Drawing the line between science and pseudoscience
About Michael John ScottMr. Scott is the owner and publisher of Mad Mike's America. He is a U.S. Army veteran, career law enforcement executive, and dog trainer. He is a university professor, and criminal justice consultant, holding several degrees, including a master's in criminal justice and human services. He has completed the requisite coursework toward his doctorate, and is still working on his dissertation.
View all posts by Michael John Scott →
In humanity’s perpetual race to improve our health, we are inundated with ‘miracle products’ marketed to help us win. Fad diet pills, magic oils, and the unnecessary evils of gluten and genetically modified food have all been positioned as the next big thing on the healthiness horizon.
However, many of these products are marketed as beneficial without any legitimate scientific proof to back such claims. The blurred line between legitimate health benefits (and risks) and speculative, unproven claims is both confusing and dangerous to consumers. This line is further compromised by compelling personalities like Dr. Oz and Jeffrey Smith, who often make controversial and potentially dangerous claims without supporting evidence.
Dr. Oz is a renowned cardiac surgeon and television host in the United States. He has degrees from Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania and directs the Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at the New York Presbyterian Hospital. On his television show, he often advocates alternative approaches to conventional medicine. Such alternatives have included weight-loss fasts, therapy techniques meant to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals, and the dismissal of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used in agriculture.
Dr. Oz defended his decision to hawk such alternatives in a recent feature in the New Yorker magazine. He argues that modern medicine is a ‘civil war waged between conventional physicians and those who are open to alternative cures for maladies ranging from anxiety to cancer’ and that ‘his mission [is] to walk the line that divides them’.
In an article from the New York Times in 1995, Oz was described as feeling ‘ethically obliged’ to consider and apply ‘new approaches that might improve the quality of life of cardiac patients’, such as meditation and reiki, in combination with traditional medical techniques. But today, as he lords over a huge entertainment empire and is revered as ‘America’s doctor’, his ethical obligations are under fire, particularly as he is seen as a television personality and entertainer over and above a medical practitioner.
Medical experts (and even his own colleagues) worry that he has prioritized entertainment value over scientific proof. Dr. Pieter Cohen, a Harvard researcher who was invited to be a guest on Dr. Oz’s show, believes that by using his medical authority to back dubious products, Dr. Oz is ‘fundamentally doing a disservice to [his] viewers’ by making it near impossible for them to ‘distinguish what’s evidence-based and what’s not’.
When Jeffrey Smith, an aggressive anti-GMO activist, was a guest on Dr. Oz’s program, none of his fellow guests (all scientists and doctors) were willing to share the stage with him because of his controversial claims. Despite scientific studies supporting the safety of GMOs – including one backed by 25 years of research conducted by the European Union – some people remain unconvinced. Among Smith and his cohorts, fears include the long-term environmental risks and health risks (such as new food allergies) potentially posed by GMOs.
The controversy surrounding GMOs takes root in their potential for good, potential that is jeopardized by unproven claims that GMOs are harmful. GMOs are used to help crops resist viruses, grow faster, tolerate extreme weather conditions, lessen damage to the environment, and increase nutrition. Their application increases yields and decreases costs for farmers. According to a recent article in Forbes magazine, 70% of food products in American stores contain GMOs.
As a consumer of both food and media, I’m certainly swayed by products that claim powerful health benefits. My refrigerator currently contains a liquid concoction advertised as a ‘green machine’. I have Berocca and an immune-system-targeted vitamin combination on my bedside. I don’t particularly understand the benefits – if any – these products may have on my health. But they’ve been marketed as beneficial, even necessary, a message to which I at least have responded. It is clear that the incredibly powerful marketing structures behind such products, and their sheer proliferation, has saturated our surroundings to the extent that it becomes exhausting to even think about researching every single claim a particular health product makes.
