[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I would be interested to see his opinion on heart attacks caused by inflammation vs. cholesterol. [/quote]
As would I. Tow the company line, or go against the grain and show that you really understand what’s going on?
S
A little disappointing to see all the hate. As someone else said he was one of the most sought-after cardiothoracic surgeons in the country and knows his shit.
My mother watches him religiously and tends to be a little over zealous with the products he pushes, but all of it has been a benefit or placebo at worst. All her biggest mistakes have been taking the first 2 minutes of what he says about a product and ignoring the rest. I’ve heard her tell me something and I say he’s wrong with disdain, only to watch he had all kind of specifics about the stuff.
He basically pushes a be healthy agenda. Seriously what is wrong with that? I’m more suspicious of a group of medical Dr’s getting extra sensitive over GMO’s then Dr. Oz telling my mother to squeeze her scapula to help counter sitting all day.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Can’t stand Dr. Oz, dude is such a phony. [/quote]
Maybe on sups…but this is no joke IMO.
Oz was (and still is) one of the most sought-after cardiothoracic surgeons in the country, practicing at New York City’s prestigious New York-Presbyterian Hospital.
[/quote]
I’m sure he’s great at what he actually does. Unfortunately I really only know Dr. Oz from the BS he peddles on TV.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Can’t stand Dr. Oz, dude is such a phony. [/quote]
Maybe on sups…but this is no joke IMO.
Oz was (and still is) one of the most sought-after cardiothoracic surgeons in the country, practicing at New York City’s prestigious New York-Presbyterian Hospital.
[/quote]
I’m sure he’s great at what he actually does. Unfortunately I really only know Dr. Oz from the BS he peddles on TV. [/quote]
I see what you are saying, but at least he is a ninja surgeon and not some computer programmer like that FoodBabe moron.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Can’t stand Dr. Oz, dude is such a phony. [/quote]
Maybe on sups…but this is no joke IMO.
Oz was (and still is) one of the most sought-after cardiothoracic surgeons in the country, practicing at New York City’s prestigious New York-Presbyterian Hospital.
[/quote]
I’m sure he’s great at what he actually does. Unfortunately I really only know Dr. Oz from the BS he peddles on TV. [/quote]
I see what you are saying, but at least he is a ninja surgeon and not some computer programmer like that FoodBabe moron.
http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit-1694902226[/quote]
Thankfully I’ve never heard of her.
“Just this week, Vox reported on emails released by Wikileaks between Oz and the Sony executives who produce his show. The emails showed that business considerations heavily influenced the products Oz promoted on his program”
^No surprise really.
S
His beliefs about the benefits of goji berries or whatever is the latest food have no bearing on his abilities as a cardio-thoracic surgeon.
If I ever needed my … uh… cardio thorax operated on, I’d want this guy to do it.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
“Just this week, Vox reported on emails released by Wikileaks between Oz and the Sony executives who produce his show. The emails showed that business considerations heavily influenced the products Oz promoted on his program”
^No surprise really.
S[/quote]
I assumed that was the case in all of those shows.
Is it necessary to remain on the faculty to operate?
Might constant public demonstration of lack of intellectual integrity, even to a point where a university is embarrassed from the faculty member’s chosen behavior resulting in appearance before Congress with total inability to back up his public claims, or resulting in perhaps widespread loss of credibility, be reasons to consider a person’s removal from University faculty?
Is there no limit?
Different question as to whether “Dr Oz” surpassed that limit if it exists, but he’s made a remarkable journey into that territory. And true, those with tenure generally support there being nearly no limit to the behavior of fellow tenure-holders, short of felonies, so by that standard Oz should be golden.
However, how low should the bar go? Perhaps not necessarily to where only James Cameron can retrieve it.
