Dr. Oz is half-full of BS

[tru_m.a.c]

C'mon doggies you gotta realize that Dr Oz is not sitting in some back room deciding what should be talked about this week. He also isn't doing the medical studies on the things he speaks about. He has a production team that makes those decisions and a network only interested in ratings. Dude is a cardiologist, not a neurologist, a biochemist, a dentist or opthamolgist. Just like I don't expect my plumber to know how to fix my house I don't expect OZ to know about every medical situation. You take his info with a grain of salt and look into it more yourself.

Terrible post

He's a physician not a fukkn talk show host. If he hasn't read the trials, he shouldn't be suggesting the product. He wouldn't be able to lobby for a new medical procedure in a hospital until he could provide all of the literature proving that the treatment is safe and effective. If his standard changes because he's on a tv show, he deserves to lose his license.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Dr Oz pushes alot of herbs on his show that people write off as "snake oil" or say the science is inconclusive, but the reality is they are effective and they do work.

Prove it

You just cant compare modern Western Medicine and herbalism.

Yes you can. the basic chemistry that enables a drug to work may be found in nature. if it doesn't work its bunk. that's the difference between herbalism and medicine.

"You know what they call alternative medicine that works - medicine"

Pharmaceuticals are a quick fix but often with dangerous side effects and inflated prices.

All drugs are not created equally

Herbs work slowly, not necessarily all of the time but are way more powerful and safer than people realize

Prove it

Oz isn't always right but neither is science

The standard on bunk bullshyt cannot be held on the same plateau as the rigors involved through the scientific method.

 

[unit321]

Dr Oz and Dr Phil are part of the fraud that Oprah likes to put out on the forefront.

I'm sure Oprah has good intentions.
But, she can't push health issues out on her own. Why? Just basic common sense. You aren't going to take nutrition advice from an overweight woman who isn't a diet or exercise guru. Well, what about from a fit white dude who is a doctor? Yes, that is how to do it.

 

[Big Jo]

Prove it



Yes you can. the basic chemistry that enables a drug to work may be found in nature. if it doesn't work its bunk. that's the difference between herbalism and medicine.

"You know what they call alternative medicine that works - medicine"



All drugs are not created equally



Prove it

The standard on bunk bullshyt cannot be held on the same plateau as the rigors involved through the scientific method.

how many herbs have you taken in your life?

do you know the difference between a standardized extract and full spectrum? when making a tincture what alcohol to ingredient ratio is usually best for potency? can you even name 5 medicinal herbs?

i've literally spent years researching and experimenting with this sh1t. from 2006 to 2009 i was in a very poor mental condition and declining physicsal health. in 2010 i started learning about and using alternative medicine (mostly herb based) and now i wake up every morning in a great frame of mind and excited to live. you want proof? i am proof.

but digging deeper, you do realize that many pharmaceuticals are actually just synthesized plant compounds right? except the plants are actually safer and typically work better - you just can't patent or monetize them so they arent properly researched or developed.

for a more complete and thorough explanation, read this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/why-plants-are-usually-be_b_785139.html

also if you could name 5 medicinal herbs off the top of your head, then just go to www.pubmed.com and research them yourself.

i can't stand people who jump on the internet and parade their opinion on a subject they know nothing about.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

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

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

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

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


Dr. Oz doubles down on bogus weight loss products at Senate hearing
“Consumers should be skeptical about any recommendations provided on television medical talk shows,” the researchers wrote in a study published this week in BMJ. “Viewers need to realize that the recommendations may not be supported by higher evidence or presented with enough balanced information to adequately inform decision making.”

Critics of Dr. Mehmet Oz, an accomplished cardiac surgeon with degrees from two Ivy League universities, complain that his show is little more than an hour-long infomercial for weight-loss fads like green coffee bean extract. (The Federal Trade Commission has sued the company that hawks this dubious product.) A spokesman for the Center for Inquiry accused him of selling “snake oil.” In June, a Senate subcommittee took him to task for telling his viewers (who number 2.9 million on any given day) things like: “I’ve got the No. 1 miracle in a bottle to burn your fat. It’s raspberry ketones.”

“I don’t get why you need to say this stuff because you know it’s not true," Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said during the hearing.

Green coffee beans for weight loss? Um, never mind

A large group of physicians, pharmacists and other researchers from Canada had their own questions about programs like “The Dr. Oz Show.” So they set out to see whether the “skepticism and criticism from medical professionals” was warranted.

The Canadians focused on “The Dr. Oz Show” and “The Doctors,” another daily talk show that averages 2.3 million viewers per day. After watching two episodes of each program, they hypothesized that only half of the claims made on the shows could be supported with actual evidence. They also calculated that they would need to review 158 specific recommendations to see whether their hypothesis was correct.

