On his “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” program on HBO, the host tore into Dr. Oz, his Senate testimony last week, and the regulation (or lack thereof) of nutritional supplements. The segment discusses Senators Harken and Hatch and their roles in the latter. It includes classic Oz clips, like talking with Cameron Diaz about what your poop should look like. And, at the very end, don’t miss actor Steve Buscemi tap dancing and the marching band. All with a message for Oz about engaging the audience.
One of my favorite parts:
“Oliver: He says he wasn’t paid to mention any particular products so why say those things on TV at all?”
(clip of Oz in Senate testimony:) “To engage viewers I use flowery language. I used language that was very passionate.”
Oliver: “That make sense because we’re all looking for flowery language from our physicians…. ‘Like the sunlight shines upon the hidden grassy meadow so does chlamydia cast a warm glow up on your private parts.’ “
I often thought that John Stewart and Steven Colbert sometimes produced some of the best health care news criticism. Now their ex-colleague Oliver joins that list.
Addendum on June 24:
Kat Whitfield responded to one of Dr. Oz’s Senate testimony statements with a visual fact-checker, below:
———————–
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
For breakfast, @GarySchwitzer swallows 2 observational studies with an anti-irritant chaser. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/for-breakfast-give-me-2-observational-studies-and-an-anti-irritant/#.XvtqMk8i5e8.twitter
Sitting & cancer...alcohol & improved cognition. Waking up to a double whammy of miscommunicated observational studies.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/for-breakfast-give-me-2-observational-studies-and-an-anti-irritant/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like