Claire McCaskill

New Wikileaks release peeks behind the scenes of America's quack

oracknows — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 06:00:35 +0000

New Wikileaks release peeks behind the scenes of America's quack

It would appear that some people got the impression that, just because I questioned whether a recent publicity stunt in which ten doctors and researchers, led by a well-known pro-GMO activist working for the Hoover Institution, Dr. Henry Miller, sent a letter to the dean at Columbia University in essence asking him to fire Oz for his promotion of quackery and, pointedly, anti-GMO fear mongering on his show was a good idea, somehow I'm going easy on Dr. Oz. Not at all. Miller and his compatriots at the Hoover Institution and the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) made what I see as a spectacular blunder, and it's because I detest Oz and want to see effective methods brought to bear to counter his quackery that Hoover's antics—and, yes, that is the perfect word to describe what he did—irritate me so much.

That's why another story yesterday caught my eye. At first, I was wondering whether I should address it because it seems so much like a "dog bites man" story, telling us nothing that we don't already know about our old friend Mehmet Oz. On the other hand, it's the way that it tells us about how The Dr. Oz Show operates that makes it worth a notice. The information comes to us, initially, in the form of a story by Julia Belluz again, New WikiLeaks documents reveal the inner workings of the Dr. Oz Show:

Dr. Mehmet Oz often appears on his popular show to promote new health products and devices. Most viewers are likely under the impression that he's doing this because he's closely considered their merits and decided the products are widely beneficial.
But newly leaked emails suggest that business considerations — not health or science — can be a driving factor in which products Oz decides to promote.

Last week, WikiLeaks released a series of emails sent between Dr. Oz, his staff, and executives at Sony (one of his show's producers)Show. They shed some light on how Dr. Oz's daily talk show works behind the scenes.

See what I mean about this being a "dog bites man" story? Of course Oz is driven by business considerations. It's syndicated, commercialized TV; by definition commercial considerations are, if not paramount, very, very important. The question is whether commercial considerations overruled science. Of course, The Dr. Oz Show being The Dr. Oz Show, I suspect we already know what the answer to that question is. The only real question is how much did commercial considerations rule? Of course, what hadn't occurred to me is that there might be damning e-mails in the big Wikileaks release of Sony e-mails relevant to Dr. Oz, mainly because, although I knew Sony was one of the producers of Oz's show, I just didn't connect the dots.

In any case, Belluz gives one example showing that Oz is a driving force in pushing for deals:

In a January 2014 email, for instance, Dr. Oz reaches out to Michael Lynton, the CEO of Sony Entertainment, about his interest in wearable fitness and health tracking devices.

"I have been carefully following the wearable device market and am pretty close to consummating a longer term relationship, but just saw the piece below quoting Kaz Hirai [the president and CEO of Sony] and realized that Sony is moving into the space as well," Oz writes in an email. "We should leverage the Sony-driven success of our TV show into other arenas where Sony thrives, like health hardware."

Here is the complete text of the e-mail. Oz follows up, asking, "If you agree, how do you suggest we proceed? Could you jump start the process with an appropriate introduction to someone involved with the 'Core' initiative?" So what we have here, is Dr. Oz, first reaching out through his people, then jumping in the conversation himself, about in essence making a deal to have his show shill for Sony wearable devices, all in the name of "synergy." I also can't help but note from Oz's mentioning that he's "close to consummating a longer term relationship" that Oz is almost certainly going to Sony to see if he can get a better deal.

Perhaps the series of e-mails of most interest to me, though, more for curiosity than anything, was the series of e-mails discussing Dr. Oz's appearance in front of Senator Claire McCaskill's committee over his promotion of dubious dietary supplements as "miracles" and "fat burners" that—or so it is implied—let people lose weight without diet or exercise. As you might recall from when I wrote about it, at first I was concerned that Oz would be lobbed a bunch of softballs but then was satisfied that McCaskill (D-MO), wily old prosecutor that she was, basically mopped up the floor with Oz, embarrassing the hell out of him. At the time, I noted my suspicion that Dr. Oz didn't see this coming because of his hubris. It turns out that that was more or less what happened.

For instance, in one e-mail, Denise Beaudoin, the legal and business affairs counsel to The Dr. Oz Show, notes:

And while the goal of the committee's investigation is to protect the consumer against false claims and fraudulent advertising and all the extenuating billing problems AND they told us they think we have done more work on this than the FTC, we should still anticipate that someone on the committee, and likely some members of the media, will be critical of the show airing segments about these types of supplements in the 1st place. So while we are in a strong position and can appear as a great consumer advocate, it would be ill advised to believe this hearing or the news cycle that follows will be 100% free of criticism of Oz or the show. It's also worth noting for the record, that Harpo's counsel is not in favor of Oz' participating, especially when he's not legally obligated to do so. They do not see the value of getting involved unless compelled by subpoena because there's always the potential for downside (no matter how slight). Sony's counsel has yet to weigh in. For what it's worth, I think the cost of not appearing could be more problematic for us because we have been so vocal about the problem on the show and we've gone so far as to ask our audience to get involved by reporting fraud to OzWatch, signing an online petition and writing letters to their state attorney general. We know this issue hurts our brand and we haven't the real resources to combat the problem on our own. It will take legislative change to give us, the FTC or the FDA any real ability to go after the perpetrators, and that could happen as a result of this hearing.

Further down the e-mail chain, Keith Weaver, executive vice president for worldwide government affairs at Sony, notes:

Given his frustration, which was recently exampled on television where he visited a manufacturer of one of the products and asked them to stop using his name, Dr. Oz and the producers of the show would like to testify. Dr. Oz has not entered into a paid sponsorship arrangement to date, but would like to explore doing so in the future. We have apprised the appropriate parties of the risks associated with the future plans, as well as specific criticisms of Dr. Oz’s role in the national conversation about health that could emerge in the hearing or in subsequent coverage. All things considered, Dr. Oz is very comfortable addressing these topics and would like to proceed.

As Sony Pictures Television only distributes the DR. OZ show (it’s produced by an affiliate of HARPO entitled ZoCo), my understanding is that we have less control over how he chooses to respond. And, while an invitation is not a subpoena, it would be awkward for him to not respond favorably to this request.

Of course, I wrote about Dr. Oz's highly cynical and ridiculous segment in which he "busted" a company using his words to endorse their product as though he were 60 MINUTES cornering a scammer. Yes, it was Oz portraying himself as a protector of the consumer, which to me was hilarious. And here we have discussions of what I always suspected to be the real reason why Oz was going after scammers using his name: He was planning on entering into commercial arrangements with companies offering health-related products and services and didn't want his brand tarnished. Of course that's what it was; you'd have to be incredibly naive to believe it was out of a pure desire to protect the public. Rather, it was to eliminate potential competitors and those who tarnish the Oz brand and potentially lower the amount of money Oz could ultimately make.

Particularly amusingly, as the e-mail exchange suggests, specifically the rest of the e-mail from Beaudoin, McCaskill did snooker Oz and his staff, inviting Oz to testify in front of her panel based on his then recent efforts to shut down supplement manufacturers using his name to sell their product. Then she sandbagged Oz. Clearly, I was wrong to be concerned in the days leading up to the hearing.

Not surprisingly, Oz's staff is very concerned with Oz's public face, in particular the perception that he peddles snake oil, so much so that when Dr. Oz was scheduled to do a speaking engagement for pay at Caesar's Palace, in response to a request from Oz's agent Sandy Kliman that Sony use Oz's Facebook page to publicize the event and "drive ticket sales," Sheraton Kalouria, chief marketing officer at Sony Pictures Television, wrote:

We feel we should not give the media who looks at Oz like snake oil salesman right now any fodder to further this perception.

He's [Sandy Kliman] been told no. Is going to call me tomorrow to ask we reconsider.

Ouch. That one's going to leave a mark.

Make no mistake about it. Dr. Oz has devolved from a brilliant and promising young academic surgeon 25 years ago into what he is today: America's quack. Even the leadership at Sony seems to realize this.

oracknows Tue, 04/21/2015 - 02:00

Your link [complete text of the email] is broken. Can you please put the link up? Thank you.

It’s also worth noting for the record, that Harpo’s counsel is not in favor of Oz’ participating, especially when he’s not legally obligated to do so. They do not see the value of getting involved unless compelled by subpoena because there’s always the potential for downside (no matter how slight).

So Dr. Oz turns out to be another hubristic fool who ignored the advice of his well-paid legal counsel to STFU. (Harpo, for those who are unaware, is the name of Oprah's production company.) One of the things he should be paying his lawyers for is to warn him that something may not, from a legalistic point of view, be a good idea.

He’s been told no. Is going to call me tomorrow to ask we reconsider.

Even worse, he seems not to have learned from his mistake.

BTW, don't be too hard on yourself about fearing that the McCaskill committee would only be throwing softballs at Dr. Oz. Based on what we knew at the time, it was a reasonable fear which only proved baseless in hindsight--as a doctor, you know that you have to be prepared for worst-case scenarios. His counsel, by the same token, was right to fear that somebody on the committee would try to provide Dr. Oz with enough rope to hang himself. It's their job to worry about such things, and Ms. Beaudoin would have been correct to point out the possibility even if it hadn't happened.

I find that Science Blogs has a problem loading, and I have to refresh several times to view any content. I was hoping that it was going to be looked at already but I guess not.

Grace you can read all the emails here
https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/?q=Dr.+Oz&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=…

This is spectacular.
I imagine that many of Oz' most ardent followers buy into the alt med 'government-industry-media collusion' meme but here he courts big business whilst evading investigation by both the government and the media.

I've always been certain that one powerful way to de-activate woo-based mesmerism over an audience is to illustrate explicitly how much they, the critics of Big Business, are truly the same. Avenues toward this goal include:
showing their earnings, mansions**, connections to other businesses and markup on their branded products***

Oz may present himself as a champion of the People and their protector but he, like many others he disparages, is after money.

** g---gle "Dr Oz's house in Cliffside Park" for photos
*** if a product can be sold at a reduction of 75% fairly regularly, it can't have cost very much

Eric

I agree with the sentiment but Oz is no fool as Orac has shown.

Even as a presenter he is very successful. I would argue that Oprah is no fool either.

He now causes harm where he could have done good for sure. The latest reports of increased risk of cancer associated with high use of supplements shows this.

The latest reports of increased risk of cancer associated with high use of supplements shows this.

Let us narrow it down a bit, Fergus #6. A majority of the multivitamin supplements contain folic acid. Your statement only highlights the distasteful practice of introducing it into every flour and cerel grain since 1998, often when it is not required to do so. I guess, it is a marketing ploy for the consumer to see large amounts of folic acid on a product -- The reality is that it is probably an addative to be avoided, like too much sodium.

Isn't the reality that 1943 petroleum-derived *folic acid* is much more bioavailable than natural folates? Is it not that even unmetabolized folic acid downregulates absorption of levomefolic acid? Is it not that many in the populace are not able to convert folic acid because of being old or lacking the necessary genetics to do so? Is it not *scientific* that unmetabolized folic acid in one's system is believed to be carcinogenic?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=unmetabolized+folic+acid&hl=en&as_s…

In the past, I've pointed out that it may be veiwed as selectively absorbing Cheetos as a child. Then the child is not hungry at dinner. I also equate this mandated ubiquitousness of the chemical to be Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron; Only it is the Life Expectancy and Quality General instead of the Handicapper General -- That those with poor nutrition generally expect a higher quality of life and longevity with the supplement but those with good nutrition have those values derated.
http://www.finallyequal.com/

With widespread consumption of processed foods and ubiquitous inclusion into just about everything* else, I'm convinced we're getting too much with all that entails.

*I note that a particular house brand of instant oatmeal contains a whopping 20% Folate (as folic acid); The house organic brand lists 2% folic acid (but does not show it included in the ingredients as this is the real folate) -- There is serious conflation and confusion on the two terms, especially on wikipedia.

These emails look to have been stolen (leaked is the same). Were these emails part of the giant hack against Sony that resulted in the closing of its movie about N. Korea? If not, what other source? I question the ethics of making use of material obtained in this way. If the emails were part of the public record, for example as evidence in a court case, then that would be a different matter.

the giant hack against Sony that resulted in the closing of its movie about N. Korea?

The 'Sony Hack' was an 'inside job' by a disgruntled employee but thx for continuing the superior cyber deception and promotion of that government approved and media-inflated decepticon; The sawed-off, George-Bush-like little yellow pointy head, Mr. Ill, Citizen #8.

Were these emails part of the giant hack against Sony that resulted in the closing of its movie about N. Korea?

Apparently; the press release is here.

Off-topic alert for this weekend: RFK Jr. is going to be on Bill Maher's show. Get ready for lots of anti-vaccine fun.

@Tim #7:

You are full of paranoid shit.

The FSA says that 13 million people in the UK do not eat enough folic acid, including many pregnant women - not least because half of pregnancies are unplanned. Research has shown that adding folic acid to bread via white and brown wheat flour would help cut neural tube defects in foetuses. Those defects are spina bifida, which causes paralysis; hydrocephalus, which leads to learning disabilities and sight problems; and anencephaly, which causes miscarriage or the baby's death soon after birth because its brain has failed to develop. Between 700 and 900 pregnancies each year in the UK are affected by neural tube defects. Most affected pregnancies end in a termination, but around 200 severely disabled babies are born as a result of the these defects each year.

@Rich Woods, you have got Tim's modus operandi fully described in six words.

@Denice Walter - If only. I don't know how many times its been pointed out to the woo faithful that their gods are no better than the Big Pharma they decry. They turn an obliviously blind eye to the naturopath selling them the vitamins at the front counter (really expensive vitamins), to the docs like Burzynski with their multi-million dollar mansions, to Dr. Oz and his show and his multi-million dollar mansion. It is willful blindness. They will castigate people working for the CDC who are government employees, not fantastically well paid (I know you won't find any with a mansion) as shills raking in corporate bucks (and again I am left to wonder why my check keeps getting lost in the mail) while the woos are demonstrably cashing in and getting a pass. I am not sure they can be educated about it. If they don't get the distinction that the MD isn't selling them drugs at the front counter but the naturopath is selling them supplements and put the 2 and 2 together. Or maybe they think every doctor has a giant mansion. If that is the case maybe it would help to educate them but again, I doubt it.

O.K. Rich Woods #12. Think of the children. No, really; Why don't you?

“Considering the increasing amount of folic acid consumed during pregnancy through fortified foods, multivitamin pills and supplements, the search for a safe upper dose of folic acid is urgently needed”.

Taking too much folic acid while pregnant may put daughters at risk of diabetes and obesityhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150210083651.htm

Not to mention cancer and cognitive deficiency.. But, I think you already knew that. I wonder why there is such small headroom between RDA and upper tolerable intake for folic acid but it there is not one for the natural forms of folate?

The UL for folate refers to only synthetic folate, as no health risks have been associated with high intake of folate from food sources...

...70–80% of the population have detectable levels of unmetabolized folic acid in their blood and high intakes can accelerate the growth of preneoplasmic lesions...

...In October 2006, the Australian press claimed that U.S. regulations requiring fortification of grain products were being interpreted as disallowing fortification in non-grain products, specifically Vegemite (an Australian yeast extract containing folate). The FDA later said the report was inaccurate, and no ban or other action was being taken against Vegemite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folic_acid

Why the confusion and confiscation over Vegemite and 'fortification'? Spent brewer's yeast is already the very highest in natural folate.

Well, there is no longer Vegemite confusion -- The name belongs to Kraft now, is fortified, and just as yummy and nutritious as all the other GMO crap they pump out.

O.K. Rich Woods #12. Think of the children. No, really; Why don't you?

