I don’t know much about Dr. Mehmet Oz (b. 1960), except that he’s been the subject of much criticism for his nonscientific “remedies”, and, like “Dr. Phil,” became famous by appearing on Oprah’s show—always a bad thing on the c.v. (for credibility, not for wealth!).
A physician I know told me that he considers at least 50% of Dr. Oz’s advice either useless or worthless, and Wikipedia notes that, despite Oz having won many awards, he touts stuff like reiki, faith healing, and—get this—homeopathy. His endorsement of homeopathy alone brands him as a dangerous quack-y person, for homeopathy is not only useless, but keeps sick people from seeking genuine medical advice. If you want a summary of the Case Against Dr. Oz, you can consult the many pieces debunking his advice posted by Orac on his site Respectful Insolence (don’t miss this one!).
While maintaining his position and wealth as a quackly t.v. doctor, Oz also holds two respectable jobs: professor at the Department of Surgery at Columbia University and director of the Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. (Complementary Medicine? Seriously?) And now a “group of top doctors” have asked for the university to fire him. It has not complied. As the Associated Press reports,
Columbia University has not removed TV celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz from his faculty position as a group of top doctors has demanded, citing his “egregious lack of integrity” for promoting what they call “quack treatments.”
“Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine,” said a letter the 10 physicians sent to a Columbia dean earlier this week. They say he’s pushing “miracle” weight-loss supplements with no scientific proof that they work.
The New York Ivy League school responded Thursday, issuing a statement to The Associated Press saying only that the school “is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members’ freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion.”
Oz first came to public attention as a frequent television guest of Oprah Winfrey. For the past five years, he’s been the host of “The Dr. Oz Show.”
Oz was not reachable Thursday night at his Columbia office number, which played a recorded message explaining how callers could get tickets to his TV show.
Led by Dr. Henry Miller of California’s Stanford University, the doctors sent the letter to Lee Goldman, dean of Columbia’s Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine. The nine other doctors from across the country included Dr. Joel Tepper, a cancer researcher from the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, and Dr. Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health in New York City.
The doctors wrote that Oz, for years a world-class Columbia cardiothoracic surgeon, “has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.” They said he has “misled and endangered” the public.
Here’s the letter, from Yahoo News:
Lee Goldman, M.D.
Dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine
Columbia University
Dear Dr. Goldman:
I am writing to you on behalf of myself and the undersigned colleagues below, all of whom are distinguished physicians.We are surprised and dismayed that Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons would permit Dr. Mehmet Oz to occupy a faculty appointment, let alone a senior administrative position in the Department of Surgery.
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.
Sincerely yours,
Henry I. Miller, M.D.
Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy
& Public Policy
Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, CAScott W. Atlas, M.D.
David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow
Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, CAJack Fisher, M.D.
Professor of Surgery (emeritus)
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CAShelley Fleet, M.D.
Anesthesiologist
Longwood, FLGordon N. Gill, M.D.
Dean (emeritus) of Translational Medicine
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CAMichael H. Mellon, M.D.
Pediatric Allergist
San Diego, CAGIlbert Ross, M.D.
President (Acting) and Executive Director
American Council on Science and Health
New York, NYSamuel Schneider, M.D.
Psychiatrist
Princeton, NJGlenn Swogger Jr. M.D.
Director of the Will Menninger Center for Applied Behavioral Sciences (retired)
The Menninger Foundation
Topeka, KSJoel E. Tepper, M.D.
Hector MacLean Distinguished Professor of Cancer Research
Dept of Radiation Oncology
University of North Carolina School of Medicine
Chapel Hill, NC
Well, I don’t know if all of these are “top doctors”: there’s a psychiatrist in there (yes, I know they’re “physicians” in name), and some signatories appear to be bureaucrats rather than practicing physicians. It would be far more efficacious if Oz’s Columbia colleagues expressed similar concerns.
