Talk:Drew Pinsky

Criticism of Dr. Drew

Dr. Drew advises teens to "stay on meds" or "go to psychiatrist and get on meds." He doesn't criticize dangerous drugs like Ritalin, Prozac, Paxil. He concludes, "all literature I've read say these drugs work great and have no downside."... Dr. Drew has unique position of reaching millions of teenagers and should explain contraindications of psychotropic drugs.

Dr. Drew is a doctor, he went to medical school. Personal opinions/experiences should not be included in wikipedia as they cannot be verified. Don't take your anger for doctors out on Dr. Drew, as wikipedia is not a blog board.--Gephart 22:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we all can agree Dr. Drew just wants to HEAL SOME BABIES! --Lovelinelistener 23:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be added here that Dr. Drew does not "push drugs" on ANYONE. He recommends things, but he always recommends for someone to SEE THEIR DOCTOR. He cannot understand every detail of a situation through speaking with someone on the radio, but he can give advice as to how someone can take action for themselves. He doesn't even tell people what to do; he tells people to make their own decision.

Drew does push psychotropic drugs, like most psychiatrists today. I listened to Loveline weekly for past five years. He does advise SEE YOUR DOCTOR, but outcome in seeing your doctor is to be evaluated for drug prescription.

what is the alternative to "seeing your doctor"? Obrez 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He said that Effexor can cause terrible withdrawal symptoms which is more than many doctors, who deny any such symptoms even when their patients report having them. He actually goes by what he's observed in clinical practice unlike doctors that depend on pharmaceutical reps and brochures as their only source of information about medications.

He encourages psychotherapy and AA I've never once heard him "push" any named product but Trojan condoms and birth control/plan-B. There are many things that can result from seeing your doctor, not just prescriptions.Cronholm144 08:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Should there be something about criticism that he has recieved from the gay community? I know that it was a common practice for him to ask teens who had identified themselves as gay if they were sexually molested as children. I remember the lead singer from Erasure having a problem with this, and I imagine many other gay activists would as well.

He asks teens who are calling Loveline because they have serious problems with relationships whether they were molested as children. 95% of the callers to the show are straight and he asks the exact same questions. It's very hard to construe that as anti-gay unless you are intentionally misinterpreting it, and I haven't seen any real-world group raise the point.DarthSquidward 19:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a unfortunate misinterpretation of Dr. Drew's words. Drew's even explained on air to a gay caller that he is not implying anything when he asks these questions, it's just routine for callers with certain types of relationship problems (for which orientation has nothing to do with). Further evidence can be seen is his empirical favor of gay adoption: [1]

Dr. Drew links almost every problem someone has (especially women) to something that happened in their past (especially by their fathers). Now, I don't know what the consensus is currently in the scientific/psychiatric community, but I have heard that this is not always the case, and is out-dated. Can anyone confirm/deny this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuppington (talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Out-dated or not, he’s still right when he points it out.

This is a Freudian/Psychoanalytic approach, that which you describe, which is still a valid psychiatric method. Now, Freud had some pretty out-there ideas, and for a period of time during psychology’s development some of his material was discredited. However, recent research has started to unearth that he was right about a lot of things, particularly in regards to events in childhood relating to behavior in adulthood. Why women seem more affected, that I don't know, and there is debate about that (some say our culture encourages it, others say it's physical). Here is some recent medical research supporting this: [2] [3] [4] [5]

Now, your point about it not always being the case is well taken, but realize that callers represent a poor sample of the population. They both:

1. Have some kind of relationship/sexual problem that distresses them.

2. Are trying to call a nationally broadcast radio show to try and resolve a deep personal problem in 3 minutes.

A person who was abandoned/abused but turned out OK won’t call the show. Legitimus 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As Drew often points out on the show...."you say the fact that you were abused has nothing to do with your problem, yet somehow I was able to figure out that you were abused after talking to you for 10 seconds." It's not magic, it's playing the percentages based on a good knowledge of medical research and personal experience treating people. Randy Blackamoor 19:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just playing the percentages. I know observable facts constitute "original research" but it's in large part the little girl voice ("I want to ride the pony, daddy!"). Even a listener can learn to spot this significant datum, and Dr. Drew is frequently right when he speculates about the age at which abuse takes place. Significantly more than chance? I am right significantly more than chance, based on listening to and emulating his analysis, so I would say he is, but that's personal opinion.

