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."
he's irresponsibly pandering to ignorance to raise his profile
ignorant think he's informing them and giving them "choices"
but this is merely a logical fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
a choice between quackery and sound science is not a choice
it's preying on the science illiteracy of many and steering them to make uneducated bad choices that hurt their health. all to turn a quick buck and bask in the blessings of idiots
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Quackery they could tolerate. But how dare he question the nutritious yummy GMOs whose manufacturers are pumping millions of dollars into endowments for those other Columbia University medical faculty. While he's enriching himself, those poor souls may lose out on lucrative $$$. Can't have that.
(That's not to say dr. Oz is not a quack - he certainly is a snake oil salesman, but these guys have an agenda that's as clear as day)
there's nothing wrong with hating monsanto, the corporate behemoth with unclean intentions
there is everything wrong with questiong GMO, the science
the science and the corporation are not the same thing
to confuse the two is ignorance and dangerous propaganda
besides, people were disgusted by his quackery and snake oil salesmanship independent of and long before monsanto
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
they're jealous because they want to be successful snake oil salesmen?
so according to you, the only reason to oppose snake oil salesmen... is because you want to be one?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I thought Jamie Oliver comprehensively put this guy on the quack-heap: https://youtu.be/WA0wKeokWUU
A shame it wasn't Jamie Oliver or a few more people might have heard it.
I don't think there is much overlap between the Oprah audience and the John Oliver audience, and one Oprah endorsement is worth a thousand minor-celebrity condemnations.
I don't question the science of GMO foods. I question the safety of GMO foods. I just don't want to eat a food that manufactures its own pesticide. You do?
I also know that genes don't stay put in one plant - that's science, too. We are already seeing Round-Up resistant weeds. I have enough weeds on my property, thank you.
"I just don't want to eat a food that manufactures its own pesticide"
then you don't want to eat any plant that has ever grown
plants have been in an evolutionary arms race with the creatures that eat them for billions of years, producing a plethora of toxic compounds to kill and maim that which eats them
and the evolution of animal's livers have been doing their best to keep up
in fact many flavor compounds and drugs from plants were originally evoled to kill us, or are meant to kill another species
your irrational fear is nothing but illiteracy and ignorance
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You do realize that every plant manufactures its own pesticides, right? Tomatoes, potatoes, and eggplants have nicotine. Chile has capsaicin. Pretty much anything with flavor, especially spices, are the result of pesticides. It's in everything. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/synthetic-v-natural-pesticides/?_r=0
Want to reevaluate your stance on eating food that manufacture's its own pesticides? No? Then you are ignorant of science.
As long as he was peddling magical dietary supplements and weight loss pills he was a lovable scamp and was allowed to carry on with his mischief. But as soon as he dared cross Monsanto, he is a quack that must be squashed.
Here's the relevant portions of the letter in question:
As described here and here, as well as in other publications, 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.
Thus, Dr. Oz is guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgements about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both. Whatever the nature of his pathology, members of the public are being misled and endangered, which makes Dr. Oz's presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution unacceptable.
I see one reference to GMO opposition and two or three references to quack science and conflicts of interest. Dr. Oz's rebuttal on the other hand only specifically mentions the GMO's.
It's a clever PR ploy on Dr. Oz's part, focus on the milder part of the accusation and suggest a conspiracy. Meanwhile ignore the more serious accusations that are much harder to defend.
I stole this Sig
You do realize that every plant manufactures its own pesticides, right?
You and the other earlier poster are missing the point. Or at the very least, a large part of it.
"Roundup-Ready" crops were supposed to REDUCE the use of pesticides. Instead, the practical effect is that it has ENABLED more use of glyphosate. As a real result, the use of glyphosate and the level of glyphosate in some food products has multiplied.
These are "perverse consequences". As another poster mentioned, there has been "voluntary" passing of the glyphosate-resistant gene to what are normally considered noxious weeds, meaning its widespread use is probably self-defeating, in exactly the same sense as over-use of antibiotics.
To say that GMO foods are "safe" therefore is naive at best.
Making a plant manufacture its own insecticide is one thing. Modifying it so that it can withstand being soaked with ever-increasing quantities and varieties of synthetic pesticides is another.
Weeds are gradually evolving to resist this chemical onslaught. Most people would rather not have themselves subjected to such evolutionary pressure within their lifetimes.
The weeds are destined to eventually win this arms race anyway, so this huge experiment in chemical exposure to the US population is eventually going to be for naught.
It's like watching "The Simpsons" for parenting advice.
I heard GW Bush claim Saddam had WMDs too, and that didn't happen did it?
Actually, that one did. It resulted in both "Gulf War Syndrome", and a pretty big scandal where Monsanto brokered the deal to sell the machines to manufacture chemical weapons to them from a German company, said deal routed through France. But nice try.
PS: Plus we sold them the Sarin the used against their Kurdish separatists directly, so we knew they had it at one time, and were just hoping they hadn't used it all up so we could say "Aha! Stockpiles!".
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology. Glyphosate use hasn't just go up; it has displaced other herbicides (including some harsh alternatives like atrazine, or just soil eroding tillage) and allowed farmers to hit the field with a single post emergent application of one of what is actually one of the more beneign herbicides out there. I wouldn't go drinking it, but glyphosate is hardly one of the scarier agrochemicals.
So yeah, glyphosate use is up, but so what? That's better than the alternative. Do you have a better weed management solution? Because if you do the farmers of the world would love to hear it; it isn't like they spend all that money on glyphosate for nothing. What you are saying is like saying that a line of cocaine is better than a glass of wine because the cocaine weighs less; you neglect to take into consideration that not all herbicides are equal. Furthermore, you consider only the one option against an ideal, when in reality, it is one of several options, and the ideal is not one of them.