But the main issue is whether Oz’s recommendations or public statements constitute, as Columbia maintains, an expression of “academic freedom and. . . freedom of expression for statements [faculty] make in public discussion.” Normally I’d say “yes,” but it’s problematic since Oz’s public statements are sometimes dangerous, as any endorsements of homeopathy or spiritual heaing. If he does this while flaunting his Columbia credentials, then it’s dereliction of his professional duties as a physician. However, he certainly doesn’t say this crap while he’s teaching or treating anyone at Columbia.
I’m sure Columbia would be delighted if Dr. Oz were to leave, but they claim they can’t get rid of him. What do readers think? Does this dangerous quackery constitute free speech that must be protected by a university?
h/t: The several readers who called this to my attention.
Free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded building. Shilling his remedies is just that, but more dangerous, as many of the people to whom he offers them do not have the education to make informed judgments about them.
However, if he is tenured, then getting rid of him would require that he engage in some pretty outlandish behavior, like ravaging small pets in front of children. On the other hand, there is no tenure to administrative positions.
But it’s not. The thing about the former is that it creates a “clear and present danger” of triggering a panic, one in which people are likely to get hurt before any other speech can intervene to counter it.
The same is not true, of course, of the latter. Those who disagree with Oz’s spew can make their opposing views known (which is, in part, what we’re doing here). Crucially, Oz’s “victims” have the opportunity to avail themselves of additional information before acting on his recommendations — the opportunity denied those rushing out of a crowed theater to escape a purported fire.
Furthermore, someone intentionally seeking to instigate panic by falsely shouting fire can be prosecuted criminally. No one, so far as I know, intends to prefer criminal charges against Oz for schilling on his show — and if they did, I would protest on his behalf, notwithstanding my revulsion at his abhorrent activity.
Whether he can be sanctioned, up to and including firing, by a private university for that same conduct is another matter, one governed by employment and contract law and turning upon the express understandings and reasonable expectations of the parties — viz., the professor/employee and the university. Questions of academic freedom, and of a professor’s right to free expression while engaged in non-university activities, are relevant, sure, but solely as to how the matter plays out within the university.
I am not sure if the show already has a disclaimer in the opening or closing credits, but I would be tickled if Columbia made Dr. Oz’s faculty position contingent on the show very prominently, at the begining of each episode, display the following: “The following health advice is solely the responsibility of Dr. Mehmet Oz and is not endorsed or supported by Columbia University School of Medicine or by general scientific consensus.”
Subscribe.
Example of his hucksterism:
Oz hucksterism
sub.
Honestly, about the only thing I know about Dr. Oz is that he not-infrequently shows up in the Subject: header of spam emails I get….
b&
“What do readers think? Does this dangerous quackery constitute free speech that must be protected by a university?”
Yes. I do think it deserves protection. And loud and persistent rebuttal.
Yes, this is what I think, too.
For anyone who would like to follow up on Oz and other purveyors of pseudoscience for profit such as Suzanne Somers, I’d recommend the book by Paul A. Offit M.D.: Do You Believe in Magic?: The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine. It is an easy read and a good introduction to the topic.
Amazon lists these for Paul Offit:
Do You Believe in Magic?: Vitamins, Supplements, and All Things Natural: A Look Behind the Curtain May 13, 2014
Do You Believe in Magic?: The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine (1st Edition)Jul 3, 2013
Killing Us Softly: The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine Jun 20, 2013
Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All Apr 3, 2012
Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure Mar 29, 2010
Yes, it’s an excellent book. I used it in a freshman seminar on alternative medicine, though I found the students distressingly gullible and reluctant to admit that many of the so-called alternative cures were bogus.
Another good one in the same vein is Trick or Treatment by Singh and Ernst.
You telling me all these years slaving away with the Thighmaster have been for naught?
Depends on whether or not you now look like Suzanne Sommers, Ken.
Who was the first one to ask:
What do we call “alternative medicine” that actually works?
“Medicine.”
