Advertisement

Dr. Oz To Address Critics On Thursday Show

Critics say Oz promotes “quack treatments and cures.” (Photo: Taylor Hill/Getty Images)

On his Thursday show, Dr. Mehmet Oz will address his critics’ calls for his dismissal from his position as the vice chair of the Department of Surgery at Columbia University, according to news reports.

Last week, a group of 10 doctors from prestigious institutions such as Stanford University, the University of California and the University of North Carolina sent a letter to Columbia University chiding Oz for “promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain,” and calling his presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution “unacceptable.”

The New York Times reported that Oz will use his lead segment in the show to address the letter, and also to point out that some of the doctors who authored it have ties to a group called the American Council on Science and Health, which supports genetically modified foods.

Last week, Oz said on his Facebook page: “I bring the public information that will help them on their path to be their best selves. We provide multiple points of view, including mine, which is offered without conflict of interest. That doesn’t sit well with certain agendas which distort the facts.”

In their letter, the doctors took issue with Oz’s treatment of genetically modified foods on The Dr. Oz Show, citing his “baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops.”

“I do not claim that GMO foods are dangerous, but believe that they should be labeled like they are in most countries around the world,” Oz said in his statement. “I will address this on the show next week.”

Just this week, Vox reported on emails released by Wikileaks between Oz and the Sony executives who produce his show. The emails showed that business considerations heavily influenced the products Oz promoted on his program.

Most people know Oz as America’s most famous doctor, occupying the coveted 4 p.m. TV spot. But what you may not know about him is that before he became famous via The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2004, Oz was (and still is) one of the most sought-after cardiothoracic surgeons in the country, practicing at New York City’s prestigious New York-Presbyterian Hospital. Since 1993, he’s been on the faculty at Columbia University, where he is vice chair of the Department of Surgery.

Last year, Oz’s credibility was called into question when he faced a Congressional hearing during which members of the Senate’s consumer protection panel scolded him for claims made about products featured on his show.

“The scientific community is almost monolithic against you in terms of the efficacy of the three products you called ‘miracles,’” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Miss. “When you call a product a miracle, and it’s something you can buy, and it’s something that gives people false hope, I don’t understand why you need to go there.”

“I actually do personally believe in the items I talk about on the show,” said Oz. “I passionately study them. I recognize they don’t have the scientific muster to present as fact, but nevertheless I would give my audience the advice I give my family all the time, and I have given my family these products. Specifically the ones you mentioned, then I’m comfortable with that part.”

Oz, for his part, says he has never endorsed products or companies featured on The Dr. Oz Show, and does not receive payment for featuring products on the show. Usually, when a brand is featured, he brings on an independent expert to discuss the pros and cons of the product, and plays the role of an interviewer in those instances.

But the doctor admits that brands often use his name, illegally, to sell their products. “If you see my name, face or show in any type of ad, email, or other circumstance,” Oz testified in the Congressional hearing, “it’s illegal” — and, he said, not anything he has endorsed.

Columbia University replied to the group of doctors calling for Oz’s removal, stating that “Columbia is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members’ freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion.”