6 thoughts on “#156: Saving Dr. Oz

  1. Steven

    I think the more interesting thing that was said during the hearings, could care less about the Dr. Oz, was what Senator McCaskill said to him. How has this not gotten more discussion?

    “I know you feel that you’re a victim,” McCaskill said during the hearing, “but sometimes conduct invites being a victim. I think that if you would be more careful, maybe you wouldn’t be victimized quite as frequently.” – See more at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dr-oz-denies-endorsing-miracle-712661#sthash.xouAUXNi.dpuf

  2. springmellon

    Such a depressing show.

    Drew Pinsky’s basic morality is now so warped that the focus of his offence is that a highly qualified doctor using his qualifications and experience to sell products that he knows to be useless has been taken to task and exposed

    These products are largely sold to poor and naive people who might look to figures such as Drew Pinsky to inform them that they are wasting their money, and might suggest proven ways to weight loss.

    Drew Pinsky has now participated in so many exploitative TV programmes, and been the willing recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars to shill products for the major pharmaceutical companies, that he has no credibility as a doctor left.

    Adam’s great repetitive message now is self reliance. Fine, but he’s a hypocrite.who is looking for handouts to save his business.

    Adam’s podcast network, like other free broadcasters, is based on selling advertising. You listen for free, he shows the figures to potential advertisers, and on that basis they pay and he makes money. Adam isn’t giving you something for free out of the kindness of his heart; the more listeners the more he profits.

    Now he has a lawsuit affecting his business and instead of his relying on his company’s assets to fight the lawsuit he wants his listeners,(he product he is selling to advertisers) to pay by donating. It is his business and according to his mantra he and his company should take take responsibility for defending it.
    At every turn on the website he is looking for handouts.

    Again, with his film, he is not prepared to risk his money, but looks for handouts from fans.

    1. Didgya

      Their bias is blinding them on this issue. They are using a false equivocation to make a central problem instead of the complicated issue it is. I am not really on board with you on his ads and patent troll issues. I think that might be a bigger issue than just him and should be stopped for other reasons. But you are right that he doesn’t realize that he is e-begging a bit on this one.

  3. Didgya

    I agree with a lot of what Adam and Drew say but they are totally missing the point of the investigation. The Senate’s consumer protection panel is there to combat these dishonest peddlers of pseudoscience that is harmful for citizens. Oz is a doctor and people listen to him as a doctor, not an entertainer. Him being ignorant of his impact and being naive is not an excuse that either of you gentlemen accept in any other arena. I get it, you don’t like the government, they have other things to do but this is also part of their responsibility.

  4. Robert

    This was a particularly frustrating episode to listen to as a fan of both of these guys. First of all, as a doctor you are held to a different standard in the public’s eye. If you’re talking about hte health benefits of a product, the viewers assume you are doing that based on the extent of your medical knowledge and that you would have the ethical backbone to not be getting paid to say anything. It’s just common sense so why does someone like Dr. Drew have such a hard time understanding why where is public backlash? We trusted you! You’re a god damn doctor. Maybe continue acting like an ethical, medical professional instead of some hack getting paid money to make up BS about worthless medical products.

    And sometimes Adam just gets worked up about the wrong things, it’s funny to witness as a listener. He thinks the “work small to big” is such a stupid idea but seriously if you came home tonight to your dirty house and said “man, I need to do something about this dump.” Would you pick up the trash first or paint the walls first? You would actually work small to big, it’s a pretty easy concept to understand and I think it works fine for government as well. Small things don’t have to impact no one, his whole “click or ticket” sign changed to “if it steers it clears” is a perfect example of working small to big. That’s a small change that really helps things and is easy to do. Bam, good use of government time to make that change. Same with raising the goal posts. That is a small thing isn’t it? Yet it’s easy to implement and actually helps make the game clearly better. Working small to big.

  5. Pingback: You can always tell when Kathy is guest posting for Arnie… | BlazingCatFur

Comments are closed.