External Links

DrDrew.com reverts back to Dr Drew in August 2008 per his management office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.202.38 (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Drew doesn't have control over DrDrew.com and I updated the page to reflect this 68.169.35.43 12:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is the source on this information? I am going to revert unless you have a source! Thanks --Gephart 05:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

DrDrew.com was supposed to be a big dotcom but it blew up before IPO. Details would probably be interesting on this page. Uucp 17:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think link should be removed. Dr. Drew mentioned that he has no control of the website many times on the radio. it's owned by Choice Media. and doesn't look like the content was updated since 2001. Obrez 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pro-life/Pro-choice

That was an interesting little edit war. Has Dr. Drew ever stated his position on this issue unequivocally? He frequently advises women to take RU-486, the "morning after" pill, a drug that is opposed by a lot of people who oppose abortion. On the other hand, I've never heard him advise a woman to abort, and when he talks about RU-486, he is always careful to specify that it prevents an egg from implanting, which he may view as creating some technical distinction from aborting a fetus that is already developing.

Has anybody heard him state his position on abortion? Uucp 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

RU-486 is not the morning after pill. --Liface 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. He frequently encourages women to take the morning after pill. Has he ever commented on abortion, per se? Uucp 21:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember him saying before that the ramifications of abortion (cost, great emotional effect on the mother) are often overlooked by people who are pro-choice, but there is no doubt in my mind, as a 7 year Loveline listener, that he is pro-choice. --Liface 22:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I swear I remember him saying at one point he was pro-life and would never recomend an abortion unless the life or health of the mother was in danger, or something like that.

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/7133/pill.html

He is definately pro-life, but very strongly supportive of the morning-after pill. 65.27.162.118 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We have an answer -- on the Loveline program of April 25, 2006, Steve-O Glover asked the following question:

"Dr. Drew, are you against abortion?" and Dr. Drew answered

"Yeah, I pretty much am."

I would not like to see the "pro-life" tag added to this article, as "pro-life" is used as a codeword for "wants to ban abortion," which would not in this case be accurate. However, from the discussion on the April 25 show, Drew clearly favors adoption over abortion. Uucp 03:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't everyone? I'm sure a very small minority of people are actually for the killing of babies. --Liface 04:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam Carolla, for one, often suggested that callers have abortions. So, no, not everyone. Uucp 11:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, on the 2001-4-8 (the infamous Morning After pill episode) he clearly says that he pushes adoption rather than abortion. He only advocates abortion for junior college students 202.78.240.7 (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember the Aceman often suggesting callers have abortions, he usually went with Drew in either outright adoption, or suggesting his own method of building a catapult and launching the baby into the "good part of town", ie, someplace where a couple/person with a better situation than the caller could give the kid a good chance to grow up in a healthy, nurturing environment. --Lovelinelistener 23:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, his support is for Plan B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel), not RU-486 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU-486), the latter having abortifacient properties the former does not posess.

Right!... Above posters must have missed Drew's frequent Loveline rants advocating Plan B Morning After pill: To quote Drew directly: "I cannot believe anyone could be against it! Plan B is NOT an abortion pill. It PREVENTS fertilization. IT DOES NOT ABORT ANYTHING. Plan B works like a strong dose of birth control pills." Drew rarely mentions RU486 which does abort a ZYGOTE--NOT A PERSON.... When Plan B was under attack by rightwing extremists, Drew asked Adam, "How could they possibly be against Plan B?" and Adam revealed the truth: "Rightwing nutjobs just like to whine about stuff, they don't care about abortion, they just don't want anyone to ever have any sex."

