from the let-me-sell-you-some-snake-oil dept.
AlterNet reports
[...]the prestigious British Medical Journal has joined [The New Yorker, the US Senate, and the Twittersphere in condemning Mehmet Oz, MD for the pseudoscience on his TV show].
In an article published this week, a group of health experts analyzed a random sampling of episodes of "The Dr. Oz Show" (along with another syndicated show, "The Doctors"). The upshot: the evidence supports less than half of what he says. Which, in practical terms, means you should have reasonable doubt about all of it.
The researchers sat through 40 episodes of the "The Dr. Oz Show"; from those, they identified 479 separate recommendations he or his guests made to his TV audience. After winnowing the selection down to more forceful recommendations, they randomly selected 80 and weighed them against the existing medical literature, evaluating each claim for "consistency and believability."
Only 46 percent of the advice, they found, had evidence supporting it, and just 33 percent of the time were those claims supported by "believable or somewhat believable evidence." For just more than 1 in 3 recommendations, they weren't able to find any supporting information at all (despite, they note, "being quite liberal in the type and amount of evidence we required").
The sad part is how many people get their "information" from television.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @12:13AM
Can somebody fill us non-Americans in on who exactly Dr Oz is, and why the fuck anyone would listen to him?
Are we talking about the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz? Wasn't a wizard, rather than a doctor?
I'm not going to google for this basic info. The summary should have included it.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Tuesday December 23 2014, @12:20AM
As the third link is Salon, I'm struggling to care.
I should care, and look into it myself to further my own understanding, but I'm going to be a lazy bastard and wait for someone to summarize it.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @03:03AM
Cool story bro!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday December 23 2014, @01:57PM
It's been all over Google News for the last week; there are few US newspapers that aren't covering it.
Dr. Oz is a physician who goes on TV hawking dietary supplements, and it's revealed that half of his advice has no scientific basis and much runs counter to what studies say.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by khedoros on Tuesday December 23 2014, @12:34AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Tuesday December 23 2014, @06:25AM
No, he's not "wrong". He's just whoring out his show to whomever pays the most.
(Score: 3) by khedoros on Tuesday December 23 2014, @08:05AM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @09:53AM
No he can be wrong when he isn't a paid shill too. A while ago I was researching what was best to do with a blister (i.e. leave it or pop it), I came across a clip from his show and I watched it out of curiosity to see if he was as bad as I'd heard. From my research the most reasonable advice seemed to be to just leave it alone as the intact skin provides protection against infection and given time the body will reabsorb the fluid. What shocked me about what I watched though wasn't that he just gave bad advice, he actually got some poor woman to walk in ill-fitting shoes to develop a huge blister he could show off on camera, he didn't even treat her blister preferring to use a giant mock-up on stage. What was the point of that, everyone knows what a blister looks like, he didn't need a real-life example that he wasn't even going to demonstrate his "correct" method on. So his advice was wrong, his practise unethical, and he wasn't shilling anything.
That may be a trivial example, though with a bit of googling it should be easy to find more serious examples.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Tuesday December 23 2014, @11:11AM
Interesting. I was just looking at what to do about the blister on my foot yesterday, and I never get blisters, and here you are. That's what I found too. Don't pop it. Some coincidence.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @09:36PM
If there's the slightest chance I will rupture a blister, I will go ahead and deflate the thing purposely.
Sterilize a needle in a flame.
Insert it at the -edge- of the bubble to make a tiny hole then gently squeeze out any fluid.
Put a dab of antibiotic on the hole.
Cover the whole thing with a band-aid.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @01:29AM
No one here knows either. I think he's Australian.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @01:54AM
He's famous for making dubious health claims on his platform(s) [nbcnews.com] that cause his stupid fans to go out and buy supplements and other products [sciencebasedmedicine.org]. For example, "green coffee bean extract", "raspberry ketone" and other miracle food bullshit. He is a successful pseudoscientific alternative medicine touting snake oil peddler.
(Score: 4, Informative) by meisterister on Tuesday December 23 2014, @08:03AM
To put him in a nutshell, I would say:
Random asshat with a TV show who likes to hawk vaguely medicine related bullshit and woo.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday December 23 2014, @03:25PM
Quick answer he, like Dr. Phil, is a creation of the almighty Oprah who got their own show. These people are religiously followed by the unemployable and stay at home parents who will blindly follow any crank advice they dole out.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday December 23 2014, @01:19AM
Can we use real words instead of "Twittersphere" and "blogosphere" and the like?
Now get off my paved and painted lawn!
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Funny) by tibman on Tuesday December 23 2014, @02:19AM
The Blogosphere exists on the western edge of the Sea of Opinions. Though Twitter is larger, it is singular and isn't a member of any sphere-like community. https://xkcd.com/802_large/ [xkcd.com]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday December 23 2014, @04:38AM
Can we use real words instead of "Twittersphere" and "blogosphere" and the like?
Can we use less descriptive terms so the summaries can be bloated and take longer to read?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday December 23 2014, @06:15AM
Twitter users would be more accurate since Twittersphere treats Twitter users like they are incapable of being influenced by other sites.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Tuesday December 23 2014, @02:02PM
What is a "real word"? The word "robotics" didn't exist until Isaac Asimov coined it, is that a "real" word?
