Martin (Yeah that one). He also has Steve Buscemi tap dance to an entire song live on stage, he has a full marching band, he has three scantily clad tarts throw wine at each other (think skank talk show), he has live puppies, and I forgot what else.
> 
> ...




I found the segment.
http://youtu.be/WA0wKeokWUU


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 23, 2014)

it's no wonder so many people run from personal responsibility and ethical choices, with so many people ready to let them and even create diversions for them.


----------



## Yakatori (Jun 23, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> "_it's no wonder so many people run from personal responsibility and ethical choices, *with so many people ready to let them and even create diversions for them*._"


No one is saying that Dr. Oz is not responsible. Saying that Oprah should share in the responsibilty and blaming & shaming actually helps to widen the audience and bring further attention to the problem. It's not any kind of diversion. It's really the opposite of a diversion, since it helps to support & demonstrate how they're both in cooperation in doing-wrong/operating under the same motives, sensationalism & profit. 




LillyBBBW said:


> "_...Oprah has influence with her opinions and it was she that gave us Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, Iyanla Vanzant and some of *her awful book recommendations*. People follow in behind her and *she makes pretty bad choices.* She's only human and the logical thing a person in possession of this knowledge should do would be to *stop taking advice from her. I merely cite her as having terribly poor taste.* Dr. Oz however should be held accountable for what he's done. He's a doctor and he duped us all, including Oprah whose appeal is slowly fading._"


No, I think Oprah's recommendations, ideas, ect....are generally good. Or at least appropriate for her audience, etc... So, even as much we might not be a part of that audience, that's how she got to be a taste-maker, that's why she's so trusted. And, certainly, she's still both of those things. As powerful and influential as she ever was, probably more so... 

And, again, within that particular audience.

Maybe it seems otherwise just because you don't see her-personally on TV as much. But what's come in place of that are all these other personalities and channels through which it's basically her at the helm of the entire thing. 

So, probably, most of the time, she actually gets it right. But, here and there, she's wrong: [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewC-KIe5qng"]wrong[/ame] So, just to be responsible about it, she should just acknowledge that fact, own it a bit. This is really no different from any of a number of such cases. So, it wouldn't surprise me too much just to see her just speak-up about it.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 24, 2014)

yes it's all Oprah's fault that a grown man with full faculties violated the hippocratic oath


----------



## vardon_grip (Jun 24, 2014)

At the bottom of the CNN article that was cited in the OP there is a link to another CNN.com article about a lawsuit that a viewer brought on Dr. Oz and (not surprising, at least to me) Harpo Productions, Sony, NBC...


"Dr. Oz and his producers and distributors -- including co-defendants NBC, Sony Pictures Television, ZoCo Productions and *Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions *-- should have warned viewers such as Dietl, the suit said."

What a douchebag this guy was for saying anybody else was responsible besides Dr. Oz. Somebody better wise this guy up!


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Jun 24, 2014)

vardon_grip said:


> "Dr. Oz and his producers and distributors -- including co-defendants NBC, Sony Pictures Television, ZoCo Productions and *Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions *-- should have warned viewers such as Dietl, the suit said."



As my attorney friend is fond of saying, "When the police raid the whorehouse, they arrest the piano player, too."


----------



## vardon_grip (Jun 24, 2014)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> As my attorney friend is fond of saying, "When the police raid the whorehouse, they arrest the piano player, too."



Irrelevant. Move to strike!


----------



## musicman (Jun 24, 2014)

What amazes me is that nobody learned anything from that 1939 movie. You can't trust a guy who calls himself "Oz".

(Unless he does the voice of Yoda. Him trust you can.)


----------



## bayone (Jun 24, 2014)

LillyBBBW said:


> I found the segment.
> http://youtu.be/WA0wKeokWUU



Is it awful that I watched it primarily to see Steve Buscemi tap-dance? (I already disliked Dr. Oz).


----------



## Yakatori (Jun 24, 2014)

I would've liked to have seen him in a full-on _Everything's Coming Up Roses _type of bit (with a cane and one of those straw boater's hats):
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGyiuFZ7cs8[/ame]
But I'm guessing, by that point, they were already committed to show-casing The Black and Gold Marching Elite and might have been somewhat limited by that, what with time-constraints and a TV-schedule to keep.