Jewish American Writer tag

I've never heard Pinsky mention much about his religion, does anyone have a source on this? If not, we may want to remove the tag. Pumpkin Pi 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember sometimes Adam would kid Drew about being a half-Jew. Also I remember Drew mentioned once on the show that his heritage is part Russian Jewish on his father's side. --Lovelinelistener 23:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but is that just Adam joking around with his "Asian or Jew" jokes? Also, in Cracked : Putting Broken Lives Together Again when Drew describes his parents, he makes no mention of religion. It seems to me that during discussions of relgion that were slightly more serious, Drew claimed to be an atheist or at least agnostic. Long story short, regardless of his family's religious persuasions, I don't believe that one can consider Drew Jewish, and therefore the tag should be removed.

What say you? Pumpkin Pi 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If Drew never explicitly lays claim to being Jewish, himself, then it should be removed. In this transcribed Loveline exchange, Drew appears to agree with Adam that "this religion stuff is just mental illness" but it's ambiguous, he might have been humoring Adam (it wouldn't be the first time) [6]. On the other hand, for a speaking fee between $10,001 and $20,000, Drew can be booked as a "Jewish speaker", but will "not necessarily discuss Jewish issues" [7]. — Coelacan | talk 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Pinsky is a Jewish name, as Drew says his dad is Russian Jew. Drew had a barmitzvah and related to Adam about reading the Talmud. On Loveline Drew and Adam sang the Jewish "Dradel Song" because both knew it from childhood.... As Loveline policy Drew refuses to discuss religion. No one knows from Loveline whether Drew is a practicing Jew or Atheist. Adam Carolla is Atheist, shouting that religion is for retards. Adam would hijack Loveline and bully Drew. Drew never agreed, sipping coffee in silent frustration as Adam ranted. Drew seems happy Adam is no longer around to hijack Loveline. Stryker is more polite.... Drew says he accepts any religion if it helps addicts in recovery and he accepts faith in higher power as step in AA 12-step program.

Adam would typically qualify his statements on religion by saying that it's fine for drug addicts, or paedophiles, or people in prison, or really dumb people, but the other people don't need it. Here's a reference. (my capcha for editing this page was "askedradio") 202.78.240.7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we put the Jewish tag based on ethnicity, not religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.6.145 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr Drew seems to agree with a non-interventionalist god in Loveline show 2005-1-30 about 57 minutes in.

Cracked

Should it be refrenced in this article? Pumpkin Pi 22:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it is more than important enough. --Liface 23:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My bad, its already here, just with no link. edit: added Pumpkin Pi 23:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Drew's Medical Specialties

It would be nice to know what kind of doctor he is; Is he even trained in psychiatry beyond the minimum in med school? He gives a lot of advice about a lot of things to not have his specialty mentioned...I guess I'll get on that.

What kind of doctor he is? Of course we all know he's a PASSIONATE, PASSIONATE doctor, but he's also a board certified internist, and addiction medicine specialist (addictionologist)! He also teaches a psychiatry class at Keck USC School of Medicine. --Lovelinelistener 21:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Pinsky completed a residency in internal medicine at Huntington Memorial Hospital. He is a member of the AMA, the American Society of Internal Medicine, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine. He maintains his certification in addiction medicine and last recertified in 2000. I'm unable to determine if he has received any formal training in psychiatry beyond his medical school rotation. Drgitlow 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

hahaha... As Adam used to say "Real doctor or Loooooooooove doctor"?... Obrez 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference on his position at the Keck School of Medicine? I don't think he is listed on their staff. Please double check and if I am right the title as an associate there should be removed.Cronholm144 08:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On his bio (as given by the website which lists him as a Jewish speaker, http://www.kepplerspeakers.com/literature/Pinsky%20D-%20Bio.doc, it says he is Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the Keck USC School of Medicine. So Keck is, or is part of, the USC med school he went to. He must have training in it if he is a professor! 71.197.237.151 03:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Myspace page legit???

