Dr. Oz Defends His ‘Miracles’

Sen. McCaskill grills the popular TV personality on his dubious nutrition claims.

National Journal
Brian Resnick
June 17, 2014, 8:20 a.m.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 5027) }}

Claire Mc­Caskill — the chair­wo­man of the Sen­ate Com­merce Sub­com­mit­tee on Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion — asked Dr. Mehmet Oz — the enorm­ously pop­u­lar talk-show host — the fol­low­ing ques­tion Tues­day morn­ing: “Why would you say something is a mir­acle in a bottle?”

That’s a ques­tion Oz’s crit­ics have long de­man­ded answered.

While his day-time health show reaches mil­lions, Dr. Oz has come un­der fire for en­dors­ing nu­tri­tion sup­ple­ments with du­bi­ous ef­fic­acy. One of those products was green cof­fee bean ex­tract, a sub­stance de­rived from cof­fee that is mar­keted as a weight-loss sup­ple­ment. In a 2012 broad­cast Dr. Oz claimed

This little bean has sci­ent­ists say­ing they have found a ma­gic weight-loss cure for every body type. It’s green cof­fee beans, and, when turned in­to a sup­ple­ment — this mir­acle pill can burn fat fast.

Nev­er mind the only sci­ent­ists say­ing that were ones paid by a com­pany that pro­duces green-cof­fee ex­tract. After the broad­cast, Oz’s like­ness has ap­peared on count­less Web ad­vert­ise­ments for products that in­cluded the in­gredi­ent.

In a busi­ness sense, Oz doesn’t en­dorse these products, and has fought back against com­pan­ies us­ing his im­age and words on ad­vert­ising. But still, they pro­lif­er­ate. Last month, the Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion brought suit against a green-cof­fee ex­tract com­pany for bogus weight-loss claims, which in­cluded Oz’s “mir­acle” en­dorse­ment. A 2013 New York­er pro­file was par­tic­u­larly scath­ing in its cri­ti­cism of Oz’s sci­entif­ic scru­tiny. “By freely mix­ing al­tern­at­ives with proven ther­apies, Oz makes it nearly im­possible for the view­er of his show to as­sess the im­pact of either; the pro­cess just di­min­ishes the value of sci­ence.”

On Tues­day, Oz was on Cap­it­ol Hill to testi­fy on a Sen­ate hear­ing about such weight loss scams, and to ad­dress his role in provid­ing fod­der for false ad­vert­ise­ments.

Dur­ing the hear­ing, Oz was adam­ant that he is not in­volved in the sale of any nu­tri­tion­al sup­ple­ment, and said he has stopped us­ing over­blown words like “mir­acle” on his pro­gram. But Oz de­murred in an­swer­ing Mc­Caskill’s ques­tions, which in­cluded the equally sharp “why would you cheapen your show by say­ing things like that?” and the as­ser­tion that “the sci­entif­ic com­munity is al­most mono­lith­ic against you.”

Here’s his de­fense.

If I can just get across the big mes­sage that I do per­son­ally be­lieve in the items I talk about in my show. I pas­sion­ately study them. I re­cog­nize that of­ten­times they don’t have the sci­entif­ic muster to present as fact. But, nev­er­the­less, I give my audi­ence the ad­vice I give my fam­ily all the time. I give my fam­ily these products, spe­cific­ally the ones you men­tioned. I’m com­fort­able with that part.

I do think I made it more dif­fi­cult for the FTC. In an at­tempt to en­gage view­ers, I used flowery lan­guage. I used lan­guage that was very pas­sion­ate, but it ended up not be­ing help­ful but in­cen­di­ary. And it provided fod­der for un­scru­pu­lous ad­vert­isers… We have spe­cific­ally re­stric­ted our use of words…

My job, I feel on the show, is to be a cheer­lead­er for the audi­ence. And when they don’t think they have hope, when they don’t think they can make it hap­pen, I want to look and I do look every­where, in­clud­ing al­tern­at­ive heal­ing tra­di­tions, for any evid­ence that might be sup­port­ive to them.

Ba­sic­ally, Oz is say­ing that even if the sci­ence is du­bi­ous, if he be­lieves in the “thumb­nail sketch” of the pre­lim­in­ary evid­ence, he’ll present it to view­ers as a solu­tion to a prob­lem. In turn, if that solu­tion works for the view­er, it might just mo­tiv­ate them to seek oth­er healthy solu­tions.

But it isn’t sci­ence. And giv­en his vis­ib­il­ity in homes across the coun­try. Busi­nesses will be sure to con­tin­ue to use his not-quite-sci­entif­ic en­dorse­ments to sell products.

COR­REC­TION: This post ini­tially mis­stated Sen. Mc­Caskill’s role on the com­mit­tee.

What We're Following See More »
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
30 minutes ago

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
30 minutes ago

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
30 minutes ago

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
30 minutes ago

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”