Is it true that scientists and doctors think that 3 products that Dr. Oz promotes as miracles don't actually work? If so, why is he promoting them?

Because he's a fraud and a disgrace to the medical profession.

Another TV pitchman recently received 10 years in prison for making very similar claims.  Dr. Oz is very lucky if he gets out of this with just a scolding. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trudeau-diet-infomercials-prison/2014/03/17/id/560129/

Scientist here. Most of us generally believe Dr. Oz = Quack promoter. This is a man who actually gave a stage to talk on. The guy who regularly promotes Joseph Mercola. And faith healing. And Ayurveda. Oh, did I mention how he likes to fill his audiences with angry Jenny McCarthist anti-vaxers? This disappoints me since Dr. Oz is actually a very accomplished Doctor. You know, that guy who happens to be the Vice-Chairman of the Department of Surgery at Columbia University and the director of the Integrative Medicine program. Also his credentials include the words Harvard, UPenn, and Columbia. Respectful Insolence is sort of a biased blog but he just unloads the hate upon Dr. Mehmet Oz and his absolutely irresponsible approach to "promoting" medicine. Reading one posting makes you upset that people like Dr. Oz exists. Reading multiple posts makes you furious about human society. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/05/14/americas-quack-dr-mehmet-oz/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/12/16/fear-mongering-over-cell-phones-and-cancer-by-dr-oz/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/05/02/dr-ozs-evolution-as-americas-foremost-promoter-of-quackery-continues-apace/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/30/dr-ozs-journey-to-the-dark-side/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/02/dr-oz-versus-science-again/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/09/dr-phil-follows-dr-ozs-descent/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/27/steve-novella-on-the-dr-oz-show-dr-oz-ha/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/01/just-in-time-for-april-fools-daydr-oz-an/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/01/19/dr-oz-finally-unequivocally-embraces-the/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/16/when-faith-healing-isnt-enough-woo-for-d/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/02/02/dr-ozs-journey-to-the-dark-side-is-now-complete/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/01/27/dr-oz-looking-for-parents-afraid-of-auti/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/02/dr-oz-has-crossed-the-rubicon/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/01/13/regarding-dr-mehmet-oz-whoops-maybe-i-sp/ This is America's Doctor. WTF. Alternative medicine crowd. I await your salvos.

