Gilbert Ross

America's quack counterattacks by calling his critics industry hacks

oracknows — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 04:00:11 +0000

America's quack counterattacks by calling his critics industry hacks

Last week, a group of ten doctors led by Dr. Henry Miller, most of whom were affiliated either with the Hoover Institution or the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)—or both—wrote a letter to Lee Goldman, MD, the Dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine at Columbia University complaining that Dr. Mehmet Oz shouldn't be faculty at Columbia University because of his "disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops" and "an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain." The letter produced a fair amount of media attention late last week; over the weekend my opinion of the letter, which was mildly approving, evolved into disapproval and dismay. The reasons were several and included a profound distaste for threatening letters sent to a person's employers, admittedly based in part on my own experiences having been at the receiving end of such intimidation tactics, as well as a concern that the letter had been written with no clear purpose behind it other than as a publicity stunt to embarrass Dr. Oz and Columbia. When I learned that Dr. Oz was planning to answer the letter on his show this week, I predicted that this particularly bone-headed publicity stunt would backfire spectacularly.

Now that I've seen the show, having DVRed it for watching after getting home from work, I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Actually, I don't hate to say it, but in this case it's profoundly depressing how badly Miller's stunt backfired. I suppose it's little consolation that I accurately predicted Dr. Oz's line of attack, although I do take some satisfaction in noting that Dr. Oz has officially become Mike Adams, the looniest of quack loons and conspiracy theorists, whose massively unhinged attacks on behalf of Dr. Oz that I noted basically said the same things that Oz ended up saying. Truly, if I thought that maybe Dr. Oz might have had a shred of honor left before, I harbor no such illusion now. Oz is about as despicable as it gets.

Actually, yesterday morning, Oz published an article in TIME entitled Exclusive: Dr. Oz Says ‘We’re Not Going Anywhere’, that was a summary, an outline, if you will, of his planned line of attack, so much so that I thought maybe I wouldn't have to watch Oz's actual show when I got home. But, damned that sense of duty—the things I do for my readers—I did watch, and I was amazed at just how low Oz was willing to go.

First, let's look at the TIME article. Not having science to back him up, Oz goes for the same gambits that quacks and antivaccinationists go for: Appeals to freedom, claims to be "fighting for you," and ad hominem attacks on his enemies, up to—or should I say down to—the very same ad hominem attack used by Mike Adams in his series of screeds attacking the letter writers. In fact, the TIME article very much resembles Oz's opening monologue on his "counterattack" show, but the show was a bit more dramatic, as you might expect. The show begins with a variation of the same teaser trailer Oz had released on Wednesday, in which typical announcer guy intones in his most dramatic voice:

You’ve seen the headlines. You’ve heard the controversy. Now, Dr. Oz fires back. He responds to his critics and sets the record straight on the GMO movement, alternative health practices, and his commitment to always fight for you.

[Note added 4/24/2015. You can now watch the segments for yourself: Dr. Oz Breaks His Silence; Dr. Oz Reveals the Truth About His Critics; and Dr. Joel Fuhrman Defends Dr. Oz Against the Controversial Headlines. There was another long segment recapping some of what Dr. Oz has said about GMOs, but that doesn't appear to be online, perhaps because it consisted mainly of snippets from past Oz shows.]

Then, in his monologue immediately blames "ten mysterious doctors" with industry ties to for trying to shut him up because he criticized genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Then, with a heavy sigh implying a heavy heart delivered with the cheesy portentous manner of an old gunman in a B-grade western forced to strap on his six gun one more time to go into battle—no, Dr. Oz is not a very good actor—he says:

I’ve long believed that doctors should never fight their battles–or each other–in public. But now I believe I must.

Hoo boy. You could smell the cheese. You could also see the lie, as Oz made the claim that "many papers mistakenly claimed my own hospital's doctors were out to get me." Oh, really? If there were such stories claiming that it was Columbia doctors going after Oz, I sure didn't see them. I wonder if Oz will put up some links to those stories. Somehow I doubt it.

Oz also invoked this gambit:

This can lead to confusion and irritation when analyzed by conventional physicians. For example, another daytime TV show and mine were recently noted in a BMJ article for only having proof for half of what we shared with the audience. A similar figure is often used to approximate the amount of randomized clinical trial data underlying conversations in physician’s offices across America. This reflects that natural gap between what is proven in clinical trials and the needs of our patients.

He's referring to a study I and others blogged about. Oddly enough, I hadn't been aware that the authors of that study had later said that their data didn't support the contention that Dr. Oz or The Doctors were "quacks or charlatans or worse." OF course, no one said that this study did; it simply showed how little of what Oz recommends is evidence-based. For one thing, as I noted, the reviewers looking at the claims were willing to consider case studies as the minimum form of evidence to support a recommendation. I reiterate: That’s a really low bar. By that standard, you could say that there is some evidence to support the idea that the MMR vaccine is associated with autism, given that Andrew Wakefield’s infamous 1998 study—now retracted—was a case series. Actually, since it was retracted, you couldn’t use Wakefield’s study, but there are plenty of other case reports and bad studies by antivaccine-sympathetic doctors and researchers out there that one could cite. In any case, that’s how bad Dr. Oz did, given how low a bar a case study is. When the authors raised the bar and used the slightly higher threshold of “Believable or somewhat believable evidence” then only 33% of recommendations on The Dr. Oz Show met that standard and 53% of the advice on The Doctors. Contrary to what Oz claims, medicine is far more evidence-based than that, as Steve Novella has shown time and time again.

Of course, the only thing that disappointed me about the study was that the authors didn’t look at what percentage of advice from Dr. Oz is based on pure fantasy (such as his episodes on homeopathy, using psychic mediums like John Edward and “Long Island Medium” Theresa Caputo) as therapists, faith healing, and the like). That's the core of the complaint I and many skeptics have against Dr. Oz., not that he does the occasional anti-GMO segment, although those are bad too.

In any case, the TIME article basically described much of the segment's ad hominem attacks. Oz introduces them, but they were, as Dan Diamond pointed out, "outsourced" to The Dr. Oz Show correspondent Elisabeth Leamy, who enthusiastically performs the requisite hatchet job. Unfortunately, given who Dr. Miller and his fellow cosignatories are, it wasn't difficult for her. I could have done the same thing as well as she did without even bothering to get my posterior off the couch. (Actually, I already did.) Some "reporter"! She reminds me of Sharyl Attkisson. In any case, here it is, in the TIME article:

With a few clicks and some simple searches, a remarkable web of intrigue emerged—one that the mainstream media has completely missed. The lead author, Henry I. Miller, appears to have a history as a pro-biotech scientist, and was mentioned in early tobacco-industry litigation as a potential ally to industry. He also furthered the battle in California to block GMO labeling—a cause that I have been vocal about supporting. Another of the letter signees, Gilbert Ross, was found guilty after trial of 13 counts of fraud related to Medicaid. He is now executive director of American Council on Science and Health, a group that has reportedly received donations from big tobacco and food and agribusiness companies, among others. Another four of the 10 authors are also linked to this organization.

The segments on Miller and Ross included unflattering photos with graphics worthy of the lowest form of political attack ads, complete with a graphic showing Miller being "put under the microscope" and concluding with jail doors closing in front of Ross. Then Oz interviews Lisa Graves of SourceWatch and executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, and Gary Ruskin US Right To Know. SourceWatch is a wiki run by the Center for Media and Democracy that bills itself as a "collaborative, specialized encyclopedia of the people, organizations, and issues shaping the public agenda." Graves explicitly called Miller and the ACSH "shills for corporations," in the most blatant use of the "shill" argument I can recall having seen in a long time. In the process, ACSH was referred by Ruskin as "rent-a-scientists," who described this characterization as being "really well-established." It might well be true that all of Oz's arguments against his critics are misleading or downright wrong, but, contrary to what has been argued, it actually does matter who Oz's critics are and that they have massive conflicts of interest. It is not "beside the point." Maybe on some airy abstract plane it shouldn't matter, but this is the real world, and to the average person it does matter, as much as we as skeptics might like to wish otherwise.

Meanwhile, Graves cited the words of the judge presiding over Ross' Medicaid fraud trial, who referred to him as "a highly untrustworthy individual," emphasizing that "those were his exact words," before concluding, "I think this is definitely a smear campaign against Dr. Oz and I think it’s a campaign that’s driven by individuals who are connected to big industries." I note that the term "big industry" was bandied about a lot during Oz's segment. To be honest, besides its tendency to align with industry interests, I have always been bothered by the ACSH keeping Gilbert Ross in a leadership position, even back when his release from prison was not very far behind him. Yes, it's true that a person's past shouldn't necessarily have any bearing on his scientific arguments, but Oz knows that that's not how the average person thinks. That's why his attack was so devastating, particularly the bit where a photo of Dr. Oz is projected next to photos of most of the ten signatories of the letter, and the question is asked, "Who should you believe?" Indeed, Even Ross now regrets having signed the letter because by signing it he foolishly gave Oz and his allies a weapon to attack the letter and the ACSH, and in particular to distract from the criticisms of Oz's promotion of quackery and pseudoscience on his show.

There was one misfire that made me laugh out loud when I saw it. For whatever reason, the producers of The Dr. Oz Show decided it would be a good idea for Oz to interview Dr. Joel Fuhrman. I've mentioned him a few times before. For example, Fuhrman is a raw food faddist who takes a vitalistic view of cooking food in which cooking somehow destroys living antioxidants, phytochemicals, and a variety of other compounds, without which the body can’t be healthy and “must break down." He describes processed food as “foods whose life has been taken out of them” and makes the claim that, without these micronutrients, cells accumulate “toxins” that need to be “detoxified,” while touting broccoli and various vegetables as having “incredible medicinal power.” Elsewhere, he's been known to trot out the same old alt-med tropes against chemotherapy, particularly its "barbaric" nature. He's also been known to make some rather overheated claims for the benefits of diet, in essence claiming that virtually any disease is preventable. No wonder Oz likes him.

Fuhrman serves as Oz's surrogate and really lays it on thick. He describes the signatories of the letter as "not representative" of physicians and their letter as an "attack against all physicians" (nonsense!), pushing a "dangerous agenda," and being "anti-American" and, of course, "anti-freedom."

Of course. Because criticizing quackery is "anti-American" and "anti-freedom."

Naturally, Oz can't resist insinuating a conspiracy theory to explain why Miller and his cosignatories decided to send their letter now, referring to it as bullying, which is particularly amusing given the mismatch in media presence between Miller and Oz. In any case, Oz concludes that the reason Miller and colleagues must have decided to choose now to strike is because of a federal bill being considered, the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act," which would prohibits any mandatory labeling of GMOs by states. Of course, the bill failed to pass last year; so it's unclear to me why its reintroduction this year would provoke an attack by pro-GMO interests against Dr. Oz, but Oz and crew sure do blatantly insinuate dire conspiracies on the part of big industry to use more glyphosate, which GMOs allow it to do. It's as though Oz has finally given in to the dark side so much that he's channeling Alex Jones, Gary Null, and Mike Adams.

He concludes:

No matter our disagreements, one of the goals of this show is to have an honest discussion with diverse opinions. Freedom of speech, my friends, is the most fundamental right we have as Americans. These ten doctors are trying to silence them, and I'm not going to let that happen.

Yes, freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental rights we have as Americans, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism, nor does it obligate a production company to give Oz a platform or a TV station to broadcast his opinions.

Then, at the very end of the show, Oz shows the video of Elmo urging people to get vaccinated, concluding, "Elmo, the surgeon general, and I all agree: Get vaccinated." Funny how Oz seems to have forgotten his having had the antivaccine loon Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on his show just last fall and his less-than-enthusiastic words on vaccines back in 2010 that led many to believe that he hadn't vaccinated his children.

Of course, few people who aren't skeptics who've been following Oz's antics for a while are aware of these inconsistencies in his story; so he'll almost certainly get away with it. In fact, it's magnificent propaganda that utterly crushes Miller and his letter, just as I predicted that it would. Oz cynically completely reframes the criticisms directed at him from his support of pure quackery by featuring homeopathy, Mike Adams, faith healing, and all manner of other quackery on his show as potentially valid health care options to his being attacked by industry interests seeking to protect their GMO profits. Oz makes a big deal out of the fact that he doesn't recommend these options as replacements for conventional care. Instead, he advocates "integrating" quackery with conventional medicine, which is actually part of his day job at Columbia as director of its integrative medicine program.

In fact, that's exactly what I said when I predicted disaster for Miller and his band, and that's what I say now. Michael Spector gets it, too. The problem is that what Oz promotes on his TV show is not that different from what he probably promotes as the director of Columbia's integrative medicine program, which is not that different from what is happening in the rest of quackademia, as increasingly quackery is "integrated" with academic medicine to become quackademic medicine. Oz is a symptom, but a big one. There are many other examples, from medical schools as diverse as the Cleveland Clinic and its promotion of reiki, traditional Chinese medicine, and "functional medicine," George Washington University, the University of Michigan (my alma mater), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and the University of Maryland.

If you don't believe me, just check out this op-ed published in USA TODAY yesterday by several Columbia faculty, entitled What do we do about Dr. Oz? In the letter, Dr. Michael Rosenbaum, professor of Pediatrics and Medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, and his co-authors, practically bend over backwards not to be too critical of Oz, praising him for "bringing alternative therapies which are generally under-researched and under-regulated into the public forum," which nearly made me spit out my iced tea on my computer when I read that phrase, even as the authors lament how Oz's brand of medicine "unsubstantiated medicine sullies the reputation of Columbia University and undermines the trust that is essential to physician-patient relationships." The best they can come up with is a proposal for increased governmental scrutiny of claims made on television and other media or, barring that, "Dr. Oz might begin each program with a simple disclaimer: 'The opinions expressed on this program may not be evidence-based or part of accepted medical practice and have no endorsement from Columbia University.'"

What else can we expect when medical academia becomes medical quackademia? For example, I note that the Columbia University Medical Center's Integrative Therapies Program for Children with Cancer offers herbal & nutrition counseling and guidance, aromatherapy (quackery), acupuncture & acupressure (quackery), massage therapy & reflexology (super duper quackery), reiki (rivaling homeopathy for the title of The One Quackery To Rule Them All), meditation, exercise, yoga & movement therapy, and a chef program. Yes, Dr. Oz has become a TV snake oil salesman, but selling snake oil is what quackademia increasingly does. Other than the psychics, he's not doing anything worse than what happens at his own university. That's the problem that needs to be attacked. Dr. Oz is just the most noticeable symptom.

In the end, all that Henry Miller managed to accomplish is to provide Dr. Oz an excuse to attack and crush his critics. Going forward, I fully expect that he will dismiss legitimate criticism of his promotion of quackery as being somehow affiliated with the ACSH and "big industry" protecting GMOs.

oracknows Fri, 04/24/2015 - 00:00

Categories

Medicine

Oz was on NBC Nightly News yesterday. He claimed his show is not a medical show, it's a "living the good life" show. He noted (I kid you not) that in his logo, "OZ" is what's prominent, the words "THE DR." appear in much smaller type so as to de-emphasize that he's a doctor. ("SHOW" is also in small type, so as to de-emphasize that it's a show ???).

Also, there were a handful of Columbia MDs and PhDs on in the NBC piece to criticize doctor Oz -- they didn't want him fired, they wanted a disclaimer on his show to appear onscreen to the effect that his nonsense does not reflect the thinking of Columbia University. Even though, as you note, it does.

Okay, so he's got the reputation of being a great thoracic surgeon. So ? I'm a good computer programmer, that doesn't qualify me in every aspect of technology. Oz needs to stop calling it The Dr Oz show, and call it the Mehmet Oz fun time Happy Hour, or something. I've got a nice clown wig here if he wants to borrow it, but I'm out of red bulb noses.

@DLC

I think you win the thread.

About 10 or 12 years ago, my wife insisted upon visiting a nutritionist because our daughter was a little on the heavy side. Who did she drag us to? Dr. Joel Furhman! At the time, I had not heard of him, and I had no idea what we were in for.

It took me about two minutes to figure out that he is a quack, and that was probably too long. He charged us $300 for that session, and our insurance, quite correctly, denied the claim. He has not gotten one cent ou our money since.

M. Oz (I don't think the title of Dr. should be used for him unless you are in his medical office) seems to have fallen down to the level of the Foodbabe. Everyone out to get them is a paid industry shill.

I am not as dismayed as Orac about the results of this letter. Many science writers in a variety of media have written articles pretty critical of M. Oz as a result of this letter. I would guess that all these articles have reached a greater audience than has his one show.

Summary: It's really, really unfortunate that, in this case, the people out to get Dr. Oz really are paid industry shills.

DLC @2 -- I propose "J-Pop America FunTime Now!". Because, Vanessa Bayer.

Also, there were a handful of Columbia MDs and PhDs on in the NBC piece to criticize doctor Oz — they didn’t want him fired, they wanted a disclaimer on his show to appear onscreen to the effect that his nonsense does not reflect the thinking of Columbia University. Even though, as you note, it does.

I assume they were the same ones who wrote that wishy-washy USA TODAY article.

I assume they were the same ones who wrote that wishy-washy USA TODAY article.

You are correct.

Once he started appearing on television, Dr. Oz became an entertainer. Sure, he may have been a promising physician at one time, but once he had his own series, he was subject to ratings and popularity polls, and advertising dollars. Even if he started out with the best of intentions, the realities of being a media personality were bound to become his prime focus. He will embrace, endorse, support and defend anything that will keep the Great and Powerful Oz front and foremost regardless of science.

Michael Specter, a New Yorker writer, wrote a blog post about the Columbia letter yesterday morning, before Oz's rebuttal program. Specter is a good science writer. He wrote an entire New Yorker profile on Oz a couple of years ago. His post yesterday was balanced, saying in essence that Oz needs to decide: is he an entertainer or a scientist?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/columbia-and-the-problem-of…
(Sorry, I don't know how to embed links into text.)

IMO, Specter's blog post went in a wrong direction toward the end, prompting me to write the following letter to him.

In your most recent blog post on Dr. Oz, you write, "Oz believes that Western medicine is reductive and that it too often focusses on illness instead of health, with ruinous results. That is hard to dispute."

This belief has almost become a truism, and in my opinion, and that of many other observers, it is a major factor that accounts for the rise of alternative health-care practitioners and also of physicians who go between alternative and mainstream practices, such as Oz. It is the sort of belief that has helped give rise to the anti-vaccination movement. (Anecdote alert: I also believed for several years that so-called Western medicine was "reductive," and it made me susceptible to the pseudoscientific claims of such practitioners. I have since reversed my position, or at least tempered it.)

I ask you: Is the statement really true? How did such a belief gain traction? What "ruinous results" actually occur? And when they do, what are the successes and failures of the scientific process to identify and correct them? In fact, what is "Western medicine" vs. non-Western medicine? I invite you to subject these questions to your considerable critical-thinking and investigative skills and write an article about your findings.

I have no argument with the two sentences that follow [in your blog post]: "These days doctors spend less and less time with their patients.... (And many studies have shown that people who spend more time with their doctors and nurses have better outcomes.)" I suspect that most doctors would say the same. In fact, this phenomenon can in part answer one of the questions I posed: How did the belief that Western medicine is reductive gain traction? But the first, blanket assertion (that Western medicine "too often focuses on illness instead of health, with ruinous results") isn't completely proved by the second, more specific one (that doctors don't spend enough time with their patients).

I really would love to see an article on this phenomenon in a major publication by a good science writer like Specter.

Unable to edit my comment. My letter to Specter started with "In your most recent blog post on Dr. Oz"

and ended with "(that doctors don't spend enough time with their patients.)"

Sorry for lack of clarity in original comment.

In fact, what is “Western medicine” vs. non-Western medicine?

I've said many times before that I view the term "Western medicine" as a profoundly racist term in that it perpetuates a stereotype of medicine that doesn't come from the "West" as being unscientific compared to the medicine of the "West," even though science is science, no matter where it came from.

As a fellow speaker, I'll be seeing Specter at the CFI Reason for Change conference in June. I might have to ask him about that.

http://reasonforchange.centerforinquiry.net

IMHO the thing to do is stoke up the conflict and let them finish each other off.

ASCH really are industry shills, with unsavory financial ties and a leader who is a convicted felon (and from the descriptions, probably a diagnosable sociopath).

