Columbia University response: "is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members' freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion."
...Led by Dr. Henry Miller of California's Stanford University, the doctors sent the letter to Lee Goldman, dean of Columbia's Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine. The nine other doctors from across the country included Dr. Joel Tepper, a cancer researcher from the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, and Dr. Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health in New York City.
The doctors wrote that Oz, for years a world-class Columbia cardiothoracic surgeon, "has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain." They said he has "misled and endangered" the public.
Last year, Oz appeared before a U.S. Senate panel that accused him of endorsing products that were medically unsound. At the time, Oz acknowledged that some of the products he advised his viewers to use "don't have the scientific muster to present as fact."
..Oz was not reachable Thursday night at his Columbia office number, which played a recorded message explaining how callers could get tickets to his TV show...
I would think Columbia having a fit over HOSPITAL OFFICE voicemail having message about Oz TV show tickets as OUTSIDE business interest..... unless they think Dr Oz PUBLICITY bringing in patients = $$$ for hospital coffers.
There is a doctor on in the afternoon that I've enjoyed. Don't remember his name, I think he's an ER doc. He's very good looking. He has a good show.
That show is "The Doctors," and that's the other one mentioned in my post above as having been found to have a v. low proportion of medically factual information on the show, in addition to failing to identify conflicts of interest and when they are providing medically valid information vs. when they are just peddling some advertiser's product/service.
It's entertainment, nothing more, despite the scrubs ...
I'll bet a lot of the lay public that will refuse to follow, or even acknowledge, the instructions of physicians involved with their care, are the first to expound upon these quackable, made for TV audiences, statements.
I hope not. It'd be pretty awkward for him to explain to his patients that they actually couldn't lose the weight by applying miracle fat burning cream 2x a day.
I hope not. It'd be pretty awkward for him to explain to his patients that they actually couldn't lose the weight by applying miracle fat burning cream 2x a day.
...We are members of the Columbia faculty who recognize that the Dr. Oz Show performs a public service by bringing alternative therapies which are generally under-researched and under-regulated into the public forum. However, a 2014 report in The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) reported that less than half of the recommendations on his show are based on at least somewhat believable evidence. This report raises concerns that Dr. Oz's presentations of anecdotal therapies as "miracle cures" occur in the absence of what we see as obligatory discussions of conflicts of interest, possible side-effects and evidence-based medicine (or lack thereof). Many of us are spending a significant amount of our clinical time debunking Ozisms regarding metabolism game changers. Irrespective of the underlying motives, this unsubstantiated medicine sullies the reputation of Columbia University and undermines the trust that is essential to physician-patient relationships.
The weaknesses in the professional balance sheet of Dr. Oz's pixel practice should not, in and of themselves, disqualify him from his day job as a professor in the Department of Surgery at Columbia University. He was hired by Columbia as a faculty member in 2001 on the basis of his skills as a physician. He continues to receive excellent peer reviews and patient satisfaction ratings. Those accolades are earned and his Columbia employment should not be terminated without better demonstration of on-site performance failure. It does not follow that complaints about his on-air medical practice will be addressed by demanding that he leave his other job in which he excels.
The difficulty in resolving the dilemma of Dr. Oz raises other more important issues. Specifically, we need to re-evaluate the roles of the health sciences and government in broadcast medicine and what are the responsibilities of media physicians to their patients? The American Medical Association issues guidelines for physician professionalism in social media that focus on privacy, but eschews recommendations regarding doctors' responsibilities in public. A scientist presenting clinical trial results at an academic conference is required to disclose conflicts of interest, medication side-effects and contraindications, and to distinguish evidence-based from hypothetical applications. Doesn't the burgeoning population of virtual patients deserve similar consideration from physicians generating virtual prescriptions?
I'm not a fan of his daytime show Dr. Oz (I don't like any shows like that, not just his) but I did thoroughly enjoy his series surgeon Oz where it showed him performing heart surgeries. It was particularly fascinating to me as it coincided with my heart chapter in Anatomy when we were learning about the valves and complications that can happen with them. Watching him talk about it and actually doing the replacement like we talked about in school was really neat. I also watched him on NY Med and enjoyed that series as well.
