John of God farce

[Mr. Albert Jackson H]

Mr. Randi,

Concerning the John of God farce. Your description of Dr. Oz makes me wonder how he stands before other doctors and if his medical board (What state is it in any way?) is aware of his practices. Apparently, among other things, he approves of a woman with breast cancer visiting this charlatan and not using legitimate medical treatment! )-:

Does ABC incur a liability in giving approval to JOG?

I didn't see it and so avoided being enraged. (-:

Sincerely
Albert J. Hoch Jr.

 

[jmercer]

Randi seldom posts in these forums - you'd probably be better off emailing your question to him. His address is on the website, I believe.

 

[bignickel]

By the way: welcome to the board!

 

[materia3]

Mr. Randi,

Concerning the John of God farce. Your description of Dr. Oz makes me wonder how he stands before other doctors and if his medical board (What state is it in any way?) is aware of his practices. Apparently, among other things, he approves of a woman with breast cancer visiting this charlatan and not using legitimate medical treatment! )-:

Does ABC incur a liability in giving approval to JOG?

I didn't see it and so avoided being enraged. (-:

Sincerely
Albert J. Hoch Jr.

Welcome to the forum Albert. Yes, to get Randi's answer to your questions it is best to e-mail him (randi@jref.org). Since I know Dr. Oz I will try and answer your questions from my perspective.

Dr. Oz is a well respected cardiac surgeon at Columbia University Presybyterian Medical Center in NYC ....., this is where President Clinton recently had his successful heart surgery.

Oz has also been involved in the creation and testing of new techniques for cardiac surgery and with mechanical devices for heart assist, etc. However, he is also interested in the possibilities for non-traditional therapies and claims since he says he has seen unexplainable things work .... He is invited to other hospitals to lecture on this and I have heard him speak twice. He presents himself as a straightforward scientist looking for traditional scientific answers to what appear to us as supernatural or paranormal things. Randi, of course, presents himself to us as a magician and looks for illusionist explanations for what people like JOG claim to do. Oz does not believe John of God has a mandate from god or that god helps him heal people. He seeks a normal or scientific explanation when things happen that don't seem to layman (including Randi who is a layman on medical science) to be very scientific.

We do not know whether this breast cancer victim wasn't also getting regular therapy for her breast cancer. People like her who take holidays in Brazil and visit people like JOG want to try anything and everything. They are desperate. Randi calling these victims liars really cast him in a bad light and he realizes that now even if he was quoting Ben Franklin. Oz's medical take on this woman was that JOG may've exerted pressure on a part of her pituitary gland (stimulating it) which controls breast lactation. Lactating women do not get breat cancer. He was speculating to be sure but it was a give away he wasn't buying the mystical reasons for any results JOG gets but was suggesting possible scientific answers. This is probably what the show asked him to do and it was his purpose there.

I think we can be pretty sure ABC has no liability/responsibility for what happens in the mountains of Brazil and has covered its rear legally on this. I agree they should have been more circumspect in their treatment of JOG's claims and this was unfortunate. Others have already said they were clearly pandering to a larger audience with a belief system that makes their angle more popular than Randi's or Dr. Oz's for that matter.
Oz probably was more politic about it than Randi was.

 

[Beady]

Re: Re: John of God farce

Oz probably was more politic about it than Randi was.

I have always felt that Randi's manner can be less than helpful. He often comes across as a discontented curmudgeon and, when this is pointed out to him, his response is in the vein of "tough ◊◊◊◊!" (my words, not his). My impression is that he refuses to believe that looking like a malcontent hurts his credibility.

Well, at his age he's not going to change. Even so, his insistence on making editorial comments is why I prefer skeptical authors such as Shermer and Park over Randi. I prefer to be given my information straight up, without having to filter it through someone's opinion.

 

[Skipbidder]

Re: Re: John of God farce

Oz's medical take on this woman was that JOG may've exerted pressure on a part of her pituitary gland (stimulating it) which controls breast lactation. Lactating women do not get breat cancer.

I'm not sur whether this idea was Oz's or yours.
In either case, the idea that lactating women do not get breast cancer is straightforwardly untrue. Dissemination of this false idea may cause delay in diagnosis.

 

[materia3]

Re: Re: Re: John of God farce

I'm not sur whether this idea was Oz's or yours.
In either case, the idea that lactating women do not get breast cancer is straightforwardly untrue. Dissemination of this false idea may cause delay in diagnosis.

