_____________________________________
[www.sciencebasedmedicine.org]
The Oprah-fication of medicine

...Unfortunately, in marked contrast, Oprah has about as close to no critical thinking skills when it comes to science and medicine as I’ve ever seen, and she uses the vast power and influence her TV show and media empire give her in order to subject the world to her special brand of mystical New Age thinking and belief in various forms of what can only be characterized as dubious medical therapies at best and quackery at worst. Arguably there is no single person in the world with more influence pushing woo than Oprah. Indeed, she puts Prince Charles to shame, and Kevin Trudeau is a mere ant compared to the juggernaught that is Oprah Winfrey’s media empire. No one even comes close. No one, and I mean no one, brings pseudoscience, quackery, and antivaccine madness to more people than Oprah Winfrey does every week. (She doesn’t discuss such topics every day, but it seems that at least once a week she does.) Naturally, Oprah doesn’t see it that way and likely no one could ever convince her of the malign effect she has on the national zeitgeist with respect to science and medicine, but that’s exactly what she does. Consequently, whether fair or unfair, she represents the perfect face to put on the problem that we supporters of science-based medicine face when trying to get the message out to the average reader about unscientific medical practices, and that’s why I am referring to the pervasiveness of pseudoscience infiltrating medicine as the “Oprah-fication” of medicine.
...

In the real world, unfortunately, my answer would be this: Oprah doesn’t care about science or accuracy. Rather, she cares about three things: ratings, “empowerment,” and entertainment. If it gets ratings, it interests her. If it fits into her apparent “spiritual” world view (like The Secret does), it’s all good to her. If it fits in with the “alternative” medical beliefs of her audience (as Jenny McCarthy, Mehmet Oz, and Christiane Northrup do), she likes it. If it provides a message of “empowerment” (whether real or not), it is good. Those scientists and nasty skeptics are such downers, too. They harsh the happy buzz of all that “positivity” and overcoming adversity to provide “inspirational” stories. None of this is new, either. After all, remember that Oprah sandbagged James Randi when he was the skeptic on a show about psychics. She was also extremely sarcastic and abusive to a woman named Laura McMahon who had agreed in 2007 to be the token skeptic on another episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show about psychics.

The bottom line is that, whatever good Oprah may have done with her money, when it comes to medicine and science, she is a force for ill. Her intentions may be the best in the world, but that is only why she is the living embodiment of the cliche that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That’s especially true when that same road is also paved with no mental filter of critical thinking to keep out nonsense, and Oprah clearly has no mental filter when it comes to pseudoscience and quackery. With great power comes great responsibility, indeed. Too bad Oprah doesn’t seem to understand or accept that. The result is the Oprah-fication of the popular discourse about medicine in the media, as epitomized by the “tell both sides” imbalance seen on shows like The Doctors. Indeed, Oprah is one of the most potent forces in American for the undermining of critical thinking and science-based medicine in existence....

______________________________________
[www.spectator.co.uk]
Oprah: The Queen of Snake-Oil
Alex Massie 1st June 2009
Michael Kinsley has a very entertaining take-down of the "new" Newsweek in this week's edition of the New Republic*. However, I doubt the "old" Newsweek would have dared publish this very entertaining, even brutal, takedown of Oprah Winfrey. In fact, it's the sort of piece one might imagine appearing in TNR. So, whatever the merits of Kinsley's piece and whatever the future may - or more probably does not - hold for Newsweek, anything that exposes Oprah's weird combination of sappy new age snake-oil and shameless hucksterism is no bad thing.

If nothing else, it's worth being reminded that Oprah peddles the anti-MMR nonsense that, if its supporters have their way, is much more likely to harm many more children than would be affected even if their crackpottery were based on a sound evaluation of the risks of immunisation. Which, as best I can tell, it isn't.

__________________________

Is Oprah Killing Us?
[skepticalhypochondriac.com]
___________________________________

[gawker.com]
Oprah's Not a Doctor, But She Plays One on TV
By Pareene, 5:36 PM on Mon Jun 1 2009,

She is very powerful, and so she will probably destroy Newsweek for reporting this, but: Oprah's popular show, when it is not about giving you free things, is about promoting stupid and often dangerous quackery and pseudoscience.

