In the
forum Captain Al linked to a
recent Newsweek article that's well worth reading. It details how Oprah Winfrey has routinely promoted dubious medical/pseudoscientific nonsense on her show. It appears that the only standard of evidence important to her is whether a claim is emotionally appealing. If a claim passes that test, then it must be true!
Some of the nonsense promoted on her show includes:
- Suzanne Somers' vitamin/hormone cure for aging.
- Jenny McCarthy's crusade to pin the blame for autism on vaccines.
- Dr. Christiane Northrup's theory that thyroid dysfunction is caused by repressing your emotions.
- Radio-wave skin tightening treatments.
- And "The Secret", that by "thinking positively" you can attract success and good health to yourself.
The article doesn't even get into her relentless promotion of psychic scammers.
Comments
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com
169 preventable deaths have occured since McCarthy started her campaign against the health of children. I don't know how she can live with herself.
To me, the REAL question is: Why would anyone take JENNY McCARTHY's opinions on medical matters seriously?
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/resveratrol.html
(just for the record I am not claiming that I know what is best for you but simply that there is no proven benefit for this product and some statistical risk).
Still, I'm not sure it's worth it:
"And once a day, she uses a syringe to inject estrogen directly into her vagina."
OUCH!
"... Next come the pills. She swallows 60 vitamins and other preparations every day. "I take about 40 supplements in the morning," she told Oprah, 'and then, before I go to bed, I try to remember
Does she really look that young or are all those modeling photos she does for her products retouched? No, they wouldn't be that dishonest, would they?
TV doesn't show wrinkles very well especially with all the makeup that is standard issue for anyone going on the air. It would be interesting to see her in person, up close. Hair color can easily be changed to hide the gray but I bet there would be a few more wrinkles.
Hilarious! Thanks ostrakos. That deserves a thread of its own.
According to wikipedia, he has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, but after being sanctioned in Texas, he didn't renew his license so he can't represent himself as a psychologist.
Wikipedia also has this interesting note: "After run-ins with several faculty members, McGraw was guided through the doctoral program by Frank Lawlis, Ph.D., who later became the primary contributing psychologist for the Dr. Phil television show."
It's also true, though, that Phil McGraw hasn't been licensed to practice psychology in Texas or anywhere since 1989. He apparently claims that what he does on his TV shows is for entertainment only and doesn't constitute practice of psychology.
The whole Wikipedia piece has a number of eye-opening facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_McGraw
She would just use The Secret to will herself back to life.
The next year, McGraw published his first best-selling book, Life Strategies, some of which was taken from the "Pathways" seminar.[7] In the next four years, McGraw published three additional best-selling relationship books, along with workbooks to complement them.
As of September 2002, McGraw formed Peteski Productions[19] and launched his own syndicated daily television show, Dr. Phil, produced by Winfrey's Harpo Studios. The format is an advice show, where he tackles a different topic on each show, offering advice for his guests' troubles.
Kalpoe lawsuit (2006)
McGraw was named a co-defendant, along with CBS Television, in a 2006 lawsuit filed in relation to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.[42] The lawsuit was filed by Deepak Kalpoe and his brother Satish Kalpoe, who claimed that an interview they did with McGraw, aired in September 2005, was "manipulated and later broadcast as being accurate, and which portrays Deepak Kalpoe and Satish Kalpoe 'as engaging in criminal activity against Natalee Holloway and constitutes defamation.'"[42] The Kalpoe brothers claimed invasion of privacy, fraud, deceit, defamation, emotional distress, and civil conspiracy in the suit, which was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court.