E! True Hollywood Story about Dr. Phil:

[www.eonline.com]

You can watch a video of the TV episode...I can't watch it here at work, because I don't want to be disruptive. It discusses his first wife and the reprimand he received as a psychologist.

Some quick points:

• His first wife says that Phil required her to telephone him before she could leave the house and to tell him of her every move. He also insisted that she spend a lot of time working out at the gym he was managing.

• Dr. Phil and his father earned more than $1 million a year at one point by giving self-help seminars on success.

• Dr. Phil was once reprimanded by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists. He gave a patient a job working in his office, which is a no-no. Dr. Phil had to retake his licensing exams, get ethical counseling and take a physical and psychological exam himself.

[archive.salon.com]
or
[archive.salon.com]

Here's a Dr. Phil article from Salon. (you have to watch an Ad to read the whole article).

Excerpts:
By Heather Havrilesky
Nov. 24, 2003
-----------------
But the very qualities that make Dr. Phil an appealing, trustworthy authority figure -- his unrelenting self-confidence and poise, his aggressive tactics, his irreproachable attitude -- appear to be the same traits that have created trouble for him in the past and that continue to plague him today, even as his popularity increases exponentially. In just the past month, McGraw has come under criticism for marketing nutritional supplements bearing his likeness, and was hit with a lawsuit filed last week from a guest on his show who claims his staff confined her in an apartment against her will, which led to a tragic -- and bizarre -- injury. Meanwhile, a new unauthorized biography, "The Making of Dr. Phil: The Straight-Talking True Story of Everyone's Favorite Therapist" chronicles many of the foibles and missteps of McGraw's past, from his alleged inappropriate relationship with a female therapy client to several ethically questionable business decisions. While plenty of unconventional public figures are criticized unduly for wandering off the most socially acceptable path, McGraw's alleged slips are a little more serious than he'd have us believe, and seem to fit a pattern of controlling, arrogant behavior.
-----------
McGraw's first wife alleges that he cheated on her and demeaned her, then froze her out emotionally,
---------------
many of McGraw's reported mistakes, like selling expensive lifetime memberships to an unfinished health club that soon went bankrupt, aren't exactly minor blunders, and contribute to a picture of a man whose behavior appears to range from insensitive to unethical.

The most notable of the complaints outlined in the book and in investigative articles predating it come from a former therapy client of McGraw's who claims that he carried on a controlling and sometimes sexually inappropriate relationship with her. The client was 19 years old at the time, and alleges that McGraw touched her inappropriately, insisted that she check in with him often, and kept her "totally dependent" on him. She eventually filed a complaint with the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists. Although McGraw settled with the board, disciplinary actions taken by the board were quite firm, including, according to "The Making of Dr. Phil," "a public letter of reprimand, a year of supervision by a licensed psychologist, complete physical and psychological exams, and an ethics class." A year after the official reprimand was issued in 1988, McGraw closed his private practice and entered into the business of trial consulting, where he fortuitously consulted Oprah Winfrey when she was defending herself against libel charges from Texas cattlemen. Although McGraw downplays the incident with the 19-year-old patient, claiming that it was "investigated and dismissed" and that he was fed up with his work as a therapist anyway, the timing of his career change is impossible to ignore.
-------------
In addition, a former business partner of McGraw's, Thelma Box, alleges that McGraw sold his stake in their self-help seminar company, Pathways, to a third party a full year before he let her know about it. Box claims that she co-created and coauthored the materials used in the Pathways seminars, traces of which are found in Dr. Phil's approaches and strategies on his show, but that no credit or mention of her name is offered, either by McGraw or by the associates who eventually purchased her share of the company.
--------------
Still, on show after show, it's clear that Dr. Phil eclipses the boundaries of the innocuous role he claims to fill. It seems as though he can't stop himself from getting far more involved and magisterial than would be recommended by most licensed therapists.
On one show, a teenaged son is tricked into appearing under false pretenses, and is then confronted and threatened with a total withdrawal of support and protection from incarceration if he doesn't enter rehab on the spot. Such interventions may be necessary for those with drug problems, but surely taking such avenues on national television should be considered cruel and unusual punishment for a teenager, who's apt to be consumed by appearances. Indeed, the boy seems mortified by the situation and appalled that his parents have lied to him. ...

