Gyroscopic Investing

I can see why he's popular these days, but yeah, he's nuts. He provided some common sense advice in 'Esquire', but there's a lot of unscientific crap in his preachings.

"Oprah and Oz
spreading superstition at the speed of night"

http://skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia5.html

I wouldn't say he is a quack.  That implies a practitioner is practicing snake oil and knowing it is snake oil (oncologists, etc.).  No, he's a huckster.

I don't watch him because I think he's puerile, but he's doing a good service in raising heterodox awareness to Boobus Americanus.  Just look at the audience on his show.  Fat, sick and nearly dead.  So hold your nose and bear it.

My mother's crazy about his show and makes me watch it every time I visit.  A lot of the stuff he talks about are folk remedies.  Nobody is going to spend millions studying a remedy that can't be patented, so he's presenting them on the basis of anecdotal evidence only.  That's what the BMJ slammed him for.  I don't have a huge problem with that but it would be useful if he admitted that up front.  I do find that his basic medical facts are pretty accurate.

I think his show is supposed to be more about promoting general health in a way that those with below average IQs can understand.  This is a valuable public service.  It makes the constant hawking of manuka honey, coconut oil, oregano oil etc ad infinitum easier to put up with.

Dr. Oz had some very interesting books AGES ago.  I happened to catch one show (only one I've ever seen) and he had some good info having to do with healthy foods and the dangers of remaining seated all day. 

It does seem like he has succumbed to what many people with good info succumb to in the long run which is selling stuff for money.  I don't know any details, but I'd be suspect, just like I would be suspect of stuff sold by mercola, or anyone selling stuff.

Snake oil contains omega 3s  ;-)

MangoMan wrote: Not to quibble with the semantics, but he is definitely a snake oil salesman [per the article] and he must know it.  Not sure what you mean re the oncologists; are you saying that current mainstream cancer treatment is nonsense?

But he doesn't profit directly from anything he recommends, so in my mind its hard to peg him as a snake oil salesman.  I'm more comfortable with the term huckster because he blows things out of proportion for purposes of entertainment value, i.e. a carnival barker.  A huckster and a snake oil salesman are not mutually exclusive.  And if I were to argue that snake oil salesman got a bad rap because they represented economic competition to burgenoning petroleum-derived patent medicine back in the day, even that slight would be overrated, but I digress.

The other comment worth making, is that if you look at the dietary/supplement advice which is the "consensus" for this forum including that cholesterol ain't "bad" for you, wheat is, etc. most MDs would tell you that it is all quackery.

Point not being to defend Oz (since I've no idea of all of what he is saying/not saying), but to point out how useless being called a quack by conventional medical types is.

Simonjester wrote: Dr oz is an entertainer.... paid to produce entertaining shows that can sell advertising time.. to sell crap... to a TV watching audience.....
after teaching some grade school/junior-high biology and running through some basic, simple, common sense advice, there is little left to fill hour after hour of show every week, besides fads, hype, and feelgood blather.. the show must go on...

Some interesting information on Dr. Oz from Cracked.com....

#6. Dr. Oz: One of the Most Brilliant Doctors of his Generation
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-dumb-cele ... you-think/

Benko wrote: ...but to point out how useless being called a quack by conventional medical types is.

Very good point.

MangoMan wrote:

madbean wrote: Some interesting information on Dr. Oz from Cracked.com....

#6. Dr. Oz: One of the Most Brilliant Doctors of his Generation
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-dumb-cele ... you-think/

No one ever said he wasn't a brilliant MD. My issue with him is the unsubstantiated garbage he spews on TV and how it misleads the generally uninformed public....

I feel as if a website is assuring us what a talented linguist someone is, but I can't help noticing that he just says hodor most of the time. With incorrect grammar.

Kudos to Columbia for not censoring Dr. Oz.  They are viewing it as a case of academic freedom:  as a full professor, he's entitled to have an opinion and voice it.  The only thing he can be censured for is making statements that are provably false.  So far, no one has done that.

It's interesting that a group of physicians are taking him to task specifically over his denouncement of GMOs.  Does that mean they're saying that genetically modified crops are safe?  Provably safe?  That's no more accurate than what Oz says.

As far as hawking products...yes, I think he sometimes goes too far with that and should rein it in - and PARTICULARLY if he is getting any financial paybacks from these companies that he is not revealing.  However I think he mostly promotes the generic items on his show rather than brands, e.g. he talks about coconut oil but not any specific brand. 

A side note:  many, many physicians give talks on behalf of brand name drugs, for the enrichment of pharmaceuticals and for pay from said pharmaceuticals.  And much of what they say is not necessarily critically reviewed; it all comes from studies but there is a lot of selective reporting.  I've never given one of these talks but know many people who have, and the way it works is that you get a set of slides from the company that you have to use.  IMHO, if Dr. Oz should be fired so should everyone who has ever been paid to give a drug talk.  Which would be probably more than half of all academic physicians.

Benko wrote: The other comment worth making, is that if you look at the dietary/supplement advice which is the "consensus" for this forum including that cholesterol ain't "bad" for you, wheat is, etc. most MDs would tell you that it is all quackery.

Point not being to defend Oz (since I've no idea of all of what he is saying/not saying), but to point out how useless being called a quack by conventional medical types is.

Good Point - I could argue the consensus of mainstream medicine is mostly based on hearsay, tradition, flawed studies, paid off researchers, etc.  Cochran Analysis have shown most of what mainstream medicine recommends is not based on sound data and reasoning. 

MangoMan wrote: No one ever said he wasn't a brilliant MD. My issue with him is the unsubstantiated garbage he spews on TV and how it misleads the generally uninformed public. Lots of very smart people spew crap. For example: Obama.

What kind of crap does he spew?  There's always a factual basis for what he recommends due to legalities.  The problem is the quality of the facts aren't checked out, i.e. raspberry ketones.  But that's like the pot calling the kettle black because facts underlying patent drugs are not much better.

WiseOne wrote: A side note:  many, many physicians give talks on behalf of brand name drugs, for the enrichment of pharmaceuticals and for pay from said pharmaceuticals.  And much of what they say is not necessarily critically reviewed; it all comes from studies but there is a lot of selective reporting.  I've never given one of these talks but know many people who have, and the way it works is that you get a set of slides from the company that you have to use.  IMHO, if Dr. Oz should be fired so should everyone who has ever been paid to give a drug talk.  Which would be probably more than half of all academic physicians.

It only takes but one from the "other side" to stand up and shine light on the "other side"'s open secret to flummox and shut up all the "other side" critics up.