REVIEW OF CSI- CYBER TELEVISION SHOW
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Evelyn, from Austin, Texas asked my opinion and review of the new CBS television show, "CSI-CYBER.
Patricia Arquette recently made news with her impressive speech at the Oscars when she made a plea for equal pay for women as she picked up her Oscar for best supporting actress in " "Boyhood." The CSI Cyber show is currently on Wednesday's at 10:00 P.M.It is about a group of criminal investigators that look into crimes relating to the world-wide web, the Internet. Personally, I believe Arquette took this part in the CSI series just to keep her face in the public eye, worldwide. I also think she is not suited for this series. Fact is, I don't think this Cyber series is suited for the CSI franchise either. The show is too muddled and has a tendency to overdo the special effects of computer geek stuff, it's also short on good story lines and dialogue.
The previous CSI spin-offs which created this franchise were great.They had very good story lines regarding various crimes and the actors played the parts well, but this Cyber show tries too hard. Maybe it's because they rely to heavily on the character the show is supposedly based on, Mary Aiken, a cyber psychologist, who also acts as consultant on the series and is supposedly involved in "every" aspect of the series. The field Ms. Aiken's, works in and around as a cyber-psychologist is trying to get across a weaved, tangled pattern of what she chooses to call cyberanalytics, which is only in its infancy and not clearly understood. Thus, because Ms. Aikens is a psychologist it appears she tries to combine computers and the Internet into still another field of psychology.
I submit that if a law enforcement agency wants to know the operational facets and workings of computers and how to deter hacking and crimes using computers and the Internet just call on the brainiac whiz kids that know the in's and outs of the computer and not any psychologist(s) who try to use questionable mental solutions to determine who is guilty or not guilty of a crime
I would suggest that a person is either a psychologist that can offer an opinion to law enforcement when they ask for assistance or the person is a sworn law enforcement officer/agent who carries weapons and is in the field shooting it out with the criminals.
Arquette's character is too serious, dry and sometimes silly. She is acting more like a mind reader coming across like a swami solving situations to close the case. She also roams around with a grim expression on her face but yet tries to portray a tough FBI agent. Really?, Also the show tries to make everything look technical with computer symbols and text flashing across the screen to much and the actors try to explain what technical stuff they are doing but in all, the show comes across very dry, boring and displaying some of the most childish dialogue and acting I've seen in a long time in a supposed crime show.
Charly Koontz, Hayley Kiyoko, Peter MacNicol, James Van Der Beek and Shad Moss the other actors appearing with Arquette look like a bunch of keystone cops and to top it off Arquette's character is supposed to solve the crime by looking at the suspects and proclaiming from high that she knows when a person is telling the truth and who's not guilty while some of the supposed computer techs go on and on about explaining to Arquette and others on the show how the computers work-- BORING! DULL! The story lines are "kid stuff." The show also has the cast babbling and babbling on about how they arrived at retrieving something from the Internet. WOW! Again BORING, DRY and DULL! The show drags on and one of the silly parts is where the entire team goes out with bullet proof vests and guns drawn,running through the streets, breaks down doors and arrests the criminal. Come On. Most law enforcement agencies have sworn trained officers and agents who conduct the arrests and take down the criminals. They don't have a mind reading psychic/psychologist leading a tactical team, running around the city screaming orders and arresting the culprits.
Evelyn, the CSI franchise is a good idea but they are reaching in this case with CSI-Cyber. Regarding this show I would think it's like the horse fell and broke it's leg. They should shoot the horse and put it out of it's misery. The CSI series should have stuck to the original format: Crime being committed; the crime scene techs piece together forensic evidence to assist and help the investigating officers solve the crime and if the investigators require something pertaining to Internet and computers the investigators should consult with a computer savvy person. Hundreds are available all over the country. That's the way investigating and solving crimes is usually done, It doesn't take a psychologist ( a none sworn police officer) who allegedly is in command of trained FBI agents(never happen) and a bunch of nerd techiees to gear up with weapons and armor and use firearms fighting crime.
The CSI producers should have continued the CSI series related to different cities like the original. Example - -the producers and franchise could have used. CSI- Atlanta; CSI- Dallas, and other cities carrying on the same theme as the first show. I believe the producers of the CSI franchise strayed too far afield in this case. It reminds me of the many movie sequels that are put out following the original. You know what I'm talking about --For example, The return of _____ or, ____, Part II, or, Sea Creature I, II and III. They never live up to their hype and usually disappoint.