Whether Dr. Phil has just saved the kid's life or shamed him in front of millions of viewers goes unchallenged -- by both the audience and the kid's family. Instead, they all stand around, wide-eyed and obedient, waiting to see what the good doctor will prescribe next.
-------------
The irony, of course, is that the very behavior that allegedly led to McGraw's receiving a public letter of reprimand is exactly what makes him "America's Favorite Therapist" today. It's his aggressive, confrontational approach that appeals so much to a nation that's lost its faith in the talking cure. While traditional therapists often encourage a client to discuss their feelings in an uncensored, unlimited way, for Dr. Phil, feelings are merely a brief rest stop on the way to committing to life-altering behavioral changes. This is a macho approach to therapy, couched in the tough-love language of football coaches and wood shop instructors.
-------------
In fact, it's difficult to imagine devoted disciples of Dr. Phil changing their minds about him for any reason at all, since the nature of his authoritative, instructive relationship with his guests, viewers and readers protects him from scrutiny. Just as taking your football coach's advice is predicated on turning a blind eye to the fact that he's sort of an abusive jerk, so does accepting Dr. Phil's word as the gospel mandate that all criticisms of him are ignored, or treated with utter skepticism.
----------
The message is clear. Part of being empowered, of "getting it," of "telling it like it is," of being a tough guy and a winner instead of a whiny little loser, is wrapped up in ignoring the criticisms and complaints of others. Thus, no matter how many times Dr. Phil's ego and overbearing tactics bring him negative attention, it's clear that his devoted viewers will continue to see him as comforting and decisive father figure in their lives. And what could be more American, really, than a macho, charismatic leader who blunders arrogantly into disastrous territory, while a nation of obedient children looks on?
-------------

Very good info on Phil McGraw, thanks everyone.

I caught a recent episode of Oprah recently and cannot help but think that her involvement with Dr. Phil and whatever else she is doing, is causing her to become more and more downright strange. It's as if she is in a bubble. I've noticed her more bully like and less compassionate, more impatient, and she surely does love John Travolta and Tom Cruise.
This episode in question really aggravated me, had the theme of supposedly showing us the experiences of various women round the world, all aged 30. A Kuwaiti woman was focused on with both video and in person interview.
Kuwait was stated to be a democracy, with universally wealthy citizens, everything groovy there, brief mention of the fact that many have servants but no talk of what it is like to be a servant in Kuwait, stressed the fact that shopping is fantastic. It was mentioned that women cannot vote there, but this was almost laughed at, and the talk of good shopping returned to quickly.
Women cannot vote in Kuwait. And it is not a democracy, it is a nominal constitutional monarchy. Amnesty International keeps watch on Kuwait for good reason. And Kuwait is a destination country for human trafficking.
( [gvnet.com] )
The Kuwaiti woman on Oprah was a member of the royal family, very poised, educated and eloquent. And Oprah was fully willing to go along for the ride, no questions of any depth, no mention of Kuwaiti reality.
Women cannot vote. But if they are wealthy, they can shop. This presented as something wonderful.
My guess is that all this goes back to the belief that "You create your own reality". Think wealthy, be wealthy, focus on what you want to encourage and ignore the rest (unless being coached to do an emotional catharsis), and above all....shop. No critical thinking, just focus on "getting it". Create your own reality.

Found a decent article critiquing Oprah and her cult of personality at:
[www.africana.com]

I've never understood why people think Oprah is so wonderful.
I guess she has done some good work? but her cult of personality is painful for me to watch.
At the beginning of her show, when she walks out, and all those crazed white women are screaming and reaching out to touch her...you can see her just drink in the Power. She just LOVES it.

She can get her audience to do almost anything.
She is a terrific actress, and she knows how to connect with people emotionally through a TV set.

Everything else aside, just looking at her "cult of personality" is very instructive. She wields enormous power over her "followers", and she is one of the most terrific salespeople i have ever seen in my life.
She has made herself into a Billionaire.
She must live in a bubble, and she does seem to hold all of the New Age type beliefs.

I cannot make a judgement as a whole with her, but her relationship with her audience, i personally find very distasteful.
Its almost as if her audience treats her like a God, or like she is their Best Friend. I find it very bizarre. And she sure loves putting the Scientologists on camera for some reason...
No question, she is a Charismatic Leader, using many methods of interpersonal mass media influence and persuasion.

She plays her audience's emotions like a violin virtuoso.

Coz

Oprah is good at orchestrating group trances in her audiences, audience is already primed, the entire session becomes a love-in for Oprah and favored guests.
I don't recall Oprah shows being this way in the early days, she seemed to act more as an investigative reporter on social ills. I hear that she still is a philanthropist, doing good works, don't know if that fact excuses what she is doing with her daily TV show.
Oprah and Phil are watched by so many folks, any who are unquestioning can easily believe that -this- is therapy, growth, change, tranformation, reality. Instant answers from parental figures who coax and cue and manipulate to get the "right answer".