First of all I never said "never get breast cancer." However the literature on the subject indicates there is a positive correlation between breast feeding and not getting cancer. There are studies going back to the 90s in Shandong Province in China where women on average breast feed for up to three years ....correlating with breast cancer incidence that was signficiantly less than women who never breast fed or breast fed for far shorter periods of time.

I fail to see how a detection of a lump in a lactating woman would cause a delay in diagnosis. But thanks for the warning. I'll be sure and remember it the next time the situation arises.

Any mass should be investigated, examined and if necessary biopsied, lactating or not.

This is a decision which must be made on clinical grounds and you cannot go off the wall making statements implying that lactation has no role in preventing breast cancer because I am afraid you are just plain wrong based on overwhelming epidemiological evidence.

I also appreciate the fact you are trying to defend Randi's take on the subject. Afterall Randi can point to more than a hundred years of carnival fakirs who insert stuff up their nose or down their throats with impunity. Of course what Randi fails to point out in his interesting review of this is that JOG's "patients" are not carnival fakirs even if he is. Frankly I wouldn't want him shoving a forceps up my nose. But if pressure on the anterior pituitary fossa stimulates the gland, and I obviously have no idea whether it does, then this may be relevant.

Here are but a few recently published studies from MedLine on the subject. There are many more if you are interested:

J Pediatr (Rio J). 2004 Nov;80(5 Suppl):S142-6

[Benefits of breastfeeding and women's health]



Rea MF.

Instituto de Saude, Coordenacao dos Institutos de Pesquisa, SES, Sao Paulo, SP.

OBJECTIVE: To review breastfeeding benefits for the women's health. SOURCES OF DATA: Lilacs, MEDLINE, SciELO, BIREME, Cochrane Library and Google were searched for the keywords: breastfeeding and breast cancer, ovarian cancer, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, lactation amenorrhea, post natal period, and women's health. Single articles published between 1990 and 2004 were considered, as well as remarkable ones prior to this period. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS: There are a few articles published on the topic, even though, the existing literature reveals that there is a positive relationship between breastfeeding and decreased risk of breast cancer, cancer of the ovarian epithelium, and osteoporosis leading to hip fracture. Some studies suggest the effect of breastfeeding on the decreasing risk of rheumatoid arthritis, others mention the relation between breastfeeding and faster loss of weight gained during the gestational period. Several studies show how breastfeeding interferes on the onset of postnatal menstruation and consequent birth spacing. CONCLUSIONS: Breastfeeding provides important benefits for the women's health, such as reduced risk of breast and ovarian cancer, decreased risks of hip fractures and contribution to the increase of birth spacing.



Med J Malaysia. 2004 Jun;59(2):226-32.

Breast cancer and lifestyle risks among Chinese women in the Klang Valley in 2001.

Hejar AR, Chong FB, Rosnan H, Zailina H.

Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang.

Breast cancer is one of the commonest cancers among women in Malaysia. The relation between lifestyle practices and the risk of breast cancer in Chinese women aged 21-55 years were assessed using data collected from June to October 2001, via a face-to face interview in a case control study in the Breast Clinics of Kuala Lumpur Hospital and University Malaya Medical Centre. A total of 89 cases with breast cancer were compared with 85 controls without the disease. Our study showed that breastfeeding had an odds ratio of 4.43 after adjustment for confounders. The results add to the evidence of a protective association between breast feeding practices and breast cancer particularly among Chinese women receiving treatment at two government hospitals in the Klang Valley.


J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Jul 21;96(14):1094-8.

Breast-feeding and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Jernstrom H, Lubinski J, Lynch HT, Ghadirian P, Neuhausen S, Isaacs C, Weber BL, Horsman D, Rosen B, Foulkes WD, Friedman E, Gershoni-Baruch R, Ainsworth P, Daly M, Garber J, Olsson H, Sun P, Narod SA.

