Columbia medical faculty: What do we do about Dr. Oz?

[progressoid]

Michael Rosenbaum, Joan Bregstein and 6 Columbia faculty members 4:32 p.m. EDT April 23, 2015

According to a 2012 survey in Physician Practice, 29% of physicians in private practice have other jobs, some of which involve the media. There is now a huge population of "virtual patients" whose health and purchasing behaviors are influenced by the increasingly popular group of physicians offering medical advice on the airwaves. What happens when a doctor's job in media-medicine collides with office- or hospital-based medicine? Dr. Mehmet Oz is a case in-point. A recent letter from 10 physicians to the Dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons states that Dr. Oz is "guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgments" and that because of this "Dr. Oz's presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution unacceptable." Dr. Oz is scheduled to devote a good portion of his on-air show today to rebutting this letter.

We are members of the Columbia faculty who recognize that the Dr. Oz Show performs a public service by bringing alternative therapies which are generally under-researched and under-regulated into the public forum. However, a 2014 report in The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) reported that less than half of the recommendations on his show are based on at least somewhat believable evidence. This report raises concerns that Dr. Oz's presentations of anecdotal therapies as "miracle cures" occur in the absence of what we see as obligatory discussions of conflicts of interest, possible side-effects and evidence-based medicine (or lack thereof). Many of us are spending a significant amount of our clinical time debunking Ozisms regarding metabolism game changers. Irrespective of the underlying motives, this unsubstantiated medicine sullies the reputation of Columbia University and undermines the trust that is essential to physician-patient relationships.

more...http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/04/23/dr-oz-show-columbia-doctors-call-for-resignation-column/26179443/

[cwydro]

1. I know what he looks like, but

that's about it.

I couldn't care less about him, and I'm confused as to the number of threads on the subject.

If idiots want to watch TV for medical advice, they'll get exactly what they pay for.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Pffft.

Those doctors are obviously corporate shills for Monsanto and Big Poison.

SAVE DR OZ!

He will not be silenced!

[SidDithers]

3. Why do you hate Michelle Obama?...nt

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

5. LOL!

Stop mocking children, sid!

[tishaLA]

4. Dr Oz will give up his first amendment rights when

you pry them from his cold, dead green coffee beans!

[beam me up scottie]

8. Maybe he should have used them in an enema.

Diffused in a homeopathic remedy for Head Up His Ass Syndrome.

Come to think of it, his fans could use something like that too.

[progressoid]

9. Not so great actually.

?w=676

[beam me up scottie]

10. RofL!

I love Beaker, I even have a cat named after him!

The recent hyperbole about Oz makes him look positively zen.

[PeaceNikki]

26. lol, I think you're my spirit animal.

[beam me up scottie]

27. It's amazing how much I have in common with my peeps.

[giftedgirl77]

39. Lolol, my nephew's nickname is Beaker...

I gave it to him when he was about 3.

[beam me up scottie]

40. I hope he appreciates it.

Beaker is all kinds of awesome.

[giftedgirl77]

41. He's all kinds of super genius so he's usually telling me

how I'm wrong about something or explaining the inner workings of the toaster to me & he's 9. Hopefully someday he'll come to appreciate it, his older sister's nickname is coo-coo & boy is she nutz.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Can you sign him up for an account here?

If he knows about science/technology and can handle coo-coos he'd be a great asset!

You don't need Oz's medium to see he's got a bright future...

[giftedgirl77]

44. OMG, I used to give my youngest son the phone when telemarketers would

call just so they could have someone to listen to their pitch, they would have a field day on here.

[beam me up scottie]

45. If those Nigerian princes ever get the list of DUers' email addys, they'll be able to retire.

The left has its own special kind of coo coo.

It was kind of you to let the tm's do their thing, I think they get credit for the call if they complete their pitch.

[Jamastiene]

54. Be careful.

I mentioned his obsession with poop the other day on DU and angered DU's poop fan club. I had no idea there were so many people on DU who believe that playing with poop is the best way to get an accurate measure of health. Most of us just flush it so others won't have to smell it. It nauseates me to think of playing with poop or deeply investigating it in any way. Flushing just seems like the better idea to me. I had no idea poopology was such a deeply held belief by so many people.

[beam me up scottie]

56. LOL! Can't you see them..

bending over it with a magnifying glass, rubbing it in between their fingers for texture...I won't go on because I'm grossing myself out here.

"Poopology"

[Jamastiene]

57. That is just what I imagined when I heard them

talking about it. My first thought was corn. It had to have started with corn.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Corn!! Oh, holy crap, you're right!

