What official statements have Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil made about diabetes treatments and endorsements?

1. Dr. Oz: public repudiation of “Diabetes Breakthrough” ads

Mehmet Oz has publicly called out fraudulent online pitches that attribute a rapid diabetes cure to him, explicitly saying the “Dr. Oz’s Diabetes Breakthrough” ads are not legitimate and that false celebrity endorsements “are stealing money and health from consumers” ^[1]. Multiple fact‑checks and Oz’s own writing demonstrate he has warned viewers that he did not promote the advertised products and that friends and viewers have asked him about such claims because scammers often misuse his name ^{[2] [1]}.

2. The mechanism: deepfakes and manipulated ads that claim Oz endorsements

Investigations by fact‑checkers and media experts have concluded that many of the viral clips purporting to show Oz endorsing a three‑day cure were manipulated — with asynchronous audio, AI‑generated faces or voice edits — and thus do not reflect any genuine endorsement from Oz ^{[3] [4] [5]}. Researchers including Hany Farid and outlets such as Poynter and AFP traced the phenomenon to altered videos and deceptive Facebook ads that splice or synthesize Oz’s likeness into claims about instant cures ^{[5] [2] [4]}.

3. What Oz actually says about diabetes treatments

Rather than endorsing miracle pills, Oz’s documented commentary—both in op‑eds and responses to scams—frames diabetes care as requiring evidence‑based approaches and cautions against shortcuts; he has pointed readers to the reality that purported “breakthrough” ads were not legitimate and that unproven supplements can delay proper care ^{[2] [1] [6]}. Multiple secondary sources assembled by fact‑checkers and health commentators conclude Oz has not invented, endorsed, or officially promoted any FDA‑approved diabetes drug or single “cure” ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Oz’s actions and the broader remediation against fraudsters

Oz has partnered with legal voices to highlight the consumer harm from fake celebrity endorsements, and regulators have pursued companies that exploited celebrity likenesses; the Better Business Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission have investigated and taken restitution actions against firms that used his image or others’ to sell dubious products ^[1]. Fact‑checking organizations and universities have publicized the deepfake ads — amplifying Oz’s warnings and helping platforms and law‑enforcement identify deceptive campaigns ^{[5] [2]}.

5. Where the supplied reporting is silent — Dr. Phil and nuances

The documents provided for this analysis focus on Dr. Oz, manipulated media, and fact checks of fake diabetes‑cure ads; they do not include any primary or secondary sources quoting Dr. Phil on diabetes treatments or endorsements, so no verified official statement from Dr. Phil can be confirmed here (no source in provided reporting). Absent such sourcing, it would be improper to ascribe either support for or opposition to specific diabetes claims to Dr. Phil; alternative reporting would be required to establish his views or any public statements.

6. Implications and competing perspectives

Public‑facing physicians like Oz attract both targeted scams and scrutiny: one angle argues Oz’s high profile made him especially vulnerable to impersonation and that his public warnings are a consumer‑protection stance ^[1], while another thread of commentary—rooted in past controversies documented by medical‑ethics scholars—frames his public endorsements historically as a source of ethical concern, complicating public trust ^[8]. Fact‑checkers uniformly conclude, however, that the specific rapid‑cure ads were fabricated and not an official endorsement by Oz ^{[3] [4] [2]}.