Dr. Phil, Oprah, etc.
Posted by:
glam
()
Date: October 01, 2004 09:56AM
I've found this so far concerning the sexual abuse.
From The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News Network); 9/16/2002; Bill O'Reilly:
I can't get the whole article unless I pay for a subscription, and I'm cheap!
From Salon:
From The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News Network); 9/16/2002; Bill O'Reilly:
Quote
O'REILLY: In the "Back of the Book" Segment, a few months ago, THE FACTOR got a tip about problems Dr. Phil McGraw had while practicing psychology in the State of Texas. We did not report the story because the woman making the allegations against McGraw would not go on camera.
However, "The National Enquirer" did report that, in 1989, McGraw was reprimanded by the state of Texas for a, quote, "inappropriate relationship with a former patient," unquote.
I can't get the whole article unless I pay for a subscription, and I'm cheap!
From Salon:
Quote
"[a former patient, who was 19 years old at the time] 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."
Dr. Phil, Oprah, etc.
Posted by:
paulkeith
()
Date: October 01, 2004 10:13AM
Wouldn't it bolster your case if the National Enquirer was the not the source of your info???
As quoted from above:
However, "The National Enquirer" did report that, in 1989, McGraw was reprimanded by the state of Texas for a, quote, "inappropriate relationship with a former patient," unquote.
As quoted from above:
However, "The National Enquirer" did report that, in 1989, McGraw was reprimanded by the state of Texas for a, quote, "inappropriate relationship with a former patient," unquote.
Dr. Phil, Oprah, etc.
Posted by:
Hope
()
Date: October 01, 2004 10:25AM
LexisNexis had one case with the name McGraw listed as either defendant or claimant, it was closed in July 2000. It cost $8.00 to do the search and more money to read the docket, and I don't know if it's Dr. Phil.
Dr. Phil, Oprah, etc.
Posted by:
glam
()
Date: October 01, 2004 09:23PM
Hi Jim:
Actually, a double whammy -- not only the National Enquirer, but Fox News, which in my mind is even less reliable. I do wish I could find something more substantial. However, this little piece of McGraw's history is but a drop in the bucket when it comes to his questionable methods and ethics.
I noticed two things about your post:
1. You ignored the second source of information, which was much more detailed.
2. You responded to me again (what is your obsession with me, anyway?), while at the same time ignoring my questions on the "Jive Aces" thread, which makes you even less credible than either The National Enquirer OR Fox News, in my mind.
Quote
Wouldn't it bolster your case if the National Enquirer was the not the source of your info???
Actually, a double whammy -- not only the National Enquirer, but Fox News, which in my mind is even less reliable. I do wish I could find something more substantial. However, this little piece of McGraw's history is but a drop in the bucket when it comes to his questionable methods and ethics.
I noticed two things about your post:
1. You ignored the second source of information, which was much more detailed.
2. You responded to me again (what is your obsession with me, anyway?), while at the same time ignoring my questions on the "Jive Aces" thread, which makes you even less credible than either The National Enquirer OR Fox News, in my mind.
Dr. Phil, Oprah, etc.
Posted by:
Hope
()
Date: October 01, 2004 09:48PM
Unfortunately, it seems the "unethical" tabloids have methods of at least getting some tidbits out there. They offer a starting point sometimes to start a search from. Yes, one has to consider the source, but one can go on to find public documents containing info that might support the stories.
Dr. Phil, Oprah, etc.
Posted by:
glam
()
Date: October 01, 2004 11:53PM
More on "applied kinesiology":
You can find the entire article here:
[www.watchman.org]
Quote
Credible scientific studies of applied kinesiology conducted by major universities or respected research facilities are in short supply. This may be because few (if any) scientists or licensed medical doctors take its claims seriously.
A scientific double-blind pilot study, however, was conducted to test the claims of applied kinesiology. It was conducted by the ALTA Foundation for Sports Medicine Research in Santa Monica, California.
Published in the June 1988 Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the study tested, "three experienced applied kinesiologists for four nutrients (thiamin, zinc, vitamin A, and ascorbic acid). The results obtained by those applied kinesiologists were compared with (a) one another, (b) standard laboratory tests for nutrient status, and (c) computerized isometric muscle testing.
"Statistical analysis yielded no significant interjudge reliability, no significant correlation between the testers and standard biochemical tests for nutrient status, and no significant correlation between mechanical and manual determinations of relative muscle strength" ("Applied Kinesiology Unreliable for Assessing Nutrient Status," Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 88, No. 6, p. 698).
In other words, the applied kinesiologists did not agree with each other, failed to discern true nutrient differences, and could not even truly judge real differences in muscle strength.
The abstract concluded, "the results of this study indicated that the use of applied kinesiology to evaluate nutrient status is no more useful than random guessing" (Ibid).
The research (published by James J. Kenney, Ph.D., R.D., Roger Clemens, Dr.P.H., and Kenneth D. Forsythe, M.D.) further cautioned that there was, "no known physiological mechanism that could provide a scientific explanation as to how subjective muscle testing could be useful in assessing nutritional status.
"Furthermore, there is no known physiological mechanism whereby the mere presence of a deficient nutrient (held between the lips, under the tongue, or next to the abdomen for a few seconds) could almost instantaneously correct a nutrient deficiency severe enough to cause muscle weakness" (Ibid).
You can find the entire article here:
[www.watchman.org]
Dr. Phil, Oprah, etc.