Jubileum Institute, Department of Oncology, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported that the risk of breast cancer decreases with increasing duration of breast-feeding. Whether breast-feeding is associated with a reduced risk of hereditary breast cancer in women who carry deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is currently unknown. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study of women with deleterious mutations in either the BRCA1 or the BRCA2 gene. Study participants, drawn from an international cohort, were matched on the basis of BRCA mutation (BRCA1 [n = 685] or BRCA2 [n = 280]), year of birth (+/-2 years), and country of residence. The study involved 965 case subjects diagnosed with breast cancer and 965 control subjects who had no history of breast or ovarian cancer. Information on pregnancies and breast-feeding practices was derived from a questionnaire administered to the women during the course of genetic counseling. Conditional logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for the risk of breast cancer. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among women with BRCA1 mutations, the mean total duration of breast-feeding was statistically significantly shorter for case subjects than for control subjects (6.0 versus 8.7 months, respectively; mean difference = 2.7 months, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4 to 4.0; P<.001). The total duration of breast-feeding was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer (for each month of breast-feeding, OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97 to 0.99; P(trend)<.001). Women with BRCA1 mutations who breast-fed for more than 1 year were less likely to have breast cancer than those who never breast-fed (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.80; P =.001), although no such association was seen for BRCA2 (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.56 to 1.59; P =.83). CONCLUSIONS: Women with deleterious BRCA1 mutations who breast-fed for a cumulative total of more than 1 year had a statistically significantly reduced risk of breast cancer.

Hereis a recent review of the earlier Shandong Province studies which are from the mid90s or so which I do not have:

Am J Epidemiol. 2000 Dec 15;152(12):1129-35.

Lactation reduces breast cancer risk in Shandong Province, China.

Zheng T, Duan L, Liu Y, Zhang B, Wang Y, Chen Y, Zhang Y, Owens PH.

Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine and Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, USA. tongzhang.zheng@yale.edu

Results from studies of western populations investigating lactation and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent. To examine this issue, the authors conducted a hospital-based case-control study in Shandong Province, China, in 1997-1999. A total of 404 cases and an equal number of controls were included. Further stratification by menopausal status resulted in the same conclusion. These data suggest that prolonged lactation reduces breast cancer risk.

Of course the above studies were conducted among Asian, Band Swedish women so here is a U.S. based study out of Utah that dealt with breast feeding and LDS church membership which is sort of fascinating ......

Prev Med. 2004 Jan;38(1):28-38.

Associations between breast cancer risk factors and religious practices in Utah.

Daniels M, Merrill RM, Lyon JL, Stanford JB, White GL Jr.

Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.

BACKGROUND: Utah has the lowest female malignant breast cancer incidence rates in the United States, due in part to low rates among women who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon). Several established reproductive and non-reproductive breast cancer risk factors may be lower among LDS women because of their religious doctrine related to marriage, family, and health. This paper investigates the association between selected breast cancer risk factors and religious preference and religiosity in Utah. METHODS: A 37-item anonymous cross-sectional telephone survey was developed and conducted during March and April 2002. Results are based on 848 non-Hispanic white female respondents. RESULTS: Number of births (parity), prevalence of breastfeeding, and lifetime total duration of breastfeeding were highest among LDS women who attended church weekly. Average months of breastfeeding per child were greatest among weekly church attendees, regardless of religious preference. Oral contraceptive use and total duration of hormone replacement therapy use were greatest for individuals of any religion attending church less than weekly and for individuals with no religious preference. Comparisons of divergent reproductive behaviors between LDS and non-LDS, and between weekly and less than weekly church goers, provide strong support for the relatively low breast cancer incidence rates previously identified among LDS and, therefore, in Utah. CONCLUSIONS: High parity and breastfeeding coincide with comparatively low breast cancer incidence rates among LDS and are consistent with recent findings of the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, showing the primary role parity and breastfeeding play in reducing breast cancer.

 

[Kopji]

I am a little saddened that both Mr Randi & Dr Oz, respected in their own fields, were victimized by ABC's media self serving presentation.

Even a quick review of the 'John of God' healing business on the web invites many questions that were not asked by ABC. Particularly, the author of one of the biggest books on JOG is Robert Pelligrino-Estrich, also owner and operator of their major tourism franchise.

Book:
The Miracle Man:
The Life Story of Joao de Deus
Author: Robert Pelligrino-Estrich
http://www.johnofgod.com/guide.htm
http://www.johnofgod.com/conditions.htm

Excerpts from the John of God website,
by Robert Pelligrino-Estrich
(snide comments in italics mine, mispellings from the website theirs)

Dear Enquirer,
...just take a taxi to the Grand Bittar Hotel and meet us in the lobby at 7.30 pm for dinner at a nearby restaurant.
The all-inclusive cost is only USD$1390 (or equivalent) which covers:
this is a meaning of 'all inclusive' which eludes me
- an in-coming recuperative night in the five-star Grand Bittar Hotel,
I note the 7:30pm dinner is not included
- bus transfers (a bus is provided to and from Abadiania, any change of plans that requires individual transport must be paid directly to the driver).
- ten nights in Abadiania,
- three meals a day including one juice, water, tea or coffee. Additional drinks will be charged separately.
charging for water?
- our translation services,
quality of translation can be judged by the impeccable English used on the website
- our constant assistance and guidance to ensure the best results from your visit.

