[From the Truth-In-Blogging Department: Worth noting that several of the ten doctors have ties with companies like Monsanto and their primary beef was Oz's continued call for elimination/reduction/clearer-labeling of products with GMOs.]
My beef with Dr. Oz is wider ranging. In the end, medicine and health are only so interesting, and with five hours a week of television to fill, one is pushed to the fringes of science to do stories like "This miracle food may help you lose twenty pounds." Shit like that.
Dr. Oz, for his part, instead of actually rebutting what these people had to say, offered this ...
"This month, we celebrate my 1000th show," Oz says in the preview clip. "I know I've irritated some potential allies in our quest to make America healthy. No matter our disagreements, freedom of speech is the most fundamental right we have as Americans. And these 10 doctors are trying to silence that right."
Which is a load of crap. The issue isn't free speech. Dr. Oz is free to say, within reason, whatever he wants to. The issue is whether Columbia University should continue its affiliation with a doctor who consistently spouts nonsense in the name of science.
And if the history of politics tells us just one thing, it's that the minute somebody starts railing about having their freedom of speech compromised, he's guilty as sin.
You could argue that Dr. Oz is the Jim Cramer of television medicine. Meaning that he's a smart man with impressive credentials who spouts so much nonsense that the actual good stuff -- the wheat, if you will -- becomes impossible to separate from the chaff.
"I'm dead. They're talking about wheat?"
I thought giving Cramer three nipples was a master stroke.
Thank you. I'm very fond of that painting, not just for the nipples but for the zeal with which people wrote shit all over it.
Too bad somebody bought it.
Indeed. Having somebody buy one of your paintings is the classic definition of good news/bad news.
No comments:
Post a Comment