Dr. Oz comes off almost--almost--charming at first in a New Yorker profile out this week. But of course he does: it's one of the reasons he has a gigantic audience regularly tuning in to "The Dr. Oz Show." Michael Specter, the New Yorker writer, asks why someone like Oz, with Harvard credentials, would promote treatments that are flat-out wrong.
After that, we go deep into The Land of Oz, where the doctor makes some truly bizarre claims. He says he wants to toe the line in the "civil war" between conventional medicine (i.e., medicine that works) and alternative treatments. He's not one of those bossy doctors; he wants "no more barriers between patient and medicine." You know, like back in the good old days, when we relied on superstition and our average life expectancy was about 25. It gets a little murkier, too, when Oz's wife, Lisa Oz, is introduced. She refuses to have their children vaccinated (!) and Oz, though he disagrees, capitulates. But it's his show, of course, where pseudo-scientific claims are given the most play. Oz has endorsed some products without much scientific evidence to back them up. He's gone on-air to preach the merits of Reiki, a spiritual healing practice; green coffee beans; and red palm oil--none of which have been proven effective. Oz doesn't let the criticisms irk him. He's right about one thing: data isn't clean, and medical studies are frequently wrong. Oz knows that; he points out the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies he's authored. But for the world's most visible health professional to brush off the scientific method? The closest-held belief in science? You're damn right that's chilling. You can, and should, read the whole New Yorker piece here.
After that, we go deep into The Land of Oz, where the doctor makes some truly bizarre claims. He says he wants to toe the line in the "civil war" between conventional medicine (i.e., medicine that works) and alternative treatments. He's not one of those bossy doctors; he wants "no more barriers between patient and medicine." You know, like back in the good old days, when we relied on superstition and our average life expectancy was about 25.
It gets a little murkier, too, when Oz's wife, Lisa Oz, is introduced. She refuses to have their children vaccinated (!) and Oz, though he disagrees, capitulates.
But it's his show, of course, where pseudo-scientific claims are given the most play. Oz has endorsed some products without much scientific evidence to back them up. He's gone on-air to preach the merits of Reiki, a spiritual healing practice; green coffee beans; and red palm oil--none of which have been proven effective. Oz doesn't let the criticisms irk him.
He's right about one thing: data isn't clean, and medical studies are frequently wrong. Oz knows that; he points out the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies he's authored. But for the world's most visible health professional to brush off the scientific method? The closest-held belief in science? You're damn right that's chilling.
You can, and should, read the whole New Yorker piece here.
I find it 'startling' that his kids are not being immunized. Who has the greater medical knowledge in his household, and therefore should be making this type of decision for the household?
What a sellout he is in every resepct, as he even sold his kids out to his radical vaccination-phobic wife. That is a 'miracle' in itself.
I like Dr. Oz and his advice, alternate views on medical problems and his information he provides, plus I always remember like the internet, I am watching TV. Sometimes in this TV media or internet we do learn something, but everything we are taking in is hearsay. So if a person wants facts, they best get as close the source as possible.
I find TV and the Internet and interesting source of information, but never a factual source; it's all hearsay.
For that manner, even if the President of USA speaks, I take his words with a grain of salt and I until I read the writing of the laws that are actually created, the public speech does not give me factual information, but only a glimpse to what he projects he wants me to believe.
I love the irony from having this article on popsci where half the authors use less science than Dr oz. *cough* Dan N *cough*
The placebo effect can be just as powerful as any drug. That's what I think Doc Oz is saying. When alt-meds work, it really doesn't matter what science says. You may be practicing some spiritual ritual where you stand on your head and soak your body in snake-oil, when no man-made drug is working, you gotta do what works.
For the human brain, faith is as strong as science.
RIGHT ON THE MARK, ROFL....ha ha,..... snort! Good point!
Big pharma and the medical industry are on the defensive with him. Promoting alternatives to the big blue bible of medicine? Heresy! People are free to make their own choices about health. And for those of you who think there is no mechanism to reiki, check out extremely low frequency machines, and studies on ELF fields emitted by reiki healers. Science is supposed to start with the premise that anything is possible, so that new ideas and modes of thought can be investigated in an unbiased fashion. If the placebo effect works for sugar pills, it could also work the other way. ( when you believe it doesnt work, it won't, or it will reduce effectiveness )
I heard on an NPR interview that Dr. Oz is a very intelligent guy, one of the top heart surgeons in the world. He is also head surgeon somewhere as his day job.