Well Evelyn, you asked me for my opinion and review so to apply some sort of rating for CSI-Cyber, on a scale of A to F, I would rate this show a C-, and that's being generous.And, that's my opinion and review. You decide. Make your own decisions.
BRADLEY W, KUHNS, Ph.D. O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Sunday, March 1, 2015
I WILL NOT WATCH " INSIDE EDITION" ANYMORE
THE KUHNS REPORT
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
It's bad enough when there is too may commercials during television programs but when the network and/or television show begins to run commercials under the guise of a news segment, that takes the cake. Personally, I will not watch television show INSIDE EDITION, again. Let me explain.
A couple months ago while watching the show the host went into a segment praising a skin serum that was said to be a breakthrough. It was called Boots N o 7 Intense Serum.It was not presented during a commercial break. The host presented a TV clip as an interview with a spokesperson telling ladies not to use their own home remedies to enhance their skin but instead use the Boots No 7, Intense skin serum. I, probably like millions of other viewers though the interview segment was part of the reporting news program. A month or two late, on the same television show, Inside Edition, I saw the exact same TV segment and again, it was not during a commercial break. The host went right into the segment as if she were actually reporting an event like the rest of her show. Then, two days ago while watching INSIDE EDITION, -- Guess What? Same TV clip, word for word, and the same spokesperson promoting this skin serum, saying it's available at Target stores. At the end of the show I briefly caught mention at the bottom of the screen that so and so was the spokesperson for Boots, No 7 serum.
People, the networks and TV shows are already speeding up many shows so they make extra time for additional commercials, raking in millions of extra dollars in revenue. The shows are sped up by seconds and minutes. If one looks closely at many of the TV shows, sitcoms, etc., they will see how fast people move. They may hear garbled speech or erratic jumps and pauses in the film. Just speeding up a 30 minute sitcom by seconds those networks can realize additional commercial revenue but they fail to alert or tell the consumer what they are doing. Their thinking is the viewer will never notice the difference between an original show and one that has been sped up or cut.
My point,- with all the manipulation of the television programs already being done by the networks and shortchanging us viewers for the sake of revenue and additional commercial time we clearly don't need television networks using hidden, covert and/or embedded commercials in a show when they already have commercials every ten minutes or so during their half hour program.
Folks, if I want FAKE NEWS or INFORMATION I will watch the Jon Stewart show. He has never claimed his show was the real news . His show is very entertaining and a good play on the actual news occurring around the world and he does a bang up job in his presentations - -excellent, excellent show and we know what we are getting up front. But when a news/information show runs a so-called commercial that is disguised to look like a regular extension of a story -- WOW! That's unwarranted.
There was a time when you could watch television with NO commercials. How? Back in the early 1960's cable came into being. We consumes were told that the reason people were being charged for the cable service was because there were no commercials being played on cable. Even then people would pay for cable just to avoid the commercials. During that time a television commercial was run every 15 minutes and the commercial was only THREE minutes long. In an hour show the viewer saw only FOUR commercials. That was only TWELVE minutes of commercial time. Fast forward, present day - - now, there is no such thing as commercial free cable. So, we're still paying for cable but we have to endure commercials running at least FIVE minutes, sometimes, more after only TEN MINUTES of the television show. Folks, you get ten minutes of seeing the show and then are bombarded with five solid minutes of commercials, then ten minutes more of the show and another five solid minutes of commercials and this goes on throughout the half hour or hour show. I submit that if you count the commercials in that long, long five minutes you can count at least TEN commercials. And that's happening every ten minutes of viewing time. Now, the networks and television shows are squeezing out even more commercial time, ripping us consumers. If that's not enough we are seeing covert and hidden commercials between the actual commercials and I would suspect that the networks are being paid for these hidden segments. I say, when is enough, enough? - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
It's bad enough when there is too may commercials during television programs but when the network and/or television show begins to run commercials under the guise of a news segment, that takes the cake. Personally, I will not watch television show INSIDE EDITION, again. Let me explain.
A couple months ago while watching the show the host went into a segment praising a skin serum that was said to be a breakthrough. It was called Boots N o 7 Intense Serum.It was not presented during a commercial break. The host presented a TV clip as an interview with a spokesperson telling ladies not to use their own home remedies to enhance their skin but instead use the Boots No 7, Intense skin serum. I, probably like millions of other viewers though the interview segment was part of the reporting news program. A month or two late, on the same television show, Inside Edition, I saw the exact same TV segment and again, it was not during a commercial break. The host went right into the segment as if she were actually reporting an event like the rest of her show. Then, two days ago while watching INSIDE EDITION, -- Guess What? Same TV clip, word for word, and the same spokesperson promoting this skin serum, saying it's available at Target stores. At the end of the show I briefly caught mention at the bottom of the screen that so and so was the spokesperson for Boots, No 7 serum.
