Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal 320
circletimessquare writes Dr. Mehmet Oz serves as vice chairman of Columbia University Medical Center's department of surgery. He is a respected cardiothoracic surgeon but his television show has been accused of pushing snake oil. Now other doctors at Columbia University want Dr. Oz kicked off the medical school faculty. Dr. Oz has responded on his Facebook account: "I bring the public information that will help them on their path to be their best selves. We provide multiple points of view, including mine which is offered without conflict of interest. That doesn't sit well with certain agendas which distort the facts. For example, I do not claim that GMO foods are dangerous, but believe that they should be labeled like they are in most countries around the world." In their letter, the doctors accuse Dr. Oz of quackery: "Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops. Worst of all, he has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain."
in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score:5, Insightful)
he's irresponsibly pandering to ignorance to raise his profile
ignorant think he's informing them and giving them "choices"
but this is merely a logical fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
a choice between quackery and sound science is not a choice
it's preying on the science illiteracy of many and steering them to make uneducated bad choices that hurt their health. all to turn a quick buck and bask in the blessings of idiots
Re: (Score:2)
Genuine curiosity, what is he advocating that actually endangers his patients (or anyone else's) health?
Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score:5, Informative)
Genuine curiosity, what is he advocating that actually endangers his patients (or anyone else's) health?
Well, the short answer is he isn't, directly. That statement sounds like he's trying to kill his viewers. He's not.
The long answer has to do with his promotion of weight-loss dietary supplements.Since supplements aren't regulated by the FDA, consumers can't always be sure what they're taking. There are some sketchy companies out there and sometimes what's in the pill is not what's on the label.
He also didn't do himself any favors by using incautious language to promote the supplements - things like "magic weight loss cure" and "miracle in a bottle". This earned him a stern talking to by a Senate subcommittee on consumer protection about a year ago.
In his defense he points out these products have studies to show they are somewhat effective when combined with diet and exercise and it's not his fault if companies are misrepresenting product.
Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score:4, Insightful)
That I find more believable and far less serious. Some of the comments here make it sound like he's telling people to replace insulin and heart medication with lettuce or something.
Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score:4, Interesting)
His previous endorsements include numerous dubious weight-loss products, reiki, homoepathy and faith healing. He used to be a doctor, but then he became a TV personality too - and his medical 'advice' on TV is driven by purely commercial motives: He says whatever brings in the ratings and keeps the viewers returning. Even the British Medical Journal has condemned him for the lack of scientific backing for many of his recommendations.
It makes more sense if you read some of the leaked documents from Sony relating to the show. They shed a bit of light on what's going on: Sony are trying to launch him to greater fame by using Oprah as a model, and issue directives regarding what he is supposed to endorse or avoid saying based on market research. The documents indicate some concern from producers that his show was focusing on weight loss and discouraging repeat viewing (No-one likes to be reminded they are fat), so he was told to find something that viewers would really like to hear. Like some miracle cures.
Nah, McCarthy realized she was wrong and retracted (Score:3, Informative)
"in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy"
When Jenny McCarthy found out that what she was saying was wrong and harmful, she largely retracted her entire position. Oz knows what he's saying is wrong and harmful, but he keeps doing it, for the money.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have a link to the murdering bitch's retraction?
Re:Nah, McCarthy realized she was wrong and retrac (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a recent link [ctvnews.ca] where she denies changing her position in any way. I'm afraid she's [jennymccar...ycount.com] still a murdering bitch [antivaccinebodycount.com].
Re: (Score:3)
People on the other hand who pander to scientifically illiterate conservative underbelly feelings by insisting that evolution be treated as "just a theory" and be treated on par with wild flights of fancy like "intelligent design" on the other hand are known as "de
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
he's not questioning groupthink
he's pushing antiscience quackery while wearing the mantle of respectable surgeon
in the name of ignorant groupthink
you have it backwards
do you believe science is just groupthink?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, I do not claim that GMO foods are dangerous, but believe that they should be labeled like they are in most countries around the world
Yea, sounds like a first rate quack to me. How DARE he question Monsanto or even suggest that food from their genetic engineering be labeled. You've opened my eyes to his idiocy.
I suppose you also call people a "denier" if they point out the arctic sea isn't ice free, or that New England still has massive snow storms despite countless claims by AGW "scientists" that it would be and shouldn't be questioned. Yes, science has become political and groupthink.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
well arctic ice is shrinking, and new england weather is getting more violent, just as climate change predicts
additionally, we have been genetically engineering crops for thousands of years. the corn and carrots you eat are freakish artificial monstrosity's that would never survive in the wild
heck look at what we did to the wolf: all those weird mutant dog shapes, sizes, and coats
do you stand agains tthat?
or do you just stand against genetic engineering as we currently practice because you have an ignorant
Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score:4, Insightful)
I stand against genetically modified crops because I don't want fucking multinationals to own the intellectual property rights over basic foodstuffs.