Often, yes, it is about heartwarming stories of one woman's triumph over adversity, but sometimes that "adversity" is a medical condition and the "triumph" involves disproved, insane, and potentially harmful treatments. Like when Oprah had the thyroid problem, and her spiritual holistic OB-GYN recommended soy milk and iodine, both of which will just make it worse, if you for real have a thyroid problem, and aren't just fat and sad.

What causes thyroid conditions, again? Oh, right, nonsense.

Thyroid dysfunction, which affects millions of Americans (mostly women), occurs when the thyroid gland located in the neck produces too much or too little thyroid hormone. Too much (hyperthyroidism) and the metabolism races, sometimes causing anxiety and weight loss. Too little (hypothyroidism) and it slows, which, if severe, can lead to depression and weight gain. Many things can trigger the disease, especially autoimmune disorders.

But Northrup believes thyroid problems can also be the result of something else. As she explains in her book, "in many women, thyroid dysfunction develops because of an energy blockage in the throat region, the result of a lifetime of 'swallowing' words one is aching to say."

This lengthy article is actually far too kind (and brief) to baby-killing nut Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vaccine crusade, and yet it still manages to be a very damning indictment of how Oprah is trying to kill your poor mother. "At some point, it would seem, people will stop looking to Oprah for this kind of guidance. This will never happen."

Read More: Quacks, Oprah, Oprah Winfrey, Medicine, Newsweek, Vaccines, Jenny Mccarthy, Health
______________________________________



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2009 04:40PM by The Anticult.

_________________________
[scienceblogs.com]
Oprah is a crank
Category: Cranks
Posted on: June 1, 2009 6:59 AM, by MarkH

PZ brings to my attention this article in Newsweek which sums up Oprah's views on health, and one sadly must come to the conclusion that Oprah is a crank. Based on our definition of crankery, one of the critical aspects is the incompetence of an individual in judging sources of information. How else can you describe her dismissal of legitimate medical opinion for the pseudoscience of celebrities like Suzanne Somers or Jenny McCarthy?

That was apparently good enough for Oprah. "Many people write Suzanne off as a quackadoo," she said. "But she just might be a pioneer." Oprah acknowledged that Somers's claims "have been met with relentless criticism" from doctors. Several times during the show she gave physicians an opportunity to dispute what Somers was saying. But it wasn't quite a fair fight. The doctors who raised these concerns were seated down in the audience and had to wait to be called on. Somers sat onstage next to Oprah, who defended her from attack. "Suzanne swears by bioidenticals and refuses to keep quiet. She'll take on anyone, including any doctor who questions her."
That would be a lot of doctors. Outside Oprah's world, there isn't a raging debate about replacing hormones. Somers "is simply repackaging the old, discredited idea that menopause is some kind of hormone-deficiency disease, and that restoring them will bring back youth," says Dr. Nanette Santoro, director of reproductive endocrinology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Older women aren't missing hormones. They just don't need as much once they get past their childbearing years. Unless a woman has significant discomfort from hot flashes--and most women don't--there is little reason to prescribe them. Most women never use them. Hormone therapy can increase a woman's risk of heart attacks, strokes, blood clots and cancer. And despite Somers's claim that her specially made, non-FDA-approved bioidenticals are "natural" and safer, they are actually synthetic, just like conventional hormones and FDA-approved bioidenticals from pharmacies--and there are no conclusive clinical studies showing they are less risky. That's why endocrinologists advise that women take the smallest dose that alleviates symptoms, and use them only as long as they're needed.
...
This is where things get tricky. Because the truth is, some of what Oprah promotes isn't good, and a lot of the advice her guests dispense on the show is just bad. The Suzanne Somers episode wasn't an oddball occurrence. This kind of thing happens again and again on Oprah. Some of the many experts who cross her stage offer interesting and useful information (props to you, Dr. Oz). Others gush nonsense. Oprah, who holds up her guests as prophets, can't seem to tell the difference. She has the power to summon the most learned authorities on any subject; who would refuse her? Instead, all too often Oprah winds up putting herself and her trusting audience in the hands of celebrity authors and pop-science artists pitching wonder cures and miracle treatments that are questionable or flat-out wrong, and sometimes dangerous.
...
But back on the Oprah show, McCarthy's charges went virtually unchallenged. Oprah praised McCarthy's bravery and plugged her book, but did not invite a physician or scientist to explain to her audience the many studies that contradict the vaccines-autism link. Instead, Oprah read a brief statement from the Centers for Disease Control saying there was no science to prove a connection and that the government was continuing to study the problem. But McCarthy got the last word. "My science is named Evan, and he's at home. That's my science." Oprah might say that McCarthy was just sharing her first-person story and that Oprah wasn't endorsing her point of view. But by the end of the show, the take-away message for any mother with young kids was pretty clear: be afraid.



