Joanne Carson, PhD?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/arts/television/joanne-carson-talk-show-host-and-second-wife-of-johnny-carson-dies-at-83.html

(Joanne Carson) had appeared as the co-host of an early 1960s game show, “Video Village,” and later had her own syndicated health-and-fitness talk show, “Joanne Carson’s V.I.P.’s.” She went on to earn a master’s degree in psychology and a Ph.D. in nutritional biochemistry and physiology.

I don't have anything against Joanne Carson but my experience has been when someone claims to have a PhD and there's no school listed, usually it's from a degree-mill or an unaccredited fraud.

 

I'm just curious, but are you capable of forming an opinion without turning it into a blanket statement?

 

I popped up several obits on Joanne Carson from a variety of sources, and the NY Times is the only one that mentioned her alleged degrees.

Did I say alleged? Why, yes, I did.

"Ph.D. in nutritional biochemistry and physiology?" Sounds nouvelle age.

In short, I'm with warguns.

 

I found the title of the doctorate odd...until I saw that Rutgers offers one with that exact title: http://nutrition.rutgers.edu/documents/TablesforNutritionalBiochemistryandPhysiologytrack12.16.10.pdf

Not saying it's not fake...but at least that particular degree is available.

 

Oh, I would put money on her degree being from somewhere shady. In fact, if I were playing Diploma Mill roulette I would put my cash on Columbia Pacific.

But that doesn't change the fact that in the last three weeks warguns has made at least three unsubstantiated blanket statements (one of which, regarding professors with doctorates from for-profit schools, was met with pages of examples showing that said assertions were without merit).

The only other reference to the Phd I found was here. Apparently Dr. Carson worked as a "metabolic therapist" and was especially interested in treating canine epilepsy. She doesn't mention where she earned her PhD (except for stating she went back to "college" for it). Then again, she doesn't name her undergraduate alma mater either. But she was in California where she would have had her pick of diplomas.

 

I spent a few minutes digging OSINT on her education. Zero mention of the institution...

Here is what I have collected -
I moved back to Los Angeles and hosted "Joanne Carson's V.I.P.'s" which was a half hour syndicated talk show about celebrities' lifestyles. I went back to college and earned my Masters in psychology and my Ph.D. in nutritional biochemistry, physiology and endocrinology. I went into private practice as a metabolic therapist, rebalancing clients' metabolisms that became out of balance from stress, dieting and excesses. My private practice is very holistic dealing with "Body, Mind, Spirit."
Joanne and Angels Pooh Bear and Asia

This simple recipe for gelatin treats is provided curtesy of Joanne Carson, PhD, founder of The Epi Guaridan Angels. They are like Gummy Bears for dogs!
CANINE NUTRIGENOMICS: THE NEW SCIENCE OF FEEDING YOUR DOG FOR OPTIMUM HEALTH
By W. Jean Dodds, DVM, Diana Laverdure

Joanne Carson, Ph.D.,
Metabolic Therapist
Supplements for Home Cooked Diets - Canine Epilepsy Guardian Angels

Joanne Carson, Ph.D.
Founder - Epi Guardian Angels
GA Letter

A founding member of Actors and Others for Animals and celebrity spokesperson for Save the Dalmatians.
Joanne Carson - Biography - IMDb

 

Gee, Lord Levicoff hath graced us with his presence.

 

It's easy, and I didn't even read the whole quote. The word "rebalance" is the give away. Zonk, she's a fraud. Furthermore, just for fun, let's play round two.
The word "nutrigenomics" is the second dead give-away. The "real" field is called Nutrigenetics, which is dominated by an esteemed colleague (by that I mean I work in the same building and am not worthy to fetch his coffee) named Martin Kohlmeier. He (literally) wrote the book on the topic. Once does not practice nutrigenetics in private practice, you practice in a lab - with zillions of dollars and other top scientists trying to take baby steps to figure out tiny things of a big picture.

 

Are you capable of posting without being rude?

 

I note she was Johnny Carson's second wife, and got her PhD after their divorce when she was 59. This says nothing about the legitimacy of her degree, of course. Mr. Carson was the proud possessor of a doctorate from the Millard Fillmore Institute. He even held his diploma up in front of millions of people on Fillmore's birthday one year, and the next morning, there was a Time magazine reporter on my doorstep asking, "What's all this about, anyway?"

 

I might ask you the same question.