Lucky for them, the shows are rife with recommendations -- 12 in a typical episode of “The Dr. Oz Show” and 11 in an episode of “The Doctors.” So members of the research team watched 40 episodes of each show, which were randomly selected among all the episodes that aired in the first five months of 2013.

They found that 32% of the 479 recommendations made on “The Dr. Oz Show,” either by the host or his guests, fell under the heading of “general medical advice.” Another 25% of the claims were about diet (i.e., foods that boost the immune system) and 18% were about weight loss.

On “The Doctors,” 66% of the 445 recommendations were about “general medical advice,” 9% were about diet and 8% were about weight loss. (Other categories included exercise, alternative therapies and cosmetics.)

Dr. Oz, still shilling as fast as he can

Among all of these recommendations, the researchers randomly selected 80 from each show and looked to see what evidence, if any, could back them up. Two team members conducted independent searches, spending up to an hour on each one. “In an attempt to be as fair as possible” to the shows, they wrote, they “used a relatively broad definition of support.”

And yet only 21% of the recommendations on “The Dr. Oz Show” could be supported by what the researchers considered “believable” evidence. Another 11% were supported by “somewhat believable” evidence.

The recommendations made on “The Doctors” were more credible -- 32.5% were supported by “believable” evidence and another 20% were backed by “somewhat believable” evidence, the researchers found.

Good or so-so evidence contradicted 11% of the claims made on “Dr. Oz” and 13% of the claims made on “The Doctors.”

The researchers also noted that for both shows combined, 40% of the recommendations mentioned a specific benefit of the intervention being touted. The size of the benefit was discussed in fewer than 20% of cases, possible harms or side effects came up less than 10% of the time, and potential conflicts of interest were mentioned in less than 1% of cases.

Neither Oz nor the team behind “The Doctors” could be reached for comment about the study’s conclusions.

The whole exercise left the researchers to ponder “whether we should expect medical talk shows to provide more than entertainment.”

 

[tru_m.a.c]

 

[tru_m.a.c]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/02/04/the-operator

But he’d begun to sense the limits of that approach in medical school, as he spent more time around patients, and his outlook changed significantly when he met Lisa LeMole, who eventually became his wife.

It didn’t take long for Oz to become convinced that a patient’s state of mind could be important to a successful surgical outcome. With his father-in-law’s encouragement, he began to explore music therapy, energy fields, and therapeutic touch, and he began to offer them to his surgical patients. Here, too, Lisa played a major role; she is a Reiki master, and Oz soon became famous at New York-Presbyterian, not to mention within the broader surgical community, for encouraging the practice of Reiki in the operating room. Reiki, the Japanese art of laying on hands, is based on the notion that an unseen, life-giving source of energy flows through our bodies. Oz hired a Reiki master named Julie Motz to stand in the operating room, where, she has said, she would attempt to harness “the body’s own energy to help patients survive risky operations, such as heart transplants.” Many of Oz’s colleagues, including some who worked directly with him, thought that permitting a Reiki master to enter the surgical suite at New York-Presbyterian was ludicrous. “She would come in and daven over the heart-and-lung machine for a while,” Eric Rose told me recently. In 1984, Rose made history when he performed the first successful pediatric heart transplant. He hired Oz in 1986 and then, several years later, when he served as chairman of the surgical department at New York-Presbyterian, assigned him to his transplant team. Studies of energy forces in our bodies have routinely shown that Reiki adheres to no known principles of science. In perhaps the most famous such review, a nine-year-old girl conceived and executed a test in which she demonstrated that twenty-one people who claimed to be skilled in the techniques of Reiki were nevertheless unable to detect her “energy field” more often than they would have by guessing. The study was eventually published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. In 2009, even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged Catholic health-care facilities and clergy not to promote or support Reiki.

Gorski, an associate professor of surgery at the Wayne State University School of Medicine, is the managing editor of the influential blog Science-Based Medicine. “Oz has a huge bully pulpit, with the entire Oprah empire behind him,” he said. “He can’t simply dispense with facts he doesn’t find convenient.” Scientists often argue that, if alternative medicine proves effective through experimental research, it should no longer be considered alternative; at that point, it becomes medicine. By freely mixing alternatives with proven therapies, Oz makes it nearly impossible for the viewer of his show to assess the impact of either; the process just diminishes the value of science.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Last year, in a show about weight loss, Oz introduced raspberry ketones, an herbal supplement, as “the No. 1 miracle in a bottle to burn your fat.” That set off a wave of panic buying throughout the nation. The supplement quickly vanished from the shelves of health-food stores. Oz told his audience that the product regulates the hormone adiponectin, which could help teach the body to be thin. But the only relevant research he cited had been conducted on laboratory rats and cell cultures—not on humans.