Certainly not “Doctor” Oz on his yellow brick road.
Because the truth is, there’s no such thing as conventional or alternative or complementary or integrative or holistic medicine. There’s only medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t.
Offit M.D., Paul A. (2013-06-18). Do You Believe in Magic?: The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine (p. 6). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
A physician frightening, to be sure, this Oz–one is.
When his biographical sketch includes stuffs re cardiology, then I was thinking, though, that perhaps the adjective, “complementary,” refers to pathophysiological maladies of certain proteins in the blood, as within “the complement system” of same. http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_system.
But it so does not! It has been some time since I studied hematology so am disabused to learn that, instead, “complementary medicine,” indeed, has as a specified entity of healing practice an altogether untoward definition! http://www.en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complementary_medicine&redirect=no Whoa.
Blue
Precisely.
Eh, Oz also promotes my favorite meditation practice, TM, which teh AHA states is the only one (thus far) they can say that doctors can recommend to their patients for the purpose of treating hypertension, pending more and better research.
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/early/2013/04/22/HYP.0b013e318293645f.full.pdf+html
So I have to give him a “pass” at least on his taste in meditation practices…
My daughter who is on a health kick lately loves dr. Oz.I’m on no health kick so never watch him.
I don’t think cutting him off at Columbia should be considered a free speech issue. If they drop him he’s not being prevented from stating his views. He’s still free to say anything he wants, just not using Columbia as a reference. I’d quickly ax him myself.
I agree completely.
I note that the first two of the signers have appointments at the Hoover Institute, a far right wing think tank. As I understand it, the Institute has its own board of overseers and appears to be rather loosely affiliated with Stanford University. That sort of affiliation doesn’t fill me with confidence about the bonafides of those individuals.
Even granting that the people who wrote the letter don’t have good bona fides, or are often dishonest themselves and have a selfish agenda of some sort, what they have said in the letter is accurate and well said. The real shame is that there aren’t any doctors and medical researchers with unquestionably sterling bona fides writing such letters to Columbia. Or, giving this group the benefit of the doubt, no more than 10. That is pathetic.
Right, one is using the Genetic Faalacy otherwise: a claim rests on its merits, not the merits of the entity making the claim.
I think the name is the Hoover Institution — and I think it’s drifted a hair to the middle and mainstream since old Herbert founded it in ’19 (or since Reagan used it as a farm team for staff and cabinet in the ’80s). Nobody’s gonna mistake it for the Spartacus League, but “Far Right” may be a tad much.
If you check, you’ll see rather anti-Global Warning essays have appeared reasonably recently on the Hoover Institution website. The point is not that it is “far right” but that it is very much pro-business.
The same group going after him goes after anti-GMO people as well, because it is bad for business interests, not because of some science-based concern for fact vs fiction or because of concern for patients on consumer-health.
When I hear of the Hoover Institution/Institute I can’t help but think of a “fellow” there, Thomas (“Trade-off,” as I’m inclined to say) Sowell. “Trade-offs” being what I perceive to be his invariable first response to any concern about environmental degradation caused by Business.
Yeah, Shelby Steele is there, too. The HI seems to maintain an in-house conservative black intelligentsia.
A Cornell West or Michael Eric Dyson might succumb to the urge to repurpose that syntactically as “conservative intelligentsia of house blacks,” but I’m not going there.
I don’t think the right-wing think-tank affiliation of these writers on Oz have to much to do with the issue. His statements on his show are mere tales, not backed by evidence-based medical practice. This should be the objection Columbia University should have with his show. He is indeed entitled to his freedom of speech, and Columbia making any action on his tenure or administrative appointments has nothing to do with that. He can continue his show. Just not as a professor at Columbia.
I noticed a while ago that many otherwise respectable hospitals were offering “complimentary” medicine. One reason of course is to make money. The other to save lives by attracting those who might otherwise chose alternative only to real medicine. The problem is they give quack medicine an air of respectability that causes more harm than good in the long term.