Sarah

My post from this a.m. didn't make it to the forum. As I recall, Suze Orman became a household name only after being on Oprah.

This week, I caught her show on tv. I've always thought Suze gave good financial advice, however, now she's playing shrink. Her newest shows have a psycho-emotional-financial slant where she has non celebs on, people with huge money problems, and she has them tell their tearful stories and then She fixes them. One show was about a daughter whose Mom had opened a credit card in the daughter's name, when she was 17, ran the card up and then didn't pay it off, leaving her kid's credit in ruins. The mother had to be repeatedly reminded before remembering any of this and when she did, she said she was sorry and then began a long defense of how hard it was raising her daughter.

Another show was about a woman who married a very wealthy man, and stayed home to raise her family and keep an expensive NYC home and country home. She volunteered in her community. Now, the husband is leaving her. When they started couples therapy, he covertly took his name off the credit cards and other financial matters, leaving her with $50,000 debt and $100 in a passbook savings account. She believed she was doing the most important job in the world, being a mother, and was happy doing that and volunteering, something Oprah would totally endorse.

Amazingly, Suze told each of them they were responsible for ALLOWING THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN TO THEM. She then wagged her finger at the camera and said anyone in these situations, "it is your fault!!!". I know she's a little wacky, but all I could think of was Landmark. The show ended with the impression that all the problems were quickly identified and fixed by Suze. It really left a bad taste in my mouth.

Dr Phil McGraw is also quoted in another LGAT called "Choices" of which there is a thread on this board.

[b:0a3ee5beae]From the Choices website:[/b:0a3ee5beae]
About Choices: Founder Thelma Box
What if life truly is a journey not a destination? That would mean that there are many paths to be taken. That’s why Thelma Box developed Choices Seminars. In 1983 Thelma, Dr. Phil (from the Oprah Winfrey Show) McGraw and Dr. Joe McGraw designed a seminar that asked the question “If better is possible, is good good enough?” Together they joined their visions to bring their life lessons to a world in search of “better”. As time progressed Thelma became the sole owner and operator of what is now the Choices Personal Growth Seminar. Today Thelma continues to bring healing into the world through seminars in Dallas, TX, Vancouver, BC and Calgary, AB. Changing the world one heart at a time is the dream of Thelma Box, her family and friends.[/color:0a3ee5beae]

[b:0a3ee5beae]Here is the Choices Thread:[/b:0a3ee5beae]
[board.culteducation.com]

Oz

From the conclusion of "What is Life" by ERWIN SCHRODINGER; first published 1944.

"Are we not inclining to much greater nonsense, if in discarding their gross superstitions we retain their naive idea of plurality of souls, but 'remedy' it by declaring the souls to be perishable, to be annihilated with the respective bodies? ...Even in that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different personality aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception (the Indian MAJA); the same illusion is produced in a gallery of mirrors, and in the same way Gaurisankar and Mt Everest turned out to be the same peak seen from different valleys. There are, of course, elaborate ghost-stories fixed in our minds to hamper our acceptance of such simple recognition. E.g. it has been said that there is a tree there outside my window but I do not really see the tree. By some cunning device of which only the initial, relatively simple steps are itself explored, the real tree throws an image of itself into my the physical consciousness, and that is what I perceive. If you stand by my side and look at the same tree, the latter manages to throw an image into your soul as well. I see my tree and you see yours (remarkably like mine), and what the tree in itself is we do not know. ...In the order of ideas which regards consciousness as a singulare tanturn it is conveniently replaced by the statement that there is obviously only one tree and all the image business is a ghost-story. Yet each of us has the indisputable impression that the sum total of his own experience and memory forms a unit, quite distinct from that of any other person. He refers to it as 'I' and What is this 'I'? If you analyse it closely you will, I think, find that it is just the facts little more than a collection of single data (experiences and memories), namely the canvas upon which they are collected. And you will, on close introspection, find that what you really mean by 'I' is that ground-stuff upon which they are collected. You may come to a distant country, lose sight of all your friends, may all but forget them; you acquire new friends, you share life with them as intensely as you ever did with your old ones. Less and less important will become the fact that, while living your new life, you still recollect the old one. “The youth that was I', you may come to speak of him in the third person, indeed the protagonist of the novel you are reading is probably nearer to your heart, certainly more intensely alive and better known to you. Yet there has been no intermediate break, no death. And even if a skilled hypnotist succeeded in blotting out entirely all your earlier reminiscences, you would not find that he had killed you. In no case is there a loss of personal existence to deplore. Nor will there ever be."