A similar buying frenzy followed his embrace, a few months ago, of “the miracle” of green coffee beans. “You may think that magic is make-believe,” Oz said at the beginning of the show. “But this little bean has scientists saying they have found a magic weight-loss cure for every body type. It’s green coffee beans, and, when turned into a supplement—this miracle pill can burn fat fast. This is very exciting. And it’s breaking news.”

None of those assertions turn out to be accurate. When coffee beans are roasted, the plant compound, chlorogenic acid, is broken down. Scientists think that the compound itself has an effect on limiting glucose absorption, which in turn helps reduce weight. While the beans are still green, the chlorogenic acid remains intact. In theory, that means the beans can aid metabolic regulation—but theory is not data. Oz based his announcement on a study that was presented at last year’s annual meeting of the American Chemical Society, in San Diego, where researchers reported that sixteen overweight men and women lost an average of seventeen pounds in twenty-two weeks when taking green coffee beans in supplement form. On the show, Oz did not mention that the study was funded by Applied Food Sciences, which makes green-coffee-bean supplements. But he decided to look into it further.

“We did our own study on this,” he said when I asked him about it. “It wasn’t a classical medical study, of course, but for a television show it was pretty darn good. We took a hundred people, randomized them, and showed what academic studies have showed: you are not going to lose a ton of weight, but you will probably lose a pound a week for a few weeks. That’s better than placebo.” Even those assertions are debatable, but his measured answer was almost exactly the opposite of the hyperbolic message he had broadcast into American living rooms. Oz never endorses specific brands, and he has a form, prominently displayed on his Web site, that viewers can use to report misleading advertisements that invoke his name. But his enthusiasm makes it hard to tell the difference, and, when it comes to sales, the words “as seen on ‘The Dr. Oz Show’ ” are often as valuable as the words “recommended by Dr. Oz.”

 

[tru_m.a.c]

On October 17th, Oz broadcast a program titled “GMO Foods: Are They Dangerous to Your Health?” Oz was not subtle. “You’re probably eating them right now and don’t even know,” he began, darkly invoking “the brave new world of food. Are they safe?” Oz then introduced Jeffrey Smith, the author of “Genetic Roulette,” who says that engineered foods may cause many serious diseases, including colitis, asthma, and cancer. Smith has also made a film version of the book; Oz, for the sake of full disclosure, noted that “my wife, Lisa, was a narrator in Jeffrey’s film.” He added that no scientists were willing to share the stage with Smith. “So today we are doing something we have never done before,” Oz said. “After Jeffrey makes his points, he has to leave the stage before we can speak with the scientists in favor of genetically modified foods.” Other than to say that Smith was controversial, Oz did not indicate why no scientists would appear with him.

On the show, Oz identified Smith as a scientist, but Smith has no experience in genetics or agriculture, and has no scientific degree from any institution. He studied business at the Maharishi International University, founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Before the show aired, Bruce Chassy, a noted molecular biologist, wrote to Oz; he is a founder of Academics Review, a group of researchers who often debunk popular scientific claims. Chassy is professor emeritus in the department of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois. “As a public-sector scientist, researcher, and academic administrator with more than forty years’ experience, I am appalled that any medical professional would give a platform to the likes of Mr. Jeffrey Smith to impart health information to the public,” Chassy wrote. “His only professional experience prior to taking up his crusade against biotechnology is as a ballroom-dance teacher, yogic flying instructor, and political candidate for the Maharishi cult’s natural-law party.”

 

[tru_m.a.c]

There are many legitimate and articulate opponents of genetically modified products and, for that matter, of conventional medicine itself. But Oz has consistently chosen guests with dubious authority to argue those positions. Joseph Mercola, an osteopath, runs mercola.com, one of the most popular alternative-health Web sites in the country. Oz has described Mercola as a “pioneer in holistic treatments,” and as a man “your doctor doesn’t want you to listen to.” This is undoubtedly true, since Mercola has promoted such alleged experts as Tullio Simoncini, who claims that cancer is a fungus that can be cured with baking soda. Mercola has long argued that vaccines are dangerous and that they even cause AIDS. When Oz says that Mercola is “challenging everything you think you know about traditional medicine and prescription drugs,” it’s hard to argue. “I’m usually earnestly honest and modest about what I think we’ve accomplished,” Oz told me when we discussed his choice of guests. “If I don’t have Mercola on my show, I have thrown away the biggest opportunity that I have been given.”

Oz sighed. “Medicine is a very religious experience,” he said. “I have my religion and you have yours. It becomes difficult for us to agree on what we think works, since so much of it is in the eye of the beholder. Data is rarely clean.” All facts come with a point of view. But his spin on it—that one can simply choose those which make sense, rather than data that happen to be true—was chilling. “You find the arguments that support your data,” he said, “and it’s my fact versus your fact.”