I only briefly heard about this, but I believe the topic of Dr Oz's show was about Glyphosate and genetically modified foods. In Europe, genetically modified foods have been banned since before 2000. I am currently going back to school taking a refresher class on Nutrition. I recently read up about GMOs and according to an article I read Dr Don Huber of Purdue University is a leading expert on GMOs. According to the article it said that Glyphosate is not just a herbicide but was originally patented as a mineral chelator. According to the article all kinds of disease promotion result from this Glyphosate. Right now in this country there is a big movement going on to label food so that we know what exactly is in what we are buying. Several states have already had debates/legislation proposed on this. By the way the top doctor that was insisting on having Dr Oz removed from Columbia according to the article I read was against the labeling of all ingredients on food labels. This class and research I have done for it convinces me I don't want any GMOs in my diet. Look at Europe are people not healthier? Definitely something to research more.
I only briefly heard about this, but I believe the topic of Dr Oz's show was about Glyphosate and genetically modified foods. In Europe, genetically modified foods have been banned since before 2000. I am currently going back to school taking a refresher class on Nutrition. I recently read up about GMOs and according to an article I read Dr Don Huber of Purdue University is a leading expert on GMOs. According to the article it said that Glyphosate is not just a herbicide but was originally patented as a mineral chelator. According to the article all kinds of disease promotion result from this Glyphosate. Right now in this country there is a big movement going on to label food so that we know what exactly is in what we are buying. Several states have already had debates/legislation proposed on this. By the way the top doctor that was insisting on having Dr Oz removed from Columbia according to the article I read was against the labeling of all ingredients on food labels. This class and research I have done for it convinces me I don't want any GMOs in my diet. Look at Europe are people not healthier? Definitely something to research more.
No, no scientific evidence GMOs are harmful
Zero
Nada
Zip
And to made a blanket statement like "Europe has banned GMOs and they are healthier than us" is very faulty correlation=causation
I only briefly heard about this, but I believe the topic of Dr Oz's show was about Glyphosate and genetically modified foods. In Europe, genetically modified foods have been banned since before 2000. I am currently going back to school taking a refresher class on Nutrition. I recently read up about GMOs and according to an article I read Dr Don Huber of Purdue University is a leading expert on GMOs. According to the article it said that Glyphosate is not just a herbicide but was originally patented as a mineral chelator. According to the article all kinds of disease promotion result from this Glyphosate. Right now in this country there is a big movement going on to label food so that we know what exactly is in what we are buying. Several states have already had debates/legislation proposed on this. By the way the top doctor that was insisting on having Dr Oz removed from Columbia according to the article I read was against the labeling of all ingredients on food labels. This class and research I have done for it convinces me I don't want any GMOs in my diet. Look at Europe are people not healthier? Definitely something to research more.
Glyphosate, aka round-up, is not a GMO. There are GMO strains that are "round-up" ready, but the strains themselves pose no health risks whatsoever, just like all other GMO's. Ironically, opposing all GMO's because you don't like herbicides like round-up is actually far more likely to increase the chances of herbicides being used on food products. One of the main advantages of GMO's is that they require less or even no herbicides at all, they also reduce the amount of water needed to produce the crop, the amount of fertilizer needed and the amount of pesticide needed. So if someone is opposed to wasting water, using fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides, then it makes absolutely no sense to be opposed to GMOs.
Specializes in CCU, SICU, CVSICU, Precepting & Teaching.
Dr. Oz is a quack of the worst sort -- he's traded ethics and integrity for fame and fortune. And the sad part is how many take his word as gospel just because he's on TV.
.thumb.jpg.32153ff3eaff9886e5b70223acf10ffa.jpg){kind=small}
EmergencyRN22
113 Posts
Dr Travis Stork ...wish he worked my ER. He's easy to look at however I feel he would even bring in MORE patients. Haha