And this is what you represent:
http://www.usnews.com/news/ene... [usnews.com]
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/... [wvgazette.com]
http://www.chemicalindustryarc... [chemicalin...chives.org]
Because make no mistake, those are the people who will own those rights. And they're the people saying GMOs will feed the hungry when GMOs are mainly targeted to countries where there are no hungry people.
I personally don't give a shit whether or not GMOs are safe. Hell if I cared about whether or not my food is safe, I wouldn't have eaten that burrito this afternoon from a street cart on Milwaukee Avenue run by the lady with prison tattoos. I care about what kind of sleazy motherfuckers are going to be gaining even greater wealth and political power from their iron grip on our food supply.
And, I'm also more than a little offended by people who say that consumers don't have a right to know the provenance of the food they eat. As if you've become some new arbiter of what information consumers may be allowed to base their purchasing decisions on. If I don't want to buy green socks, I don't have to buy green socks, even though they are every bit as safe as the grey socks I prefer. Does that mean that sock consumers must now not be allowed to see the color of the fucking socks in the package, because after all, green socks are functionally the same as grey socks? And if I don't want to buy GMO food, and you are hell bent against me finding out whether my food is from GMOs, we have a problem. Not because I'm denying some eternal law of Science, but because fuck you, I'm the one paying for that food. My purchasing your food is not some part of the social contract, and Monsanto making profit beyond the dreams of avarice is not part of some social contract, it's a simple consumer transaction. So if I want to know whether that sweet corn has been soaking in some Roundup lab experiment shit that has to be used in greater and greater amounts just to make the cockroaches drop dead, you'd better be prepared to tell me or no goddamn sale.
It's funny that our consumer economy has made a fucking religion out of people's purchasing preferences, but as soon as someone says, "Hey, I'd like to know if this food product came out of Doctor Motherfucking Frankenstein's lab" he is told, "No, you are not allowed to have that information. Just purchase and believe. Even worse, when a company did decide to state on their label that their products did not contain GMOs, motherfucking Monsanto sued them. Fortunately, they lost, but I don't think for a minute that this won't be revisited. When someone is so desperate to hide a single fact, to the point of spending billions fighting legislative and grass roots efforts just to make sure there is this one, single, scientifically-verifiable fact, that food product X contains genetically modified organisms that makes me suspicious as hell. Because when did it become "pro-science" to hide information from people?
Also, the studies on GMO safety have been extremely narrow, looking for toxicity and certain types of cancer-causing effects. There have been no studies at all on people who've eaten GMOs for 20 years, because they've only been selling GMOs to people for 20 years. Further, no studies on the overall health of people eating GMOs or life expectancy of people eating GMOs or effect of GMOs on
Re: (Score:2)
Then maybe we should change the GMO laws so that someone other than a multinational can afford to get a GMO plant certified as safe to eat. At the moment not even a university can afford it unless they are likely to see huge financial returns, so they don't even try. Thus monsanto stuff but no vaccines delivered via chunks of banana or even a tomato that can
Re: (Score:2)
> Then maybe we should change the GMO laws so that someone other than a multinational can afford to get a GMO plant certified as safe to eat
That is one approach, but not the only one to reduce dependence on GMO foods. I would argue that hoping that a corporate-supported legislature to legislate against their donors is the least effective approach.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no problems with genetic engineering, though I may have issues with specific uses. Monsanto on the other hand, is just as bad and self serving as any other huge multinational corporation. They all suck.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you seen the labels on products in the store? You think everything on that label is objective?
And what does "objectively matters" even mean? Are you saying that genetically modified food products are exactly the same as non genetically modified food products?
If so, how can they be patented?
Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score:4, Insightful)
No, labeling GE foods is like labeling evolution teaching textbooks with the name of the author, name of the publisher and copyright date.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't want to eat GE crops? There are only 8 species of food crop that are GE; if doing five minutes of research are so hard then perhaps you don't care that much anyway.
You know what would really help consumers a lot? If there were LABELS to tell which were GE crops and which weren't. Why are you so anti-consumer on this issue?
I'll believe you care about 'knowing what's in your food' and not just fearmongering when you demand all other methods of crop improvement (which most people outside of plant & agricultural science [that's you] don't even know about) be labeled and demand labeling for the hows, whys, and benefits of what has been genetically engineered.
Great idea! LABEL ALL THE THINGS!