“Considering the increasing amount of folic acid consumed during pregnancy through fortified foods, multivitamin pills and supplements, the search for a safe upper dose of folic acid is urgently needed”.

Taking too much folic acid while pregnant may put daughters at risk of diabetes and obesity
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150210083651.htm

The UL for folate refers to only synthetic folate, as no health risks have been associated with high intake of folate from food sources...

...70–80% of the population have detectable levels of unmetabolized folic acid in their blood and high intakes can accelerate the growth of preneoplasmic lesions...

...In October 2006, the Australian press claimed that U.S. regulations requiring fortification of grain products were being interpreted as disallowing fortification in non-grain products, specifically Vegemite (an Australian yeast extract containing folate). The FDA later said the report was inaccurate, and no ban or other action was being taken against Vegemite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folic_acid

Why the confusion and confiscation over Vegemite and 'fortification'? Spent brewer's yeast is already the very highest in natural folate.

Well, there is no longer Vegemite confusion -- The name belongs to Kraft now, is fortified, and just as yummy and nutritious as all the other GMO crap they pump out.

@ Kiiri:

Unfortunately, you may be right. In fact, followers may mistake vast wealth for being correct and thus, well-deserved.

But I think we should mention it anyway. It may affect s few of the faithful or those on the fence.

One reason I think that it may have efficacy against woo-meisters is because two I follow make a great ruckus over their charitable endeavors ( Adams and Null). They often counsel for free; they give away products; they assist the poor or homeless; they provide free information. After his Ecuadorian adventure ( his hacienda and ' food forest' were up for sale), Mike has kept photos of his US abode off the 'net and describes it as being quite unattractive.

So they want to appear successful but they also try to show that it means so little to them that they give much of it away.
-btw- Mike has a charity that gives
' educational' material to school children. Null has at least two charities registered around the US. A nutrition 'institute' and a veterans' charity ( NY, NY; Mineola, Texas).

They also communicate how hard they work.

I don't know if this have ever been pondered, but isn't Scrubs more accurate to medicine than the Dr Oz show?

I know, right. Mind blown.

just as yummy and nutritious as all the other GMO crap they pump out.

I think I just understood something which was puzzling m in any debate about GM food, i.e. the apparent lack of connection between the opponents' arguments and reality.

They use "GMO" to mean "any processed food I don't like".
Okay. Got it.
That's why they see GMO or chemicals where there isn't any.
Got it.

More seriously, I'm fed up with the hypocrisy of the anti-GMO crowd who complaint about non-existent chemicals (again, defining chemicals as "plant-produced stuff I don't like") while at the same time looking for their next pipe of pot or their organic wine - both full of real neurotoxins.

Actually, pot hasn't conclusively been found to be neurotoxic, and I don't think it will be, but alcohol definitely is.

Pot, especially when over-used, can, however, contribute to a certain... paranoia.

Tim.

Folic acid supplementation of bread products was a public health measure, not a marketing ploy.

Adding folic acid to grain products has reduced the incidence of neural tube defects and anencephaly by 26%:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5317a3.htm

Explain to me again how that is a bad thing?

Dr Oz is small potatoes compared to Monsanto.......
Monsanto: Corporate Rap Sheet
www.corp-research.org/monsanto

Fergus #6 brought it to mind, Captian_a #20;

The latest reports of increased risk of cancer associated with high use of supplements shows this.

I've pointed out that folic acid is not a natural folate and that overingestion of it may be bad and point out that it is not straightforward to avoid the additive-- How is this different from overingestion of certain Centrums?

Incidentally, I *think* they know longer give pregnant women folic acid but folate since ~2010. Maybe it is only because it is much more expensive.

It is puzzling why it is so ubiquitous where it does not need be -- One might conclude that it is now seen as a marketing ploy riding on the coattails of all the saved baby spines. Regardless, invocation of the terrible malady certainly seems the easy fallback position for so many who glibly poo-poo objection or concern.

1998. Nineteen hundred and ninety eight. Folic acid, Roundup, reduction of thymerisol... I wonder if the two former ones hid a decline from the latter one?

an aside, UV exposure found to lower folate...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140321095240.htm

I'd recommend laying off the folic acid and grab the prescription Deplin™ as that is all that will be available after Merck & Cie wins another lawsuit.

The nutritional ingredient at issue in this litigation is a dietary ingredient called Folate, which is a B vitamin that helps the body make new cells. Folate is considered a critical supplement for prenatal health, and low folate intake is associated with various vascular, ocular, neurological and skeletal disorders, and may pose a serious risk to individuals with diabetes. While folate does not occur naturally in large quantities it can be found in leafy green vegetables, whole grains, citrus fruits, and organ meats. Tetrahydrofolates are the predominant naturally occurring forms of folate, and in particular, the tetrahydrofolate 5–methyltetrahydrofolic acid (abbreviated as “5–MTHF”) is one of the predominant naturally occurring folate forms

Merc was the first company to manufacture a pure and stable diastereoisomer of L–5–MTHF, a 6S Isomer Product, as a commercial source. Merck’s development of Metafolin was the culmination of decades of research and the investment of tens of millions of dollars. Metafolin is one of Merck’s most important products.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1673961.html

Ha! There are those out amongst the tubes that decry Big Pharma *real* folate as nothing more than an expensify folic acid conspiracy.

concerns have been raised about the potentially untoward effects of unmetabolized synthetic folic acid with regard to cancer, depression, and cognitive impairment. With all these concerns, early data suggest supplementation with l-methylfolate rather than folic acid may mitigate these risks.

http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3218540/

But... But.. The guvmint is putting fluoride in our water for mind control! And folic acid to kill the weak! And don't get me started about how they are forcing GMOs down our throats! Chemicals! Ahh huh!

Folic acid supplementation of bread products was a public health measure, not a marketing ploy.

I'm reminded of the MDC mamma who gave her kid a goiter by insisting on magic Druid salt.

I remember learning about anencephaly just after finishing my first year of grad school, when I was house-sitting for my friend Olga and read in some book that was laying out about "babies born without brains." I had never known that that was something that could happen, so I looked it up on the interwebs. All I can say is that if a little folic acid can prevent such things from occurring, that's great.

Dr Oz is small potatoes compared to Monsanto-
Monsanto: Corporate Rap Sheet
www.corp-research.org/monsanto

Dr Oz is small potatoes compared to Monsanto-
Monsanto: Corporate Rap Sheet

Color me shocked to find that whitewashing Schmeiser is right where one would expect it to be.

Cherry-picker

#24 How much are you paid and by whom?

Oh look, the village f*cking idiot's back.

ken@23
Non sequitur. Whether or not Monsanto is as evil as you think it is has zero bearing on a discussion about Dr. Oz.

@26
And wasting no time with the shill gambit here, huh ken? Ironic how that's your go to ad hominem against science advocates given that this very article demonstrates just how bad the problem is on the alt side.

Cherry-picker

I take it from this remark that you concede that poor, poor Percy is every bit the fraud that every level of the Canadian court system found him to be.

I don't need to shore up my ego by joining in witch hunts and scapegoating. I think you are all (Narad, JP, PgP )- though highly intelligent in the IQ sense- abusive and narcissistic. I've watched Dr Oz and I think you are all exaggerating as to his effects on the public. The amount of prescription drug abuse is an epidemic according to the CDC. How many overdoses and suicides? That's more important than Dr. Oz's TV show. You are all big fails in emotional intelligence. I'm 72, in the best of health- (not all genetic) and know "snake oil" and "snakes"
I linked the above about Monsanto- read the history of PCBs finally declared carcinogenic by the EPA which Monsanto refused to stop producing.

Toxic Secret
Alabama Town Was Never Warned Of Contamination
www.cbsnews.com/news/toxic-secret-07-11-2002/

ken@30

I don’t need to shore up my ego by joining in witch hunts and scapegoating.

...
ken@26

#24 How much are you paid and by whom?

Hmmm...

I think you are all (Narad, JP, PgP )- though highly intelligent in the IQ sense- abusive and narcissistic. ... You are all big fails in emotional intelligence.

Me? Narcissistic? No more than the average person, I don't think, and probably less. Actually, I'm one of the nicer people you could ever come across - I even suffer fools relatively gladly, as long as they aren't also a**holes. Speaking of emotional intelligence, I could link to a couple of pretty spectacular fails in that department on your part. Would you like that? I mean, it kind of feels like rubbing a dog's nose in its own sh*t - sort of cruel, considering the creature's limited intelligence, and probably not all that effective. I figure it might just alert you to the nature of your own droppings here, though, although at this point that's starting to seem unlikely.

Incidentally, if you find the milieu here so "abusive," cupcake, why do you keep coming back?

Actually, now that I think about it, that's not so much witch hunting or scapegoating as it is good old ad homineming. Seal clubbing maybe?

ken@30

The amount of prescription drug abuse is an epidemic according to the CDC. How many overdoses and suicides? That’s more important than Dr. Oz’s TV show.

Non sequitur.

You are all big fails in emotional intelligence.

No you.
I’m 72, in the best of health- (not all genetic) and know “snake oil” and “snakes”
Non sequitur. Interesting though. You don't often see antivaxxers who lived through VPD epidemics.

I linked the above about Monsanto- read the history of PCBs finally declared carcinogenic by the EPA which Monsanto refused to stop producing.

Nooooon sequituuur. Seriously. What point are you trying to make? Chemicals and Monsanto are bad so Dr. Oz isn't? I suppose trying to tease out a coherent train of thought from your comments is an exercise in futility but an interesting one (in moderation) nonetheless.

The amount of prescription drug abuse is an epidemic according to the CDC. How many overdoses and suicides? That’s more important than Dr. Oz’s TV show.

Non sequitur.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with AoA's (IIRC) "Benedetta," who blames drug abuse on vaccines.

The point - Orac is wasting his time and will be ineffective in the many points he is trying to make to an audience other than one already biased. It's the same old, same old commentators who love the comraderie of displaying their superior intelligence and snarky repartee. I read the blog to learn new info. I'm a sucessful artist attempting to regain what's left of my left (brain) Here's a real opening for you- JP -can't you be more original in your name calling?
You are so "cute' JP.

Enjoy your GMOs- especially the Bacillus thuringiensis corn.
brought to you by "YOUR HEALTH FIRST" corp Monsanto.

ken's self-lauding of his emotional intelligence reminds me that a deconstruction of the whole concept of EI might be overdue. And in fact the W_pedia entry is pretty good with questioning of its objective basis.
A cynic might believe that it was invented as a sort of consolation prize for those who don't make it in the IQ department.

Enjoy your GMOs- especially the Bacillus thuringiensis corn.

Oh, I swee [sic]: it's time to make everybody else provide the deranged NO IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT rant.

I read the blog to learn new info.

You keep telling yourself that, Ken.

Fergus @6:

The latest reports of increased risk of cancer associated with high use of supplements shows this.

Trouble is that each study finds something different... one trial implicates carotenes in lung cancer. Another trial implicates folic acid in colon cancer. A Swedish group implicated folic acid in breast cancer. But if none of these findings can be replicated from one study to the next, then it's all junk science.
The news media and aggregation sites are sounding off about "a new meta-analysis", but it turns out to be a feckin' press release from the U of Col publicising a talk that Byers gave to the AACR, in which he simply re-hashed all the previous, unreplicable findings. Meaningless click-bait.

a deconstruction of the whole concept of EI might be overdue

It provided Coleman with a decent career, so not a total waste.

The amount of prescription drug abuse is an epidemic according to the CDC. How many overdoses and suicides? That’s more important than Dr. Oz’s TV show.

The point – Orac is wasting his time and will be ineffective in the many points he is trying to make to an audience other than one already biased.

If only there were some way of "blogging" whereby ken could promote these higher-priority issues to a wider audience, instead of simply bruiting them about in a confined, hostile milieu.

Here’s a real opening for you- JP -can’t you be more original in your name calling?
You are so “cute’ JP.

Ooh, can I get in? I'm thinking along the lines of "Ken: It's what's for dinner."

HDB : your deconstruction of the U of Col reports is highly appreciated.

@ken

Need we all remind you what the title of the blog is?
And how you are so deserving of such?

your deconstruction of the U of Col reports

They might have something useful for all I know, but there is no published paper, only the press release for Byers' talk.

@ ken

Enjoy your GMOs- especially the Bacillus thuringiensis corn.

After every storm, you are breathing Bacillus thuringiensis by the mouthful, you d!mwit (because the rain made aerosols out of the dirt). It's a very common dirt bacterium.

Unless you are the hidden daughter of Peter Parker and the Wasp woman, the Bt toxin cannot do anything to you. Its target is insects' guts.
Plus, as Narad pointed out, the Bt toxin has been used by the wheelbarrow in organic farming for more than a decade. So please reconcile this.

#49 Heli -You obviously did not read the link which explains perfectly well how it is different.
www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/40-2001/1058-bt-in-organic-farming-and-g…-
Also FYI -Koch Industries and Monsanto Team up to End Your Right to Know
www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3042/koch-industries-and-mon…

@ ken

Fine. Go sue Monsanto.

Actually, no.

I read the GMwatch article.
Explain to me how spreading the bacterium extract on cultures and letting the excess decompose is not the same as putting it everywhere in the environment in sublethal doses.

Also, it is normally possible to address protein production in specific parts of the plant. That's what was done with the Golden rice: vit A production, which normally is restricted to the rice stem, has been tweaked to be expressed in the rice grains as well.
Again, sue Monsanto if they did a sloppy job of it.

Don't look at me, I'm an academic.

With your shenanigans, you luddite lot only managed to strengthen Monsanto's monopoly on GMOs.
After having their fields destroyed one time too many, small companies and academics labs in my country and everywhere else just shut down or went onto something else than GMOs. Less concurrence and motivation to do good jobs for the big 6 Ag businesses.

Happy to be a Monsanto shill, ken?

@46 herr doktor bimler

I tend to agree with you about the state of prescribing and the quality of evidence for that prescribing. However we are talking about Dr Oz.

All your points can be directed at him in spades, in as much as there is often no evidence for his claims, as opposed to maybe poor evidence for some "medical" prescribing. Ken is right when he says Orac struggles to change anything using just a blog, he does not have the coverage of Dr Oz backed up by Oprah. He speaks to millions and therefore if even a small percentage believe him they could be harmed by his hyperbole.

Tim,

It is puzzling why it is so ubiquitous where it does not need be — One might conclude that it is now seen as a marketing ploy riding on the coattails of all the saved baby spines. Regardless, invocation of the terrible malady certainly seems the easy fallback position for so many who glibly poo-poo objection or concern.

I know the impact of severe spina bifida from personal experience; it's devastating. Why would we want more of this just to assuage your ill-educated and paranoid anxieties? You remind me of antivaxxers who complain that vaccines are promoted by warning people of the effects of VPDs.

@46 herr doktor bimler
I tend to agree with you about the state of prescribing and the quality of evidence for that prescribing. However we are talking about Dr Oz.

Pardon? Maybe someone else mentioned prescribing.

Sorry it was Ken.

And the line of attack that Dr. Oz plans to take has been revealed:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/dr-oz-stands-up-for-right-…

No surprises, actually. Oz is going to invoke freedom of speech and academic freedom to keep "fighting for you," vowing he will "not be silenced." He'll also attack Dr. Miller and the ACSH as Monsanto shills, which isn't too hard to do, given that the ACSH is arguably an industry shill.

for #43

Coincidentally:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/apr/21/calm-down…

Ka-ching! The money quote: " We know this issue hurts our brand..."

"This issue" being "fraud," and "our brand" being none other than the Wizard named Oz. That quote needs to go viral.