People, the networks and TV shows are already speeding up many shows so they make extra time for additional commercials, raking in millions of extra dollars in revenue. The shows are sped up by seconds and minutes. If one looks closely at many of the TV shows, sitcoms, etc., they will see how fast people move. They may hear garbled speech or erratic jumps and pauses in the film. Just speeding up a 30 minute sitcom by seconds those networks can realize additional commercial revenue but they fail to alert or tell the consumer what they are doing. Their thinking is the viewer will never notice the difference between an original show and one that has been sped up or cut.
My point,- with all the manipulation of the television programs already being done by the networks and shortchanging us viewers for the sake of revenue and additional commercial time we clearly don't need television networks using hidden, covert and/or embedded commercials in a show when they already have commercials every ten minutes or so during their half hour program.
Folks, if I want FAKE NEWS or INFORMATION I will watch the Jon Stewart show. He has never claimed his show was the real news . His show is very entertaining and a good play on the actual news occurring around the world and he does a bang up job in his presentations - -excellent, excellent show and we know what we are getting up front. But when a news/information show runs a so-called commercial that is disguised to look like a regular extension of a story -- WOW! That's unwarranted.
There was a time when you could watch television with NO commercials. How? Back in the early 1960's cable came into being. We consumes were told that the reason people were being charged for the cable service was because there were no commercials being played on cable. Even then people would pay for cable just to avoid the commercials. During that time a television commercial was run every 15 minutes and the commercial was only THREE minutes long. In an hour show the viewer saw only FOUR commercials. That was only TWELVE minutes of commercial time. Fast forward, present day - - now, there is no such thing as commercial free cable. So, we're still paying for cable but we have to endure commercials running at least FIVE minutes, sometimes, more after only TEN MINUTES of the television show. Folks, you get ten minutes of seeing the show and then are bombarded with five solid minutes of commercials, then ten minutes more of the show and another five solid minutes of commercials and this goes on throughout the half hour or hour show. I submit that if you count the commercials in that long, long five minutes you can count at least TEN commercials. And that's happening every ten minutes of viewing time. Now, the networks and television shows are squeezing out even more commercial time, ripping us consumers. If that's not enough we are seeing covert and hidden commercials between the actual commercials and I would suspect that the networks are being paid for these hidden segments. I say, when is enough, enough? - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
REVIEW FOR THE MOVIE "THE INTERVIEW."
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America and how is the world treating you?
I was asked by a few people to give a review of the movie "The Interview."
Okay, here it is folks: "The Interview" is a dumb, stupid comedy. It was aimed at fans and followers of the humor set down by Seth Rogen and his sometimes collaborator James Franco.
The film was eventually made available by Sony to a few Independent theaters and online. This movie, turns out, isn't as sharp or politically motivated as the producers and stars suggested. The movie is chock full of silly sight gags --- fifth grader comedy and raunchy jokes. The movie suggests that the talk show host named David Skylark (Franco) and his producer Aaron(Rogen) has a show that is one of Kim's (leader of North Korea) favorite shows. One day after a drug induced mind bender trip along comes an attractive CIA agent (Lizzy Caplan) who asks the two idiots to do the CIA and the country a big favor and "take Kim out."
The Interview doesn't stray much from a stupid, party-heavy scenario defined by these two men and is a repeat of prior comedies with Rogen (if you want to call them that). The movie is heavy on cameos, childish acting, vulgar language and crass material. For adult enjoyment, this is a loser.
The stunt where Kim's head graphically explodes could have been left out of the film and I think the use of Kim's name could have been changed for the movie. Why provoke and agitate people when it would have been so easy to make a few cosmetic changes.
Personally, these two guys brand of comedy is not funny to me. There used to be a time in show business when comedians could make a movie and/or do stand up comedy without resorting to vulgarity and filth in order to get a laugh.
My conclusion: This movie is 112 minutes of constant profanity, an attempt at crude, sexual humor, it has some drug use and bloody violent scenes. My rating for this film gets a big C-, at best. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions, You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America and how is the world treating you?
I was asked by a few people to give a review of the movie "The Interview."
Okay, here it is folks: "The Interview" is a dumb, stupid comedy. It was aimed at fans and followers of the humor set down by Seth Rogen and his sometimes collaborator James Franco.