Maybe when you give me a reason to suspect genetic engineering, instead of arbitrarily singling it out, I'll ignore all the safety data that shows no problems. So, lets talk biochemistry; what is it you find uniquely suspicious about genetic engineering, and be as specific as possible.
No let's talk "all the safety data that shows no problems" instead. Citation please?
So you write a post slandering the flawless safety record of GE crops, reflecting the multitude of misinformation on the internet, then wonder why farmers and seed companies don't want them labeled? Gee, I can't imagine why.
LOL according to the law you can only slander humans beings and not inanimate objects. http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1969 [law.com] BZZT try again!
And again, concerning the "the flawless safety record of GE crops", citat
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Every product I buy seems to have tons of label information about intellectual property rights. Why should food be any different?
Let me pick up some random item and see: OK, here's a package of DVD-Rs sitting on my desk. Let's see....one, two, three, four, five, six...I count six different indications of people claiming intellectual property rights over some aspect of the name, brand or technology involved in the production of these DVD-Rs. And I didn'
Re: (Score:3)
or do you just stand against genetic engineering as we currently practice because you have an ignorant fear of what you don't understand?
I fear the properties of roundup ready GMO crops are being leveraged to optimized labor costs during production increasing loads of roundup leeching into the food supply.
People say roundup is safe yet nobody has been able to square this with warning labels and handling instructions printed on bottles purchased from home depot. They also chose to ignore the fact Glyphosate has been labeled a group 2A carcinogen.
But more than anything I fear the ignorance of people engaged in some forms of genetic engineerin
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to base whether or not something is safe based on the contents of a warning label, you might as well kill yourself now, you'll be a lot less freaked out.
Re: (Score:2)
Genetic engineering (and selective breeding) is a tool, not the end product. Like so many tools it can be used for good or bad, eg creating more nutritious crops versus creating crops that ship better and are more appealing to the eye but have no nutrition. Even traits that are good in the short term can be bad when overdone in the long term, much like antibiotics, saved umptillion lives but due to misuse (overuse) becoming useless. Think of glyphosate resistant crops leading to overuse of glyphosate leadin
Re: (Score:2)
additionally, we have been genetically engineering crops for thousands of years. the corn and carrots you eat are freakish artificial monstrosity's that would never survive in the wild
heck look at what we did to the wolf: all those weird mutant dog shapes, sizes, and coats
do you stand agains tthat?
or do you just stand against genetic engineering as we currently practice because you have an ignorant fear of what you don't understand?
Any change in environment puts stress on the species living in it. This results in species adapting through evolution, as well as species going extinct. Every gene transfer and mutation creates this stress, pressure for change, too. Now we are about to start introducing radical genetic changes that are bigger than anything which could happen naturally (nature works through gradual random changes where every generation has to be viable, while we can design bigger changes and retry any alteration until we get
Re: (Score:3)
heck look at what we did to the wolf: all those weird mutant dog shapes, sizes, and coats
Are you simply retarded or serving a Monsanto agenda? Burbank did no genetic engineering. The Chihuahua was the result of selection over a long period of time and comes without patents or engineered infertility.
Good science is not claiming that designing monkeys that glow in the dark is the same things as selecting wolves that aren't scared of humans.
Selection over successive generations for desirable characteristics != genetic engineering. Claiming that it is, is either ignorance (the enemy of science) or
Re: (Score:3)
I want labels on GMO crops because I'm opposed to use of the "terminator gene" and Monsanto's contractual prohibition of seed-saving. I want to be able to buy corn and know it's wasn't grown by a farmer in cahoots with Monsanto, and GMO labeling is a very good proxy to inform me about that.
Perhaps you should try the latter. (Score:3)
We did a similar thing with the wild boar, by selectively breeding from the ones that were fatter, less aggressive, and with smaller tusks.
But if we tried till the end of time we couldn't get one to fuck a jellyfish [bbc.co.uk].
Not the same thing at all.
Re: (Score:3)
well, yes, great insight and warning is originally a fringe observation
by the most intelligent, educated, and observant amongst us
not from the pathetic science illiterate and their common low iq irrational fears
Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score:5, Informative)
story [bbc.co.uk] I'll just leave that there for you to look at. Artic will be completely ice free by 2013, by your scientists that shouldn't be questioned.
Here it is 2015 and I'm the idiot for pointing out they are wrong. This is why I think science is groupthink. They made a prediction, they were 100% wrong in outcome, and I get called names by pointing it out. This happened in the past. A guy said the earth rotates around the sun and had evidence, but everyone else called him a heretic and said he was wrong and the sun rotates around the earth.