A Wikileaks dump is an absolute goldmine, especially because the very fact that it came through Wikileaks immediately has instant high credibility with a decent plurality of the American public, especially those who are politically active. And I say this as someone who does not like Wikileaks or Mr. Assange, and believes they have done considerable harm to national security (and don't get me started on Mr. Snowden).

So do take full advantage of the Wikileaks dump while it's still fresh, and you will get traction in places that translate to votes.

Whether the Sony material was "stolen" is irrelevant to the question of whether it will be useful in making activists more aware of Oz' "activities." If it works and you're not committing a crime to refer to it and quote it, just do it.

From ORAC's link.Must see TV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA0wKeokWUU#t=126

And folic acid to kill the weak!

TIMMY! #24, It seems there are some of those in Timville who need reminding that the folic acid serves more to weaken the strong. They seem pretty hip on the rest of their ideology.

All I can say is that if a little folic acid can prevent such things from occurring, that’s great.

There ya go, JP #26. Naa, I know you would not have been so glib if you had seen my post first; I guess Orac was to busy approving 'ken' all night. I do almost think 'he' is an automated timeslot fill fallguy kinda like an infomercial when the blinky light box help has left the studio.

Man, I guess there is no getting off 'automatic moderate' around here.

Krebiozen #58 -- That is, at least, less glib. Sorry, man.

#62 #43 I'm a woman. Interesting article but I never thought women were more emotionally intelligent. Loved being in class with boys in high school-they were sooo smart and interesting. Living in NY I am amazed that women spend $600+ for Manolo Blahnik shoes.

it’s time to make everybody else provide the deranged NO IT’S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT rant.

O.K., Narad #44. Would you concede that it is/would be completely different in the unlikely likely event that our bodies start to incorporate those proteins coded to squirt out the toxin??

In the unlikely event that the plane should loose all four engines simultaneously, we are most likely going to crash into the ground like a f**k'n dart.</blockquote. -- Billy Connolly

Well, ken #67,
Some personna I admired once described a 'dike' as a woman in comfortable shoes.

IDK, it could have been Keith Bell.

Would you concede that it is/would be completely different in the likely event that our bodies start to incorporate those proteins coded to squirt out the toxin??

We should also consider the likely event of developing spinnerets and wall-climbing skills after being bitten by radioactive spiders and incorporating the proteins coded to squirt out silk.

Well, herr doktor bimler #70,
I do miss my fingernails and teeth, for what it is worth.

The point – Orac is wasting his time and will be ineffective in the many points he is trying to make to an audience other than one already biased.

The point - this is Orac's blog and he can post what he damn well pleases! Don't like it? Tough luck!

tiM
April 22, 2015

The changing pseudonyms ("Tim," "TIm," "Timmeh," and now "tiM") are a nuisance, BTW.

I do miss my fingernails and teeth, for what it is worth.

Always check your matter transmitter for house-flies before use.

Ohh, hindsight is so 20-20, herr doktor bimler.

Incidentally, have you ever heard the phrase "I'm so nervous, I'm jumping out of my skin"??
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421205546.htm

Would you concede that it is/would be completely different in the likely event that our bodies start to incorporate those proteins coded to squirt out the toxin??

We should also consider the likely event of developing spinnerets and wall-climbing skills after being bitten by radioactive spiders and incorporating the proteins coded to squirt out silk.

Killing weeds on contact might be the lamest superpower ever.

Killing weeds on contact might be the lamest superpower ever.

But a veritable boon for the super gardener.

But... The BT toxin melts insect guts; It occurs to me that it is more a power for a supervillain who hates entomologists -- And their precious little pollinators to.

If absorbing and incorporating those proteins coded to squirt out the toxin was so easy, my body would be generating its own alkaloids by now.

Killing weeds on contact might be the lamest superpower ever.

But a veritable boon for the super gardener.

But would such power vanquish the Giant Hogweed?

Answer: possibly, if the gardener strikes by night. They are defenseless. They must have the sun to photosensitize their venom. Still they're invincible - still they're immune to all our herbicidal battering!

I mostly only hate lepidopterologists. Mostly.

Unlike many pesticides, the Bt-corn has been shown to have no effect on many "nontarget" organisms -- pollinators such as honeybees or beneficial predators of pests like ladybugs. But the Bt-modified corn produces pollen containing crystalline endotoxin from the bacterium genes. When this corn pollen is dispersed by the wind, it lands on other plants, including milkweed, the exclusive food of monarch caterpillars and commonly found around cornfields.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/04/toxic-pollen-bt-corn-can-ki…

#80: I may have to pull it out of my stack of dusty LPs and give it another listen. 44 years passes so quickly. Actually I became aware of it years later, but still. I'd link to the album cover but some might be offended by the image.

The fallout from the Senate's Oz-fest: Defending the indefensible

oracknows — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:00:41 +0000

The fallout from the Senate's Oz-fest: Defending the indefensible

It's been three days since America's quack, Dr. Mehmet Oz, had his posterior handed to him by a wily old prosecutor who is now a Senator, Claire McCaskill. The beauty of it is that, not only was Dr. Oz called, in essence, a liar to his face and not only was he called out for his irresponsible and hypercaffeinated promotion of various diet scams on his show, which is seen by millions every day, but he didn't see it coming, and his public spanking as he testified in front of Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, chaired by Sen. McCaskill, made instant news, with extensive coverage on national television, in newspapers, and, of course, in the blogosphere. "Deer in the headlights" images of Dr. Oz have proliferated, as have images of a most discomfited, nervous Dr. Oz, looking very much unlike his normal charismatic smarmy persona that we see on his daytime TV show.

All of this is a good thing, but it's not enough. Dr. Oz is, like the humongous, giant clam with little feet that let him move around featured in the story told as part of Arlo Guthrie's rather bizarre (but hilarious) The Story of Reuben Clamzo & His Strange Daughter in the Key of A, "hurt but not defeated" and "ready to strike again when the opportunity was right." Also, Dr. Oz has a very large and very dedicated fan base. Even in my post, there are occasional trolls who try to defend him or call me a "pharma shill," but in the news stories in mainstream sources Oz fans are out in force, while over at NaturalNews.com, the ever=hyperbolic, ever over-the-top Mike Adams, not content to launch an attack in which he accuses McCaskill of "unleashing Orwellian thought crimes attack on Doctor Oz for trying to help Americans overcome obesity," followed up with classic "pharma shill" gambit entitled Senator who attacked Doctor Oz over dietary supplements received over $146,000 in campaign contributions from Big Pharma mega-retailer and Monsanto. Mikey, as is his wont, can't help but turn the crazy up to 11:

Now Natural News has learned that Sen. McCaskill received over $146,000 in campaign contributions from one of the largest pharmaceutical retailers in North America. According to campaign contribution data published at OpenSecrets.org, prescription drug mega-retailer Express Scripts gave McCaskill over $109,000 in campaign contributions, most of which was routed through lobbyist groups or PACs. (1)

Sen. McCaskill also accepted over $37,000 from Monsanto, widely regarded to be the most evil corporation in the world and an enemy of sustainable food production, heirloom seeds and traditional American farming methods.

Strangely, McCaskill also received over $32,000 from Google, Inc., and another $29,000 from Comcast.

Monsanto, of course, is based in St. Louis. Indeed, over a decade ago I visited its corporate headquarters to give a talk with a couple of other members of the faculty of the medical school where I worked back then. Obviously, I know that makes me not only a pharma shill but a GMO shill, even though I received no money other than reimbursement for travel, lodging and meals for an overnight stay and haven't been back since. Of course, although I've seen ads for Dr. Oz doing a couple of shows on GMOs and the pseudoscientific fear mongering about them (actually, Oz contributed to the pseudoscientific fear mongering about them), GMOs appear to be a very tiny part of what Dr. Oz does; so it's not clear why Monsanto would want to take him down, although I suppose it is in conspiracyworld. In any case, it's obvious to Adams that McCaskill must be in the pocket of big pharma and Monsanto because, well, in Mike Adams' world no one criticizes people like Dr. Oz unless she's in the pocket of big pharma and Monsanto. Of course, I'm actually surprised that Oz couldn't find any contributions from pharmaceutical companies, given how pervasive pharma influence is in Congress. The worst he could find was a donation from Monsanto, a home state company, and Express Scripts, a company I hadn't even heard of before reading Adams' attack?

Of course, the pharma shill gambit is mild and sane by comparison to Adams' usual rants, and in this one he comes across as a starstruck schoolboy grateful for having been allowed to bask in Dr. Oz's star power for a few minutes on his show and having been exposed to millions of Dr. Oz's viewers. That is the problem, though, with Dr. Oz: He had a quack like Mike Adams on his show and took his claims to be a "food safety" watchdog and "food scientist" seriously. It's one big reason why I dropped my reticence towards using the term with Dr. Oz and dubbed him "America's quack." As I pointed out, having a scammer like Mike Adams on his show and representing him as some sort of “whistleblower” and “food safety activist” is akin to having Andrew Wakefield on a show and portraying him as a “vaccine safety activist.”

Not surprisingly, Mike Adams isn't the only quack who's shown up to defend Dr. Oz from Sen. McCaskill. An acupuncturist who has been a guest on Dr. Oz's show is also not happy. Her name is Jill Blakeway, and she wrote a piece for her blog entitled My experience on The Dr. Oz Show:

He [Dr. Oz] may be guilty of enthusiastic language, but as someone who’s appeared on his show many times I don’t think he’s guilty of being misleading. In fact I’ve always found that both he and his team take great pains to make sure that the herbs and supplements they feature are both effective and safe.

Whenever I have been asked to appear on a segment on The Dr. Oz Show, I have been asked to submit research about the herbs or treatment I’m due to talk about. This research has then been scrutinized both by the producers and a medical committee composed of MD’s. This committee has the power to veto anything that has insufficient science to back it up. In my experience they do just that. I’ve sometimes suggested a herb that is used routinely in Asia, but has little western research and found that it cannot be featured on the show because the producers require clinical data about its efficacy in English.

Of course, Blakeway is an acupuncturist. Consequently, her judgment with respect to what constitutes scientific rigor is automatically suspect. After all, if she had a good understanding of what constitutes scientific rigor, she wouldn't be an acupuncturist in the first place. Out of curiosity, I searched for her name on Dr. Oz's show website and found that, indeed, she has appeared on The Dr. Oz Show many times. A couple of the segments included:

Relieve Stress with Acupuncture Beads. Dr. Oz has Blakeway on to demonstrate "acupuncture beads," which appears to be a variant of auricular acupuncture. Blakeway blathers on about how the ear is a "microcosm of the rest of your body," and Dr. Oz doesn't challenge that at all, even when she points out points on a giant picture of the ear that supposedly map to the kidney or the heart. Remember, auricular acupuncture is nonsense. Oz even refers to acupuncture as the "gold standard" for stress relief.
Dr. Oz's Best Alternative Health Remedies. Dr. Oz and a bunch of his audience members receive acupuncture at the hands of Blakeway.
Dr. Oz's 24-Hour Stress Cleanse.

Clearly, Dr. Oz's staff's examination of the scientific evidence was not particularly rigorous, but it impressed Blakeway. That's not surprising. A quick perusal of her practice's website, Yinova Medicine, shows that she offers all sorts of dubious traditional Chinese medicine treatments, including acupuncture (of course!), moxibustion, cupping, and traditional Chinese medical diagnosis. Not surprisingly, the Yinova Center has a naturopath on staff and offers naturopathic medicine. Naturopathy, as regular readers know, is a form of quackery that consists of a cornucopia of pseudoscientific techniques, including homeopathy, tradition Chinese medicine, and many others, all wrapped up in a philosophy consisting of prescientific vitalism with a patina of science slapped on the whole mystical pseudoscientific edifice to fool people who don't look too deeply. Irritatingly to me, the Yinova center also treats cancer patients. Let's just put it this way. The Yinova Center offers oil pulling, which is pure woo.

What about Dr. Oz himself? Clearly, he was blindsided, as an unnamed source affiliated with his production company revealed. Oz expected to be the hero, someone testifying about how his name is being "abused" by unscrupulous weight loss supplement scammers, but instead he became the main target. So a couple of days ago, he posted this to his Facebook page:

I was pleased that the hearing yesterday dealt with some complicated issues and had all the players present whose cooperation will be necessary to move forward in protecting the consumer. For years I felt that because I did not sell any products that I could be enthusiastic in my coverage and I believe the research surrounding the products I cover has value. I took part in the hearing because I am accountable for my role in the proliferation of these scams and I recognize that my enthusiastic language has made the problem worse at times. To not have the conversation about supplements at all, however, would be a disservice to the viewer. In addition to exercising an abundance of caution in discussing promising research and products in the future, I look forward to working with all those present yesterday in finding a way to deal with the problems of weight loss scams.

Translation: I'm sorry. I know my "enthusiastic language" (in reality shameless, hyperbole-laced hucksterism) is a major contributor to the problem of weight loss scams, but it's all part of the "conversation." And, because I've abandoned all my scientific principles, I actually believe the crap research supporting these supplements I promote. At least, that's what I tell myself. The money makes it all better. I'll be happy to work with regulators to help fix the problem, but only as long as it doesn't require me to change anything that I'm doing.

No, Dr. Oz still doesn't get it. Given that his current season is either over or almost over—I don't know for sure because I don't follow the show, which only reaches my consciousness when an ad for a show featuring a particularly egregious bit of quackery or big quack happens to catch my attention—likely we'll have to wait until September to see how Dr. Oz reacts to his very public spanking at the hands of the Senate. My guess is that he'll two things: (1) play the victim and say he walked into a trap (the latter of which is probably true) and (2) tone down the "miracle" rhetoric and do fewer segments about weight loss. However, I also guess that he won't be able to tone down the "miracle" rhetoric very long—or cut down on the number of show segments about weight loss—because weight loss is by far the most popular topic in such shows, and people want quick fixes. Adhering too long to true science-based medicine as topics on his show is a sure recipe for ratings disaster, and Dr. Oz's ratings didn't skyrocket until after he embraced the dark side of quackery. That's why I'm guessing that by January The Dr. Oz Show will be back to the same as it ever was, if not even worse, with a fresh dollop of persecution complex.

oracknows Fri, 06/20/2014 - 03:00

The Great and Powerful Dr. Oz: Humbled by Senator Claire McCaskill

oracknows — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 22:01:47 +0000

The Great and Powerful Dr. Oz: Humbled by Senator Claire McCaskill

I almost feel sorry for "America's Quack," Dr. Mehmet Oz. Well, not really.

Remember last week when I took note of an upcoming Senate hearing, specifically a hearing on weight loss scams in front of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, which is chaired by Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO). At the time, I wasn't pleased, because I assumed that the reason Dr. Oz had been invited to testify was in order to bring some star power to the proceedings and get some television coverage, given that the rest of the witnesses consisted of representatives from government regulatory agencies, from supplement manufacturers, and from Internet advertising agencies. (Talk about self-serving testimony and lies.) Actually, that's what happened today after the hearing this morning, but not in the way I had predicted. In fact, as I learned a few hours after the hearing over at The Consumerist:

Missouri Senator Clair McCaskill, Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, went straight for Dr. Oz’s jugular in her opening remarks on this morning’s hearing about the false and deceptive advertising of weight-loss products.
“When you feature a product on your show, it creates what has become known as ‘Oz Effect,’ dramatically boosting sales and driving scam artists to pop up overnight using false and deceptive ads to sell questionable products,” the Senator explained. “I’m concerned that you are melding medical advice, news and entertainment in a way that harms consumers.”