Dr. Feelgood said:


> "_As my attorney friend is fond of saying, "When the police raid the whorehouse, they arrest the piano player, too."_"


Yes, but let's remember which role best applies to Oprah is in this metaphor: It's certainly not the piano player. And it's not the girl. And it's not the john.


----------



## CastingPearls (Jun 24, 2014)

bayone said:


> Is it awful that I watched it primarily to see Steve Buscemi tap-dance? (I already disliked Dr. Oz).


Me too, and....me too.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 24, 2014)

why is it that when a guy screws up it always ends up being some woman's fault?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 25, 2014)

Yakatori said:


> No one is saying that Dr. Oz is not responsible. Saying that Oprah should share in the responsibilty and blaming & shaming actually helps to widen the audience and bring further attention to the problem. It's not any kind of diversion. It's really the opposite of a diversion, since it helps to support & demonstrate how they're both in cooperation in doing-wrong/operating under the same motives, sensationalism & profit.
> 
> 
> No, I think Oprah's recommendations, ideas, ect....are generally good. Or at least appropriate for her audience, etc... So, even as much we might not be a part of that audience, that's how she got to be a taste-maker, that's why she's so trusted. And, certainly, she's still both of those things. As powerful and influential as she ever was, probably more so...
> ...



You pegged me right Yakatori, I don't watch Oprah at all and I"m not plugged in to her shows or any of the mad love she gets from her followers. What I'm citing in my references are the news reports that claim her production company is not doing nearly as well as projected. A few flops and misteps made her first year on television not so good which has investors dwindling. Her shows still exist, she's had a few really good hits and she still has her die hard fans but on paper her prospects paint a bit of a different picture. Even if the reporting of the failings of her production company are blown out of proportion just to sell a story I'd be willing to bet this thing with Dr. Oz also factors in to the overall health of her ventures.


----------



## Saoirse (Jun 25, 2014)

bayone said:


> Is it awful that I watched it primarily to see Steve Buscemi tap-dance? (I already disliked Dr. Oz).



I only watched it cause you mentioned a tap-dancing Steve Buscemi. TOTES WORTH IT


----------



## Yakatori (Jun 25, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> "_why is it that when a guy screws up it always ends up being some woman's fault?_"


Well, if it's a woman who's the boss, the buck's got to stop somewhere...



LillyBBBW said:


> "_...her production company is not doing nearly as well as projected. A few flops and misteps made her first year on television not so good which has investors dwindling...this thing with Dr. Oz also factors in to the overall health of her ventures._"


But that's like talking about McDonald's struggling. McDonald's is so huge, it takes a lot to figure out how to sustain its own growth. Oprah is so big, she's not dependent on investors and she's not (really) rattled by stuff like this. I mean, think back to her controversy with the beef-council... 

If anything, this is somewhat of an opportunity. For someone like her, that is. If she so chooses, at this rather opportune moment, to be a bit self-critical, self-aware....for about a minute. Which, of course, she can easily afford. Just to show us that there's a real-live human being in there somewhere. 

Or, to use a contrasting example, think back to the disagreement some of us (*wrestlingguy* & I) had over calling-out Michelle Obama. That is, very unlike Oprah, Michelle Obama can't really afford to admit being wrong. Not over something like this. (Much less even engage with it) And not without it compromising support for a whole bunch other other things. So, therefore, by vilifying Michelle Obama over her children's health initiative, we're basically asking people to choose between size accept and universal health coverage. Or a higher minimum wage. Or ending the war in Iraq, etc... Likewise, in a few months, Michelle Obama will basically be old news. 

Therefore, she makes for a very poor target to try to influence the mainstream in the way *wrestlingguy*'s petition might crudely attempt. Whereas Oprah would actually make for a very good target. Because of how she just might just stop and think in terms of a longer-term report with her audience and because she's so much more likely to actually respond, regardless of how that might be. I mean, whether she apologizes and adjusts her approach or just digs-in.

