Analysis

While Dr. Oz makes a point to respond to some of the claims made by the 10 university doctors, he fails to respond to the accusation that he makes statements on his television show that are often false and not supported by medical research. Dr. Oz’s choice to only focus on the part of his critics’ argument that he can easily challenge (the GMO claim) result in him committing a Red Herring fallacy. Even if Dr. Oz did not intentionally avoid the claim that he promotes products that lack scientific evidence, his response to his critics fails because he failed to address this concern. We cannot necessarily conclude that his critics were wrong until Dr. Oz successfully challenges each part of their argument.

Dr. Oz begins by reminding his viewers about the purpose of his work, which of course, begins by refocusing the controversy by trying to convince the audience that his is a good person, who is being unfairly attacked:

“My life’s work has been built around one simple message: You have a right and a responsibility to become a world expert on your own body. And the way you do that is by having access to the best, most current information, multiple points of view and diverse opinions. That is the best you that you can make an informed decision about you and your family’s health. Figuring out how to talk about your health and to talk to you about it can be difficult. And there has been a backlash to my approach from some parts of the medical community…”

Here, Dr. Oz is committing a Red Herring because he is trying to divert the audience’s attention away from the issues raised by his critics. He is saying: “Look over here at my good intentions, and not over there where their may be some evidence to suggest otherwise.”

Dr. Oz’s overall argument can be broken down to this:

• Premise 1: I want to make sure that you have access to the best, most current information

• Premise 2: You should have the right to make informed decisions about you and your family’s health

• Premise 3: I only support GMO labeling (I do not oppose GMOs)

• Premise 4: I tell you on my show that I do financially benefit from products I promote

• Conclusion: My critics are wrong about everything (opposition to GMOs, special interests, promoting products not supported by medical research)

If you break down his argument, you can see how the reasons to do not necessarily lead or connect to the all parts of the conclusion. If Premise 3 and 4 are true, then it may be true that his critics are wrong about GMO opposition and special interests. However, it does not establish that his critics are wrong about Dr. Oz promotion of non-scientific medical treatments and products.

Even if Premise 1 and 2 are true, this does not mean that his critics are wrong about him being guided by special interests or not using evidence-based medicine. Dr. Oz has failed to establish how his critics are wrong because he has not explained how he is ensuring his viewers have “access to the best, most current information” and are “well informed” to make health decisions. Therefore, Dr. Oz cannot reasonably claim that his critics are entirely wrong.

Analysis

Dr. Oz chooses to attack the credibility of the people criticizing him instead of attacking the credibility of their critique. This results in him committing a Personal Attack fallacy as another way to avoid engaging in a meaningful response to his critics’ claims. When you break down the argument it becomes clear that the reason does not lead to the conclusion:

• Premise 1: Several of the doctors criticizing me are guided by special interests

• Conclusion: These doctors’ critiques are wrong

The character of the doctors challenging Dr. Oz have little to no bearing upon the truthfulness of their claims. It could be true that Dr. Oz is guilty of being influenced by special interests and promotes products that are not scientifically proven to work, even if those accusing him of this are also guided by special interests. Therefore, Dr. Oz is not effective in responding to his critics’ argument by way of attacking their integrity.

Analysis

In another response to his critics, Dr. Oz appeals to the importance of the freedom of speech as a way to deflect attention away from his critics’ argument. In this way, Dr. Oz is committing a Red Herring fallacy.

Dr. Oz is not concerned with responding to the claims that he endorses inappropriate medical treatments on his television show or is influenced by special interests. Instead Dr. Oz chooses to appeal to his audience’s firmly rooted American belief in the First Amendment Right: freedom of speech. By doing this, Dr. Oz relies on the fallacy of Appeal to Popularity to gain public support for his right to do what he wants on his television show.

• Premise 1: Freedom of speech is a fundamental right

• Conclusion: I should be allowed to say whatever I want on my television show

With this argument, Dr. Oz tries to convince his audience to ignore the issue raised by his critics and instead focus on freedom of speech. The right to free speech is a less controversial topic and one that most Americans cherish. By focusing on this topic Dr. Oz can easily gain popular support and avoid having to respond to challenges about his integrity as a doctor.