His rationale for doing talk shows was that he could only operate on a few hundred people each year.
He thought that he could help more people by teaching them basics about their health. And it makes sense, even though eating green coffee or red olive oil might be bunk it still forces people into a mindset of thinking about what youre dumping down your throat.
The way I see it... we really don't know as much about science and health as we think we do.
Think about medicine 100 years ago. It seems archaic in today's standards. Smoking was fine back then. 100 years from now, today's science and medicine will be mocked as well. Chemotherapy will probably be compared to electroshock therapy or lobotomies, but we do the best we can with what knowledge we have.
I'm convinced that some alternative medicines do work, but many do not (or do work with placebo thinking). I'm also convinced that pharmaceutical companies want to shut down supplement makers to sell more of their drugs that we don't need.
I wish we could separate the companies that want to help humanity from the ones that just want the profits.
I think what he really should be saying is that there are practices out there we could be using to supplement our current medical practices. Many of his suggestions should hardly be used as full on alternatives but if you maintain healthy practices than you'll certainly be healthier. They could be considered preventative techniques but they will not cure you when it comes to serious ailments.
What alternative medicine are you going to use in place of a polio vaccine? None, because there is no alternative treatment. There are somethings in medicine we just cannot replace with homeopathic remedies or positive thinking though there's no harm in thinking positively. Positive thinking and placebos only go so far, again, sugar water and thinking you're healthy isn't going to heal your polio.
Although I work with the solid state, I have a small side business where I produce soap and creams. At the moment I am researching Sea Buckthorn oil for a constituent of a night cream. I ran across one of Dr. OZ´s clips on the subject that was posted on youtube.
The Sea Buckthorn Berry and the oil thereof do have some properties that make it interesting from a cosmetic and health perspective. This is correct.
In his presentation he is speaking to his audience…the general public . This is a popular presentation of the topic. I would not recommend it to other scientists…especially his "Demonstration" as to how the oil of the berry helps constipation. That was really, really weak.
He may be a talented surgon however one thing that I have noticed about medical doctors is that they are medical doctors and not research scientists. I have heard statements made by medical doctors about opinions and conclusions and that they have drawn (in particular how they came to be of this opinion) that would be frowned upon in a research environment.
I will be the first one to admit that bio chemistry can be more complicated than solid state chemistry because of the possibility for synergistic effects and side effects that can be different from person to person.
I think that the phenomenon of Dr. OZ will continue for awhile because he gets good ratings. People feel good listening to him. The clip over Sea Buckthorn is the only time I saw his presentation. I could not find anything dangerous to the public in his presentation of the subject. However , in my opinion, it was not really well presented factually.
I think Dr. Oz is working hard to have people wake up a little and to challenge their Dr. when told to take a drug for a simple illness that can be corrected through simply eating right, cutting down on Sugar etc. If you watch him, he is also working to have medicine work hand in hand with natural, which would simply make our health even better. How many people are on a month prescription or more? Almost half of Americans are on a month prescription. Dr.'s only want 1 issue per visit reported, as drugs focus on one issue, this is why people are on 2 to 10. My wife was an Paramedic and people would call because they fell, she would look at their 8 monthly drugs and say I wonder why. Our emergency medicine is the best in the world, but there is a problem with kids in schools now, autistic in almost all classes, attention issues, hyper issues, depression issues, but drugs and vaccines are never a suspect and I do wonder why, don't you?
Ive watched many of his shows, and find them a decent introduction to things I've possibly never heard of. Im certain quite a few of them may have 0 benefit ,and he even alludes to such. He is opening up the conversation for people to discover treatments that they may not have found without his voice.
"What works" really isn't as obcious as the New Yorker article would like people to believe, it shows a fairly weak amount of experience with science. Look up the science on migrain headaches, or inflamation, the INOS/ENOS cycle, or the histamine cycle h1-h4.
All of these things we know a GREAT deal about. But treating them or with them isn't like bandaging a wound. Multivariant problems like these turn huge and unmanageable very quickly when you're trying to isolate 1 or 2 variables for a full on study. Each of those studies can take monthes or years and thousands of people. The work for thoroughly understanding these processes at this rate could take hundreds of years.
This leaves the choices at accepting the imperfect solutions given to us by oharma companies along with their sometimes harsh side effects, blindly trusting 'ancient gurus' and their herbal 'natural remedies that may not be effective, or something in between like the dr Oz show that at least tries to give a bit of authoritative study to their recommendations.