Either way, Oprah's not going anywhere. And she could probably use this to her own advantage. In a way that's win-win.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 26, 2014)

Yakatori said:


> Well, if it's a woman who's the boss, the buck's got to stop somewhere...
> .



it does. it stops with the person out there direct selling a bogus diet off of the force of the expectations regarding his education and medical training, if people allow it.

the way people talk it reminds me of guys who say it's a woman's fault she was raped because her dress was too short. she tempted him. she was in control. it also reminds me of the guy in san diego who blamed his plans to shoot sorority girls on their "snobbery" without even knowing said girls and making assumptions because they were supposedly in control of the situation and were able to make a choice instead of him. he and his friends thought women were the boss too. 

the truth is dr Oz was already a successful doctor. he never even had to have a t.v. show. no matter what Oprah did in terms of business he had a choice and he made a bad one. i doubt she was going to shoot him if he didn't sell a bad diet. and the truth is we have no real proof about whether Oprah had anything to do with the particulars of his clinical pronouncements at all. she is a busy woman. but what we do have definite proof of is that he told knowing lies about a weight loss. 

what i don't get is why it's such a problem to say it was this man's fault and he did it when we know those are the facts instead of creating imaginary unsubstantiated skirts for him to hide behind. 

i don't care for Oprah's attitudes about various issues either but that doesn't mean she should somehow be made culpable for his dumb mistakes--especially with no evidence. i also agree with Lilly that there is nothing beneficial to Oprah to be connected to a diet flop. i don't think she is dumb enough to hitch herself to a bad diet either--something that is obviously going to come out quickly in the end. she often takes risks but not one that would make her look that foolish. so far all of her risks have been regarding pushing her career and business envelope. but not only did Dr Oz make a bad choice, this entire situation was stupid and never had to happen but i think dr Oz is very arrogant and probably didn't listen to his attorney. i'm sure he would have been advised against this. how can you go to congress and oppose someone who is selling the same bad diet mechanism you push on your t.v. show? duh! 

i don't get the impression that Oprah is dumb enough to ignore her attorney. not all of her projects work but she is a pretty decent business woman over all which is how she was able to accumulate billions. after all of these years i don't think i have seen her make a misstep like this. if she goes to court and thinks she might lose she is only going to do so in such a way that public sympathy is going to be with her and even a loss will enhance her public position. otherwise she settles.


----------



## MrSensible (Jun 26, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> it does. it stops with the person out there direct selling a bogus diet off of the force of the expectations regarding his education training and medial training. if people allow it to be.
> 
> the way people talk it reminds me of guys who say it's a woman's fault she was raped because her dress was too short. she tempted him. she was in control. it also reminds me of the guy in san diego who blamed his plans to shoot sorority girls on their "snobbery" without even knowing said girls and making assumptions because they were supposedly in control of the situation and were able to make a choice instead of him. he and his friends thought women were the boss too.
> 
> ...



I don't believe anyone here is using gender bias in this argument. The only reason Oprah seems be getting some slack is because she is the CEO of the company that promotes Dr. Oz and his show, so it's not surprising that she might deal with a bit of scrutiny about it -- at least until people know the full story behind the situation. I'm pretty confident her gender has nothing to do with that.

I agree though -- Oz is the one directly selling lies, and for all we know, Oprah was just as fooled by his silver tongue as the millions of his followers, so the lion-share (if not all) of the culpability should fall on him.


----------



## MrSensible (Jun 26, 2014)

^ Arrg, I hate when I make mistakes like that and don't catch it in the edit window -- lion's share*


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 26, 2014)

Yakatori said:


> Well, if it's a woman who's the boss, the buck's got to stop somewhere...
> 
> But that's like talking about McDonald's struggling. McDonald's is so huge, it takes a lot to figure out how to sustain its own growth. Oprah is so big, she's not dependent on investors and she's not (really) rattled by stuff like this. I mean, think back to her controversy with the beef-council...
> 
> ...