The film was eventually made available by Sony to a few Independent theaters and online. This movie, turns out, isn't as sharp or politically motivated as the producers and stars suggested. The movie is chock full of silly sight gags --- fifth grader comedy and raunchy jokes. The movie suggests that the talk show host named David Skylark (Franco) and his producer Aaron(Rogen) has a show that is one of Kim's (leader of North Korea) favorite shows. One day after a drug induced mind bender trip along comes an attractive CIA agent (Lizzy Caplan) who asks the two idiots to do the CIA and the country a big favor and "take Kim out."
The Interview doesn't stray much from a stupid, party-heavy scenario defined by these two men and is a repeat of prior comedies with Rogen (if you want to call them that). The movie is heavy on cameos, childish acting, vulgar language and crass material. For adult enjoyment, this is a loser.
The stunt where Kim's head graphically explodes could have been left out of the film and I think the use of Kim's name could have been changed for the movie. Why provoke and agitate people when it would have been so easy to make a few cosmetic changes.
Personally, these two guys brand of comedy is not funny to me. There used to be a time in show business when comedians could make a movie and/or do stand up comedy without resorting to vulgarity and filth in order to get a laugh.
My conclusion: This movie is 112 minutes of constant profanity, an attempt at crude, sexual humor, it has some drug use and bloody violent scenes. My rating for this film gets a big C-, at best. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions, You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
NORTH KOREA IS NOT THE HACKER- LOOK INSIDE SONY.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
A supplemental note to my earlier blog regarding the SONY hacking and movie "The Interview."
Sony caved to president Obama's criticism. Obama, movie stars and politicians said Sony caved in to North Korea when they refused to release the movie. Obama also said it was a "mistake" for Sony to not release the film. Again, Obama and these talking heads automatically jumped to the conclusion that the cyberattack hack job of Sony came from North Korea. So now it appears Sony will show the movie in approximately 200 theaters in America. Keep in mind that most of these theaters are Independent exhibitors but there are still a number of large major movie chains that have not agreed to to reverse their decision about not showing the movie. I think these theaters are being prudent and using common sense because if there is a movie attack guess who will be liable-- yep, the theater owners - -NOT SONY.
And, get this. A national security official said U.S. authorities did not rate the threats by the hackers against theatergoers seriously, But I submit, the authorities did not rate the prior behavior of the killers involved in the 2012 mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado seriously, either. Wouldn't you think that the government would want to err on the side of caution? Apparently not.
As mentioned in my previous blog a couple days ago regarding the Sony breach I do not believe that North Korea is the culprit in this particular case. I certainly agree North Korea is a bad thug on the block and they are in fact, a rogue nation. But that is no reason for president Obama to make a blanket statement telling the world that North Korea hacked into Sony. I think he, president Obama got bad advice and is being fed bad advice by his circle around him. If that's not the case I would suspect he has a hidden agenda by targeting North Korea.
Folks, I said before and I say again that I believe the Sony cyberattack was an inside job. I would suggest Obama rethink the situation and have his so-called investigators and the FBI direct their attention to Sony rather that North Korea. If I had to offer a profile on who actually committed the cyberattack on Sony I would submit and offer some of the following: The person in charge of the cyberattack hack job is possibly a disgruntled ex-employee; an ex-employee that feels they were wronged by Sony (for whatever reason) possibly because the person may have been fired; a person who may want some sort of revenge; this person and/or persons had knowledge of Sony's servers; had access to protocol to infiltrate the servers and the capabilities to retrieve the information from Sony servers. I would also suggest that this person is a member and had or has connections to the group ("The Guardians of Peace") who released the private information. It would not surprise me if this person set up the Guardians of Peace so as to cover their possible connection to Sony.
I should also note that based on my experience as an investigator it is my opinion the person who selected the information to be released from Sony files in all probability is a FEMALE. I base that opinion on the type of information that was leaked. A female hacker, you say. I would say it's a good bet. I would also suggest that the female cyber thief is very well educated and clearly has knowledge of the programming language and techniques currently used world-wide by numerous hackers and hacking groups, thus, the selection of using the Korean connection to act as (red herring), a false lead to mislead investigators. Keep in mind the same techniques used to hack Sony are used frequently on a daily basis by global hackers. The type of cyberattack hacking used against Sony is clearly not unique ONLY to North Korea.
All in all, I predict that this is not the last anyone will hear from the "Guardians of Peace." Once the movie " The Interview" is released , the group will in all likelihood rear its ugly head to speak out again. I only hope that there will be no actual bombing because of the Sony decision reversal. I am delighted to see there still are many large movie chains that refuse to show the movie. I concur with those movie theaters owners decision.