You do understand that a) Maslowski was speaking about the possibility, not the certainty, and b), that he did not represent the mainstream, but deviated from it significantly? Indeed, this is the very opposite of "group think" - it's a range of different opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
How DARE he question Monsanto or even suggest that food from their genetic engineering be labeled.
So if I were to say that 2+2=4 and the moon is made of green cheese, you'd side with me on both issues because you agree with one? Whether or not you give him a pass on GMO labeling, there's plenty of quackery left on the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, he should know better than to question the group think of everyone else.
Exactamundo! All that "evidence based scientific method" groupthink has got to go! Out with double-blind studies - in with marginal anecdotal evidence!
Re: (Score:2)
not sure if you're a troll with that language
but there is no such thing as a balanced point of view when considering the ignorant illiterate beliefs of crackpots in equal balance with mainstream well established science
we know for example the earth is round. we don't need to "fairly" consider that the earth might be flat, just because some crackpot moron thinks so. we can safely exclude the low iq douchebags on the fringe. that's not being unbalanced or having a closed mind or refusing to consider alternate
Re: (Score:3)
Synthetic vaccines? They're all synthetic. We haven't used 'natural' vaccines since Jenner's day. [wikipedia.org]
And speaking of crackpots....
Re: (Score:2)
I guess he crossed the wrong people (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I guess he crossed the wrong people (Score:4, Insightful)
there's nothing wrong with hating monsanto, the corporate behemoth with unclean intentions
there is everything wrong with questiong GMO, the science
the science and the corporation are not the same thing
to confuse the two is ignorance and dangerous propaganda
besides, people were disgusted by his quackery and snake oil salesmanship independent of and long before monsanto
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I just don't want to eat a food that manufactures its own pesticide"
then you don't want to eat any plant that has ever grown
plants have been in an evolutionary arms race with the creatures that eat them for billions of years, producing a plethora of toxic compounds to kill and maim that which eats them
and the evolution of animal's livers have been doing their best to keep up
in fact many flavor compounds and drugs from plants were originally evoled to kill us, or are meant to kill another species
your irrati
Re:I guess he crossed the wrong people (Score:5, Insightful)
Making a plant manufacture its own insecticide is one thing. Modifying it so that it can withstand being soaked with ever-increasing quantities and varieties of synthetic pesticides is another.
Weeds are gradually evolving to resist this chemical onslaught. Most people would rather not have themselves subjected to such evolutionary pressure within their lifetimes.
The weeds are destined to eventually win this arms race anyway, so this huge experiment in chemical exposure to the US population is eventually going to be for naught.
Re: (Score:2)
One out of how many modified foods? Every time people back GMOs they claim Rice is the great savior. You know, that rice that has been banned in most countries in Europe, and is being dumped on the poor Asian population. Meanwhile, Japan was able to create a flood resistant rice with a few seasons of hybridization and no genetic modification since Japan outlawed GMO foods. That was the first rice that was touted as the great savior of GMO reputation, but we didn't need the damn fungus and insect genes t
Re: (Score:2)
The GMO plants I was referring to were designed specifically accommodate increased usage of chemicals. Look up "Roundup ready".
Herbicide use in this country has skyrocketed due to the widespread adoption of GMO crops.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Round Up Ready crops are a response to no-till farming. Tilling is a great way to kill weeds, at the expense of losing the soil. No till solves the erosion problem, but weeds become a real problem. Enter herbicide resistant crops such as Round Up Ready stuff.
Pick your problem: soil erosion, herbicides, or weed problems. Farmers seem to prefer herbicide.
Pander much? (Score:3)
Why do you omit the most important fact when attempting to conflate genetic modification with evolution? You know, that pesky fact that evolution maintains balance because ALL creatures are evolving. GMO foods do not.
The second most important fact is that people in the US are not demanding a ban, they are demanding labeling so that they can choose. Your statements, nor the big GMO companies, address that simple fact. They treat the request for label as if it were a ban.
Lastly, evolution does not allow t
Re:I guess he crossed the wrong people (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that every plant manufactures its own pesticides, right? Tomatoes, potatoes, and eggplants have nicotine. Chile has capsaicin. Pretty much anything with flavor, especially spices, are the result of pesticides. It's in everything. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/synthetic-v-natural-pesticides/?_r=0
Want to reevaluate your stance on eating food that manufacture's its own pesticides? No? Then you are ignorant of science.
Re:I guess he crossed the wrong people (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that every plant manufactures its own pesticides, right?
You and the other earlier poster are missing the point. Or at the very least, a large part of it.
"Roundup-Ready" crops were supposed to REDUCE the use of pesticides. Instead, the practical effect is that it has ENABLED more use of glyphosate. As a real result, the use of glyphosate and the level of glyphosate in some food products has multiplied.