You're having an argument that I wasn't making. I was merely making reference to something I read. I'm not an Oprah fan though I'm no foe either. I just don't have an interest in what she sells. As far as how popular she is, I truly don't know. I'm not sure the depth of her popularity or net worth has anything to do with what I'm saying. She runs a business and in that business you woo investors by making predictions on how well your business will do in the coming year. Sometimes you meet or even exeed those expectations and sometimes you fall short. Peaks and valleys. When it begins to matter is when you consistently or more often than not fall short of projected sales, ratings or whatever. It's not something anyone wants. She may sleep waist deep on bails of $10,000 bills every night while fanned by Chippendales in loin cloths. That doesn't really matter, business is business.

I will say though that if I were Oprah I wouldn't say anything right now. There would obviously have to be an investigation, I'd have to view the shows, talk to Mehmet, review the congressional accusations, consult with my lawyers, etc. and then publicly address the controversy in some way. What I would say would depend on the outcome of the evidence. It would be premature for her to make any statements at this time but I'm sure at some point she will. She does in a sense bear some responsibility because it's come out under her watch. She probably won't go to jail or get the same rub down Mehmet will get but she does have a stake in doing something that will satisfy both her viewers and investors so it would be wise for her to not be hasty with her words. Oprah is big but she is not too big to fail. There are plenty of failures walking around here that no one thought would ever be under, especially in a fickle business like hers where you're here today, gone TODAY. Oprah is a lot of things but she certainly isn't stupid.


----------



## Marlayna (Jun 26, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> it does. it stops with the person out there direct selling a bogus diet off of the force of the expectations regarding his education and medical training, if people allow it.
> 
> the way people talk it reminds me of guys who say it's a woman's fault she was raped because her dress was too short. she tempted him. she was in control. it also reminds me of the guy in san diego who blamed his plans to shoot sorority girls on their "snobbery" without even knowing said girls and making assumptions because they were supposedly in control of the situation and were able to make a choice instead of him. he and his friends thought women were the boss too.
> 
> ...


This reminds me of the time the Beef Industry in Texas took her to court, because she said eating a lot of meat wasn't good for people. That trial stressed her out a lot, but in the end, she won.
After that, she had to watch every word she said about everything.


----------



## Yakatori (Jun 26, 2014)

Marlayna said:


> "_This reminds me of the time the Beef Industry in Texas took her to court, because she said eating a lot of meat wasn't good for people. That trial stressed her out a lot, but in the end, she won. After that, she had to watch every word she said about everything._"


Did she actually say that? Because that's not quite how I remember it, as a much more innocuous type of comment along the lines of how this whole thing scared the bejeezus out her, personally. Just on a personal level. To where she-personally wouldn't be eating any hamburgers for while.

That she won, and was ultimately vindicated, should demonstrate for anyone that she can't just be bullied like any regular joe-citizen. However, with that type of power comes a certain (social) responsibility.



LillyBBBW said:


> "_You're having an argument that I wasn't making.._"


Well, my argument isn't really specific to just your post. But I do get that a lot, people saying I make them feel like we're the only two people in the room...


----------



## Marlayna (Jun 27, 2014)

Yakatori said:


> Did she actually say that? Because that's not quite how I remember it, as a much more innocuous type of comment along the lines of how this whole thing scared the bejeezus out her, personally. Just on a personal level. To where she-personally wouldn't be eating any hamburgers for while.
> 
> That she won, and was ultimately vindicated, should demonstrate for anyone that she can't just be bullied like any regular joe-citizen. However, with that type of power comes a certain (social) responsibility.
> 
> Well, my argument isn't really specific to just your post. But I do get that a lot, people saying I make them feel like we're the only two people in the room...


Yes, you're right. Good memory.:bow:


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 27, 2014)

Marlayna said:


> This reminds me of the time the Beef Industry in Texas took her to court, because she said eating a lot of meat wasn't good for people. That trial stressed her out a lot, but in the end, she won.
> After that, she had to watch every word she said about everything.



yep exactly. but even if she had lost she would have won because public empathy was with her. it pisses everyone off when a product is either damaging or won't work. and that one actually boomeranged on the beef industry just like it did on Dr Oz because like him they made themselves look more like the bad guy for sure.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 27, 2014)

Yakatori said:


> ..........this whole thing scared the bejeezus out her,......
> 
> ........ vindicated, should demonstrate for anyone that she can't just be .......
> 
> ...