A very cynical part of me wonders if the reason Columbia is still supporting him is because his celebrity status brings in additional revenue for the university.
I would not be remotely surprised if this were the case. The quack brings in money, and that is more important than the fact that he IS a quack. The tarnishing of the school’s image is a small price to pay.
“Academic Freedom.” Sounds like the Discovery Institute is getting their message out.
Was a time — before mine, and I’m pretty sure before yours — when it was the Lefties that sought Academic Freedom’s armor as shelter from rightwing politicians and administrators (at least as recently as Ronald Reagan being Golden State governor and wielding his ax in reaction to the Berkeley “Free Speech Movement”). Whose ox gets gored, which witches get hunted, waxes and wanes with the tides of political fortune. Academic Freedom ought not.
My opinion is that academic freedom should not include harboring the likes of Dr. Oz. He is a carny who makes millions by bilking credulous people. He is a con man and his cons can and certainly do result in real harm to his marks. In the interests of protecting people from real harm it would be perfectly appropriate for Columbia to fire him and for him to have his medical practice privileges suspended or revoked.
Just an aside: in NZ a “carny” is a girl below the legal age of consent (16).
I know for you it’s a carnival performer – I watch The Mentalist ! 🙂
What is the etymology of “carny” for an under-aged young woman?
Contraction of “unlawful carnal knowledge”
Carnal as in flesh. Knowledge as in the bible.
Carnival – carnivore. Same difference.
Lets see if I have this right:
Dairy is a convenience store.
Bonnet and boot are the hood and trunk of a car.
Jandals are flip-flops.
Oh boy. That could make for some epic faux pas moments.
I don’t think free speech comes into play regarding what the university can do. At least it should not. They retain the guy as a medical Dr. who is presumed to follow certain rules and so on. Turning to quackery should allow the institution to send him packing. There is no part for free speech in this.
The odd thing to me is, this Dr. Oz has been doing his thing for a long time on TV and has advertised all kinds of junk. The afternoon day time TV watching women just love the guy.
Then Congress calls on him just a few weeks ago and suddenly people see him for what he is. How long do we sleep before we wake up.
This seems to be a case of academic freedom vs. professional ethics. One issue is what Columbia should do (if anything), and the other is what the pertinent medical organizations should do concerning his licensing, etc.
I don’t appreciate the knock against psychiatry! My wife is a psychiatrist and every bit an M.D.(her residency was at University of Chicago). If you ever have a family member with serious mental illness, you will appreciate what she and other do. I see it every single day.
When someone has medical qualifications, they have a responsibility to those they dispense advice to as those qualifications give them automatic integrity to many. The same people often assume things like, “if he’s on TV, he must know what he’s talking about”.
I never watch him, so I don’t know what they do now, but every segment of his show should start and end with a clear, unmissable disclaimer that includes advice to discuss things with your own GP.
It would be very difficult to dismiss someone from a tenured position, except for things like causing actual harm, committing crimes, etc. If it can be positively demonstrated in a specific instance that a person was harmed by following his advice, then a case might be made. But the letter only describes generalities of possible harm and a strong dislike for the stupid things he advocates.
Unfortunately, I see no way to move forward except to maybe arrange to stop his privilages of practicing medicine there, or maybe keeping him from citing his position on his show. I checked his web site for the show and saw no word about his position at Columbia so maybe he is ‘clean’ on that score.
I think its more of an issue of principle rather than practice. I would dismiss him from my institution even if it had no effect on his practice. Just keep him at arms length (or more). The way you handle a skunk.
Tenure is pretty rock solid job security except for extreme circumstances. Being an embarrassment and stepping outside the boundaries of their discipline into pseudoscience and woo will not be sufficient reason for termination as far as I have ever seen.
A tenured astronomer could spout on about geocentrism and they would be safe. A biologist could tour the country and give talks and write books about intelligent design and their job would be absolutely safe (this one is a real example). A zoologist could be a prominent spokesperson in promoting the myth of bigfoot (also a real example)!