Dangerous is right. One wonders why the CDC doesn't have a public health authority devoted to studying the spread of quackery at the hands of celebrities and promoters of woo such as Oprah. It's disappointing though, she's clearly an intelligent person and has the potential to do so much good, but instead chooses to follow the advice of any celebrity at hand who will tell her and her audience what they want to hear.

What's worse is that while seeking advice from quacks who promote this wishful thinking, at the same time she reinforces that most fundamental aspect of medical woo. When you are sick it isn't because human bodies are fragile, or they wear out, or are attacked by bacteria and viruses, instead it's your fault. Sickness isn't an accident. It's your failure. You failed to take supplements, or you failed to protect yourself, or you are weak-minded, or you failed spiritually. Of course there are things that we can do to protect ourselves and stay healthy, I wouldn't suggest some form of health fatalism. But medical quackery takes a healthy attitude of self-protection to an extreme of self-flagellation. It promotes the idea that there is always a way of staying healthy, (take this vitamin!) when in reality sickness and death comes to us all no matter how hard we wish it were otherwise. This wishful thinking and self-doubt is, of course, what is exploited to sell quack remedies.

Oprah fails her audience, not only in her incompetence in judging medical expertise, but also for complicity in this most insidious aspect of quackery, that of blaming the victim.
_____________________________________________

Wow, The Anticult. Great posts. I would like to ad my two cents:

FTA QUOTE:"What's worse is that while seeking advice from quacks who promote this wishful thinking, at the same time she reinforces that most fundamental aspect of medical woo. When you are sick it isn't because human bodies are fragile, or they wear out, or are attacked by bacteria and viruses, instead it's your fault. Sickness isn't an accident. It's your failure. You failed to take supplements, or you failed to protect yourself, or you are weak-minded, or you failed spiritually."

This is the same damn thing FAITH HEALERS hammer their sheepeople with. Maybe Oprah is bordering on becoming a true cult.

yes, its the same old, blame the victim modality. If a person gets a biological illness, they blame them for it, when it most likely has nothing to do with them.
Many people who lead a healthy lifestyle, get hit with cancer, and many other diseases, that is called biological reality.

Perhaps this is all because Oprah is launching her new TV network, and she wants to use that network to promote many of these Quackery health claims, as she believes them, and they also make a ton of money.

Oprah has said she believes in the Christ Consciousness idea, from New Thought. This means she literally believes ANY illness can be literally cured with Mind-Power. That is what they believe.
But she has to somewhat hide that from the public, but she seems to just let others promote it using her platform.

So her promotion of all the dubious culty New Wage Guru's is exactly the exact same IDEA as her claims she promotes about health. They stem from the same false and antiscience ideas.

Notice how Oprah promotes these products, sales go through the roof, then a month or two later they put out a quiet disclaimer to protect themselves.
Meanwhile, when Oprah gets overweight again, its not about Mind-Power anymore, its a "biological illness".
So either she really is clueless about these subjects, or she is an extraordinary business woman.


for once, the media is speaking up about the health stuff. Is Oprah going to listen?
No way.
She went over the New Wage line a while back, and there is no way she is going to backtrack.
As the guy says below, that could ruin her business model and new network, which will probably be half-full of these healthy Quackery things, which make billions.



____________________________
[blogs.reuters.com]
Oprah’s anti-science tendencies
Post a comment (1)Posted by: Felix Salmon
Tags: felix, pseudoscience
Lance Knobel is right: Newsweek’s monster 6,000-word fisking of Oprah Winfrey is exactly the kind of thing which can and should make the magazine relevant again. A taster:

On one of the Secret shows, Oprah gave an example of the scientific power of the concept. She said that once, while she was hosting an episode about a man who could blow really big soap bubbles, she was thinking to herself, “Gee, that looks fun. I would like to blow some bubbles.” When she returned to her office after the show, there, on her desk, was a silver Tiffany bubble blower. “So I call my assistant,” Oprah told the audience. “I say, ‘Did you just run out and get me some bubbles? ‘Cause I got bubbles by my desk.’ And she says, ‘No, the bubbles were always there. I bought you bubbles for your birthday and you didn’t notice them until today’.”