You will only need pocket money for souvenirs, gemstones, coffees and herbs if prescribed - US$4 per bottle, usually 5 or 10 prescribed,
ok, let's say $40
and a few possible crystal bed therapies prior to treatment at $7 per session.
Wow. Humm ok, lets make it two weeks worth, maybe another $100

Joao will not accept payment - but you may make a donation if you wish.
so what's the recommended donation? 20%?
say $300

We will need payment in advance to enable us to secure accommodation. If the trip fails to eventuate
eventuate? for any reason all monies less US$250 are refundable. We will also need your name (as it appears on your passport), address and passport number (for bus travel permits in Brazil).

CONDITIONS:
...Robert Pellegrino-Estrich (herein refered to as “the Operator”) is responsible for the tour services including; land transportation, accommodation and guide services. All travel documents issued for tour services are subject to the terms and conditions specified by the Operator. In regard to air services, the Operator does not act as an agent for any party whatsoever. The Operator accepts no responsibility for carrier caused delays, schedules changes, sickness or accidents. Should the Operators deem it necessary for political, climatic or other reasons to amend or vary the itinerary in any way. The participant authorises the Operators to take the necessary action in respect of medical treatment, emergancy evacuation or any other actions deemd necessary for the security or wellbeing of the participants and agrees that all associated costs are payable by the participant.

they can charge you for whatever they feel is needed

In unforeseen circumstances we reserve the right to cancel or re-schedule tour departures and itineraries or, where it is necessary to change a hotel, we reserve the right to substitute accommodation of a similar standard without refund of either airfares or hotel charges.

bring your mosquito netting

Costs are calculated on ground costs and exchange rates at the time of planning. Whilst whilst? we try our utmost not to increase prices, in the event of increases in hotel or ground costs, we reserve the right to amend our prices * at any time up to the day of departure.
* upward...

Not Included in Your Tour Costs:
Insurance, excess baggage, laundry, postage, telephone calls, items of a personal nature, medical expenses, beverages, hotel Fridge-o-bar or gratuities

Payment: An initial deposit of US$500, or equivelant sic in foreign currencies, ($300 not refundable) is required to hold your reservation. The balance of US$890 is payable 30 days prior to departure date. You are welcome to use a credit card to make payments but there will be a 3.5% surcharge.

Letseee, so far that's $550 not refundable instead of $200, plus the 3.5% surcharge... and why does $500+$890 = $1440 instead of $1390? as promised on page one?

It is acknowledged that, whilst every due care is exercised by the organisers and their agents to ensure the comfort and well being of the undersigned and their companions, the responsibility for any loss (including personal injury, death, and/or property loss) accident, misfortune or deterioration of existing medical onditions shall always be the resposibility of the tour participant.

The Operator is not responsible for any physical, mental, emotional or other reaction, trauma or ailment during the trip or occuring afterwards that the participants may experience at the power vortexes or sites or from any lecture, workshop or session of any kind, including private sessions.

we will however, take complete credit for any healing

Payment of the deposit or any partial or full payment for this tour constitutes consent to all provisions contained herein. The tour participant acknowledges that at no time did the Operators promise or imply a definite cure of the participant's medical condition and the trip is undertaken at the free will of the undersigned without pressure by the Operators or their agents.

...Epilogue:

Driving around Brazil is, ahem, an experience: it's anarchic and spectacularly dangerous, particularly at night, when many drivers prefer not to use their lights. Though a convenient way to get to many parts of the country, driving should only be undertaken by those with strong nerves, tidy documents and adequate insurance. It goes without saying that cycling is even more dangerous than driving; don't try it.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/south_america/brazil/get.htm

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Re: Re: Re: Re: John of God farce

First of all I never said "never get breast cancer."

Ermm... You said:

Lactating women do not get breat cancer.

The context of the quote is:

Oz's medical take on this woman was that JOG may've exerted pressure on a part of her pituitary gland (stimulating it) which controls breast lactation. Lactating women do not get breat cancer. He was speculating to be sure but it was a give away he wasn't buying the mystical reasons for any results JOG gets...

