The (New) Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project

The (New) Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project is "[a]n ongoing quest to track the Daily Mail's classification of inanimate objects into two types: those that cause cancer, and those that cure it. Inspired by and a direct continuation of the Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project ...." It is hilarious. This is a genius level idea.

While I'm on it, The New Yorker has a lengthy article on Dr. Mehmet Oz of The Dr. Oz Show. Oz is a highly qualified, highly successful cardio-thoracic surgeon who loves the limelight and has sort of promoted alternative therapies unsupported by evidence, as he acknowledges. "Sort of" because he seems to suggest they work, or might work, and does not seem to bothered by evidence to the contrary. He's being "open minded." His wife, Lisa, who is the daughter of a very prominent heart surgeon, is, in fact, a "Reiki master." That means she attempts to heal through a "spiritual practice" of laying on hands. It's not even ancient voodoo: it was invented by a Japanese Buddhist monk in the 1920's. (And I don't doubt that many people find it comforting, and that this can be therapeutic in itself -- but it's not treatment.)

It's easy to say that Oz is misusing his prominent position to push treatment possibilities that he should know do not work. If the article is accepted, though, Oz's prominence is due in large part to his wife, the Reiki master, who set in motion the critical things to help the show work, got him connected with Oprah, and is still substantially involved with the show. And, in fact, that he does not scoff at "alternative" medicine is likely part of why he is so accepted by his public.

Lisa and Mehmet Oz say Lisa calls the shots -- he's "Mr. Oz" not "Dr. Oz" at home. Lisa did not even let her children get fully vaccinated. But that's hardly an excuse. He's the prominent one; the one with an obligation to the public who follow him. If he's not honest about what works and what doesn't, his credentials are worthless.

At the risk of digressing (though haven't I already passed that point?), let me mention Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs died from cancer. His death may well have been preventable; he had a treatable form of pancreatic cancer known as an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor. But he refused established medical approaches to pursue "alternative" approaches: "a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbal remedies and other treatments he found online, and even consulted a psychic. He also was influenced by a doctor who ran a clinic that advised juice fasts, bowel cleansings and other unproven approaches." By the time he actually started real treatment it was too late. As he later  acknowledged, his use of "alternative medicine" was a terrible mistake.

Jobs's approach was one driven by ignorance. Indeed, despite his technical and marketing brilliance -- and despite being a pretty damn smart guy generally -- Jobs dropped out of college early and, like most of us, had huge holes in his knowledge. Yet, if a smart guy like Jobs cannot fully appreciate the difference between "alternative medicine" -- which isn't really medicine at all (if it was, it would just be "medicine") -- and approaches backed up by evidence and reasonable conclusions from the evidence, then it's likely that most citizens cannot. It's folks like Dr. Oz who have to make the differences clear.