There are many lessons that might be drawn from this anecdote. One is that if you give Oprah a thoughtful gift, she may not bother to notice it or thank you for it. This is not the lesson Oprah took away from her story. Because the way she sees it, her assistant hadn’t really given her the gift at all. She gave it to herself. Using the power of The Secret, she said, “I had called in some bubbles.”

Given the space available, I would have liked to see the authors, Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert, spend a bit of time examining whether Oprah’s anti-science tendencies actually contribute to her success. There does seem to be a common thread to much of Oprah’s most egregious content: don’t take the scientific patriarchy at its word, and trust instead in your womanly intuition. It’s an attractive idea to much of Oprah’s audience. If she toed the scientific line, might she lose part of her audience and her influence?

____________________________________________
Oprah Health Claims Unhealthy?
Advice Dispensed By Talk Show Queen May Be More Harmful Than Helpful, Newsweek Says
[www.cbsnews.com]

Oprah's health advice may be toxic [www.s2smagazine.com]

as expected, Oprah Winfrey has simple shrugged off the criticism.

Oprah Winfrey Responds to Report She Gives Dangerous Medical Advice
[www.usmagazine.com]

They know exactly how to do it.
They present these wacky "cures" and Gurus and sell the hell out of them on the show. Then they throw in a tiny disclaimer at some point to cover their butts, which no one listens to.

Its amazing how Oprah pretends that she doesn't have such a powerful influence over her audience, when in fact its been proven and named The Oprah Effect, that all she has to do is mention something, and it skyrockets in sales.

probably what it all really is, is that Oprah believes the Christ Consciousness idea, where everything can literally be "cured" by mindpower. But she can't come out and say that openly, as the "public isn't ready" so she just lets others promote it on her programs.

One has to wonder though, why she would so heavily promote Jenny McCarthy, who's claim to fame was Playboy and MTV, to give out terrible medical advice about "autism". Just bizarre.

(good post about this situation below)

____________________________
[psychcentral.com]
Oprah and the Power to Persuade
By John M Grohol PsyD
June 3, 2009

Newsweek took on Oprah this past week with a cover story calling out her promotion of some of her guests’ health claims, which are usually not based upon scientifically sound principles. It’s hard to take on a powerhouse media deity like Oprah, because of her positive influence in so many people’s lives. It’s harder to stand fast with your criticism, and yet Newsweek appears to be doing just that.

From actress Suzanne Somers’ use of “bioidentical” hormones to combat aging to Jenny McCarthy, the Playboy model and actress, who promotes the completely discredited theory that childhood vaccines may cause autism, Oprah’s been there making sure these poor stars get a spotlight on their causes. Would Oprah give the same airtime to a random doctor promoting the use of cognitive-behavioral therapy to help prevent teen suicides (as a recent study just found)? I seriously doubt it. Cognitive-behavioral therapy is neither sexy nor provocative. Hollywood stars who claim they are being silenced by large pharmaceutical companies are far more in vogue and bound to get more ratings.

What about the need for science to enter into this discussion? Sorry, Oprah’s not there to give you a balanced discussion about the science. Oprah is, after all, an entertainment talk show, not a documentary on the Discovery Channel. Oprah says, “I believe my viewers understand the medical information presented on the show is just that — information — not an endorsement or prescription. Rather, my intention is for our viewers to take the information and engage in a dialogue with their medical practitioners about what may be right for them.”

Yet that sort of statement isn’t very intellectually honest. If you sit next to Jenny McCarthy on stage next to Oprah, all the while having the real medical experts, scientists and doctors in the audience, waiting to be called upon (like students in class), well, you see the power differentiation carefully orchestrated by Oprah and her producers. This isn’t some sort of production mistake — this is Oprah completely understanding how her influence works, and using that power to persuade in a very specific and targeted manner, implying “I’m sitting next to the real expert who has the ‘untold story.’ This is who you should pay attention to.”