I couldn't wait until I got home to see the actual video of Dr. Oz's testimony, which has been posted on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation website and on C-Span:

Now, I'm not a politician, but I do follow politics, and if there's one thing I know about Congressional hearings, it's that they are very much like a Kabuki dance. It's highly stylized and constrained, reminiscent of the Kabuki style of Japanese stage play. Indeed, there is even a term, Kabuki dance, that is used in politics to describe an event that is designed to create the appearance of conflict or of an uncertain outcome, when in fact the actors have worked together to determine the outcome beforehand. The question I have is what the original outcome was intended to be.

In fact, I rather suspect that Dr. Oz didn't see this coming. Otherwise he likely wouldn't have accepted the invitation to testify, which is why I also suspect that skeptics had a bit to do with this. For instance, "Dr. Joe" Schwarcz had some of his writings about Dr. Oz forwarded to McCaskill's staff. In response to my post last week, I know several people (at least) forwarded some Orac-ian "insolence" to McCaskill and other Senators on the committee, as well as some writings from one of my favorite blogs (for obvious reasons) Science-Based Medicine. The reason I suspect that is because Sen. McCaskill used a term I've never heard used by a politician before: "science-based medicine." Yes, she used the term "science-based medicine," not the usual term used by most doctors and most people who know a little about medicine, "evidence-based medicine."

My guess is that originally McCaskill wanted Oz primarily for his star power and didn't plan on grilling him so harshly. But then the reaction and negative publicity Sen. McCaskill endured after announcing that Dr. Oz was going to testify at this hearing led her to change strategy. At least, I like to think that. Quite frankly, at this point, I don't care that much what her original motivation or plan for the ending of her Kabuki dance was. I just like what the ending ultimately turned out to be, Dr. Oz squirming in front of several Senators and showing up on national TV doing just that. And, of course, every play needs a villain. They often say about such hearings that there has to be at least one villain and one hero. However, usually the hero ends up being either the chair of the committee or one of the committee, with seldom room for more. I bet that Dr. Oz thought he was going to be one of the heros. He found out otherwise, much to his dismay. Every hearing needs someone whom grandstanding politicians can lecture and berate for their offenses and thus use as an example of why a new law or policy is needed. Dr. Oz, being the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, had an enormous target painted on his chest, right from the start. Only he didn't appear to realize it.

Part of the Kabuki dance of these hearings is that each witness gets to read a prepared statement. Oz's statement was full of self-serving blather, about how he got to where he was and his commitment to fighting obesity and promoting health. Particularly telling is this passage:

To make the Dr. Oz Show succeed in its mission, we have to overcome certain obstacles I learned in years of conversations with patients. We have to simplify complicated information. We have to make the material seem interesting and focus on the “wow” factor.

All of which is true, as far as it goes. This becomes more important later in the hearing, particularly the bit about the "wow" factor. More revealing is this:

In 2012, we aired a show on a little known supplement called Green Coffee Extract. This is the supplement that is so prevalent in all the ads that are being exhibited today.

In this show I used the word “miracle” when referring to how green coffee could melt fat and I explored a new study on the supplement. I was enthusiastic that it could be a tool to assist people in losing weight and I knew the audience wanted and needed this information. After the show aired an explosion of ads and marketing followed along with criticism that our characterization went to far in describing green coffee. My way of dealing with it was to construct a second show and answer the criticism of our original segment. While we covered Green Coffee in the show, we devoted about half of the hour to me explaining to viewers that they are being duped by unscrupulous people who are illegally using my name in ads. The entire discussion of Green Coffee was prefaced with a warning to the viewer in the interest of protecting them.

Most importantly, in this show I spent an enormous portion of the broadcast demonstrating the false ads and how the various retail scams work – again trying to protect the viewer. I also reexplored green coffee this time using the audience to reveal their anecdotal experience after trying the supplement for two weeks. Some had lost weight, others had not. It seemed to help some people in their weight loss efforts. The internet lit up again, the illicit ads proliferated, and we faced additional criticism.

Yes, indeed. As I've pointed out time and time again, however, whenever I saw segments with Oz discussing supplement scams, his concern seemed to be far more focused on protecting his name from being used by supplement hawkers than it was on protecting his audience, culminating in an "investigative" report in which he burst in on nefarious supplement scammers using his name to sell Garcinia gambogia weight loss products like a cut rate Geraldo Rivera opening up Al Capone's vault. It's as though he thought he were Morley Safer and Dan Rather in the glory days of 60 Minutes showing up with a camera crew to confront a ne'er do well.

In fact, it was all of that that got Sen. McCaskill started. She started out by showing a clip of Dr. Oz promoting the virtues of green coffee bean extract and then listed some quotes from Dr. Oz during his shows:

(On green coffee extract) — “You may think magic is make-believe, but this little bean has scientists saying they found the magic weight-loss for every body type.”
(On raspberry ketone) — “I’ve got the number one miracle in a bottle to burn your fat” (raspberry ketone)
(On garcinia cambogia) — “It may be the simple solution you’ve been looking for to bust your body fat for good.”

In other words, typical Oz hyperbole, the likes of which we've seen dozens of times. Here's a key part of the exchange between Sen. McCaskill and Dr. Oz:

Just look at Oz's reaction to the first barrage, in which McCaskill, who was once a prosecutor, shows those old skills as a prosecutor and berates Oz, basically calling him a liar to his face:

I don’t get why you need to say this stuff because you know it’s not true. Why, when you have this amazing megaphone, and this amazing ability to communicate, why would you cheapen your show by saying things like that?

It is a thing of beauty:

Oz's response is, for once, not particularly slick, at least in the beginning. He was clearly taken off guard, and let his body language show it. After all, it's not every day someone is called a liar to his face on national TV by a Senator. And, make no mistake, that's exactly what Sen. McCaskill did: Called him a liar. (What else does it mean to accuse someone of saying things he knows to be untrue? By definition, that's lying.) Dr. Oz starts out by disagreeing that green coffee beans don't work and trying to cites multiple studies, but McCaskill had done her homework, even pointing out that the study he relied on was small and funded by the company. He then retreats into a highly disingenuous false equivalence by saying that many of the things we recommend with respect to diet are controversial and blathering about how medicine advances by embracing new ideas and challenging old ideas. It's a huge load of fetid dingo's kidneys, of course, because the controversies over these sorts of issues tend to be based in far better evidence on both sides than the evidence Oz has used to defend his green coffee bean extract show. Unwittingly, he basically admitted that the "clinical trial" he himself did with green coffee bean extract wasn't a real clinical trial and admitted that it wasn't done under "appropriate IRB guidance."

In other words, Dr. Oz just admitted that he had performed human subjects research without proper ethical approval, as I accused him of lo these many months ago! Thanks, Dr. Oz!

He also points out that he has done shows on the power of prayer and was criticized for it, arguing that he does, contrary to McCaskill's intimations, believe in the things he features on his show and says his show is all about "hope":

Oz took great issue with the Senator’s assertion that he doesn’t believe in the treatments he endorses.

“I don’t think this ought to be a referendum on the use of alternative medical therapies,” said the doctor. “I’ve been criticized for having people coming on my show to talk about the power of prayer. As a practitioner, I can’t prove that prayer helps people survive an illness.”

Countered McCaskill, “It’s hard to buy prayer… prayer’s free.”

“I do personally believe in the items that I talk about on the show,” responded Dr. Oz, who acknowledged that statements he’s made in the past have encouraged scam artists and others looking to make a quick buck on people looking for an easy way to lose weight.

And so it went. Oz tried to defend himself. He admits that he uses flowery and over-the-top language to express his enthusiasm for the products he discusses on his show and regards himself as a cheerleader for weight loss and health, although he was forced to admit that none of his recommendations besides diet and exercise have actually been proven to work. He also kept saying that those shows that McCaskill was harping on were two years old and that he "doesn't use that kind of language any more," having become a lot more conservative. (Actually, one of them was less than a year and a half old, but let's not quibble too much.) McCaskill, wily old prosecutor that she onces was, had done her homework, however. She called Dr. Oz out on his lies—and, yes, I do believe that Dr. Oz was lying—by listing examples of language just as "flowery" from a mere three weeks ago and a couple of months ago. Indeed, I went over Oz's website earlier today and I found many such examples in just the last few months, more than I could list (for example, his show about forskolin).

Oz also kept repeating that he himself doesn't sell any supplements. That is obviously true, but so what? As I've pointed out, he's had many, many people on his show who do sell supplements, worst among them Joe Mercola and Mike Adams. It's as though Oz lends his name to certain "approved" supplement sellers. Indeed, Oz went straight into one of the more nonsensical defenses I've ever seen, in which he claimed that he did his audience a disservice by not giving his audience a list of "reputable" companies that sell the products he's featured on his show. Yeah, right. He doesn't admit that the products he's been pushing don't work for weight loss, and the worst things he can find to "confess" about are using too much flowery language and not doing right by his viewers by telling them where to buy these products. Anyone wonder whether Dr. Oz will soon be coming out with a list of "Oz-approved" companies and products? I don't. He will. He even basically said as much. Never mind that there is no supplement that has been demonstrated to result in reliable long term weight loss.

McCaskill saw right through that as well:

I know you feel that you’re a victim, but sometimes conduct invites being a victim. I think that if you would be more careful, maybe you wouldn’t be victimized quite as frequently.

Or, as I put it, if you promote "miracle weight loss" supplements on your show, like Garcinia gambogia, why are you surprised that companies making Garcinia gambogia think you recommend it and want to take advantage of your recommendation for marketing purposes?

At the end of the Kabuki play, McCaskill gave Oz the required chance at redemption, saying:

We didn’t call this hearing to beat up on you but we did call this hearing to talk about a real crisis in consumer protection, and you can be part of the problem or you can be part of the police.

At this point, the Great and Powerful Dr. Oz, chastened and chastized, promised to be a good boy from now on and promised that he wanted to be part of the police. After all, there must be a repentance at the end of these proceedings, and Oz delivered. In addition to telling his audience what supplements meet his exacting standards, use less "flowery" language in the future. We'll see. If he does that, though, his show's ratings are going to tank, and I bet he knows that. It's also why I bet that Dr. Oz will clean up his act for a little while—but just a little while. Meanwhile, right on queue, Mike Adams amps up the crazy, accusing Sen. McCaskill in a gut-bustingly funny post of "unleashing an Orwellian thought crimes attack on Doctor Oz for trying to help Americans overcome obesity." I leave the deconstruction of his rant as an exercise for my readers. (Why should I have all the fun?)

In the meantime, it looks to me as though a bit of skeptical activism had an effect, although I can't prove it. I hope it did. This is the sort of thing that can make a difference.

ADDENDUM: Apparently Dr. Oz really was blindsided:

A production source close to the 54-year-old cardiologist — full name Mehmet Oz — said he was perplexed.

“We were invited down to Washington to testify at a hearing about scams and instead it became all about how much we hate your show,” the source told the Daily News.

oracknows Tue, 06/17/2014 - 18:01

Categories

Policy

Love it

At one time he did have approved products although he did not sell them. I blogged about it in 2011,

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-seal-of-approval/

The Live Better Newsletter still has:

Oz-Approved: Health, Diet and Beauty Essentials!
Dr. Oz gives his official seal of approval for the remedies, treatments and foods he's most passionate about. From alternative health care to better beauty, they've improved the Oz family's life and can do the same for you, too. Tune in today!

Get the complete Oz-approved list! at

http://www.doctoroz.com/newsletter/live-better-newsletter-november-4-20…

but it leads to

Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.

So he took it down. sort of.

It is not in the way back machine

Unexpected and wonderful. And nothing tops it off quite like an Oracian take down commentary. I've been waiting all day for that cherry on top of Dr. Oz' testimony.

You know, I'm not so sure that McCaskill didn't know exactly what she was doing from the start. This is the woman who hand-selected Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin to be her opponent in her last senate race. She seriously bought ads to promote what a hardcore conservative he is to get him through the primary, and then just sat back and let him ruin himself with his own words.

I can EASILY believe that this was a set-up from a start. Invite him, put out the glowing press release, and let his own ego walk him straight into a trap. She would know that he's enormously popular and that grilling him would guarantee her headlines for the issue she's trying to promote.

What I'm trying to say is that I kind of love Claire McCaskill.

Kudos to Senator McCaskill for keeping her foot on Dr. Oz's throat. She has a reputation of doggedly going after government programs and other initiatives that she feels strongly about. Perhaps she is a born-again crusader against fake science.

I cannot handle that Mike Adams guy.

It was a very pleasant surprise to see someone in Congress who understands that the frauds are taking advantage of the vulnerable.

The victims are not the 'Great and Powerful Ozs,' but the people who are duped into buying these supplements that are not as safe as drugs, not as effective as drugs, but are as expensive as drugs.

We do need to take the same approach to 'conventional' medicine.

There are too many treatments that are the inverse of science-based. They have biological plausibility, but have not been demonstrated to improve outcomes that matter, yet they are FDA approved.

That naturalnews article made me physically sick. Like, I couldn't read more than a few paragraphs before I felt like throwing up. And that jab at the top abot McCaskill's weight - way to stay classy, Mike. Way to stay classy.

Oh Mikey.

This is from one of his *real educated* commenters:

TOM WHITMIRE for CONGRESS • 6 hours ago

It Is issues like this that have led me to Run for Congress in MI's 5th District. The real educated people of this country need a voice in DC and I plan to be heard. That you (sic) natural news for inspiring me to RUN for CONGRESS! NUTRITION, HEALTH, EDUCATION & AGRICULTURE are my main platforms. Thank you for your support!

Wow - science based medicine! Is that really a thing?

Regarding the hearing, it was a pleasure to see Oz squirm, in payment for all of the squirming he has caused me when I see his miracle magic pills plastered on magazines in the checkout aisle.

And I can speak from some experience that the FTC is underfunded and understaffed to go after all of these guys (or even more than a very small fraction)....it really is an uphill battle, especially when morons like Dr. Oz create this atmosphere that these types of things are "okey-dokey."

Good takedown by the Senator....

Epic win.

I've never read anything from Natural News before ... is this their usual standard of reporting? Just for starters, even before I opened the article, I'm confronted with a really nasty photo of the Senator, overweight, scruffy-haired and snarling, next to a photo of Dr Oz, clean-cut, well-groomed and with a hurt expression on his face. The article starts and continues for some way with an attack on Big Pharma (what's new?) and it ends with a lengthy hagiography of the cruelly-persecuted Saint Mehmet..

Googling across the internet, I found this article on low vaccination rates in Arizona. Specifically which schools report vaccination rates that put them below the herd immunity threshold.

Considering the rash of outbreaks we've seen this year, Arizona could be the location of the next one.

http://azstarnet.com/news/science/health-med-fit/kids-skipping-shots-in…

Kathy, that's pretty much NaturalNews's MO. Mike's arguments are transparently awful to anyone with a basic understanding of how cranks work, but alas, that doesn't include everyone.

If only the government would do this stuff, all day, every day . . .

I saw a clip of that on the NBC nighlty news last night. My wife is a pharmacist and gets lots of questions from Oz viewers who want to purchase some questionable product they saw on his show. They get mad at my wife when she tells them that based on her professional understanding, the products don't work like Oz claims. She was clapping by the time the news segment ended.

Senator McCaskill has the power to call for testimony and shame publicly, exerted to its fullest yesterday. Now if only state medical boards would exercise their power to sanction MDs who are clearly not practicing within the limitations of their licenses (well, I can dream, can't I?).

Ha!, just splendid! I saw this in the news elsewhere and figured Orac would swing into action against the Woozard of Oz.

AngryScience @ 8: Nothing like a good 'puke challenge' to get me to go read an article! And lo & behold:

The opener, a 'satire parody' [sic] where Mikey has Senator McCaskill saying 'promoting green coffee beans for weight loss is unacceeptable,' and Oz replying 'is that because you want them all for yourself?' actually got a chuckle out of me. It's at least slightly funny in the genre of partisan sniping.

