http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2211621

Fuck that republican hack.

http://blog.doctoroz.com/dr-oz-blog/reparative-therapy-controversy

“The Dr. Oz Show provided a platform to a fringe organization promoting dangerous and harmful practices that every major health, mental health and education organization has consistently repudiated as harmful to youth," Executive Director Dr. Eliza Byard is quoted as saying. The Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) were more pointed in their response to the show, adding in an email statement: "Although the show also featured guests who condemned the idea and practice of 'reparative therapy,' Dr. Oz himself never weighed in, and the audience was misled to believe that there are actual experts on both sides of this issue."

t

Dr. Oz shares his final thoughts on reparative therapy.

http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/reparative-therapy-dr-ozs-final-thought

Read statements from GLAAD and PFLAG.
Read GLSEN's sexual orientation fact sheet.

http://news.discovery.com/human/health/tv-medical-show-claims-not-backed-by-science-141222.htm


http://gizmodo.com/breaking-dr-oz-is-still-full-of-shit-1681865968

Do you call doctors who gave women breast cancer by prescribing premarin quacks too?

Amazing how little energy you and those like you spend calling out quacks when they practice nothing but allopathic medicine.

Yep, certainly no quackery there. Not to mention promoting necromancy, homeopathy, Reiki, and other pseudoscientific garbage.

If it walks like a duck...

laugh at those who would change the "established" way of doing things - see this on Ignaz Semmelweis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis


Hand sanitizer is everywhere these days.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-women-s-lives


This is the story of a man whose ideas could have saved a lot of lives and spared countless numbers of women and newborns' feverish and agonizing deaths.

You'll notice I said "could have."

The year was 1846, and our would-be hero was a Hungarian doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis.
snip

He studied two maternity wards in the hospital. One was staffed by all male doctors and medical students, and the other was staffed by female midwives. And he counted the number of deaths on each ward.

When Semmelweis crunched the numbers, he discovered that women in the clinic staffed by doctors and medical students died at a rate nearly five times higher than women in the midwives' clinic.

But why?
snip

"The big difference between the doctors' ward and the midwives' ward is that the doctors were doing autopsies and the midwives weren't," she says.

So Semmelweis hypothesized that there were cadaverous particles, little pieces of corpse, that students were getting on their hands from the cadavers they dissected. And when they delivered the babies, these particles would get inside the women who would develop the disease and die.

If Semmelweis' hypothesis was correct, getting rid of those cadaverous particles should cut down on the death rate from childbed fever.

So he ordered his medical staff to start cleaning their hands and instruments not just with soap but with a chlorine solution. Chlorine, as we know today, is about the best disinfectant there is. Semmelweis didn't know anything about germs. He chose the chlorine because he thought it would be the best way to get rid of any smell left behind by those little bits of corpse.

And when he imposed this, the rate of childbed fever fell dramatically.

snip
You'd think everyone would be thrilled. Semmelweis had solved the problem! But they weren't thrilled.

For one thing, doctors were upset because Semmelweis' hypothesis made it look like they were the ones giving childbed fever to the women.

The two men aren't even comparable by any appreciable metric.

Here's the thing:

Dr. Semmelweis formed a hypothesis, that the priest's bell ringing was literally scaring women to death, tested it, found it made no difference, and DISCARDED HIS INITIAL HYPOTHESIS.

He then formed another hypothesis, based upon germ theory (which had actually been proposed multiple times back to the late 1500's, 300 years before his time in the hospital), tested it, and it worked.

The man followed scientific principles perfectly, and because of his meticulousness he is today remembered as a hero to the medical world.

Dr. Oz and the quacks he has on his show, however, turn the scientific principle on it's head. No matter how many scientific studies come out directly refuting their beliefs, they never question their core hypothesizes. They are entirely UNLIKE Dr. Semmelweis in their dogma, their BELIEF, that they've abandoned science.

They are closer to the superstitious priests at Dr. Semmelweis's hospital than they are to Dr. Semmelweis.