:shock:

[www.drphil.com]

Worth looking over what Phil has listed as the ten life laws, that first law is especially familiar to any of us with experience in LGATs:

Quote

Life Law #1: You either get it or you don't.

[www.raggededgemagazine.com]
[www.raggededgemagazine.com]

Two articles on unpleasant experiences various audience members have had. (Some links in articles do not work.)

Dr. Phil is rerunning his absurd show about ADD/ADHD. (there is a number of posts further up in this thread about this).

Here is what these guys are doing. Frank Lawlis has a new book, and is offering treatments for ADD/ADHD using EEG and biofeedback. These treatments cost about $2,000-$6,000.
So Dr. Phil is promoting his 30 years business partner unscientific business on his show.

Here is the kicker.
Dr Phil was sent a LETTER by the leading ADHD group pointing out many of his errors. (see below)
DR. PHIL HAS CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE SCIENCE, AND HAS RERUN THIS SHOW, as it is promoting the career, and business of Dr Phil's BUSINESS PARTNER Frank Lawlis.

Dr. Phil is deliberately, and self-righteously flaunting science, in the name of personal profit.
I just saw the part where this Lawlis does the "muscle testing" with the child. its obvious that he is blatantly conning the child. The guy is a con-artist.

This tells you so much about Dr Phil.
Its all about HIM.
He is abusing the trust and ignorance of his viewers, for personal profit, and the profit of his 30 year business partner.
What a scam.
Please read the letter excerpt below.

Coz

------------
[www.chadd.org]
(excerpts)

Last week, on his new program "Family First," Dr. Phil McGraw (best known as "Dr. Phil"), devoted an hour to the topic of AD/HD. CHADD watched the program and responded to Dr. Phil with concern about many of his non-scientific recommendations. CHADD also acknowledged when and where Dr. Phil "got it right."

CHADD advocates treatment of AD/HD in children through a multimodal approach and relies on the published science on multimodal treatment as developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Below please find CHADD's analysis of the program in our letter to Dr. Phil.

October 4, 2004
....

HOWEVER, YOU ALSO GOT IT WRONG IN MANY KEY PLACES. CONSIDER A FEW OF YOUR BLUNDERS:

· You used a sensational, misleading and unfair way to grab viewer attention: "Pills as Parenting."

CHADD's Position: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder frequently makes headlines--often for good reasons, but more often than not for sensational purposes. Considered as today's diagnosis du jour, AD/HD is often depicted as something that simply doesn't exist. But for the individuals and families dealing with the disorder, AD/HD is a difficult reality. Why is there such controversy around AD/HD? In part, the controversy reflects a societal reluctance to identify children as having a mental disorder. In part, the controversy reflects our ambivalent feelings about medication, particularly because our idealized view of childhood does not include the use of "pills" to help a child better manage his or her mood and behavior. And finally, the controversy reflects our concerns--legitimate concerns--that medication might be improperly prescribed. [9] Your headline plays upon people's fear, and further perpetuates the stigma that too often accompanies a mental disorder.

· You stated that a diet high in sugar or food additives could trigger AD/HD.

CHADD's Position: Dietary interventions (as contrasted with dietary supplements) are based on the concept of elimination, that one or more foods are eliminated from one's diet. The most publicized of these diet elimination approaches is the Feingold Diet. [10] This diet is based on the theory that many children are sensitive to dietary salicylates and artificially added colors, flavors and preservatives, and that eliminating the offending substances from the diet could improve learning and behavioral problems, including AD/HD. Despite a few positive studies, most controlled studies do not support this hypothesis. [11] At least eight controlled studies since 1982, the latest being 1997, have found validity to elimination diets in only a small subset of children "with sensitivity to foods." [11] While the proportion of children with AD/HD who have food sensitivities has not been empirically established, experts believe that the percentage is small. [11,12,13] Parents who are concerned about diet sensitivity should have their children examined by a medical doctor for food allergies. Research has also shown that the simple elimination of sugar or candy does not affect AD/HD symptoms, despite a few encouraging reports. [11,14,15]

· You unfairly implied that the mother's parenting style (as opposed to the father's) was the primary source of the problem.

