Tag Archives: Dr. Phil

entertainment news, national news, political news

Oprah in 2020? Please … no!

I have nothing against Oprah Winfrey as a person, as a media celebrity/mogul, as a highly successful businesswoman.

But this notion making the social media rounds about whether she might run for president of the United States of America in 2020 is driving me a bit nuts.

Oprah apparently said out loud recently that if Donald John Trump can be elected president, then damn near anybody can be elected.

I happen to agree with that assessment.

However, the presidency should not become a playground for the rich and powerful. Oprah has as much public service exposure as Trump. That would be, um, none!

I’m a bit old-fashioned in that regard. I kind of prefer heads of state and heads of government to at least have run for something, anything, that demonstrates a commitment to public service.

Oprah is a celebrity. She’s a star, in fact. She’s made some fine films and has been an eloquent spokeswoman for the causes she deems worth espousing. She’s made Dr. Phil McGraw a star. She faced down some angry Texas Panhandle cattlemen who sued her for defamation because she said on the air that she didn’t think beef was safe to eat.

That’s all fine and dandy.

She ain’t presidential material.

I hope this little mini-tempest settles down quickly.

media news, national news, political news

What’s with the first-name usage for Hillary?

hillaryclinton-101-1451652269

I’ve wondered about this for nearly as long as Hillary Rodham Clinton has been in public life — which seems like forever.

Why do the media, the political class, historians and Mr. and Mrs. J.Q. Public refer to the Democratic nominee for president as “Hillary”?

I’ll admit to doing it in casual conversation. My wife and I talk about this election all the time. We’re caught up by it. We’re enthralled — if that’s the right word — by all of its patently bizarre twists and turns.

Then I’ll toss out something like this: “Did you hear what Hillary and Trump said today?” My wife identifies the two major-party candidates the same way.

The Republican nominee doesn’t get the same air of familiarity, if that’s what it is. We refer to Donald J. Trump as “Trump.” I’m inclined to use more, um, descriptive terminology at times. And yes, I’m quite sure those on the other side attach the same pejorative qualifiers to Hillary.

See, there I go again … falling into that first-name trap.

I mean no disrespect. I take her as seriously as I do any other politician, male or female.

I’ll admit to using first names on other pols. Newt, Mitt and Jeb are my favorites. Their names are unusual enough that you don’t need to last names to know about whom one is referring. It’s kind of like Wilt, Arnie, Tiger and Kareem … you know?

There’s got to be a psychologist out there who can explain it to me.

Hey, do you think Dr. Phil might be looking for a topic to cover on his TV show.

medical news

Is the 'pop doc' a quack?

Dr. Mehmet Oz professes to have miracle cures for all kinds of maladies.

He’s got his followers. His syndicated TV talk show is a huge hit. He’s become something of a pop culture icon, depending on whose opinion you’re seeking.

Oz is just the latest in a long — and growing — line of popular culture experts. Remember the late Joyce Brothers? How about Phil McGraw? They’re two psychologists who’ve become part of the pop culture scene.

Now it’s Dr. Oz.

Of the names I’ve just mentioned, Oz’s credibility has been taken into serious account by the British Medical Journal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/19/half-of-dr-ozs-medical-advice-is-baseless-or-wrong-study-says/

The journal contends that at least half of Oz’s diagnoses and cures are baseless and lack any foundation. According to the Washington Post: “Recommendations made on medical talk shows often lack adequate information on specific benefits or the magnitude of the effects of these benefits,” the (British Medical Journal) article said “… The public should be skeptical about recommendations made on medical talk shows.”

OK, let’s not call Dr. Oz a quack. But his naturopathic approach to curing ailments has been questioned seriously by a leading medical journal.

The journal “selected 40 episodes from last year, identifying 479 separate medical recommendations. After paging through the relevant medical research, they found evidence only supported 46 percent of his recommendations, contradicted 15 percent and wasn’t available for 39 percent.” the Post reported.

Is it fair to ask whether TV talk-show doctors, such as Oz, prey on people’s gullibility? Is it fair also to wonder, as the British Medical Journal has done, whether “marketability” is the driver in promoting these cures, that an ability to sell these notions to the public takes precedence over actual scientific and medical fact?

This isn’t the first time Oz’s claims have been questioned. A Senate panel grilled him thoroughly earlier this year over some of the “miracle” cures he has pushed on his TV show.

I guess it’s the term “miracle” that has some folks — including yours truly — scratching their heads over just what this popular TV star is promoting.

In all my years on this Earth, I’ve never heard a physician who uses that term to describe the effectiveness of a treatment.