My concern is, if in fact, any member of the "Guardians of Peace" and/or any of their followers do commit a heinous act, such as a bombing in and/on American theater or property(whether it be tomorrow, a week from now, a month from now , etc.) how will all of these same people which may include but not limited to: president Obama, named actors and actresses', media/television talk show gurus and lawmakers on the Hill in Washington explain their position of shouting from the highest hill: "North Korea did it!" "North Korea repressed our free speech." The blame game will run rampant and finger pointing will be the activity of the day. - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, PH.D., O.M.D.
__________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM-THREE TRIPS TO MUSEUM IS TOO MUCH.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Trudy, from New Orleans asked me to review the movie :"Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb." She wanted my opinion - -so, here it is, Trudy.
To begin, it's stale and filled with childish humor. I would say the movie is only made for a children's audience. This is the third in the series of the Museum pics. This movie is like a tire retread and should be way down on the bottom of your movie list.
All the producers did was take a new location from New York's Natural History Museum to the British Museum.This movie franchise is putting out moldy and repetitious pieces of work. The second film, 2009 version, : Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian should have been the final in this franchise. Come on! A bunch of old museum artifacts coming to life. That doesn't make for a funny movie, especially after three go-rounds.
However, it was good to see the late Robin Williams in his role as Teddy Roosevelt. That was about the only good thing I can say about this movie. Trudy, this movie is just a recycle of the previous two versions. In fact, same old jokes and action too. This movie package ran out of steam two movies ago. It should be put out of its misery. It should be buried in a secret tomb with the mummies, forever. A THIRD trip to the museum, "yuck."
The running time on the film is 100 minutes; It has a rating of PG. It also has some crude, rude attempt at humor, same with the language. As to action, I would grade it tepid to mild, at best.
My grade for this bombaroo: (C- to D). - And, that'd my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Thanks for the request, Trudy.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
MUCH OF DR. OZ ADVICE QUESTIONABLE ACCORDING TO STUDY.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Getting your health advice off of television shows can be a hazard to your health. According to the British Medical Journal, who recently published a study analyzing Dr. Oz's claims along with those made on another medical talk show. What they found was startling.
Dr. Oz is called "America's Doctor", and syndicated talk show host Mehmet Oz says he speaks in a way anyone can understand. Dr. Oz shouts to his millions of viewers about "miracles" and "revolutionary medical breakthroughs", which more than not are very questionable and may be totally false.
Has Dr.Oz , who frequently peddles miracle cures for weight loss and other medical ailments, threw medical truths and veracity under the bus and traded them in for television ratings and crass entertainment value?
Is there smoke to the accussioins or is there a hint of fire surrounding his medical circus. He was recently called before Congress, where Senator Claire McCaskill, D-MO told him to his face that he was giving people false hope and blasted him for his television segments as a : "recipe for disaster."
Example of his advice: Last month , a study he touted, promoted and praised about a coffee bean weight-loss pill was RETRACTED dispite Dr. Oz's assertions that the weigh-loss pills could "burn fat fast for everyone who wants to lose weight."
The claims made by Dr. Oz was closely looked at by the researchers led by Christina Korownyk of the University of Alberta and she and her team concluded that medical research didn't substantiate Dr. Oz's claims ... or outright contradicted ... more than HALF of Dr. Oz's recommendations.
Personally I believe these goofy medical talk shows are dangerous. They clearly lack specific and adequate information and/or the magnitude of how their advice will affect the viewer who tries the medical cures. I suggest that the television viewer take all of this television medical advice with a grain of salt,-- be suspicious, be skeptical.
Currently the "Dr. Oz Show" ranks in the top five talk shows in the U.S. and has an estimated 2.9 million viewers and another medical talk show "The Doctors", which was also studied in the report paper reports viewership at 2.3 million a day.
It appears Dr. Oz and others medical television shows only look at medical ailments as how they can market it for themselves. In fact, Oz told the New Yorker: "Cancer is our Angelina Jolie. We could sell that show every day." A published article implied that Dr. Oz has to get real. The article titled "Reality Check" said "There Is No Such Thing As A Miracle Food ." The journal of Nutrition and Cancer slammed Dr. Oz's assertions that endive,, red onion and sea bass can decrease the likelihood of ovarian cancer by, get this -- a whopping SEVENTY-FIVE (75%) PERCENT.