So it is entirely appropriate to label him a quack.

Here's the latest about him:
America's Quack Strikes Back

meanwhile Dr. Ox wil ltel lyou that sawing open a skull to let the demons out is the next best thing - "ancient cro-magnon techniques! suppresssed by modern science!"

Thalidomide has nothing to do with the utter QUACK Dr. Mehmet Oz.

Again, I prefer science-based medicine which by the way promotes safe and effective treatments. Or, there is Oz, who promotes utter quackery like homeopathy, reiki, and other totally ineffective modalities.

pushed by science are not safe and little better than placebos. Check out a Physician's Desk Reference.

All of alternative medicine is abject quackery. None of it works. In the years since DSHEA was passed in 1994, and NCCAM was formed, not a single supplemental medication has been found to be effective. Not a single one. Yet they waste millions of dollars on their research.

The bottom line here is that there is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is only medicine, based on science.

And drugs that are ineffective should not be sold, whether they are medicine, or abject quack supplements. Unfortunately, medicine has to demonstrate effectiveness and so-called supplements do not. Thanks to DSHEA.

drugs don't always demonstrate effectiveness and many people have died from approved medicine. And yes, there are supplements that have been proven to be effective such as Vitamin D and niacin.

The bottom line is you are overstating your case.

Homeopathy? Zilch! (Plus, no scientific plausibility.)
Reiki? Zilch! (Plus, the plausibility thingie again.)

Acupuncture? Well, at least that's doing something, but... Zilch! It doesn't matter where you stick the needles. It doesn't even matter if you stick needles. Results consistent with placebo effect, in other words, the null hypothesis that it does not work prevails.

And those supplements? Well, vitamins are a medication. As is niacin. They have biological effects. And doctors prescribe them when needed.

However, St. John's Wort is ineffective for depression, but it has some ingredients which apparently suppress anti-retroviral drugs. So folks with HIV probably shouldn't take it. It isn't effective for depression anyway.

Zicam? Overdoses of zinc have occurred resulting in permanent loss of sense of smell. Regardless of effect, that would seem unsafe to me. Plus, it's basically ineffective anyway.

And so it goes. Yet everything sold under DSHEA does not have prove effectiveness or safety as long as they do not make disease claims. And the FDA cannot touch the manufacturers -- let's collectively call them BigSupplement because it's a multi billion dollar business selling fake treatments to rubes who are naive enough to believe the advertisements.

There is no alternative or complimentary medicine. There is just medicine, backed by science. DSHEA only sets up an unnecessary alternative path to quackery.

considered supplements as you probably know.

The rest you are arguing with yourself - I merely pointed out that not all drugs were proven safe even though the FDA approved them and many rate barely above or even with placebos.

I was a pharmacy tech who spent many hours usuing a PDR.

I think homeopathy, acupuncture and other so called medicine is crap, but I know science doesn't necessarily rule for FDA drug approval. I'm not that naive and you read way more into my post than was there. You knee jerked into acting like I support "alternative" medicine. You naively believe all medicine is scientifically proven to work and work safely and it's not - money rules.

But if you were a pharmacy tech you would know that pharmacy is based on biology and chemistry, in other words, science.

I apologize about jumping to conclusions. But I happen to believe that science-based medicine is the best solution to these problems by eliminating alternative/complimentary medicine altogether, and putting more accountability into real medicine. There is just altogether too much quackery since DSHEA passed.

But I have a low tolerance for people who show implicit support to it by using tu quoque arguments. Beyond that, such arguments detract from the subject of this thread which is about Dr. Oz's quackery. In other words, such responses are non sequitur.

If you want to spew about the dangers of Pharma, start your own thread. This one is about a doctor who promotes abject quackery.

full of yourself. You spout shit as fact and are going to tell me I can't comment unless you approve? LOL I'll comment in any thread I choose to. Get over yourself.

Overstating your case takes away from the argument as much as Oz overstating his case is bullshit.

