Why do people listen to Dr. Oz?

Cr01502

Because he's on television.

Same reason people think they're receiving accurate information when they're watching the news.

jsidel126

According to his ads, he presents multiple miracle products/ideas a week (typically to lose weight). If they are truly miracles, wouldn't a few of the best be sufficient?

MissJanet55

[/quote]

I'm referring to those who buy into everything he says...supplements...alternative medicines that may/may not work...people who base their weight loss and health off of what he says...
[/quote]






I have a contrary nature, so when I see people saying "Dr Oz is wrong about everything" (I paraphrase), I want to leap to his defence. Even though I'm not necessarily a fan.

In the interest of fairness, I want to say that western medicine also may or may not work, depending on what is happening. And just like I need to assess what Dr Oz is saying, I also have to do the same with my own doctor, and do my own research and find out everything I can. We always need to think critically and ask questions, no matter where advice is coming from.

So, Dr Oz haters, how long seen you've actually seen the show? I periodically flip it on, and I don't see him selling stuff. In fact, I saw him distancing himself from products with his name on them (apparently counterfeit). I see him bringing in specialists who are knowledgeable in their fields. I see him encouraging people to eat less and move more. So what's the problem, exactly? That he isn't always right? Given the nature of being human, we need to allow for that.

ChrisRiches

Because he is telling them what they want to hear. For a fee.

etoiles_argentees

Homeopathic regulation diluted until no substance left
Published by Jann Bellamy under History,Homeopathy,Legal,Naturopathy,Politics and Regulation

Homeopathy is quackery but it is perfectly legal to prescribe homeopathic products and to sell them directly to consumers in the United States as well as other supposedly civilized countries such as the United Kingdom and Germany. This makes as much sense as allowing the sale of batteries that don’t produce electricity.

What makes this state of affairs even stranger is that homeopathic products are classified as drugs under U.S. law. Does this mean that they undergo the same pre-market approval process and are subject to the same post-market requirements as pharmaceutical drugs? No, not by a long shot. In fact, the federal government and the FDA have pretty much handed regulation of homeopathic products over to their manufacturers.

How did this happen?

In 1938, Congress passed the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Act’s principle author was Senator Royal Copeland, a physician who practiced homeopathy. He managed to include all articles monographed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (HPUS) in the definition of drugs within the FDCA, although why he did so remains in dispute. The HPUS is a source for monographs, identity, methods of manufacture, standards and controls and potency levels of homeopathic products, both prescription and OTC. (The vast majority of homeopathic products are OTC.) In short, if the product is in the HPUS, it’s legal.


Since the FDCA’s enactment, any attempt at imposing any reasonable regulation of these products has failed. As noted in a previous post, a federal district judge found that:

“As evidenced by the FDA guidance documents. . .the Court concludes that the FDA has largely abdicated any role it might have had in creating standards for homeopathic OTC drugs, and has instead attempted to delegate this authority to the non-governmental organization that determines whether homeopathic substances should be included in the HPUS. In addition, the FDA explicitly states that it makes no guarantee about the safety or efficacy of homeopathic OTC drugs even if they meet the unknown standards for inclusion in the HPUS.”

As explained in one excellent review of homeopathic product regulation reprinted on Quackwatch, part of the reason is that, all along, regulators and politicians thought that surely the demise of homeopathy was right around the corner and the problem would solve itself. Here they were partially correct. The practice of traditional homeopathy has all but died out, and only three states actually license practicing homeopaths, who must be medical doctors. Unfortunately, no one seemed to see the boom in over-the-counter homeopathic product sales coming, which in the U.S. amounted to $3.1 billion in 2007. And while traditional homeopaths may go the way of the horse and buggy, “integrative” medical doctors and naturopaths are taking up the slack.

Both the lack of regulation and the sales boom are directly attributable to the visionary leadership of the homeopathic product industry, specifically one John A. Borneman, III. Borneman made these claims during his Founder’s Day Address at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, upon the occasion of his being awarded an honorary doctorate. The University of the Sciences was formerly known as the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, and holds an honored place in the history of pharmacy education as the first college of pharmacy in the U.S., established in 1821. SBM’s own David J. Kroll, Ph.D., obtained his undergraduate degree in toxicology there and was, needless to say, distressed to learn that his alma mater was awarding an honorary Doctorate of Science degree to this man. In 2009, Kroll protested to the University’s president in a characterization that may inform your opinion of Mr. Borneman when we return to his explanation of how homeopathy has escaped regulation.