Folks, look at these medical shows like "Dr. Oz" as entertainment. Oz comes across as nothing more that a performer, an entertainer. An example: He said data shouldn't stop patients from testing out things like raspberry ketone ...a " miracle in a bottle to burn your fat" ... EVEN IF IT'S NEVER BEEN TESTED. Really? Wow!
Oz told a U.S. Senate hearing he"personally believes in the items I talk about in my shows." " I give my audience the advice I give my family all the time." Is that scary or not, folks? Why, because the researchers with the British Medical Journal selected at least 40 episodes from past year, and examined 479 separate medical recommendations Oz made. The result was that the researchers found evidence enough only to support 46 percent of Oz's recommendations, contradicted 15 percent and wasn't available for 39 percent regarding Oz's recommendations So Basically the British Medical Journal research. "discredits" more than half the claims made by Dr. Mehmet Oz on his talk show.
Bottom line people - - these television doctors are only there for entertainment value and many can come up with some far out crazy ideas. They are marketing their brand folks and that's their end game. -- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
__________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Getting your health advice off of television shows can be a hazard to your health. According to the British Medical Journal, who recently published a study analyzing Dr. Oz's claims along with those made on another medical talk show. What they found was startling.
Dr. Oz is called "America's Doctor", and syndicated talk show host Mehmet Oz says he speaks in a way anyone can understand. Dr. Oz shouts to his millions of viewers about "miracles" and "revolutionary medical breakthroughs", which more than not are very questionable and may be totally false.
Has Dr.Oz , who frequently peddles miracle cures for weight loss and other medical ailments, threw medical truths and veracity under the bus and traded them in for television ratings and crass entertainment value?
Is there smoke to the accussioins or is there a hint of fire surrounding his medical circus. He was recently called before Congress, where Senator Claire McCaskill, D-MO told him to his face that he was giving people false hope and blasted him for his television segments as a : "recipe for disaster."
Example of his advice: Last month , a study he touted, promoted and praised about a coffee bean weight-loss pill was RETRACTED dispite Dr. Oz's assertions that the weigh-loss pills could "burn fat fast for everyone who wants to lose weight."
The claims made by Dr. Oz was closely looked at by the researchers led by Christina Korownyk of the University of Alberta and she and her team concluded that medical research didn't substantiate Dr. Oz's claims ... or outright contradicted ... more than HALF of Dr. Oz's recommendations.
Personally I believe these goofy medical talk shows are dangerous. They clearly lack specific and adequate information and/or the magnitude of how their advice will affect the viewer who tries the medical cures. I suggest that the television viewer take all of this television medical advice with a grain of salt,-- be suspicious, be skeptical.
Currently the "Dr. Oz Show" ranks in the top five talk shows in the U.S. and has an estimated 2.9 million viewers and another medical talk show "The Doctors", which was also studied in the report paper reports viewership at 2.3 million a day.
It appears Dr. Oz and others medical television shows only look at medical ailments as how they can market it for themselves. In fact, Oz told the New Yorker: "Cancer is our Angelina Jolie. We could sell that show every day." A published article implied that Dr. Oz has to get real. The article titled "Reality Check" said "There Is No Such Thing As A Miracle Food ." The journal of Nutrition and Cancer slammed Dr. Oz's assertions that endive,, red onion and sea bass can decrease the likelihood of ovarian cancer by, get this -- a whopping SEVENTY-FIVE (75%) PERCENT.
Folks, look at these medical shows like "Dr. Oz" as entertainment. Oz comes across as nothing more that a performer, an entertainer. An example: He said data shouldn't stop patients from testing out things like raspberry ketone ...a " miracle in a bottle to burn your fat" ... EVEN IF IT'S NEVER BEEN TESTED. Really? Wow!
Oz told a U.S. Senate hearing he"personally believes in the items I talk about in my shows." " I give my audience the advice I give my family all the time." Is that scary or not, folks? Why, because the researchers with the British Medical Journal selected at least 40 episodes from past year, and examined 479 separate medical recommendations Oz made. The result was that the researchers found evidence enough only to support 46 percent of Oz's recommendations, contradicted 15 percent and wasn't available for 39 percent regarding Oz's recommendations So Basically the British Medical Journal research. "discredits" more than half the claims made by Dr. Mehmet Oz on his talk show.
Bottom line people - - these television doctors are only there for entertainment value and many can come up with some far out crazy ideas. They are marketing their brand folks and that's their end game. -- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
__________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
OBAMA MADE RIGHT DECISION ON CUBA. SENATOR RUBIO PLAYING POLITICS.