Mikey's claim that 750,000 doses of Gardasil were recalled due to having 'tiny shards of glass' in them should be actionable as libel.

He says 'green coffee bean extract, [is] a supplement that really does help support sensible weight loss efforts.' Does this stuff have caffeine in it, by any chance? Any other stimulants? In which case it's an 'all natural' analogue of old-fashioned diet pills that contained amphetamines. But even Mikey knows enough to say 'support' weight loss, as in, blowing your nose also 'supports' weight loss if you have to run up and down stairs to get some bog paper for tooting your hooter.

Apparently Mikey didn't just 'appear' on Oz' show, he 'experienced the honour' of appearing there. YES, You Too can Experience the Honour, and Prove to Yourself that the Placebo Effect Really Works (excess capitalisation intended).

'He simply wants to share the Good News with his fellow Americans...' Oh hurrah!, another telly-evangelist, preaching the bloody Good News! I thought we'd all had enough of those nowadays. 'Are you saved?' 'No, I'm wasted, here have a puff of this...' Right!

'Not only is it a crime in America to sell fresh cow's milk...' No it is _not_ a crime to sell 'fresh' milk, it's a crime to sell _un-Pasteurised_ milk, because it can make you sick six ways from hell.

Lastly, anyone who writes an 'about the author' six-paragraph hagiography about himself, is clearly a narcissist of first order.

Let's see - according to Natural News, Sen. McCaskill unleashed an "Orwellian thought crimes attack" on poor Dr. Oz over his endorsement of unproven weight loss products.

This is the same Natural News that delivered a venomous attack on Oz as a "pharma shill" for belatedly endorsing vaccination:

http://www.naturalnews.com/036111_Dr_Oz_vaccines_children.html

Now I'm confused. Just what is a thought crime, anyway?

@ Anj #15-- Arizona already *is* having these outbreaks. For 2013 there were ~ 1300 cases of pertussis (http://www.evernote.com/shard/s15/sh/c4bdb8ce-0a94-4034-9f1b-8d17cc1ec4… ) with current tracking for about 800 cases this year (however, it is summer and about half of AZ goes to CA beaches rather than melt in 110 degree heat, so I expect counts to increase in AZ as some of AZ's unvaccinated bring pertussis back from vacation.

Also (as I live and practice pediatrics in AZ) worth noting is that at least the law in California requires all schools to track and publicly publish vaccination rates--so a parent in California can make sure their child isn't going to a school with only a 50% vaccination rate. For the last several years, attempts to get such a law passed in Arizona have failed in the state legislature. Here, parents are facing a crapshoot when it come to knowing whether their kid's school has herd immunity or not. I was practicing there last year when the outbreak hit (http://www.evernote.com/shard/s15/sh/c4bdb8ce-0a94-4034-9f1b-8d17cc1ec4…) and there was clustering of cases at 2 schools that clearly had below-herd-immunity level vaccination rates. What was deeply frustrating was that the parents who do vaccinate had no way of knowing that their child attended such a school until news of the outbreak was released to parents at that school--as the school district was under no compunction to disclose such information. Caring for children who are especially vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases (those who've had chemotherapy, those with organ transplants and those with immune deficiencies), I think it is criminal that parents cannot know if their vulnerable child is walking into a death trap.

@ Anj #15 - current pertussis tracking at about 800 cases for the whole year based on http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/pdf/weekly.pdf. It is odd (which is why I had to link to the 2013 end of year data from the file I had downloaded myself from AZDHS) that AZDHS has still not finalized 2013 infectious disease reporting.

I have to admit; when seeing the footage I giggled like a schoolgirl.

I thought it was a bit comical how Oz kept retreating to and arguing that he uses "flowery language" to describe his own descriptions of these supplements. To my ear (coming from a law background) it sounded as though he was referring to "puffery" - basically a term for a sales pitch so outrageous that no reasonable person would believe it to be literally true. So does Oz believe that what he is saying is puffery and that his audience should be smart enough to realize that these claims cannot possibly be fulfilled? But to do that, wouldn't he basically have to admit that he is effectively no longer a physician, but merely a salesman?

Now I’m confused. Just what is a thought crime, anyway?

Mike Adams is one of several woo-pushers whom I suspect know as much as they do about 1984 because they have been using it as an operations manual. We are allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia, and have always been allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia, notwithstanding your (obviously false, as of this week) memories that just last week we were allied with Eastasia and at war with Eurasia. Likewise, Mike has always been a friend of those who push the right kind of dietary supplements (e.g., Dr. Oz) and a enemy of those who support vaccination of kids (e.g., Dr. Oz). This week, Mike calls Dr. Oz a hero for holding his views on dietary supplements in front of a hostile Senate committee. Are you going to believe Mike, or your lying eyes?

@ Lurker:

If you enjoyed his "6 paragraph hagiography" please read his bio/ history @ healthranger.com. It's longer. And funnier.

I was raised in the belief that one shouldn't ever ' toot one's own horn', i.e. if you are indeed brilliant, excellent, well-versed, accomplished, superlative etc
let OTHERS take notice and comment.

But perhaps that tells us something about people who DO write ( or videotape) long, self-serving bios:
- they're trying to market their personae as well as products
- they may be trying to make up for their apparent lack of real credentials by inventing accolades and awards
- they may not have the skills that inform them doing so is rather gauche, obvious and un-cool
- they may be aiming at an audience who doesn't have the skills to label braggadocio as advertising, i.e. clueless

Because I hear audience feedback from another woo-meister, I am (almost) surprised that fans fall for his over-padded bio, false accomplishments and self-deifying con artistry:
they thank him for "all he does"
they ask advice about family members with serious conditions BEYOND what doctors have advised or prescribed
and they continue the exultation and praise he began.

While I support sceptics leading readers to scientific articles on research and theory, as well as more formal study, I think that there is a ground of common sense about the the world and other people to which we can appeal first.
Reading and studying take effort and time that many may lack or not want to invest at first.

BUT if we can engage them by showing them the _apparent_ we up our chances of getting through to them.

That's why I try to question :
How likely is it that ONE person can be expert in several un-realted fields ( health, economics, politics) when most professionals need to specialise in ONE part of ONE area?

Oh, that's UN-RELATED.

-btw- the look on Oz's face is precious!

Good for Senator McCaskill, whatever her initial strategy was, the end result was amazing.

As for Mikey, does he understand that making a claim that a product does something when all available says it doesn't isn't a thought crime, it's fraud? Then again, he seems to think the manufacturerers of Vioxx, Baycol, and Serzone never appeared before any government body to explain their decisions. This despite referencing Merck's hearing in an article from 2004:http://www.naturalnews.com/002534.html. So, how deep is the memory hole Mikey? Who are we at war with this week?

I noticed the reference to "science based medicine" as well. I agree that it is not proof of anything, but it sure is suspicious(ly awesome).

Yesterday I "liked" her facebook page, sent her an FB message of congratulations, put her clip on my FB page with congratulations, and tweeted both her and my (very few) followers with solid praise.

I think it is very important to vigorously praise our politicians when they do the right thing and heartily throw our support behind them while spreading the word. I can only hope that this sort of thing will snowball into the the death knell of Dr. Oz .

@ Denice

How likely is it that ONE person can be expert in several un-related fields ( health, economics, politics) when most professionals need to specialise in ONE part of ONE area?

Careful, here, polymaths do exist. Look in the linked article, "Real Life" section, for a few examples of these Renaissance men, modern examples included.
For the American reader, I will just drop the names of Benjamin Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt.

However, you are right pointing out that due to the massive amount of knowledge to acquire, excelling in more than one field today is difficult.

You would also be right pointing out that most, if not all of these multiple-fields experts were sought after by political leaders and by mainstream scientists. In other words, recognized for their value by other experts.
Something which is not happening to Mike Adams.

@ Denice #27

How likely is it that ONE person can be expert in several un-related fields ( health, economics, politics) when most professionals need to specialise in ONE part of ONE area?

However, you are right pointing out that due to the massive amount of knowledge to acquire, excelling in more than one field today is very unlikely.

Apologies for the double post.

@ Helianthus:

Of course.
HOWEVER these guys aren't even accomplished in ONE area. They need to pad the paucity: Mike and Gary have only two standard degrees between them ( a four year one in an unspeciified science at an unspecific locale and a two year business one in West Verginia, respectively).

Whilst I really shouldn't admit it, I studied across more than one area myself and have relevant degrees which don't emanate from distance learning programmes or alternative universities. I won't bore you with the details.

And it's no big deal- I'd guess that it's not at all uncommon @ RI ( you know who you are). If education is more than window dressing, it usually makes itself known.

That woo-based window dressing requires constant maintainence because the real deal isn't there. They have to keep reminding their audiences of how brilliant they are.

And degrees aren't entirely the thing either but they do give us a bit of a standard measure of *external* evaluatiion. It's taken for granted that most experts in a field have at least a graduate level education. The poseurs need to cover-up that simple fact: they don't have it; they didn't do it; they weren't accepted and they need to claim substitute qualiifications to make up for this lack.

The self-aggrandisement seen here is probably a inherent facet of personality as well as advertising copy.

AN inherent. facet.

a four year [degree] in an unspeciified science at an unspecific locale

I'm getting a whiff of the other kind of B.S. here.

Poor Dr. Oz. The video of his testimony in Congress has been picked up by every mainstream media outlet and the only one who is defending him is Mike Adams.

Senator McCaskill really stuck it to him about that Indian study for a weight loss product with 16 participants, paid for by the manufacturer. His smarmy veneer collapses as McCaskill repeatedly questions him about his extraordinary claims for these crappy supplements.

The bottom line is that Dr. Oz traded his reputation as a competent cardiac surgeon to become just another media whore snake oil salesman.

@Casual Observer--

Yeah, Sen. McCaskill is a breath of fresh air in the fetid cesspool that is Missouri politics. Our state legislature is really a piece of work: banning Sharia law, nullifying federal gun laws, attacking science. It's really depressing. Kansas is worse, but just barely. It really sucks sometimes being a blue person in a very red state.

The bottom line is that Dr. Oz traded his reputation as a competent cardiac surgeon to become just another media whore snake oil salesman.

Do we know he was a good surgeon?

Is it worth writing to Columbia's IRB to point out that he conducted an unauthorized trial? How about to the FDA, since he conducted a trial intended to support marketing for the product?

Do we know he was a good surgeon?

Yes, we do. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s he was considered one of the best.

@madder

How about to the FDA, since he conducted a trial intended to support marketing for the product?

Ah, but is it marketing or entertainment? Did he conduct it so he could sell it for that use?

I doubt that the FDA angle would work. Going to Columbia's IRB or even to OHRP might. Does the Federal Rule apply?

I would argue that it does. Columbia University receives federal funding, and Dr. Oz is faculty at Columbia University. Consequently, the Common Rule should apply. Whether Dr. Oz could weasel out of it would depend on how strict the Columbia faculty code of conduct and ethics is.

We get the impression that altho' he IS rather affluent ( see 'Dr Oz's house in Cliffside Park/ Celebrity House Gossip) he ISN'T down the road hanging out with Beyonce and JZ.

@Orac

Well, I guess I was wondering more, did he conduct the trial using Columbia's resources or as an employee of the university? If he conducted it outside of employment hours, off-campus as a private individual, then the Federal Rule wouldn't apply and the IRB would have little it could do to sanction him.

But, if he used any materials or space from Columbia's supply, I think it could probably be argued that that is enough to involve the university, so the Federal Rule would apply, and all of the IRB review regulations would come into play.

It's not entirely clear. A certain "friend" of mine quoted the Columbia University Human Research Protection policy, which states that it doesn't matter where a Columbia faculty member carries out human subjects research. The policy still applies, and the research is subject to a Columbia IRB:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-great-and-powerful-oz-versus-sc…

At the very least, Oz arguably violated Columbia human research subjects protection policies.

@Orac

Ah, your friend is correct. Even if he doesn't fall under OHRP jurisdiction, he clearly is covered under Columbia's IRB regulations. Has anyone contact Columbia's Human Research Protection Program regarding his antics?

Uh oh. Mikey will not be pleased if Orac says that about his new bestie.
It may mean an investgative report by Natural News: 'Who is Orac?'

Regarding Mikey: it's curious how he throws all his ire at Senator McCaskill's treatment of Dr. Oz while completely ignoring the other panel members, including the representatives from the FTC, Council for Responsible Nutrition, and the Natural Products Association. One wonders if Mike watched the whole thing.

Regarding the hearing: if there really any teeth in it? What's to prevent Dr. Oz from making a show of complying, and then going right back to his old ways?

lsm@49: Do you mean the other Senators, or the other witnesses? The news reports I have seen only mention McCaskill's questioning, but I also have not watched the video of the full hearing. The people you list would be witnesses before the committee.

As for your other question: The hearing by itself doesn't mean anything, but since Dr. Oz was not testifying under a grant of immunity, other federal agencies (as well as Columbia's medical school, per the comments of Orac's friend) could use it as evidence in any actions they take against him. If, of course, they choose to take action.

I love Mary Elizabeth Williams at Salon. The money quote in her article today on the not-so-great Dr. Oz:

"If you search on his site for the word “miracle,” you will get 1,890 results, which is considerably more than you’ll find in the entire bible and 1980 US Olympic hockey team combined."

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/18/dr_ozs_bad_medicine/

The picture in the Salon article makes Oz look like a deer caught in headlights.

Dr. Chris, having just left public health in AZ for public health in NC I can tell you that ADHS is underfunded and chronically understaffed suffering from high turnover. I am not at all surprised they have not finalized last years data. It routinely takes them until July to get the final dataset out. Which plays merry hell with everyone else's report writing, as the final state numbers are used by all the counties. So much fun. AZ is ripe for an outbreak as are many areas in the US. There are a lot of charter schools in AZ and those tend to have much lower vaccination rates than public schools. Add in the shifting population and an international border and it's a matter of when not if.

Orac:

You should admit that you screwed up and misunderstood her intentions. I almost let her have it as well, but then went back and reread the release on her site, and my gut was telling me that it was going to go exactly the way it did, because of the careful wording of the release. You jumped the gun and practiced very poor journalism, and now you're trying to take credit for her lambasting him, saying it put pressure on her? Give me a break. I didn't see her amazing performance as something pulled out of a posterior orifice at the last minute because people assumed the worst of her. That kind of grilling seems like it has been planned for a while.

Usually you do good work, but this time, your arrogance is showing. You owe Senator McCaskill an apology and should do a full mea culpa for accusing her of having "fried" the irony meter. You leapt to an improper conclusion based on an assumption.

And I called you out for it here: http://ca.askmen.com/news/sports/dr-oz-weight-loss-scams.html

You're welcome.

James Fell

Something odd (in addition to everything else that's odd) about NaturalNews - instances of phony quotes and headlines that are labeled (rather inconspicuously) as "satire".

In addition to a fake quote in the McCaskill hearing story attributed to Dr. Oz, there's a current NN story about the Washington Redskins' denial of trademark protection, using a headline proclaiming that 20 U.S. states are being required by the federal government to change their names (only in the body of the story is the word "satire" mentioned).

Maybe we should start doing the same thing in reference to NaturalNews. For instance, NN has just posted stories* with the following headlines:

"Mike Adams' Lab Is Cited For Numerous Health And Safety Violations"
"Natural News Store Shut Down Due to Heavy Metal Contamination of All of Its Supplements"
"Vaccines Proven To Prevent Disease, Save Lives"
"Mainstream Medicine Was Right All Along About Quackery, Admits Shamefaced Mike Adams"
"Natural News Subscribers Found To Have Extremely High Rates Of Mental Illness"

*satire

@ Dangerous Bacon:

Mikey is calling out the senator's "hidden"** COIs-
it appears that she received contributions from a pharma retail company and ((shudder)) Monsanto!

