"There's more than one way to wellness... and it's not always conventional.
The information he shares is designed to open our eyes to ideas; ideas that could guide our feet on the path to feeling... and being our best selves (and yes, to provide entertaining, informative... and sometimes dramatic television).
Some of the ideas and theories he shares are in direct conflict with the thinking of conventional medicine and yet he fearlessly moves forward. When Dr. Oz discusses the possibilities of natural products aiding in the relief of any number of symptoms that ail us, is the outrage he experiences from his colleagues the result of noble concern for the American public?
Or could it be something else? Could special interests like GMO proponents and the pharmaceutical machine that thrives on Americans remaining out of shape and sick be driving this witch hunt?
What's really going on here?
As these 10 doctors (and a host of journalists) call for Dr. Oz's head on a platter, I might offer another idea. As a professor at the Department of Surgery at Columbia University since 2001, he directs the Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York Presbyterian Hospital. Pretty impressive, I'd say. Do we really think that Dr. Oz doesn't understand how medicine (alternative or otherwise) works in the body?
And while he does enthusiastically and passionately endorse the effectiveness of various natural products or ideas, Dr. Oz rarely endorses a product outright. That doesn't excuse the fact that companies lift clips and quotes from his show and use them as evidence that he does, in fact, endorse a product. The "Dr. Oz" affect is a real thing and he certainly has responsibility when his name is used in association with a product. He did launch a campaign asking people to report to his producers when they saw his name as a product endorsement, but advertising and free speech have given rise to his association with a number of dubious products and their claims. That's on him... and on us to decipher what is sensible and what is, well, not so much...
But is that the problem? Or is the problem that evidence-based science has not empirically proven that alternatives to conventional medicine can be effective? At one time, we thought the world was flat and lashed out at anyone who said otherwise."