Ten Phsyicians Claim Dr. Oz Promotes "Quack Treatments" and Want Him Fired From Columbia University's Medical Faculty

• Physicians wrote a letter to Columbia University claiming that Dr. Oz does not support science-based medicine and think he should be removed from his position
• "Quack Treatments" include Dr. Oz's support of "miracle" weight loss supplement
• Oz defends himself against these claims and has not been removed from Columbia University

Dr. Oz is a Cardiothoracic surgeon who holds a faculty position at Columbia University, but also has his own T.V. show. His show covers topics relating to health and medicine, but Dr. Oz has recently come under fire for his support of questionable treatments and weight loss supplements.

A letter to Columbia University from well renowned physicians request Dr. Oz to be fired, says Fox news article.

An article from Fox news about the controversy over Dr. Oz's position at Columbia University explains that the ten physicians, led by Dr. Henry Miller from Standford University, wrote a letter stating that they think Oz should be removed from the faculty. They wrote this letter because they believe Oz strongly despises the use of science-backed medicine and instead supports the use of nontraditional treatments that are not only ineffective, but unsafe for all of his viewers and patients. They also claim that he promotes the use of these "quack treatments" in hopes of increasing his own financial gain and that he shows a tremendous lack of integrity.

Oz's nontraditional medical practices originally became under fire last year, when he had to appear in front of the senate and was accused of supporting products that were "medically unsound." This video shows that when Oz was confronted, he eventually admitted that some of the products he endorses are not supported scientifically.

The most controversial product that Oz supported was the "miracle" weight loss supplement that Oz described as "magic." Critics proclaimed that Oz was giving people false hope and unrealistic and unhealthy medical advice. Although Oz is under extreme criticism and is being exposed regarding all of his questionable treatments, the letter to Columbia University has not resulted in the removal of Oz from his position. The university stated that they will not be firing Oz because of their commitment to "upholding faculty members' freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion."

This article does the best job covering this story because it answers most questions that a reader would have regarding this controversy. The article describes the main "quack" medical practices that Oz supports, it explains what sparked the controversy, and gives background information on a few of the physicians that wrote the letter to Columbia University. The article also goes on to explain what is happening as a result of this letter, stating that Dr. Oz has not yet been fired.

E! News article states that Dr. Oz is defending himself and plans to address the claims made in the letter on his show next week. 

Another article covering this story from E! News provides more details regarding Dr. Oz's response to the letter. Oz plans to explain his stance on many medical practices and defend himself in his next episode of his show. In his original statement regarding the letter, he defends himself by stating that he never fully supports these "quack treatments" that he is accused of, but instead provides various points of view about the subject. He also claims that he brings information to the public to help them better themselves, when in reality he is supporting medical practices that could be potentially harmful to his viewers and patients. The article goes on to cover the main points of the controversy, as the previous article did, but emphasizes Oz's role in his TV show and that he publicly tells his viewers non science-backed information on the show, such that GMO's should not be trusted.

The article provides adequate details covering the story, just as the previous article did, but E! News is an entertainment news website, not a traditional news source, so some might say the website is not as reliable as other sources. Dr. Oz is not only a doctor, but also has his own TV show, which also ads to the bias that E! News might have towards the subject, seeing that they are involved in the television industry. Regardless of the bias that this website might have regarding the subject, the article does a good job relaying the facts to the reader and has a strong explanatory headline that is useful to the reader.

The letter says that Dr. Oz is endangering the public, stated in this Time article


In this article by Time magazine, more excerpts from the letter are included revealing to the reader more about why the doctors were so upset with Dr. Oz holding a position in Columbia University's faculty. One main quote states that the physicians believe "members of the public are being misled and endangered" by Dr. Oz due to his unacceptable "pathology" and harmful medical advice. This article also supports the physicians' claims in the article by including a survey that states only 46 percent of the advice Dr. Oz gives on his show is backed by scientific evidence. The rest is all "quack treatments" and recommendations, just as the physicians that wrote the letter are claiming.

Although this article includes a survey and more insight into what the letter is actually saying, this is the worst coverage out of all three articles. The headline "Group of Doctors Tells Columbia University to Fire Dr. Oz" is not explanatory because it does not tell the reader key information. The headline leaves out who Dr. Oz is in regards to the university, and also why the doctors believe he should be fired. A better headline for this story would include the claim that Dr. Oz supports "quack treatments" and that he is a part of the faculty at Columbia University's medical center.

Other elements that could be added to this article to improve the coverage of the story would be to include the following information:

• Specific examples of the "quack treatments" Dr. Oz supports
• Background information of the Dr. Oz controversy, including his appearance in front of the Senate panel
• Explanatory pictures that emphasize the controversy surrounding Dr. Oz
• More details regarding the physicians who sent the letter
• Use a study from a different source other than Time to avoid bias

 All of these pieces of information are included in the other articles covering the story, which is why the Time article is the worst coverage. The other two articles fully explained the situation to the reader and even provided background knowledge about when Dr. Oz first became a controversial topic. Although the Time magazine was not the best article, overall, all three articles give the reader valuable information and do a good job explaining the controversy that has erupted due to the questionable practices of Dr. Oz.