It's probaby because you cherry pick only peices out of posts and then write long replies that tend to wander all over the place. It is hard to determine if you are replying to me or simply thinking aloud when you haven't indicated as much. Sometimes by saying 'you' a person can mean the general 'you' and not the person whose post has been quartered and quoted. Also something someone says can make for a convenient segway into another point you would like to make that may or may not apply to the original poster. It's a fair practice to indicate so in your writings so that we're all on the same page. It's very easy to misunderstand someone when they are not clear.


----------



## Yakatori (Jun 29, 2014)

Well, hopefully you dont come away thinking I havent absorbed your points in whole. Or that Im trying to misrepresent what you said. But, yeah, its all of those things at once: I like to think each post (mine, anyway) contains a theme or idea all our own. But is also necessarily speaking to a larger debate, inherent in the question asked, the topic-itself. Almost inevitably, that means using each others points; sometimes-even just in part; as a means to make our own arguments more accessible. And, like you said, my posts are long; so, citing just the part Im most directly responding to, I think, improves the overall clarity. 

But-however, for example, that doesnt really mean that Im bringing Michelle Obama into it to suggest either you or *wrestlingguy* are still thinking about that. But-more by way of offering a contrasting example, where: 1) I dont really buy-in to the idea of the perpetrator being, legitimately, culpable of said transgression; but that its more just a case of a (transiently) powerful & influential person finding themselves at the head of some pre-existing controversy. And, 2) Even-if how they came across is by their own intent, they dont make for an effective lever in terms of initiating or driving whatever type of change might actually improve things.

Whereas, Oprah clearly -is- culpable in this. And you (er...I mean "_we_?") cant really pretend-like she isnt. Not while we know as much about Dr. Oz himself, to assume she can't see or understand as much as we do, plain as day. And, secondly, very unlike the First Lady, Oprah does- make for an effective lever. More so than just focusing purely on Dr. Oz, since Oprah and others will respond to that simply by replacing him.with another _Dr. Oz_! And another after that..and anotherand another After all, how many _Dr. Oz_s are out there, do you think? How many _Oprah_s?


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 29, 2014)

Yakatori said:


> Well, hopefully you don’t come away thinking I haven’t absorbed your points in whole. Or that I’m trying to misrepresent what you said. But, yeah, it’s all of those things at once: I like to think each post (mine, anyway) contains a theme or idea all our own. But is also necessarily speaking to a larger debate, inherent in the question asked, the topic-itself. Almost inevitably, that means using each other’s points; sometimes-even just in part; as a means to make our own arguments more accessible. And, like you said, my posts are long; so, citing just the part I’m most directly responding to, I think, improves the overall clarity.
> 
> But-however, for example, that doesn’t really mean that I’m bringing Michelle Obama into it to suggest either you or *wrestlingguy* are still thinking about that. But-more by way of offering a contrasting example, where: 1) I don’t really buy-in to the idea of the “perpetrator” being, legitimately, culpable of said “transgression;” but that it’s more just a case of a (transiently) powerful & influential person finding themselves at the head of some pre-existing controversy. And, 2) Even-if how they came across is by their own intent, they don’t make for an effective lever in terms of initiating or driving whatever type of change might actually improve things.
> 
> Whereas, Oprah clearly -is- culpable in this. And you (er...I mean "_we_?") can’t really pretend-like she isn’t. Not while we know as much about Dr. Oz himself, to assume she can't see or understand as much as we do, plain as day. And, secondly, very unlike the First Lady, Oprah &#8211;does- make for an effective lever. More so than just focusing purely on Dr. Oz, since Oprah and others will respond to that simply by replacing him….with another _Dr. Oz_! And another after that…..and another…and another… After all, how many &#8216;_Dr. Oz_’s are out there, do you think? How many &#8216;_Oprah_’s?



my question is why should she even be a concern here when this thread is about Dr Oz--a doctor. he would have to knowingly sign on with her anyway wouldn't he even if the entire thing was her idea, which i doubt. i think this excuse making for men and their choices is why we have such an unethical society and exactly way many men are so weak. they have no responsibility for anything they do. people are always looking for a fall guy/fall woman for the blame. if a woman all te better. when was the last time a man was blamed for a woman's professional failure? it doesn't happen very often.


