The American Medical Association is finally taking a stand on quacks like Dr. Oz

Medical students and residents frustrated with bogus advice from doctors on TV have, for more than a year, been asking the American Medical Association to clamp down and "defend the integrity of the profession."
Now the AMA is finally taking a stand on quack MDs who spread pseudoscience in the media.

"This is a turning point where the AMA is willing to go out in public and actively defend the profession," Benjamin Mazer, a medical student at the University of Rochester who was involved in crafting the resolution, said. "This is one of the most proactive steps that the AMA has taken [on mass media issues]."
The AMA will look at creating ethical guidelines for physicians in the media, write a report on how doctors may be disciplined for violating medical ethics through their press involvement, and release a public statement denouncing the dissemination of dubious medical information through the radio, TV, newspapers, or websites.

The move came out of the AMA's annual meeting in Chicago this week, where representatives from across the country vote on policies brought forward by members of the medical community.

Related The making of Dr. Oz — how an award-winning doctor turned away from science and embraced fame
All of the arguments Dr. Oz made against his critics were wrong

Mazer and fellow medical students and residents were prompted to push the AMA after noticing that the organization was mostly silent during the recent public debates about the ethics of Dr. Oz sharing unfounded medical advice on his exceptionally popular TV show.
"Dr. Oz has something like 4 million viewers a day," Mazer previously told Vox in an interview. "The average physician doesn't see a million patients in their lifetime. That's why organized medicine should be taking action."

Pressure to address media doctors had been building

These issues have been in the spotlight for more than a year.

• Last summer, Oz was called before a Senate subcommittee on consumer protection, where the senator in charge, Claire McCaskill (D-MO), asked him to explain his use of "flowery" language to champion weight loss fixes that don't actually work and then admonished him for endorsing a rainbow of supplements as potential "belly blasters"and "mega metabolism boosters." As McCaskill put it, "The scientific community is almost monolithic against you in terms of the efficacy of the three products you called 'miracles.'"
• In December, a British Medical Journal study examined the health claims showcased on 40 randomly selected episodes of the two most popular internationally syndicated health talk shows — The Dr. Oz Show and The Doctors — and found that abohttps://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=371416548058476539#editor/target=post;postID=6001467411582338996ut half of the recommendations either had no evidence behind them or actually contradicted the best available science.
• In January, investigations into The Dr. Oz Show by the Federal Trade Commission showed that at least one of Oz's miracle-touting guests used the program as a platform to deceive audiences and sell products.
• In April, a high-profile group of physicians and academics questioned Oz's faculty position at Columbia University and wrote in a letter to the medical school dean: "Dr. Oz is guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgments about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both."
• The same month, Oz responded to his critics by accusing them of having conflicts of interest and defending his civil liberties. "I know I have irritated some potential allies," he wrote in Time magazine. "No matter our disagreements, freedom of speech is the most fundamental right we have as Americans. We will not be silenced."

Read the rest @ http://www.vox.com/2015/6/13/8773695/AMA-dr-oz