Therefore she is mere;y trying to damage Oz's- the competition's- credibility.

** so hidden that they're public

@James Fell
Wow, dude, reeeeaaally needed to get that dig in, didn't you?

Oz: "I thought it was going to be a hearing about scams -- OTHER PEOPLE'S scams."

Yes, we do. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s he was considered one of the best.

I have looked for and cannot find any metric that suggests Oz is any better than any other surgeon; mortality rates, infection rates, length of stay, re-op rates are not published anywhere I can find. 30 years of infection control and quality have made me skeptical of surgical reputations;

And I called you out for it here

Well, so long as its enshrined at... "Ask Men," I guess that takes care of that.

@James Fell:

Aren't you clever? And now, don't we know it?

Actually, I do see his recommended list in the wayback machine aka archive.org. Here's a snapshot from April 2012 of it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120419051837/http://www.doctoroz.com/vide…?

@ James Fell -- You shall be our new god!

Managed to resist the temptation to call Mike Adams for being a snake oil salesman. He might be sincere, but that doesn't change anything, does it?

@TBruce

That just happened to be the vehicle which I used, a place I've had a column for over 3 years. I chose them for this piece because timing was important I knew they could get it posted immediately, and they let me write precisely what I want with zero agenda. They never change my message and I have an amazing editor.

If you bothered to Google me you'd learn that I have a syndicated column with the Chicago Tribune that runs in dozens of respected newspapers as well as another column for TIME Magazine. Not only that, but Michael Shermer endorsed my book published by Random House.

But no, all you can see is "AskMen," and you leapt to an erroneous conclusion the same way that Orac did, blasting away without actually understanding the full story. If Orac wants us to trust him, he needs to be more careful. He's not doing medical and health skepticism any favours by making the assumptions that he did, and the way to recover from such a thing is to apologize and promise to do better in the future, not be arrogant and act like it was all because of his writing that put McCaskill on this path in the first place.

We should all be holding people like Orac to an exceptionally high standard, not acting like a bunch of starstruck fan boys.

Oops. The above comment was actually primarily targeted towards @Narad. I made a mistake by commenting too quickly, and now I'm going to apologize for having done so.

See how that works?

@ James Fell: Did you actually read this post by Orac and his prior post and actually read the comments? I doubt it.

If you had read the comments, you would find that a number of people actually contacted Senator McCaskill and provided her with information directly from Respectful Insolence and from the Science Based Medicine bloggers about the products Dr. Oz has promoted on his show. Apparently, those communications had an effect on Senator McCaskill, because she definitely used the material during her opening statement and during her dialogue with Dr. Oz. Do you think her use of the phrase "Science Based Medicine" is her own neologism?

I've read some of your columns about fitness; there is nothing objectionable in them. There is also nothing of substance which could have been sent to Senator McCaskill for her to use in her opening statement or during her questioning of Dr. Oz.

You're welcome.

One notes that I also acknowledged that it's quite possible McCaskill had intended this result all along, which is why I said I don't much care whether this is the original ending planned for the Kabuki play or whether there was a rewrite in response to skeptics contacting McCaskill's office and only said that I "like to think" skeptics had something to do with it. Certainly her use of the term "science-based medicine" suggests that this is so, because that is not a term commonly used (or even known) by politicians or the general public, which is why its use grabbed my attention so.

In other words, Mr. Fell's "disappointment" in me does not particularly resonate. We have no way of knowing whether McCaskill intended this all along (and, no, I don't think her press release is sufficient "evidence" that she did). Certainly, she's unlikely ever to say one way or the other, at least not while she's still in office. (Maybe if she ever writes her memoirs...) However, given the history of politicians and science, there were lots of perfectly valid reasons to doubt McCaskill when she invited someone like Dr. Oz to testify. Sure, she deserves praise for ultimately having done the right thing, regardless of whether she intended it all along or changed course after some prodding by her constituents, but I don't see any apology necessary. If Mr. Fell is so horribly, horribly "disappointed" in me for that, well, I won't exactly lose any sleep over it.

Given the tendency of politicians to double down on their positions when encountering contradictory evidence, McCaskill is even more praiseworthy if she was influenced by the information she received.

Tincture of Oprah

You know you're on the ropes when you become the butt of nighttime talk show jokes. Letterman:

Top Ten Products Endorsed by Dr. Oz
Wednesday, June 18, 2014

10. Fat-burning mayonnaise
9. Contraceptive grout
8. Swedish Nyquil balls
7. Spray-on abs
6. Tincture of Oprah
5. Non-stick band-aids
4. Weight-loss fedora
3. Self-inflating latex glove
2. Appendix-be-gone
1. Self-locking duck gates

It will be interesting to see how he spins this meeting on his next show.

We might have to wait until next season. His season's almost over, and chances are that all of this season's remaining episodes have already been taped.

A goole search for "science based medicine" comes up with 2.3 million results. Not exactly proprietary. And "horribly, horribly" is a significant overstatement. I consider myself at most moderately disappointed. I would have thought a man who otherwise shows so much wisdom and critical thinking would be reflective enough to admit to an error. Regardless of you qualifying your statements in a follow up piece ("like to think"), it doesn't change the fact that in your first piece you nailed her to the wall by making incorrect assumptions. In my world, that at least calls for an "I'm sorry."

Are starstruck fanboys all you really want? I would think you'd welcome some critical feedback.

He has a Facebook post up about the hearing:

I was pleased that the hearing yesterday dealt with some complicated issues and had all the players present whose cooperation will be necessary to move forward in protecting the consumer. For years I felt that because I did not sell any products that I could be enthusiastic in my coverage and I believe the research surrounding the products I cover has value. I took part in the hearing because I am accountable for my role in the proliferation of these scams and I recognize that my enthusiastic language has made the problem worse at times. To not have the conversation about supplements at all, however, would be a disservice to the viewer. In addition to exercising an abundance of caution in discussing promising research and products in the future, I look forward to working with all those present yesterday in finding a way to deal with the problems of weight loss scams.

Oh, and McCaskill's release does indeed give no indication of grilling Dr. Oz. However, it also gives no indication of the opposite: kissing his ass or bringing him in for his "star power." That's your error. You assumed it was her intention without any evidence.

@ Todd W,:

Right. How will he apply that towards selecting his guests?
Mikey, Mercola, etc.

@James Fell

It's very easy to point fingers and be all high-and-mighty in retrospect. How would you have reacted if Orac assumed that it was going to be a slam-dunk for SBM and skepticism, and then it turned out to be nothing but promotion of Dr. Oz? Would you be up in arms at him the way you are now? If he didn't mention anything about it, would you have thought, "Man, someone should've spread the word about this and contacted her office?"

As a layperson, from my reading of the press release, there was no clear indication which way it would go or why Sen. McCaskill had invited Dr. Oz to testify, especially in light of his recent activities against hucksters using his name to market their products. There was just cause to be cautious and to contact Sen. McCaskill's office with more information about him.

Clean up the smug a bit. You admit to having a "gut feeling" which could very well have turned out to be wrong. You didn't base your opinion on any solid evidence, so to turn around after everything was settled and done and point fingers at those who expressed concern is, to put it mildly, a bit arrogant and uncalled for. The tone of your comments doesn't help, either, nor does your choice of venue. You just had to get it up quickly, you say? Why? So you could make sure word got out as fast as possible about how mean you thought everyone was to Sen. McCaskill? So you could gloat and crow about how awesome you are? (After all, you're a syndicated columnist who's been endorsed by Shermer...oooh, ahhh.) Are we supposed to be impressed?

I will call out Orac when he's wrong about something, because I know he will take the criticism as it's meant, constructively. His post was within reason given the evidence at hand at the time.

@Denice Walter

The comments are predominantly gushing Oz fans going on about how Big Pharma's scared, the government's corrupt, blah, blah, blah. The few who take Oz to task are quickly shouted down.

That just happened to be the vehicle which I used, a place I’ve had a column for over 3 years....

And I'm sure your regular audience will duly appreciate the import of burying the lede (such as it is) in favor of a digression involving carping about their other regularly scheduled reading, RI.

"No comments yet!"

If you bothered to Google me

*blink*

you’d learn that I have a syndicated column with the Chicago Tribune that runs in dozens of respected newspapers as well as another column for TIME Magazine. Not only that, but Michael Shermer endorsed my book published by Random House. the new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!

FTFY.

But no, all you can see is “AskMen,” and you leapt to an erroneous conclusion

No, I think my conclusion was quite sound.

the same way that Orac did, blasting away without actually understanding the full story.

If Orac wants us to trust him, he needs to be more careful.

"Us"? "Trust"? What leads you to believe that the readership here is prone to just blindly accepting what's put in front of their faces?

He’s not doing medical and health skepticism any favours by making the assumptions that he did, and the way to recover from such a thing is to apologize and promise to do better in the future

I get a really strong sense that what you really mean here is "apologize to me."

not be arrogant and act like it was all because of his writing that put McCaskill on this path in the first place.

Personally, I don't care about the reason for the outcome. I'm mildly interested in what happened. And your performance here isn't a particularly convincing demonstration of your having slipped the chains of "arrogance." After all, your own post at Ask Men is as much about you as this one is "about" Orac.

We should all be holding people like Orac to an exceptionally high standard, not acting like a bunch of starstruck fan boys.

TINW. HTH. As you have seen fit to use the "starstruck fan boys" line twice now, perhaps you could get on that "exceptionally high standard" bit and actually demonstrate that it is an accurate assesment of the fine-feathered commentariat rather than a caricature that you pulled out of your needlessly chapped ass.

starstruck fan boys

Huh. And to think that some of us are girls. Wonder what we will be referred to as.

ScienceMom @80 -- I imagine that when Orac appears at TAM, he's mobbed by a crush of adoring middle-aged women, like Tom Jones.

Or maybe not.

I have to say, this little kerfluffle over Fell is pretty entertaining. I thought our host handled it with admirable restraint.

But then again, I'm just an adoring fanboy,.

I must say, though, for such an accomplished journalist as Fell, he made a horrible error. He spelled "fanboi" wrong. Tsk tsk. Amateur mistake.

I imagine that when Orac appears at TAM, he’s mobbed by a crush of adoring middle-aged women, like Tom Jones.

And there you have your answer: it's the starstruck fanboys (or "fan boys"; must not be in the AP manual) and the panty-throwers.

Another cheap political trick from the D.C. cesspool.
Why is that woman wasting taxpayer funds putting on her silly show? There have been no complaints filed against Oz. No illnesses. No deaths. No charges. Nothing will come of this whip-up. Just showhorsemanship at its worst. I trust Oz more than I do some senator.

"There have been no complaints filed against Oz."

http://nypost.com/2014/05/12/man-wins-2-3m-after-wife-dies-following-dr…

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/man-sues-dr-oz-burned-feet…

Dear Mr. Born, there is thing called "google", all you have to do is use it before saying silly things.

I believe Senator McCaskill’s intent all along was to grill Dr. Oz, particularly since she has a track record of supporting consumer protections. However, she needed to ensure that he would show up to the hearing. What better way to accomplish this than to put out a press release that gives the appearance of him being a star witness. She played to his ego, and he took the bait. However, the press release could understandably be read to imply that the senator supports his positions with respect to diet supplements. I can see where persons would have this impression, and then react strongly to it.
I doubt the senator needed to have her mind changed wrt Oz and his outrageous viewpoints – she most likely was already aware of his antics. It is unlikely that bloggers sending her information would have changed her mind, if initially she had been sympathetic to Oz. Having lived her in Washington for over a decade, I’ve found there are only a few things that will cause a member of Congress to radically change their position on a subject in a short amount of time: they are about to lose an election, or lose a key vote in Congress, or lose the support of key constituents and/or major donors, or lose a budget battle, or they are being pressured by their party leadership to change their position.
Kudos to Senator McCaskill and her staff for pulling off this hearing. I admire their gamesmanship.

@James Fell --

I completely agree that it's unlikely that McCaskill ever intended anything other than what she did, simply because doing last-minute turn-arounds after the press release has gone out just isn't how senators roll.

But get a grip. It's Orac's job/responsibility/civic duty to say what he thinks and give his reasons for thinking it. As long as he does that in a duly diligent way and acknowledges error when wrong, he has nothing to apologize for.

Furthermore, I'm sure that McCaskill's staff (and probably McCaskill) used (and probably relied on) stuff he wrote when prepping the hearing. So I doubt she's feeling offended. It's not like she's going to lose any votes over anything he said.

Why create conflict where there is none, in short? Everyone did fine.

Even if he doesn’t fall under OHRP jurisdiction, he clearly is covered under Columbia’s IRB regulations.

That's not so clear to me. In fact, I think it's unlikely. He did it as a part of the show. That was plainly explicit. And logically, there's no reason why Columbia would automatically have authority over what its faculty members do on their own time, at their own expense, and/or when in the employ of other institutions or entities.

I don't know what the custom is, though.

@ann

I rather suspect that James Fell wanted to assert his superiority over me in this particular episode in such a way that everyone sees what an awesomely prescient dude he is. This is not the first time I've had this sort of "I'm soooo disappointed in you" and "I hold you to a much higher standard" nonsense directed at me.

As for Columbia's IRB policy, I don't see where it distinguishes.

"We were invited down to Washington to testify at a hearing about scams and instead it became all about..."

The Doctor Oz Show?

As a mere layman, I take it from that first piece of video that Oz is saying there's evidence for stuff and there's evidence against stuff and you can pick holes in any trials supporting either side and we really can't ever know anything because "prayer", and therefore "buy this stuff".

As an Aussie, am I right to assume that "prayer" (apart from being "free") would actually be a very powerful argument in the US Congress? How many congresspersons would be willing to stand up and declare prayer to be as useless as diet supplements?

Has Mikey's post been taken down? I can find it in Google but the link on his site goes to the home page.

Your pharmaceutical whore

Let's try that again. You are a pharmaceutical whore. Your disinformation scam is exposed. My guess is you also write the various positive comments. Who's the paymaster whore boy? I don't feel sorry for you...

Don't forget to delete this post.

I’ve found there are only a few things that will cause a member of Congress to radically change their position on a subject in a short amount of time

You missed out "discovering that a family member is personally affected by a previously abstract and irrelevant problem".

You missed out “discovering that a family member is personally affected by a previously abstract and irrelevant problem”.

A French lawyer likes to point out that the rules for due process are often updated after a politician found himself at the receiving end of it...

Let’s try that again.

No, no, you were making more sense the first time.

@ann 388:

He did it as a part of the show. That was plainly explicit. And logically, there’s no reason why Columbia would automatically have authority over what its faculty members do on their own time, at their own expense, and/or when in the employ of other institutions or entities.

There is a principle in employment law that if an employee's conduct in his or her own time (i.e. outside of work hours) has a detrimental affect on the employer, then the employer is entitled to take action against the employee. In the case of Columbia University, an employee conducting a trial without IRB approval could be viewed as damaging to Columbia, even if that employee didn't use Columbia facilities and did it outside of working hours.

If conduct detrimental to the reputation of one's employer in academia was a compelling reason for disciplinary action or dismissal, then it's hard to understand why the University of Kentucky hasn't revoked Boyd Haley's status as emeritus professor of chemistry.

Haley has arguably far outdone Oz when it comes to behavior that's embarrassing and ethically questionable.

@Orac, Julian Frost:

You're right, as was Todd W.

The IRB has the responsibility to oversee the conduct of research that it approves. Consistent with this responsibility, the IRB may audit research studies conducted at Columbia University or Columbia University Medical Center as well as research in which faculty and/or staff of Columbia University are engaged outside the institution.