Oz really has descended to the level of Food Babe and is catching up to Mike Adams by the minute.

Great!, let them tear each other to shreds! Next move: encourage ASCH to defend their "honor" and hit back at Oz. That in turn will provoke Oz to new depths of madness, and around and around they go, wrestling in the mud.

This works the same way as negative political campaigns, that are well known to make the public sick and tired of both candidates.

The goal should be one more felon looking for a new job, one more media star looking at declining ratings, and the public looking for more trustworthy sources of health info.

[medicine as practiced in the United States] too often focuses on illness instead of health

I know this is an anecdote and no substitute for actual data: in my experience, the vast majority of my doctor and dentist visits have been when I was well, not when I was sick. I have typically received advice on how to maintain health (e.g. brush often, floss, lose some weight, eat more vegetables and less fat) as opposed to treating some illness (though I really should get my Lipitor prescription refilled).

For general practitioners, it really makes sense economically to focus on people who aren't sick.

@MO'B

I agree the vast majority of my doctor's, dental, eye, etc visits have been preventative or health maintenance type of visits with a keep doing that or start doing this health advice rather than something immediate that needed attending to.

However I do think a lot of people use they system only for the acute visits (either at a ER or sometimes having a main doc). I know the annual check up idea had started up when I was younger, but the having a regular primary care doc who you see often enough to have a chance to talk to you about general health issues has not always been the case.

Compared to seeing your chiropractor weekly for an injury or every month or so to just keep things in line the once a year for a quick once over and a second visit when you have need to be seen issue may feel like they aren't spending all that much time on your overall health and well being. So I kinda get where that attitude comes from, but I agree it doesn't really match the reality I've experienced.

And yes, while you are there for a broken something or a can't breath issue or any of the things people generally cannot ignore so will go to a doctor even if they "never" go, there may not be as much of that taking a full medical history, going over all the general systems and making sure any preventative care or screening tests are up to date as they focus on the place the blood is spurting out, what is making you screech in pain like a banshee in heat or the organ that needs 100% of the attention at the moment.

Apparently the most recent general whole person preventative medicine initiative at my usual clinic is screening people for falls for no it can happen to anyone reason. This winter's slip on the ice and spectacular no sled luge attempt down my front steps didn't count.

GMO movement

There's a GMO movement? For real? Was there a hammer movement when hammers were invented?

Focusing on illness rather than health may vary quite a bit from situation to situation. If I break my arm or suspect a serious infection, I am not interested in talking about my weight or food choices when talking with the doctor.

However, as a human with a chronic disease under reasonable control, I see a doc 2-3 times a year and the conversation covers mostly how to maintain or get better control, in other words 'health'.

Oz is pushing unsubstantiated woo a lot of the time, which is neither illness or health but profit.

It disgusts me when academic clinical pediatricians (like Rosenbaum) apparently carve out large portions of their functional cortex to politically kiss Oz's ass.

#13: "Great!, let them tear each other to shreds! Next move: encourage ASCH to defend their “honor” and hit back at Oz. That in turn will provoke Oz to new depths of madness, and around and around they go, wrestling in the mud."

It is a mistake to make merry while your enemies fight each other. The winner will be stronger and you will be in greater peril. (This is an ancient truism.) I think that is one of Orac's key points here, with Oz emerging from this as more dangerous than before.

There’s a GMO movement?

I saw a melon roll off the pile at the grocery store once - that was enough movement for me. I didn't ask it if it was genetically modified.

If I ever see an ear of corn walk down aisle 6 towards the breakfast cereals I'll know the movement has gone too far.

And Mikey hitches his wagon to a star, applauding Oz- and Fuhrman as well whilst decrying ( in bold) the
"utter abandonment of real journalism"
I swear I didn't make that up.

BTW, the Oz segments are all available online now, so that you can see for yourself:

There was another long segment recapping some of what Dr. Oz has said about GMOs, but that doesn’t appear to be online, perhaps because it consisted mainly of snippets from past Oz shows.

Kelley B @10
" I also believed for several years that so-called Western medicine was reductive"
This denigration of reductionism goes back a long way - I remember it being advanced by many years ago by people who thought they were being smart. But what did they have to offer instead: snake oil and hand waving. Virtually all we have we owe to so-called reductionism. All the progress that's been made is by looking at parts in isolation, and deducing cause-and-effect. It's due to that that most of us can look forward to reaching our eighties nowadays.
And yes, when it comes to the human body, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but by their fruits shall ye know them: what has holism (whatever it is) got to show for itself? As you imply these truisms sound impressive, but they don't get us anywhere.

I am not a fan of the Dr.Oz show. However, all of your arguments here sound like whinny little children or like religous fundamentalists defending their belief system. Our world today relies on scientic methods of research and substantiation and so we must trust in the scientific process even at the risk of our personal beliefs being challenged or overturned. But one sees It is all over this blog: outrage at the challenge that traditional medicine is beyond reproach. Call it evidence based medicine at your own peril. The number of deaths or serious side effects from taking sugar pills is near zero. The same cannot be said for prescription medicine. Or hospital stays. The third or fourth leading cause of deaths in the u.s. Are from medical mistakes; in hospitals; with approved medicines. How many people lose their lives to homeopathy or psychic readings? Dr. Oz would seem to be guilty of promoting 'medical' products without verifiable evidence to support his claims but, that is not the issue. The issue is, is he doing more harm than good? Seems to me he has a lot of people thinking about taking better care of themselves; save you and your doctors time by maintaining a health lifestyle. He doesn't like GMO's? So. Neither does the U.N. In short your argument here seems to be he doesn't think like you so he should go. He a medical degree from a top university, is a successful surgeon, has a TV show that includes 'alternative' therapies and you all seem to be of the mind that that last item invalidates the first two. Put down your statins and go meditate.

all of your arguments here sound like whinny little children

Something something Catherine the Great something.

lvr really needs to get a new schtick. The tone trolling and ranting about how dangerous medicine supposedly is are old hat for trolls around here.

More Info on one of the signers – Paging Dr. Ross
 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/11/paging-dr-ross
 “But Ross may not be ACSH’s most prudent choice to question the credibility of other doctors, scientists, and researchers. Although the biography posted on the organization’s website doesn’t mention it, Ross actually had to abandon medicine on July 24, 1995, when his license to practice as a physician in New York was revoked by the unanimous vote of a state administrative review board for professional misconduct. Instead of tending to patients, Ross spent all of 1996 at a federal prison camp in Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, having being sentenced to 46 months in prison for his participation in a scheme that ultimately defrauded New York’s Medicaid program of approximately $8 million. During a three-and-a-half-week jury trial, federal prosecutors laid bare Ross’ participation in an enterprise, headed by one Mohammed Sohail Khan, to operate four sham medical clinics in New York City. For his scam to work, Khan needed doctors who could qualify as Medicaid providers, and Ross responded to an ad in the New York Times promising “Very, very good $$.”

www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/11/paging-dr-ross
"The scheme was brazenly larcenous: The clinics, which were later described as "very dirty and unsanitary," raked in indigent patients—most of them homeless, alcoholic, or drug-addicted men—by offering them prescriptions for expensive drugs that they could resell on the street for cash. Word spread fast, and in streamed patients who, in exchange for the valuable scrip, would provide their Medicaid recipient numbers, give blood samples, and undergo medically unnecessary examinations, procedures, and tests. All of this brought Ross and the other doctors in the scheme money from the state's Medicaid system, a percentage of which was kicked back to Khan."

Ivr, your post shows a seriously warped sense of logic. The words 'bat-sh!t insane' come to mind when reading it.

To start with, perhaps you would like to detail how many heart attack victims have been saved with homeopathy or psychic readings?

What is that you say? Zero.

Well that tells us something. Homeopathy and psychic reading are not used as first line medical treatments, because they don't actually work as medicine. If these were to be used instead of normal medicine, the number of deaths due to medical intervention would be the number 1 killer in the land, by ever so much.

Normal medicine operates on evidence. When the evidnce goes against a practice, such as homeopathy or psychic reading, that practise is given the boot (except by so-called alternative medicine practitioners).

Sadly some sick people die from the side effects of medicines, because medicines are designed to have physiological activity. And sometimes that activity is manifest as a side effect - given not all people are the same.

As for Dr Oz, yes indeed he has a medical degree and was a succesful surgeon. However, neither of those things make his claims about alternative medicine real. It is only proper evidence that would do that.

ken, we have already got the picture about Ross. Days ago in fact when the letter was first posted.

Ross' s past does not make his claims about Oz wrong, because that after all is based on evidence. They do make it unfortunate that he signed the letter, given he has provided such an opportunity for the likes of you to ignore the evidence.

#13 Grey S
Why You Can’t Trust the American Council on Science and Health
usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/

www.usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-…

“Columbia medical faculty: What do we do about Dr. Oz?”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/04/23/dr-oz-show-columbia-do…
#108 The article concludes-
We support Columbia’s commitment to faculty freedom of expression in public discussion with the caveat that physicians offering medical advice carry a great responsibility for honesty and accuracy to the public and their peers……..Barring such scrutiny, Dr. Oz might begin each program with a simple disclaimer: “The opinions expressed on this program may not be evidence-based or part of accepted medical practice and have no endorsement fromColumbia University.”

ken@31
Your posts are so bizarre. Grey Squirrel said:

ASCH really are industry shills, with unsavory financial ties and a leader who is a convicted felon (and from the descriptions, probably a diagnosable sociopath).

Why do you feel the need to link to something that says exactly what he already. As a matter of fact, Orac already addressed it in his article. And as ChrisP mentioned Dr. Ross' conviction and general unsavory-ness have already been discussed here. Why do you link and quote articles about topics already addressed without actually adding anything to the conversation?

Not really related to this article, but I'm tickled to see the meme I created a mere 2 days ago on reddit show up here. :)

#34 capkrunch -explaining the details of the felony obviously.
I guess with your limited moral integrity you can't see the difference between the two- Ross and Oz.
Columbia has made their decision and recommended that Oz open his show with a disclaimer. This is realistic given he is an MD. He should open his show this way.
A lot of the posters here are so anal retentive they can't let issues go. This is one of them. His show goes on and he will remain at Columbia.
Your comment is more bizarre. It's called "fact checking" exactly what the crime was. Calling an MD a felon is a serious charge but I guess you can't be bothered with fact checking.

Oracular indeed.

What do you think, Orac, or anyone else, why the letter was written? Is it just that sweeping back the endless streams of bullshit got the 10 overwrought to the point of ill-considered public attack?

Why was that letter not so well-planned and well-coordinated as even a few hours of consultation with, for example, Orac would have facilitated?

I have no good ideas on this. Just wondering?

I do see the difference between Oz and Ross. One is a shady character who accepts science. One is a shady character who rejects science.

But the person does not matter. What matters is the science. I am actually grateful that Ross signed the letter. In this way we can see who think ad hominem attacks are more important than the underlying science.

Sadly some sick people die from the side effects of medicines, because medicines are designed to have physiological activity. And sometimes that activity is manifest as a side effect – given not all people are the same.

And this is another reason cannabis prohibition is so egregious. The patented 'medicines' modeled upon the action of various cannabinoids are invariably flawed just a bit.

If one has a key made at Malwart, just as often than not, that key breaks off in your ignition switch doing strange things depending on the state of the cylinder before fail -- Side effects. Hmm. And industry uses the same soft language for 'airbags' instead of properly calling them 'car bombs'.

Never forget that the side impact car bomb deployed, knocking the driver into the security guard with such force that it imploded his skull, and then the car hit the 13'th pillar.

OK, Oz has dug in, and staked his defense on the "big industry" attack.

But he's got a problem. What does he do when the next letter comes from a group of doctors that don't have the industry ties? If a few doctors from the Mayo clinic send in a letter and say, "We don't have ties to industry, but we read the letter the others sent and we concur with their complaints. You are a problem."

Or what if it is from a group practice in Taos, NM?

You can think that this letter was a bad move, but I can see the upside: he didn't deny the charges. So what does he do when he doesn't have an ad hominem available?

The move forward is clear - let the criticisms come from all sides. Blogging doctors that criticize him? Suddenly come to the forefront. You just need the journalist to write the story, "Oz accuses his critics of being industry shills. But they aren't all..."

Dr. Oz Breaks His Silence

Excuse my skepticism about "Dr Oz" and "silence".

@Marry Me, Mindy - I think the first letter has poisoned the well. Any future such letter will be seen as derivative and likely will be ignored by the producers, the network, the university, and the press.

It was picked up in national news the first time due to novelty; I doubt any future letter would get as much attention.

ken, we have already got the picture about Ross.

Ken has apparently deduced that she has a safer bet in boneheaded link spamming than in coming up with boneheaded originals.

ken@35

I guess with your limited moral integrity you can’t see the difference between the two- Ross and Oz.

No one is arguing that Ross is an upstanding person. I was merely wondering aloud about your inability to contribute beyond pasting links. Now I'm also wondering about your reading comprehension.

#44 capn I do not indulge in excess verbiage or proselytize my opinions. I state facts. I am fair enough in considering differing "opinions" and welcome fact based arguments with links.

ken@45

I state facts.

Nope. You post links. Besides your reply to me the only words of your own in this thread are from #33: "#108 The article concludes-". Using links to support a point is different from quoting an article and adding nothing original to it. Not even new links. Note that Orac's article contains the link to MotherJones RE: Ross.

@Capn - exactly, all she does is post links, with no context.

Ken's purpose here at this point, as far as I can tell, is twofold: she wants some sort of validation that she's really SMURT, and she wants to do some pearl clutching if anybody dares to respond to her in a way that she feels isn't "civilized" enough. I'll point out that she doesn't seem to mind dishing out insults, she just doesn't like it when they're directed at her.

"exercise, yoga & movement therapy, and a chef program. Yes, Dr. Oz has become a TV snake oil salesman, but selling snake oil is what quackademia increasingly does."

Why would you include exercise in a list of quack treatments for cancer? There is a strong and growing evidence-base for the value of therapeutic exercise in the management of cancer. Great article otherwise.

Simon Cummings@49
Orac marked the quackery with "(quackery)". Those ones youisted were unmarked because they, like you said, are science based modalities that have been coopted by alt med types.

Peter D @23:
Thanks for the additional observations on the term "reductive."

@49 Simon, He didn't say exercise was quackery. He listed all the modalities used there and followed several of the modalities with (quackery). There were several modalities that he did not put (quackery) behind because those aren't considered quackery.

I was impressed at how prescient your post was.

I think it's also notable that the Environmental Working Group gets a lot of its funding from anti-GMO Organic food companies- another fact that Oz failed to mention.

I have a hard time seeing, "Hey Columbia, we have a hard time taking you seriously when you keep a quack on staff" as being out of line.

I think the difference is that unlike with Orac, the accusations against Oz are not false.

#39:

Never forget that the side impact car bomb deployed, knocking the driver into the security guard with such force that it imploded his skull, and then the car hit the 13’th pillar.

What on Earth are you jabbering about?

It's Tim, LW. That was fairly coherent for him, if by coherent you mean "trying to convince us that airbags are 'car bombs.' and that they don't save lives overall because a few people are killed by them in rare instances."

Pareidolius@56
Tim's absurd premise was only a couple logical leaps from being tangentially related to the topic at hand AND ken responded to me with her own words instead of a link and a quote. Everyone's giving 110% today.

Orac, your reply is hilarious, dangerous and off the mark. You should talk with ChrisP you both have equally bad aim.
ChrisP, you are comparing apples and oranges and I think you may be slightly unhinged. Do you really think people experiencing heart attacks are going to go look up an episode of Dr. Oz to see what they should do? No one anywhere near this blog or on the Oz show (as I understand it, I've never seen it) has ever advocated against calling a qualified Dr. Or EMT in a time of emergency. Also, I have not said all medicine is bad as you seem to indicate. Just that everyone here needs to stop freaking out everytime a medical professional or respected medical establishment suggest maybe, just maybe, trying to change your diet get more sleep, or other therapies as a way to deal with medical issues. Public discussion of medical practices and procedures is a good thing and not a scary thing. And Orac,
Criticism of business as usual medical practice is valid as ChrisP says so well, different people are different and sometimes what is right for one is not right for another. For what it is worth it looks like Ken (33) the only one here that got it right. Appologies Ken if you get pegged in my dreaded camp.

No one anywhere near this blog or on the Oz show (as I understand it, I’ve never seen it)

Your concern is thus all the more poignant.

Put down your statins and go meditate.

Namusty.

IVR:
You've never seen the Oz show and you think it's all about diet tips and sleep? Why not chill out and admit that you don't know what the hell you're talking about?

IVR@24

Call it evidence based medicine at your own peril.

Speaking of evidence you need to provide some. I have some that's rather contrary to your statements.

The third or fourth leading cause of deaths in the u.s. Are from medical mistakes; in hospitals; with approved medicines.

According to the most recent public CDC data (pdf), 2,768 people died of complications of medical or surgical care in 2013. I'm not going to sort the data to figure out exactly which place it is but suffice to say it is significantly lower than third or fourth (there were 2,596,993 deaths from all causes that year).

He doesn’t like GMO’s? So. Neither does the U.N.

From the WHO:

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.

----

He a medical degree from a top university, is a successful surgeon, has a TV show that includes ‘alternative’ therapies and you all seem to be of the mind that that last item invalidates the first two.

Well the first two items certainly don't invalidate the third. Quackery is quackery regardless of who is promoting it.
@58

Do you really think people experiencing heart attacks are going to go look up an episode of Dr. Oz to see what they should do?

Homeopathic asthma inhalers and vaccines beg to differ. There is potential for real harm if these are used instead of real treatment.
h[]p://www.amazon.com/Relief-Products-Therapy-Dissolving-Tablets/dp/B00A1QEZYU…

Asthma Therapy provides temporary relief for Asthma / COPD symptoms, such as: difficulty breathing, spasmodic coughing, shortness of breath, inflammation in the airways, wheezing, and sensation of chest tightness and congestion

Seems a little dangerous, no?

...trying to change your diet get more sleep, or other therapies as a way to deal with medical issues.

No one here has any issue with these nor is there anything alternative about them. What we do take issue with is his promotion of quackery.

P.S. claiming that ken's link spam is the only comment that gets it does little to help your case

The third or fourth leading cause of deaths in the u.s. Are from medical mistakes; in hospitals; with approved medicines.

According to the most recent public CDC data (pdf)....

You're failing to use the decoder ring.

and then the car hit the 13’th pillar.

Princess Diana Truther conspiracy theories are one of the many domains of human thought for which I can summon no interest at all.

@ TBruce

You’ve never seen the Oz show and you think it’s all about diet tips and sleep?

Even if it was so, the completely half-@ssed approach Dr Oz' team took with the "miracle" green coffee bean extract diet pills would qualify Dr Oz as an incompetent money-grubber.
I mean, asking a supplement vendor if he is an expert on the stuff, invite him to the show in that amounts to a fantastic opportunity for free advertisement for his products, and at no point realizing the guy started packaging his own green bean products AFTER he got the invitation to the show...

"Today, we are receiving an expert in diet pills with a full 5 minutes of experience in the field"

That being said, I would recommend to the curious reader to hop on Jen Gunter's blog for a little list of the dubious modalities that Dr Oz has supported in his show, at one point or another.

https://soundcloud.com/cbc-fresh-air/dr-oz-controversy-with-dr-brett-be…

Interesting interview on CBC radio. Dr. Belchetz is not a great fan of Dr. Oz.

Dr. Belchetz seems to have missed the criminal conviction of one of the doctors signing the letter but ... He does seem to handle the conflict-of-interest matter not too badly.

He makes in interesting point that Dr. Oz should not lose his position but that the university perhaps should not have him in an executive position.

He has some interesting personal experiences about effective censoring by advertisers and how they may have influenced Dr. Oz.

With Ana Maria Trimonte's measles interview and now this, it also seems like CBC Radio is not a fan of wow.

Err, make woo. I think they like Wow if it ups ratings.

In the end, all that Henry Miller managed to accomplish is to provide Dr. Oz an excuse to attack and crush his critics.

