The same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks.
I doubt it’s the money as much as it’s the ego stoking and fame addiction.
He probably hasn’t earned as much money as his Quacker colleagues Dr. Phil and Dr. Drew, but they’re all cut from the same oily cloth as other megarich media gobshites like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno and a zillion others who have way more money than they could ever possibly need but they won’t just quit and enjoy it; they need the worship and validation more than the coin, and his hawking crap is a way to keep in print and on camera.
Let’s not lash out where it’s not warranted. Dr. Drew is celebrity-obsessed and an admitted narcissist, but I have never heard him pitching quackery.
fame, money and power trump everything else in many people’s minds.
I actually don’t have a problem believing a heart surgeon might actually believe this stuff. It’s not part of his specialty.
It’s not like he didn’t go to medical school.
He’s married to a freakin’ Reiki master. That’s like Madalyn Murray O’Hair marrying the Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Israel.
The crazy thing is, he was - and still is - an excellent surgeon.
The New York Times called him “one of the most accomplished cardiothoracic surgeons of his generation.” Dude invented a new “aortic valve that can be implanted without highly invasive open-heart surgery.” As of last year, he still performed surgery each Thursday at NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital.
And yet I guess somewhere along the way he figured being a celebrity was more fun / sexy / lucrative. The fun part is that his pious badass no-nonsense Turkish doctor dad is deeply disappointed in his son’s hippie bullshit:
Go dad! 
As scientists like Roy Spencer that contributes to creationist sites and Dr Seitz that supported the denial of tobacco causing cancer and climate change shows, there is plenty of precedent regarding the proping up of scientists or doctors that broke bad by shady interest groups.
My favorite:
Having been through some major surgeries in the Gargoyle household, I’ve noticed a tendency for surgeons to be more focused in the mechanical technique of the surgery, at which they are expected to excel, but outside of that they are no better than any typical general practitioner at knowing anything outside their specialty, and often worse. It’s like asking your auto emissions technician to troubleshoot your dashboard SatNav.
However, experts should know their limitations and Dr. Oz is a quack that mistakenly peddles his “expertise” into areas that a random ward nurse would be much more knowledgeable of.
True story, one of our brain surgeons we met with (yes, we have multiple :)) recommended the paleolithic diet as a cure for chronic pain. A quack that we didn’t see again.
I have a family doctor of 15 years whom I totally trust and who did help me in some troubled times. The other day I heard that he sometimes prescribes homeopathic “medicine”, and that was a real shock to me. He didn’t pull that shit on me yet (and I would call him out for it if he did), but my trust to him is somehow shattered. I only hope that he thinks of them as placebos and doesn’t subscribe to the whole lunacy. I really don’t want to look for another doctor, but usually I run fast when I see woo anywhere. It’s a real predicament.
Psychological factors are important in physical illness, too. I think placebos are under appreciated, and there is a role for them in medicine. Context matters.
Sure, but isn’t it somehow unethical to let the patient believe in an inefficient cure for the effect? And aren’t there some companies that profit undeservedly from these useless prescriptions, straining health insurances in the process?
Placebos are fine if they’re sold at cost. Profiting from the ignorance and desperation of others, however, is called fraud.
So why is GNC still in business?
Indeed.
Sure it does. And in the context of standing on national television, talking to a huge audience of people, some of whom undoubtedly have real medical issues they’re looking to solve, then in that context, promoting quack placebo cures that do absolutely nothing to address genuine medical problems is wildly irresponsible.
Placebos should be cheap or free.
Back before the era of modern pharmaceuticals placebos had a much greater role, both those thought effective but not, and those known to be placebos. If there is no treatment then only the placebo effect has a hope of relieving suffering (and even then, only in a percentage of cases).
So, for a chronic condition for which we don’t have a cure there is some merit. A copper bracelet for arthritis is a placebo, but if the patient believes it to be beneficial the placebo effect might actually trick them into feeling less pain. Something of that sort, which is harmless at worst and might actually help, even if only mentally, has a role in medicine.
Yes. Just as there are people making exorbitant money off useless trinkets like magnetic bracelets for this or that. A placebo that breaks a person financially is harmful.
I agree. It’s just another form of faith healing.
Yes.