So I'd say "clearly covered" was and is accurate.

Another cheap political trick from the D.C. cesspool.
Why is that woman wasting taxpayer funds putting on her silly show?

In order to raise awareness of the problem of deceptive advertising for fraudulent weight-loss aids, by which milliones of taxpayers are victimized?

Just a guess.

There have been no complaints filed against Oz. No illnesses. No deaths. No charges.

Yeah. I didn't notice her accusing him of breaking the law, or of killing or sickening anyone. She just wanted to know why he was calling products that he had no reason to think would work "miracles."

Nothing will come of this whip-up.

Something already has. Awareness was raised.

Just showhorsemanship at its worst. I trust Oz more than I do some senator.

Of course. Because when you have to decide which of two strangers -- both of whom are in the business of persuading you to trust them for personal gain -- to trust, it's always a good idea to pick the one who's totally unaccountable.

Good thinking.

@keith

Ah, the old pharma shill gambit, a sure sign that you have no original thoughts and have no coherent arguement.

Also, Orac rarely delete comments. In your case, it's a good thing, since it exposes you as an idiot and provides the regulars here with some laughs at your stupidity.

Fifty quatloos say it's the OT III Keith Jaeger.

(NaturalNews) The pieces of the puzzle are finally coming together on U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill's bizarre attack aimed at Doctor Oz. In a scathing Senate hearing exchange, Sen. McCaskill all but accused Doctor Oz of peddling quack weight loss products -- even though Oz actually runs a very meticulous, science-based operation where dietary supplements are heavily researched before being recommended to the public.

Now Natural News has learned that Sen. McCaskill received over $146,000 in campaign contributions from one of the largest pharmaceutical retailers in North America. According to campaign contribution data published at OpenSecrets.org, prescription drug mega-retailer Express Scripts gave McCaskill over $109,000 in campaign contributions, most of which was routed through lobbyist groups or PACs. (1)

Sen. McCaskill also accepted over $37,000 from Monsanto, widely regarded to be the most evil corporation in the world and an enemy of sustainable food production, heirloom seeds and traditional American farming methods.

Strangely, McCaskill also received over $32,000 from Google, Inc., and another $29,000 from Comcast.

In contrast, Doctor Oz receives no money whatsoever from recommending natural dietary supplements on his show. In fact, he goes out of his way to halt dietary supplement companies from using his name to promote such products.

Oz is the one operating in integrity here, while McCaskill is hiding her financial conflicts of interest. (Is anyone surprised?)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045619_Senator_McCaskill_campaign_contributi…

@jan - lol....too funny. You're an idiot.

I love how "McCaskill is hiding her financial conflicts" despite the fact that anyone with the internet and a working brain could've found that info in 5 minutes.

What does Oz earn per year from his carefully crafted persona delivered via television?

What does Oz earn per year from his carefully crafted persona delivered via television

A cool $4 mil a year, according to this:
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/dr-oz-net-worth/

What does Mike Adamd earn per year from Natural News and his various other compnaies/

Pardonnez les typos, svp.

@jan

Yawn, another pharma shill gambit, a sure sign that you have no actual argument.

You do know how politics works right? Also, I don't see you worked up in a tizzy over mikey's undeclared COIs and money he makes form selling products on his website.

@ann:

Yeah. I didn’t notice her accusing him of breaking the law, or of killing or sickening anyone. She just wanted to know why he was calling products that he had no reason to think would work “miracles.”

I think what he means is something along the lines of "there's much bigger fish to fry than Dr. Oz". Or, in other words, "why are you spending time on this problem when you should instead be spending time on these other problems".

What does Oz earn per year from his carefully crafted persona delivered via television

A cool $4 mil a year, according to this:
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/dr-oz-net-worth/

@#105

That would also be what he earns from recommending natural dietary supplements on his show, btw.

The money doesn't always have to travel directly from point A to point B with no intermediary stops for there to be a profit motive.

Strangely, McCaskill also received over $32,000 from Google, Inc., and another $29,000 from Comcast.

Does anyone know what that "strangely" is doing there?

She's on the Communications, Technology and the Internet Subcommittee. It doesn't seem strange to me that Google and Comcast are among her donors.

It would be interesting to see what senators got what from which pharma companies. All supplement studies are small, due to lack of funding. It doesn't make them less valid if the effect is large. If you need 60000 patients to show a 1% difference (like statins), does that make it useful? Where are the pharma guys in front of the Senate justifying the harm they cause to consumers? Prescription drugs as well as the drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill more people than any supplement ever will! Where's the protection against that? It's all about education and Dr Oz does a valuable service and if it encourages people to take their health seriously and educate themselves, then in spite of everything, it is worthwhile.

Gee Dr. Jeff, have you got any studies from peer-reviewed journals to back up your statements about statins?

Do you think the one study that Dr. Oz touts for a weight loss supplement, with 16 subjects, which was financed by the supplement manufacturer, is a valid study?

It would be interesting to see what senators got what from which pharma companies. All supplement studies are small, due to lack of funding.

Because Big pHARMa doesn't sell supplements. Oh, wait.

Well, at least Big Suppla isn't spreading around campaign donations, right? Whoops.

Heh. Orrin Hatch got $45,780 when he wasn't even in an election.

"Prescription drugs as well as the drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill more people than any supplement ever will!"

One of these things is not like the others.

It would be interesting to see what senators got what from which pharma companies.

There's nothing easier:

www.opensecrets.org

Have at it.

But it's not a one-lobby-group show. As the informative article at Narad's link entitled "Dietary Supplement Industry Bombards Congress with Cash, Gets Its Way" says:

Lobbying spending by the industry has increased 86% since the 109th Congress. Further, the political action committees (PACs) linked to the supplement industry have increased donations to federal candidates. In addition to Sen. Hatch and Rep. Amash, CREW found major recipients of supplement industry cash during the 2010 election cycle included Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), all of whom either sit on committees considering legislation affecting the industry or have an industry presence in their home states. The supplement industry is the third-largest industry in Utah, with revenues estimated at up to $4 billion a year.

Pharma does it too, as do many other industries. It's not hidden. You can go see exactly what they're all doing.

Prescription drugs as well as the drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill more people than any supplement ever will!

I agree that alcohol and tobacco kill plenty, and misuse of prescription drugs kill almost as many.

Citation, please, that proper use of approved drugs kill more than those that use supplements only for the treatment and management of disease.

If you fail to provide this, you will be considered a total vegetarian.

Where are the pharma guys in front of the Senate justifying the harm they cause to consumers?

Could you narrow that down a little? I don't know which pharma guys who've gotten hauled in to be yelled at by subcommittees you might be curious about.

It does happen from time to time, though.

Prescription drugs as well as the drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill more people than any supplement ever will! Where’s the protection against that?

Maybe try the federal agencies that have words like "drugs," "alcohol," and/or "tobacco" in their names.

It would be interesting to see what senators got what from which pharma companies.

The kids tell me that there's this thing called Google, if you are sincerely interested.

Maybe try the federal agencies that have words like “drugs,” “alcohol,” and/or “tobacco” in their names.

Like BATFE? Who's bringing the chips?

Dr Jeff,

If you need 60000 patients to show a 1% difference (like statins), does that make it useful?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are referring to the "number needed to treat" to prevent a specific outcome? With statins you need to treat 50 or fewer patients for 5 years to prevent one heart attack, stroke or death:

For the end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, or death, the 5-year NNT within JUPITER was 20 (95% CI, 14 to 34). All subgroups had 5-year NNT values for this end point below 50; as examples, 5-year NNT values were 17 for men and 31 for women, 21 for whites and 19 for nonwhites, 18 for those with body mass index <or=25 kg/m(2) and 21 for those with body mass index greater than 25 kg/m(2), 9 and 26 for those with and without a family history of coronary disease, 19 and 22 for those with and without metabolic syndrome, and 14 and 37 for those with estimated Framingham risks greater or less than 10%.

Are you seriously suggesting these are not useful drugs?

Prescription drugs as well as the drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill more people than any supplement ever will!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/29/us-antioxidants-idUSBREA0S1QV…

Are you seriously suggesting these are not useful drugs?

Of course. How much would you like to wager "Dr. Jeff" is a chiroquackter with no prescriptive authority?

Prescription drugs as well as the drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill more people than any supplement ever will!

No doubt lots of things kill more people than any supplement ever will, including but not limited to starvation, war, and motor vehicle accidents,

But that doesn't mean that the people who are killed or injured by supplements that nobody has shown to be helpful to a single person other than the one who profits by selling them are any less dead or injured.

For example (and it is just one; there's no system for tracking/tabulating the total):

The Food and Drug Administration can’t protect you. It didn’t protect Sonette Marras, a 48-year-old mother of seven who died in Hawaii last month. It didn’t protect Michael Lee Sparling, a 22-year-old Army private who died at Fort Bliss two years ago. Nor can it protect the more than 2,000 Americans a year who will die or suffer illness after taking over-the-counter dietary supplements.

Don’t expect the FDA to protect you now. The laws it enforces protect the $30 billion-a-year industry that makes and sells the supplements, not the 53 percent of Americans who take them.

Not quite medicines, not quite food, dietary supplements fall into a regulatory black hole. A big black hole. And one of the most glaring examples of what can go wrong occurred in Dallas, where a company continued to manufacture dietary supplements with an illegal ingredient, DMAA, one year after this laboratory-made stimulant was deemed unsafe.

The story begins in 1994, when Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, introduced a federal law, the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act, that opened the door for supplements to be sold without safety testing.

This means that the pills, powders and potions on sale across the nation are deemed safe — until someone gets sick. “We don’t approve these products for safety or efficacy prior to going to market,” says Dr. Daniel Fabricant, director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the FDA. “They’re not like drugs. The way the law is, firms don’t have to register their products, so dietary supplements come on to the market freely.”

It’s a huge market. In 2009, 55,000 supplements were on sale in the U.S., according to the Government Accountability Office. That’s up from 4,000 in 1994, a nearly 1,300 percent increase.

When a supplement is suspected to have caused deaths or illnesses, it’s up to the FDA to prove that the supplement is unsafe. “The burden is on us,” says Fabricant. “Proving that something caused harm directly is very challenging.”

Jacob Geissler has taken full advantage of that challenge with his Dallas sports supplement company. The 37-year-old founded USPLabs in 2006 after graduating with a degree in nutrition from Texas A&M in the mid-1990s.

In between graduating and starting USPLabs, Geissler was indicted in Bexar County in 2003 for possessing thousands of pills containing anabolic steroids. He was ordered to serve 10 years of community supervision; he served five of them before his petition for early termination was granted in 2009.

By then, USPLabs was well-established. Today, the company is best known for its popular Jack3d and OxyElite Pro supplements. Both are advertised as simultaneous fat-burners and muscle-builders that will take your workout to the next level. Until July, just four months ago, both contained DMAA, which has been illegal in the U.S. since April 2012. USPLabs declined multiple requests for an interview with Geissler or another company representative. However, company officials have defended their actions elsewhere, maintaining that DMAA is safe. A statement sent to marketers stated that the company was phasing out products containing DMAA “for business reasons.”

Originally developed as a nasal decongestant by Eli Lilly in the 1940s, DMAA was removed from the market in 1983 at the company’s request. Scientific studies of its effects had demonstrated increases in heart rate and blood pressure, alongside nervousness and tremors. But DMAA enjoyed a comeback after 2006. Touted as a natural derivative of geranium, it became an active ingredient of performance-enhancing and weight-loss supplements.

After six deaths and more than 100 reports of sickness were linked to DMAA, it was banned by the FDA in April 2012.

But the U.S. Defense Department didn’t wait for an FDA ruling. Military officials had banned DMAA four months earlier after the deaths of three Fort Bliss soldiers, all young and previously healthy. Sparling, the Army private, was one of those soldiers. The 22-year-old Californian collapsed after a 10-minute run with his unit. He had taken the recommended dose of Jack3d before training.

When a fourth soldier died after taking DMAA, the Defense Department convened a safety review panel and conducted a case control study of nearly 2,000 active-duty military personnel. Among the panel’s findings: 15.4 percent were taking DMAA; 40 soldiers had reported illness to a military doctor after taking the supplement, and two soldiers suffered liver failure. No other cause could be found to explain their illnesses.

There were warning signs in other countries even earlier than the military ban. New Zealand suspended the sale of DMAA in 2008 after it was associated with strokes in four people. DMAA was also banned in Canada, the UK and at least six other countries.

In April 2012, four months after the Defense Department’s ban, the FDA sent a warning letter to 11 DMAA manufacturers, including USPLabs, stating that DMAA must be removed from all products. Ten companies complied. USPLabs did not. OxyElite Pro and Jack3d continued to be manufactured with DMAA and put on store shelves.

Even then, it was the Texas Department of State Health Services, not the FDA, that stepped in first. “We embargoed the product at the USPLabs warehouse in Dallas in May [2013] and handed it over to FDA in June,” spokesperson Chris van Deusen said. “Under state law, we can act a little more quickly than the FDA.” USPLabs had been illegally making OxyElite Pro and Jack3d with DMAA for 13 months.

In July, after legal action by the FDA, USPLabs voluntarily destroyed $8.5 million worth of OxyElite Pro and Jack3d at its Dallas facility. But bottles that were already on store shelves stayed there. “We didn’t recall product,” says the FDA’s Fabricant. “But at the same time, in terms of our authority, it was a significant step to get it out of the hands of the distributor and have it voluntarily destroyed.”

The largest retailer of dietary supplements, GNC, continued to sell OxyElite Pro and Jack3d until the FDA obtained seizure orders for warehouses in South Carolina and Pennsylvania in June. GNC declined requests for an interview. But in an email to The New York Times, a GNC spokesperson said, “It is hard to view this action as anything other than a biased agency action against GNC in retaliation for GNC’s stance on DMAA.”

But not even the GNC seizures marked the end of OxyElite Pro and Jack3d.

USPLabs, like many dietary supplement manufacturers, presented a moving target. It reformulated OxyElite Pro, under the same name, without DMAA. This time, it added a new ingredient: aegeline. An extract of the Bael tree, which grows in Southeast Asia, aegeline is deemed unsafe by the FDA.

This new formulation of OxyElite Pro is linked to a fatal outbreak of liver disease that began in Hawaii and has spread to the mainland. More than 60 people have been sickened, including two who needed liver transplants. Sonette Marras, a mother of seven from Hawaii, developed liver failure and died last month. She had been taking the new formula of OxyElite Pro to lose weight she’d gained during pregnancy.

(more at link: http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20131129-the-risky-…)

Is there something wrong with making people aware that under the present system supplements pose an unknown, potentially fatal risk from which nobody is protecting them?

If so, please tell me what it is.

Johnny,

Citation, please, that proper use of approved drugs kill more than those that use supplements only for the treatment and management of disease.

Not meaning to undermine your point, but I have little doubt that the proper use of approved drugs does kill many, many people. However, since those drugs either save far more lives than they end (anticoagulants for example), or transform lives by reducing pain and inflammation (NSAIDs) or allow (and often hasten) a relatively painless end of life (opiates), I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

These drugs would be even better without the fatal side effects, of course, but they are far better than anything alternative medicine has to offer. How, I wonder, would a chiropractor treat a clotting disorder? Severe arthritis? Heart attack? Terminal illness? I often wonder if these people rail against conventional medicine because they rarely see any patients that are actually seriously ill.

Dr Jeff - Senator McCaskill expressed her concerns about Dr. Oz saying things that were exaggerated, misleading, or in some other way unsupported by fact. These detract from his credibility and lead people purchase products that, while not necessarily actively harmful (such as, say, ephedra), do not actually provide the benefits claimed.