No. Miller got want he wanted. He got lots of pub for Hoover and ASCH. It doesn't matter if this turns out to be 'bad' pub to the eyes of the general public. That just rallies the 'base' even more, and makes fund-raising easier. This is about pulling in big $$ from a few whales. Miller went from being a nobody to being 'the guy Oz attacks,' That's good for Oz because Miller's so attackable. But it's better for Miller because it elevates his political stature immensely to be attacked by someone as famous and popular as Oz. As kreb (IIRC) pointed out in a previous thread, Miller has grabbed the 'anti-Oz' position away from more credible and legitimate critics – he kind of 'owns it' now, making it difficult for others to chime in. So the letter signatories are the ones who'll get interviewed now. (THERE's your 'false balance', btw...) And they'll be collecting the clippings to forward as part of funding appeals, including ALL the attacks and critiques from all sides: 'see how embattled we are? how much we need your help for our good work?' – that 'work' being using science selectively for shilling. They'll also benefit from support from folks who should know better but are so cheezed at Oz's shenanigans they'll fall into the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend' trap as long as some of Oz's quacking is called-out in the name of science, no matter how propagandistic the frame.

Most of the science press got hornswaggled. Orac's commendably quick re-think seems to been an exception, sadly, but probably helped greatly in bringing other sources to look into the letter with a properly skeptical eye eventually.

Oz wins. Miller wins. Sbm loses.

Going off-topic: The recent flurry of "Supplements Increase Cancer Risk, New Study" news items collapsed under scrutiny:

In a follow-up post, McBurney wrote that there was, in fact, no presentation of new study data by Byers at the AACR meeting, and that “The entire news cycle linking multivitamin/mineral supplements with cancer risk seems to have been stimulated by the university press release alluding to a commentary published in 2012.”

I confirmed McBurney’s account with Garth Sundem in the University of Colorado media relations department this morning. He told me that there is no new meta-analysis, and that the “study” referred to in these news accounts is indeed the 2012 paper cited by McBurney (apparently a narrative review of the evidence and not study per se) from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Were random Respectful Insolence commenters making the same critique, several days earlier? Apparently they were!

capnkrunch, so you want facts here goes.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/medical-mistakes-…,
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/20/224507654/how-many-die-from-…
Next:
"... Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists "...Moreover, he said conventional crossbreeding or cross-pollinating of different varieties for desirable traits, along with improved farming, are getting better results boosting yields at a lower cost." There's a lot more like that; its not that GMO's aren't safe its that they are being sold fraudulently by a large company that knows you will become completely dependent on their seed stocks. still in doubt? go here:
http://www.technologywater.com/post/69995394390/un-report-says-small-sc… - read into the article for the link to report.
Then this,
http://www.drugs.com/symbicort.html Seems safe to me! Ha!
Homeopathy may be bunk, but one can still be highly skeptical of the others effectiveness and dangers. Don't rule something out just because it's not synthesized.
How about this: Instead of wasting your time whining about a Dr. on tv, why don't you clean your own house first? This debate can go on and on and prove nothing; In the end teaching people how to think critically and evaluate all options is the way to go.

At least 1,000 U.S. doctors say they think Dr. Mehmet Oz should resign from his faculty position at Columbia University in New York, a new poll finds.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/more-than-1000-doctors-say-dr-o…

IVR:

I had 2 uncles who died in childhood of asthma in the 1940s. If they had modern medicines like Symbicort available, I would have gotten to know them as I grew up. Oh, but maybe Symbicort would have killed them! What a dilemma.
But at least they would have had a chance.

Okay, we'll just wait till everything in science-based medicine is 100% PERFECT before we start criticizing conscience (or nonsense) based medicine? Sorry, that's not going to happen.

God I hate autocorrect: nonscience, not conscience.

IVR. . .

Your sources for that third leading cause of death info are really just one source. The extrapolations of a toxicologist who works at NASA (and whose son, he maintains, died from negligent hospital care) -- and a senator's website, which cites the NASA guy's extrapolations (which appeared in The Journal of Patient Safety).

http://journals.lww.com/journalpatientsafety/Fulltext/2013/09000/A_New,…

The ranking is obviously at odds with the CDC's data on leading causes of death in the US.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Some critical thinking might include considering more than the estimate of one man when tossing out "facts".

@IVR #69

Sad how the Union of Concerned Scientists has been coopted by the woowoos. You can't hardly trust them any more than a gang of Monsanto Shill Scientists.

IVR: "This debate can go on and on and prove nothing; In the end teaching people how to think critically and evaluate all options is the way to go."

Sure, I'll bite. Edumacate me on thinking criticlly by giving mr viable options for the following issues faced by our family:

1- A two day old newborn who has a "shiver" in the morning. Then another longer one later, and by evening is having multiple seizures that become longer, stronger and quicker.

2- Three small children with strep infections.

3- Obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

4- Colles fracture

Do tell us how all of those can be resolved without anticonvulsants, antibiotics, beta-blockers, surgery... and anesthesia for the surgery.

Typing with one hand because my Colles fracture involved both arm bones into the wrist... surgery used small titanium plates to realign them to the wrist, and while it was weird to have my forearm turn into a paralyzed pendulum pivoting at my elbow for a day, I don't think it could have been done if I was not immobilized. Do you think they should have just strapped me down and gave me something to bite on?

You are smarter than us so I know you'll give good viable alternatives to fix my fall injury without a risk of arthritis, and a way to prevent the extra heart muscle gowth from blocking the kid's aortic valve without hooking him to a heart-lung machine so they can remove the blood before cutting away the extra muscle. You can do that. Right?

#75 Dr Oz
Aortic Valve Implantation Animation | The Dr. Oz Show
www.doctoroz.com/vp-videos/aortic-valve-implantation-animation

#76 Dr. Oz: Heart Valve Surgery & Feeling Young Keeps You From Aging
www.wellbuzz.com/dr-oz-general-health/dr-oz-heart-valve-surgery-feeling…

#77 Dr. Oz: Phytoceramides Drop a Decade From Your Face
http://i.imgur.com/DUP8v.png

#2 DLC - Love it! I'm going to quote Jon Oliver (Last Week Tonight) here, who suggested Oz re-name the show, "Check this sh** out, with some guy named Mehmet."

As a law student (a lawyer in about 6 months) my heart hurts every time someone says their freedom of speech is being infringed when a private individual tells them to shut up. People always ask if Law and Order angers me with legal inaccuracy, but this gets me way more than Law and Order ever could.

IVR,
So what's your alternative to SymbiCort ? I have been on it for a couple of years, and it has my asthma completely under control. Shouldn't I be dead by now?

Stumbled across this:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/20/dr_oz_letter_medicaid…

@ Chris:

That sounds quite horrendous. I hope you're feeling better.

To continue what you said above...

most people probably HAVE witnessed how simple medications ( beta/ calcium channel blockers, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, acid blockers etc) have helped people they know HOWEVER alt med supporters need to constantly rankle up horror stories to frighten their audience away from SBM and hopefully towards their own philosophy and product listings.

Here's a simple truth: many of the medications I listed save people from operations ( ulcers used to be treated by surgery), long term disability and other extremely undesirable outcomes like death. For example, my father was over 80 and one night rapidly became confused, weak and had bloody urine. He seemed to be on his last legs BUT rapid testing at an emergency unit revealed a serious infection, a gastric ulcer and an uncommon arrhythmia which were promptly treated with an antibiotic, an acid blocker, diltiazem and a nitroglycerine patch. By the next afternoon, he acted like himself, reading the financial pages and insulting conservative politicians. AND he lived almost nine years, being quite well until the last 3 months.

We know about his family members who lived in 2 different countries over the past 140-150 years: no one lived as long as he and his sister did- they were not impoverished but educated business people who lived in modern cities.

Being eighty was quite remarkable even within my own memory. Not any more.

@Krebiozen

Some people do well on long-term LABA monotherapy without adverse effects so it doesn't kill everyone.

The problem is it does nothing for the underlying inflammation and depending on your system for some people the inflammation can get bad enough no amounts of LABA and rescuer inhaler even when taking more and more will keep the airways open and sometimes so bad even mechanical ventilation won't get the oxygen in enough to keep you alive. My sense is sometimes for some people by the time they really get into crisis they tried to manage on their own by upping the dose of the LABA and rescue inhalers it may be so bad it is very hard for them to get it under control in the hospital.

If you don't tend to get into a crisis mode with the inflammation (which is why sometimes the question is are more people on long term LABA monotherapy (or combo therapyt dying from the drug or because their asthma on average is a lot worse and more likely to lead to a lethal event.

Usually if that is what works for you, and if corticosteroids by themselves don't work or you can't tolerate them even in a combo, they will do the LABA monotherapy even if way down on the guidelines list of preferred ways to treat asthma.

Just an armchair suggestion, and probably what you know already, but if you are on LABA monotherapy and you start getting breakthrough symptoms don't just up the LABA and short term rescue inhalers especially if you find you are escalating he use. See the doc as you may be headed to where you need a week or two of prednisone to get the lungs to knock off the inflammation and you want to start that while you still have enough days of being able to keep the airways open enough to breath for the predinsone to kick in. Big problem with the steroids is they aren't a quick fix and you gottta stay alive until they kick in. My docs usually do the cortiosteroids alone between problems (or nothing when I'm doing really good) and then add in the LABA when I have an exacerbation that doesn't control and add prednisone if need be to get me to the other side of the inflammation crisis. I find the LABA's tend to not get me as jittery as the short acting beta agonists.

For the most part if I don't get a respiratory infection I can be medication free, but I get really bad really fast if I get a cold or worse.

IVR@69
I have to question James' methodology. Two of his 4 studies were solely Medicare patients which is hardly a representative population. In fact, one of the studies (pdf) explicitly stated (p9):

Findings from this study are limited to the particular geographic area
and timeframe covered by our review and cannot be generalized to the
Medicare population at large.

Also note that a significant part of his estimate is errors of ommission, patients who would have died had they not gone to the hospital.

Regardless, improving patient safety is always a good goal so even if the estimate is high that's not neccessarily a bad thing. Shooting high might even inspire more research and better programs. There are definitely issues that need to be addressed, in particular healthcare associated infections. However, I don't think it's justification to say let's throw out the whole system and use homeopathy instead.

Another interesting statistic from the CDC is:

The number of inpatient hospital deaths decreased 8%, from 776,000 in 2000 to 715,000 in 2010, while the number of total hospitalizations increased 11%.

Are there reforms needed? Absolutely. But they are implementation reforms. The US healthcare system has a lot of problems but the foundation of science based medicine is not fundamentally flawed. Even if you compare US patient safety to the rest of the developed world and find it lacking, it's certainly not because they use alternative medicine instead of science.

Homeopathy, Ayurveda and all the other therapies, herbal supplements have their place. They should be complementary to alleopathic medicine not rivaling it. It's not quackery but complementary. Doctor Oz is a quack, make no mistake about it but these alternative therapies have a place and did work in history.

KayMarie,
Thanks, if I have an exacerbation I will remember your advice. The last time I had an asthma review I was told that being well-controlled on SymbiCort, which I am, is ideal. I'm in the UK so perhaps different guidelines apply. When I first started getting symptoms I was sent for spirometry which was normal, and it took a full-blown asthma attack (O2 saturation 87% IIRC) in my GP's office to get a diagnosis.

Even then I was sent across the road to the pharmacist to be given lots of salbutamol with a spacer, and a short course of prednisolone, and the SymbiCort was prescribed for prophylaxis.

IVR,
You claimed that:

The third or fourth leading cause of deaths in the u.s. Are from medical mistakes; in hospitals; with approved medicines.

At risk of boring regulars I will repeat what I have written here before in this subject.

The trouble is that almost all the estimates of iatrogenic deaths I have seen, including the Institute of Medicine report 'To Err is Human', are based on Lazarou, who used a small number of studies, many from the 60s and 70s, to estimate iatrogenic death rates, and ignored studies that found no deaths. He then extrapolated from these to the entire US hospital population of 1988. It is almost certain to be badly wrong. Some estimate annual iatrogenic deaths in the US at around 225,000 deaths per year, while others estimate global iatrogenic deaths at 142,000 per year (Wiki entry on iatrogenesis). Something isn't right here.

Anyway, humans are only human and errors happen, but measures are continually being introduced to prevent them. When you consider that over 50 million medical procedures are carried out each year in the US, many of them carrying a serious risk of harm, if the 225,000 figure is correct, that's a 0.45% fatal error rate. It could be better, but that does put it in perspective, I think.

I'm never quite sure what point people are trying to make when they wave around these figures about medical deaths. Is it that medical professionals are incompetent idiots who don't take proper care of their patients? Or is it that the entire medical system is broken and not fit for purpose? Neither seem to be sustainable in the face of increasing active life expectancy in the developed world.

Also, those expressing outrage at these figures never seem to have an alternative to the current system. What would a naturopath do with an elderly patient brought in with type 2 diabetes, COPD, a clotting disorder, hypertension and chest pain? These types of patients with multiple morbidities are increasingly common, as anyone who has worked in a hospital knows. Doing nothing, or offering lifestyle advice, will likely result in death unless acute problems are addressed immediately. That means drastic interventions are required, and those interventions carry a high risk of serious injury or death if any of the medical professional involved make an error, or even if they do not.

Even assuming that these figures are accurate, which is questionable, they are meaningless unless we consider the benefits of these medical procedures and drugs as well. How many people's lives are saved by them? How many of these patients would have died anyway, without conventional treatment? How many patients have their quality of life improved by these treatments?

For example, anticoagulant drugs are among the most dangerous prescription drugs; they cause an estimated 2,800 excess major bleeds a year in the UK. They also prevent an estimated 16,100 strokes a year, including 4,400 fatal strokes (PDF) and the NHS estimates that prescribing more of them would prevent an additional 3,500 deaths each year. I'm sure that the figures in the US are very similar.

The answer, it seems to me, is better training, better working conditions, more checklists and other proven ways of reducing errors and improved medical interventions. In other words it isn't too much science based medicine that is the main problem, it is not enough.

clueless ken: "#76 Dr. Oz: Heart Valve Surgery & Feeling Young Keeps You From Aging"

And that is relevant to a twenty-odd year old with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy how?

By the way, Dr. Oz is not qualified enough to do a septal myectomy.

Krebiozen said:

" I'm never quite sure what point people are trying to make when they wave around these figures about medical deaths"

They're trying to frighten people about medical procedures, doctors, hospitals and meds because they realise that most people ALREADY fear these situations and events to some extent. This is their opening- a foot in the door, so to speak- a chance to stir up even more fear, uncertainty and doubt. If they scare consumers enough about the competition, they may possibly ensnare a few customers for themselves.

Perhaps a family member recently died and the survivors believe- mistakenly or not- that the medical care the patient received was not adequate or actually contributed towards death- they are potential allies who also have an axe to grind against SBM. Perhaps the survivors believed- contrary to probability- that a deceased family member COULD have been saved: the woo-meisters encourage this type of thought." IF ONLY they can consulted with ME", they crow although they have little to offer that is not based upon whimsy and wishful thinking.

A great deal of what I survey in woo-topia involves this type of emotional manipulation and underhanded distortion of medical data on a DAILY BASIS which is then repeated ad infinitum until audiences believe it to be real . Similarly, figures are tossed about like confetti because the perpetrators know that few people will ever look it up.

Here's something I chanced upon today that illustrates woo-
I was looking over old videos by various miscreants amd disemblers and found quite a few that purported to tell the TRUE tale of hiv/ aids - mostly that it doesn't really exist or that doctors use poison to control it BUT these videos seem to all be from years ago not the past year or so. I wonder why that is?
Why aren't alternative health practitioners or theorists making videos about altie cures for aids these days?
That used to be a very popular topic.

Kate: "Homeopathy, Ayurveda and all the other therapies, herbal supplements have their place"

Not really.

Homeopathy is literally nothing since the "active" ingredient is diluted past Avogadro's Number.

Ayurveda are pr-scientific nostrums that often contain heavy metals.

Herbal have actual chemicals with real pharmacological effects, but doses vary. There may be none or they could be toxic, especially if they have been adulterated.

Search for articles on them in this blog. Also see:
http://www.sfsbm.org/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=606&It…

Homeopathy, Ayurveda and all the other therapies, herbal supplements have their place. They should be complementary to alleopathic medicine not rivaling it.

The only one of these that isn't "allopathic" is homeopathy.

Homeopathy, Ayurveda and all the other therapies, herbal supplements have their place.

That place being the rubbish bin.

#75 Chris #83 Denice I am certainly not arguing about the life-saving advances of SBM. My aunt wouldn't have lost 2 children to Rh- incompatibly, my other aunt would not have had a brain-damaged child due to lack of oxygen at birth, my father would not have died at 59 due to damage from rheumatic fever as a child (result of a strep infection probably) and untreated hyperthyroidism; I had blood poisioning from an infected wound as a child-
I asked "what's this red line running up my leg" and got rushed to the dr.- thank god for penicillin. Oh and my sister has been on synthroid since a teenager and was able to have a healthy child. My mother had an angioplasty and lived 15 more years. I was able to manage very slight asthma by a change in diet- no dairy, very little sugar, lots of vegs, meat (no red) and fish 3x week- I was prescribed an inhaler which i had to use very rarely.
Fotunately no ill effects from VPDs. (no one was vaccinated except for the small pox vaccine I received as a child, then the polio at 13.

What would a naturopath do with an elderly patient brought in with type 2 diabetes, COPD, a clotting disorder, hypertension and chest pain?

Well, duh, they'd refer the patient straight to the nearest emergency ward.

#89 Chris- But he can do a heart transplant-
"People like Grace Kelly-McGovern of Kings Park have a markedly different opinion of the embattled doctor. Two decades ago, when Ms. Kelly-McGovern’s son was 5, he got so sick he required a heart transplant, she said.
The Columbia University cardiologist who performed the lifesaving surgery? You guessed it: Dr. Oz, who at the time was still 14 years away from getting his own TV program.
“He saved my son’s life,” Ms. Kelly-McGovern said. “He can do no wrong in my book.

@ken - and when was the last time Dr. Oz performed a heart transplant?

Denice,

They’re trying to frighten people about medical procedures, doctors, hospitals and meds because they realise that most people ALREADY fear these situations and events to some extent.

I guess the snake-oil salespeople are motivated that way, but I see the same thing from those who don't appear to have wares to sell. Do they truly believe that modern scientific medicine does more harm than good? Perhaps they simply haven't thought things through.

It would be lovely if all we had to do to remain healthy was to have a healthy lifestyle, but it takes a profound ignorance of history, biology and medicine (at a very minimum) to believe that is actually the case. Despite years of exposure to the likes of IVR I still find myself bemused by the arrogance of people who have not only swallowed such an idiotic narrative, but accuse others who are less gullible of sounding like "whinny little children" [sic]. Still, it entertains me, so I shan't grumble.

Krebiozen@98

...“whinny little children” [sic].

Neigh

@ Krebiozen:

Those who haven't snake oil products or treatments to sell may instead be 'selling' their philosophy and themselves: they write books and squander their lives pontificating on facebook as they adore themselves for being 'ahead of the curve' paradigm shifters as they shake their fingers at greedy, selfish, egotistical doctors.

-btw- would you ever want to have a drink with any of the people we discuss?

I had blood poisioning from an infected wound as a child-
I asked “what’s this red line running up my leg” and got rushed to the dr.

Oh, dear, it was almost Calvin Coolidge, Jr., all over again. Lymphangitis isn't "blood poisoning," BTW.

- thank god for penicillin.

Yah, some people might have thought to go to the doctor once the infection was apparent. Then again, disclaiming the possibility of there being any issue until the evidence is overwhelming is a sine qua non in certain circles.

"What would a naturopath do with an elderly patient brought in with type 2 diabetes, COPD, a clotting disorder, hypertension and chest pain?"

"Well, duh, they’d refer the patient straight to the nearest emergency ward."

Not necessarily. A good naturopath will recognize if referral is necessary.

"The symptoms of angina are close to those of a panic attack and heartburn. It is common for people to confuse them. If in doubt it is always best to be checked out by your naturopathic doctor or other health care provider...
It is always advisable to work with a naturopathic doctor before engaging in any treatment plan."

There's a boatload of supplements that are good for angina, or what your naturopath thinks is angina.

"Other botanicals are often prescribed to treat other underlying conditions, such as hypercholestemia or Atherosclerosis
Gemmotherapies such as Ligustrum vulgare, Syringa vulgaris
Homeopathy such as: Aconitum nap, Belladonna, Lycopodium, Bellis, Spigelia, Naja, Glonoine, Selenicerus grandiflorus(Cactus)."

https://www.ndhealthfacts.org/wiki/Angina_pectoris

Aconitum nap

Sounds rather like a precursor to a dirt nap.