If he was truly as advertised (pun, heh), imho the university would not have been so lukewarm in their “defense”.
edited to delete what I decided is inappropriate for anonymous internet crap
Is there any evidence (aside from one randomly inserted caveat in the aforementioned Yahoo article) that the good Doctor is in fact in the top 1% in his field, along with the inference that he still actually operates?
There does seem to be concrete evidence regarding the charges levied against him by his detractors.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
A little disappointing to see all the hate. As someone else said he was one of the most sought-after cardiothoracic surgeons in the country and knows his shit.
My mother watches him religiously and tends to be a little over zealous with the products he pushes, but all of it has been a benefit or placebo at worst. All her biggest mistakes have been taking the first 2 minutes of what he says about a product and ignoring the rest. I’ve heard her tell me something and I say he’s wrong with disdain, only to watch he had all kind of specifics about the stuff.
He basically pushes a be healthy agenda. Seriously what is wrong with that? I’m more suspicious of a group of medical Dr’s getting extra sensitive over GMO’s then Dr. Oz telling my mother to squeeze her scapula to help counter sitting all day. [/quote]
This.
Has his influence been a net negative or a net positive on American society?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
A little disappointing to see all the hate. As someone else said he was one of the most sought-after cardiothoracic surgeons in the country and knows his shit.
My mother watches him religiously and tends to be a little over zealous with the products he pushes, but all of it has been a benefit or placebo at worst. All her biggest mistakes have been taking the first 2 minutes of what he says about a product and ignoring the rest. I’ve heard her tell me something and I say he’s wrong with disdain, only to watch he had all kind of specifics about the stuff.
He basically pushes a be healthy agenda. Seriously what is wrong with that? I’m more suspicious of a group of medical Dr’s getting extra sensitive over GMO’s then Dr. Oz telling my mother to squeeze her scapula to help counter sitting all day. [/quote]
This.
Has his influence been a net negative or a net positive on American society?
[/quote]
Not necessarily this.
It is more than fair to criticize a professional for individual bad or unethical acts, even if the professional has helped lots of people along the way or has made significant other positive contributions to his profession. The bullshit shilling of products using his accomplishments to bolster them for money when no evidence supports their effectiveness is a significant degradation of principles of evidence-based medicine and is, IMO, a bad act worthy of criticism. I can say this and still recognize that the guy might have made other, positive contributions in his professional life. But good works in one area simply don’t excuse other, independent ethical transgressions.
For example, in the legal profession, if you help 100 needy clients and do a great job for them, good for you, but if you defraud even one of them you are still going to get disbarred if you get caught. Medical ethics works the same way.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
His beliefs about the benefits of goji berries or whatever is the latest food have no bearing on his abilities as a cardio-thoracic surgeon.
If I ever needed my … uh… cardio thorax operated on, I’d want this guy to do it.
[/quote]
GOJI ME…RIGHT IN THE THORAXZZ
Health care is really SIIDs (Sickness, Illness, Injury and Death) care. Professionals train for years upon years to get to be where they are. There is massive Narsiccistic Psychopathic Egos involved.
When you reach a certain level (Dr Oz as Top Thoracic Surgeon,cool) and then are offered the position of anothers basically personal physician on the world stage (Oprah), do you not think that the NPE side of you would not take over to a certain extent ?
Lets throw a whole lot of money on top of this little power trip as well, and we are right where we are supposed to be :
Questionable Ethics.
A dear close buddy of mine was (commited suicide) caught in a situation of questionable morals and ethics.
He was a Top Cardiovascular surgeon, and the hospital for which he worked fired him instantly, even though charges where
filed but the court date never came to be (see above).
We hold Doctors, Physicians, Surgeons to a higher level and I believe that is a good thing.
They may not know as much as some here on T-Nation do about nutrition, or Simmons et al.
That is not what they went on to study…
They try not to lose themselves in what they are trying to achieve…
For they are still human…and make sometimes tragic mistakes…
Just a little food for thought …
As for the Good Oz…? ?? ???
