Saturday, December 20, 2014

Dr. Oz: 'Exposed' or Unfairly Attacked?


Daniel McNeal - Dr. Oz...exposed. As my homegirl Michele Ward always said, nothing will never take the place of hard work, sensible eating, and plenty o' water:


Jimmy Pereira - Taking advantage of the uneducate...n like u said, everyone lookin for the quick fix

Muhammad Rasheed - Did y'all even read the article? He wasn't "exposed," they just beat up on him because the real guys didn't want to show up.

Daniel McNeal - I did....but his shameless promotion of fad items had revealed that a) he doesn't do his homework if he is so easily duped and b) he is definitely about that sponsorship check.

Christine Hutchinson - He's a sensationalist douche. I can't believe people listen to anything he has to say. I didn't read the article, and don't need to;)

Muhammad Rasheed - FROM the ARTICLE: Oz, who has sued some of the companies using his image, said he never sells any products and says the scammers will misuse his image no matter what he says. “You know … the biggest disservice I have done for my audience?” he asked. “It’s that I never told then where to go to buy the products.”

He said he did that for ethical reasons, but it backfired by opening up a market for "fake stuff, real stuff, it doesn't frankly matter and start to use my name to start to sell."

Muhammad Rasheed - FROM the ARTICLE: McCaskill asked why Oz didn’t use his show to promote what actually has been proven to help people lose weight — careful eating and exercise.

I watched that show several times, and Dr. Oz ABSOLUTELY promotes proper diet and exercise. They were only attacking him because the heads of the networks that they really wanted to beat up on didn't want to appear for the hearing.

Muhammad Rasheed - Daniel McNeal wrote: "I did....but his shameless promotion of fad items..."

FROM the ARTICLE: “I actually do personally believe in the items I talk about on the show,” he added. “I recognize that oftentimes they don’t have the scientific muster to pass as fact. I have given my family these products.” Oz said the products give people hope to keep trying to lose weight — something almost all experts agree is a very difficult thing to do. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese."

That doesn't remotely sound like a "shameless promotion." But he's affiliated with Oprah, who's affiliated with Tyler Perry, and y'all hate them, so he's going to be a villain no matter what, hence: " I didn't read the article, and don't need to."

Christine Hutchinson - I never said he was a villain. my mouth is already full of my own words, but thank you. my assertions have nothing to do with tyler perry. He is a sensationalist douche.

Muhammad Rasheed - "I don't need to read the article because I've already made up my mind about him and it doesn't matter what he said to defend himself. In my mind he will always be a 'sensationalist douche' and I will never care about any evidence to the contrary. I like believing he's a 'sensationalist douche' because that's the kind of person I am."

Christine Hutchinson - Enjoy.

Muhammad Rasheed - I have! Thanks.

Daniel McNeal - Brother M. Rah, as always, thanks for the dialogue. Truly appreciate it. It helps me stay on my toes and offer my opinions!

When I read the article, the part that resonated most with me was the fact that he concedes to the FTC that his "flowery language", recommendations and his failure to inform individuals on where to buy the proper products. He further notes that for enetrtainment purposes, he has to make the script and show engaging. For me, my interpretation is that he might as well having been hawking the fake product himself rather than pass the buck. If we unpackage that a moment, as you and I know, by recommending one brand, one vendor and etc., it cuts off your money and locks you in to one client. Make no mistake, he is getting multiple checks from multiple vendors of whatever diet fad he's promoting. (generic company, name brand company -0 which is a very common practice between celebs and pharmaceutical companies)

Dr. Oz is extremely aware of his "Oz Effect" and the issue that I have is that he didn't from day one, take responsibility for that. He has a nationally syndicated show that allows him and his words to be perceieved as law. Unfortunately with that power comes the backlash and association of anything negative or to the contray of his word. So rather than do the responsible thing from the giddy up, he opted to bury his head in the sand.

The most powerful part of the article is Sen. McCaskill's statement on the scientific communities view of Dr. Oz as being monolithic and the repeated claims of these miracle products. As a medical practioner, he knows that sensible diet, exercise and proper rest are the only true panaceas against weight loss. So, for me, he is hawking "fake wares" - he has the medical knowledge and responsibility to know better and provide better info.

Muhammad Rasheed - Daniel McNeal wrote: “Brother M. Rah, as always, thanks for the dialogue. Truly appreciate it. It helps me stay on my toes and offer my opinions!”

It’s your thread, bud. I always have respect for people willing to have a dialogue and analyze particular topics from different viewpoints… the effort is one of the ways people really learn about a subject, just from discussing it and the research that can accompany a serious discussion. People who make up their mind about what it’s about beforehand, based on their shallow prejudices, are just primitive cave people in the modern day and provide zero value to societal progress.

Daniel McNeal wrote: “When I read the article, the part that resonated most with me was the fact that he concedes to the FTC that his "flowery language", recommendations and his failure to inform individuals on where to buy the proper products. He further notes that for enetrtainment purposes, he has to make the script and show engaging.”