Posted by:
Cosmophilospher
()
Date: October 02, 2004 06:18AM
Glam, nice link for the Unapplied NonKinesiology.
Bottom line, its bullcrap.
What's weird about it, is that Lawlis and Phil would know its bullcrap. So it begs the question, WHY would they want to feed their own people bullcrap?
When i saw Lawlis sitting there tricking the kid and his mom, i couldn't believe it.
That is crossing over into the conman zone.
Some New Age type folks who do this, have probably deluded themselves, and wouldn't even know HOW to test if it worked or not. So that's one thing to really believe something, and to be wrong.
But for those guys to KNOW its bullcrap, and then just pull one over some kids and moms...
That is literally conman behavior.
That's very disturbing.
I hope they get discredited over that. They need to be exposed as tricking their own people.
Coz
Bottom line, its bullcrap.
What's weird about it, is that Lawlis and Phil would know its bullcrap. So it begs the question, WHY would they want to feed their own people bullcrap?
When i saw Lawlis sitting there tricking the kid and his mom, i couldn't believe it.
That is crossing over into the conman zone.
Some New Age type folks who do this, have probably deluded themselves, and wouldn't even know HOW to test if it worked or not. So that's one thing to really believe something, and to be wrong.
But for those guys to KNOW its bullcrap, and then just pull one over some kids and moms...
That is literally conman behavior.
That's very disturbing.
I hope they get discredited over that. They need to be exposed as tricking their own people.
Coz
Dr. Phil, Oprah, etc.
Posted by:
glam
()
Date: October 02, 2004 01:54PM
If they could be exposed, that would be great. From what I've read recently, it seems even Oprah is distancing herself from McGraw now, because she disagrees with the diet stuff he's selling.
I honestly don't know what to make of guys like Dr. Phil, Erhard, Hubbard and the like. I can't figure out whether they're just out-and-out con men who know exactly what they're doing and don't give a hoot, or they've been so brainwashed and deluded themselves that they've actually come to believe in what they're selling. I lean more towards the con man thing myself. Either way, yuck.
They're hurting people and getting away with it.
I honestly don't know what to make of guys like Dr. Phil, Erhard, Hubbard and the like. I can't figure out whether they're just out-and-out con men who know exactly what they're doing and don't give a hoot, or they've been so brainwashed and deluded themselves that they've actually come to believe in what they're selling. I lean more towards the con man thing myself. Either way, yuck.
They're hurting people and getting away with it.
Dr. Phil, Oprah, etc.
Posted by:
Hope
()
Date: October 04, 2004 03:03AM
I think they are narcissists, at the very least, possibly even sociopaths, who could not give a damn about what happens to people and even in getting caught. It is interesting that it's Dr. Phil talks about how he could "diagnose" a couple's problem in less than a minute and also how he got sick of hearing his clients whine. This is exactly what my doctor described of US patients - sick of women wanting their hand held, sick of people not listening to him, sick of people not taking responsibility, blah, blah, blah. He gave up his practice to start his own Landmark spinoff.
The teaching\indoctrination of these LGATS lets people like this off the hook - they don't need to be responsible for the welfare of others because others need to be responsible for themselves, and if they get hurt, that is only a story they make up, giving the situation meaning. If you are a sociopath, you basically don't have a conscience anyway, so what a better philosophy to have, that people are only good when you can use them for profit.
The teaching\indoctrination of these LGATS lets people like this off the hook - they don't need to be responsible for the welfare of others because others need to be responsible for themselves, and if they get hurt, that is only a story they make up, giving the situation meaning. If you are a sociopath, you basically don't have a conscience anyway, so what a better philosophy to have, that people are only good when you can use them for profit.
Dr. Phil, Oprah, etc.
Posted by:
Cosmophilospher
()
Date: October 04, 2004 10:56AM
It has been my experience, that people like this are more than 100% aware of what they are doing.
Their "superiority" is part of their pathology, but of course, they see others as being the problem, as they are so stupid and inferior.
Its my view that these guys feel intense contempt for "stupid" people who they can play like a piano.
As Dr. Phil has said many times, "its an eat what you kill world".
That is one of his core beliefs, so you have a predator/prey relationship, so of course you want to be the tiger, and not the baby gazelle.
In my view, only a small minority of these guys are self-deluded to the point of totally believing their own advertising.
But it also seems obvious that Dr. Phil has such a massive ego, and he probably literally believes he is THE GREATEST psychologist on earth, or even in world history. Seriously.
When in reality the guy is a hack.
Coz
Their "superiority" is part of their pathology, but of course, they see others as being the problem, as they are so stupid and inferior.
Its my view that these guys feel intense contempt for "stupid" people who they can play like a piano.
As Dr. Phil has said many times, "its an eat what you kill world".
That is one of his core beliefs, so you have a predator/prey relationship, so of course you want to be the tiger, and not the baby gazelle.
In my view, only a small minority of these guys are self-deluded to the point of totally believing their own advertising.
But it also seems obvious that Dr. Phil has such a massive ego, and he probably literally believes he is THE GREATEST psychologist on earth, or even in world history. Seriously.
When in reality the guy is a hack.
Coz
Quote
glam
I honestly don't know what to make of guys like Dr. Phil, Erhard, Hubbard and the like. I can't figure out whether they're just out-and-out con men who know exactly what they're doing and don't give a hoot, or they've been so brainwashed and deluded themselves that they've actually come to believe in what they're selling. I lean more towards the con man thing myself.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.