Mehmet Oz, better known as Dr. Oz on his hit television show, has been accused of being a “charlatan” and a “quack” by a group of top doctors from around the country, who want Oz booted from the medical faculty at New York City’s prestigious Columbia University.
But getting rid of him may be difficult. Oz is vice chairman and professor of surgery at Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Ten top doctors wrote to Lee Goldman, the dean of Columbia’s Faculties of Health Sciences and Medicine, demanding Oz’s resignation. He’s held a position with the university for 12 years.
“He’s a quack and a fake and a charlatan,” Dr Henry Miller of Stanford University told The New York Daily News, which broke the story after obtaining the letter.
“I think I know the motivation at Columbia” Miller added. “They’re star-struck, and like having on their faculty the best-known doctor in the country.
“But the fact is that his advice endangers patients, and this doesn’t seem to faze them,” he said.
The doctors are riled because Oz pushes “miracle” weight-loss supplements, even though no scientific proof exists that they work.
The New York Independent first raised questions in Oct. 2013 about Dr. Oz because of his increasingly bizarre endorsements that fly in the face of known medical science.
His penchant for hyping sketchy supplements on his television show has led more than one researcher to call him “irresponsible, bordering on quackery.”
The doctors who signed the letter, which includes Dr Joel Tepper, of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, and Dr Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health in New York City, were no less damning.
The letter said the Columbia cardiothoracic surgeon, had “misled and endangered” the public on his five-year-old show.
The letter read in part:
“He has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain. Thus, Dr Oz is guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgments about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both.
The university responded to the letter yesterday painting the issue as a matter of academic freedom.
The school “is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members’ freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion,” it said in a statement.
Let us know your thoughts and be sure to follow The New York Independent on Twitter for the latest developments in this story.