The statement that "Lactating women do not get breat cancer" is the same as "Lactating women never get breast cancer". Do not = Never.

I'm picking nits here, but when you get into the realm of looking at the effectiveness of alternative medicine, I would expect much more scrutiny, precision, and honesty than is required for analysis of the effectiveness of medicinal treatments that are within accepted scientific knowledge.

Your refusal to admit or accept an obvious contradiction in your statements send up red skeptic flags all over the place on anything you have to say. It calls into question the reason for the contradiction which calls for further questioning of your motives. That is just reasonable impression of your motives and capabilities.

I can understand supporting a surgeon that wants to look for better medicine. That's what we all want. And medicine isn't going to get better unless you look at things that we don't know. But we have to have careful analysis of "what we don't know". Putting up a statement that "Lactating women never get breast cancer" in support of some ridiculous fakir--or even in support of a person that considers possible benefits of someone researching some ridiculous fakir, is ridiculous. Then to deny that you said it (when it is recorded in an Internet forum) is grounds for complete dismissal of anything that you say as complete balderdash propaganda.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: John of God farce

Oz's medical take on this woman was that JOG may've exerted pressure on a part of her pituitary gland (stimulating it) which controls breast lactation.

This is total and complete nonsense. Look at the diagram in the commentary. Do you seriously propose that it is physically possible to "exert pressure on the pituitary gland" in this manner? It isn't.

The pituitary gland and its functions is pretty well studied. Don't you think that if some random interference with it might cure breast cancer, someone might have stumbled on a possible mechanism of action for this?

And how about all the other diseases allegedly "cured" by this intervention? Does random poking at the pituitary gland emerge as this year's "miracle cure"?

(Except that there's no way you could touch the pituitary doing that, which is just as well as it happens.)

Rolfe.

 

[materia3]

You still don't get it. Dr. Oz was looking for a medical or scientific explanation to this faker's possible successes beyond his claimed mystical or alleged god aided ability to heal.

JOG is a charlatan and a faker. His patients are not. Ben Franklin is not a holy cow; he said a lot of silly things. Ben Franklin with Randi's agreement say JOG's patients are liars (=fakers) as well. How's that for a nitpick. This is Randi's problem but it turns into a problem for any rationale skeptical exposure of people like JOG. And it is pathetic and sad that Randi didn't see this before he erred with an 8 second sound byte (=gaff) on a major teleivison special. You would think that after all his years of experience he would know by now that news commentators and print reporters gather a lot of quotes and then cherry pick them for whatever agenda they are trying to further. You seem to be doing the same thing these reporters are guilty of .... cherry picking another's remarks while ignoring the qualifiers. Fortunately, thanks to Randi, I can rebut you but Randi didn't have that opportunity on-air.

FYI lactating breasts do, by themselves, delay and even confound the diagnosis of breast cancer in the extremely rare instances where it occurs. It is a nightmare to diagnose a lump in a swollen, lactating breast. An even bigger delay would be the fact that lumps are palpated with great difficulty in lactating breasts. I guess you have never tried. This is the reality, not your stereotypical argument borrowed from the anti-CAM movement which says CAM delays diagnosis and proper treatment which it may indeed do in some cases.

I assume given the evidence you now agree there is overwhelming evidence that a hx of lactation prevents breast cancer and that lactating women (in a neat length of time lactating occurs versus declining incidence curve) have a far smaller to yes, non-existent chance of getting breast cancer. I assume you read the recent references provided.

The matter was studied because doctors started noticing that women with a hx of lactating did not get breast cancer and that women with a longer history of breast feeding got less or no cancer (yup, there are many women who do never get breast cancer...surprised?). This is what separates the Dr. Ozs of the world from dogmatic people ... a basic desire to explore and fathom out rationales.


Rolfe .... I said it above: I have no idea whether the manipulation stimulates or affects the pituitary gland. Do I buy Randi's explanation that placing pressure on the gland by placing pressure on its boney fossa is ABSOLUTELY impossible? No.
But sure, it may be impossible. Not having x-ray vision, I have no idea if JOG was cleaning out the woman's sinuses or actually advancing to the floor of the skull.

And neither does Dr. Oz which is why he brought this up. As a surgeon he should at least know.