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Might constant public demonstration of lack of intellectual integrity, even to a point where a university is embarrassed from the faculty member’s chosen behavior resulting in appearance before Congress with total inability to back up his public claims, or resulting in perhaps widespread loss of credibility, be reasons to consider a person’s removal from University faculty?
[/quote]
A better expression of how I feel about the matter.
Oz is most likely a first-rate cardiothoracic surgeon. However, brazen and repeated displays of intellectual dishonesty would seem an undesirable trait in a prestigious medical-school faculty member.
If I’m a really good car mechanic, but you learn that I slept with your wife against your wishes and despite repeated denials that I was doing so, I suspect you would be somewhat less likely to bring your car back to me for service. My sleeping with your wife has nothing to do with my skills as a car mechanic, but it probably makes you a lot less likely to trust me.
Maybe shilling goji berries has nothing to do with his abilities as a surgeon or his ability to teach students the complexities of a surgery, but it certainly does cast doubt on his intellectual honesty, which in turn calls into question whether he really practices “evidence based medicine” (seems like a good thing for a faculty member at a medical school to do, right?) or just does whatever he wants.
As someone that (now) works in close proximity with cardiologists and CT surgeons on a daily basis, I can appreciate that they are under tremendous strain and bear a great deal of responsibility for saving lives. I also have seen some with very good dedication to EBM and others who, um, are a little more fast and loose with their decisions in treatment practice.
If I’m on the operating table someday, I want a guy who follows the best possible treatment practice, not one who does whatever the highest bidder pays him to do or whatever gets him the biggest reimbursement from an insurance provider.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
A little disappointing to see all the hate. As someone else said he was one of the most sought-after cardiothoracic surgeons in the country and knows his shit.
My mother watches him religiously and tends to be a little over zealous with the products he pushes, but all of it has been a benefit or placebo at worst. All her biggest mistakes have been taking the first 2 minutes of what he says about a product and ignoring the rest. I’ve heard her tell me something and I say he’s wrong with disdain, only to watch he had all kind of specifics about the stuff.
He basically pushes a be healthy agenda. Seriously what is wrong with that? I’m more suspicious of a group of medical Dr’s getting extra sensitive over GMO’s then Dr. Oz telling my mother to squeeze her scapula to help counter sitting all day. [/quote]
This.
Has his influence been a net negative or a net positive on American society?
[/quote]
Not necessarily this.
It is more than fair to criticize a professional for individual bad or unethical acts, even if the professional has helped lots of people along the way or has made significant other positive contributions to his profession. The bullshit shilling of products using his accomplishments to bolster them for money when no evidence supports their effectiveness is a significant degradation of principles of evidence-based medicine and is, IMO, a bad act worthy of criticism. I can say this and still recognize that the guy might have made other, positive contributions in his professional life. But good works in one area simply don’t excuse other, independent ethical transgressions.
For example, in the legal profession, if you help 100 needy clients and do a great job for them, good for you, but if you defraud even one of them you are still going to get disbarred if you get caught. Medical ethics works the same way.
[/quote]
I guess what’s a lost in my statement is what exactly has he done that’s unethical?
I’ve seen posts of people saying he’s a quack Dr., seen article about his faculty calling for him to be removed. I have yet to see a definitive Dr. Oz said _____, ____ is not true. Factually I’ve heard him push good health as a way of feeling better. I’ve never seen him say X cure’s cancer. His episodes basically look like a compilation of pubmed and the generic shorts at the beginning of mens health.
For years I’ve heard people complain about Dr’s pushing pills and surgery, the first one that doesn’t everybody calls a quack.
"The scientific community is almost monolithic against you in terms of the efficacy of the three products you called ‘miracles,’ " said McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat. She said she was discouraged by the “false hope” his rhetoric gives viewers and questioned his role “intentional or not, in perpetuating these scams.”