But apparently you think this thread is about something else. Either you want to distract from the topic, or you are using a tu quoque argument. Either are irrelevant.

The topic is Dr. Oz's putative quackery.

And since, as a surgeon, Oz obviously also prescribes pharmaceuticals, people's attempt to portray such a thing as bad... Well, I don't see what you are trying to say. It is just not any logic that I can comprehend, let alone follow.

I can only presume that you are somehow attempting to support his promotion of abject quackery, which I would think most people would see as being a bad thing.

Homeopathy?
Reiki?
Magic weight loss beans?
John Edward?
John of God?

The guy's not only a quack. He's a kook!

Note: I ignored your ad hominem towards me.

bullshit in a post I call it. You grossly overstated your "facts" and I called you on it. Threads go awry all the time and life goes on.

I put no credence in anything dr. Oz says but if others do that's up to them.
Just because science is the basis of something or believed to be (as evidenced by forensic science) does't make it fool proof.

Drugs get approved that are not effective and are dangerous so science isn't the end all. We should view most everything with a certain amount of skepticism.

Nobody ever implied that science is fool proof or an end all. Only a fool, or somebody erecting a straw man, would suggest that. But science is self-correcting if one follows it. When one ignores it, one gets rubbish like DSHEA, and today's quackery of the supplement market, which is positively rampant with ineffective and unsafe treatments, because they are tested for neither!

The ineffective and unsafe pharma are also a result of laxness in regulations. Drug testing is full of places where studies can slip through peer review. I won't get into the details, but a lot of that could be helped if, for instance, all human trial results were mandated to be published publicly. If you register a trial, you have to publish it. No more file drawer studies. That would do a lot, but it is just a start.

You see, science-based medicine recognizes the problems. But it is a rather tough job fighting both the kook wacko quacks of the AltMed crowd, and simultaneously the lax regulations of medicine in practice and those screeching about it (the latter who are often the same folks promoting the AltMed wacko loons, like Dr. Oz.)

Still, one soldiers on.

My regards to you.

the wrong isomer or the one that is very bad was used to cause all those birth defects. Thalidomide is still prescribed today but from what I understand they really backed off from it overall.

Take methamphetamine for example, one isomer is the street drug (also prescribed under Desoxyn for ADHD, obesity, and narcolepsy) while the other isomer is Vicks nasal inhaler. On the back will say levomethamphetamine.

Another doctor questioning his agenda?

ZOMGWTFBBQ???

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!

STOP OPPRESSING DR.OZ!!1!

He promotes homeopathy, magic weight-loss diets, and has a regular parade of woosters like Mike Adams, Joseph Mercola, and Deepak Chopra.

yes, what is today "fringe' may indeed be promoted to "standard"... after strenuous testing to prove that it actually fucking works. Which is what is missing from Dr. Oz's celebrity bullshit. Which is why every month he has a new magical fat-busting diet - because the last one was bullshit, was shown to be bullshit, but he still needs a paycheck.

show. This is simply not true lately.

He invited the king of the anti-vaxxers, Dr. Mercola, onto his show just last year:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2014/02/10/dr-oz-has-invited-joe-mercola-on-his-show-does-he-endorse-mercolas-anti-vaccine-views/

So yes, it IS simply true. The man is either a quack, or is actively supporting quacks. Even when he has counter-guests on to "balance" out what the quacks say, it promotes the quackery by simply giving them a stage upon which to spout their BS and present a fictitious debate where none exists. It's the same "false equivalency" that FOX News has used for years to make people think that there's still a debate on global warming.

watching his show past 4 months. I really don't care if you watch or don't. Have a nice Sunday.

Dr Oz is no anti-vaxxer. And to spread one's message, sometimes it's necessary to debate the Devil in public.