These are "perverse consequences". As another poster mentioned, there has been "voluntary" passing of the glyphosate-resistant gene to what are normally considered noxious weeds, meaning its widespread use is probably self-defeating, in exactly the same sense as over-use of antibiotics.
To say that GMO foods are "safe" therefore is naive at best.
Re:I guess he crossed the wrong people (Score:4, Insightful)
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology. Glyphosate use hasn't just go up; it has displaced other herbicides (including some harsh alternatives like atrazine, or just soil eroding tillage) and allowed farmers to hit the field with a single post emergent application of one of what is actually one of the more beneign herbicides out there. I wouldn't go drinking it, but glyphosate is hardly one of the scarier agrochemicals.
So yeah, glyphosate use is up, but so what? That's better than the alternative. Do you have a better weed management solution? Because if you do the farmers of the world would love to hear it; it isn't like they spend all that money on glyphosate for nothing. What you are saying is like saying that a line of cocaine is better than a glass of wine because the cocaine weighs less; you neglect to take into consideration that not all herbicides are equal. Furthermore, you consider only the one option against an ideal, when in reality, it is one of several options, and the ideal is not one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Capsaicin isn't just a pesticide - it's a very nifty highly-selective pesticide that affects only those creatures that cannot spread the plant's seeds, while doing nothing at all to those that make good propagation vectors. It deters consumption by all mammal species, except for the one exception that actually enjoys inflicting pain upon itsself.
Re: (Score:2)
All plants manufacture their own pesticides. That's why they still exist. We happen to be immune to some of them, and hence we call some plants edible.
So yes everyone is just fine eating food that manufactures its own pesticide.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but it might not be smart to eat plants that manufacture an unaccustomed pesticide or an unusually large amount of it.
Re: (Score:2)
But if that pesticide has no biological mechanism of interacting with humans, being scared of it is stupid.
I run Linux, hence, I'm not particularly scared of windows viruses.
Re: (Score:2)
*IF* that pesticide has no biological mechanism of interacting with humans, being scared of it is stupid.
The pesticides in the plants we eat now other than the GMOs have had a thousand years of human testing. Further, if they were at all inclined to cross with some wild non-food species to gain something more toxic to humans, they more than likely would have by now.
Compare to something that has had zero years of human testing and in some cases no animal testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Monsanto products are apparently Round-Up resistant, so you can spray herbicides on otherwise edible plants.
The objections are not against breeding pesticide generation. The objections are against being
1) Unnaturally bred, and therefore largely untested in nature, even if by science
2) Okay with large amounts of herbicides, which will end up in the herb
I assume you drink round-up regularly and have no objection to it in your vegetables, if you object to the objections.
And your objection to resistant weeds i
Re: (Score:3)
Glyphosate itself is actually pretty harmless (the included surfactants are an unknown as they're not tested), the real danger is when the weeds become resistant and we have to switch to more toxic herbicides. Same with insecticides, BK is very safe but the more insects are exposed to it the more chance of resistance evolving and the farmers needing more toxic insecticides. It's an arms race where the bugs will win.
As an aside, I took a pesticide applicators course a long time back.The guy giving it did tal
Re: (Score:2)
Soon to be released by Monsanto: Round-Up Ready farm workers
Re: (Score:3)
there is everything wrong with questiong GMO, the science
This is an oxymoron.
Re:I guess he crossed the wrong people (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as he was peddling magical dietary supplements and weight loss pills he was a lovable scamp and was allowed to carry on with his mischief. But as soon as he dared cross Monsanto, he is a quack that must be squashed.
Here's the relevant portions of the letter in question:
As described here and here, as well as in other publications, Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops. Worst of all, he has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.
Thus, Dr. Oz is guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgements about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both. Whatever the nature of his pathology, members of the public are being misled and endangered, which makes Dr. Oz's presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution unacceptable.
I see one reference to GMO opposition and two or three references to quack science and conflicts of interest. Dr. Oz's rebuttal on the other hand only specifically mentions the GMO's.
It's a clever PR ploy on Dr. Oz's part, focus on the milder part of the accusation and suggest a conspiracy. Meanwhile ignore the more serious accusations that are much harder to defend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF, moron, "relentless" is not "one". And of course he's going to eat the low hanging fruit. That's what his audience likes, appreciates, and wants. That's why people oppose him, because he has an audience that wants the low hanging fruit.
