Merged Dr OZ Redux / Scientific evidence that he's a quack

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So what else is new?

What do real-world doctors have to say about the advice dispensed on “The Dr. Oz Show”? Less than one-third of it can be backed up by even modest medical evidence.

If that sounds alarming, consider this: Nearly 4 in 10 of the assertions made on the hit show appear to be made on the basis of no evidence at all.

The researchers who took it upon themselves to fact-check Dr. Oz and his on-air guests were able to find legitimate studies related to another 11% of the recommendations made on the show. However, in these cases, the recommendations ran counter to the medical literature.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-dr-oz-claims-fact-check-bmj-20141219-story.html

 

[fuelair]

I do so hope that if someone dies from one of that ***********s crap advice thast his ass can be sued for way more than he's worth (and in one sense he is worth jack **** ) and the suers will win - with an add-on million or ten just as pure punishment. And the broadcast outlet for it also sued successfully and hard.

 

[Sherlock]

It's a topic that's well worth bringing up again and again. The series producers no better but easy profits aimed at ignorant masses continue.

 

[Shiner]

Just another televangelist.

"breeding ignorance and feeding radiation"

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3x3cNFVhNj0

 

[SomedayGirl]

Scientific evidence that Dr. Oz is a quack

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-dr-oz-claims-fact-check-bmj-20141219-story.html

Less than one-third of it can be backed up by even modest medical evidence.

If that sounds alarming, consider this: Nearly 4 in 10 of the assertions made on the hit show appear to be made on the basis of no evidence at all.

The researchers who took it upon themselves to fact-check Dr. Oz and his on-air guests were able to find legitimate studies related to another 11% of the recommendations made on the show. However, in these cases, the recommendations ran counter to the medical literature.

I'm somewhat surprised it's that high.

 

[ferd burfle]

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-dr-oz-claims-fact-check-bmj-20141219-story.html



I'm somewhat surprised it's that high.

Thanks very much for the link SomedayGirl, I expect the story has bite coming from the LA Times.

I feel conflicted about the guy. He was a guest on the American public television show Genealogy Roadshow and he came across to me as thoughtful, articulate and well, just a good guy. Contrast that with his flogging of any and everything whoo-ish on his show, products he must know are bogus. Ex-Mormons talk about the "toggle switch" located on the back of the neck that their believers use to turn on rationality when needed, like at work. Maybe Oz has such a switch labeled "integrity".

Cheers,

ferd

 

[jaydeehess]

When it first began I thought it was great to have an actual doctor talk about health issues. Usually its a science reporter at best and more usually a science ignorant reporter.

The more I watched the more appalled I was at what Oz was pushing, and the more ironic his nickname became.
In tv docs I would stick with Sanjay Gupta. Better yet get two opinions from hometown doctors.

 

[steve s]

Contrast that with his flogging of any and everything whoo-ish on his show, products he must know are bogus.

He may have had the best of intentions when he started making occasional appearances on Oprah, but once he got his own daily show, he had to start hyping stuff to keep the ratings up. You can't spend five hours a week saying "Eat right and exercise more." He should go back to making appearances on someone else's show.

Steve S

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

When it first began I thought it was great to have an actual doctor talk about health issues. Usually its a science reporter at best and more usually a science ignorant reporter.

The more I watched the more appalled I was at what Oz was pushing, and the more ironic his nickname became.
In tv docs I would stick with Sanjay Gupta. Better yet get two opinions from hometown doctors.

I actually rather like Dr Gupta. I remember seeing him being interviewed on CNN about some crisis de jour as to what he though was going on and he essentially said, "How the Hell do I know? We don't have enough information." Would there were a few more on MSM TV like him.

 

[jaydeehess]

I actually rather like Dr Gupta. I remember seeing him being interviewed on CNN about some crisis de jour as to what he though was going on and he essentially said, "How the Hell do I know? We don't have enough information." Would there were a few more on MSM TV like him.

Fully agree. The worst I could say about Gupta is that with some issues I wish he would say more, go into more depth on a subject. Then again TV imposes time constraints.

 

[ferd burfle]

He may have had the best of intentions when he started making occasional appearances on Oprah, but once he got his own daily show, he had to start hyping stuff to keep the ratings up. You can't spend five hours a week saying "Eat right and exercise more." He should go back to making appearances on someone else's show.

Steve S

I agree very much; As Robert Park put it in the subtitle of Voodoo Science:

"The Road from Foolishness to Fraud".

 

[rwguinn]

I do know that even mentioning Dr Oz to any of my army of physicians is a sure way to get them going.
They are far too professional to call him "Quack", but to anyone with a modicum of medical and linguistic knowledge, they are calling him a dangerous quack...

 

[steve s]

Bumping this up for this article about Lindsey Duncan and the green coffee bean episode. The FTC went after Duncan and recently reached a settlement for $9 million. The article details how Duncan managed to get on Oz's show despite not knowing anything about coffee beans at the time.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/27/7920779/dr-oz-ftc-complaint

Another article about the settlement...
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7916745/green-coffee-bean

Steve S

 

[bigred]

What do real-world doctors have to say about the advice dispensed on “The Dr. Oz Show”? Less than one-third of it can be backed up by even modest medical evidence.

If that sounds alarming, consider this: Nearly 4 in 10 of the assertions made on the hit show appear to be made on the basis of no evidence at all.

But that won't stop throngs of morons in believing in it, or anything tossed at them - and I find it hard to find much sympathy. Maybe he can revisit healing crystals and copper bracelets in "Throwback Week" (which can have more than one meaning).

 

[xjx388]

I really enjoyed the "YOU ..." Series of books. They were very fact based. My wife is a family practitioner and weight loss doc and the amount of BS she has to undo because of his show is enormous. In my opinion, he shouldn't use "Dr" when he's on his show because he isn't acting like a doctor in that capacity. It gives him an authority that it's inappropriate to exploit in that context.

 

[bigred]

Oh cmon...if you have a doctorate degree, you can never be wrong!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oh cmon...if you have a doctorate degree, you can never be wrong!

Damn. You mean I should actually open and reply to those e-mails I get that say "Get Your Doctorate On-line"? Who would have thunk life could be so easy?

 

[Puppycow]

Thanks very much for the link SomedayGirl, I expect the story has bite coming from the LA Times.

I feel conflicted about the guy. He was a guest on the American public television show Genealogy Roadshow and he came across to me as thoughtful, articulate and well, just a good guy. Contrast that with his flogging of any and everything whoo-ish on his show, products he must know are bogus. Ex-Mormons talk about the "toggle switch" located on the back of the neck that their believers use to turn on rationality when needed, like at work. Maybe Oz has such a switch labeled "integrity".

Cheers,

ferd

The best con-men do "come across as" apparently honest, likeable, trustworthy. Although even the more seedy ones still seem to be able to find suckers.

 

[pgwenthold]

The best con-men do "come across as" apparently honest, likable, trustworthy. .

I don't understand why more people don't realize this. As you note, even sleazeballs can sucker people, but one of the common features of a success con is that they are likable and have other good appearances. It's one of their most important qualities, if they hope to continue to succeed.

 

[ferd burfle]

The best con-men do "come across as" apparently honest, likeable, trustworthy. Although even the more seedy ones still seem to be able to find suckers.

My apologies for relying on my faulty memory; the PBS show was actually Faces of America and not Genealogy Roadshow. Puppy cow, your assessment initially struck me as too harsh but on reflection I have to agree. The guy was (is) a presumably competent heart surgeon, too bad he chose to go the route he has.

Cheers,

ferd