I wish to register my strongest objection to the recognition and University endorsement of an individual who has led an organization dedicated to the most egregious form of pseudoscience in pharmacy: homeopathic medicines. Awarding Mr. Borneman an Honorary Doctor of Science is an affront to every scientist who has ever earned a degree from the University and, I would suspect, all current faculty members who are engaged in scientific investigation.

Homeopathy is a fraudulent representation of pharmacy and the pharmaceutical sciences that continues to exist in the United States due solely to political, not scientific, reasons. . .But scientifically, homeopathic remedies are nothing more than highly-purified water misrepresented as medicine based upon an archaic practice that is diametrically opposed to all pharmacological principles. The mental gymnastics required to teach chemistry, pharmacology, and therapeutics while also embracing homeopathy are beyond the skills of anyone trained in the scientific method.

In awarding an Honorary Doctor of Science to Mr. Borneman, the University will be endorsing an “entrepreneurial spirit” that seeks to defraud health care consumers with “potentized” water as a medicine to treat and prevent disease. . .To reward Mr. Borneman’s leadership of a pseudoscience practice and its marketing to a public that holds pharmacy among the most trusted of professions is to return to the days of snake oil and deception that our founders worked tirelessly to remedy.

(You can read about University president’s response here.)

Borneman was a principal in his family’s homeopathic products company. He then joined Standard Homeopathic Company, of which Hyland’s is a subsidiary, as well as creating Homeopathic Laboratories of Pennsylvania and TxOptions Pharmacy, which also provides advice to consumers about homeopathic remedies.

In his Founder’s Day remarks, Borneman spoke of three pivotal events which guaranteed that the homeopathic products industry would be in complete control of their own regulation.

First, in the 1980s, there was an attempt to regulate all homeopathic products as prescription drugs. The FDA postponed any action toward that end by consulting with the homeopathic product manufacturers. The FDA ultimately decided it didn’t have the expertise to know what to do, so the agency left it up to the industry to draft a Compliance Policy Guide (CPG), which are directives from the agency to personnel providing guidance on a particular issue. The industry naturally obliged, the result being Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) 7132.15, “Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs may be Marketed.” Borneman is refreshingly (although perhaps unintentionally) honest about how the industry wrote the rules in this instance:

We sent them a streamlined document in 1983, and a revision in June 1986. They [FDA] circulated it internally for review & comment, including the Justice Department, and published a document in the Federal Register in June 1988. It was enforced in 1990 and still, unmodified, continues to be effective today. The CPG put to rest the OTC/Rx controversy. . .With the CPG well established, homeopathy in the US was investable and the Europeans seized the opportunity and purchased outright or appropriated almost all of the languishing American firms.

Fortunately for the Borneman family, the “investable” companies included his own, Borneman & Sons, which entered into a joint venture with Boiron, a French company and the world’s largest manufacturer of homeopathic products.

That task out of the way, Borneman next concentrated on “refurbishing” the HPUS and the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention of the United States (HPCUS). The HPCUS decides what can be included in the HPUS, which, as you recall, is incorporated wholesale into the definition of “drug” under federal law. As I said, if it’s in the HPUS, it’s legal. As he explained:

I understood that regulators would not act favorably if it appeared I was looking out for the industry or myself. Economics could not be an issue. I had to make the argument that the consumer had rights and FDA could not disenfranchise them. They were obligated to accommodate the consumer. This struck a chord and the work began.

And here I was thinking that the FDA had some duty to actually protect the consumer, not accommodate. What really occurred was that the FDA apparently felt it had an obligation to accommodate the homeopathic product manufacturers. What happened next exceeded Borneman’s most optimistic expectations and was the third and final step in assuring that the industry gained control of its own regulation.