If this is a university position and he is tenured, I am not sure that you can dismiss him for the reasons stated in the letter. From what I see in it, their case is actually very weak and it may be telling that Columbia university has ignored it because they know they cannot move on it. Tenure protects professors and ensures academic freedom, but it is also a deal with the devil in these cases.
Mind you, I hope I am wrong but right now I do not see a way out.
I see your point. It would be nice if Columbia could find a way to at least signal disapproval. I suppose the issuance of the letter by some in the medical community serves that purpose.
They could use a disclaimer like whereever it is did for Michael Behe.
I think it really depends on whether they want to terminate him. No lives are put at risk when the belief in geocentrism or bigfoot are espoused. Promoting medical quackery is a whole different level of misconduct.
Sub
He’s brought Reiki practitioners into operating rooms for intra-operative Reiki. That alone is grounds for dismissal.
Was that a stunt, or does he actually believe in that crap? What is that great quote about having to take great pains to deceive oneself before deceiving others? Maybe he is so arrogant that he thinks he must be right (shades of Michael Egnor).
I think i read somewhere that his wife is a reiki “practitioner” and that he lets her do her thing while he’s operating ( surgery).
Wooooooooo
He believes that Reiki can manipulate a client’s energy. Particularly the energy of their bank account. It has sort of an aura.
Man, that was one of the best lines in Firefly.
Yes, that thought struck me to: they aren’t doing themselves any favors by making it an ‘outsiders vs. Columbia’ thing.
Columbia’s counter (about academic freedom) is interesting. I certainly don’t want Universities firing professors for holding unpopular ideas if they do a good job in the classroom – as a general rule. This specific case? I’ll have to think on it.
Unpopular views are one thing, and fraudulent views are another. There honest differences of opinion, and dishonest ones as well.
This might provide some useful background info:
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/17/watch_dr_oz_attempt_to_defend_his_weight_loss_miracles_before_congress/
Maybe Dr. Oz’s words in his own defense had some impact (“it’s about hope”, blah blah blah). He’s been interrogated and warned so if he doesn’t clean up his act, it could get worse for him.
Sounds exactly like religion and the fabled jesus character.
Would also like to question the sideswipe at psychiatrists. I am a psychiatrist (and academic neuroscientist) and I assure you that I am a physician, as are my colleagues (at least the ones that don’t embrace ‘alternative’ medicine). Is there a question about this of which I’m not aware?
by the way, Science based medicine is an excellent website at which one can find information about all things dodgy in the medical field. They have many articles about Oz, of which this is one. I recommend the site. https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-you-ready-for-the-oz-manifesto/
I wish there were more of you around! There’s a shortage of psychiatrists in Canada.
Perhaps there is confusion between the terms psychiatrist and psychologist.
A psychiatrist becomes so qualified after medical school.
A psychiatrist is a doctor who specialises in psychiatry.
Somewhere around 10 or more years tertiary study.
As it’s been already noted, it all depends if he has tenure at Columbia. If he does, then it depends on the whatever guidelines they have regarding revoking one’s tenure, which is not–and should not be–an easy process.
What certainly should be done, is that his colleagues issue a clear statement condemning his quackery, but unless they can show that his behavior is (at least borderline) criminal, stripping him of tenure can create a very dangerous precedent agains academic freedom guaranteed by the institute of tenure.
He is well within his rights of free speech. I would, however, question if he is in violation of medical ethics.
Columbia will not take action against the Oz quackster. It will likely name a building after him. I am sure that he has, and now certainly will, poured large amounts of $$$ into their coffers. If (and they won’t) Columbia kicks him out, his T.V. career is essentially over. Columbia gives him legitimacy. He will fight (and spend) tooth and nail to keep his positions. Let’s see if the Columbia School of Medicine is interested in Science or Finances.