I'm over 40, my fruit hangs low. His audience is likely to like my fruit nonetheless. I'm not judgin
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. but it's one reference that has literally no relevance to any other part. Every other thing mentioned has to do with medicine, and then one random point relating to agricultural science? It's like they threw in a bit relating to his views on the Keystone XL pipeline, why would you bring that up? It certainly has no bearing on his appointment, and it makes them look as though they have an another unspoken agenda.
If it wasn't important to their argument, it shouldn't have been brought up.
Re: (Score:2)
I see no substance to the claims of quackery, just empty claims. Yeah, he pissed off Monsanto or Bayer or one of those, because that is the only thing they will firmly claim.
Ask the important question: How long has he been on TV and just now someone want's to claim he's a quack? Sorry, his format has not changed, nor the advice he is giving out. Then look at cui bono, and it's obvious what is going on.
Sadly, there are many religious zealots who claim to believe in science, but can not differentiate fact
Re: (Score:3)
EVIDENCE! Good grief, this is not a difficult concept. Reading the one guys "blog" (trusted publication right?) I see the same claims, but zero evidence. His beef is that Oz is on the teaching staff for surgery. Did Oz teach surgeons wrong? Or is the guy jealous and bitching because Oz can cash in thanks to some help from Oprah. That is a fair question given the astounding (not really) lack of evidence and amount of ad hominem and appeals to emotion I see from him (and you, and another person in the t
Re: (Score:2)
The charges (as given in the summary) didn't explicitly mention Monstanto. Personally, I believe that GMO foods are a good idea...as long as they aren't patented, and are evaluated for safety by people who don't have a financial stake in the result.
Unfortunately....
Re: (Score:2)
My problem with Dr. Oz is not that he appears to be a unethical charletan that will prost
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Oz is Still a Thing? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
thank you for that!
great link
Re:Dr. Oz is Still a Thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought Jamie Oliver comprehensively put this guy on the quack-heap: https://youtu.be/WA0wKeokWUU [youtu.be]
A shame it wasn't Jamie Oliver or a few more people might have heard it.
I don't think there is much overlap between the Oprah audience and the John Oliver audience, and one Oprah endorsement is worth a thousand minor-celebrity condemnations.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops...
I waste a ton of time ... (Score:2)
trying to correct bad impressions that my mother gets from this guy.
I mentioned it to my internist and he told me most doctors he knows consider him a quack.
Amazing how some people will sell their soul for money and television appearances.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is the small issue of academic freedom. (Score:2)
You can't fire a faculty member because outside the scope of his duties he expresses an opinion you don't like -- even if it's a clearly crackpot opinion. If you could, Stanford would have kicked Linus Pauling out when he became a Vitamin C crackpot.
The difference, though, is that Pauling was a sincere crackpot -- brilliant people are often susceptible to crackpottery because they're so used to being more right than their neighbors. Dr. Oz is a snake-oil salesman; when he's faced with people who are educa
"help them on their path to be their best selves" (Score:2)
The dude pushes faith healing... (Score:3)
... and like... alternative crystal healing... so... why is he not simply tased when he sets foot on the property? Possibly have some gentlemen run out with a big butterfly net, then give him a shirt with really long sleeves... and then give him a nice quite room with pillows on the walls.
Re:So basically he is acting like every other MD? (Score:5, Insightful)
they're jealous because they want to be successful snake oil salesmen?
so according to you, the only reason to oppose snake oil salesmen... is because you want to be one?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually chinese snake oil actually works - it' made from water snakes with a high Omega 3 content and is still sold today. It has proven efficacy at a topical liniment to relieve inflammation mostly in joints..
American snake oil was made from rattlesnakes who ate mice and contained no Omega 3 and didn't do anything. So it's really a pejorative of the patent medicine industry in the US, and a known working product in Asia. It says more about the person using it that doesn't know this than it does about any
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I heard GW Bush claim Saddam had WMDs too, and that didn't happen did it?
Actually, that one did. It resulted in both "Gulf War Syndrome", and a pretty big scandal where Monsanto brokered the deal to sell the machines to manufacture chemical weapons to them from a German company, said deal routed through France. But nice try.
PS: Plus we sold them the Sarin the used against their Kurdish separatists directly, so we knew they had it at one time, and were just hoping they hadn't used it all up so we could say "Aha! Stockpiles!".
Re:Crying? (Score:4, Interesting)
You want proof?
How about we start with this [buzzfeed.com]:
He has more or less publicly admitted that he hawks stuff which there is insufficient evidence for.
He's a paid shill, with little medical credibility, because he advocates which he is paid to advocate.
Which means he has now stayed into being entertainment, but not fact or medicine. But he sure as hell isn't acting as a credible medical professional.