----------



## Yakatori (Jun 29, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> "_yes it's all Oprah's fault that a grown man with full faculties violated the hippocratic oath_"


Bringing his oath into it just underscores that they, being two completely different people, are necessarily approaching this situation from two distinctly different points of view, with very different roles, expectations, & obligations....

So, yeah, Oprah is not a(ny ones) Dr. or therapist. She has not, herself, violated the sacrosanct relationship between a patient & healer. Practically, she cannot do so any more than she can irradiate people with her heat-ray vision. Because she doesn't have heat-ray vision!

However, this is where it's also important to point out that, in the audience, the millions that Dr. Oz is able to reach, we're not really talking about his actual patients, per se., nor those who misconstrue themselves as such. Yes, it is certainly fair, as John Oliver does, to point out that Dr. Oz is presenting to them on the basis of his own medical expertise and, through that, implying these opinions are, somehow, then medically-sound. But also, at some level, much of this audience is somewhat aware of their being pandered-to, of embracing that, gravitating towards it. So, what's really to separate Oprah from that broader level of deception. Do you really mean to suggest that she's not quite so intimately aware of it? 

To me, its like youre trying to defend a single person who has an affair with someone else who's married. On the basis of their not being actually married or otherwise committed to anyone else? Certainly, a meaningful and practical distinction, in that they're not committing actual-adultery. But, c'mon....

If you knowingly facilitate or, what's more, make-possible for someone elses ability to cause harm ....there certainly is a kind of chain of causation that binds you to that act, on some moral-level. But, if by design, your own personal profit is determined as such, then I would say its just a bit more direct of a connection. 



superodalisque said:


> "_...the truth is dr Oz was already a successful doctor...._"


 I hope that you dont mean, by this, to try to somehow suggest that an actual Dr., one as successful as Dr. Oz, with his type of credentials, is necessarily any less money-motivated? Or that he likely-would accomplish anything like he has but for his relationship with her? 

Because, on one hand, I would agree that, in terms of risk/effort versus reward, the medical professional is not really the very best place for a person whose ambitions are centered around the most efficient and certain acquisition of mega-wealth. Dr.s are typically people who grew-up well-off (especially in terms of a kind of social wealth) and, often as much, imbued with some sense of this _noblesse-oblige_. However, for what it takes to actually become a Dr., let alone the type of specialist Dr. has become (I mean in his actual practice, outside of this whole media-personality bit) it does attract a certain measure of people who (fairly) feel entitled to a bit more than just to live comfortably. For all of that time & effort.

So, it does bear mentioning that some of these folks, who might other otherwise appear to be among the best of them, can become seduced by the promise of wealth (and, perhaps, for some, a wider degree of fame/notoriety?) thats justnot quitewithin reach on the path of just focusing on whatever their current specialty. (e.g. that most immediately jumps to mind are these Lipitor-ads featuring Dr. Robert Jarvik; practically a living-legend, no questioning his standing in the medical-community. But now; in this god-awful, painfully-thinning, post-midlife-mullet; hes trading on all of that to shill for some drug company.)

But Oz has taken this to a whole other level. He is able to do so because hes 1) younger/better-looking/better preserved and 2) more charismatic. But, most importantly, Oprah-of all people has personally chosen to capitalize off of his appeal with middle-aged women. You say Oprah has given him a leg-up. But to me, that betrays a serious underestimation of the real relationship. Really, its not his audience. Its hers. Same thing for Dr. Phil. 