"Marked symptoms may appear almost immediately, usually not later than one hour, and with large doses death is almost instantaneous." (Wiki-p)

clueless ken: "#89 Chris- But he can do a heart transplant-"

And that has "what" to do with a septal myectomy, which is done "blind" by feel and a transesophageal echocardiogram?

#104 I hope you can find someone to do the "septal". Maybe Orac can recommend someone.
#101 Narad (thinks I'm brain dead.)
A lot of people have forgotten that penicillin use began in the 40s. Hard to imagine a world w/o antibiotics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWN97q7xtDE

Sounds rather like a precursor to a dirt nap.

It's not real homeopathy unless weird-ass abbreviations accompany the Latin, which as often is not isn't.* This one lucks out by virtue of having an actual binomial.

* Koff ☛"Nat mur"☚ koff.

@ ken:

Chris' son already had his surgery and is- FAIK- continuing to do well.

Oh crap- that's AFAIK

A lot of people have forgotten that penicillin use began in the 40s.
For values of "1940s" which include 1930-31.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&ai…

Narad, thanks for the link to TPR. My Handbook of Poisoning is terribly out of date, and its good to have a current resource, in case a contract should come my way of emergency.

The post on using IV lipids for various ODs, just below your linked post, caught my attention. I was just about to ask the anesthesiologist attending by eye rebuild a few weeks ago if he had ever used it when I was whisked away for the slice and dice part of the event.
Vinu never did respond when I mentioned large-volume IV lipids when he was banging on about the terrible proteins contaminating the tiny amounts of vegetable oil derived surfactants used in vaccines.

Dangerous Bacon@102

"The symptoms of angina are close to those of a panic attack and heartburn. It is common for people to confuse them."

Interestingly the last STEMI patient I had presented with a complaint of heartburn for 3 hours. It was actually an inferior MI. I talked with the cardiologist later who told me the posterior descending branch of his RCA had been 100% blocked.

In an absurd coincidence the last arrest I worked initially presented identically to a panic attack. History of anxiety, recent changes to meds, hyperventilation, restless. She had QT prolongation that degenerated into Torsades. Never found what caused the QT prolongation.

Both of them lived. I wonder if they would have if they had gone to a naturopath. I don't think their standard of care includes 12 leads.

clueless ken: "#104 I hope you can find someone to do the “septal”. Maybe Orac can recommend someone"

Reading comprehension seems to elude you. By the way there are several comments from me on this blog where I posted "medical mecca" in the location box.

I still want IVR to provide his sure fired alternative replacements to anticonvulsants, antibiotics, beta-blockers, surgery… and anesthesia for the surgery. He seems to have bravely run away. I really really hate folks who claim the medical interventions that have kept my family members alive are bad, yet can't answer my questions on viable alternatives.

#109 Thank you, Herr D. Too bad for Paine and the patients it could have helped.

The Real Story Behind Penicillin
www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-real-story-behind-the-worlds-first-ant…

Chris@112

...alternative replacements to anticonvulsants, antibiotics, beta-blockers, surgery… and anesthesia for the surgery.

Homeopathy, IV hydrogen peroxide, chelation, chiropractic, and acupuncture respectively.

Hope your arm is doing OK. Colles fractures always looked particularly painful to me.

John Oliver did a great takedown of America's Quack. Even threw in that on the Dr. Oz show where he had seven turds on the table that he was still the biggest piece of shit on the stage. Hilarious.

"Homeopathy, IV hydrogen peroxide, chelation, chiropractic, and acupuncture respectively."

Very funny.

"Colles fractures always looked particularly painful to me."

Thank you. Hooray for prescription strength ibuprofen. Which one takes on a full stomach followed by a full glass of water.

America's Quack is mentioned by John Oliver tonight. The insolence flows and is applaused.

Johnny
The other one.

Applaused?

The keyboard has been drinking, not me.

My Handbook of Poisoning is terribly out of date

Did you come across the ACEP app?

John Oliver presses the attack while Orac says "I told you so".

"I still want IVR to provide his sure fired alternative replacements to anticonvulsants, antibiotics, beta-blockers, surgery… and anesthesia for the surgery. He seems to have bravely run away. I really really hate folks who claim the medical interventions that have kept my family members alive are bad, yet can’t answer my questions on viable alternatives."
Chris, You sir are an idiot.
Most of you here are as well but are to arrogant to see it. Or believe it.
The reason I troll blogs like this (yes I admit it) is because what I see here is essentially an ideological witch hunt. I can site studies by prestigious universities, Dr.'s with world famous reputations and institutes of medicine considered to be amongst the best in the world and if one of them even deems to consider or evaluate or include something outside of your comfort zone of what you consider real medicine you all line up like sheep and cry witch! I am not trying to scare anyone as some suggest. I am not promoting one form of medicine over another. I am not saying don't take this drug or that. I am however pointing out that if someone as clearly as intelligent and trained in sciences as Dr. Oz can go down this path you have to ask why? And would you avoid that same path? Are you so much better than he is.
I posted a link to a well know drug and made a snarky comment and one of you geniuses asked "what should I take instead?" Really? No one advocated skipping a surgery for some herbs. Yet the hysteria over this quack and the so called quacks that are not doing things as you see fit is amazing. Since starting in on this blog I watched a few episodes of Dr. Oz. Didn't like it or him. But, he is clearly helping way more people than harming. His episode (or one of them anyway) on type two diabetes likely helped a lot of people reevaluate their health and go see a Dr. or at least start asking themselves some serious questions.. If anything this guy is sending more people to Dr.s. and that is good thing.
CapnKrunch you got clowned the hardest in this as far as I am concerned; you come across as the type of person that brings the rope to the trial.
Want to sensor Dr. Oz? Ok fair enough. Jump on him and call him a witch? He doesn't deserve it.

oops!
I meant to say Censor not sensor.
he he he

Speaking of witches: IVR, are you (personally or representing) the same IVR that spams my USPS mailbox with glossy sales pitches for magic potions that are claimed to improve various aspects of my health?

he he he

Does this remind anyone else of a past troll?

you all line up like sheep and cry witch!

I would pay good money to watch an all-ovine production of The Crucible.

ken @114
That a sober, factual account of the real story behind Penicillin as in your link interests you is a sign that perhaps all may not be competely lost with you. You ought to spend more time looking at sources on SBM like that, and reflect on what it's achieved for us. Then see if you can find one verified account of homeopathy or similar junk having achieved a single cure of a real disease.

@IVR #121

if someone as clearly as intelligent and trained in sciences as Dr. Oz can go down this path you have to ask why?

Simple: money.

Oz is not the first promising young man to sell his reputation for base lucre, and he won't be the last. A truism among the alt.whatever crowd holds that every scientist/doctor/politician is a sellout to Monsanto/Pharma/Corporations in every instance that said person does anything to the inconvenience of the mob.

I am however pointing out that if someone as clearly as intelligent and trained in sciences as Dr. Oz can go down this path you have to ask why?

Narcissism. Because attention from millions of adoring fans is intoxicating. Oz is clever and has realised that woo medicine draws a particularly loyal group of fans who want to be in on the secret with him.

And would you avoid that same path? Are you so much better than he is.

I certainly have. I am better than Dr Oz in that I don't tell fibs to the gullible.

There is a couple of things I have noticed about a lot of defenders of quacks. One is their inability to write coherent, well structured sentences and to spell correctly. I wonder if it is only coincidence. The second is that they consider any criticism of their idol to be censorship.

Chris, You sir are an idiot.
Most of you here are as well but are to arrogant to see it. Or believe it.
The reason I troll blogs like this (yes I admit it) is because what I see here is essentially an ideological witch hunt. I can site studies by prestigious universities....

Perhaps you'd like to share pointers to some of your other painfully sloppy carefully constructed prose efforts.

I can site studies by prestigious universities
Clearly these prestigious universities are not of fixed location, so the site of them and their studies is open to negotiation. Perhaps one of them is the Invisible College of Christian Rosenkreuz.

an all-ovine production of The Crucible

With Shaun in the role of John Proctor?

You'd need a good border collie for stage manager, though.

IVR,

Chris, You sir are an idiot.
Most of you here are as well but are to arrogant to see it. Or believe it.

Chris is neither a sir nor an idiot, and neither are most people commenting here, as you would know if you had taken the time to read a few comments. You seem to be somewhat of an exception in the idiot department.

The reason I troll blogs like this (yes I admit it) is because what I see here is essentially an ideological witch hunt.

How is criticizing Oz for promoting idiotic alternative health interventions any kind of witch hunt? Are you suggesting that reiki, psychic healing and green coffee extract are reputable treatments?

I can site studies by prestigious universities, Dr.’s with world famous reputations and institutes of medicine considered to be amongst the best in the world and if one of them even deems to consider or evaluate or include something outside of your comfort zone of what you consider real medicine you all line up like sheep and cry witch!

Go ahead and "site" [sic] some studies that support alternative medicine "by prestigious universities, Dr.’s with world famous reputations and institutes of medicine considered to be amongst the best in the world". No one is going to cry witch, unless the studies are claimed to support something truly ludicrous, like homeopathy, reiki or psychic healing. Even then our criticism are based on science, not prejudice. In other cases we may well point out problems with study design, conflicts of interest or misinterpretation of the results. That is not "crying witch", it's reasoned criticism. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with critical reasoning. It certainly seems so.

I posted a link to a well know drug and made a snarky comment and one of you geniuses asked “what should I take instead?” Really?

You posted a link to a page about SymbiCort and wrote "Seems safe to me! Ha!" What was the point of your comment if you were not suggesting that SymbiCort is unsafe? Uncontrolled asthma kills thousands and leads to millions of ER visits every year. If SymbiCort is unsafe, what else do you suggest? That's a serious question.

No one advocated skipping a surgery for some herbs.

You did appear to demonize a life-saving medication for no apparent reason.

Yet the hysteria over this quack and the so called quacks that are not doing things as you see fit is amazing.

What hysteria? How is pointing out that Dr. Oz promotes BS, which is undeniable, hysteria?

Since starting in on this blog I watched a few episodes of Dr. Oz. Didn’t like it or him. But, he is clearly helping way more people than harming.

Clearly? You know this how?

His episode (or one of them anyway) on type two diabetes likely helped a lot of people reevaluate their health and go see a Dr. or at least start asking themselves some serious questions.. If anything this guy is sending more people to Dr.s. and that is good thing.

I searched for "Dr. Oz diabetes" and the first thing I saw was, "Let's Outsmart & Reverse Diabetes Get Garcinia Cambogia Here" and found he has promotedGarcinia cambogia. Garcinia Cambogia is a weight-loss MLM scam, which not only has no convincing evidence to support it helping in weight loss, but it may even cause liver damage. How anyone can support a man who uses his medical credentials to sell useless and dangerous quack products like this is beyond me.

CapnKrunch you got clowned the hardest in this as far as I am concerned; you come across as the type of person that brings the rope to the trial.

Just because he called you out on the nonsense you posted here? That says a great deal about you.

Want to sensor Dr. Oz? Ok fair enough. Jump on him and call him a witch? He doesn’t deserve it.

No one is calling Dr. Oz a witch (though perhaps he deserves it for promoting psychic mediums). You, however, seem to want to censor those who have perfectly reasonable criticisms of the BS he promotes. You are part of the problem, it seems to me.

IVR: "Chris, You sir are an idiot."

And you are the one making claims you cannot support. Because real medicine is not perfect does not mean the nonsense peddled by snake oil purveyors work.

Thank you, Krebiozen.

I looked for a clip of last nights John Oliver segment, and it doesn't seem to be available yet unless you have HBO access. But here's the money quote by Oliver after he played the bit where Oz said his first amendment rights were under attack (bolding mine) -

Let’s be clear: The First Amendment protects Americans against government censorship, and that’s it. It does not guarantee you the right to simultaneously hold a faculty position at a prestigious private university and make misleading claims on a TV show.

It absolutely protects you to say whatever you like on it, just as it protects my right to say what I think about you on mine, which is this: You are the worst person in scrubs who has ever been on television—and I’m including Katherine Heigl in that. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to be worse than Katherine Heigl? You are also the admittedly handsome ringmaster of a middling mid-afternoon snake-oil dispensary and it says something that even when you do a show with seven fake models of human feces, the biggest piece of shit on the stage has his name in the title.

#133 Kreb
Dr Oz made a serious error in judgement by stating that garcinia cambogia can help in weight loss. However the link you posted is in no way connected to him. They used his name in selling their product and he had issued many disclaimers on his show that he did not endorse any products. Columbia made the decision that he should make a disclaimer -
“The opinions expressed on this program may not be evidence-based or part of accepted medical practice and have no endorsement from Columbia University.”
I'm sure Dr Oz has learned his lesson and will be more careful in his selection of topics. I hope so.
Since you searched for a link to diabetes- here is a link from the show on diabetes.
www.doctoroz.com/topic/diabetes
I'll leave it up to you to point out any fallacies.

@ken - I seriously doubt that Oz will change his ways, because he still has to come up with topics for a daily TV show...that lends itself towards quackery, because there is so much of it out there.

re "sir" Chris

Ha ha ha! I remember the good old days of 'Chris and Denis' and the other boys.

A cautionary lesson from Dr Oz - One will be remembered for their worst mistakes rather than for their greatest achievements.

ken:
Further to your comment 139:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/jokes/read/80464798/

Denice Walter: "Ha ha ha! I remember the good old days of ‘Chris and Denis’ and the other boys."

This brings back hilarious memories of Little Augie and Medeicien Man.

The top-25 syndicated weekly ratings should be on TVBTN tomorrow. If the Oz show manages an appearance, I'd say he successfully turned the effort into slightly more than a blip.

^ No, scratch that:

Please note that the syndicated weekly results are delayed versus normal reporting. While we get the broadcast and cable ratings for the prior Monday-Sunday period every Tuesday, there is an extra week of lag time with the syndicated ratings and these numbers are not for last week, but for the week before last.

Johnny@135
Found it. That was amazing.

Orac's alter ego gets a link on a kind of meh article on America's quack http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/27/opinions/vox-dr-oz-critics/index.html

ken@139

A cautionary lesson from Dr Oz – One will be remembered for their worst mistakes rather than for their greatest achievements.

Only if you fail to learn from it. Look at Edzard Ernst. He's something of a hero around here. Then there's Sam Homola the science based chiropractor at SBM and more recently Britt Hermes. Dr. Oz could certainly be the next but it doesn't seem like he has the ethics necessary to walk away.

If someone's already posted the link..sorry, can't be bothered to read through 150 comments....

But John Oliver has done with scathing humour what a bunch of science bloggers have been unable to do...

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/27/john_olivers_glorious_dr_oz_takedown_yo…

My vote for John Oliver for Skeptic of the Year....oh wait, wrong blog..

NewcoasterMD @147

But John Oliver has done with scathing humour what a bunch of science bloggers have been unable to do…

No, you've got that wrong : what you'll find here is (links to..) all the source material to prove that Oz is purveying horse droppings.

I've been looking at Dr. Oz's website.
A lot of his shows are pretty good.
But when he talks about dubious products and practices - why doesn't he question them?
For example, he's had mediums on the show.
Dr. Oz doesn't say he believes these people have paranormal powers.
He showed a brain scan of one of the mediums while she was in a trance.
But one got the impression that the brain scan was somehow proof that she was for real.
And Dr. Oz never got into the question of what does the brain scan show.
It might show she's really in a trance - but it doesn't show she's really communicating with the dead. And he doesn't make that clear.
And when he had the mediums on his show, why didn't he also have someone on there to explain how cold reading works? Derren Brown perhaps?
Dr. Oz has a golden opportunity to teach critical thinking and questioning on his show.
His reasoning for having dubious claims on his show seems to be that he needs the show to be popular, he needs to reach people where they are.
Would he lose a lot of viewers if he also had Derren Brown on the show? Would critical thinking - no snark, just questioning that keeps people from leaping to conclusions - be so unpopular?
I don't see why.
It might be a good idea to have such dubious claims on his show - if he also questions them.
His not questioning the claims - modeling uncritical acceptance for millions of people - is the problem.
He has a wife who has a lot of alt-med beliefs. Perhaps he learned not to question to keep peace with his wife?

I've been banned on "Science Based Medicine" solely for presenting evidence-based critical questions about glyphosate.

I would like to point this out to everyone, so you can see that the pro-GMO agenda relies in part on censorship to promote its views.

No, you were banned on SBM because you flooded a comment thread with abusive and insulting comments. Do the same thing here, and the same thing will happen to you.

A publicity stunt against Dr. Oz threatens to backfire spectacularly

oracknows — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 01:34:54 +0000

A publicity stunt against Dr. Oz threatens to backfire spectacularly

I didn't think I would be writing about this, but, then again, I seem to say that fairly frequently. Be that as it may, on Friday I wrote about a letter sent to Lee Goldman, MD, the Dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine at Columbia University complaining about Dr. Mehmet Oz's promotion of pseudoscience on his television show, which reaches millions. When I wrote my post, my first reaction was somewhat supportive, but with reservations. However, as I read your comments and thought about it some more, I started having second thoughts. Then, over the weekend, I had a rather prolonged exchange on Twitter during breaks in the action at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Meeting in Philadelphia, which I'm attending now. The more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that this letter, written by Dr. Henry I. Miller of the Hoover Institution, and signed by several doctors with ties to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), was an incredibly bad idea. This evolution in my thinking was helped along by other developments over the weekend.

I'll explain. I also might regret having continued my commentary, but, then, when did that ever stop me before? (Actually, you'll never know when, if, or how many times that's ever happened.)

In my post, I also described my discomfort with Dr. Miller and the signatories of his letter. For instance, the Hoover Institution isn't exactly known for its promotion of good science, given its history of denialism with respect to human-caused global climate change. Then, of course, I'm not exactly a big fan of ACSH, either. It's frequently on the right side of science, but seemingly only when that position aligns with industry positions. It's the reason why I didn't accept an offer to be on the board of scientific advisors of ACSH a few years ago.

Before I go on further, in the interests of full disclosure, I must confess my own issues with the approach Dr. Miller and his cosignatories took. As many of you know, there have been several attempts by quacks and antivaccinationists over the years to make trouble for me at my place of work. Not too long ago, a patient of Stanislaw Burzynski complained to my dean about my posts deconstructing her testimonial that she has been telling as "evidence" that Burzynski cured her of advanced breast cancer. As odd as it seems given how vociferously critical I have been of Dr. Oz's promotion of quackery on his TV show (remember, I'm the one who coined the term "America's quack" to describe him), I must admit that seeing Miller make trouble for Oz at his job over his extracurricular activities rubbed me the wrong way. True, I suppressed my distaste when I wrote my post last Friday, so powerful is my dislike for Dr. Oz and what he does on his TV show. But it didn't stay suppressed for very long. It has been argued that with Oz it's different, because Oz promotes quackery while I promote (or at least like to think I promote) good science and medicine, but even if that's true I can't help but remember that a key purpose of a letter to a person's employer is intimidation into silence or, in Oz's case given his popularity and the security of his position, to cause embarrassment and to provoke a response.

Now here's the problem. Regardless of whether I think it's a good idea or not or simply an attempt at bullying to write a letter like this, and even though Miller's letter was correct from a scientific standpoint about Dr. Oz, if you're going to write a letter like this it's generally a good idea to know what your goal is in doing so. What, exactly, is it you're trying to accomplish by writing a letter like this? Is it to get Dr. Oz fired? That's never going to happen, given that Dr. Oz has tenure and, unfortunately, it would take a hell of a lot before a university would try to remove a tenured professor. Indeed, as I've sarcastically mentioned, given that Dr. Oz is the director of the "integrative medicine" program at Columbia, promoting the "integration" quackery with science-based medicine is basically a big part of his job description! In a real world, that wouldn't be the case and what Oz does would be a problem, but, thanks to quackademia, it's no longer shameful to do that; whole divisions and departments in various academic medical centers are devoted to it. Oh, sure, quackademics like Oz wouldn't accept that characterization of what they do as valid, but I would counter that, other than featuring psychics like John Edward or Theresa Caputo on his show, what Oz does on his show is not really much different in terms of message than what he probably at Columbia: Promote acupuncture, naturopathy, homeopathy, and traditional Chinese medicine, among other things. Again, surely Dr. Miller must know this. so I assume that his goal was not to actually get Dr. Oz fired. Indeed, Columbia issued a statement supporting Oz on the grounds of academic freedom very rapidly, and, even in the unlikely event that Columbia were to fire Dr. Oz over his show, it would remove one of the likely strongest restraints that keeps Dr. Oz from going even deeper into the woo.