CHADD's Position: Parenting a child with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or any disability, can be overwhelming at times. All parents sometimes feel anger, fear, grief, frustration and fatigue while struggling to help their child. However, parents needn't waste limited emotional energy on self-blame. AD/HD is a hereditary disorder and is not caused by poor parenting or a chaotic environment. How a child with AD/HD will do in adulthood is best predicted by three things--(1) whether his or her parents use effective parenting skills, (2) how he or she gets along with other children, and (3) his or her success in school. [16] Psychosocial treatments are effective in treating these important domains. Second, behavioral treatments teach skills to parents and teachers that help them deal with children with AD/HD. They also teach skills to children with AD/HD that will help them overcome their impairments. Learning these skills is especially important because AD/HD is a chronic condition and these skills will be useful throughout the children's lives [17,18]. Additional recommendations can be found at: [www.chadd.org] . [19]

· You stated that medication (you called it drugs) is effective in only 50 percent of children and that efficacy diminishes as soon as a child begins taking medication.

CHADD's Position: Approximately 70 to 80 percent [20] of children with AD/HD respond positively to psychostimulant medications. Significant academic improvement is shown by students who take these medications: increased attention and concentration, compliance and effort on tasks, amount and accuracy of schoolwork produced as well as decreased activity levels, impulsivity, negative behaviors in social interactions, and physical and verbal hostility. [21] There is no scientific evidence to support a reduction in efficacy.

· You failed to mention, discuss or describe multimodal treatment--the treatment approach endorsed and used by the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

CHADD's Position: Treating AD/HD in children often involves medical, educational and behavioral interventions. This comprehensive approach to treatment is called multimodal and consists of parent and child education about diagnosis and treatment, specific behavior management techniques, medication, and appropriate school programming and supports. The severity and type of AD/HD may be factors in deciding which components are necessary. Treatment should be tailored to the unique needs of each child and family. Psychosocial treatment is a critical part of treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. The scientific literature, the National Institute of Mental Health and many professional organizations agree that behaviorally oriented psychosocial treatments--also called behavior therapy or behavior modification--and medication have a solid base of scientific evidence demonstrating their effectiveness. Behavior modification is the only nonmedical treatment for AD/HD with a large scientific evidence base. [18]

· You stated that the ONLY way to diagnose AD/HD is with an EEG or a Spectagram.

CHADD's Position: The science does not support this statement. There is no single test to diagnose AD/HD. Consequently, a comprehensive evaluation is necessary to establish a diagnosis, rule out other causes, and determine the presence or absence of co-existing conditions. Such an evaluation should include a clinical assessment of the individuals academic, social and emotional functioning and developmental level. A careful history should be taken from the parents, teachers and--when appropriate--the child. Checklists for rating AD/HD symptoms and ruling out other disabilities are often used by clinicians. [1]

· You also stated that neurofeedback (biofeedback) is an alternative to medication.

CHADD's Position: Complementary interventions are not alternatives to multimodal treatment, but have been found by some families to improve the treatment of AD/HD symptoms or related symptoms. Recent research suggests that the theory underlying EEG biofeedback treatment is consistent with what is known about differences in brain activity between individuals with and without AD/HD. [22,23,24] This treatment has been used for over 25 years [25] and there are many parents who report that it has been extremely helpful for their child. There have also been several published studies of neurofeedback treatment that have reported encouraging results. [26,27, 28, 29] It is important to emphasize, however, that although several studies of neurofeedback have yielded promising results, this treatment has not yet been tested in the rigorous manner that is required to make a clear conclusion about its effectiveness for AD/HD. [30] "The aforementioned studies can not be considered to have produced persuasive scientific evidence concerning the effectiveness of EEG biofeedback for AD/HD." [25] Controlled randomized trials are required before conclusions can be reached. [31]

For your consideration, I have included the link to our Web site(s) where a wealth of information on AD/HD can be found: [www.chadd.org] or [www.help4.adhd.org].

I also have attached our fact sheet on assessing complementary and controversial interventions [www.chadd.org] and our document entitled AD/HD: Fact vs. Fiction. [www.chadd.org]

Dr. Phil, you undoubtedly will continue receiving inquiries from families concerned about AD/HD. When you do, please refer them to CHADD. We have a toll free number (1-800-233-4050) where trained information specialists can respond to specific inquiries.

You have a responsibility to tell your viewers the truth. Unfortunately, you missed a key teaching opportunity. Next time, please do your homework. Respectfully submitted, E. Clarke Ross, D.P.A. Chief Executive Officer CHADD 8181 Professional Place, Suite 150 Landover, MD 20785 301-306-7070, extension 111 clarke_ross@chadd.org