Mehmet Cengiz Öz, who goes by the name Dr Oz, is running for the Pennsylvania Senate

..

..

..

.

..

..

Mehmet Cengiz Öz, known professionally as Dr. Oz, is an American television personality, cardiothoracic surgeon, university professor, and author. Wikipedia

..

The Dr. Oz Show (or simply Oz) is an American daytime television talk show featuring Dr. Mehmet Oz. Each episode has segments on health, wellness and medical information, sometimes including true crime stories and celebrity interviews.[1] It is co-produced by Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Productions in association with Sony Pictures Television.[2]

The series is hosted by Dr. Oz and debuted on September 14, 2009. The Dr. Oz Show has received nine Daytime Emmy Awards during its run, five for Outstanding Informative Talk Show and four for Outstanding Informative Talk Show Host, as well as criticism for some of its subject matter.[3]

In April 2018, The Dr. Oz Show was renewed for seasons 11 and 12, through 2020–21 season.[4][5] In September 2020, The Dr. Oz Show was renewed for seasons 13 and 14, through 2022–23 season.[6]

Oz declared his candidacy on November 30, 2021 for the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania, thus forcing television stations in Pennsylvania and surrounding states and markets as far west as Cleveland, Ohio, to drop the show from their schedule as part of the equal-time rule.[7][8] The show’s website was also relocated as Oz personally owns the doctoroz.com domain, which was repurposed for his campaign website.

On December 13, SPT confirmed that The Dr. Oz Show would end its run on Friday, January 14, 2022, and would be replaced the following Monday by The Good Dish, a food-themed talk show based on Oz’s cooking segments. The new show will be hosted by daughter Daphne Oz, as well as Gail Simmons and Jamika Pessoa.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dr._Oz_Show

..

..

..

..

Excerpts from:

AMA Journal of Ethics

The Case of Dr. Oz: Ethics, Evidence, and Does Professional Self-Regulation Work?

Jon C. Tilburt, MD, MPH, Megan Allyse, PhD, and Frederic W. Hafferty, PhD

Abstract

Dr. Mehmet Oz is widely known not just as a successful media personality donning the title “America’s Doctor®,” but, we suggest, also as a physician visibly out of step with his profession. A recent, unsuccessful attempt to censure Dr. Oz raises the issue of whether the medical profession can effectively self-regulate at all. It also raises concern that the medical profession’s self-regulation might be selectively activated, perhaps only when the subject of professional censure has achieved a level of public visibility. We argue here that the medical profession must look at itself with a healthy dose of self-doubt about whether it has sufficient knowledge of or handle on the less visible Dr. “Ozes” quietly operating under the profession’s presumptive endorsement.

Introduction

Dr. Mehmet Oz’s surgical credentials including expertise in minimally invasive, heart transplant, and heart valve surgery are impeccable [1]. But when Dr. Oz walks onto the stage of The Dr. Oz Show, he’s not just a well-trained heart surgeon, he becomes “America’s Doctor®.” The Dr. Oz Showaverages nearly four million daily viewers and has won two Emmys [2]. His guest list has included First Lady Michelle Obama [2]. Recently, Donald Trump brought a few medical records and discussed his physical fitness to be president [3]. Dr. Oz has the ear of the public, encouraging Americans to lose weight, eat more fruits and vegetables, sleep, and get their flu vaccinations; he credits his show for three million pounds a year of weight loss in the US [4].

To those “exercising power and influence over matters of policy, opinion, or taste” [5]—that is, the medical and political establishment—Dr. Oz is a dangerous rogue unfit for the office of America’s doctor. He has told mothers that there were dangerous levels of arsenic in their child’s apple juice (there weren’t) [6, 7] and suggested that green coffee is a “miracle” cure for obesity [8]. Federal regulators discovered altered data in hyped coffee bean evidence [8]. The Food and Drug Administration tested for arsenic in apple juice and found the “vast majority of apple juice tested to contain low levels of arsenic” and given these levels was “confident in the overall safety of apple juice consumed in this country” [7]. Dr. Oz also featured two guests on his show who claimed that genetically modified foods were cancer causing [9] (despite repeated safety reports that found no adverse effects [10]).

For his misrepresentation of weight loss interventions, Dr. Oz got an establishment scolding in a 2014 congressional hearing. “I don’t get why you have to say this stuff because you know it’s not true,” Senator Claire McCaskill told him. “So why, when you have this amazing megaphone and this amazing ability to communicate, why would you cheapen your show by saying things like that?” [11]. Dr. Oz promised he had learned and hired a scientific fact checker to verify the scientific rigor of his claims [12]. Ten physicians wrote to the medical school dean at Columbia claiming that he was endangering public health, had demonstrated contempt for medical and scientific evidence, and was ineligible to sit on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution [13]. Medical and scientific professionals applauded, claiming Dr. Oz “undermines the trust that is essential to physician-patient relationships” [14]. No academic action was taken by the university, citing its commitment “to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members’ freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion” [15]. Dr. Oz retains both his faculty position and his board certification. Here we explore some of the ironies and challenges posed by the attempted sanctioning of Dr. Oz and their implications for professional self-regulation as well as the boundaries of legitimate medical claims in the twenty-first century.
.

