Mehmet Oz, globally recognized as Dr. Oz, maintains a valid medical license, yet his career is deeply entwined with the promotion of medically unsound and deceptive alternative therapies. For years, he has championed practices lacking scientific basis, such as homeopathy, alongside popular but often ineffective fad diets, detox programs, and cleanses. Alarmingly, some of his endorsements have carried potential health risks. A notable example is his early support for hydroxychloroquine as a treatment or preventative measure for COVID-19, a claim that has been definitively disproven by scientific consensus.
Dr. Oz has cultivated a significant following and built a profitable enterprise on advice that frequently lacks empirical support. Therefore, his foray into Republican politics with a U.S. Senate campaign in Pennsylvania should hardly come as a surprise. The Republican party’s apparent affinity for celebrities who disseminate misinformation aligns seamlessly with Dr. Oz’s public persona.
His political ambitions serve as a stark reminder of the far-reaching consequences of overlooking or condoning pseudoscience promoted by figures of public trust, like celebrities. The wellness advice dispensed by Dr. Oz was questionable before the pandemic, remains so now, and is unlikely to improve should he transition into a Senatorial role. In fact, Senator Oz would likely introduce pseudoscience into legislative discussions concerning the health and well-being of the American populace.
For those who study the propagation of health misinformation, Dr. Oz’s candidacy evokes a sense of inevitability, yet it also presents an opportunity to critically examine the intertwined issues of pseudoscience, celebrity physicians, and the existing regulatory framework that permits individuals like him to retain the title of “doctor.”
Prior to the pandemic, the “wellness woo” advocated by celebrities such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Tom Brady, and Dr. Oz was often dismissed as innocuous. The prevailing sentiment was that if individuals chose to spend money on questionable products like “vagina eggs,” dubious diets, or unverified alternative treatments, it was a matter of personal choice. The adage “buyer beware” and similar expressions of skepticism were common refrains.
However, the current global health crisis has underscored the significant and sometimes dangerous influence of pop culture on health beliefs and behaviors. Whether for better or worse, celebrities wield considerable power in shaping public perception. Consider the impact of Jenny McCarthy in amplifying the discredited link between vaccines and autism. More recently, figures like Joe Rogan and Aaron Rodgers have contributed to the confusion surrounding COVID-19 by promoting unsubstantiated claims.
The health misinformation disseminated by celebrities is far from inconsequential. Their amplified voices extend the reach of these falsehoods. A study from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University analyzing COVID-19 misinformation revealed that 20% of misinformation claims originated from prominent individuals, including politicians and entertainers. This “top-down” dissemination accounted for a staggering 69% of social media engagement with the misinformation, as content from celebrities is widely shared by the general public.
Combating the spread of health misinformation demands a multifaceted strategy. This includes enhancing critical thinking and media literacy, actively countering misinformation with credible and accessible content, and compelling social media platforms to adopt evidence-based content moderation practices. Crucially, it also necessitates preventing regulated health professionals, particularly physicians, from propagating baseless health claims.
Despite facing increasing criticism for his promotion of harmful pseudoscience and health advice devoid of evidence, Dr. Oz maintains ties to Columbia University’s medical school and holds a valid medical license. In 2014, he was summoned before the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection to address misleading statements made on his widely viewed Dr. Oz Show. During this hearing, a senator famously declared to “America’s Doctor”—a title bestowed upon him by Oprah Winfrey—that “the scientific community is almost monolithic against you.”
While Dr. Oz has not been formally disciplined by regulatory bodies—the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has targeted fraudulent individuals who have appeared on his program, but has not directly sanctioned him—this lack of action does not imply he should not face disciplinary measures.
His continued affiliation with Columbia and the ongoing validity of his medical license are particularly perplexing given the recognition of health misinformation as a critical public health challenge in our time. Considering his extensive history of promoting non-scientific medicine, the question arises: why has Dr. Oz’s license not been revoked?
In 2017, a group of academics addressed this very question in an article. They posed a crucial ethical dilemma concerning Dr. Oz: “Should a physician be allowed to say anything—however inaccurate and potentially harmful—so long as that individual commands market share?”
For many, the answer is a clear and unequivocal no.
Regulatory bodies, such as state medical boards responsible for licensing physicians, possess the authority and responsibility to intervene. These entities are fundamentally established to protect and serve the best interests of the public. Disciplining physicians who disseminate harmful misinformation should be a central component of their mandate. This principle was recently affirmed by the Federation of State Medical Boards’ Board of Directors, who cautioned that spreading inaccurate information undermines a physician’s public duty and “threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession and puts all patients at risk.”
Although there has been an increase in complaints to medical boards and subsequent regulatory actions during the COVID-19 pandemic, more decisive action is needed. Public trust in the medical profession remains high. Consequently, misinformation originating from physicians is particularly damaging. The fact that a physician like Sherry Tenpenny—known for promoting the false claim that vaccines induce magnetism—retains her medical license raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of the current regulatory system. Is it truly safeguarding the public, or primarily protecting its own members?
Finally, Dr. Oz’s Senate candidacy highlights the ideological dimensions of both wellness culture and COVID misinformation, extending beyond mere personal health choices. Recent research consistently demonstrates a correlation between specific ideological leanings (particularly conservative) and a greater propensity to believe and disseminate COVID misinformation.
Dr. Oz’s limited ties to Pennsylvania might present a challenge to his campaign. Nevertheless, in an era saturated with misinformation, Dr. Oz—a conservative figure and, remarkably, a still-licensed purveyor of medical falsehoods—represents a predictable Republican candidate. An individual who has profited from “woo” for decades might indeed find success on the campaign trail. In such an environment, the concept of truth itself seems increasingly irrelevant.