To be honest (and generalizing) the longer I have been a practicing Child Psychiatrist the less respect I have for these so called “Ivy League” Medical Schools. They have consistently been the nidus of rather destructive trends. Think Harvard and pediatric bipolar disorder. This little gem led to a decade of an “epidemic” of American (no “epidemic” in Europe or any other medical system) pediatric bipolar diagnosis and a subsequent “epidemic” of pediatric antipsychotic use. Good for pharmaceutical companies (and “Ivy League” faculty paid to do “studies”) bad for children. If Columbia doesn’t act it will just be another one on my list of “used to be good but now questionable” academic institutions.
And the psychiatrist sideswipe is very misinformed. I have treated as many cardiac failures, diabetics and have helped close on as many surgeries as a Dermatologist, Radiologist or Neurologist. We do actually go to Medical School. We just specialize like the majority of medical students choose to do.
I suspect that folks downplaying “Academic Freedom” in this thread never heard a Republican politician pronounce “Marcuse” or “Alinsky” or “Horkheimer” as though they were hawking up a piece of tubercular lung.
Academic Freedom is a serious matter, one requiring that careful and difficult lines be drawn among competing interests, that a balance be struck between an academic’s ability to pursue a field of study (and, to a lesser extent, outside interests) fully and vigorously without fear of interference — and his or her concomitant responsibility to refrain from impeding the school’s overarching educational mission. On these questions, as to private universities at least, the First Amendment is silent (except, perhaps, by way of analogy).
It’s been quite a while since I’ve spent serious time on a college campus (except for dropping off a kid, browsing a book store, or stopping by to teach an adjunct law course). As such, I would not deign to suggest where these crucial lines should be lain. I do, nevertheless, understand this: the lines must pay no heed to whether or not we fancy any individual academic, or whether we agree of disagree with his or her viewpoint. Any standard that does not respect this, is no standard at all, rendering nugatory all notions of Academic Freedom.
Laid, not “lain”; what a doofus.
I think people may find this a tough one because Dr. Oz seems to be a talented cardiac surgeon, which rules out firing him for incompetence. It’s hard to imagine how he could be legally fired for promoting quackery on the one hand when he seems to excel at what he’s been hired to teach and practice. I think Oz is a rather extreme specimen, but a number of my dad’s colleagues were incredibly deft surgeons but none too bright and although valued as trauma surgeons they had an uncomfortable relationship with most of their peers. I just can’t say if the problem is related to having very good manual skills while having enough brains to get through medical training while seeming to ignore a lot of the basics or if some people simply choose which bits to believe and can become genuine experts in their specialization while being virtually worthless as a general practitioner.
Dr. Coyne’s question answered itself. A university does not have to allow the practice of “quackery” any more than any other lie perpetrated under the guise of “academic” anything. Freedom of expression does not protect hucksterism end of story. Get rid of this guy. Good grief.
Why the gratuitous hate on psychiatrists? Are you a psychiatry denier?
They spend 4 years in medical school and a medical intern year like everyone else. They can work in emergency rooms or switch to any specialty via a residency just like all the other MDs.
Do I detect a whiff of L. Ron Hubbard?
He does deserve freedom to run off at the mouth when not involved with his professional duties at Columbia. However, he should be prohibited from mentioning that affiliation on his TV show or anywhere else where he endorses products.
His endorsement of what seems like hundreds of products has made him a pitchman for products that are untested. He misleads many viewers into thinking that because an MD recommends something, claims made must be true. It doesn’t dawn on them that his specialty doesn’t give him special knowledge of any other area. Whether he falls into this because he has an attitude that is common to Drs. that their profession bestows general wisdom and knowledge, or that he is benefitting financially, I don’t know.
I may agree with some ideas (e.g., I think GMO products should be labeled; I don’t know if they have negative effects on people, bugs,or animals). But his opinion is just that – an opinion, and without support it shouldn’t count for more than that.
I do like that a group of Drs. have called him out. Raising public awareness is a positive.