Just like FOX News does with global warming: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/false-equivalence-balance-media

And THAT is precisely what Dr. Oz is doing whenever he allows quacks on his show. You don't defeat the Devil by debating him; you defeat him by turning your back on him, because no amount of facts and evidence is ever enough for some people. These nutjobs THRIVE on publicity, even bad publicity, and every minute they get in front of a camera gives them an opportunity to garner more followers.

Look, raspberry ketone supplements may be harmless (or not), but there is absolutely no scientific evidence that they help in weight loss. And it's a huge industry, which uses his endorsement in their ads.

The danger is that obesity (and overweight in general) has medical implications. And sure, Dr. Oz says "along with diet and exercise." He should just recommend diet and exercise, because many will rely solely on what he has called the "miracle" cure. And they will suffer.

So raspberry ketones, green coffee beans? This is quackery, and not what a serious physician (he's apparently otherwise a great surgeon) should be hawking. It's medutainment. An op-ed from a journalist is not the arbiter here.

Try reading this article instead:

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

or even sickened anyone. As opposed to a whole host of "settled medicine" pharmaceuticals which have, indeed, killed people.

Really, does advising patients turn to food or vitamin supplements rise to the level of wanting you to yank his MD?

False conclusion. Perhaps you're just employing the Dr Oz brand of slick legerdemain.

I do say he is hawking snake-oil to people. I wouldn't watch his show. Go to a doctor.

PS: Did you actually read the article?

There is room for diversity of opinion, when what you are proposing is not harmful. And if raspberry or blueberry or whatever natural food substance you promote on a TV show isn't harmful, and may in fact have some yet-unproven benefit, then this doesn't rise to the level of being a quack and snake-oil salesman.

He is NOT an anti-vaxxer.
He is NOT anti-gay.
He does NOT profit from any of the products discussed on his show.

Where do all these attacks come from, so suddenly, and why? And why does a "distinguished doctor" who served time in jail for Medicaid fraud have it in for Oz?

n/t

That's what I sort of got from your first response to me.

I don't like pharmaceuticals either, and limit them to only what is absolutely necessary. But let me tell you, my spouse is getting a shitload of drugs pumped through a port in his chest every 21 days right now, in addition to shots that cause bone pain, and steroids that cause all kinds of issues. But thank god for these shitty drugs, because without them he'd be dead right now. When people are sick--very, very sick--they don't need to hear about useless supplements or other unproven woo. Or any kind of "miracle." It's irresponsible.

Having been in medicine for decades, I've watched too many reversals within "established medical opinion."

It's almost like he's you or something.

About mainer
I make my living in the arts, in the great state of Maine. My loves: music, literature, science, archaeology, food, and travel -- anything that opens my eyes -- and my mind. Democrat for 40 years. ACLU member for 35 years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=127020 9:36 ET

I've been a DUer since 2003. Many people here know I'm an MD who now works in the arts.

while doing little to nothing for the people who bought into it. If you are a person who has a condition, and someone sells you whatever the day's version of snake-oil is to cure it, that person, medically speaking, is a quack. Legally speaking, a con man.

?w=450

drugs on the public, see Pfizer eg, who knowingly pushed a drug that caused serious injury to hundreds of patients, including death, sadly, refusing to take it off the market until they were forced to do so.

They fired the salespeople who had a conscience and refused to sell that drug to doctors.

If it had not been for the six Whistle Blowers who came forward, causing Pfizer to be charged by the government, that drug might have killed untold numbers of people.

They were also involved in pushing a drug used mostly for cows, airc, called DES to pregnant women back in the '60s and '70s.

That drug's tragic side effects wasn't really known until the babies subjected to it in the womb grew up.

Women were especially impacted, unable to have children of their own.

It took years to force them to compensate the victims, and the effects are also showing up in male victims.

Cervical cancer in women is another side effect of that drug. I know someone who was compensated eventually, but not before these Drug Companies dragged her through hell causing her to settle the pressure was so great.

Congress helped them out when those babies began to grow up and started suing them. They put a cap on how much the victims could claim and forced the victims to remain silent in order to receive that money.