I remember one of my brothers' grade school friends marveling over the fact that the kernels were so well preserved.

[KT2000]

6. when doctors, clinics

and hospitals never turn away a patient who cannot pay for their care, then I will listen to their tirades about seeking medical information from other sources.

Monsanto tools trying to clean up the medical advice industry - hilarious - go drink your glyphosate and shut up.

[Major Nikon]

29. ...

[KT2000]

43. not able to view videos

but if they are talking about conversing with the dead in order to resolve issues, that has been a tool for therapists for a very long time. I think many people talk to deceased loved ones. I always say an out loud thank you to my mother and father when I use things that were theirs or I utilize something they taught me. Not really a big deal or out of the ordinary.

[Major Nikon]

46. Sure, not a big deal other than it's quackery

Those who promote and administer Necromancy for profit, generally aren't referred to as "therapists", but rather are generally referred to as a medium, spiritualist, or scam artist.

[NuclearDem]

48. Wait, so you're disregarding the nature of science-based medicine

because the delivery system in one country is fucked up?

"Wait times at the ER are insane. Here, eat this magic coffee bean."

[progressoid]

7. 5 'quack treatments' Dr. Oz has recommended that are totally bogus

Plant-based "magic" weight loss cures

Dr. Oz has backed several plant-based "cures" which he's said can help people lose weight, from coffee bean extract to the extract of a Southeast Asian fruit named Garcinia cambogia.

"You may think magic is make-believe, but this little bean has scientists saying they've found the magic weight-loss cure for every body type," Oz said of green coffee extract on one of his show's episodes in 2012.

Unfortunately, there was only one study backing the green coffee's alleged weight-loss capabilities, and it was funded by the extract's manufacturer. Plus, a few months after it was published, it was retracted when its authors said in a statement that they "cannot assure the validity of the data."

Communicating with the dead to reduce stress

...

Super-diluted remedies for everything from colds to the flu

...

etc... http://www.businessinsider.com/dr-oz-treatments-that-other-doctors-say-are-bogus-2015-4#ixzz3YAb5d39i

[beam me up scottie]

11. 10 quack treatments Dr. Oz needs to defend

10 quack treatments Dr. Oz needs to defend
Posted by Dr. Jen Gunter

Dr. Oz promises to come out swinging on Thursday, both against the 10 physicians who wrote a letter to the Dean of Medicine at Columbia and to defend himself against the charges of quakery.

Here are 10 of his recommendations I’d like to see him explain/defend with science (i.e. provide medical evidence above personal experience). Medical textbook or studies (preferable) are required (no case reports or retrospective case series of 10 or fewer patients allowed).

1. Communicating with the dead.

2. Detoxing.

3. What is a toxin and why do so many people have them?

4. Multivitamins (apart from women trying to conceive or pregnant women).

5. Reiki.

6. Homeopathy.

7. Appearances of Joe Merola on the Dr. Oz show when frequently Oz doesn’t directly endorse his claims. Pro-tip: being a maverick in medicine means questioning poorly done studies and ill-conceived national guidelines or discovering something new and proving it with science, not questioning the laws of physics and ignoring medical evidence in favor of expensive “natural” products.

8. HepasilDTX.

9. Vitamin D to prevent colds/cancer/reverse aging.

10. Every single weight loss “miracle” mentioned on the show. OK that’s too many, let’s start with these 10.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/10-quack-treatments-dr-oz-needs-to-defend/

But his fans would have us believe he's being persecuted for his stance on GMOs...

[pnwmom]

13. Many oncologists recommend Vitamin D supplements for cancer patients,

an internists recommend it for patients who wish to reduce the chances of getting cancer.

Research is still being conducted but this is not an unusual recommendation. The NIH is neither for nor against a recommendation of Vitamin D supplementation in connection with cancer treatment or prevention.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes-prevention/risk/diet/vitamin-d-fact-sheet

Why are cancer researchers studying a possible connection between vitamin D and cancer risk?

Early epidemiologic research showed that incidence and death rates for certain cancers were lower among individuals living in southern latitudes, where levels of sunlight exposure are relatively high, than among those living at northern latitudes. Because exposure to ultraviolet light from sunlight leads to the production of vitamin D, researchers hypothesized that variation in vitamin D levels might account for this association. However, additional research based on stronger study designs is required to determine whether higher vitamin D levels are related to lower cancer incidence or death rates.

Experimental evidence has also suggested a possible association between vitamin D and cancer risk. In studies of cancer cells and of tumors in mice, vitamin D has been found to have several activities that might slow or prevent the development of cancer, including promoting cellular differentiation, decreasing cancer cell growth, stimulating cell death (apoptosis), and reducing tumor blood vessel formation (angiogenesis) (3-6).

What is the evidence that vitamin D can help reduce the risk of cancer in people?

A number of epidemiologic studies have investigated whether people with higher vitamin D intakes or higher blood levels of vitamin D have lower risks of specific cancers. The results of these studies have been inconsistent, possibly because of the challenges in carrying out such studies. For example, dietary studies do not account for vitamin D made in the skin from sunlight exposure, and the level of vitamin D measured in the blood at a single point in time (as in most studies) may not reflect a person’s true vitamin D status. Also, it is possible that people with higher vitamin D intakes or blood levels are more likely to have other healthy behaviors. It may be one of these other behaviors, rather than vitamin D intake, that influences cancer risk.

Several randomized trials of vitamin D intake have been carried out, but these were designed to assess bone health or other non-cancer outcomes. Although some of these trials have yielded information on cancer incidence and mortality, the results need to be confirmed by additional research because the trials were not designed to study cancer specifically.

The cancers for which the most human data are available are colorectal, breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer. Numerous epidemiologic studies have shown that higher intake or blood levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer (7-10). In contrast, the Women’s Health Initiative randomized trial found that healthy women who took vitamin D and calcium supplements for an average of 7 years did not have a reduced incidence of colorectal cancer (11). Some scientists have pointed out that the relatively low level of vitamin D supplementation (10 ?g, or 400 IU, once a day), the ability of participants to take additional vitamin D on their own, and the short duration of participant follow-up in this trial might explain why no reduction in colorectal cancer risk was found. Evidence on the association between vitamin D and the risks of all other malignancies studied is inconclusive.

How is vitamin D being studied now in clinical cancer research?

Taken together, the available data are not comprehensive enough to establish whether taking vitamin D can prevent cancer (12). To fully understand the effects of vitamin D on cancer and other health outcomes, new randomized trials need to be conducted (13). However, the appropriate dose of vitamin D to use in such trials is still not clear (14). Other remaining questions include when to start taking vitamin D, and for how long, to potentially see a benefit.

To begin addressing these issues, researchers are conducting two phase I trials to determine what dose of vitamin D may be useful for chemoprevention of prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers (trial descriptions here and here). In addition, larger randomized trials have been initiated to examine the potential role of vitamin D in the prevention of cancer. The Vitamin D/Calcium Polyp Prevention Study, which has finished recruiting approximately 2,200 participants, is testing whether vitamin D supplements, given alone or with calcium, can prevent the development of colorectal adenomas (precancerous growths) in patients who previously had an adenoma removed. The study’s estimated completion date is December 2017. The Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL) will examine whether vitamin D supplements can prevent the development of a variety of cancer types in healthy older men and women (15). The organizers of VITAL expect to recruit 20,000 participants and complete the trial by June 2016.

Researchers are also beginning to study vitamin D analogs--chemicals with structures similar to that of vitamin D--which may have the anticancer activity of vitamin D but not its ability to increase calcium levels (16).

[beam me up scottie]

15. So it DOESN'T prevent colds, cancer and reverse aging?

Thank you.

[pnwmom]

16. I was specifically addressing cancer. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

17. And the doctor cited was specifically addressing woo peddled on Oz's show.

I see you edited your post to add tldr info to deflect from condemnation of Dr. Oz.

Fail.

[pnwmom]

18. So? It would have been more useful to point out that he falsely connected

Vitamin D with colds and reverse aging.

But the recommendations he makes about Vitamin D supplementation for cancer are supported by most oncologists. It doesn't strengthen a case against him to cite beliefs he has about Vitamin D that are shared by conventional doctors.

And it could give cancer patients the idea that their own doctors were wrong to recommend they take Vitamin D.

[beam me up scottie]

20. Did you even read the damn post?

It's called "10 quack treatments Dr. Oz needs to defend"

Here's the crucial part: 9. Vitamin D to prevent colds/cancer/reverse aging.

It doesn't strengthen a case against him to cite beliefs he has about Vitamin D that are shared by conventional doctors.

It doesn't prevent colds, cancer or reverse aging.

Period.

Stop trying to misrepresent the facts.

[pnwmom]

23. You apparently don't understand basic punctuation.

What he has done is recommend Vitamin D to prevent colds; and to prevent cancer; and to reverse aging.

I'll assume you are right that he has made these recommendations; I don't follow him so I don't know.

But if he has recommended Vitamin D to help prevent cancer, then that recommendation is in line with that of many other doctors, including oncologists.

[beam me up scottie]

25. How the fuck does punctuation make what she said different?

Maybe you should email the doc who wrote the article and straighten her out.

It's wrong to lie and say it prevents cancer.

The weasel word "help" doesn't change anything.

[pnwmom]

28. Many oncologists recommend it on the basis of ongoing research that indicates

Vitamin D supplementation may help prevent cancer. By the time research absolutely confirms this, millions of people might have missed the chance to reduce the chance of recurrence. There is little downside to supplementing with Vitamin D while waiting the years or decades it will take before the research is complete.

It is wrong to discourage people from following their oncologists' recommendations just because Oz happens to agree with them.



http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes-prevention/risk/diet/vitamin-d-fact-sheet

Why are cancer researchers studying a possible connection between vitamin D and cancer risk?

Early epidemiologic research showed that incidence and death rates for certain cancers were lower among individuals living in southern latitudes, where levels of sunlight exposure are relatively high, than among those living at northern latitudes. Because exposure to ultraviolet light from sunlight leads to the production of vitamin D, researchers hypothesized that variation in vitamin D levels might account for this association. However, additional research based on stronger study designs is required to determine whether higher vitamin D levels are related to lower cancer incidence or death rates.

Experimental evidence has also suggested a possible association between vitamin D and cancer risk. In studies of cancer cells and of tumors in mice, vitamin D has been found to have several activities that might slow or prevent the development of cancer, including promoting cellular differentiation, decreasing cancer cell growth, stimulating cell death (apoptosis), and reducing tumor blood vessel formation (angiogenesis) (3-6).

What is the evidence that vitamin D can help reduce the risk of cancer in people?

A number of epidemiologic studies have investigated whether people with higher vitamin D intakes or higher blood levels of vitamin D have lower risks of specific cancers. The results of these studies have been inconsistent, possibly because of the challenges in carrying out such studies. For example, dietary studies do not account for vitamin D made in the skin from sunlight exposure, and the level of vitamin D measured in the blood at a single point in time (as in most studies) may not reflect a person’s true vitamin D status. Also, it is possible that people with higher vitamin D intakes or blood levels are more likely to have other healthy behaviors. It may be one of these other behaviors, rather than vitamin D intake, that influences cancer risk.

Several randomized trials of vitamin D intake have been carried out, but these were designed to assess bone health or other non-cancer outcomes. Although some of these trials have yielded information on cancer incidence and mortality, the results need to be confirmed by additional research because the trials were not designed to study cancer specifically.

The cancers for which the most human data are available are colorectal, breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer. Numerous epidemiologic studies have shown that higher intake or blood levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer (7-10). In contrast, the Women’s Health Initiative randomized trial found that healthy women who took vitamin D and calcium supplements for an average of 7 years did not have a reduced incidence of colorectal cancer (11). Some scientists have pointed out that the relatively low level of vitamin D supplementation (10 ?g, or 400 IU, once a day), the ability of participants to take additional vitamin D on their own, and the short duration of participant follow-up in this trial might explain why no reduction in colorectal cancer risk was found. Evidence on the association between vitamin D and the risks of all other malignancies studied is inconclusive.

How is vitamin D being studied now in clinical cancer research?

Taken together, the available data are not comprehensive enough to establish whether taking vitamin D can prevent cancer (12). To fully understand the effects of vitamin D on cancer and other health outcomes, new randomized trials need to be conducted (13). However, the appropriate dose of vitamin D to use in such trials is still not clear (14). Other remaining questions include when to start taking vitamin D, and for how long, to potentially see a benefit.

To begin addressing these issues, researchers are conducting two phase I trials to determine what dose of vitamin D may be useful for chemoprevention of prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers (trial descriptions here and here). In addition, larger randomized trials have been initiated to examine the potential role of vitamin D in the prevention of cancer. The Vitamin D/Calcium Polyp Prevention Study, which has finished recruiting approximately 2,200 participants, is testing whether vitamin D supplements, given alone or with calcium, can prevent the development of colorectal adenomas (precancerous growths) in patients who previously had an adenoma removed. The study’s estimated completion date is December 2017. The Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL) will examine whether vitamin D supplements can prevent the development of a variety of cancer types in healthy older men and women (15). The organizers of VITAL expect to recruit 20,000 participants and complete the trial by June 2016.

Researchers are also beginning to study vitamin D analogs--chemicals with structures similar to that of vitamin D--which may have the anticancer activity of vitamin D but not its ability to increase calcium levels (16).

[Lars39]

30. My oncologist is at a teaching hospital and Vit D levels are routinely checked now

for virtually everyone, whether they're cancer patients or not.

[pnwmom]

31. Yes. My doctor checks mine and my father's oncologist checked his.

It appears that one reason some of the studies failed to show positive results was that they used very small amounts of Vitamin D,and those amounts were probably not enough. To keep my blood levels where my doctor wants them, I have to take 5000 units a day (not 400, as in some of those studies.)

[Lars39]

32. Glad they figured that out for you.

[pnwmom]

33. I'm glad you have doctors who are on the ball, too.

I just remembered: my ophthalmologist also keeps track of my Vitamin D levels, and wants me to supplement. He says Vitamin D and magnesium are the most important nutrients for eye health.

[Lars39]

34. That's good to know!

Hopefully my good levels will help my eyes.

[beam me up scottie]

35. "may help"

Are you done hijacking this thread about Dr Oz or are you going to start posting spam about vaccine damage next?

.

[pnwmom]

36. Are you done trying to convince people not to take Vitamin D supplements their doctors recommend?

[beam me up scottie]

38. Yes, now I'm going to convince people to put RoundUp in baby formula

Stop misrepresenting my posts.

[NuclearDem]

50. Yes, saying that Vitamin D doesn't cure cancer

is the same thing as saying "don't take your Vitamin D!"

[pnwmom]

51. You pulled that one out of nowhere.

Who is saying Vitamin D "cures cancer"?

The question is whether it can help prevent cancer, and there is a lot of active research that indicates it might, so many doctors -- not just Dr. Oz -- are recommending Vitamin D supplementation for their patients.

[NuclearDem]

52. You pulled that "stop taking Vitamin D" strawman out of nowhere.

[beam me up scottie]

59. That one shows up in the vaccine threads too.

Needs to set us all straight on the science.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Kicking for freedom of speech

[Rex]

14. .

"So if we label everything that is genetically modified it will mean absolutely nothing."

BAWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[spanone]

19. let him move on to the syfy channel

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[beam me up scottie]

21. I remember doing cartwheels when I heard there was going to be a sci fi channel.

Another cruel disappointment.




Thanks, Obama.

[progressoid]

47. He can start searching for Big Foot too.

[Jamastiene]

55. As obsessed as he is with poop, that could make for an entire

series of Poopnado movies. Poopology fans will be delighted. The rest of us will long for the days of Sharknado and Sharknado 2.

[zappaman]

22. I hate Democracy cuz Dr. Oz is a charlatan!

[Rex]

24. .

"Science is not a democracy, and the American public is dumb to the point of endangering our planet with their blind stupidity."

[beam me up scottie]

37. Sorry Dr. Oz and Jenny McCarthy: More scientific proof vaccines, GMOs don’t cause autism

Sorry Dr. Oz and Jenny McCarthy: More scientific proof vaccines, GMOs don’t cause autism

Autism is a term that strikes fear in the hearts of parents and fuels contentious arguments among friends, families, and internet strangers.

Though the 1998 Andrew Wakefield study linking the MMR vaccine to autism has been thoroughly debunked, parents continue to fear childhood vaccines to this day. This is partially due to celebrity quacks like Jenny McCarthy, Rob Schneider, Mayim Bialik, and sadly even Dr. Oz perpetuating the myth that vaccines are harmful.

Not only has Dr. Oz recently added his fuel to the anti-vaccine fire, but he’s planted the seed of GMO-autism misinformation into the collective American consciousness. He recently featured Zen Honeycutt of anti-GMO group Moms Across America, giving her a national platform to make fabricated claims that eliminating GMOs “cured” her son’s autism.

Despite the loud voices of disinformation, the scientific community has overwhelmingly agreed that there is no causal link between vaccines or GMOs and autism. Scientists previously learned that a combination of numerous, very common heritable variants contribute significantly to autism risk. These variants don’t individually increase an individual’s autism risk; the causal factor is inheriting specific permutations of these variants.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/12/01/sorry-dr-oz-and-jenny-mccarthy-more-scientific-proof-vaccines-gmos-dont-cause-autism/

[joshcryer]

49. LOL

[Orsino]

53. They know exactly what to do. Money and celebrity are making them hesitate.

They can take their names off Oz' quackery as soon as they feel like restoring their own reputations.