Slashdot Mirror
Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal
circletimessquare writes Dr. Mehmet Oz serves as vice chairman of Columbia University Medical Center's department of surgery. He is a respected cardiothoracic surgeon but his television show has been accused of pushing snake oil. Now other doctors at Columbia University want Dr. Oz kicked off the medical school faculty. Dr. Oz has responded on his Facebook account: "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." In their letter, the doctors accuse Dr. Oz of quackery: "Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops. Worst of all, he has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain."
Corn and carrots did not exist in their current form a thousand years ago, we agree on that; however, there is a very large difference between the artificial selection our human ancestors performed and what Monsanto is currently doing by splicing sheep DNA and injecting it into vegetables - often for no other reason than to sell patented pesticides that pair with their crop seeds. I'm not saying gene splicing is "wrong", as a man of science, I'm in favor of pushing boundaries but there's a difference between that and artificial selection using nature's own rules. There's also no reason why people shouldn't be informed about exactly what they are putting into their bodies. That's not a decision you or any scientist has the right to make. Less we forget, DDT, Thalidomide and Agent Orange were all deemed "safe" by experts at one time, my friend.
Even if you remove the health risk argument, there are other legitimate concerns. Have you tasted Parisian food lately? I dare you to find a french beefsteak tomato that has as bland a flavor as our U.S. equivalent - one reason for that is because we've bread our beefsteak tomatoes to have skins thick enough to survive truck transport but in the process we've inadvertently bread out the flavor.
Also for someone claiming no special interest, you seem pretty determined to counter EVERY single comment on this article that's not in line with your views.
can you legitimize that accusation please?
Well, going down the list of signers http://www.vox.com/2015/4/16/8... I notice
GIlbert Ross, M.D.
President (Acting) and Executive Director
American Council on Science and Health
I am not completely for or against ACSH. Elizabeth Whelan, their founder, was an advocate for some issues I agreed with and some issues I disagreed with. I met Whelan a couple of times. I liked her. She was adding information about some controversial debates, and she was particularly useful in taking on some politically correct positions that had a weak science base. As I recall she was defending GM food, and also taking money from Monsanto.
Most admirably, she was taking on the cigarette industry when it was still a "controversy," especially in magazines that were getting a lot of cigarette advertising, notably almost all the major women's magazines.
But Whelan was also trying to round up "unrestricted" grants from industry to write supposedly unbiased or objective reports on major controversies. To her credit, they tried to give all the scientific evidence, although they seem to have run into problems with that.
The one I remember was their report on that fat substitute, Olestra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... This was not a life-or-death issue, but olestra had a few side effects, the most noticeable of which was diarrhea. Procter & Gamble managed to get the FDA to allow them to refer to "diarrhea" by the euphemistic term, "loose stools," which I thought was misleading. At any rate, when I read that report I realized why you can't get an objective report sponsored by a corporation with a financial interest. Whelan couldn't even use straightforward language and arguments to defend olestra, because P&G's lawyers made them follow the FDA-approved wording.
Whelan's big disappointment was that the industry wouldn't support her (the way they do for the more partisan think tanks like the Manhattan Institute), so she gave up that economic model. I don't know where they get their money from now, but I assume they disclose it. In a way it's a shame, because Whelan failed because she was too honest (but not completely candid). Or to put it less flatteringly, you can't be a little bit of a prostitute.
But let's go to the signers at the top.
Henry I. Miller, M.D.
Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy
& Public Policy
Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, CA
Scott W. Atlas, M.D.
David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow
Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, CA
Hoover did not deign to include its funding sources in the "About Us" section of its web site, and I'm not going to track it down. But as I recall, when Hoover was first created, the Stanford faculty complained that they were an independent institution using Stanford's name but without academic accountability to Standford, and they were funded by corporations that had a financial stake in some of the areas of their research.
Miller was one of the founding members of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition which was founded by Philip Morris to challenge the evidence of harm from tobacco http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
I remember reading Miller's defenses of GM food. I happen to think that GM food is (probably, mostly) pretty safe. But if Miller believes in the free market, he ought to let consumers know which foods are GM and which aren't, so they can make their own free-market decisions. I don't know if Miller takes any money directly from those corporations. But the organizations he works for, like the Hoover Institution, ACSH, and ASSC, do. So that's where his paycheck ultimately comes from. So in that sense the parent's accusation is true.
Oz has
"in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy"
When Jenny McCarthy found out that what she was saying was wrong and harmful, she largely retracted her entire position. Oz knows what he's saying is wrong and harmful, but he keeps doing it, for the money.
There are actually a few differences that can have real consequences. For example, simple cross breeding is a fairly slow and limited process that gives us time to see if a problem is developing. It is further limited by the need to stick with plants that can cross-breed in the first place.
Another factor is that not all genetic modification techniques lead to the plants breeding true. The next few generations may be substantially different from the original.
If the work was being done in a verifiable cautious manner, it might be OK, but there is a history of modifications that "can't escape to the wild" being spotted in the wild. It's somewhat amusing the number of weeds that gained roundup resistance from roundup ready canola. Also amusingly, in spite of Monsanto's claim that only their transgenic techniques could have produced roundup ready crops, traditional breeding has managed it in a few cases including in coca.
Genuine curiosity, what is he advocating that actually endangers his patients (or anyone else's) health?
Well, the short answer is he isn't, directly. That statement sounds like he's trying to kill his viewers. He's not.
The long answer has to do with his promotion of weight-loss dietary supplements.Since supplements aren't regulated by the FDA, consumers can't always be sure what they're taking. There are some sketchy companies out there and sometimes what's in the pill is not what's on the label.
He also didn't do himself any favors by using incautious language to promote the supplements - things like "magic weight loss cure" and "miracle in a bottle". This earned him a stern talking to by a Senate subcommittee on consumer protection about a year ago.
In his defense he points out these products have studies to show they are somewhat effective when combined with diet and exercise and it's not his fault if companies are misrepresenting product.
Here's a recent link where she denies changing her position in any way. I'm afraid she's still a murdering bitch.
story I'll just leave that there for you to look at. Artic will be completely ice free by 2013, by your scientists that shouldn't be questioned.
Here it is 2015 and I'm the idiot for pointing out they are wrong. This is why I think science is groupthink. They made a prediction, they were 100% wrong in outcome, and I get called names by pointing it out. This happened in the past. A guy said the earth rotates around the sun and had evidence, but everyone else called him a heretic and said he was wrong and the sun rotates around the earth.
You do understand that a) Maslowski was speaking about the possibility, not the certainty, and b), that he did not represent the mainstream, but deviated from it significantly? Indeed, this is the very opposite of "group think" - it's a range of different opinions.
Stephan