So what was Dr. Miller's goal?

Obviously, it was to create embarrassing publicity for Dr. Oz and Columbia University. After all, if Dr. Miller were really looking to cause problems for Dr. Oz he should have at least mentioned that Dr. Oz did a "made for TV" clinical trial he dubbed the "Green Coffee Bean Project" without bothering to obtain institutional review board (IRB) approval, something that is a direct violation of Columbia University and New York Presbyterian Hospital's (NYP) Human Subject Research Protection Program, which explicitly requires IRB approval for any clinical trial done by any Columbia University faculty member and NYP-affiliated faculty regardless of regardless of the location where the research is done. Now, as I pointed out, there is a slight gray area here, because clearly Oz's dubious green coffee bean clinical trial was not federally funded, but institutions that receive federal funding are required to abide by the Common Rule, which requires IRB approval of all human subjects research. Miller was either unaware of this issue, didn't realize that this was really the only "in" skeptics have to get Columbia to pay attention, or didn't care about it because what he really cares about is Oz's attack on GMOs. Mentioning that Oz conducted a dubious clinical trial for TV that was not approved by the Columbia/NYP IRB would have been a far more damning thing to mention with respect to possibly forcing Columbia to do more than issue a brief statement full of bromides about "academic freedom" than his pointed mention that Dr. Oz trashed GMOs on one of his shows.

In any case, as thoughtlessly as Miller and the ACSH acted, they did managed to get a fair amount of national press coverage, and the ACSH is virtually giddy over the press reaction:

Although, for years, Oz has been criticized in countless blogs and opinion pieces, which have appeared on a wide variety of websites, this is the first time that a coordinated effort to expose Oz for who he really is has generated a massive and unified response. It also puts Columbia University in the position where they have to either take action or defend their actions, or lack thereof.

ACSH’s Dr. Josh Bloom, a long time, vocal critic of Dr. Oz said, “Every once in while the right thing happens. This is one of those times. The line between ‘doctor’ Oz and ‘TV personality’ Oz has been blurred for a long time, leading many American’s to equate the two, and, in doing so perpetuating the ‘fame equals credibility’ myth. Dr. Miller’s letter has done much to dismantle this myth. It is well past the time that people finally learn the difference between real medicine and entertainment.”

Um. No. Dr. Miller's letter created a momentary press kerfuffle that is fading. One little letter to Dr. Oz's dean is not going to "dismantle" the myth that "fame equals credibility." To claim otherwise is the height of hubris. In fact, if there was a recent event that did more to tarnish the Dr. Oz brand, it was Senator Claire McCaskill's magnificent roasting of Dr. Oz in front of her Senate panel over his breathless promotion of various dietary supplements as the latest, greatest weight loss miracle ever. Then, late last year, the British Medical Journal published a study that showed that half of what Oz recommends on his show has either no or little evidence to support it. Indeed, if you want to see how far Dr. Oz's star has fallen, just witness what happened last November, when Dr. Oz's social media team asked Twitter to ask him questions under the hashtag #OzsInBox and Twitter went wild mocking him for his promotion of quackery.

In fact, part of the reason I've come to conclude that Dr. Miller's letter was a spectacularly bad idea is that it appears ready to backfire on him. That's because one thing Miller accomplished without a doubt is to piss off Dr. Oz. (No doubt that was intended.) Don't get me wrong. I'm all for pissing off Dr. Oz over the TV snake oil peddler he's become, but, I wonder, did Miller stop to think what the consequences might be if he actually succeeded in publicly embarrassing Dr. Oz in the national media without a clear idea of what his endgame would be? I don't think so, and Dr. Oz is in the process of responding. First, Dr. Oz released this statement on Facebook:

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. I will address this on the show next week.

Basically, you can see where this is going. Dr. Miller is a huge booster of GMOs, having served as the founding director of the FDA Office of Biotechnology, and you can bet that it didn't pass unnoticed that what provoked Miller to write his letter was not so much Dr. Oz's promotion of quackery but rather a specific fear mongering segment on The Dr. Oz Show about GMOs, in particular the non-browning apple. Not suprisingly, in his response, Dr. Oz is painting himself as not being anti-GMO but only "pro-information." What will Oz say in his show next week? I think there's a good hint in the insinuations in his brief statement above.

While Dr. Oz is, for the moment, predictably taking the high road, his admirers and fellow travelers, equally predictably, were not. Predictably, they were attacking Miller and his cosignatories as industry shills. The batshit crazy version of this shill gambit comes from—who else?—Mike Adams, in a pair of posts, entitled Vicious attack on Dr. Oz actually waged by biotech mafia; plot to destroy Oz launched after episode on glyphosate toxicity went viral and Mainstream media FAIL: Sleazebag doctors attacking Doctor Oz have histories of criminal fraud and ties to Monsanto's "Discredit Bureau". Indeed, if you want to see a textbook example of an ad hominem attack, look no further than to Adams' repeating allegations against John Entine that he physically abused his wife, which, even if true (and I haven't been able to find any source other than Mike Adams to back up this claim, although the court documents look authentic), has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not his arguments about GMOs are correct from a scientific standpoint.

Mike Adams was, as far as I could tell, first out of the gate with the shill argument, and, Mikey being Mikey, he turned the crazy up to 11. However, there are people who are much more in control of their impulses and whose business model doesn't depend on being as incredibly outrageous and incendiary in his rhetoric as Mikey's does. For instance:

It is important for physicians who invoke their medical degrees while endorsing products to make their allegiances and financial ties very transparent — and Dr. Oz deserves to be held to this standard. But by that standard, Dr. Miller and other self-described “distinguished physicians” on this letter also have some explaining to do.

Miller, whose employer, the Hoover Institution, is often described as a “Republican-leaning” or “conservative” 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 genetically engineered foods (or GMOs — the “O” standing for “organism”).

And in his advocacy, Miller is positively prolific. A quick web search reveals dozens upon dozens of articles and opinion columns touting the benefits of GMOs to consumers, developing economies and agribusiness — and a seemingly equal number attacking those that warn about the possible risks of what are sometimes called “Frankenfoods.”

Miller was a leading voice in opposition to California’s Prop. 37, the 2012 ballot initiative seeking clear labeling of products containing GMOs, and, in the 1990s, was an equally prominent voice in a tobacco industry-backed campaign to discredit the science linking cigarette use and cancer.

You get the idea.

The same meme is showing up in even mainstream media accounts. For instance, in this segment Bob Arnott, former NBC Chief Medical Correspondent echoes the very same "shill" argument, saying that all ten signatories have "industry ties" and that the industry is "furious that he's [Dr. Oz] has taken on genetically modified crops" and described the letter signatories as "industry henchmen who are after Dr. Oz." He even mentioned that the current acting president of the ACSH, Gilbert Ross, spent time in prison for Medicaid fraud. Heck, Arnot even accused ACSH and Miller of astroturfing. True, he does say that Dr. Oz peddles misinformation that would be like a "Brian Williams scandal" if it were on network TV and unfavorably compares Dr. Oz with Sanjay Gupta on CNN, but his attack on Miller and company is devastating.

And, yes, this is the way that Dr. Oz is going to go, as shown in this story on CNN Money (appropriately enough). Dr. Oz is planning to devote a full episode, probably Thursday's, to a response to the accusations of quackery. In other words, he's taking advantage of the letter to gin up his ratings, and his attacks will resemble, no doubt, a toned down version of Mike Adams' attacks. No, he won't mention domestic violence, but you can bet that he'll mention Dr. Ross' conviction for Medicaid fraud and Dr. Miller's past advocacy. You'll be amused at the rationale:

The special episode "is the last thing we want to do," a person associated with the show said on Sunday.

But Oz and his representatives have concluded that it is necessary because of the "intimidation" they perceive from the doctors.

Nonsense. Dr. Oz's producers see a chance to take advantage of the publicity and to strike back at the same time. Dr. Miller threw his best punch, and now Dr. Oz is going to punch back:

Oz won't just read the one-paragraph statement he issued last Friday. Instead, he'll devote the majority of the episode to his response.

"We plan to show America who these authors are, because discussion of health topics should be free of intimidation," a spokesman for the show said.

The details, including the Thursday air date, are subject to change. The episode will be taped on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Can Miller take what Oz dishes out? Probably. Does it matter? Probably not. Is Miller's message about Dr. Oz's promotion of quackery and pseudoscience going to get lost in the counterattack that will paint him and his cosignatories as industry shills seeking revenge on Dr. Oz for having questioned whether GMOs are safe? Almost certainly.

In fact, I'll go even further and suggest that Miller's letter, after the initial embarrassment it caused Dr. Oz, is probably now seen by him and his producers as a godsend that gives them the pretext to counterattack and to tar all the physicians—not just Dr. Miller and company, but other bloggers, me, and all the rest of us who have been criticizing Dr. Oz for the last five years over his promotion of quackery and pseudoscience—as being industry shills of some kind and to make it stick in the public mind. I'm sure he'll find a way to go after Julia Belluz over at Vox.com as well, given that her excellent article on the making of Dr. Oz as a quack (my interpretation) was published the same week as Miller's letter. That's the narrative Dr. Miller has handed to Dr. Oz on a silver platter.

I tend to be a bit conservative in my preferred tactics taking on pseudoscience like that promoted by Dr. Oz, tending to prefer countering his misinformation and supporting activities like Ben Mazer's careful documentation of patients who have been harmed by Dr. Oz's medical advice. More recently, Ben has been working to persuade the AMA to issue a public statement that "reiterates the importance of evidence and transparency to the profession" while asking the AMA "to craft guidelines on how doctors can ethically use the media to help the public" and "to issue a report on what disciplinary pathways might be available for doctors who continue to spread bogus medical information in the media."

I'm not opposed to splashy PR moves in general. I just think that they should be smart and thought through, with a definite goal in mind other than stirring up trouble. Dr. Miller's little publicity stunt failed this test on every level, and, worse, could wind up backfiring spectacularly, leaving the rest of us who care about all the quackery Dr. Oz spreads, not just his fear mongering about GMOs, to deal with the consequences.

oracknows Sun, 04/19/2015 - 21:34

Categories

Technology

Oh, brother. This is what happens when science collides with policy and celebrity: decisions get made based on what people want to be true rather than what the evidence supports - because most people have no access to the actual evidence and no education to assess it if they did, so they fall back on the social primate heuristics of trusted authority figures. It's like that anti GMO fanatic I mentioned the other day: he refused to even look at the data in the Seralini paper, preferring to wave reams of testimonials in my face.

I quite like the statement of "I’m not opposed to splashy PR moves in general. I just think that they should be smart and thought through, with a definite goal in mind other than stirring up trouble." This captures my grumpiness with the activist wing of the Democratic coalition: these people have good hearts, and they want good things, and they are enthusiastic and hard working, but they are prone to tunnel vision and are not overly concerned with the factual accuracy of their claims so long as the lot can be bundled into a dramatic story.

For those of you who remember the Kung Fu Monkey in his glory days, if what you propose is a good idea then you don't need to sell it using a coat of lies. The truth will be good enough.

in doing so perpetuating the ‘fame equals credibility’ myth

Does this mean that Drs Bloom and Miller and the ACSH are undercutting their own credibility every time they raise their profile with a press release or a tweet?

Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.

I'll leave the modernization of the quote up to the reader.

Time will tell if this backfires or not. But I think for the average person, the take-home message from this was that other doctors think Dr. Oz was a quack. Anything that puts Dr. Oz on the defensive is good. For too long other doctors have been silent, for the most part, in the face of his celebrity. Maybe this letter will embolden other doctors to speak out.

I would argue that it's already backfired, and it's only likely to get worse. Personally, I now know I'm probably going to have to deal with intensifying "shill" attacks, with "Monsanto shill" added to the usual "pharma shill" gambit. Everything about this letter was wrong (other than its statements about Oz's quackery and pseudoscience): Wrong messenger, wrong place to send it, wrong everything. Oz is likely to get great ratings for his "response" show too.

While I agree with you about the reservations about the letter from the Hoover institution I do not see a problem asking for him to be fired. While I understand your personal hesitancy I see it as the same as hoping or getting the medical licensing boards to stop Byrzinksi (sic) and other quacks cancer practices.

@ Robert L. Bell

I agree with you about the reservations of the activist wing. As someone who has worked for the party I have first hand experience. They are nice people and are very passionate about their cause but sometimes it can override reason,

One last thing. When will calling a movement "astroturf" stop being an insult. I am pretty sure most grassroots movements at this point are astroturfed. From the Tea Party to pretty much every politicians campaign all them call themselves grassroots but are definitely not.

Sounds like the upcoming Oz episode will be a good source of a future blog post for you. That sounds like a win to me.

There is a difference. Orac has documented several specific instances where Burzynski's practices deviate from accepted standards of medical practice, Federal law, or both. A medical licensing board could, if they were so inclined (and state law allowed it, which is not a given in Texas), use this as evidence to support suspension or revocation of Burzynski's medical license. The Miller letter only throws out accusations, without documenting them. So even if Dr. Oz weren't protected by tenure, Columbia doesn't have a basis on which to terminate him. A letter which mentioned the unapproved clinical trial Orac mentions in the OP might have been a basis for starting an investigation of Dr. Oz's practices.

Besides, advocating the firing of Dr. Oz for his views sets a bad precedent. One which, as Orac knows firsthand, could be turned against him.

I think you're right on in this take on the letter. I've not been up on the skeptical blogs until now since the story broke, but when I heard about it on NPR I was torn between the side of academic freedom and whether any actual harm done by Oz, and that it was done in the field in which he teaches, made it worth this tactic. But when you take into account the strategic position of this letter, it becomes a no-brainer: the letter was a mistake. Oz was on the ropes after the senate hearing. His die hard fans weren't going anywhere, but his credibility with the general public was at an all time low, and there wasn't much of a way for him to recover it. But the letter gave him just the opportunity he needed and his response to it will allow him and his followers to treat tar all opposition to him with the same brush he'll use on the letter. Oz's popularity will recover and it will be harder to criticize him*, at least for a while.

*Well, it will be trivially easy to criticize him, but much harder to do so in a way that will convince fence sitters and the general public not to listen to him.

@ Eric Lund

Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

Lately I just find myself wondering what happened to Oz. I've known he promoted quackery for a while, thanks to this blog, and Dr. Novella's work, and other skeptics, but just now as his quackery's been in the news have I first seen actual clips of his show to see how blatant it is. And at the same time I've been reading Mary Roach's book Stiff, in which Oz (pre-TV show) was a source for sections on organ transplants. So how does a guy who's probably made a lot of money already and saved a lot of lives, and who has a stable source of continuing income from Columbia, become such a money grubbing snake oil salesman? We can debate all day about whether he's a "true believer" or a complete con man, but there can be little doubt that even if he believes some of what he's selling, he doesn't believe all of it and everything he does is calculated to increase ratings and income. So why? Was the brush with fame he got from Oprah so intoxicating that he had to have more? Is there just no amount of money that's enough for him? Absent all of this he'd have gone down in history as a pioneer in heart transplants, instead he'll go down as a controversial quack loved by many, hated by many, but known by all. And to top it off his position at Columbia is in integrative medicine rather than thoracic surgery? It's just so weird and sad and makes me wonder how he got to this point.

What about a letter from a different organisation? Or if the letter didn't ask for him to be fired, but asked that Columbia didn't support his pushing of psuedoscience and scams?

I'm rather wondering about what Miller et al think they're getting out of the letter with respect to GM foods.

Do they think that their broadside against Oz will improve the standing of GM foods in US opinion, or make it easier to lobby for pro-GM legislation in Congress and state legislatures or pro-GM policy making at the FDA and other regulatory agencies? I don't see how it would.

Oz is likely to get great ratings for his “response” show too.

One might wonder whether the audience is even aware of the story. The show is past its prime.

That story is over two years old. Are his ratings still declining? If they had been, I doubt his show would have survived two more seasons, as it has.

And, if he is in ratings trouble, what better way for Oz to try to gin up ratings than a controversy?

#11 Gus

My theory is that Oz, given his wooish proclivities, was asleep at the switch when he got yanked into the Oprah jibber jabber engine. If you've ever spent time around the cult followers, one of the first things you pick up on is how quickly the mind gets filled with obsessive, ready made patter that instantly crowds out critical facilities.

It's like they get to spend their lives wallowing in a warm, chocolate bath where all the answers are easy, stress-free and Oprah loves you.

@Gus Snarp #11.

I always assumed it was the adoration more than the money or a come to Jesus conversion to alternative medicine that drove things.

I suspect, having watched some of the early days that he got a lot more adoration for the puff pieces on natural healing and what is the latest miracle supplement than he got for at least some reporting he did (at least early on when I watched) about the much more hard hitting medical innovations/stories. I started watching because a friend of mine was on about a totally science based procedure and the circumstances and story around it. There was I think more of a mix early on and I suspect they went with whatever was generating the most buzz. After all anyone can take whatever latest greatest supplement, but you may not need whatever actual medical procedure.

I do wonder if trying to be on both sides of the line (well I don't really believe this stuff but my audience likes it) will bite him in the butt in the long run as I think part of the popularity was that he seemed sincere about whatever he was touting this week. After all how did that saying go, the most important thing is sincerity and once you learn to fake that..

just sometimes you back peddle too much from the sincerely expressed presentation and the sincerity becomes harder to fake and more and more people just see it a smarmy.

If nothing else, maybe this will push us all to take a hard look and question the non-evidence based programs in our own institutions.

Is it not generally the strategy of the US political right to work from a "whose side are you on" position ? If that is the strategic instinct of the ACSH then Miller's letter would make sense - having made the public indictment of Oz from a position of right wing authority the audience (which ever is relevant) is invited to "stand with us"or "against us" . In this scenario Oz is left with hippy anti American liberal support and all good conservatives/Republicans/patriots have to join the cause against him (and by implication support GMOs as part of the US national interest). Like Orac I would have great concerns about how this might play out, with science becoming a hostage to the fortunes of the warring sides.

A major subtext of any current argument about GMO labelling etc is the European/US TTIP where science has already been invoked as arbiter in somewhat spurious terms http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-industry/us-wants-science-settle…. Suspicion of TTIP is increasing amongst European electorates and US based pro GMO interests are unlikely to welcome anything that might strengthen EU negotiators hands over the issue - such as a rock star quack like Oz making a big deal about 'transparency'.

We might ask Adams if his own support for Dr Oz might possibly be biased because:
- he knows that his appearances on Oz's show lift his profile
- an endorsement from Oz might ultimately affect his earning
- his contrarian alt media tales revolve upon corporate greed, governmental malfeasance and mainstream media collusion
( even if they don't exist or aren't shown conclusively)

I'd still like to hear from Mike Adams regarding his latest diatribe against SSRI antidepressants supposedly causing the Germanwings co-pilot to crash that plane (seeing that Adams' own store sells St. John's wort, which works by a similar serotonin re-uptake mechanism).

NN's selling such a dangerous product (if we are to believe Adams regarding SSRIs) is even more relevant, given the Sunday N.Y. Times article which describes yet another case of a suicidal commercial jet pilot who was self-medicating with SJW.

I agree that the letter wasn't as thought-out as it should have been. And neither the timing of the letter nor the quantity of signatories optimal (it's a big country and you can find dozens of MDs to sign just about anything). But you haven't convinced me, Orac, that this isn't, on the net, bad for Oz.
The publicity has informed casual observers that what Oz presents is, actually, controversial. Since the press coverage of the letter, I've had several Oz-fan friends and family, familiar with my occupation as a chemist, ask my opinion on Oz. Previously, they took everything he said as the expert opinion of a credentialed authority. Now they know that his opinions don't always represent the best science. I think the results of this letter will be that die-hard Oz disciples with be even firmer in their folly, while more casual followers will begin to take his advice with a grain of salt.

Has the antidepressant that the co-pilot been identified (brand or generic)? I was under the impression that St. John’s Wort was very widely used in Germany - at one time prescribed by more than seven to one over Prozac (at a time when fewer SSRIs were available).