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Senator Marco Rubio, who is considering a presidential run said Sunday that president Obama has thrown away valuable leverage to bring about a political change in Cuba. What a bunch of political garbage that is. President Obama made the right decision to resume a better relationship with Cuba. The move is long over due. Rubio also attacked his potential presidential Republican opponent, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul who, like me, agrees with president Obama's decision. Rubio, who is Cuban-American says that Obama's new policy will not bring democracy to Cuba. He said: "What the president has done will not do anything to further the cause of "democratization" Is he kidding?!
When all of the young Cubans living in Cuba see a level of openness between the USA and Cuba and such things as, the lifting of many restrictions on travel, imports and the transfer of monies , Internet use and other areas that now hold back the Cuban people, Cuba will be brought into a whole new world of wonder. Democracy as we know it, probably not, but Cuban president, Raul Castro has already said that we, the United States should respect their form of government just as they respect ours.
The young Cuban generations love American things. A recent 20/20 news program interviewed some of the young adult Cubans in their country and the majority want the United States and Cuba to come together. Fact is, these young Cuban adults don't remember why the embargo and restrictions were started in the first place.
Rubio and his ilk still doesn't get it: It's people like him that try to force the United States way of democracy down the throats of other countries. How did that work out so far? People, look at Iraq and, Afghanistan for starters. We started wars saying we the USA will bring our form of democracy to these countries, instead, all we did was instigate, provoke and instill hard feeling and hatred with the peoples of these countries, and in the process killed, maimed and destroyed causing the people of those nations to come to hate America. Rubio's thinking is totally lopsided. It's childish thinking. And this guy wants to be president --
Hell, for decades now we have been carrying on relationships with such countries as Vietnam, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few and clearly the U.S. is always saying these countries are violating human rights against both men and women.These countries have anything BUT a democracy like the United States, yet we deal with them on a daily basis and think nothing of it. So why should we enforce a 50 year embargo and inflict restrictions on Cuba when they do not do half as much bad things these other countries do? My answer is: We shouldn't. I submit we, the USA should have had normal relations with Cuba all those 50 years.
Rubio also said: Cuban democracy activists "feel betrayed" by Obama. What he doesn't tell you is these Cuban activists are the older generations of Cubans that came to Americas shores in the 1970's and in the boat lifts era. The beliefs and thoughts of those older Cuban generations regarding Cuba's democracy and independence fight doesn't even connect with the young Cuban generation.
However, Senator Rubio in his quest to be a nominee for president of the United States apparently has a hidden agenda by fanning the flames of the millions of old generation Cubans in exchange for votes in a presidential bid.
It appears Rubio is afraid of the competition from Rand Paul in a presidential face off. He states that the Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul does not know what he is talking about. What? It is Rubio who looks like he wants to suppress Cubans from breaking out into the world. He essentially wants to "isolate" Cuba and it's people and maintain a 50 year old status quo situation. And Rubio's obsession with Rand Paul is such that he is continually trying to tie Paul to Obama's coat tails. saying Paul agrees with everything Obama does. What a crock, folks. Don't believe that poop. It takes a good politician to say they agree with the other side of the aisle and compliment the other side when they do WHAT IS RIGHT. On this Cuban matter Obama did very good in formulating the package and Paul agreed with Obama's policy in this case. That my friends is a mark of a good politician.
I say to Rubio, if the rigid constraints that was put on the Cuban people has not made a change in FIFTY (50) YEARS ,doesn't one believe that changing that stance and loosening any embargo and penalties will certainly make the Cuban people's life much better. My answer would be a resounding YES.
The deal that president Obama made with Cuba was in the making for a long time and behind the scenes talks between the two presidents had the support of other leaders of the world which included a large piece of work by the POPE himself, who took a special interest in the matter. After due and careful consideration all parties involved came up with the final deal that was announced by president Obama. It was and is a good deal. Personally, I do not think it went far enough. I suggest that Obama use his powers to remove any and all restrictions only leaving ONE small item on the books so as to satisfy the current law. The president could do this if he should chose to do so and I I would like to see that step taken. It's time to treat Cuba as a friend NOT a foe.
Another personal observation of mine is that I suspect Rubio has his nose bent out of joint only because he was not asked by president Obama to participate in the important talks taking place. Secondly, because Rubio himself didn't have the where with all and the foresight to bring Cuba into the 21st. century and Obama accomplished what he could not do and that fact sticks in his craw.
In all probability Rubio's only interest in the Cuban situation is garnering votes from the old school senior citizen generation of Cubans living in Florida and around the country.- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions You decide.
