Last week, Dr. Oz did an entire show dedicated to his favorite supplements. As always, research of his recommendations raised alarms for me. For example, he recommended Forskolin again, which I previously wrote about is not scientifically validated for human consumption.
After watching the episode, I thought to myself that I would really appreciate it if Dr. Oz could answer three questions.
The first question relates to his motivation regarding his supplement recommendations. I would like him to tell his audience what relationship, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, he has with the product or company he is recommending? I think we can all agree that if he has a direct or indirect financial incentive to recommend a product, it could skew his judgment, and at a minimum, he should be transparent and let the audience know that he has a conflict of interest.
The second question revolves around the scientific basis for his making such recommendations. I often hear him refer to research that was conducted by him or others, but I have never heard him reveal any facts or sources that one can rely upon. Therefore, my question to him is what source and quality of science does he rely upon to make such recommendations to an unidentified audience to take pills regardless of his knowledge of the various medical histories, and other medications and/or pills the audience may already be taking? Many of the products he recommends are pure rubbish. However, to some, they are potentially poisonous and fraught with other dangers.
Finally, as anyone who has watched a number of his shows has heard, he often refers to these supplements as miracle cures and magic pills. My question is if he really believes that these pills are so powerful to be of such major therapeutic benefit to be deemed miracle cures and magic pills, why aren't they regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a pharmaceutical? While the FDA has its flaws, I think most Americans agree that anything that has powerful medicinal effects should be under close scrutiny.
Here's a question for my readers. Why does anyone still believe a word this man says when clearly a number of products he has recommended have been shown through reliable research to have serious associated harms? As the old adage goes, fool me once shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.