I was at a Democratic conference a few weeks ago with a Pennsylvanian who told me that his state’s Lieutenant Governor, John Fetterman, running against “Dr. Oz” for Senate, was in worse shape than people realized.  He should withdraw from the race, this man said, so that the state Party could name a replacement before it was too late.

He seemed to be in a position to know so I passed his view on to others.

Boy, was I wrong.

Take a few minutes to watch Tuesday’s interview and see if you don’t find yourself fully behind his candidacy, as do I.

Perhaps even click here.


Here is a sober-sided 2015 medical critique of Oz’s questionable practice, having nothing to do with politics.  (That year, more than 1,000 doctors called on him to resign from Columbia’s faculty.)

And here is a recent video blasting his candidacy in a much more colorful way.

I post it with a big caveat.  Though I’m guessing most of what Mr. Hofstetter reveals is accurate, it includes a big snark factor (arguably deserved!) . . . an entirely gratuitous reference to a sex scandal at his prep school that had nothing at all to do with Oz (well, who can resist a sex scandal?) . . . and, mainly, an egregious misinterpretation of what Oz apparently said about re-opening schools during Covid.  Oz apparently said that doing so would increase mortality by “only” 2% to 3%, which Hofstetter takes to mean 1.5 million dead children.  In fact, without even having seen whatever he’s quoting from, it’s surely clear Oz meant that instead of 1 million Americans dying of Covid, it would have been more like 1.02 or 1.03 million — 2% or 3% more — many of them grandparents and great grandparents, virtually none of them children.  Not to say there’s not a trade-off to be discussed here: is it better to lose 2% more people to Covid than to stunt the development of tens of millions of children while causing enormous economic and psychological hardship to tens of millions of parents?  (And what if Oz was underestimating and the true number would have been 20% or 30% more?  Where do you make the trade-off?)  I (and most of Europe, etc.) would have taken Oz’s side on this.  So it’s unfortunate that Hofstetter highlighted this as he did, because doing so undercuts his credibility.


The prime example of the need for patent-protection reform, argued here, is ParkerVision.

These things take forever, but the start of Intel trial may now be only 12 weeks off.




Comments are closed.