So that's OK?

To add to what Ann wrote, as I have mentioned here before there is evidence that calcium supplements (taken alone as I recall) increase cardiovascular risk far more than Vioxx does. It's curious that those who make a noise about Vioxx, which is indisputably a highly effective anti-inflammatory, are silent about calcium supplements which aren't much good for anything:

In sum, there is little substantive evidence of benefit to bone health from the use of calcium supplements. Against this needs to be balanced the likelihood that calcium supplement use increases cardiovascular events, kidney stones, gastrointestinal symptoms, and admissions to hospital with acute gastrointestinal problems. Thus, the balance of risk and benefit seems to be consistently negative.

The news about antioxidant supplements continues its march from 'disappointing' to 'worrying'. Now it seems antioxidants may accelerate tumor growth, specifically by turning off p53 defenses:

For the new study, the Gothenburg scientists gave vitamin E and a generic drug called N-acetylcysteine, both antioxidants, to mice with early lung cancer. The vitamin E doses were comparable to those in supplements; the doses of acetylcysteine, which is prescribed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to reduce mucus, were relatively low.

The antioxidants caused a 2.8-fold increase in lung tumors, made the tumors more invasive and aggressive, and caused the mice to die twice as quickly - all compared to mice not given antioxidants.

When the antioxidants were added to human lung tumor cells in lab dishes, they also accelerated cancer growth.

These mice clearly needed some attention from Dr. Bengston.

NAC of course is also one of the glutathione supplements popular in the biomed swamp.

A Senator grilling a T.V. host over supplements? Odd at best. Look a little deeper and find out that Senator McCaskill has received plenty of $$$ from big pharma and Monsanto. They have a lot at stake in wanting Americans to use medication to tackle obesity. I'm sorry to see so many Americans being taken in by politicians. Look to the money, as usual, people.

Bingo: "Look to the money, as usual, people."

That's the point. Check out how much cash Senators Hatch and Harkin pulled from supplement lobbyists! Here is an idea, just read about their "protect supplement companies" law on this website: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/dshea/

I should add that you need to see the post on this blog about John Oliver's piece on his HBO program, and then read this:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/utahs-senator-orrin-hatch-defender-…

Look a little deeper and find out that Senator McCaskill has received plenty of $$$ from big pharma and Monsanto.

Wow, it's almost as though you didn't bother to read the comments. Try starting here, Bingo (clap).

WOW! It is very interesting that McCaskill received in excess of $720,000 form the established medical industry for her 2014 campaign. And that the "medical" industry has received in direct payments from big pharma over 2.5 billion dollars from 2009-2012 alone. Do you think that maybe the natural supplement industry is starting to make a dent in big pharma and "traditional" (prescription writers) medicine?

The fact that Senator mcCaskill received campaign contributions from the 'established medical industry' doesn't invalidate a single one of the panel's criticisms of Dr. Oz's promotion of supplements.

It doesn't change the fact that he now admits he's recomended interventions, other than diet and exercise, he does not know to be effective and alos has made statements he now knows not to be true for the explicit purpose of engaging and building/retaining his viewing audience.

So what exactly is interesting about the campaign contributions to Senator McCaskill?

Bingo, do you have any evidence whatsoever that the supplements Dr. Oz recommended on his show--green coffee extract, etc.,--are effective at promoting weight loss? Dr. Oz admitted to the panel that he didn't have any.

And in the absence of evidence that the supplements are safe and effective, it isn't the politicians we need to worry are taking people in: it's the supplement manufacturers and those promoting their use (like Dr. Oz).

@Michael Weeks

Do you think that maybe the natural supplement industry is starting to make a dent in big pharma and “traditional” (prescription writers) medicine?

If by that you mean are they providing treatments that are shown to be at least as safe and as effective as prescription drugs to treat medical conditions, then no. If you're asking if they're significantly cutting into pharmaceutical company revenues, then the answer appears to be no.

Thanks for asking!

Especially since a lot of them *are* Big Pharma and the providers of conventional medicine. There's a hell of a lot of money in snake oil, especially snake oil that doesn't do anything at all and offered as a supplement to conventional treatment.

Who wants a squeaky snake, after all? Or a rusty one - I think its likely a good idea to use WD-40 or some equivalent on a closet snake after use to avoid rust.

I was going to say something about trouser snakes but I successfully resisted the temptation.

WOW! It is very interesting that McCaskill received in excess of $720,000 form the established medical industry for her 2014 campaign. And that the “medical” industry has received in direct payments from big pharma over 2.5 billion dollars from 2009-2012 alone.

She could have received seven hundred and twenty million from the established medical industry. There still wouldn't be one whit of proof that those diet aids are anything besides a means to part fools from their money.

M'OB :Who wants a squeaky snake, after all?

Well, me. Ours has been on the lam for months, and I hope she's still alive.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you choose to say.

Moreover, calling upon someone publicly to explain what he or she said publicly is an exemplary exercise of the right.

Funny that they call that rag Reason,

I know it's only a pingback and Baylen won't see this, but "defending" Dr. Oz? Really? Way to miss the point about how "free speech" doesn't mean "free from criticism." *SIGH*

That essay's really annoying. It's not just that he's defending Oz. It's that he's promulgating and ignorant, inaccurate and incoherent view of the first amendment:

Oz has absolutely zero responsibility to hold mainstream views and every right to make money off of those views. His popularity has absolutely no impact on his right to say whatever the hell he wants to say. And being hauled before Congress for saying what he wants places a tremendous burden on his, your, and my First Amendment rights. While Sen. McCaskill's actions are nowhere near those of Sen. Joseph McCarthy decades earlier, the chilling effect that Congress can have on speech can't be understated and shouldn't be forgotten.

^^That's nonsense.His right to his beliefs is absolute. But neither he nor anyone else has an unlimited right to say and/or do whatever he or she wants. For (just one very relevant) example, false statements of fact that can lead to the tortious harm of individuals are not necessarily protected.

The comparison to McCarthyism is a false equivalency, therefore.

The comparison to McCarthyism is a false equivalency, therefore.

Well, that and the part where Oz was invited.

And confusing HUAC with McCarthy.

Almost forgot.

MOB

Who wants a squeaky snake, after all? Or a rusty one – I think its likely a good idea to use WD-40 or some equivalent on a closet snake after use to avoid rust.

There is actually a product call Snake Oil that is intended specifically for treating sewer snakes to prevent rust after they have been cleaned.

Pesky thing, that Constitution. Everybody cites it, nobody ever reads it.

Kind of like the Bible.

There is actually a product call Snake Oil that is intended specifically for treating sewer snakes to prevent rust after they have been cleaned.

It was too good an idea not to already exist, I guess. Clearly that idea won't fund my retirement.

Who wants a squeaky snake, after all?

well..how about a Sneaky Snake?

I felt the way Dr. Oz was ask to come to Washington was very underhanded. This was one of our representatives doing this? Dr. Oz would have come even if he know the true subject.
I felt that Senator Claire McCaskill was grandstanding. Was this a way to wins votes!? I am a democrat, and this alone would make me change my party affiliation. I was actually embarrassed on how this how thing was managed.
Dr. Oz at the end of each show asks for help in policing the use of his name to sell their products. I think that is the only attachment he has to those companies - they steal his name and use it until they are caught. i also feel bad for the people that are not smart enough to see that fraud.
I agree with most of the points that have been written about in this blog. I hope everyone has seen the show. . .
Anyway, my problem is how low the Senator went to do what?
Has everyone read what Dr. Oz is involved with/in?

Surprised: Dr. Oz would have come even if he know the true subject.

Haha, you are either the most naive person on the 'net, or Dr. Oz himself.

I am a democrat, and this alone would make me change my party affiliation.

Good, go join the 'other science deniers, and don't forget to go to some unspoiled natural place and litter for the glory of God.

Dr. Oz at the end of each show asks for help in policing the use of his name to sell their products.

And this casts his hyping such products to start with in a better light how?

Actually, I'd rather like it to be because she's from Missouri, which is the "Show Me State". It's a very scientific and skeptical slogan. I'm willing to be convinced, but you have to "show me" the evidence. I won't just take your word for it.

Dr Oz, on the other hand, is quite willing to give his word that these things are good for you. He has a lot of trouble, however, when it comes time to show me (or anyone else such as Dr Novella) the evidence for his claims.

Because his word is his brand, but not his bond or he'd be more careful with his statements, he devotes a lot of effort to protecting that brand, including his statement at the end of the show.

"Surprised" appears to simply be offering up a poorly assembled casserole involving Mr. Augie, Sr., Baylen Linnekin.

Thanks for the link, Narad.

They do seem to be drinking from the same well.

I am a democrat, and this alone would make me change my party affiliation.

A great loss, I'm sure.

Thanks to Dr Oz we now have a Forskolin Guru. (https://www.facebook.com/ForskolinGuru)

What next ?

Another irony meter blown: Dr. Oz to testify in front of the Senate's Consumer Protection panel about weight loss scams

oracknows — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 01:00:19 +0000

Another irony meter blown: Dr. Oz to testify in front of the Senate's Consumer Protection panel about weight loss scams

I've never made it much of a secret that I don't much like "America's doctor," Dr. Mehmet Oz. Just enter his name into the search box of this blog, and you'll find quite a few posts in which I deconstruct some bit of quackery that Dr. Oz has promoted on his show, be it his promotion of faith healing and even psychic medium quackery from the likes of John Edward and Theresa Caputo (a.k.a. the Long Island Medium, who was—surprise! surprise!—recently reported to be a fraud); his fear mongering over the non-existent link between cell phone radiation and cancer; regular promotional visits by über-quack Joe Mercola; recommending homeopathy as a cure all; and even taking seriously one of the quackiest quacks on the Internet, New World Order conspiracy theorist, former Y2K scammer, and self-styled scientist, the "Health Ranger" Mike Adams, who seems not to understand that things look very different under the microscope. It's not for nothing that I've characterized Dr. Oz not as "America's doctor," but rather "America's quack." It's a characterization that he has more than earned, given his utter abdication of professional responsibility.

Heck, he's even piled onto the dubious "gluten-free" craze with today's show.

If there's one thing that Dr. Oz is probably most known for, if there's one scam that Dr. Oz most frequently features on his show, it's weight loss scams. Most hilariously, recently, Oz went all "under cover," as though he thought he were Morly Safer and Dan Rather on the 60 Minutes of old (back before Lara Logan, of course), showing up at the office of a ne'er-do-well to confront him in his lair with evidence of his perfidy. It's the ne'er-do-well he confronted that blew my irony meter. Specifically, it was manufacturers of a supplement, Garcinia Gambogia, which a company had claimed to be endorsed by Dr. Oz. While it's true that Dr. Oz never endorsed the specific brand of Garcinia Gambogia that the company sold, it's not hard to figure out where companies get the idea that Dr. Oz recommends Garcinia Gambogia as a weight loss miracle, given that Dr. Oz's selling of the supplement was described thusly:

As people were getting ready for the holiday season and its accompanying waist expansion late last year, Dr. Mehmet Oz let viewers of his TV show in on a timely little secret. “Everybody wants to know what’s the newest, fastest fat buster,” said the board-certified cardiothoracic surgeon and one of People magazine’s sexiest men alive. “How can I burn fat without spending every waking moment exercising and dieting?”

He then told his audience about a “breakthrough,” “magic,” “holy grail,” even “revolutionary” new fat buster. “I want you to write it down,” America’s doctor urged his audience with a serious and trustworthy stare. After carefully wrapping his lips around the exotic words “Garcinia cambogia,” he added, sternly: “It may be the simple solution you’ve been looking for to bust your body fat for good.”

Then there was the "green coffee bean" incident, in which Dr. Oz, in his eagerness to promote green coffee bean extract as yet another "miracle" weight loss supplement, conducted what was in essence a small unethical clinical trial and touted the results of a company-run clinical trial that did not show nearly as strongly what he claimed it showed. This bogus trial is still featured on Dr. Oz's website as The Green Coffee Bean Project.

Given his promotion of various supplements and quack diets, Dr. Oz is arguably the most famous promoter of diet scams in the United States, which is why Steve Salzberg owes me a new keyboard, as I was drinking my coffee when I read this press release from Senator Claire McCaskill that he forwarded to me:

WASHINGTON - As millions of Americans fall prey each year to weight-loss diet scams, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill-who chairs the Senate's Consumer Protection panel-will lead a hearing next Tuesday with testimony from Dr. Mehmet Oz, host of the Dr. Oz Show, to examine deceptive advertising of weight-loss products and to determine what more can be done to protect consumers.

McCaskill's hearing follows recent enforcement actions against companies engaged in deceptive advertising of weight-loss products. Last month the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it is suing the Florida-based company, Pure Green Coffee, alleging that it capitalized on the green coffee bean diet fad by using bogus weight-loss claims and fake news websites to market its dietary supplement. The FTC claimed that weeks after green coffee was promoted on the Dr. Oz Show, Pure Green Coffee began selling their Pure Green Coffee extract, charging $50 for a one-month supply.

Additionally, the FTC in January announced $34 million in settlements against marketers of fraudulent weight-loss products who deceived consumers with baseless claims. And the FTC issued updated guidance for publishers and broadcasters on how to spot phony weight-loss claims when screening ads for publication.

McCaskill's hearing in the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection will take place at 10:00 a.m. ET on Tuesday, June 17.

Watch the hearing live next Wednesday, HERE.

With all due respect, Sen. McCaskill owes me a new irony meter. She fried that sucker flat, leaving nothing but a sputtering, sizzling, bubbling blob of qoo with a few copper wires sticking out of it. Dr. Oz testifying about weight loss scams? That's like asking Al Capone to testify about U.S. tax policy or Stanislaw Burzynski about clinical trial design and ethics. Seriously. The only thing useful that having Dr. Oz testify in front of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection would be to use him as an example of weight loss scams being promoted to millions of people every day through irresponsible television shows.

I mean, seriously. Think about it. McCaskill is touting the FTC's crackdown on companies selling green coffee bean extract and advertising it with bogus weight loss claims while at the same time respectfully listening to the one person most responsible for fanning the flames of the "green coffee bean craze" to reach new heights of burning stupid. She's featuring Dr. Oz as though he were an expert at anything other than selling such scams to credulous viewers while disingenuously claiming to be the aggrieved party when companies understandably start using his breathless quotes about various weight loss supplements to hawk their products and even going so far as to brag about the team of enforcers he's assembled to go after such companies.

You know, I'm half tempted to...aw, screw it! Let's do it. Later in her press release Sen. McCaskill announces:

Last year, McCaskill launched an effort encouraging consumers to use an online tool on her website that allows individuals to report scams and fraud they encounter in advertising and sales. The "Submit Your Scam" button at www.McCaskill.senate.gov allows constituents to submit personal stories and tips to help McCaskill crack down on scams and protect consumers. McCaskill has also specifically called on Missourians to use the site to share their personal experiences with deceptive weight-loss scams.

It's tempting to suggest that you do just that and take advantage of Sen. McCaskill's "Submit your scam" button, particularly if you are one of McCaskill's constituents. Report Dr. Oz for the weight loss scams he's promoted on his television show and website, such as Garcinia Gambogia and "belly blasters in a bottle," among the countless others, such as Oz's most recent diet claims for forskolin. (I'm having acid flashbacks to my graduate school days and using forskolin in cell cultures.)

The sad thing is that diet supplement scams are real. There are a lot of them out there, and there are lots of people who could speak about them. Having Dr. Oz testify is nothing more than a publicity stunt that will taint the hearings with the stench of hypocrisy. It is a stench that can't be removed.

oracknows Tue, 06/10/2014 - 21:00