And that is why I am very suspicious of the campaign against Dr. Oz and a few harmless, if ineffective, vitamins.

I never see these 'concerned' people talk about the thousands of drugs from Pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in death and many other life long health issues.

understand this witch hunt for Dr. Oz. You don't like him - don't watch. One of his accusers had his license stripped for Medicare fraud.

viewers, more than the Corporate Media 'news' people. Now they have stirred up a real backlash which is GOOD.

I don't watch daytime talk shows, but he's very popular, never heard any of the garbage that only DU and one remote blogger seem to be pushing, anywhere but HERE.

And the takedown of the Monsanto Shills on his show was epic. I was impressed. He's obviously a lot smarter than Monsanto's tools.

I am as I said, way more concerned about the fraudulent and unethical practices of certain pharmaceutical Corps who actually have the ability and use it, to cause great harm to people.

And if those attacking Oz actually cared about harm to the people, they would screaming about the real harm that has been done already.

In the RL and outside the bubble of DU things are a whole lot different.

Sid

he'd bring on a guy who's radical weight loss therapy included amputating your own legs, and then he'd deny any responsibility for the trail of severed limbs across America.

"Fraud", "huckster", "con man", "grifter", and "snake oil salesman" all fit him better.

Even his detractors admit this.

What IS the reason for the sudden and ferocious attacks on Oz? It's most curious.

No miracles, no audience. No audience, no show.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]No he is the King of the Quacks!

Not only does he give gay reparative therapy a platform and air of legitimacy, not only does he promote every fad psuedoscientific diet, not only does he hack bullshit miracle diet supplements and "psychics", but he also promotes other quackery like the idea that keeping a cell phone in your brassiere will cause breast cancer!

He is the epitome of a quack.[/font]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/19/half-of-dr-ozs-medical-advice-is-baseless-or-wrong-study-says/

http://www.livescience.com/50621-dr-oz-should-resign-poll.html

when they went after him. Now even people who never watched his show, are aware of what this is all about.

I, eg, never bothered with the nonsense because it didn't interest me. But Monsanto shills trying to deny us the right HE was trying to get, caught my attention.

Big mistake to go after someone when they are 1) very popular, and 2) are talking about an issue 90% of the people WANT someone to talk about.

Repeating something on DU, which seems the be the only place to find it other than some remote blogger who appears to be obsessed with this talk show host, doesnt' make it true.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]As for labeling I don't care one way or the other.

If they label them, fine. I still plan to eat them because I know the science has shown no danger to eating them. If they don't, no skin off my back as the science has shown no danger in eating them.

Either way works for me, and either way Dr. Oz is still a quack who give times to other quacks like Mercola, pyschics, proponents of gay reparation therapy, and people claiming cell phones cause cancer...[/font]

a 'quack'? He's a surgeon with a high position for years at Colombia, which I didn't know. Are you suggesting that Colombia hires quacks? I doubt it.

Here's where I stand, no one has to buy vitamins, which are basically harmless.

But Monsanto is forcing the American people to buy their GMOs against their will.

So, if you don't like what talk shows are pushing, the solution is, you have a choice, don't watch and don't buy.

But I don't have that choice when it comes to GMOs and HE stood up for my right to have that choice.

And the other 90% of the people who want to know what is in their food.

So I'm grateful to him for using his microphone to speak for 90% of us and anyone else who does so.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]and love all his cosmetic tips he gives. As a result I get to see his show almost every night.

Should a Heart surgeon be giving advice on oncology without checking to see what the consensus is? Should a heart surgeon be giving dietary advice about green coffee beans? Should a heart doctor be condemning vaccines because they have Thiomersal?

Should any MD or scientist be promoting psychics, homeopathy, and the like when all evidence show it to be bunk?

If he stick with heart surgery advice that is inline with the literature I would have no issue with him. If he stick with that and general medical advice that is supported by the medical establishment he could be a force for good and help people.