*antidepressant that the co-pilot took

Orlac@19: I think you have a point about the goal here, but (as happens frequently with the political right in the US) the strategy was not well thought out. Dr. Oz is a well-established academic doctor, so taking him on the way they did was almost as foolish as a small gang of bank robbers attempting a frontal assault on the SWAT team surrounding their hideout. Unless you have an overwhelming advantage, a frontal assault is likely to be expensive and messy, and unlikely to work. But that's exactly what the signers of this letter did, trying to get Columbia to fire Dr. Oz when all they had was vague allegations that could be batted away on academic freedom grounds. The letter signers are likely to find that people who might otherwise be sympathetic to what they are saying (a group which includes Orac) might decide that this is not a hill worth dying on. Belief in medical woo, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, is only weakly (if at all) correlated with where people fall in the US left-right political spectrum.

@ Notchka:

Amongst the loons I survey, there's an article circulating that lists various murders/ suicides as a side effect of SSRIs - and the occasional anti-psychotic.
HOWEVER no one asks exactly why these individuals were prescribed meds in the first place.
I suppose that there was nothing wrong with them and that these meds are just handed out like candy to everyone.

@Denice:

Well, given that the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violent crime but no more likely to be perpetrators of violent crime than the average population, I'd say neither the meds nor what they were prescribed them for that led them to commit these crimes. It's just people committing crimes who happen to be on psychiatric medication.

^ Of course, suicide (without accompanying homicide) is another matter.

Dr. Oz is a well-established academic doctor, so taking him on the way they did was almost as foolish as a small gang of bank robbers attempting a frontal assault on the SWAT team surrounding their hideout. Unless you have an overwhelming advantage, a frontal assault is likely to be expensive and messy, and unlikely to work.

Exactly. The signatories of the letter have to rely on the press being interested to get any publicity at all, while Dr. Oz controls a show watched by millions every day as well as an Internet presence in which articles and videos on his website are spread over Facebook and Twitter by his many fans. Miller and company got only one shot, and they didn't really make it count. Now in response Oz will get as many shots as he wishes, constrained only by audience fatigue and his advertisers. Moreover, while it's true that Mike Adams is a conspiracy loon know for truly vile flights of nasty rhetoric, in his posts you can see the shape of the defense that Oz will marshal. It'll be a saner sounding version that will paint Miller and the ACSH as Monsanto shills who didn't bother with Oz until he gored their sacred (and profitable) GMO oxen. He'll leave out the bits about one of them having been accused of domestic abuse (too nasty and personal) but keep all the insinuations of conflicts of interest.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Oz broadens the circle of critics he attacks, either, to include those who criticized his quackery. For instance, I'd be shocked if he doesn't go after Julia Belluz of Vox.com, given her article last week about him. He might well even go after bloggers, although I tend to doubt it because most of us aren't high profile enough.

@ JP:

Sure.

But they have articles from the CCHR to back up their position. Really That's one place they get this stuff.

@Denice:

Somehow I am not at all surprised.

Unfortunately, Dr. Oz will likely breeze on through the next week (with higher ratings) because of the gift of the Miller et al letter. It plays to the strength of the Dr. Oz show: spoon feeding ready answer the audience is willing to believe. Oz has a much bigger and louder pulpit from which to purvey his defense message.

The toughest aspect that anyone taking on Dr. Oz has to overcome is the very reason his show works. He pushes ideas in a way that anyone can understand (irrespective of evidence on whether they work.) To counter him requires a deeper understanding of science, something that his audience is obviously lacking or they wouldn't be his audience. The language that engages his audience is far easier to absorb than the language necessary to counter his quackery. Add on the nuance of conspiracy theory about industrial conflict of interest (relevant or not) and he will exit this fight undamaged.

It will be interesting to see if Dr. Oz's ego allows him to restrain his response or does he overstate his case.

@ Denise:

Oh, yes - I'm aware of the animosity toward SSRIs.

When ADs came up in this Germanwings incident, it crossed my mind that the co-pilot might have been taking MD prescribed St. John's Wort. If that were the case, it could certainly pluck a feather out of Adam's hinder.

@Obstreperous Applesauce #16:

It’s like they get to spend their lives wallowing in a warm, chocolate bath where all the answers are easy, stress-free and Oprah loves you.

I think that's a religion you're describing there!

*Adams'

On the thread topic, I'm disappointed. Supporters of Oz are writhing ecstatically in this. . . *blech*

That story is over two years old.

Ah, I fell for the wrong February sweeps article because it had HH and the demo. It looks to actually be a bit worse (1.5 HH).

What puzzles me is how much publicity this letter is getting. I could be wrong, but it appears to me that it is getting much more attention than the McCaskill Senate hearing or the BMJ study, both of which are much more significant (and embarrassing to Oz) than a misguided letter from ten relatively obscure (to me) doctors with a hidden agenda.

Of course, it's the one that's going to be discredited. Your picture of Wile E Coyote is perfect.

Orlac not Orac #19,

The US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any Euroxpean Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops, newly released WikiLeaks cables show.

In response to moves by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety in late 2007, the ambassador, Craig Stapleton, a friend and business partner of former US president George Bush, asked Washington to penalise the EU and particularly countries which did not support the use of GM crops. ...

In other newly released cables, US diplomats around the world are found to have pushed GM crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops

May I take *where science has already been invoked as arbiter in somewhat spurious terms* in your comment to be an allusion to the practice of politically appointed 'science advisors' and their proclaimed policy-relevant findings being in a position to be 'leaned on' by the appointers?

From 'oil-for-food' to bootleg CDs, The US corporatocracy does seem to have a way of always whipping that GMO camel into the tent to be savored before every diplomatic dinner.

Obstreperous@16 and others, Marginally on-topic: Some years back, the Onion had an article entitled Oprah Viewers Patiently Awaiting Instructions.

@ JP ( and to whom else it may concern):

I think that sceptics should take a look at the CCHR's website as well as the wikip------- on it.
Two others involved in this movement are the late Thomas Szasz and Peter Breggin. Worth reading their position.

...I must admit that seeing Miller make trouble for Oz at his job over his extracurricular activities rubbed me the wrong way. True, I suppressed my distaste when I wrote my post last Friday, so powerful is my dislike for Dr. Oz and what he does on his TV show.

I would maintain that the intent of the letter was to make trouble for Oz at his hobby.

I suspect, but have no facts to prove, that Oz makes far more money being America's Quack than he does at Columbia. As noted in Friday's post, from a conversation with Dr. Richard Green -

He then added, “He’s probably a little rusty right now.” He said Oz seemed to be operating less and less — from several hundred surgeries per year at his peak to a maximum of about 100 now — as he entertains more and more.

I suspect Oz feels the same about practicing real medicine as our host feels about this blog - it nice, it makes a few dollars, it provides some prestige, but if it was taken away, nobody would be homeless.

Please note that I am not arguing that the letter was well executed, and that it wasn't a dick move.

Somewhat OT,
but then are mentions of RI/SBM by the woo-centric ever TRULY OT, I ask you ( and good for a laugh- which we all need about now given the topic)

@ AoA, commenter Danchi notes that SBM blogs are run by
" you know who".
I could have TOLD you that!

This is all true. However, petitions and letters to sack someone seem to be fairly common, and one might expect useful. Such things can shape certain conversations.

Dean: "Well, Dr. Oz, I have this petition signed by 23 gazillion people on the internet asking for you to be fired..."

Dr. OZ: "Yea, but, you cant fire me..."

Dean: "Right, I give no credence to such petitions. Oh, and I also have this letter signed by numerous luminaries saying you should be sacked..."

Dr. OZ: "Yeah, but, you can't fire me."

Dean: "Right, I give no credence to such letters. Oh, and I also have this rather weak report from your department pertaining to your P&T..."

Dr. Oz: "Doh...."

Dean: "... to which I will give significant credence"

Denice @43 -- You mean --- He who shall not be named? ..... [shudder]

Ah, but Greg, he already has tenure.

There's a Gary Larson Far Side cartoon that shows a mad scientist doing typical mad-scientist things and saying to his victim ... "Mad? Mad? Yes!! I'm mad! But I have tenure!

Palindrom, I don't know what his tenure situation is but normally there are several levels. For example, associate professor is usually the first level of tenure, but moving to full is hard, rare, and pays well. Then, beyond full many universities have an added level which is the highest honor, you usually lose all your teaching requirements, much higher pay, etc. (I've seen this called "University Professor." Also, again depending on the school, a tenured professor can find themselves in a situation where they are getting an offer and then go to the administration to see if they have a counter offer. If you are not in good standing, there may be very few outside offers and little chance of an internal counter offer.

Beyond that, faculty rely to varying degrees on all sorts of other resources. Your lab location and size, perhaps staff, department or university funded post docs, internal grants for your grad students, etc. Most larger U's have a lot of money floating around internally that goes to the favored few. Having everyone in the world hating you for good reason, and the administration knowing that, matters.

Make no mistake: A tenured faculty member can be marginalized and stagnated in their career.

@ palidrom:

Exactly
altho' we name him all the time.

Wile E. Coyote is holding what looks to be a 'quad' antenna cut to 47 MHz. Obviously, he came too close to an old baby monitor.

There’s a Gary Larson Far Side cartoon that shows a mad scientist doing typical mad-scientist things and saying to his victim … “Mad? Mad? Yes!! I’m mad! But I have tenure!

I am now thinking of one of the too-many Lethal Weapon sequels where the baddie runs around doing drug deals, shooting people, etc and just says "Diplomatic immunity!!" a lot.

"Make no mistake: A tenured faculty member can be marginalized and stagnated in their career."

"We've decided to honor you by making you an Emeritus Professor!"

Speaking of which, if the University of Kentucky couldn't bring itself to de-associate from Boyd Haley (who marketed an industrial chelating agent for autism, among other embarassing activities), there's no way Columbia would part company with Dr. Oz.

"The letter was a mistake..." says Gus.

Oh no. Good political PR guys run rings around Machiavelli, and they've got access to them at the Hoover. They're like Bobby Fisher, thinking multiple moves ahead. I would venture every consequence of Miller's letter mentioned by Orac was not only anticipated, but desired. As I wrote Friday, these guys don't give a damn about Oz. They don't want him canned. They don't care if he winds up with HIGHER ratings and more fans. The whole thing is a MacGuffin, a ploy – Mikey might even call it a 'false flag' :-)

The ooint of the letter is to get publicity and credibility for these groups on the political margins of medicine and science — name recognition, 'cultural capital.' They WANT Oz to respond, extending the kerfuffle, making more noise. One goal would be to have a cable news network do a piece on on the manufactroversy, with Oz or a surrogate paired off against Miller or another of his group. This is, in cultural terms "false balance". Oz is a 'somebody': a celebrity BS peddler AND a prominent cardio surgeon in a leadership position at a major hospital. He has Ethos (cred). He's earned his ticket in from the the camera. Miller is a wing-nut industry shill. Has anyone ever istened to him before? The brass ring here is he (or whoever the litte group has picked as the most medi-genic) could wind u with a semi-regular gig commenting on medicine and or science on Fox or HLN or something.

Orac nailed the relevant facts, if he didn't quite get the big picture. If the media is going to look into OZ, the 'show' shoud belong to McCaskill, the BMJ authors and Ben Mazar. of course the ACSH is giddy, they just totally stole the thunder of all the Oz critics who've been doing serious work and talking about substantive issues.

But the media doesn't want to look behind Oz's curtain. They want drama, i.e. conflict. So Miller guarantees that with an ad hominem crack at Oz's 'pathology', and it game on. And what ball are they playing with: GMOs, waay down the list of Oz's 'sins'.

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. I will address this on the show next week.

Hmmm. Miller just Oz to make a public statement on the safety of GMO foods, which he's bound to repeat on his show soon, whatever his argument for labeling.

More importantly, Monsanto and the rest of "Big Ag' have only a finite budget to fund their shills, errr, 'allies', and The Hoover and ACSH just upped their profile my leaps and bounds, and probably just leaped much closer to the front of the cash queue. They don't want to bring Oz down. They want to make him even more famous so they ride his coat-tails with a gadfly act for fund-raising.

Reply to: Robert L Bell (comment #1)

You say that "if what you propose is a good idea then you don’t need to sell it using a coat of lies. The truth will be good enough."

Sadly that is completely untrue. Marketing, PR and personal bias throw 'truth' out the window. I wish you were right. We might have faith that eventually people will learn truth.

However, we've reached a stage where ordinary people (non-scientists, and non-academics) can't possibly get their head round the actual truth. It's just too complicated. For example looking at the meta-analysis of the research that disproves the link between autism and vaccines, is beyond most ordinary people.

The internet has given people a voice. A lot of people now speak with authority. People who don't know what they are talking about. Telling someone they don't know what they are talking about 'offends' them. Politely educating a dullard is pointless in most cases.

People can get their head round the idea of the Earth orbiting the Sun, it's fairly simple to understand. However most modern science is just too complex (even for academics!). So we are in a mess where complex things need academics and scientists to ridiculously specialise in a very narrow way. So they are geniuses at a very small part of say biology or mental health. Sadly their tunnel vision means that they too can only walk about a very small part of the 'truth'.

People who are thick will never get their head round GM or Global Warming. Sorry to appear so rude, but I've rather had enough of dullards spreading dangerous ideas, that can cost lives.

Personally, I think letters calling for an academic to be sacked are a bit pointless. I have always thought if you are going towrite to the President of a University about a academic, you do so to point out their failings with respect to the University rules and leave it up to the University heirarchy to decide the punishment.

I have written to a University about an author's serial plagiarism after getting no joy from pointing such plagiarism to 2 Journal editors. To finally get some action taken required making the plagiarism public. Even then, the University took no action although the Journals finally did.

I see the object of this letter not to get Oz fired, but to get the press talking about the lack of scientific justification for his claims. In doing so, I think it will be successful. If all Oz has to respond is accusations of shilling, the mainstream press will not buy that for long.

Having said that, Oz will undoubtably use the letter as an opportunity to attack all of his critics leading to some collatoral damage. Henry Miller won't worry too much about that.

If they had really wanted to cause Dr. Oz discomfort they would have a) gotten a lot more signatures and b) written to his sponsors.

Greg Laden @47 -- The gradations of tenure are different at different institutions. At my place, promotion to full is not "rare", but routine for people who continue on the promising trajectory they showed before tenure, and the jump in pay is nice but not dramatic. Being a "stuck Associate" basically means you didn't to grow as a scholar, though in some cases Associates are very active in e.g. advising, administration, teaching or some other activity aside from scholarship. We also have no rank above full. Everyone teaches the same load, which almost always includes face-to-face work with undergrads, unless they buy themselves out with external funds. But we're not exactly a typical university.

(I know these things because I've served on the tenure and promotion committee.)

Notchka #23,

I was under the impression that St. John’s Wort was very widely used in Germany – at one time prescribed by more than seven to one over Prozac (at a time when fewer SSRIs were available).

I don't know anything about that but the anoxylitic, passiflora incarnata, has been widely prescribed in Europe as

In initial study in 2001 for treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, maypop extract performed as well as oxazepam but with fewer short-term side effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passiflora#Traditional_medicine

Here, we are heavily dosed with monsanto and, when there is the slightest easterly component to the wind, kept respiratorily irritated. I do personally loathe the chemical schedule those who fall into the trap must maintain as, the maypops we'd be chest deep in as kids biking are now invariably hard to find due to overspray, drift, or something -- It almost looks intentional how far away from a tainted field that those vines die.

All I know about tenure is the very first thing my freshman adviser said to me: "I could be chainsawing guinea pigs in the parking lot and there's nothing they [the administration] could do about it."

(Actually a good physics professor, but he loved to say outrageous things. And no, he never did it.)

JustaTech @57 -- The old joke was that the (male) professor had to avoid being caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

On the other hand, if you're caught in financial fraud (e.g. padding your expense account), you're generally out on your butt, because there's no way that's defensible under "academic freedom".

Jokes aside, I think tenure is very important, not just because it allows people to take unpopular views, but for two other reasons:

(1) With tenure, one can much more easily undertake difficult, long-term projects that may be important in the long run. Fermat's last theorem wasn't proven by an assistant professor attempting to increase his or her publication count.

(2) The unparalleled job security that tenure is what makes the job attractive. It's likely that with my skills I could have made more money doing something else, but I am grateful every day for this incredible gift of lifelong guaranteed employment, and I never take it for granted. The erosion of the tenure system, and especially the exploitation of visiting and adjunct instructors, is having a terrible effect on the quality of American higher education -- aside from being an outrageously exploitative system.

Universities have ethical standards even for the tenured, enforced by various disciplinary actions, including revoking tenure. Miller, et al, may have been mindful of the responsibility health care professionals have (by state licensing laws and professional ethics) to act when they know about potentially harmful and fraudulent practices. Miller's letter presented adequate grounds for a Columbia investigation of Oz.

I'm not impressed by Columbia. Back in the mid-1990s, Oz should have been called on his antics in his surgical practice when he was apparently a laughing stock among his peers for doing wildly inappropriate things, such as bringing his psychic intuitive sidekick along during operations and letting her loose among patients on the floor.

Columbia has also apparently done nothing about the infamous Martha Welch, MD, on their faculty, despite complaints about the unvalidated and highly abusive psychotherapy she inflicts on children, while claiming it could cure autism in a cover story for LIFE magazine.
http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/welch.html

It is a great idea that Dr. Oz exposed GMOs for what they are: Vehicles for Higher Pesticide Sales by industry. Only in the US and Canada are consumers kept in the dark about this. That is wrong. If a product is so great- then LABEL it. Henry Miller is a shill for the chemical industry. No one can argue that. Everybody now knows. I love it that he has exposed himself, and the rest his ten-person crew as well. If Dr. Oz talks about a supplement that does not interest me (I have never purchased anything)- I don't buy it. No big deal. Dr. Oz presents himself as a doctor who is open to alternative solutions. Our friend Henry regularly prints false information on behalf of industry. He fraudulently posed as a Stanford professor in CA No on 37 TV commercials. He is employed to tear down anyone who finds flaws with GMOs- or to print industry PR as fact. He promotes hiding glyphosate in our food- which has recently been declared a "probable carcinogen" by the World Health Organization. Dr. Oz encourages Americans to eat healthy food and exercise. Henry's actions are more egregious than Dr. Oz's, and this is coming to light. I can't wait to see this episode! Check out the film Merchants of Doubt. Sunlight is such a great thing :) http://sonyclassics.com/merchantsofdoubt/

None of which changes my opinion that what Miller did was a stupendously bad idea, just from a tactical standpoint alone.

@ Tim #57

Yes - you're right, Tim. You don’t know anything about it.

It is a great idea that Dr. Oz exposed GMOs for what they are: Vehicles for Higher Pesticide Sales by industry.

Hey, Kathleen, now that you've graced everyone with your screed, do you think you could get Seneff to drop by? There are certain... questions about the process behind moving from cartoons with giant question marks to specific numerical projections, if you get my drift.

What incredible pessimism. I see this whole thing as a ground swell, and while you're right that a few people may have leapt for golden ring before the wave finished peaking, that doesn't mean OZ gets to stop the wave. He will run an hour long shill gambit. Great! More opportunity to communicate to the public exactly what the shill gambit is, and how it doesn't in any way provide a suitable defense for the incredible amount of woo he pushes on a weekly basis. I'm already picturing my next meme about it, and he hasn't yet recorded the episode.

He has always had his large audience to which he could launch a counter-attack, no matter what the attack was. That was never going to change. So if someone was successful in provoking him to deploy the shill counter-attack, fantastic. What's he going to do next time? Just keep making sure that there IS a next time.

People are sick of the snake oil salesmen, and they are joining in on the swell in increasing numbers. After Food Babe's takedown, she tried doubling down on the shill gambit in her defense, and people finally started to see through it. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who may have not studied-up on their fallacies, first started to hear about shill accusations of that type following the Vani/Science Babe episode, and I'm confident they will be able to notice it this time too. It's just going to take a strong, collaborative effort to point it out. Food Babe is not nearly on the same level as Oz, but she very well could have been. As far as I understand, there was at one time some very real talk about her getting her own daytime talk show. I seriously doubt that will happen now. It's not unreasonable for one to think they could ride a little bit of that wave, and cash in at the right time when quack awareness was peaking in the media.