Oprah has an incredible power to persuade through her influence. She can make or break a book author by recommending his or her book on the show. The same with a product. And now, by examining sometimes ludicrous medical claims and giving them the illusion of legitimacy, she clouds the picture. Not because we have any new scientific data, but because she has used the power of the media and her personality to simply change the conversation from one dealing with data, to one dealing with unsubstantiated “cover-ups” and Hollywood personalities. Look at these poor (yet very rich!) Hollywood stars who can’t get their story heard!

Perhaps it never occurred to Oprah that the reason nobody is paying much attention to the likes of Somers or McCarthy is because their story is a bunch of malarkey based upon anecdotes and stories. And while such stories can be very powerful to tell a personal experience that may help change someone else’s life through the telling, it’s when she or her guests move from simply relating a personal story to making specific medical and health recommendations that is causing many professionals to do a double-take:

She didn’t make it clear on the show what form of the disease she had, or what her doctors believed brought it on. She shared with her audience that she took thyroid medication and spent a month relaxing in Hawaii, where she ate fresh foods and drank soy milk. Northrup advises that in addition to conventional thyroid medication, women should consider taking iodine supplements.

That is just what they shouldn’t do, says Dr. David Cooper, a professor of endocrinology at Johns Hopkins medical school who specializes in thyroid disease. “She is mixing truth with fantasy here,” he says. First, “thyroid disease has nothing to do with women being downtrodden. She makes it sound like these women brought it on themselves.” Cooper agrees that thyroid patients should seek thyroid hormone treatment to bring the symptoms under control. But, he says, Oprah should have stayed clear of soy milk. “If you’re hypothyroid and you’re taking thyroid medication, you do not want to be taking soy. It will block your body’s ability to absorb the medication.”

Iodine, he says, can be even riskier. “[Northrop] says iodine deficiency is more common in women, when in reality it’s not very common in women at all. This is a myth.” The thyroid gland, he says, is extremely sensitive to iodine. “If you have mild hypothyroidism, taking iodine will make it worse.”

Of course, nobody watching the show had this important information and may have started doing something seemingly innocuous — such as drinking soy milk — that may have completely wreaked havoc on their condition.

But don’t take my word for it. Check out the views from around the ‘net about the story, summarized in the below blog entry from Newsweek. Sadly, Newsweek chose not to link to those that were critical of Newsweek’s coverage of this story. Here, for example is Suzanne Somers’ response. Somers rightfully points out that she just acts as a mouthpiece to the many doctors she has spoken with and interviewed on the topic of bioidentical hormones.

A very interesting controversy. It would be even more interesting to see Oprah address this controversy directly on a future show, inviting the Newsweek authors and some of the science bloggers on to discuss how this sort of media promotion can ultimately be a great disservice to her loyal viewers.

Read the reaction blog entry from Newsweek: Hey, Did You Hear We Took on Oprah? The Blog-o-sphere Reacts

Dr. John Grohol is the CEO and founder of Psych Central and has been writing about mental health and psychology issues online since 1992.
________________________________________

A couple took their kid for a vaccine, and the child became autistic shortly thereafter. To them it seems like ironclad proof of cause and effect. But it could have been a coincidence.
We should have compassion for them, but they belong in some kind of support group rather than on national tv insisting that what happened to their child WILL happen to others who receive vaccines. Very Sad.
Oprah has Drs Roizen and Oz on her show. When they promote the anti-inflammatory diet, they are right on the money. That diet reduces symptoms of arthritis and actually cures other diseases and problems such as ED. This is proven.
The minute they leave the realm of diet and exercise and get into anything 'spiritual' they go off the deep end.
A lot of people who get famous for having one or two good ideas begin to think that every idea they get can change the world, and start preaching about utopia.

If money brought happiness, there would be no expensive LGATs.

Exactly right, GratefulRage.

Parents have child vaccinated + child later diagnosed with autism + they see crap and lies on Oprah = "The vaccination made my child autistic!"

That is exactly how the psychics scam people. No one remembers the failed predictions, only the accidental "successes" therefore people consider the psychic to be "the real deal".