Of course, I wouldnt say that, qualitatively, they are a dime a dozen; each brings a unique combination of both personality and skill-set that Oprah-herself has specifically chosen, selected, among an almost as selective group. But, there are, literally, millions of guys out there trying to do the exact same thing, in one flavor or another. And, frankly, some of them do have some legitimate credentials and training and knowledge which, no less so a cornerstone in this enterprise. 



superodalisque said:


> "_ we have no real proof about whether Oprah had anything to do with the particulars of his clinical pronouncements at all. *she is a busy woman.* but what we do have definite proof of is that he told knowing lies about a weight loss._"


BP's executives are very busy as well. Probably, they feel, too much so to be watching on bated breath every moment's detail as a new under-sea well is being drilled. But, yannow, they're responsible, right? They're supposed to manage the process. Or, at least, manage the people who're actually qualified to manage the actual work. They can't just, so easily, divorce themselves personally from the result. After all, when it comes to the profit aspect, they're pretty hands-on when it comes to that, right? 



superodalisque said:


> "_ no matter what Oprah did in terms of business he had a choice and he made a bad one. i doubt she was going to shoot him if he didn't sell a bad diet...why it's such a problem to say it was this man's fault and he did it..._"


What problem? He is responsible for his own choices. But she is responsible for hers, in choosing to give him that platform. 



superodalisque said:


> "_ when we know those are the facts instead of creating imaginary unsubstantiated skirts for him to hide behindthat doesn't mean she should somehow be made culpable for his dumb mistakes--especially with no evidence...._"


What evidence do you need? If you have enough evidence to see that Dr. Oz is a quack, what more evidence would better substantiate that shes the producer of major-media personality which is built around quackery.



superodalisque said:


> "_..i also agree with Lilly that there is nothing beneficial to Oprah to be connected to a diet flop....._"


Indeed, it does not benefit BP or Exxon-Mobil to cause an oil spill. However, dont you tend to assume a profit-motive is at work when a spill is caused by cutting corners in terms of operational safety or other best 
practices?

It's not in anyones interest to get a speeding ticket, I dont think. What (helps to) motivates a person to put themselves that position? 



superodalisque said:


> "_..i don't think she is dumb enough to hitch herself to a bad diet either--something that is obviously going to come out quickly in the end. she often takes risks but not one that would make her look that foolish. so far all of her risks have been regarding pushing her career and business envelope. but not only did Dr Oz make a bad choice, this entire situation was stupid and never had to happen but i think dr Oz is very arrogant and probably didn't listen to his attorney. ....._"


Yes, it's all very strange. Since we know that Oprah is not, at all, arrogant. And, like you say, she is a very smart, savy business-woman. Strange to think that she would need to depend on John Oliver to know whats going-on with one of her own shows. Maybe she doesnt own a television. Or its like the Saddam Hussein-effect, where her closest advisers are a bit too intimidated to be totally candid with her.

Or, it could be, that (wisely) she realizes how well she can depend on the willful interpretation that holds Dr. Oz accountable to the exclusion of any thought further than that.


----------



## tonynyc (Jun 29, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> my question is why should she even be a concern here when this thread is about Dr Oz--a doctor. he would have to knowingly sign on with her anyway wouldn't he even if the entire thing was her idea, which i doubt. i think this excuse making for men and their choices is why we have such an unethical society and exactly way many men are so weak. they have no responsibility for anything they do. people are always looking for a fall guy/fall woman for the blame. if a woman all te better. when was the last time a man was blamed for a woman's professional failure? it doesn't happen very often.




*Oprah aside... as more women enter the C-suite then there is room for those to take part in ethical or unethical behavior.
*



Yakatori said:


> Bringing his oath into it just underscores that they, being two completely different people, are necessarily approaching this situation from two distinctly different points of view, with very different roles, expectations, & obligations....
> 
> So, yeah, Oprah is not a(ny ones) Dr. or therapist. She has not, herself, violated the sacrosanct relationship between a patient & healer. Practically, she cannot do so any more than she can irradiate people with her heat-ray vision. Because she doesn't have heat-ray vision!
> 
> ...



*

Way too much stuff to read ... your writing style would improve if you 
things were tightened up

*


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 29, 2014)

tonynyc said:


> *Oprah aside... as more women enter the C-suite then there is room for those to take part in ethical or unethical behavior.
> *



not without any evidence


----------