But if he continues promoting baseless miracle cures, and psuedoscience sooner or later he is going to hurt someone.....BADLY. That needs to be stopped.

There is [font size=5 color=scarlet face=papyrus]More Than Enough Bad Medical Information[/font] about health and fitness going around as it is currently. We don't need another quack making more.[/font]

And very nice of you to watch a show she apparently likes with her.

I have delved into these allegations since I am not familiar with the show. And what I found was, that whenever he discusses medical issues that are not in his field of expertise, he invites those who are, other doctors, oncologists eg to present their expert views.

He also I found out, does not sell any products.

See the post near the bottom of this thread which covers the vitamin often referenced by detractors. The facts are that at that time, that was thought by the medical profession to be beneficial to patients. Then when it was found out not to be, he retracted his support for it. That is the responsible thing to do.

So iow, what I have been reading here appears to be nothing but smears.

NOW the media is looking into those allegations and doing their own research and it appears those who have been spreading lies, are being exposed.

Anyhow, thanks for your responses, I would be more careful with sources, because not everything you read on the internet is trustworthy.

Profiling Oz in The New Yorker, Michael Specter noted instances of Oz inviting controversial guests onto his show. One example is Jeffrey M. Smith, an activist against genetically modified food. "Oz identified Smith as a scientist", Specter wrote, "but Smith has no experience in genetics or agriculture, and has no scientific degree from any institution." Specter also criticized Oz because he "seems to have moved more firmly into the realm of tenuous treatments for serious conditions." Oz replied that he sees himself as a mediator and wants to provide many differing points of view, even if they are looked down upon by the conventional medical community.[13]

Health claims made on the show have been criticized by the medical community as 54% of health recommendations were not supported by published studies. The Dr. Oz Show was also criticized in the same study for an overreliance on dietary suggestions and reluctance to provide evidence of its claims. The study warned that conflicts of interest were rarely addressed and that viewers should be skeptical of claims made on the show.[2] On 29 January 2015, Scott Gavura posted on the website sciencebasedmedicine.org an article clarifying the Federal Trade Commission's prosecution of Lindsey Duncan (who falsely claimed to be a "Doctor&quot and the company that he was affiliated with to promote and to sell green coffee-bean extract (GCBE) as a weight-loss supplement. The extent of the product's popularity was propelled by its repeated promotion on the Dr. Oz Show, for which none of the show's personnel did any research on Duncan, his conflict of interest or his financial interest in the business, before declaring him an "expert". This lack of research by staff has been an ongoing criticism of the show in numerous cases in which Dr. Oz has homed in on a product to sensationalise.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dr._Oz_Show

He's been criticized for a long time. Here's a very in-depth look into his history and the controversy that has followed him for most of his career: http://www.vox.com/2015/4/16/8412427/dr-oz-health-claims

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]So long as people realize we are all fighting for what we think is correct, disagreements don't have to be unpleasant.

Take care.[/font]

easy being a care taker, so take care of yourself too.

Which is why it was such a hoot when you created an OP about him and claimed he was liberal!

This is one of the interesting accusations leveled against him. About three or four years ago, Oz recommended calcium supplements for post-menopausal women to prevent osteoporosis. Then a 2011 British Medical Journal article linking calcium supplementation with cardiovascular incidents(http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2040) changed medical opinion and calcium supplementation is no longer recommended. I recall the surprise among medical colleagues when that study came out. Because of that study, Oz rescinded his earlier recommendation -- just as other doctors did.

The funny thing is, at the time Oz recommended calcium supplementation it was ACCEPTED MEDICAL PRACTICE and the normal STANDARD OF CARE to prescribe calcium supplements to peri- and post-menopausal women.

So now one of the attacks on Dr. Oz is that he recommended calcium -- but he did it when every other doctor was doing it . That practice has now been found to be harmful. So much for "accepted medical practice" always being correct.

Thanks for that, DU has been inculcated with this kind of thing for a while. Attacking messengers and trying to prevent any factual discussion of these issues.