It's all the law of averages, but people WANT to believe there is a cause to everything bad in their lives. So when Jenny McCarthy gets free press on Oprah hair-pulling desperate parents grab it as if it were truth. It is so wrong on so many levels. What about the devastation that can wrought on populations by some not getting vaccinated and thus unleashing hitherto controlled diseases back into the herd? Should Oprah and the parents who follow her shows stupid advice be criminally charged with endangerment of public welfare?

Remember, vaccinations don't make all people immune from the disease, just less likely to get it or to develop serious complications from it. The unvaccinated could have their very lives or long-term health at risk.

hi.
As some one recently pointed out to me every small voice counts, so here goes.While most of Oprahs' beliefs leave me cold, I am actually grateful that she has been willing to bring the autism causation discussion more into the mainstream.

Like any medical intervention, vaccines carry both advantages and the risk of side effects. Rather like eating peanut butter. For most people a wonderful nutritious food and a good source of protien.
But for those allergic to it, peanut butter , a nice non toxic substance, can be lethally dangerous.
By the way, historically thalidomide tested as non toxic. In fact one of the reasons it was given to pregnant women for nausea was because it was actually described as being so non toxic it was almost impossible to overdose on it.

There are two cases recently in which the U.S. vaccine board agreed to compensate for vaccine injury resulting in autism.
Hannah Poling, the daughter of a neurologist, whose underlying mitochondrial disorder was aggravated by 9 vaccines on one day.She regressed following this,and now has a diagnosis of autism.
The one study done in Portugal looking at mitochondria disorder seemed to suggest mitochondrial disorder may be much more common in children with regressive autism.
Bradley Banks, who had seizures immediately following his MMR ( I think?it was the MMR)
his parents took him into the ER and they did an MRI which showed the damage caused, and he got dignosed with vaccine induced encephalopathy.He is on the autism spectrum PPD NOS.
( Interesting peer reviewed journal article: you can find it on google scholar:
Encephalopathy Followed By Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated with Further Attenuated Measles Vaccine: a review of the claims submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.)

There is still so much more to learn about vaccines. Most of us who are now adults grew up on a schedule of about 10 vaccines before the age of 5.In the later 1980's this changed and babies in the US now get around 36, starting with one on the day of birth.

We still don't know a lot about autism. We know that it is not purely genetic: identical twin studies have 60% concordance for severe autism ( 90% for aspergers) which mean autism is a genetic susceptibility with an environmental trigger.
Other studies have suggested relationships with mercury in the air, maternal intake of valproic acid, and maternal intake of thalidomide as being risk factors.
Some people hypothesize/some genetic studies seem to support that some of these children may have a glutathione transport problem menaing they are more susceptible to problems with handling heavy metals.it is possible for these chidlren that a shot containing aluminium on the day of birth (Hep B) , or flu shots containing thimerosal could be contraindicated.
Other kids may react to the adjunctants added to vaccines to stimulate the immune system; kids with a family history of autoimmune dysfunction have, depending on the problem, an autism rate of 1 in 12.The MMR insert suggests it not be given to people with immune system dysfunction, as it contains live viruses that they may not be able to tolerate.
Like peanut butter, vaccines are safe and protective for many people. But it is also important in my opinion for a compassionate nation to work to identify who is an risk of brain damage,and help them too. And at least with Oprah bringing the issue more to the forefront, perhaps more funding for studies designed to identify the probably mutiple causes of autism,and to also focus on how to make vaccines safer for the minority to whom they may be dangerous.
Thats my (probably unpopular) two cents worth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2009 01:51AM by yasmin.

Yasmin,

No - you're "two cents" isn't that unpopular. There is a lot of gray area between Oprah-style thinking and science. I've worked in the medical field since 1986 and know many doctors who will not get their kids vaccinated. There is also a lot more scientific research that just isn't published by the big journals for political reasons. That is changing as more journals become open-source and not peer-reviewed. I used to transcribe research reports for a big NYC oncology research team and it was amazing what wasn't published and why - something like being the kid who was last to be picked for sports teams in high school. This type of stuff happens in conventional as well as so-called alternative medicine.

The thing is, the games that go on in medicine drive people to gurus like Oprah (or, with me, to a really sociopathic naturopath). In between pharmaceuticals and Noni juice there is biochemistry, which doesn't have an agenda.