Apparently most products allegedly promoted by Oz aren't.Oz may have discussed a product at some time on his show. Whether that is "promotion" or not is unclear. However, Oz has warned:http://www.doctoroz.com/press/dr-oz-show-launches-its-not-me-campaign-inform-and-warn-viewers-about-rogue-marketers-engaging He has a list of "trusted partners."http://www.doctoroz.com/trusted-partners The question quotes a CNN report of a Senate hearing.http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/health/senate-grills-dr-oz/ Oz is an advocate of alternative medicine, or, at least, of alternatives in medicine. I have seen what happens when pseudoscience masquerading as science takes over. An example would be the role of fat in the diet. For years, what may be the most effective diet, with the lowest heart risk, was condemned as quackery and unproven, but, in fact, it was the official recommendations that were unproven, based on a very flawed epidemiological study. For information in this see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html I have never watched Oz. I probably get several spams every day announcing "Oz recommended!" The man apparently doesn't do that.Someone who does what he does is going to be attacked, I've seen this many times.So, what products?Green coffee beans, which contain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorogenic_acid (and a lot else).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcinia_gummi-gutta (Garcinia cambogia)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcinia_gummi-gutta#Weight_loss (weight loss section)What had Oz done? In 2012, he had apparently introduced information about Garcinia with "Thanks to brand new scientific research, I can tell you about a revolutionary fat buster." The CNN article includes a link to his video. The video has been taken down. Oz has said that he has sometimes used "flowery language" to introduce show segments.  There was, in fact, "scientific research" indicating a possible effect of garcinia on weight loss. This is a relatively recent study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3748738/  (2013)It has one firm conclusion: We have previously reviewed and concluded that Garciniaextract and HCA were generally safe to be consumed.And then it has ... definitive conclusions that Garcinia/HCA supplements are efficient tools against various health problems especially obesity remain to be proven in larger-scale and longer-term clinical trials, despite substantial public interest in such supplements. Many diet supplements containing Garcinia/HCA marketed as weight management products are the combination of active ingredients rather than containing a single agent. Thus it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of single agents when the combination products are tested.In the section on clinical trials, it notes:the most recent meta-analysis of RCTs ... revealed that G. cambogia extract possessed limited or no effects on weight-loss in human subjects [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3748738/#B116]. Moreover, this study showed no effect on satiety or calorie intake in overweight individuals consuming their habitual diet, which is in agreement with past studies [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3748738/#B41, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3748738/#B71, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3748738/#B117]. However, such comparisons must be made with caution as the variations in the formulations, doses administered, RCTs designs, and study populations might contribute to the discrepancy of the results.The evidence for the effect of G. cambogia was from animal trials. Human trials are far more difficult to perform, and it might take years for conclusions about G. cambogia to become settled science.The naive want answers, Yes or No, and want them now. If we want fast answers with regard to nutrition we will have to fund research much more liberally. At this point, research money is readily available for drugs, because drug companies can then make very high profits with a successful drug.So as to the question, direct answers:Do scientists and doctors think ..."Some do. Some don't.Many who are nominally scientists do not restrict themselves to opinions based on controlled ("scientific") research. The authors of that study I cited wrote as scientists write. There are discoveries where, for a time, it was "not proven." And then proof was found. And there are flops, "discoveries" that were artifacts or errors. It cannot be soberly stated at this time, based on "scientific evidence," something as bald as "it doesn't work."Was Oz incautious? Looks like it to me, but I haven't seen the video. If he cautioned about the down side as well as communicating some enthusiasm, that would be fine. I don't know if he does that, I've never watched him.What I can see, though, is that the attacks against him are intemperate, not careful, what is called pseudoskeptical. That does not mean that all such criticism is that way.I could hope that in some transformed world, critical thinking will be taught, genuine scientific skepticism, that is not simply a disguised form of belief, belief in the opposite of what others believe.In many cases, the truth about claims simply isn't known. People looking for health support should be informed about what is known -- and what is not known.About a decade ago, I was told that because of high cholesterol levels, I should be on statins. I looked into it. Standard advice on statins was highly misleading. I'm not sure of  the latest research, and don't know that I  trust drug research very far, but back then there was no evidence that statins reduced the risk of premature death. What they did was to reduce cholesterol, which is only a risk factor, and a fairly poor one, merely easy to test for.So ... I had my CRP level measured (very low, indicating low risk) and I got a cardiac CAT scan (expensive! out of pocket, insurance would not pay for it, but this was the only test then that could actually show the real situation in one's arteries. Result, very low risk.) And I also got a stress test. Again, low risk. But, hey, high choleseterol, why aren't you on statins?And, of course, there are the side effects of statins.I don't think that possible Bad Advice on the Dr. Oz show is the worst health misinformation problem around, by far!But, yes, if health is important to you, check claims. Oz is smart. Not perfect.Oh. Green coffee.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dr-oz-endorsed-green-coffee-bean-diet-study-retracted/ That is a fascinating article. It's quite correct. Oz would not necessarily have known. However, Oz did do his own study, and found a weight-loss effect.This is what is visible: from the information there, it cannot be known if green coffee, or some green coffee product, works, or not, based on confirmed study results. Oz is perfectly free to say what he concludes from his own study, and that's not quackery, if his study was at all indicative of an effect. But studies are difficult to perform and can be expensive. Oz is not in the business of doing scientific research.http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-1264-green%20coffee.aspx?activeingredientid=1264&activeingredientname=green+coffee (WebMD) is neutral on green coffee, reporting that Oz "mentioned" it.  Then they have:http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/default.htm (http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/default.htm). Some research shows that people with mild high http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/guide/diastolic-and-systolic-blood-pressure-know-your-numbers who take a specific green coffee extract (Svetol, Naturex) 93 mg daily or 185 mg daily have reduced http://www.webmd.com/heart/anatomy-picture-of-blood pressure after 28 days of treatment. Other studies evaluating the effects of a different green coffee extract or a certain component of green coffee found similar results.Weight loss. Some research shows that taking green coffee extract (Svetol, Naturex) 80-200 mg daily might cause modest weight loss over a period of 12 weeks. However, the research so far is preliminary and poor quality.Yes, that appears to be the state of affairs. "Poor quality" doesn't mean, by the way,  that the research was "bad" in some way, preliminary research is exploratory, not designed to provide definitive answers. "High quality" research is designed for that -- and is generally more expensive!If these are the worst offenses of Oz, he's not looking bad at all.

As a few others have said, Dr. Oz is a scam...or that is what *I* am saying anyway! What really kills me about him is that he is in an extremely great position to truly help a lot of people. Instead of selling some bogus fruit extract for $50 a bottle he could simply tell people to eat the fruit. But you can't make any money by telling people "eat fruit and vegetables and you will lose weight guaranteed" can you...so he sells terrible products that do not work.. He is a phony

Many people promote scams in exchange for payment. Dr Oz is no different.