While alternative therapies should be considered and a healthy suspicion of scientific theories should be entertained, scientific proof needs to be prioritized above idle speculation. Figures like Oz and Smith, who use sensationalist messages to reach audiences, subvert their authority as educators and health advocates. Because, in the end, ambiguity surrounding the true health benefits (or danger) of the products we consume is harmful for everyone.
Story by Emma Freer writing for The Saint.
Follow MadMike’sAmerica on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to visit our HOME PAGE.
James Smith
March 20, 2013 at 8:20 am
Perhaps Dr. Oz (I’ll avoid saying, Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” OK, I won’t.
) had been seduced by the siren sound of fame and TV money based upon ratings. He would hardly be the first to discard ethics and common sense for that call.
Michael John Scott
March 20, 2013 at 8:35 am
Very true James. This guy is so blatantly pulling the proverbial wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting it’s almost embarrassing.
Bill Formby
March 20, 2013 at 2:47 pm
Mike, there is a movement of looking away from what has become the “medical intervention” model in this country toward more common sense approaches to health care. In a CNN special this past weekend it was pointed out that we as patients have come to expect that when we feel bad or are in pain we expect the doctor to make us feel better or stop the pain immediately, i.e., treat the symptom. Doctors tend to work on that philosophy. However, that philosophy is both much more expensive and does not enhance our longevity. The movement is to treat the whole person and the disease through the causation and use medication and other medical intervention as a last resort. Studies have shown, for example, that many heart surgeries could be avoided by treated by addressing the cause of the blockages rather using stints. In fact, they now know that it is possible to reverse blockages in arteries with proper diets and exercise.
James Smith
March 20, 2013 at 3:28 pm
I sincerely believe in that last sentence. Ironically enough, I just finished doing a set of 70+ pushups and took a 30-minute power walk a little earlier. I do try to eat carefully and think I am doing well. Evey time I have taken a heart stress test, I have maxed it out for my age group or below. Of course, each year, the max is easier to reach.
Never has it been nearly as hard as the 25 flights of steps I climb each day. Yes, I’ll keep it up until I drop dead after the last step.
Michael John Scott
March 20, 2013 at 9:50 pm
That was a terrific special Bill. I even recorded it so I could watch it again.
Marsha Woerner
March 20, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Thank you, Mike. And you are right, Bill! We all want to find the magic cure/magic pills/whatever it is that will make us “all better”, however we define “all better”! We are to make to jump on that bandwagon! I wish that we could all realize that “nature” is really what keeps us going, not a magic pill or diet or whatever. Absolutely, there are a lot of things that can be done that doctors have studied and scientists have experimented with; relying on nature is dangerous in many cases. But relying on the latest bad to make us better, to extend our lives forever, to make them superhuman is stupid and pointless. When we mean about and “ancient Chinese remedy” or something, we forget that usually the “ancient secrets” are not used anymore, either because we have something better, or because “nothing at all” is actually the best!
James Smith
March 20, 2013 at 3:24 pm
I was once told by a doctor that over 90% of medicine is making you feel better until your body heals itself. This is not to say that intervention types of treatment, either with drugs, surgery, or removing ingrown toenails is not important, but I keep remembering the Hippocratic Oath, “First, cause no harm.”
The human body has remarkable powers if given a chance, even if that means only some relief from pain and the opportunity to rest.
Michael John Scott
March 21, 2013 at 1:28 pm
I’m glad you enjoyed the article Marsha.
Norman Rampart
March 20, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Dr Oz????
Oh dear.
Two countries torn apart by the same language.
Brits can be dim – and frequently are, but Dr Oz??? Even the dumbest Brit would shy away….er….I hope
My fridge currently contains things like bacon and eggs and butter along with vodka.
Now THAT’S a fridge!
Dr Oz???? I want to say ‘only in America’ but looking around….
James Smith
March 20, 2013 at 7:08 pm
Don;t forget, America also has “Dr.” Phil and Laura Schlesinger You Brits have a long way to go to catch up!
Norman Rampart
March 20, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Would it be forgivable if we just sort of didn’t?