Yes there will be a predictable, and maybe even somewhat successful response from Dr. Oz following this attack. How do we limit the success, and make sure this swell keeps building? By resisting the temptation to be the 'one who called it', which doesn't exactly set the footing for a strong, collaborative effort.

I'm a little amused that your concern was giving them too much ammunition, when judging by some of the reactions, this article itself seems to heading right into their stockpile.

Tactically, It's impossible to be 100% right about everything. Even if it was possible, that wouldn't guarantee that you are the one who's infallible, and the person you're criticizing is not. Knowing that, it's probably best to just acknowledge the honest intentions of the person who is 'on your side' and not let your petty differences about 'how you would have done it' turn into bitter criticisms.

^ Oh, and disclosing the COI that Zen Honeycutt has appeared on the Oz show sort of seems like the sort of thing that one should do up front.

He fraudulently posed as a Stanford professor in CA No on 37 TV commercials.

Heh. Double heh.

We need to genetically modify crops to withstand more pesticides so we can consume even more pesticides. Pesticides are healthy. Anyone who says different is a quack including Dr. Oz.

What a load of poppycock and blather. I'm sure the arguments went precisely the same during Galileo's Inquacksition too. Staunch old proven stalwarts of known science defending its comfortable boundaries against pseudo quackery attempting to stretch the known demonstrable parameters into new interesting alternative modalities of thought, science, medicine and religion. Fortunately evolution always wins out and you old boys always take your old paradigms into the dust. But they were exceptionally good starting points, so bravo and ta on behalf of me, Dr. Oz and the American public who adore him because they instinctively trust him because their unprovable unwavering guts tell them who is right, better, and on their side.

@Narad #64

Seneff especially gets under my skin. Not only is she a fraud, if perhaps a sincere fraud, but she is a blight on the good name of the 'Tute and I can not believe that she has taken in so many people RIGHT HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS for God's sake. We like to brag that we have the best schools in the country, but some of the students are just not with the program.

This kerfluffle could actually be put to good use standing up for science against both Oz quackery and ACSH quackery.

ACSH is the easier target: a relatively unknown organization with a felonious shill listed on their website as "Acting President, Medical/Executive Director." The fact that his felony conviction was 20 years ago is hardly as important as the fact that it was egregious and highly relevant.

Medicaid fraudster with unsanitary clinics as "Medical/Executive Director." That's almost a self-satire in a nutshell. If nothing else, make them explain themselves. Make them spell out how his crime was irrelevant or how it doesn't disqualify him for a prominent position of public trust. They won't be able to do it. And even if they throw him under the bus, it's too little and far too late to save their own credibility.

Take out ASCH first, as an appetizer, and then carve up the main course:

Oz is a more difficult target, but only because he's got the magic TV machine. His quackery promotions are self-indicting, Senator McCaskill's takedown of him is epic, and his excuses are pathetic in light of the damage he's caused.

Orac, you can stand up and say "they're both wrong but for different reasons," and you can also use this to make a strong point about the abuses of science by people and organizations with vested interests and self-interest agendas.

And if anyone accuses you of being some kind of shill, the comeback is that you're "a minor celebrity in the skeptic scene who is perfectly satisfied with his career and has no great yearning for his own TV show." If you get offered brief appearances on TV to speak to this, don't turn them down, but go on the air and shred both Oz and Ross at the same time.

You of all people have the standing to do this, by way of having exercised due diligence and due skepticism about the ACSH letter before anyone else did.

Right now it's the quacks and the shills against science on two fronts. But they are each severely compromised, so science can fight this two-front war and win. Next up, tackling the climate denialists.

@Kathleen Hallal #61

Let me go out on a limb here, and suggest that the principle argument - at present - against GMO labeling is that it would be a blunder to hand the loons anything that can be portrayed as a victory.

Just look at what happened with the antivaxxers and thimerosal. After years of badgering the FDA gave in and said 'thimerosal does not cause any problems, but it is already out of most vaccines and if it will make you happy we will go ahead and take it out of all the pediatric vaccines.'

Did this satisfy the luddites? Hell no! They immediately started screaming THIS PROVES THEY KNEW ALL ALONG THAT THIMEROSAL IS DEADLY!!!!!!!!!!!

No reasonable person expects that you lot would be any more reasonable or honest in the aftermath of a labeling requirement - especially as labeling never made any sense anyway except as a stalking horse for a complete ban and a tactically accessibly intermediate goal for the encouragement of the troops in a long and wearying campaign.

No, Robert L Bell #69. The general loons must not win; Must not be helped to choose food that is not produced by a corporation whose business model is crapping on the breakfast table, calling the cops, and having them arrest you because that is obviously their Coprolite™ on your table. Nor must they be allowed to label that it does not contain GMOs -- Isn't this what Monsanto got away with for years? First claiming false advertising as it 'implied' something could be wrong with rBGH and then claiming false advertising because the crap became ubiquitous and hard to prove every last copyrighted molecule out of a vat or delivery truck. Well, I knew that certain milk tasted like puss and learned to avoid those location codes before I knew about the rBGH and mastitis.

Kathlen Hallal #61 has it right about the deeper pesticide marinade; Monsanto's shills' response to the 'loons' is "Don't worry, F*ckUp™ is safe; Besides, your all soaking in it."

It is telling that you portray labeling as 'victory' or 'defeat' because those loons conscientious consumers having knowledge of which is which and voting with their wallets would indeed be a long-needed indictment on such agregeous corporations.

Yes, the likes of Monsanto have gone above and beyond to litigate away being able to claim "does not contain" just as they are proud to be able to do away with *organic* as their patent-protected products don't stay on their own fields but contaminate most every cubic centimeter of air, soil, and water.

Dr. Oz does not practice medicine on his TV show, and said he never did. He has helped more people with his sincere teaching. He is not teaching medical students or any medical personnel. He has so many other specialists on his show.
When scientists and physician's ego's are inflated, they have to demean another person to feel better, and I'm not talking about the ego of Dr. Oz. The other physicians must feel threatened. It will backfire on them.

This is a great article that mirrors my thoughts about the situation. In fact, I had never even heard of Dr. Oz until last month, over the glyphosate/Monsanto/WHO controversy. My interest in this recent media storm was piqued because of the timing of the letter with respect to Dr. Oz's show on glyphosate.

How did the media get the letter from Dr. Miller et al? How much of the controversy is due to bad (or misinformed) reporting, though? For example, all these articles mention that "half of what Dr. Oz says is baseless", which inspired me to read the BMJ report of the "study" conducted by Canadian doctors.

In actuality, the doctors who wrote the article randomly selected 40 shows from a 5-month period in 2013, noted the recommendations, and then randomly selected 80 recommendations to evaluate for evidence. Spending no more than an hour on each, they then searched for "evidence". (So far, no problems with this ... it's the way most studies are conducted.)

One of these recommendations was "sneezing into your elbow to prevent the spread of germs" (advocated by CDC and public health professionals). The authors found no "evidence" (i.e., clinical trials, studies, case reports) to support this recommendation. So, this is one of the 31 (of 80) claims that are "baseless".

Wouldn't it be more helpful for the public to know the other 30 claims that are baseless? Wouldn't it also be more helpful to the public that the "half" is based on 30 out of 80 recommendations, and that there is a confidence interval around this number? (Or that if the study were repeated by others, the result might be completely different, depending on the definition of "Strong recommendations" and the random selection of recommendations to evaluate?) Wouldn't it also be helpful to know who decided to have a press release of that article?

I always assume the people who wrote the letter, or paper made the press release (or in the case of a publication often it is the media relations of their institution as part of their jobs is to write press releases about research being done and translate it from science jargon to standard English). It really isn't that hard to post a press release as an individual in the places that the press will find it. There is a press release machinery and all you have to do is input and see if what you wrote happens to catch on or not.

Really it is like a pre-social media method of making something go viral. Write a press release and send to a press release service see if it gets picked up.

There isn't some shadowy evil one world whatever that is behind releasing information to the press.

Now my question is did they know that TV Rating Sweeps starts Thursday and they released the letter at a time they knew Oz wouldn't be able to resist doing a show real quick on as nothing helps your ratings during Sweeps than starting off with outrage about a controversy...or did they not know sweeps is coming up and it is coinkydink?

Dr. Oz does not practice medicine on his TV show, and said he never did.

Well, when a guy calls himself a doctor, wears a white labcoat and/or stethoscope, and provides advice on health/nutrition/well-being...
You may excuse the viewers from mistaking him for a physician doing his job.

No, Kraft just gave into the Food Babe. Please send us some more insolence about the weakness of Kraft.

I did something I never do yesterday, and watched Good Morning America yesterday. The Dr. Oz segment was basically a critique of the letter signatories and only a brief reference to Oz's alt med baloney. I would say, if that is how the mainstream media is covering this, the letter was unhelpful at best.

The most compelling argument against mandatory labeling of GM foods comes from the anti-GMOers themselves.

They triumphantly tell us about about the jump in organic food sales and all the products now on the market labeled non-GMO, as proof that the American public rejects genetically modified foods.
So if there are so many non-GMO alternatives available, why again is it that we must have mandatory GMO labeling? Doesn't the consumer already have a choice (and simply by avoiding processed foods is basically assured that they won't ingest the evil modified DNA)?

"Our friend Henry regularly prints false information on behalf of industry."

Such as? I know he once held an important FDA position and must automatically be deemed a satanic liar, but still - got cites?

@Tim #73

This comment is a prime example of why people refer to you as a loon. Instead of engaging the point, which is quite valid if you would stop screaming and think about it for a moment, you immediately launch a blistering tirade of irrelevant and hyperbolic gibberish. Which may make you look like a big man among your activist buddies but does precisely nothing to convince me of the incorrectness of my analysis. RBGH? Stay on topic, please.

In fact, you have confirmed the point. Given the venom that you are spraying, why would anyone - government regulators, the farmers who clearly benefit from using GMO technology, or even an interested bystander - expect you to honor a reasonable compromise that satisfies the rational interests of all the stakeholders? People like you have a history of taking your half victory, burning down the village, and looting surrounding countryside.

The smarmy. It burns, #82. It burns!

Excellent point. Takingthe high road is harder but more effective in the long run

Wouldn’t it be more helpful for the public to know the other 30 claims that are baseless?

Well, for a start, Dr Jen Gunter has listed a few of them recently.
Note that we use the term "baseless" as in "an assertion without evidence". No-one has to prove that something said by Dr Oz is false, but just needs to point out he promoted something unproven.

I like number 10 in Jen Gunter's list:

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

He has so many other specialists on his show.

As those 'specialists' include people like Joe Mercola, Mike Adams, Bob Sears, Zen Honeycutt, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Robert Hyman, and faith healer Issam Nemeh- this is hardly a point in his favor.

ESCT @69: Ohh, the Galileo gambit! Bingo!

But to respond to the substance of your comment; you have confused who is Galileo and who is the Pope in this confrontation. One has all the data (observations numbers, calculations) and one has centuries of tradition (and a gut feeling, but no data).

Here's a hint: It's not Dr. Oz with the data.

Justa @87 -- I'm tempted to classify ESCT@69 as a Poe, but I fear he or she is not. Some people actually do believe that gut feelings are unwavering.

All should look up Charles Pierce's book "Idiot America", or at least the Amazon review of same, which quotes the three great laws of Idiot America. They explain a lot.

Judging from social media -- the upcoming Thursday show of Dr Oz might break ratings records. Unbelievable. These guys really screwed up in their attack on Dr. Oz.... Since when do right-wingers fire before they aim?!?!

And sweeps month starts tomorrow. Did these guys know that? They handed Oz a topic custom-made for him to jack up ratings during sweeps and thereby increase advertising rates. Great going, Dr. Miller!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/dr-oz-stands-up-for-right-…

It is academic freedom if you agree with the atheist and fraud if you do not. God bless Dr. Oz.

@Orac #90

I hope they were just clueless about the timing, but that little part of the brain that just loves conspiracy theories wants to think it was deliberate as they would get the most notice for themselves by releasing it when Oz couldn't resist going for the ratings grab.

I am appalled with this action to discredit Dr Oz.
When CNN related the action to his position on GMO's, I thought, ohhh yes, this is why he is being targeted.
We all know Monsanto buys politicians and anyone who buys Monsanto shares has a vested interest to stop any actions by people, activists against labeling etc.
Do these doctors against Dr Oz have a vested interest in Monsanto? I do not trust anyone who supports Monsanto.
It was not Dr Oz that sparked my shunning GMO foods.
However it is Dr Oz that has sparked my interest in clean eating by eating whole foods, free of chemicals as much as possible.
.

I don't trust activists, even (or particularly) when I am generally sympathetic to the agenda they are promoting. For activists it is always the narrative, the quest for publicity, that drives their efforts, not an accurate representation of the truth. Rarely can one take anything activists say at face value: facts are always subordinate to the end game, which may or may not be noble or beneficial to the public at large.

I am appalled with this action to discredit Dr Oz.

So am I, but for different reasons. See above.

However it is Dr Oz that has sparked my interest in clean eating by eating whole foods, free of chemicals as much as possible.

Has he also sparked your interest in Miracle Weight Loss potions, surgical assists by Reiki Masters and psychotherapy by psychics?

"However it is Dr Oz that has sparked my interest in clean eating by eating whole foods, free of chemicals as much as possible."

Well other than please don't eat completely chemical free food as breathariansim has not been found to work for the long term...same information you could have gotten without the woo from evidence-based docs or registered dieticians.

I don't know why people assume that if a food manufacturer uses technology to make artificial food that must be the only food scientists and doctors would recommend.

Everyone all your life has been telling you eat whole foods that are minimally processed for good health. Not sure why you finally listened but good for you.

Just remember a lot of those chemicals in the whole foods are things you want to provide energy, vitamins, phytochemicals that may prevent some chronic diseases, just avoid cooking them in ways that tend to increase the natural levels of carcinogens. From one study I have a recipe that will make your urine exquisitely mutagenic without adding anything to the whole food but water.

KayMarie says:
" Not sure why you finally listened"

Because common sense medical advice sounds so much *better* and more efficacious when it comes from a supposedly good-looking, charismatic television personality rather than from everyday doctors or run-of-the-mill, post-secondary level nutrition texts.
OBVIOUSLY!

"Do these doctors against Dr Oz have a vested interest in Monsanto? I do not trust anyone who supports Monsanto."

I suppose you could assume that anyone who finds value in genetically modified foods is paid off by or has a financial interest in Monsanto, and automatically dismiss what they say. But then others could assume _you_ are paid off by or have a financial interest in the organic food industry*, and ignore your beliefs as well. See where that line of thinking goes?

I saw part of the CBS Evening News tonight (I hardly ever watch it even if I'm home early enough) and they devoted a good 90 seconds or so to Oz's response to the Miller et al letter (which airs tomorrow). Oz said something about gee, me and other professionals have viewpoints on which we may differ, but these guys are trying to Suppress My Freedom Of Speech! There was very brief mention of claims Oz endorses quackery (with embarrassing clips of Oz promoting stuff like the famous miracle fat burner), a note that Miller was head of a "conservative think tank" and was pro-GMO, plus an excerpt from an e-mail Miller sent CBS News saying that he'd never been paid by the biotech industry.

On balance, the story placed Oz in a harsher light than Miller, but it was such a superficial piece that it reminded me how useless network TV evening news has become.

*the most egregious example of this I know of is publication of the infamous anti-GMO "pig inflammation" study, where one of the co-authors (Howard Vlieger) somehow forgot to reveal that he ran a company selling non-GMO grain. Just a minor omission, not an ethical lapse. ;)

Dangerous Bacon

*the most egregious example of this I know of is publication of the infamous anti-GMO “pig inflammation” study, where one of the co-authors (Howard Vlieger) somehow forgot to reveal that he ran a company selling non-GMO grain. Just a minor omission, not an ethical lapse.

Of course, you have no COIs with respect to “pig inflammation”

This was released today - http://time.com/3831926/dr-oz-criticism-answers/

Thank you Sukie. God Bless Dr. Oz. With regards to MMR and Autism...Throwing a bunch of stuff together (a cocktail called MMR vacine) certainly could cause any kind of reaction...and it could depend on one's own chemistry. Parents, and other folks questioning it, did not come to this conclusion without some kind of evidence.... What you want, Militant Agnostic, is a test done by a Drug Company..... :-) , right? ..no conflict of interest there.....lol

Dr. Oz aired a rebuttal today. He called Henry Miller out for falsifying his association Stanford. It was shown that this man was a key supporter of the tobacco industry, promoted no smoking restrictions. Speaks big lies for big corporations, and belongs to the American Council Science and Health(ACSH), which sounds pro-consumer but has in the past put forward defenses for pesticides, cigarettes, GMO's and takes money from the tobacco industry. Those "docs" are rental scientists and speak for whichever ever industry pays them to support their heinous behavior.
He also called Dr. Ross another "signer" for being a convicted felon and the Judge that sentenced him to 4 years for medical fraud, said he was a highly untrustworthy individual. All belong to ACSH, and have conflicts of interest with big Pharma and GMO companies.
As the US food supply via these GMO companies becomes parallel to second and third world countries like China, Brazil, Africa and India, we have our government stuffing their pockets with Monsanto's money. How many lives need to be lost or injured before this practice of contaminating our food is stopped.

Why You Can’t Trust the American Council on Science and Health
usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/

And for the cynics who will say this is a publicity ploy- at the end of his show he played the Elmo video on vaccination and told the audience to get vaccinated.
Agreed- spectacular backfire.

So, Ken and three drive-bys is the best that Oz could get from the troops?

From Columbia faculty members, today. . .

"Columbia medical faculty: What do we do about Dr. Oz?"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/04/23/dr-oz-show-columbia-do…

#108 The article concludes-
We support Columbia's commitment to faculty freedom of expression in public discussion with the caveat that physicians offering medical advice carry a great responsibility for honesty and accuracy to the public and their peers........Barring such scrutiny, Dr. Oz might begin each program with a simple disclaimer: "The opinions expressed on this program may not be evidence-based or part of accepted medical practice and have no endorsement from Columbia University."

People obviously have the right to know what they're eating, how it was made, etc. That includes whether it's GM or not.
That one might disagree with their ideas about what to eat, does not confer the right to hide information from the eater.
People have all sorts of different food philosophies. Some people want to eat kosher; similarly you might find that foolish - but that doesn't confer the right to conceal whether a food is kosher or not.
And the specific changes that were made to a GM food should be look-uppable. For example "GM corn #5" could be listed on the label, where 5 is the code for the genetic modification that was done. So the consumer could look up what was actually done to the corn.
And hiding whether a food is GM and what is in it, means that any safety problems, like immune reactions that people have to it, would remain unrecognized. It protects the manufacturer from liability.
People can have immune reactions to almost any food. Immune reactions aren't limited to commonly recognized allergens. Not all immune reactions are conventional allergies anyway. The immune system is very complicated and immune reactions to food aren't well understood.
Science is supposed to be about openness and transparency. And science-based medicine is supposed to be about tranparency and honesty with the patient.
So hiding whether a food is GM and its manufacturing process, should never be identified with "Science and Reason". Anti-GMO labeling is just a position favoring the sellers of GMO's and opposing those who want to avoid GMO's.

Bpeth:

Has there ever been a case where a person is allergic to a GMO version of a food and not the non-GMO version?

So hiding whether a food is GM and its manufacturing process, should never be identified with “Science and Reason”. Anti-GMO labeling is just a position favoring the sellers of GMO’s and opposing those who want to avoid GMO’s.

Um, no. There are plenty of reasons to oppose the labeling of GMOs; it makes people perceive danger where there's no danger, for instance. ("Otherwise why would they label it?") Each and every GMO crop that goes on the market is extensively tested for safety as regards human consumption. These are some of the most studied and safest crops ever devised. In fact, the general continuation of hysteria about GMO crops which is represented by the "label it!!!" movement can do and does do significant harm, for instance by instilling distrust of GMOs in the governments of developing countries. I wonder how many people in Zimbabwe starved to death after food relief shipments were rejected by the government because of baseless fears encouraged by the anti-GMO movement?

Bpeth,

So hiding whether a food is GM and its manufacturing process, should never be identified with “Science and Reason”. Anti-GMO labeling is just a position favoring the sellers of GMO’s and opposing those who want to avoid GMO’s.

Does that include foods that have been genetically modified through selective breeding, or by using radiation or chemicals to induce mutations?