1) The flowery language is his effort to make the show engaging. I remember when he started out, making guest spots on Oprah’s show, he was naturally charismatic, but his presentation was stiff and a bit too technical. He had to work with Oprah’s producers for years before he was ready to carry his own show himself. Keeping his audience tuned in is 90% of his job as a tv personality.
2) On his show, Dr. Oz gives both sides of an issue, over a product’s claims, a chance to speak their piece, and combined with his own background as a scientist/doctor, will determine that these products are relatively harmless and will tell the audience that they can try it and see if it works for them individually. I see nothing wrong with that approach, particularly because those products have nothing in them but natural herbs and such.
3) Regarding his “failure to inform individuals on where to buy” these items, he didn’t feel it was his place to endorse products on that level since they hadn’t been reviewed and approved by the FDA, so if the people wanted them based on their viewing that episode, they were free to find them on their own. But the hassle involved with people taking liberties with what he actually said on the show, combined with being attacked by these people at the FTC, made him say that he might as well HAD endorsed them since he ended up going through a bunch of this nonsense over it anyway. Obviously he was just speaking out of emotion.

Daniel McNeal wrote: “For me, my interpretation is that he might as well having been hawking the fake product himself rather than pass the buck.”

I hardly consider that “passing the buck.” There’s a particular product making a buzz, and he uses his show’s format to show exactly what it is on the air. If it proves to be relatively harmless… no weird chemicals in it or anything like that… then he’ll go ahead and tell the audience that they can go find the stuff if they want to. Particular vendors will have a field day and plaster his image all over their packaging to his annoyance, forcing him into litigation. He clearly explained that in the article. How you found “passing the buck” within that was an interesting magic trick.

Daniel McNeal wrote: “If we unpackage that a moment, as you and I know, by recommending one brand, one vendor and etc., it cuts off your money and locks you in to one client. Make no mistake, he is getting multiple checks from multiple vendors of whatever diet fad he's promoting. (generic company, name brand company -0 which is a very common practice between celebs and pharmaceutical companies)”

Again, that isn’t what his testimony in the article revealed. And having watched the show myself, he doesn’t recommend “one brand, one vendor and etc.,” but showcases the nature of a particular substance and determines whether or not it’s okay or not. He doesn’t endorse the products themselves as he said, so how could he get a check from it? He admitted, from a place of raw irritation from this FTC circus show, that if he knew he was going to get attacked over this little bit maybe he might as well had just straight up told the audience where to go.

Daniel McNeal wrote: “Dr. Oz is extremely aware of his "Oz Effect" and the issue that I have is that he didn't from day one, take responsibility for that.”

“He said he did that for ethical reasons…” is him taking responsibility for the power he wields as a media personality. He didn’t realize that those predatory businesses would be as relentless as they are, which is how his efforts to do right seemed to backfire on him, and they just took advantage of the things he did say.

Daniel McNeal wrote: “He has a nationally syndicated show that allows him and his words to be perceieved as law. Unfortunately with that power comes the backlash and association of anything negative or to the contray of his word. So rather than do the responsible thing from the giddy up, he opted to bury his head in the sand.”

I enjoy his show, and his approach to giving these products a fair shake by letting both opponents and supporters give their presentations about them, and then giving his own opinion about the product after breaking down the science behind how the main ingredients work. Instead of the mainstream medical community’s typical monopoly of telling you only to buy stuff that will make THEM money, Dr. Oz takes a fairer, and more responsible approach, without treating his audience like idiots. Unfortunately the FTC sides with the monolithic majority and treats Dr. Oz like a bad guy when he’s actually proven to be the foil to the bad guy which is why they hate him.

Daniel McNeal wrote: “The most powerful part of the article is Sen. McCaskill's statement on the scientific communities view of Dr. Oz as being monolithic…”

Which is ironic.

Daniel McNeal wrote: “…and the repeated claims of these miracle products.”

Revealing that a particular ingredient within an herb or substance that has the ability to help you control your appetite, or isolate fat cells in some way, may not necessarily be a “miracle” in the biblical sense, but it would obviously provide some additional motivation for the average joe in the fattest country in the world to help get him/herself in shape. Being coldly technical in his presentation wouldn’t be particularly helpful, thus the “flowery language” of a tv show host calling it a “miracle.”

Daniel McNeal wrote: “As a medical practioner, he knows that sensible diet, exercise and proper rest are the only true panaceas against weight loss.”

Dr. Oz frequently talks about that stuff as well. In his own example he’ll explain what he eats and show his own regular workouts, along with guests who show their own variations. I would think it was odd if a single one of his regular viewers DIDN’T know that proper diet and regular exercise was the best way to maximum health.

Daniel McNeal wrote: “So, for me, he is hawking ‘fake wares’"

And for me, he’s doing no such a thing, but the undiscerning FTC people (who are interestingly quite unhealthy looking) have grouped him in with the bad folk and sided with the medical monopoly against him. I disagree with the article’s entire stance.

Daniel McNeal wrote: “…he has the medical knowledge and responsibility to know better and provide better info.”

And he absolutely does so. He can’t control the criminal element, and not even just those greedy small businesses desperate to sell product. I agree with Dr. Oz that they would do that no matter what, and the only way to stop it is for him to just not show his face in public at all as a celebrity. Everyone knows celebrity endorsement, whether real or not, will move more product and the only thing this controversy reveals is one of the negative sides of celebrity.

No comments:

Post a Comment