Is there any confirmation that the Mypsace page really belongs to Dr. Drew? With the drdrew.com website, people might go to the myspace link looking for his personal info and contact info. I'm skeptical in part because it says he's 97 years old and that ain't right. If the link is just for info and isn't his personal page, that needs to be made very clear. --Howdybob 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's legit and has been mentioned several times on the air. drdrew.com hasn't been owned or operated by Dr. Drew since 2001. -- Craigtalbert 22:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I just cut it, you can put it back up but preferably with some sort of citation if you can find one that can be linked to. Yeah, I know about drdrew.com. Still, the myspace page looks a little sloppy, with nothing indicating that it's official. Most myspace pages are like that I think, so maybe Dr. Drew has gone young and hip, fo shizzle. --Howdybob 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen to the show with DJ AM, I believe it was 1/28/2007. He created it on the air. -- Craigtalbert 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In regard to it looking sloppy... I believe Drew mentioned that his daughter helped him with the formatting/scheme a while after it was created. Maybe that's got something to do with it? 128.95.2.133 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Drew frequently talks about his myspace on air, the "drdrewloveline" one, that absolutely is him, and I will make a link to an OGG of him talking about this if there is any doubt. Beware of imitators though! There were like 15 fake ones before DJ AM helped with this one. He is not a computer expert by any means, but I think he does ok. You can message him, however he gets loads per day and works more than full time, so there is like a 3-10% chance of a response.Legitimus (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits...

Edited the bit about Adam Corolla... More recent information added.....

Screen317 18:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Remarried?

Did he just mention on loveline, March 13th that he remarried? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.65.21 (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a metaphor, dude, not literal. Drew was explaining what it felt like to have Adam Carolla as a guest on Loveline 3 years after he left: It's like he got remarried (Stryker) and now the ex-wife (Adam) is visiting.Legitimus (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bert Fields

Friends, Romans, Countrymen, we have a bit of a problem, and your help is needed. You've probably read the Bert Fields remark about Dr. Drew. There is more information to this that is under development and we may soon see more. My edits may have been hasty and emotional, but the user who reverted them (Justallofthem) has a decided conflict of interest. I urge you to look things over, and decided for yourselves what aught to be included. Ideally, this is a trivial matter that should not even be on Wikipedia. But such things so heavily linked to pop culture are never quiet so early on.193.202.63.20 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have my POV and I am certainly not ashamed of it but I edit according the rules here and that is all I ask others to do. All my removals were of the IP's inclusion of WP:OR opinion, novel synthesis, and off-topic material. All I ask is that we follow policy especially as relates to WP:BLP and stick to on-topic, previously published material. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Justallofthem is right- it isn't properly developed, researched, factual material. I think some of it could be included with a NPOV and proper references, but that isn't what you were posting. Tedder (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is right, because my wording and some specific parts was uncalled for. However, there are just a few facts to consider for anyone involved, though they don't necessarily need to be included:

• Drew happens to be Jewish
• Tom was accused of being Goebbels (specifically that name) 5 months ago.(sourced)
• Tom has publicly admitted and talked about being neglected and abused. (sourced)
• To hastily compare a person, opinion or concept to nazism or a nazi figure is categorically to fall prey to reductio ad hitlerum. Person's who accused Tom of being a nazi were equally guilty.

Are they appropriate for the article? Perhaps not. But people aught to know just the same.193.202.63.20 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me restate: I think it is interesting, and could be made notable, even though it currently isn't. Tedder (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also with Tedder and Justallofthem. If you can find reliable sources (not blogs) for the information and write it without a POV, I wouldn't have an issue. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom being accused: [8] [9] [10] [11]

Tom talks about abuse: [12]

Several news outlets are quick to point out that Drew is, in fact, very qualified and not a TV doc, but that's not needed in this article because that's already apparent to a reader. The rest will just have to wait and see.193.202.63.20 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I say we deep-six the whole section. It seems petty for for a biographical work. I can think of numerous public figures who've shot their own mouth off in a variety of ways, and we don't devote this much space to it. I think if we keep this, it's better suited to the Bert Fields article.Legitimus (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cruise reinserted