If so, a very large number of foodstuffs will require labeling, since practically every plant and animal used for food by man has been genetically modified in one of those ways.

If not, why should a food that has had a very specific change made very carefully for a specific purpose have to be labeled as GM, but not one that has had its DNA randomly mixed up using radiation or chemicals? If you are going to label foods that have been artificially genetically modified, why not foods that have been naturally genetically modified through background radiation?

I am bemused by the fear of 'frankenfoods' created very precisely, with specific aims in mind, and carefully tested on generations of animals to see if they are safe. Why is this so when there is a complete acceptance of foods created by causing completely random changes in DNA, in the hope that something useful might emerge, which are subjected to no safety checks whatsoever.

I can understand why biotechnology companies object to their products being singled out like this. Can't you?

"Some people want to eat kosher; similarly you might find that foolish – but that doesn’t confer the right to conceal whether a food is kosher or not."

So you would support a law that compels the labeling of all foods in this manner? Do we need to have NON-KOSHER stamped on all food, including Jimmy Dean sausages? I was under the impression that there are lots of foods already voluntarily labeled "kosher" so that the devout can easily buy food that meets their religious needs.

Similarly, there are tons of organic foods, and specifically-labeled "non-GMO" foods available, so that people who fear biotechnology can easily avoid it.

The continued demand for mandatory labeling is overwhelmingly driven by a compulsion to demonize foods that true believers do not like.

One problem with labeling foods for GMO content is that it wouldn't go far enough to do real good for someone with reasonable, possibly even nuanced, concerns. Someone with certain allergies might want to avoid certain genetically modified foods, but would have no issue with others. Someone concerned about insecticides might want to avoid food that has been modified to be more resistant to insects, but not care about "Roundup Ready" crops. Someone who believes that Monsanto commits unethical business practices might not be worried about seed purchased from Syngenta.

After all, why stop there? Include on the label whether the crop was grown under irrigation, or whether it was harvested by hand or by machine, or whether it was fertilized with natural manure (a possible source of pathogens), or whether it was processed in a plant that hires people who have dubious (or no) legal status in the country.

So you would support a law that compels the labeling of all foods in this manner? Do we need to have NON-KOSHER stamped on all food, including Jimmy Dean sausages? I was under the impression that there are lots of foods already voluntarily labeled “kosher” so that the devout can easily buy food that meets their religious needs.

The parallelism works better if "non-kosher" is replaced with "treyf." But the simple fact of the matter is that Bpeth has blundered into a complicated field that she seems to know nothing about – not all hechshers are satisfactory to all people.

Similarly, there are tons of organic foods, and specifically-labeled “non-GMO” foods available, so that people who fear biotechnology can easily avoid it.

Can you rely on a "No GMO ingredients", though? If the manufacturer is lying, how could anyone test for it?

So you would support a law that compels the labeling of all foods in this manner? Do we need to have NON-KOSHER stamped on all food, including Jimmy Dean sausages?

Geeze, why not? We already have GLUTEN-FREE labels on everything, including bottled water.

Why not just put it in the ingredients list, just a simple 3 letters before the gmo ingredient? That's all I ask. I would beg to differ on the statement that they are the most tested and safe foods on the planet. They are only tested by the company that sells them, can we say conflict of interest? Puhlease!! It has however been tested and denied in many other countries. I don't care if you don't mind being a test subject, but I don't want me or my kids to be. We all deserve the right to choose. Just label it in the ingredients. It is a scientific debate still, I tend to use common sense that changing the dna of something may have unintended side effects on the human body. I only want to put things in my body that I choose, I want the right to know what I am choosing. If they are so safe, then what could the harm be in that. No warning labels, just a simple three little letters in the ingredients list. Hybrid is naturally obtained btw, it is in no way the same as forcing something into the dna of a seed that could never occur in nature. Give me natural foods for my body and everyone else can decide what they want. Do you really think that the majority of Americans will stop eating processed food because of the ingredients? Why would they start now?

Ms. York, what does your rant have to do with Dr. Oz promoting quackery and the aspects of his tenure at Colunbia?

If you cannot even read an article you are commenting on, then why would we expect you to read and understand food labels?

" I tend to use common sense that changing the dna of something may have unintended side effects on the human body."

Since the changes introduced into a GMO crop's DNA causes the modified produce to express specific proteins that have not been seen to adversely impact human health at exposure levels achievable by including them in your diet, and since the changed DNA itself cannot survive digestion intact, that isn't common sense. Common sense, in fact, argues that the classic means of generating crops which exhibit desired traits through hybridization or crossbreeding--where you have no fine control over what or how many genes are introduced, is the far riskier proposition.

Hybrid is naturally obtained btw, it is in no way the same as forcing something into the dna of a seed that could never occur in nature.

Quite, Janine York #120. A key point here is transgenic and the mixing of animal/plant/microbial genes across even Kingdom boundaries.

Common sense, in fact, argues that the classic means of generating crops which exhibit desired traits through hybridization or crossbreeding–where you have no fine control over what or how many genes are introduced, is the far riskier proposition.

I *think*, JGC #122, that you'd probably need to eat those words if/when your tomatoes tangle up with your golden retriever and your 'potato' salad starts humping your leg.

. . .These constructs are introduced into cells by invasive methods that lead to random insertion of the foreign genes into the genomes (the totality of all the genetic material of a cell or organism). This gives rise to unpredictable, random effects, including gross abnormalities in animals and unexpected toxins and allergens in food crops.

. . . transgenic DNA – the totality of artificial constructs transferred into the GMO – may be more unstable and prone to transfer again to unrelated species; potentially to all species interacting with the GMO.

Horizontal gene transfer is likely to spread antibiotic resistant “marker” genes that could render infectious diseases untreatable, a generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer. Here’s what they’ve got cooking in current field trials:

Corn engineered with human genes (Dow)
Sugarcane engineered with human genes (Hawaii Agriculture Research Center)
Corn engineered with jellyfish genes (Stanford University)
Tobacco engineered with lettuce genes (University of Hawaii)
Rice engineered with human genes (Applied Phytologics)
Corn engineered with hepatitis virus genes (Prodigene)

http://www.mommypotamus.com/if-rice-contains-human-genes-does-that-make…

Tim - Do you have problems with specific applications of the technology, or does this stray into "things man was not meant to know " territory?

Mephistophelese O'Brien #125,
I have a problem with the patenting of the structure of life. In particular, modified life (can't get a patent on natural cannabinoids... must screw it up somehow) that now contaminates the natural. I have a problem with this 'genetic pollution', this Sword of Damocles blowing in the wind which can, if they wish, invite litigation over a parcel of land or contents of your gut.

Tim@123

I *think*, JGC #122, that you’d probably need to eat those words if/when your tomatoes tangle up with your golden retriever and your ‘potato’ salad starts humping your leg.

Pretty big if/when.

Each and every GMO crop that goes on the market is extensively tested for safety as regards human consumption

JP #113,

NO studies have been performed on the human safety of GMO products — in fact the first research is only now emerging, and almost all of it is appearing only in countries outside of the U.S.

To date, no American scientist has investigated the levels of toxic residues in GMO foods.

There have been no studies to determine how much of the herbicides and pesticides that are genetically engineered into the crops remain inside the plant, once it reaches our dinner plate.

There have likewise been no studies to determine how much toxic residue is left over on crops which are heavily saturated with additional pesticides and herbicides during their growth, because they were genetically engineered to withstand it (kills all the weeds around them, while they remain alive).

No long-term testing has been performed to assess the impacts of any of these toxic substances — neither on human health nor on the environment...

...What then, has been studied?

To date, any studies done that relate to GMOs have been performed on animals, with consistent, documented effects of GMO toxicity, including immune dysregulation (asthma, allergy, and inflammation); accelerated aging; infertility; dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation; as well as altered structure and function in the liver, kidney, pancreas, spleen and gastrointestinal system, still birth, birth defects, and early death. Details on a few of these animal studies can be found here.

Meanwhile, related studies on Glyphosate (the key ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp; for which the majority of GMO crops have been engineered to withstand) have uncovered a whole host of toxic effects in humans, plants and soil. View one of the man study reports here; watch an easy-to-understand (and very informative) interview video with the scientist by clicking here.
Why is there a lack of thorough evaluation?

Scientists who study genetically engineered crops are scorned if their research doesn’t promote GMOs in a positive light.

The leading scientific journal Science Direct published a study in 2011 showing significant conflict of interest in so-called “research” done on the health risks and nutritional assessment of genetically modified products.

In 2014, a comprehensive peer review of the Ag-Biotech industry’s so called ‘long term safety studies’ found them to be significantly inaccurate or flawed and no proof of safety.

Says Scientific American Magazine, “Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.”

Key corporations responsible for genetic engineering are doing everything in their power to prevent unbiased research, while distributing mass media “greenwashing” (or providing donor support to public media sources such as NPR) to confuse Americans until they’re too frustrated to care what’s really going on.

Yet despite the lack of human studies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have all determined that genetically modified food is “the same as, or substantially equivalent to, substances commonly found in food.”

Which means GMO foods are not required to undergo specific safety tests prior to entering the market. If the makers of the GM foods claim that they are safe, the FDA has no further questions.

http://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-defined/

Tim,

A key point here is transgenic and the mixing of animal/plant/microbial genes across even Kingdom boundaries.

Are you under the impression that there is an intrinsic difference between animal, plant and microbial genes? Since you share 33% of your genes with a daffodil, 84% with a dog and 18% with baker's yeast that clearly isn't true.

That is a good point, Krebiozen #127. Intelligent design might point out that we're also 97% Aardvark. Yes, with computer code, the designer rarely starts from scratch but employes subroutines and functions others have written.

However, I'd not stick a *goto fail* or an int 13 in a loop for iterating/ending masticating Cheetos.

*Because corn has been engineered to produce its own insecticide as it grows, the Environmental Protection Agency now regulates corn as an insecticide.

http://gmo-awareness.com/avoid-list/overview/

Score: Rootworm 1 Monsanto 0
www.wsj.com/articles/limits-sought-on-gmo-corn-as-pest-resistance-grows…

Horizontal gene transfer is likely to spread antibiotic resistant “marker” genes

There is a certain tension between the claims that
(a) transferring genetic material between genera / phyla / kingdoms is UNNATURAL and never happens outside the laboratory; and

(b) the perfectly natural processes of "horizontal gene transfer" between genera / phyla / kingdoms will spread genetic material beyond its original target.

One or the other, plz.

herr doktor bimler #133,
Why not give momma Nature a gentle, natural, FDA approved shove towards ebola??

Previously, Westwood discovered that along with these nutrients, the weed also transports RNA, the genetic material cells use to translate instructions in the organism’s DNA

http://livescience.com/47375-vampire-plants-suck-victims-genes.html

Why not give momma Nature a gentle, natural, FDA approved shove towards ebola??

Nature seems to manage perfectly well by itself in coming up with Ebola, and with future diseases yet to be announced. There is a vast ecological niche available, i.e. human biomass, and evolution will not ignore it.

Does that include foods that have been genetically modified through selective breeding, or by using radiation or chemicals to induce mutations?

Ahh, the days gone by of inducing polyploidy pot using colchicine or x-rays off the TV rectifier tube. Useless. Almost guaranteed fail, it usually has the same pernicious outcome as with the stunted, modern wheat and mutated gliadin production.

Incidentally, the 'modern' wheat is not more productive per acre, per se; It is systemically more productive because the stunted, uniform height makes it more suitable for mechanical harvesters.

I note reference #12 from your 'mutation breeding' link:

"...it is necessary to produce about 100 GM plants to obtain one that has the desirable characters for its use as a basis of a new GM crop variety. ...Most of these so-called conventional plant breeding methods (such as gene transfer by pollination, mutation breeding, cell selection and induced polyploidy) have a substantially greater discard rate. Mutation breeding, for instance, involves the production of unpredictable and undirected genetic changes and many thousands, even millions, of undesirable plants are discarded in order to identify plants with suitable qualities for further breeding."

Discard them?? Why would they do that if it is 'more productive' and only marginally more toxic than letting them eat cake?

Tim,

Ahh, the days gone by of inducing polyploidy pot using colchicine or x-rays off the TV rectifier tube. Useless. Almost guaranteed fail, it usually has the same pernicious outcome as with the stunted, modern wheat and mutated gliadin production.

Useless when attempted by idiots, perhaps. X-rays do not induce polyploidy, but colchicine can. I have read of successful production of polyploidal marijuana, though how accurate that is I don't know. Up to 80% of living plant species are polyploidal. What do you mean by "mutated gliadin"? Modern wheat has a lower gliadin to glutenin ratio than ancient wheat. Most claims about gluten causing problems in non-celiacs are not based on any evidence.

Incidentally, the ‘modern’ wheat is not more productive per acre, per se; It is systemically more productive because the stunted, uniform height makes it more suitable for mechanical harvesters.

No, the wild ancestor of modern wheat has tiny seeds which come away from the ear very easily. 'Stunted' is a bit judgmental when longer stems result in their collapse.

Discard them?? Why would they do that if it is ‘more productive’ and only marginally more toxic than letting them eat cake?

Is that a serious question, or have you misunderstood that paragraph? With mutation breeding only a tiny number of the resulting mutations are of any use, and the rest are discarded. Are you really opposed to mutation breeding as well as GM? Since 1930 more than 3200 mutagenic plant varietals have been released. You had better stop eating red grapefruit, rice, wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers, peanuts, grapefruit, sesame, bananas, cassava and sorghum and drinking cocoa, beer and Scotch whiskey if you are really concerned.

X-rays do not induce polyploidy

Huu. That explains alot.

Modern wheat has a lower gliadin to glutenin ratio than ancient wheat.

Perhaps. What I *thought* was that there are several amino acids out of sequence constituting a novel protein.

http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/01/the-gliadin-effect/

Modern wheat is a "perfect, chronic poison," according to Dr. William Davis, a cardiologist who has published a book all about the world's most popular grain.

Davis said that the wheat we eat these days isn't the wheat your grandma had: "It's an 18-inch tall plant created by genetic research in the '60s and '70s," he said on "CBS This Morning." "This thing has many new features nobody told you about, such as there's a new protein in this thing called gliadin. It's not gluten. I'm not addressing people with gluten sensitivities and celiac disease. I'm talking about everybody else because everybody else is susceptible to the gliadin protein that is an opiate. This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite, such that we consume 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/modern-wheat-a-perfect-chronic-poison-docto…

^^ Since I'm perpetually on automatic moderate, why not a dodgy CBS news link?

Well, I do like me some bananas that don't look like Mark Richard Hamill minus the Clearasil®.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg

Ahh.

In contrast with more modern forms of wheat, evidence suggests the gliadin protein of einkorn may not be as toxic to sufferers of coeliac disease.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einkorn_wheat#Nutrition_and_gluten_toxici…

Tim,

“This thing has many new features nobody told you about, such as there’s a new protein in this thing called gliadin. It’s not gluten. I’m not addressing people with gluten sensitivities and celiac disease. I’m talking about everybody else because everybody else is susceptible to the gliadin protein that is an opiate. This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite, such that we consume 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year.”

Dr. William Davis is talking absolute and utter bollocks in an effort to scare people into buying his 'Wheat Belly Books'. All varieties of wheat contain gliadin, even spelt as well as barley and rye. Gliadin is not an opiate, and there is no evidence to support claims that it stimulates appetite.

In contrast with more modern forms of wheat, evidence suggests the gliadin protein of einkorn may not be as toxic to sufferers of coeliac disease.

If you don't have coeliac disease this is completely irrelevant.

""in an effort to scare people into buying his ‘Wheat Belly Books’.

But, I got it off SkyMall.

Davis said that the wheat we eat these days isn’t the wheat your grandma had:

So the "wheat your grandma had" is natural -- rather than the result of 7000 years of "gene transfer by pollination, mutation breeding" and spontaneous polyploidy? I am confused.
Next you wlll be telling me that Quadrotriticale is not suitable for conditions on Sherman's Planet.

This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite

This Dr Davis comes across as a bit of a loon.

The Quadrotriticale was only poisonous to the Tribbles because of all the RoundUP™ it was soaking in.

This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite

I am unaware of opiates which stimulate the appetite. My experience has generally been the opposite, actually.

Gliadin is not an opiate

He's attempting to babble about, e.g., this (PDF left lying around here).

Herr doktor bimler

Nature seems to manage perfectly well by itself in coming up with Ebola, and with future diseases yet to be announced.

And she thought viral hemorrhagic fevers were such a good idea that it would be a waste to only make one. Mother nature is scarier than mama krunch (don't tell her I said that though).

Narad,

He’s attempting to babble about, e.g., this (PDF left lying around here).

That's interesting, thanks. It's been a while since I dug into the gluten/exorphin thing. As I wrote, gliadin is not an opiate, nor an opioid, though some of its digestive products do have some opiate agonist activity, but any effects from ingesting wheat flour in humans are extremely unlikely.

this paper (PDF) found that gluten exorphin A5 administered orally to mice in large doses (up to 300 mg/kg) had no effect on pain (nociception), perhaps even antagonist effects, and little effect on anything else, apart from a possible slight anxiolytic effect.

Anyway, from various papers on the subject I estimate that a 70 kg human would have to consume 21kg of wheat flour to be exposed to 300 mg/kg gluten exorphin A5. That's an awful lot of pizza.

Anyway, from various papers on the subject I estimate that a 70 kg human would have to consume 21kg of wheat flour to be exposed to 300 mg/kg gluten exorphin A5. That’s an awful lot of pizza.

And the reason why "leaky gut" became an add-on to the original "morphine hypothesis" (PDF) for autism.

addendum:
#73

they are proud to be able to do away with *organic* as their patent-protected products don’t stay on their own fields but contaminate most every cubic centimeter of air, soil, and water.

#80

They triumphantly tell us about about the jump in organic food sales and all the products now on the market labeled non-GMO, as proof that the American public rejects genetically modified foods.
So if there are so many non-GMO alternatives available, why again is it that we must have mandatory GMO labeling? Doesn’t the consumer already have a choice (and simply by avoiding processed foods is basically assured that they won’t ingest the evil modified DNA)?

#118

Can you rely on a “No GMO ingredients”, though? If the manufacturer is lying, how could anyone test for it?

That’s right: GMO crops are contaminating the organic crops we’re fighting so hard to keep.

The news is out that demand for organic food is one the rise – it’s expected to be a $35 million dollar industry soon, and keep exploding from there. The challenge that organic farmers face; however, and one that the US FDA refuses to address, is that even in the highly subsidized markets of corn and soy growing, Big Biotech has the upper hand.

Every time an organic farm is contaminated with genetically modified crops, not only do those farmers lose their very expensive designation as an ‘organic farm’ but they also are in the legal jaws of companies like Monsanto who has been known to sue farmers for patent infringement, even when it was their seed that happened to contaminate an organic farm, through no fault of the farmer. ...

... Biotech has managed (as was likely their plan all along) to make planting organic crops nearly impossible.

Once you’ve invested in an organic farm, and have it set up, bought your seed, taken the time to fertilize it organically, etc. and a single wind brings pollen from a neighboring GM farm to your own – you’re done for. ...

... The demand for organic is so strong, that Whole Foods executive global grocery coordinator Errol Schweizer, who was also present, said that his company is having a more difficult time finding enough organic goods to provide to the public.

http://naturalsociety.com/us-farmers-hemorrhaging-cash-due-to-gm-crop-c…

“When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage ... because the material was to be used on the ‘enemy,’ none of us were overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide.”~ Quoted by Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, 1990

You may have noticed that many GM foods are sent to Africa and other poor nations as part of “aid” packages.

Nevermind that these very same multinational companies have scoured these countries for every natural resource they have and could solve simple diseases with a two cent vitamin, not by creating things like genetically modified ‘Golden Rice’...

... This most hated company in the world (and its multinationals) don’t feed the world – they poison it with biological warfare chemicals.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/chilling-how-monsantos-agent-orange-is-stil…

I'm impressed that the ZOMG GMO SCAG hysteria making the rounds is so brain-dead compared with last year's take.

I missed this one from Tim at post 150

...prisonplanet.com...

It sums up all Tim's contributions really well.

I’m impressed that the ZOMG GMO SCAG hysteria making the rounds is so brain-dead

Churnalised by a couple of feckin' Political Science lecturers. Were they really the only experts on biosynthesis that Nature could find? Or did the real experts decline to give the desired alarmist opinions?