For a long time prolactin levels in the blood were studied in breast cancer victims and it was concluded that high prolactin levels favor the cancer. I can provide those references but you can also enter prolactin and breast cancer into MedLine and see those cites for yourself. What these studies fail to take into account is how or why the cancer provokes hyperprolactemia or at what level this occurs. If this is true and prolactin favors the breast cancer then JOG, if he does somehow stimulate the anterior pituitary, is actually harming the patient. Given the prolactin/cancer link, this why using this in somebody who already has cancer may not be a treatment option. On the other hand evidence points to a history of lactation as being preventative. I know from personal contact with the orthodox jewish community for example that since for a long time there was no kosher baby formula available just about every mother breast fed her children and that breast cancer was non-existent
among these women.Are people studying such populations of women for their resistance to breast cancer? Yes, as much as is possible.

I hope this answers your question.There is a lot we don't know about this and it has a lot of researchers involved in looking for answers. The pituitary may be well studied but clearly we don't know everything about its extended effects on every level and under every circumstance. The large scale epidemiological studies I provided above are only from 2004.

.

 

[Skipbidder]

You still don't get it. Dr. Oz was looking for a medical or scientific explanation to this faker's possible successes beyond his claimed mystical or alleged god aided ability to heal.

The explanations for the alleged successes already exist. Oz doesn't care for them, because he himself is an alternative-medicine apologist. These explanations also apply to treatments that he himself believes to work. This is assuming that Oz is not deliberately lying in his own alt-med therapies. This is, of course, very difficult to ascertain. Very little actually rides on this. If Oz didn't actually know better, he certainly SHOULD have.

He was not looking for a medical or scientific explanation. He was shovelling BS. At least as described, given a patient without severe anatomic variation, contact with the pituitary via the method used is not anatomically possible.

JOG is a charlatan and a faker. His patients are not.

No, his patients are victims. Their degree of culpability for their own decision to visit JOG depends on their own levels of education. Oz and ABC have encouraged more people to become victims.

And it is pathetic and sad that Randi didn't see this before he erred with an 8 second sound byte (=gaff) on a major teleivison special.

I've never been a big fan of Randi's gruffness, but I'm not sure I would do any better. That being said, with the length of time he was interviewed, it is probably difficult NOT to say something which can be presented out of context to make you look bad.
Take a look at your own postings. You got to write them down, consider them before you posted them, editing them if you wished. One doesn't even have to remove the context to make YOU look very silly. You said that women who lactate don't get breast cancer. When called on this straightforwardly untrue statement, you could have chosen to clarify your meaning without damaging your credibility, but instead chose to claim that words don't mean what they mean. By doing so, you have created a hurdle for anyone who wants to consider your arguments.

I assume given the evidence you now agree there is overwhelming evidence that a hx of lactation prevents breast cancer and that lactating women (in a neat length of time lactating occurs versus declining incidence curve) have a far smaller to yes, non-existent chance of getting breast cancer.

Back the truck up. History of lactation prevents breast cancer? I haven't read your links yet; I have a limited amount of time to invest each day. The sentence, with the plain meaning of the words you used, is once again straightforwardly untrue. Would you care to clarify it for me so that I know what you are actually claiming when I do go back and read the articles that you provided us?

 

[SRW]

You still don't get it. Dr. Oz was looking for a medical or scientific explanation to this faker's possible successes beyond his claimed mystical or alleged god aided ability to heal.


.

Oh I think we get it, Dr Oz was attempting to give a rational scientific explanation, for something which does not exist. Instead of his pituitary BS why did he not simply state that he has absolutely no solid evidence that JOG has ever cured anyone of breast cancer. Simply by stating that there may be a scientific explanation all Dr. Oz did was to give JOG undeserved credit for preforming cures that never happened.

Randi made a mistake in trusting that ABC would treat him fairly. Dr. Oz for what ever reason helped enable the faker JOG continue his scam.

 

[materia3]

Back the truck up. History of lactation prevents breast cancer? I haven't read your links yet; I have a limited amount of time to invest each day. The sentence, with the plain meaning of the words you used, is once again straightforwardly untrue. Would you care to clarify it for me so that I know what you are actually claiming when I do go back and read the articles that you provided us?

hmm, I am not backing the truck up. I have already parked it. You can back up to 2-20-05 8:01 PM for the evidence and you don't have far to travel. I am sorry you do not have the time to consider the evidence provided above but do have the time to say it is "straightforwardly untrue." Sheesh.