But this latest stunt by Monsanto shills has caused a lot of people, me included, to take an interest in this remote controlled 'controversy'. I hope he starts suing people. Best place to get the facts is in a court room where people have to do more than call names.

Thanks for the link, very relevant to the thread.

10 quack treatments Dr. Oz needs to defend
Posted by Dr. Jen Gunter

Dr. Oz promises to come out swinging on Thursday, both against the 10 physicians who wrote a letter to the Dean of Medicine at Columbia and to defend himself against the charges of quakery.

Here are 10 of his recommendations I’d like to see him explain/defend with science (i.e. provide medical evidence above personal experience). Medical textbook or studies (preferable) are required (no case reports or retrospective case series of 10 or fewer patients allowed).

1. Communicating with the dead.

2. Detoxing.

3. What is a toxin and why do so many people have them?

4. Multivitamins (apart from women trying to conceive or pregnant women).

5. Reiki.

6. Homeopathy.

7. Appearances of Joe Merola on the Dr. Oz show when frequently Oz doesn’t directly endorse his claims. Pro-tip: being a maverick in medicine means questioning poorly done studies and ill-conceived national guidelines or discovering something new and proving it with science, not questioning the laws of physics and ignoring medical evidence in favor of expensive “natural” products.

8. HepasilDTX.

9. Vitamin D to prevent colds/cancer/reverse aging.

10. Every single weight loss “miracle” mentioned on the show. OK that’s too many, let’s start with these 10.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/10-quack-treatments-dr-oz-needs-to-defend/

This post was sponsored by:

Dr. Oz is a scumbag.

Didn't you know!? All the naysayers in this thread are very qualified to notice who is a quack and who is not! They all work in some medical department as head of XYZ or are active surgeons! HONEST!

Ahhh...DU...so entertaining!

QUACK QUACK QUACK!!!

Uh, no. His actual statement:

http://blog.doctoroz.com/dr-oz-blog/understanding-the-measles-outbreak

" But as a doctor and an informed expert in the medical field, I can tell you that a vaccine is the only method we have to truly prevent this disease and it is the best method we have to save the lives of the thousands of children who would otherwise die of infection. Vaccines are safe, effective, and the only responsible medical answer we have to this deadly disease. If you have children, they should be vaccinated."

As stated repeatedly in this ridiculous Support A Quack thread, it's the fact that he introduces "experts" on his show, gives them a platform and confers credibility to them by proxy.

But you already know all that, so what exactly is it that's so upsetting about other doctors calling him a quack?


Dr. Oz, is that you?

Are they all quacks?

When one is presented with overwhelming evidence of pseudoscientific peddling and all they can do is offer some lame platitude in solidarity I have to wonder...

Do you talk like a duck too?

I've been a DUer since 2003 -- before you joined. As an MD, I have an opinion because of how much I've seen medicine roiled over the decades, with complete revolutions in beliefs in calcium supplements to peptic ulcer therapy to prion theory. I've learned to be skeptical of "proven science" because I've seen it later disproven upon further study. Dr. Oz may be gullible, and he may explore some silliness on his show, but as far as I know, no patient has died or been harmed by his new-age advice, which pretty much seems to revolve around diet, exercise, and meditation.

I happen to post an editorial from the NYT, and instead of addressing the editorial, you choose to attack me -- simply for expressing an opinion. If repeatedly yelling QUACK QUACK is as elevated a dialogue as you can muster, then I think I'll leave you to your sandbox.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6571702



No refutation of the facts presented to you, just snarky allusions to our motives.

That is most curious.

Being quick to prescribe bogus placebo-based nonsense is worse than being quick to prescribe well-tested medication. And the TV ads that push over-prescription aren't the fault of science.

You ask:


Why are you lending credence to his conspiracy theory that some shadowy faction is "suddenly" out to get him when it's obvious that Dr. Oz has had a quacking problem for a very long time?