BRADLEY W> KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Senator Marco Rubio, who is considering a presidential run said Sunday that president Obama has thrown away valuable leverage to bring about a political change in Cuba. What a bunch of political garbage that is. President Obama made the right decision to resume a better relationship with Cuba. The move is long over due. Rubio also attacked his potential presidential Republican opponent, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul who, like me, agrees with president Obama's decision. Rubio, who is Cuban-American says that Obama's new policy will not bring democracy to Cuba. He said: "What the president has done will not do anything to further the cause of "democratization" Is he kidding?!
When all of the young Cubans living in Cuba see a level of openness between the USA and Cuba and such things as, the lifting of many restrictions on travel, imports and the transfer of monies , Internet use and other areas that now hold back the Cuban people, Cuba will be brought into a whole new world of wonder. Democracy as we know it, probably not, but Cuban president, Raul Castro has already said that we, the United States should respect their form of government just as they respect ours.
The young Cuban generations love American things. A recent 20/20 news program interviewed some of the young adult Cubans in their country and the majority want the United States and Cuba to come together. Fact is, these young Cuban adults don't remember why the embargo and restrictions were started in the first place.
Rubio and his ilk still doesn't get it: It's people like him that try to force the United States way of democracy down the throats of other countries. How did that work out so far? People, look at Iraq and, Afghanistan for starters. We started wars saying we the USA will bring our form of democracy to these countries, instead, all we did was instigate, provoke and instill hard feeling and hatred with the peoples of these countries, and in the process killed, maimed and destroyed causing the people of those nations to come to hate America. Rubio's thinking is totally lopsided. It's childish thinking. And this guy wants to be president --
Hell, for decades now we have been carrying on relationships with such countries as Vietnam, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few and clearly the U.S. is always saying these countries are violating human rights against both men and women.These countries have anything BUT a democracy like the United States, yet we deal with them on a daily basis and think nothing of it. So why should we enforce a 50 year embargo and inflict restrictions on Cuba when they do not do half as much bad things these other countries do? My answer is: We shouldn't. I submit we, the USA should have had normal relations with Cuba all those 50 years.
Rubio also said: Cuban democracy activists "feel betrayed" by Obama. What he doesn't tell you is these Cuban activists are the older generations of Cubans that came to Americas shores in the 1970's and in the boat lifts era. The beliefs and thoughts of those older Cuban generations regarding Cuba's democracy and independence fight doesn't even connect with the young Cuban generation.
However, Senator Rubio in his quest to be a nominee for president of the United States apparently has a hidden agenda by fanning the flames of the millions of old generation Cubans in exchange for votes in a presidential bid.
It appears Rubio is afraid of the competition from Rand Paul in a presidential face off. He states that the Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul does not know what he is talking about. What? It is Rubio who looks like he wants to suppress Cubans from breaking out into the world. He essentially wants to "isolate" Cuba and it's people and maintain a 50 year old status quo situation. And Rubio's obsession with Rand Paul is such that he is continually trying to tie Paul to Obama's coat tails. saying Paul agrees with everything Obama does. What a crock, folks. Don't believe that poop. It takes a good politician to say they agree with the other side of the aisle and compliment the other side when they do WHAT IS RIGHT. On this Cuban matter Obama did very good in formulating the package and Paul agreed with Obama's policy in this case. That my friends is a mark of a good politician.
I say to Rubio, if the rigid constraints that was put on the Cuban people has not made a change in FIFTY (50) YEARS ,doesn't one believe that changing that stance and loosening any embargo and penalties will certainly make the Cuban people's life much better. My answer would be a resounding YES.
The deal that president Obama made with Cuba was in the making for a long time and behind the scenes talks between the two presidents had the support of other leaders of the world which included a large piece of work by the POPE himself, who took a special interest in the matter. After due and careful consideration all parties involved came up with the final deal that was announced by president Obama. It was and is a good deal. Personally, I do not think it went far enough. I suggest that Obama use his powers to remove any and all restrictions only leaving ONE small item on the books so as to satisfy the current law. The president could do this if he should chose to do so and I I would like to see that step taken. It's time to treat Cuba as a friend NOT a foe.
Another personal observation of mine is that I suspect Rubio has his nose bent out of joint only because he was not asked by president Obama to participate in the important talks taking place. Secondly, because Rubio himself didn't have the where with all and the foresight to bring Cuba into the 21st. century and Obama accomplished what he could not do and that fact sticks in his craw.
In all probability Rubio's only interest in the Cuban situation is garnering votes from the old school senior citizen generation of Cubans living in Florida and around the country.- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions You decide.
BRADLEY W> KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)