 

[tru_m.a.c]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/dr-oz-congress_n_5504209.html

“I actually do personally believe in the items I talk about on the show," he said. "I passionately study them. I recognize they don’t have the scientific muster to present as fact but nevertheless I would give my audience the advice I give my family all the time, and I have given my family these products. Specifically the ones you mentioned, then I’m comfortable with that part."

 

[Serious]

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

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

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

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


Dr. Oz doubles down on bogus weight loss products at Senate hearing
“Consumers should be skeptical about any recommendations provided on television medical talk shows,” the researchers wrote in a study published this week in BMJ. “Viewers need to realize that the recommendations may not be supported by higher evidence or presented with enough balanced information to adequately inform decision making.”

Critics of Dr. Mehmet Oz, an accomplished cardiac surgeon with degrees from two Ivy League universities, complain that his show is little more than an hour-long infomercial for weight-loss fads like green coffee bean extract. (The Federal Trade Commission has sued the company that hawks this dubious product.) A spokesman for the Center for Inquiry accused him of selling “snake oil.” In June, a Senate subcommittee took him to task for telling his viewers (who number 2.9 million on any given day) things like: “I’ve got the No. 1 miracle in a bottle to burn your fat. It’s raspberry ketones.”

“I don’t get why you need to say this stuff because you know it’s not true," Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said during the hearing.

Green coffee beans for weight loss? Um, never mind

A large group of physicians, pharmacists and other researchers from Canada had their own questions about programs like “The Dr. Oz Show.” So they set out to see whether the “skepticism and criticism from medical professionals” was warranted.

The Canadians focused on “The Dr. Oz Show” and “The Doctors,” another daily talk show that averages 2.3 million viewers per day. After watching two episodes of each program, they hypothesized that only half of the claims made on the shows could be supported with actual evidence. They also calculated that they would need to review 158 specific recommendations to see whether their hypothesis was correct.

Lucky for them, the shows are rife with recommendations -- 12 in a typical episode of “The Dr. Oz Show” and 11 in an episode of “The Doctors.” So members of the research team watched 40 episodes of each show, which were randomly selected among all the episodes that aired in the first five months of 2013.

They found that 32% of the 479 recommendations made on “The Dr. Oz Show,” either by the host or his guests, fell under the heading of “general medical advice.” Another 25% of the claims were about diet (i.e., foods that boost the immune system) and 18% were about weight loss.

On “The Doctors,” 66% of the 445 recommendations were about “general medical advice,” 9% were about diet and 8% were about weight loss. (Other categories included exercise, alternative therapies and cosmetics.)

Dr. Oz, still shilling as fast as he can

Among all of these recommendations, the researchers randomly selected 80 from each show and looked to see what evidence, if any, could back them up. Two team members conducted independent searches, spending up to an hour on each one. “In an attempt to be as fair as possible” to the shows, they wrote, they “used a relatively broad definition of support.”

And yet only 21% of the recommendations on “The Dr. Oz Show” could be supported by what the researchers considered “believable” evidence. Another 11% were supported by “somewhat believable” evidence.

The recommendations made on “The Doctors” were more credible -- 32.5% were supported by “believable” evidence and another 20% were backed by “somewhat believable” evidence, the researchers found.

Good or so-so evidence contradicted 11% of the claims made on “Dr. Oz” and 13% of the claims made on “The Doctors.”

The researchers also noted that for both shows combined, 40% of the recommendations mentioned a specific benefit of the intervention being touted. The size of the benefit was discussed in fewer than 20% of cases, possible harms or side effects came up less than 10% of the time, and potential conflicts of interest were mentioned in less than 1% of cases.

Neither Oz nor the team behind “The Doctors” could be reached for comment about the study’s conclusions.

The whole exercise left the researchers to ponder “whether we should expect medical talk shows to provide more than entertainment.”

Honestly this just proves how dumb and trusting the American public at large is, they never question bs. This type of thinking. right here about public officials and authorities always being correct, is why we see bs about police always being right and never being indicted. This group think mentality has to stop, I thought the pentacle of being an educated and responsible citizen was the basis was stepping out of your comfort zone, never truly believe what you're being told and intrinstically question everything, especially something on day time tv, which could possibly have a profit motive or.hidden incentive behind it

 

[thekingsmen]

See I was with you until that part about vaccinations

You can disagree with me about vaccinations, Dr. Oz doesn't believe in them for his kids. Look it up.

 

[thekingsmen]

Cleanse for what? Your body cleanses itself 24hours of the day. What is this bullshyt you are peddling

Really when has that happen? Show me where..

 

[Serious]

You can disagree with me about vaccinations, Dr. Oz doesn't believe in them for his kids. Look it up.

this whole thread is about debunking Dr. Oz credibility, now you're. using him as a reference