What to do with Doctor Oz?

Doctor Oz is a practitioner. He may not front the most scientifically valid products, but he is a showman, he's been to medical school, and appeals to the psychology of the individual.

Recently, he's been in front of Congress, defending his backing of certain products. You can see the video (there are 4) here:

I don't know why this is different from other doctors publishing books on weight-loss that don't really work, but get the buyer to think they work, put them in place, do the stuff that actually DOES work (reduce caloric intake and exercise), then give credit to the source.

There are other people, touting themselves as scientists, but aren't being very scientific, making claims that create controversy and a stir, getting people to point fingers at things that may be less than healthy for a few people, but not bad for the general population.

Is this the first in a series of hearings to bring these people under control? You know who I think should be on the stands? Congress.

I am not a proponent of Monsanto. I'm not associated with them in any way. My beef with them isn't with the science, per se, but with the methods that are allowed, the processes of verification by an interested party. This should be outsourced, but isn't, and it really isn't feasible. We're stuck in an conundrum.

Monsanto should pay for the scientific investigation.  But how can we trust it?

It should be outsourced, but the EPA/taxpayer, shouldn't have to pay for the testing, because we, as individuals, already pay for the food.

I think compared to Dr. Oz, there are bigger fish to fry. I'm neither pro- nor anti-GMO. I think the technology has its uses (first and foremost, it has helped to reduce pesticide use and run-off; something organics can't claim). I think some processes need to be fixed, some other questions need to be answered, and this should have been done before approval was given.

But aside from that, the point is that there are charlatans far more pervasive than Dr. Oz, and include people on either side of any debate.

There are things like the Blood Type Diet, loosely based on science. Extreme low-carb diets, a particular one which offers the bit of advice to cut out aspartame (dangerous for phenylketonurics, and few others), which is made up of 2 amino acids linked together, amino acids which exist in the proteins we eat. These very amino acids are suggested by the same low-carb diet doctor, in supplement form (which is sold by that company).

We have a lot of arm-chair scientists, and this whole arm-chair movement has created a culture of fad dieting and self-diagnosis. I can't say it isn't understandable, to some degree. Some doctors are woefully ignorant about certain illnesses, and choose to remain so, leaving it up to the layperson to find things out for him- or herself.

Celiac Disease is a good example. Yet, I think we need to gather support from a variety of sources, stitch the big picture together.

I think it's par for the course, what Dr. Oz has done and is doing. It's on TV. While claims are regulated by the government, I'm not entirely sure he's broken the law. Also, he has probably drawn attention to some illnesses that have been lost in the din of other issues. In the case of Celiac Disease, it was fairly unheard of not long ago. Today, it is widely known, and the gluten free diet has made sure that it is being talked about.

In such cases, people like Dr. Oz have done a good work. And if his encouragement of the use of gimmicks (expressed as opinion) helps one person improve their health, I suppose he's done his job.