Borneman and other industry representatives met with Mark Novitch, MD, Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, and put on their dog and pony show. Two presenters were practicing MD homeopaths, Sandra Chase and David Riley, who explained “Basic Tenets, Corollaries, basic features, provings and methods of Cure.” (Cure?) Others were homeopathic pharmacists. Borneman continues:

I believed the meeting went well, but was not prepared for what was to follow. Dr. Novich told us the Agency was not prepared to run a new drug review and approval process for homeopathic drugs. . .Dr. Novich liked what he had seen and heard and asked if we would serve as the gatekeeper for new homeopathic drugs. We eagerly accepted the task and have been rigorous in its implementation since.

Having already dumped the entire homeopathic formulary into federal law in 1938 and succeeded in fending off regulation of original or added products since then, the homeopathic industry was thus poised to secure its future as the sole arbiter of what homeopathic products could be legally sold in the U.S. And all of this with only occasional interference by the FDA when products were, say, harming infants or causing loss of the ability to smell.

So, how does the HPCUS operate? Does it, for example, include public or consumer representatives? Does it have a process for insuring that those who do not share the view that homeopathy is safe or effective are included to provide a more balanced view? Let’s find out by looking at the organization’s own Bylaws and Procedure Manual.

The HPCUS is a non-profit corporation. It controls both the addition of new products and changes to existing ones. Application for inclusion of a new product must be supported by a monograph which goes through various committees for review and there is a period for public comment, although access to the monographs for comment is via homeopathy journals. Changes to the products already listed in the HPUS also go through a committee review process.

Products are reviewed for safety and effectiveness by these committees. As to the latter, according to one journal article, while the traditional homeopathic proving is one way to approach this,

Overall, adequately designed and well-controlled clinical trials have become the norm for homeopathic medicine as they are for most allopathic [sic] medicines.

I don’t know of any such trials, but perhaps adequately designed and well-controlled has a different meaning in homeopathic research. Of course, the conclusion of this same article was

Homeopathic drugs in the United States are subject to well-defined regulatory processes that more closely resemble those that apply to allopathic medications than to dietary supplements.

So it is advisable to take the article’s conclusions with a grain of undiluted salt. Of the two authors, one was John P. (“Jay”) Borneman, John A. Borneman’s son. Jay is a principal owner of Standard Homeopathic Company and CEO of Hyland’s.

Once a product or change is approved, that information is incorporated into the HPUS, which is sold by the HPCUS to the public through subscription. For $100, you can get access for 24 hours. It is $1,000 per year for an individual and $15,000 per year for a corporate subscription.

More interesting than the process are the persons who are making these decisions. Membership in the HPCUS is vetted by the Board of Directors. Committees responsible for reviewing both new products and changes to the HPUS are appointed by the President, who is a member of, and chosen by, the Board. All final decisions on what is and isn’t included in the HPUS must be approved by the Board. And who chooses the Board? The Board. It is self-perpetuating and not elected by the members, so each Board elects new Board members. While a Board term is three years, there is no limit on the number of terms a Board member can serve.

So let’s see who is on the Board of the HPCUS. Because it has been granted charitable organization status (501(c)(3)) by the IRS, it does not pay federal income tax on contributions or earnings from subscription sales but it must file a federal tax return, which becomes public information. These returns list the current Board of Directors and are available for the last three years (2011, 2010, 2009) through Guidestar.

For 2009-2011, Chair of the Board is none other than John A. Borneman III, who has to be at least in his 80s. President of the Board (that is, the person who appoints all the committees reviewing HPUS additions and changes) is his son Jay. But they are not they only two Standard/Hyland’s connected directors. Another is Mark S. Phillips, who is Standard’s President. (A 2011 warning letter from the FDA to Phillips can be viewed here.) The Secretary and Treasurer are Sandra Chase and William Shevin, respectively, the two MD homeopaths who helped convince the FDA to allow self-regulation back in 1993. Rounding out the Board are David Riley, a homeopathic physician and “integrative medicine” consultant, and Eric Foxman, a homeopathic pharmacist. The Executive Director in 2009, since deceased, was Andy Bormeth, who also worked for a homeopathic products manufacturer before he opened his own homeopathic products consulting service. For 2010 and 2011, Todd Hoover, another homeopathic physician, served on the Board.

In summary, all decisions on the content of the HPUS (and therefore what may be legally sold or prescribed as a homeopathic product) are made by either practiticing homeopaths, homeopathic pharmacists, or current or former officials or owners of homeopathic products manufacturing companies. And three are from a single company! Does this seem a bit too cozy? Does anyone think the Board is going to elect Board members who will rock the boat? Or who might be the least bit interested in telling the public the truth about homeopathy?

To be fair, the HPCUS does have a conflict of interest policy which requires disclosure of conflicts and recusal from deciding issues which may affect them financially. (Which makes me wonder how they get anything done, considering.) Even so, it is appalling that the federal government has totally defaulted in its responsibility for determining what homeopathic drugs can be prescribed and sold to a private non-profit completely controlled by industry insiders.

In my last post, I suggested that instead of the Quack Miranda Warning a more accurate disclaimer of FDA involvement in dietary supplement regulation might be:

FDA WARNING: Safety and effectiveness unknown. Use at your own risk.

Perhaps a more accurate FDA disclaimer for homeopathic product regulation might be:

FDA WARNING: Safety unknown. Effectiveness unknown but highly unlikely. Use at your own risk.

Most would rather watch TV than read, research and learn.

AlayshaJ

Ignorance

MSeel1984

I stopped listening to him. I tried a few of his weight loss ideas, with no results or stomach problems with one of them. I hate to say it, but I think he just promotes this stuff to make money now. I won't be following any of these weird ideas. Eat less, eat better, and exercise more is the only way in the long run.

You make a valid point. When I first saw Dr. Oz it was, in fact, on Oprah (back when I used to watch her oh-over 5 years ago)...It was not on his show...it was before he really became a regular on her show and he was talking about various medical questions (poop, I think it was).

His marketing has changed too...he's not doing as much discussion now as he is promoting of things...anyone who is trying to sell me something instantly seems like a used car salesman to me. Green coffee extract...really? I'd like to talk to one person who genuinely lost tons of weight JUST because they added this to their diet. Truly.

970Mikaela1

Because he's on television.

Same reason people think they're receiving accurate information when they're watching the news.

so what you're saying is I've got time¿ the world isn't ending soon¿

sugarandspice27

Dr. Oz is like fast food: Slickly packaged, tasty, goes down easy and nutritionally void.

bcattoes

Because having a magic pill, powder or potion is a hell of a lot easier than eating right and exercise. Who wants to do any real work when you can be lazy and just take some magic fairy dust and lose 100 lbs overnight?!

Does he actually suggest losign 100 lbs overnight?

hookilau

Because Oprah told people to.

yup. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

psych0kitty

Yep, Oprah.

He did a series of shows a while back called "The Truth About Food" that were pretty interesting. The show involved real doctors and scientists, and experiments that seemed legit. Other than that, I don't think he offers much. People used to listen to Dr. Phil, too. o.O

kerricolby

When I was home on maternity leave, I watched a lot of daytime tv. I watched Dr Oz almost every day. By being a consistant viewer I found out that he would tell you to eat something for your health one week and the next week would tell you to cut that food out of your diet. He would say that drinking 3 cups of coffee a day would help regulate your blood pressure but then a week later would say stop drinking coffee and switch to herbal teas. Now anything he says I don't believe because he'll probably contradict himself within a week.

MSeel1984

Yep, Oprah.

He did a series of shows a while back called "The Truth About Food" that were pretty interesting. The show involved real doctors and scientists, and experiments that seemed legit. Other than that, I don't think he offers much. People used to listen to Dr. Phil, too. o.O

I know-that's even more scary. He's become like Jerry Springer. LoL

AllonsYtotheTardis

people listen to Dr Oz because Oprah.

I think he's misleading people, and ought to be ashamed of himself.