The bottom line is that he is taking advantage of the stardom Oprah helped him build to make gobs of money off low information viewers with questionable products.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
I have yet to see a definitive Dr. Oz said _____, ____ is not true.
[/quote]
I’m actually fine with people pushing “good health” and I’m hardly a shill for mainstream medicine. I’m a dedicated reader of Mark’s Daily Apple and basically consider his post titled “25 Ways To Improve Your Insulin Sensitivity” as my guide for “How To Live Well.”
So, with that preamble…if you haven’t seen a definitive Dr. Oz said ____, ____ is not true, you have not looked very hard. I don’t know if links will work if I post, so I am going to try to copy and paste here. The format will probably end up sloppy but you should be able to read the text.
Example 1
“Dr. Mehmet Oz let viewers of his TV show in on a timely little secret. “Everybody wants to know whatâ??s the newest, fastest fat buster,” said the board-certified cardiothoracic surgeon and one of People magazineâ??s sexiest men alive. â??How can I burn fat without spending every waking moment exercising and dieting?”
He then told his audience about a â??breakthrough,â?? â??magic,â?? â??holy grail,â?? even â??revolutionaryâ?? new fat buster. â??I want you to write it down,â?? Americaâ??s doctor urged his audience with a serious and trustworthy stare. After carefully wrapping his lips around the exotic words â??Garcinia cambogia,â?? he added, sternly: â??It may be the simple solution youâ??ve been looking for to bust your body fat for good.â??
…
In Dr. Oz’s New York City studio, garcinia extractâ??or hydroxycitric acid found in fruits like purple mangosteenâ??sounded fantastic, a promising new tool for the battle against flab. Outside the Oprah-ordained doctor’s sensational world of amazing new diets, there’s no real debate about whether garcinia works: The best evidence is unequivocally against it.
The miracle cure isn’t really a miracle at all. Itâ??s not even new. Garcinia cambogia has been studied as a weight-loss aid for more than 15 years. A 1998 randomized controlled trial looked at the effects of garcinia as a potential “antiobesity agent” in 135 people. The conclusion: The pills were no better than placebo for weight and fat loss.
More recently, a group of researchers summarized the evidence for this “breakthrough” extract in a systematic review of 12 randomized trials involving 706 participants. Some trials reported short-term slimming, but the overall effects were so small and most studies were so methodologically flawed that the authors were unable to conclude that garcinia extract has an impact on body weight."
Example 2
"Take a breaking-news segment about green coffee-bean supplements that â??can burn fat fast for anyone who wants to lose weight.â?? Oz cited a new study that showed people lost 17 pounds in 22 weeks by doing absolutely nothing but taking this â??miracle pill.â??
A closer look at the coffee-bean research revealed that it was a tiny trial of only 16 people, with overwhelming methodological limitations. It was supported by the Texas-based company Applied Food Sciences Inc., a manufacturer of green coffee-bean products. Oz didnâ??t mention the potential conflict of interest, but he did say he was skeptical. To ease his mind, he conducted his own experiment: It involved giving the pills to two audience members for five days and seeing what would happen. Unsurprisingly, both women reported being less hungry, more energetic, and losing two and six pounds, respectively.
There are many reasons why this made-for-TV â??studyâ?? would not be published in any reputable medical journal or meet the approval of Ozâ??s peers: The sample size was minuscule. The women were not followed for long enough to know whether the effects of the supplement were real. They were neither randomly selected nor unaware of what they were taking. They also knew they were going to have to announce their weight in public to millions of viewers. That pressure, combined with a strong placebo effect, was the most likely cause of their shape change, if one can call it that at all."
[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
I’m actually fine with people pushing “good health” and I’m hardly a shill for mainstream medicine. I’m a dedicated reader of Mark’s Daily Apple and basically consider his post titled “25 Ways To Improve Your Insulin Sensitivity” as my guide for “How To Live Well.”
[/quote]
Good read especially after just eating a colossal donut that I’m pretty sure gave me the insta-betus…