Re:Did they mention the yummy GMOs (Score:4, Insightful)
can you legitimize that accusation please?
i oppose dr. oz's dangerous quackery and i'm not getting any monsanto money. i am inclined to think these doctors are equally principled
but if you flesh out your accusation with actual proof, i would be inclined to change my view
and i'm talking about actual money going to these actual doctors at the *Columbia University Medical Center*. not some unrelated researcher getting funds in a distant unrelated department in another school ten years ago. i am absolutely certain a huge university like columbia and a huge corporation like monsanto have some sort of overlapping financial investment/ contribution
there's also plenty of criticism of monsanto from columbia faculty. it's not a monolithic ideology, it's a university
so you need to give valid proof, not a lame smear. you have to do better than "evil corporation... rich doctors... all connected... HURRR DURRR." this is not alex jones where every low iq paranoid conspiracy theory is automatically gospel truth
finally, if you have such a dim view of financial investment coloring people's opinions, why do you not consider dr. oz's financial stakes in the crackpot "cures" he pushes as a serious ethical problem? your accusation of financial impropriety trumping morality has much more meaning when leveled at dr oz
but these guys have an agenda that's as clear as day
no. fucking bullshit. dr oz is the one with an agenda as clear as day. you have to prove your accusations against these doctors or you're just a low life smearmonger
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lol ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Being able to make more changes faster to a system that is not fully understood may be a terrible thing.
Being able to make more changes faster that then get propagated to unwanted species as well as anything in Jurassic Park is not only not a good idea, but ultimately self-defeating.
Being able to make changes that only exist to allow more use of glyphosate, being able to insert fish genes into plants, being able to play god in the same manner
Re:Did they mention the yummy GMOs (Score:4, Informative)
Even if you remove the health risk argument, there are other legitimate concerns. Have you tasted Parisian food lately? I dare you to find a french beefsteak tomato that has as bland a flavor as our U.S. equivalent - one reason for that is because we've bread our beefsteak tomatoes to have skins thick enough to survive truck transport but in the process we've inadvertently bread out the flavor.
Also for someone claiming no special interest, you seem pretty determined to counter EVERY single comment on this article that's not in line with your views.
Re: (Score:3)
Another inarguable point is that the plants bred a thousand years ago have had a thousand years of human testing.
Re:Did they mention the yummy GMOs (Score:5, Informative)
There are actually a few differences that can have real consequences. For example, simple cross breeding is a fairly slow and limited process that gives us time to see if a problem is developing. It is further limited by the need to stick with plants that can cross-breed in the first place.
Another factor is that not all genetic modification techniques lead to the plants breeding true. The next few generations may be substantially different from the original.
If the work was being done in a verifiable cautious manner, it might be OK, but there is a history of modifications that "can't escape to the wild" being spotted in the wild. It's somewhat amusing the number of weeds that gained roundup resistance from roundup ready canola. Also amusingly, in spite of Monsanto's claim that only their transgenic techniques could have produced roundup ready crops, traditional breeding has managed it in a few cases including in coca.
Re: (Score:2)
viruses infect your cells, pick up stray genes, propagate, and spread that gene to other creatures
simple bacteria frequently exchange genes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
you have this notion that transfer of genes between species is some weird thing humans just invented
when the truth is gene transfer amongst species is normal and common
it has been going on since day one of life existing
again, you have this bizarre irrational fear that has no meaning except to illiterate people
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and people are dying because we don't know how to compensate for this yet. So much for knowing what we're doing.
> you have this notion that transfer of genes between species is some weird thing humans just invented
It's obviously not, or weeds wouldn't be growing resistant to Monsanto's herbicides at what must be an alarming rate to them. Nonetheless, there's a probabilistic thing here -- the rate at which RoundupReady is spreading is obviously p
Re: (Score:2)
As to your last point, I was thinking the same thing. The parent post is needlessly inflammatory, accusative, with an air of superiority and without a hint of irony considering its lack of grammar, punctuation or formatting while closing with a zinger about illiteracy.
If, perchance, the parent poster or anyone else that would like a life lesson, reads this, please consider my points. I'm coming from a place of understanding.
Many years ago while in college I wrote something with what I thought was a playf
Re: (Score:2)
Name a bacterium that infects both jellyfish and corn and has a habit of swapping genes with it's host.
Re:Did they mention the yummy GMOs (Score:5, Informative)
can you legitimize that accusation please?
Well, going down the list of signers http://www.vox.com/2015/4/16/8... [vox.com] I notice
GIlbert Ross, M.D.