Dr. Oz and the Problems of Self-Regulation

The profession of medicine in its modern conceptualization includes self-regulation. By upholding quality of care and dealing proactively with those who are dangerously out of step with their colleagues, self-regulation in turn gives medicine a degree of protection and autonomy from government procedural rule [16]. Self-regulation is a hallmark of implied and explicit norms that bind physicians as a group to one another and to society. The capacity to maintain some standard of quality and to respond when boundaries of what is considered legitimate practice are crossed, is sanctioned by society and implied in the privileges society bestows on the medical profession [16, 17, 18].

The Dr. Oz case raises two related but different issues about the ideal of self-regulation in the medical profession that mirror our contemporary moment. The first relates to Dr. Oz himself. Should a physician be allowed to say anything—however inaccurate and potentially harmful—so long as that individual commands market share? In a professional sector whose history and growth is marked by the sustained and rightful denouncement of quacks and quackery [19], an inability to define and fence the epistemic boundaries of scientific medicine from apparent quackery on such a visible scale becomes something akin to a full-scale identity crisis for medicine. This impotence could be a function of either an unwillingness to undertake or inefficacy in self-regulation on the part of the profession or a perceived or actual possibility that even if physicians strongly sanctioned Dr. Oz, that sanctioning would not ring true for his audience. This situation raises important ethical questions. What standards of certainty should we hold so resolutely that when violated we say “enough!” and thus move to sanction? Dr. Oz certainly appears to be someone peddling unproven and ineffective remedies for personal gain. It would seem like his is a paradigmatic test case for professional self-regulation in medicine. Yet, he remains immensely popular, prompting us to wonder, if we can’t effectively sanction Dr. Oz, whom can we sanction?
.

The Boundaries of Legitimacy

The second and perhaps more perplexing irony of the Dr. Oz case turns the spotlight of attention back on the profession itself. That Dr. Oz has been singled out as the target of professional angst to the exclusion of other questionable “professionals” also deserves our reflection. There have always been disreputable physicians on the fringe of medical practice [23], but few with the combination of both media reach and the gloss of academic credentials. At our moment in history, the boundaries of legitimacy appear to be stretched not only by the reach of the media but also by the media’s capacity to drive consumption. In a world with such overreach in health claims by a whole range of conventional and alternative actors, legitimacy seems very much a contested category; the possibility of policing excess consistently and fairly seems too overwhelming to contemplate seriously. Should we bring professional self-regulation SWAT teams to bust shady practices? Should we, as the medical establishment, seeking to self-regulate, troll for ads in the New York Times Magazine that bait patients to clinical centers to get the next robotic whatever [24] and publicly call into question the claims of esteemed organizations or their practitioners? We have not. And it is the selectivity this case expresses about the epistemic boundaries of medicine that, upon reflection, ought to raise our eyebrows.
.

Conclusion

The case of Dr. Oz forces us to own our own contemporary moment, rebooting doubt on how we know what we know and whose opinion counts. In this sense, Dr. Oz and all that he represents is a mirror on the medical profession in late modernity. While medical boards and licensing persist, they arguably persist as weak vestiges of a robust ideal that seems unachievable at this contemporary moment. Here, we’ve tried to amplify medicine’s need to redirect professional consciousness to rebuild the profession’s identity, such that more patients will connect with and trust their physician rather than the image of one on TV.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/case-dr-oz-ethics-evidence-and-does-professional-self-regulation-work/2017-02

..

Business Insider

Dr. Oz is running for US Senate in Pennsylvania. Here are 8 times he’s made false or baseless medical claims.

Grace Panetta Updated Dec 1, 2021, 6:24 AM
.

Here are eight times Oz made misleading or downright false scientific claims.

A representative for Oz didn’t immediately respond to Business Insider’s request for comment.

Oz pushed hydroxychloroquine to fight the coronavirus, even though its effects were still unproven.

In April 2020, Oz told “Fox and Friends” that hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug, could be an effective treatment for COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. Trump is a fan of the drug, calling it “the biggest game-changer in the history of medicine.”

“There’s no question it’s not proven to be beneficial in the large clinical trials we expect in America, and certainly the FDA and medical societies would desire,” he said. “But these have been supported with case studies.”

Oz cited one French doctor’s research on the drug, which found that of 24 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, 75% were no longer sick after six days.

The French doctor’s research was not a peer-reviewed study published in an academic journal. He released the results on YouTube.

According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the United States’ top infectious disease expert, there is nothing but anecdotal evidence that the drug works against the coronavirus, Axios reported.

At the time, experts were wary of the limited studies that have already been published about the effects of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19, since they have shown mixed results, and the drug can also cause eye and heart damage.

Read the rest here:

https://www.businessinsider.com/dr-oz-false-misleading-baseless-medical-claims-coronavirus-2020-4#a-strawberry-and-baking-soda-mixture-can-whiten-teeth-oz-said-8

..

..

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Mehmet Cengiz Öz, who goes by the name Dr Oz, is running for the Pennsylvania Senate

  1. Pingback: Dr Oz is Mehmet Cengiz Oz | weehingthong

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s