I intensely dislike the incredibly stupid sounding "blog", "blogosphere", and "twitterverse" as well, but what are your suggestions for replacements?
Yeah, I'm a geezer, too.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday December 24 2014, @05:08AM
Call them bloggers or Twitter users. We have perfectly usable words already, Asimov did not.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @01:27AM
Is this a case of a doctor that is incompetent, speaking outside of his speciality, and/or promoting "controversial" ideas for ratings?
Does he at least get things correct from his speciality correct?
(Score: 2) by NoMaster on Tuesday December 23 2014, @01:54AM
Depends how much shill-money he's getting.
(Or, as Tom Lehrer put it - "A man who's allegiance is ruled by expedience"...)
Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Tuesday December 23 2014, @02:27AM
He's a cardiothoracic surgeon by trade. Unless he's talking about cutting open the chest, it's not his specialty.
If you broaden his specialty to all of cardiovascular disease, he's talking nonsense more often than I would feel comfortable in a similar situation (and I'm a cardiologist).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @04:39PM
He was a doctor, now he just plays one on TV.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @02:38AM
Some years back, before talk radio turned into complete shit, there was a guy with a call-in show where he helped folks with medical problems.
His was the #2 syndicated radio show nationally. [wikipedia.org]
He had been an ophthalmologist, but quit practicing.
As a radio doctor, he read voraciously and knew more about the medical field than most doctors.
He had a bunch of other doctors who listened to the show. [examiner.com]
It he didn't know something, he would say so and put out the call for help, often getting that before the hour was up.
On the rare occasion he got something wrong, again, one of the specialists in the audience would call in and straighten him out.
He quit that gig in 2010. [sfgate.com]
(A really horrible, horrible page [w3.org] but it mentions Oz and Gupta.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @04:53AM
So, medical advice from someone not licenced to practice as a GP?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @06:14AM
Hint: Some people have a driver's license but never drive.
I never said he gave up his license.
He just stopped seeing patients.
I'll bet your GP knows less about medicine than the guy who was constantly reading articles about EVERYTHING in the latest medical journals.
Not having to spend 8 hours a day seeing patients gives you a lot of time to learn a bunch of stuff.
Old joke:
Know what they call the guy who finished last in his medical school class?
"Doctor."
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @03:24PM
FTFY
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday December 23 2014, @04:20AM
He actually endorsed, Homoeopathy if I recall correctly. That in my opinion is certainly incompetent, to the point of being criminal.
(Score: 1) by No Respect on Tuesday December 23 2014, @02:36AM
He's the dumb-it-down-for-me medical guy on TV for millions of daytime viewers. They are the exact same people who will dismiss the British Medical Journal's findings as "an opinion" and call the authors "haters". I think guys like Oz serve a useful purpose, though. He keeps the sheep away from the more lurid conspiracy theories.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @05:40AM
I agree, a lot of people will easily believe anything said to them as long as the person is famous.
(Score: 1) by weirsbaski on Tuesday December 23 2014, @06:33AM
Maybe he should legally change his name to "Dr. Flawz".
(Score: 3) by RamiK on Tuesday December 23 2014, @06:58AM
MDs recommend un-evidenced-based*practices all the time. Most of the time it's the little things like people asking them what they should eat or how they should work out or what this nagging pain in their backs...
Sometimes it's even in their general field but not in their expertise - i.e. family physicians are pretty notorious for not having a clue - which is of course completely reasonable for them not to know everything, until they start recommending treatments without referring to an expert...
So, you're saying 46% is supported by research? I say sounds like a decent number until you can prove other (real?) doctors score better.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday December 23 2014, @10:18PM
The other 46% is shilling for his fake medicine that he makes a huge profit on.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Tuesday December 23 2014, @10:03AM
In a society where it costs a lot of money to see a doctor, why would it be surprising when the majority of people try to diagnose and fix their own medical complaints, whether that's self-help books, the internet, faith healers and other quacks or TV programmes?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday December 24 2014, @05:47AM
Money isn't the only problem. I've been told flat-out wrong things by doctors. For the things that trouble me, literature that I could get my hands on and understand explicitly stated that many things the doctors told me were incorrect. Separating the crazy stuff from the good stuff on the Internet seems to be a necessary life skill these days.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @03:28PM
Mehemet is a Muslim sounding name.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @05:31PM
.."Entertainment."
The first world can be divided into two groups: Those who understand this and those who don't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 23 2014, @06:48PM
To do a full-on double-blind placebo study on a properly sized N from a group of random ethnicity, gender, age is extremely difficult, time and money consuming. And it needs to be repeated several different times. And then, and only then does it have a modicum of likely of being correct. The statistics in this area is abused so much, and there's so much bias as to even make this kind of studying have a very high probability of being "wrong".
So what's left. If you have a supplement, that is natural and not likely to harm you like a real drug, if it doesn't help the patient, the patient has only lost some $. But if it does help, whether due to a placebo effect or not, then you have given the patient (or subject) a chance of gaining a benefit. If you are using potent drugs with potent side-effects a gun-shot approach is dangerous.
This is the basis of the art--not science.
If you are relying on published findings to validate his recommendations, you are relying mostly on things that are false: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124 [plosmedicine.org]
My soapbox: Most so-called science isn't science. And it's really expensive. And it's an epistemological nightmare.