President (Acting) and Executive Director
American Council on Science and Health
I am not completely for or against ACSH. Elizabeth Whelan, their founder, was an advocate for some issues I agreed with and some issues I disagreed with. I met Whelan a couple of times. I liked her. She was adding information about some controversial debates, and she was particularly useful in taking on some politically correct positions that had a weak science base. As I recall she was defending GM food, and also taking money from Monsanto.
Most admirably, she was taking on the cigarette industry when it was still a "controversy," especially in magazines that were getting a lot of cigarette advertising, notably almost all the major women's magazines.
But Whelan was also trying to round up "unrestricted" grants from industry to write supposedly unbiased or objective reports on major controversies. To her credit, they tried to give all the scientific evidence, although they seem to have run into problems with that.
The one I remember was their report on that fat substitute, Olestra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] This was not a life-or-death issue, but olestra had a few side effects, the most noticeable of which was diarrhea. Procter & Gamble managed to get the FDA to allow them to refer to "diarrhea" by the euphemistic term, "loose stools," which I thought was misleading. At any rate, when I read that report I realized why you can't get an objective report sponsored by a corporation with a financial interest. Whelan couldn't even use straightforward language and arguments to defend olestra, because P&G's lawyers made them follow the FDA-approved wording.
Whelan's big disappointment was that the industry wouldn't support her (the way they do for the more partisan think tanks like the Manhattan Institute), so she gave up that economic model. I don't know where they get their money from now, but I assume they disclose it. In a way it's a shame, because Whelan failed because she was too honest (but not completely candid). Or to put it less flatteringly, you can't be a little bit of a prostitute.
But let's go to the signers at the top.
Henry I. Miller, M.D.
Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy
& Public Policy
Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, CA
Scott W. Atlas, M.D.
David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow
Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, CA
Hoover did not deign to include its funding sources in the "About Us" section of its web site, and I'm not going to track it down. But as I recall, when Hoover was first created, the Stanford faculty complained that they were an independent institution using Stanford's name but without academic accountability to Standford, and they were funded by corporations that had a financial stake in some of the areas of their research.
Miller was one of the founding members of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition which was founded by Philip Morris to challenge the evidence of harm from tobacco http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind... [sourcewatch.org]
I remember reading Miller's defenses of GM food. I happen to think that GM food is (probably, mostly) pretty safe. But if Miller believes in the free market, he ought to let consumers know which foods are GM and which aren't, so they can make their own free-market decisions. I don't know if Miller takes any money directly from those corporations. But the organizations he works for, like the Hoover Institution, ACSH, and ASSC, do. So that's where his paycheck ultimately comes from. So in that sense the parent's accusation is true.
Oz has
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for this (from what I can tell - I don't know the subject matter) reasonably objective, unbiased explanation.
It was actually kind of refreshing and will probably in no way get the appreciation it deserves. I would have modded it up, but my mod points expired before I got to this story/comment section. So all I can give you is a 'kudos'.
Re: Did they mention the yummy GMOs (Score:2)
Actually it was a pure guess, based on obvious statement. But now that you asked - I can. Here is the relevant quote about a "dr" who started the accusation:
"Miller, whose employer, the Hoover Institution, is often described as a âoeRepublican-leaningâ or âoeconservativeâ think tank, has interests of his own. A molecular biologist by training, Miller spent 15 years at the FDA before his fellowship at Hoover; throughout both jobs, he has been a consistent and ardent promoter of geneticall
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps you're right. a shame
paranoid conspiracy theory minded morons have stamina, that's for sure
Re: (Score:2)
"morons have stamina"
In that sense, at least, ignorance really is strength.
Re:Did they mention the yummy GMOs (Score:5, Insightful)
Quackery they could tolerate. But how dare he question the nutritious yummy GMOs whose manufacturers are pumping millions of dollars into endowments for those other Columbia University medical faculty. While he's enriching himself, those poor souls may lose out on lucrative $$$. Can't have that.
(That's not to say dr. Oz is not a quack - he certainly is a snake oil salesman, but these guys have an agenda that's as clear as day)
Rather Dr. Oz has an agenda in spinning his response so it looks like his accusers have an agenda.
Police: Joe robbed a grocery store last week and shot five people this week!
Joe: It's not fair to say I robbed the grocery store. The owner was greedy and ripping people off!
Re: (Score:2)
Pay no attention to that quack behind the curtain.
"Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful Oz. "
“Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't you think?”
Re: (Score:2)
Pay no attention to that quack behind the curtain.
That freakin AFLAC duck get out again?
Re: (Score:3)
consistently avoids any discussion of the hard medical facts about the dangers of marijuana, ignoring significant findings and reports.
While Ill agree with your claim on oz being a kook, can you please explain this? because it seems for every study that says it is bad, another one shows up that says the one claiming bad is all BS. Citations???