Otterluv

Ignorance + desperation = easy pickings for snake oil salesmen

***edited because spelling is lame

IFlover90

Why not? I love watching dr. Oz

hollykelc

His credentials are impressive. He's a professor in the department of surgery at Columbia and directs the cardiovascular institute and complementary medicine program at New York Presbyterian, in addition to his television career. Authored research papers, medical books etc. The New York Times called him "one of the most accomplished cardiothoracic surgeons of his generation." After graduating from Harvard, he completed his MD and an MBA in three years instead of the usual five it should have taken. He still practices medicine and performs surgery. His initial foray into television was to help people understand that small changes to their lifestyle would help them avoid meeting him later on the operating table. Admittedly, I don't watch Dr. Oz and have never actually seen him on Oprah. I don't live under a rock so when I saw an article on him, I read it and was kind of shocked at his accomplishments.

All that being said, smarts, success and an apparent crap ton of energy do not necessarily equal ethics. Perhaps he's just forgotten why he got into the tv thing.

tekwriter

He did an excellent demonstration showing the most advantageous way to relieve gas. It really worked. The rest of the show is just and infomercial.

Pamko57

I can't abide him. Maybe when he started out on the Oprah Show he was okay, and his heart was in the right place, but now the few times I've seen the show (never a full episode) he says one thing one day and something complete opposite the next.

Nikki_42

Because Oprah told people to.

^^^^^^ THIS!!! :flowerforyou:

This. Sadly.

quiltlady77

Thanks for defending Dr Oz. I watch him too and of course, I don't necessarily buy the supplements or follow all his advice but he does have lots of knowledgeable guests that know what they are talking about, on his show. I have learned a lot from the show. Please stop knocking him, if you don't like him, you can hit the off or mute button or change the channel.

neanderthin

Lots of people need to believe and they can't tell you why. It's the reason lottery tickets and Las Vegas exist, it could change your life.

fiberartist219

I don't pay much attention to him, but people listen to him because he's entertaining. He's a great speaker, even if his message is quackery. He also has some hilarious topics and demonstrations. He makes body parts seem like stuff to joke about rather than feed us a bunch of jargon. I've only seen his show a couple of times, but he was usually talking about poop or lady parts, so I found it to be amusing.

supermodelchic

He is getting on my nerves LOL everything is just shocking.... What happened to the truth tube?? Stopped doing that...

Cheeky_0102

There are products that have come to my attention on the show that I now use daily (coconut oil, coconut sugar) - I didn't buy in without talking to other people about it, reading a little more...
I also like the positive reinforcement of the value of the foods I eat; black beans are good for your brains, bright colored fruits, squash, sweet potatoes, blah blah.
I think people need to read into things before buying in completely. I plan to do the 3 day detox once I am not nursing a baby, but I not because it's his, because I agree with the ingredients

LINIA

DR OZ-- i do occasionally watch his show, he understands that he is not going to talk someone who has about 200 pounds to lose to immediately change his/her own life in an instant. So he gives them small starting steps.

In the meantime, w/o following Dr Oz's advice but by eating what he actually eats, we can learn a lot. According to people who are around him, he eats a piece of fruit, a small amount of cheese, a handful of nuts etc about every hour...then he has a green salad for lunch, then for dinner a small piece of fish and fresh vegetables.

Rather than just listening to him, follow the example he sets...he is always moving...walking everywhere possible and taking the stairs all day, when he can.

No, i have never met him, but the above behaviors are well documented and actually are excellent to copy. He eats the 5-7 fruits and veggies, small amounts of healthy nuts, fish in moderation-- so he is a cardiologist with a heart- friendly lifestyle.

carissar7

Thanks for defending Dr Oz. I watch him too and of course, I don't necessarily buy the supplements or follow all his advice but he does have lots of knowledgeable guests that know what they are talking about, on his show. I have learned a lot from the show. Please stop knocking him, if you don't like him, you can hit the off or mute button or change the channel.

If you don't like what people have to say, why can't you just close your browser? This is a place to voice our opinions, both negative and positive. Just because you don't like the fact that many people don't like Dr. Oz, it's still their opinion. This is not a Dr. Oz fan board.

watfordjc

A miracle pill would work for everyone. There is a reason my former psychiatrists and doctors never suggested the first, second, third, or seventh anti-depressant I tried was a miracle pill. The miracle weight loss cure that works for even those with stuffed adrenals or thyroid (although getting those sorted first makes things easier/safer): calorie deficit.

Velecia42

that the closes they get to doctor examing table