In another thread you wrote off all degrees awarded by schools with a for-profit corporate structure, regardless of their accreditation, as being worthless. That's a rather rude thing to say in the presence of a number of individuals who have said degrees (and have used said degrees to advance their careers).

Here, let's put it in context:

Oh, does that not describe you? Well, I did say most, so clearly you're just an exception to the rule and you have no right to be offended by my ludicrous assertion.

So far, in the past three weeks, you've proclaimed from on high that: 1) All for-profit degrees are worthless (and you wish to "enlist" in the fictional war to take them all down rather than focusing on a cause that matters) 2) Standardized testing is absolutely the only way to evaluate students. What of the myriad ranked schools with test optional admission policies? Well, apparently you feel that is all a big rouse and only athletes and connected insiders into the school without a test score (take THAT Wesleyan!) 3) That when people reference a PhD without mentioning the school, it is usually a diploma mill degree.

Do you think that 1 might be just a slight bit rude to the numerous people here who have degrees from schools like CTU, Capella and Northcentral? It's like going to a medical convention, finding the table where all of the Caribbean medical school graduates are sitting and loudly talking about how Caribbean medical schools are all a sham and their graduates should never be allowed to practice medicine in the U.S.

Granted, 3 is likely in the case of Joann Carson. But we can't really know that for sure. We can speculate. While it is possible that she obtained a degree from a diploma mill it is also possible that she earned a PhD from a reputable school and merely misrepresented her area of study (i.e. she earned a PhD in Physical Education and then started telling people it was a PhD in Physiology and it evolved from there). But even if her degree is, in fact, a total fraud, that gives you little basis to make yet another unsubstantiated blanket statement. There are plenty of people on LinkedIn proudly displaying their doctorates from known diploma mills. And I'm sure there are many more who claim doctorates they never earned from real and reputable schools.

But the kicker is that you're the one who pulled up a woman's obituary and used a single line in it to publicly accuse her of being a liar and a fraud (though preceding your accusations with an assurance that you have nothing against her personally) when she is incapable of defending herself. Indeed, you're using the absence of information (which you have no right to) to indict a dead woman. And yet, you're going to try to hold the moral high ground and accuse me of "being rude."

 

Warguns, have you considered the possibility that a) your blanket assertions and arguments, which are posted regularly without merit or support, might be considered rude, and b) there might be something about your approach that others see as antagonistic, thus bringing out their rudeness?

The reason I ask is because this is the second thread I have seen in roughly 2 weeks where someone, me being the first, came across as rude to you.

At some point one has to look around the room and identify the common denominator.

 

When I was in the Navy there were more than a handful of people who felt that you could go up to any officer and say any rude, unprofessional and generally disrespectful thing you wanted, without consequence, as long as you prefaced it with the phrase "with all due respect, sir."

It was not so.

 

In the internet world there is "Godwin's Law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches —​ that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism." (Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

You have perhaps sunk even lower, comparing me to a child molester. But I suppose that's what, in general, one does when incapable of engaging in intelligent discourse even with someone that you disagree with.

 

If you read what I stated and feel that I compared you to a child molester, you evidently don't know what a comparison is.

But, since you, once again, wish to deflect the conversation I will not try to reason with you any further.

 

rudeness

Perhaps you've forgotten already that you admitted and apologized for being rude because of the comments received from other forum members admonishing you for your comments. Honest disagreement is a part of reality on an active forum. Rudeness, taking the form of personal attacks, adds nothing to the conversation and detracts from it because thoughtful posters become disenchanted with the low level of discussion.

 

Precisely the reason I suggest spending some time reflecting upon how you insult others here.

Evidently, somewhere along the line you mistook condescension for cleverness and abrasiveness for wit. And when I, and others, have challenged some of your more outlandish assertions you either ignore the responses entirely or, as in the case of your last response to me, choose to very narrowly focus on a specific line and attempt to paint it as a personal attack to give you leave to stomp off (lest you lower yourself to my depths).

When engaging in a dialog you are putting your ideas out there for public scrutiny and comment. You seem fine with that unless said comment disagrees with your position. Then the stomping and accusations begin.

 

I thought (and I'm sure several members, and probably a few mods, would agree) that I was the most obnoxious, rude, condescending, patronizing, and snobbish member of this forum. But I must say that you guys are giving me a run for my money.

Now kiss and make up. Because, quite frankly, I resemble your remarks.:haha: