Dr. Oz Fights Back Against Critics

Over the past few weeks, Dr. Mehmet Oz has faced waves of criticism for his advocacy of unproven medicinal treatments. Every week, Dr. Oz seems to advocate some naturopathic cure or bizarre treatment method that has never been definitively studied.

Dr. Oz’s colleagues at Columbia University had finally had enough. They sent a harshly-worded letter to the Dean of the Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine demanding that the dean revoke Dr. Oz’s faculty position. That letter was signed by ten distinguished physicians.

The letter claims that Dr. Oz has:

“repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops.”

The letter also claims that Dr. Oz promotes “quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial game.”

Dr. Oz finally got a chance to respond to his critics. Dr. Oz himself posted an article on Time.com on April 23, 2015 addressing the recent allegations. Here’s what he had to say.

Dr. Oz Attacks His Critics for Their Conflict of Interest

The term “conflict of interest” was a major point in the original letter against Dr. Oz. Dr. Oz’s colleagues claimed that he could not simultaneously recommend naturopathic cures while also earning financial compensation from the companies in question.

Dr. Oz recently endorsed a multilevel marketing company called USANA, for example, and promised to feature that company's products prominently on his TV show in front of the audience.

Instead of refuting these allegations, Dr. Oz took a different approach. He started attacking the doctors who were attacking him. First, Dr. Oz calls his attackers “a small group of physicians unknown to me.”

Then, he starts to launch specific attacks.

One attack focused on Henry I Miller. Dr. Oz claimed to have Googled Dr. Miller and found that he had history as a pro-biotech scientist and was mentioned in early tobacco industry litigation as a potential ally to the industry. Dr. Miller was also involved in the fight to block GMO labelling in California.

Another attack focused on Dr. Gilbert Ross. Dr. Oz digs up a case from 1995 – over 20 years ago – where Dr. Ross was found guilty of 13 counts of Medicaid fraud.

Finally, Dr. Oz claims that Dr. Ross along with four of the other ten authors have also been linked to a pro-industry science group. That science group reportedly receives payments from industry giants like Chevron, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and 3M in exchange for favorable scientific studies. The group is called the American Council on Science and Health and is led by Dr. Gilbert Ross.

Ultimately, these conflicts of interests have led people to call Dr. Oz’s attackers “The Monsanto Mafia” (although Dr. Oz never uses the term himself).

Dr. Oz Then Promotes His Own Qualifications

Dr. Oz starts his letter by talking about how he was “surprised” by a “brazen note” delivered to him “as I entered the operating room at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University this week.”

Despite all criticisms people have about Dr. Oz, few people doubt his ability as a cardiothoracic surgeon. Prior to becoming a well-known “TV doctor”, Dr. Oz spent decades working as an accomplished surgeon. He continues that work today and wants to remind everybody about his stellar career outside of TV in his letter.

But Dr. Oz doesn’t talk long about his accomplished career as a thoracic surgeon. Instead, he claims to have “spent my entire career searching for ways to lessen the suffering of my patients.”

Sometimes, that searching takes him to “unconventional approaches” that “appear to work in some people’s lives.”

Some of this medicine isn’t compatible with the values espoused by western medicine. It is, however, based on long-standing traditions from different cultures “that visualize the healing process in very different ways from our Western traditions.”

Dr. Oz claims these treatment methods are targeted towards people who suffer from conditions like “lack of energy, fogginess, or moodiness.” Dr. Oz believes that these conditions are under-treated in conventional western medicine.

Dr. Oz Claims He Never Intends His Advice to Take the Place of Conventional Medicine

One of the most important points Dr. Oz tries to drive home in his article is that he has never tried to replace conventional medicine with his more unproven treatment methods:

“It’s vital that I drive the following point home: My exploration of alternative medicine has never been intended to take the place of conventional medicine, but rather as additive.”

He says his medicinal recommendations are best used in a complementary fashion.

Independent Report Shows that Dr. Oz’s Statements Are Backed By As Much Factual Information as the Average Doctor’s Office Visit

Another important point Dr. Oz tries to drive home in his letter is that the information shared on his show carries as much factual authenticity as the average visit to a doctor’s office.

Instead of trying to convince you of that strange fact himself, Dr. Oz links to a piece on BMJ.com. That piece discusses how a research team examined statements made by television doctors on The Dr. Oz Show and The Doctors.

Here’s what that research team found:

— Dr. Oz makes an average of 12 recommendations per show.

— Of the roughly 50-60 recommendations made per week, approximately 46% had “some kind of evidence from case reports on up.”

— In reviews of practicing doctors, that research team found that approximately 75% of doctors’ recommendations are supported by the same amount of evidence. However, some have pegged this number as low as 50%, which would make it roughly equal to the accuracy of advice made on The Dr. Oz Show.

— Only 10% to 15% of doctors’ recommendations are backed by the highest level of evidence, which are randomized controlled trials.

BMJ claims to have been humbled by the study;

“disappointed that the overwhelming commentary seems to be that our study somehow proves that Dr. Oz or The Doctors are quacks or charlatans or worse. Our data in no way supports these conclusions.”

Dr. Oz Does Not Address Financial Conflicts of Interests

Dr. Oz finds time to attack personally his critics’ reputations in his letter. He also finds room to advertise his own medical qualifications.

One thing notably missing from Dr. Oz’s letter is any reference to financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Oz’s critics frequently claim that Dr. Oz receives financial compensation in exchange for advertising unfounded treatment methods.

We know that Dr. Oz has been linked to a multilevel marketing company called USANA. It’s unclear if he takes direct financial compensation from other companies – although specific nutritional supplements are frequently recommended on his show.

According to TheRichest.com, Dr. Oz also earns an annual salary of $4 million.

In any case, the fact that Dr. Oz doesn’t address the allegations of financial conflict of interest is worrying to some people.

So Will Dr. Oz Resign from Columbia?

Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter what Dr. Oz thinks of the letter.

Instead, it matters what the dean of Columbia University’s Health Sciences and Medicine school. Soon after the 10 doctors sent the letter, the dean’s office responded with the following message:

Dear Dr. Miller et al,

As I am sure you understand and appreciate, Columbia is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members' freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion.

That letter was sent by Doug Levy, Chief Communications Officer at Columbia University Medical Center. It appears that Dr. Oz’s position as a faculty member at Columbia University is safe – at least for the time being.

As for The Dr. Oz Show, Dr. Oz had this to say about its future:

“I know I have irritated some potential allies. No matter our disagreements, freedom of speech is the most fundamental right we have as Americans. We will not be silenced. We’re not going anywhere.”

After hearing what Dr Oz had to say on his show, what are your feelings on the people that wrote the letter and how Dr Oz responded?