 

[materia3]

The explanations for the alleged successes already exist. Oz doesn't care for them, because he himself is an alternative-medicine apologist. These explanations also apply to treatments that he himself believes to work. This is assuming that Oz is not deliberately lying in his own alt-med therapies. This is, of course, very difficult to ascertain. Very little actually rides on this. If Oz didn't actually know better, he certainly SHOULD have.

Dr. Oz's only interest in anything termed alternative involves his belief that healing shouldbe accompanied by a positive outlook and love -- his healing from the heart thesis which he bases on several eastern philosophies. He does not back any other alternative or so-called complementary therapies but rather the opposite. His CV which I post herewith will tell readers who he is and whether his credentials are credible or he is merely an alternative medicine apologist (whatever that is) as you label him.
I assume you have read his book (I have and have met and heard him speak at medical conferences) which leads you to this conclusion. What I heard Oz say is that in order to recover he has found greater success in patients with a will to live, with those who have people around them who care and love them and want them to get better and make that known to them. People without support of this type, tend to not have a will to live when facing overwhelming illness (from which recovery is possible) and fare poorly to not at all. I think this is a fairly reasonable assesment which anybody in the medical field caring for patients has observed.

http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=mco2&DepAffil=Surgery

Mehmet C. Oz, MD, FACS

Positions and Appointments

2001-present Professor of Surgery
Columbia University College of
Physicians & Surgeons, New York, NY
2001-present Director, Cardiovascular Institute
Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
2001-present Vice Chairman, Cardiovascular Services,
Department of Surgery
Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
1993-present Attending Surgeon
Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
Clinical SpecialtiesMinimally invasive heart surgery
Cardiothoracic surgery
Mitral and aortic valve surgery
Adult cardiac transplantation
Mechanical heart assistance
Coronary bypass and aneurysm surgery

Research Interests:
Minimally invasive cardiac surgery
Complementary medicine
Healthcare outcomes analysis
Heart replacement




Education and Training

1991-1993 Resident, Cardiothoracic Surgery
Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, New York, NY
1990-1991 Chief Resident, General Surgery
Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, New York, NY
1986-1990 Intern/Resident, General Surgery
Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, New York, NY
1986 MD/MBA
University of Pennsylvania/Wharton School of Business, Philadelphia, PA
1982 BA
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Board Certifications

American Board of Thoracic Surgery, 2004
American Board of Surgery, 1992
Professional Experience2000-2001 Associate Professor of Surgery
Columbia University College of
Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY
1994-2001 Director, Cardiac Assist Device Program
Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, New York, NY
1994-2000 Irving Assistant Professor of Surgery
Columbia University College of
Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY

Professional Honors

Listed in Doctors of the Year, Hippocrates Magazine

Listed in Healers of the Millennium, Healthy Living Magazine

Listed in Best Doctors of the Year, New York Magazine

Listed in Castle Connolly Guide

Named Global Leader of Tomorrow, World Economic Forum, 1999

Named Turkish American of the Year, 1996

AWARDS:

Books for a Better America Award (for Healing from the Heart), 1999

Robert E. Gross Research Scholarship, AATS, 1994-96

Research Award, American Society of Laser Medicine and Surgery, 1991

Blakemore Research Awards, Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, 1988-91 Professional Societies and CommitteesMember of the Thoracic Surgical Workforce Committee, 1998

American Association of Thoracic Surgeons, 1997

Fellow, American College of Surgeons, 1997

21st Century Cardiac Surgical Society, 1996

Fellow, American College of Cardiology, 1995

New York State Society of Surgeons, 1995

American College of Cardiology, 1995

American Society for Artificial Internal Organs, 1994

Association for Academic Surgery, 1994

New York Society for Thoracic Surgery, 1993

International Society for Heart & Lung Transplantation, 1992

Association of Turkish American Scientists, 1991

Turkish-American Physicians Association, 1991

International Society for Optical Engineering, 1989

American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, 1989

American College of Angiology, Scientific Council

American Heart Association, Scientific Council



Selected Publications

Cardiac Assist Devices, Edited by Daniel J. Goldstein, MD and Mehmet C. Oz, MD

Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery, Edited by Mehmet C. Oz, MD, and Daniel J. Goldstein, MD. Voted the best health science book by Doody's rating service in 2000

Oz, MC, Healing from the Heart. Dutton New York, NY 1999

Goldstein DJ, Oz, MC, Rose EA: Implantable left ventricular assist devices. New England Journal of Med 339: 1522-1533, 1998

Oz, MC, Levin H, Rose EA. Long-term, Implantable Ventricular Assist Devices: What are they and who needs them. Comprehensive Therapy 21(7): 351-354; 1995.

Oz, MC, Goldstein DJ, Pepino P, Weinberg AD, Thompson SM, Catanese KA, Vargo RL, McCarthy PM, Rose EA, Levin HR. Screening scale predicts patients successfully receiving long-term, implantable left ventricular assist devices. Circ 92 (9 supp II):II-169-II-173; 1995.

Oz, MC, Argenziano M, Catanese KA, Gardocki MT, Goldstein DJ, Ashton RC, Gelijns AC, Rose EA, Levin HR. Bridge experience with long-term implantable left ventricular assist devices: are they an alternative to transplantation? Circulation 95(7): 1844-1852, 1997.

Oz, MC, Argenziano M, Rose EA. What is "Minimally Invasive" coronary bypass surgery? Experience with a variety of surgical revascularization procedures for single-vessel disease. Chest.;112:1409-16 1997.

Oz, MC, Whitworth J, Liu E. Complementary medicine effects on coronary artery bypass patients. JAMA;279(9):710-11, 1998.

Oz, MC, Rose EA, Lemole GM. Alternative Medicine-The Case of Herbal Remedies. The New England Journal of Medicine; 340(13): 1056, 1999.

Chen JM, Cullinane S, Spanier TB, Artrip JH, John R, Edwards NM, Oz, MC, Landry DW. Vasopressin Deficiency and Pressor Hypersensitivity in Hemodynamically Unstable Organ Donors. Circulation; 100(19 Suppl); II244-6, 1999.


Goldstein DJ, Oz, MC: Current Status and Future Directions of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery. Curr Opin Cardiol 14:419-425, 1999.

Oz, MC, Cosgrove DM, Badduke BR, Hill JD, Flannery M, Palumbo R, Topic N. Controlled clinical trial of a novel hemostatic agent in cardiac surgery. The Fusion Matrix Study Group. Ann Thorac Surgery, 69(5) :1376-82, 2000.

Morales DLS, Catanese KA, Helman DN, Williams MR, Weinberg A, Goldstein DJ, Rose EA, Oz, MC. Six-Year Experience of Caring for 44 LVAD Patients at Home: Safe, Economical, and Necessary. JTCVS; 119(2): 251-59, 2000.

Liu EH, Turner LM, Lin SX, Klaus L, Choi LY, Whitworth J, Ting W, Oz, MC. Use of Alternative Medicine by Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 120(2): 335-41, 2000.

 

[Skipbidder]

hmm, I am not backing the truck up. I have already parked it. You can back up to 2-20-05 8:01 PM for the evidence and you don't have far to travel. I am sorry you do not have the time to consider the evidence provided above but do have the time to say it is "straightforwardly untrue." Sheesh.

It takes a long time to do a proper literature search. I am doing three tonight, which are all relevant to current patients. Your search is of a very low priority. I said that I would get around to it. In the meantime, I asked you to clarify your meaning. By the plain meaning of the words, what you said is trivially false. A single instance of a patient with breast cancer post lactation refutes your stated claim. I've seen multiple. It takes at most a matter of a couple of minutes to type the reply to your message.

 

[Skipbidder]

Dr. Oz's only interest in anything termed alternative involves his belief that healing shouldbe accompanied by a positive outlook and love -- his healing from the heart thesis which he bases on several eastern philosophies. He does not back any other alternative or so-called complementary therapies but rather the opposite.

Oz has written extensively in favor of altmed. I'm done with you. I now consider you to be a troll. Feel free to babble on about topics about which you are extraordinarily ignorant. I'm not playing anymore.

 

[jj]

Oz has written extensively in favor of altmed. I'm done with you. I now consider you to be a troll. Feel free to babble on about topics about which you are extraordinarily ignorant. I'm not playing anymore.

skip bid - DOUBLE



And John of God is still a hack, and ABC a worse bunch of hacks, and Dr. Oz should know better.

 

[citytom]

I sent in my 2 cents to ABC news from the two e-addresses posted in the commentary.

 

[crimresearch]

"You still don't get it. Dr. Oz was looking for a medical or scientific explanation to this faker's possible successes beyond his claimed mystical or alleged god aided ability to heal."

No he isn't..he is positing 'pressure on the pituitary' in a manner which is impossible...there is nothing medical or scientific about that.

Why someone with his credentials would do so is quite a mystery, but again, it is neither a medical, nor a scientific claim.