Reinserted the bit with Cruise as it is extremely notable given the amount of press. I pared it way down and removed the Nazi bit as that is not particularly fitting of an encyclopedia. If others think the Nazi bit is sufficiently notable for inclusion or rather a key part of the notability then include if you like. I don't think we need it but won't object otherwise. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see a response from you when I suggested to remove it, my mistake. oh well, if you think it needs to stay. However, the Nazi remark definitely needs to be included in there, as almost every source I've read mentions it, including Pinsky himself in his interview with Gawker. Let me be clear, I know what Cruise (or Fields) was trying to say, but that meaning was easily swallowed by the emotional weight of the reference.Legitimus (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for me the essence of the notable incident is Drew's remark, Cruise takes umbrage, Drew apologizes. I think the way I wrote it conveys what he said that was objectionable to Cruise, the reaction, and why a Scientologist would object to Drew's comment. No need to go overboard on reporting on the mutual name-calling but I am of course open to other views. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic thread moved to User talk:Justallofthem#Drew Pinsky. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To get back to the subject, there hasn't been any new news developments on this story. All the articles I find simply repeat the same thing. It is for this reason I feel that it is not significant for this article. But I'm ok with giving it time.Legitimus (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Colour Blind

Fascinating I know but on the 24th Jan 2005 show Doctor Drew said that he was red/blue colour blind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.240.7 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC Pinsky/Cruise Issue

While reported on in numerous gossip rags [13], there have been no new developments in this story, and no new sources in a week. This "feud" went "statement->reply->reply" and stopped there. I contend that the event is trivial and not encyclopedic for the purpose of this biography.Legitimus (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - "Notability is not temporary" (WP:NTEMP). Though this generally relates to the article as a whole, it is not much of a stretch to apply it here. This incident was extremely notable at the time and I think there were 186 Google News article hits on it when I looked during the incident. Including many that are not "gossip rags", like Fox News, Chicago Tribune, etc, etc, etc. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

oops, personal meaning mismatch here. let me clarify: When I say "gossip rag" I am referring to any news source that either has an overall focus or a specific section that deals with celebrity news, such as couples, births and various acts of talking trash. It is not intended as pejorative or an indication that their content is untrue, merely that is of questionable usefulness (my POV).Legitimus (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a qualified medical professional making a significant remark about a newsmaking celebrity. Certainly it was covered in a large number of reliable sources. I believe it should be in his bio. Keep in mind this has already been discussed- scroll up to the 'bert fields' discussion. Tedder (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody replied other than Justallofthem about the inclusion of this section. But I'm willing to let it stay if others think it should. No one seemed to remark about if the nazi reference should be included either. I would argue that Fields' remark about Goebbels gave this story more coverage that it would have received.Legitimus (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I would remove this, or move it to the talk page temporarily to see if anything more becomes of it. Is this brief exchange of words with Cruise (or Cruise's attorney) significant in the overall context of his life? We are not a news site here nor a tabloid to report on what the celebrities are saying about each other. In addition, the idea that Pinsky is a "qualified medical professional making a significant remark" is utterly irrelevant, as Pinsky has not professionally examined Cruise. I'm very much opposed to the practice of medical professionals attempting to "diagnose" a stranger from afar. It's an abuse of one's credentials and we should not see it as carrying any weight. Further still, if Pinsky is an internist and an addiction specialist, as our article states, he is not even qualified to diagnose emotional problems. Of course, anyone is entitled to label Cruise a nutjob, as he is indeed a nutjob, but any professional should refrain from creating the appearance of giving a qualified diagnosis, when no such diagnosis took place. No one on Wikipedia should mislead themselves into thinking this is more than an offhand remark. Fletcher (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a point info, "X may have been abuse or neglected" is not a diagnosis, it's a speculative observation. A diagnosis is "X suffers from Bipolar Disorder Type I." Speculation on a person's motivation means nothing professionally. You don't treat "speculations" with therapy or medication.

Also, Pinsky is a professor of psychiatry at the USC Keck School of Medicine. Addiction medicine is a subset of psychiatry and several other disciplines.Legitimus (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think maybe it's being overly dramatic to call it a feud and devote a section to it... but it seems to have gotten a decent amount of news coverage [14] so I don't see why a sentence or two can't cover it in this article. Relative to Pinsky it's notable, relative to Cruise it probably isn't... notability can be relative. --Rividian (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)