Dr Mehmet Oz's fellow faculty members at Columbia have written an op-ed lashing out at how his 'unsubstantiated medicine... sullies the reputation' of the university - in just the latest attack on his talk show tactics. But they also leap to the physician's defense in the piece, saying that his on-air 'Ozisms' should not cancel out his stellar work at the university, where he has an unblemished record as a doctor. The eight staff wrote the op-ed for USA Today after 10 doctors urged Columbia to sever all ties with Oz, who serves as vice chairman and professor of surgery at the College of Physicians. Those doctors accused him of being a 'charlatan' who promotes 'quack treatments' on his syndicated talk show - accusations Dr Oz has vehemently fought this week. Scroll down for videos . Under fire: Faculty at Columbia University have said some of Dr Mehmet Oz's tactics have 'sullied their reputation' - but also applauded him for the work he had carried out at the Ivy League school . In the new op-ed, his fellow faculty also denounced his TV show methods. They pointed out that in 2014, the BMJ medical journal said 'that less than half of the recommendations on his show are based on at least somewhat believable evidence'. 'Many of us are spending a significant amount of our clinical time debunking Ozisms regarding metabolism game changers,' the staff members wrote in the op-ed. 'Irrespective of the underlying motives, this unsubstantiated medicine sullies the reputation of Columbia University and undermines the trust that is essential to physician-patient relationships.' That said, 'the weaknesses in [his] professional balance sheet' should not force him out of his job at Columbia University, where he has been employed since 2001, they wrote. He was hired because of his strengths as a doctor and receives top reviews from his peers and patients, and therefore should not be forced to leave the job 'in which he excels', they wrote. Support: The eight faculty members, including Drs Michael Rosenbaum, left, and Joan Bregstein. right, said they have spent a great deal of their time debunking 'Ozisms' their colleague had shared on air . Instead, they suggested that his case raises questions of what responsibilities doctors in the media have to their patients. 'What happens when a doctor's job in media-medicine collides with office- or hospital-based medicine? Dr. Mehmet Oz is a case in-point.' 'Many of us are spending a significant amount of our clinical time debunking Ozisms regarding metabolism game changers. Irrespective of the underlying motives, this unsubstantiated medicine sullies the reputation of Columbia University and undermines the trust that is essential to physician-patient relationships.' 'We need to re-evaluate the roles of the health sciences and government in broadcast medicine and what are the responsibilities of media physicians to their patients?' 'Non-evidence based medical recommendations presented without the appropriate caveats are costly and potentially harmful. However, unless these foibles can be shown to render Dr. Oz inadequate or ineffective at Columbia, there is no justification for forcing him to resign from a well-earned position in academic medicine. 'Regulatory guidance addressing the tension between his two positions is potentially a far better solution that could result in improved health care both in the doctor's office and in the media. 'Dr. Oz might begin each program with a simple disclaimer: "The opinions expressed on this program may not be evidence-based or part of accepted medical practice and have no endorsement from Columbia University."' The full op-ed can be read at USA Today . 'Non-evidence based medical recommendations presented without the appropriate caveats are costly and potentially harmful,' they wrote. 'However, unless these foibles can be shown to render Dr. Oz inadequate or ineffective at Columbia, there is no justification for forcing him to resign from a well-earned position in academic medicine.' Rather, he should start each show with a disclaimer: 'The opinions expressed on this program may not be evidence-based or part of accepted medical practice and have no endorsement from Columbia University,' they said. The op-ed was penned by Dr Michael Rosenbaum, Dr Joan Bregstein, Dr Elizabeth Oelsner, Dr Sumit Mohan and Dr Dana March of Columbia University Medical Center, Dr Michelle Odlum of the School of Nursing, Dr Katherine Shear of the College of Physicians & Surgeons, and Tal Gross of the Department of Health Policy and Management. On Friday, Dr Oz, 54, said he was 'very proud to have that feedback' from his colleagues as he appeared on the Today show. 'The [Dr Oz] show has to be much broader than what might take place in a doctor's office,' he said. 'I completely respect why so many of my colleagues might have a difficulty with that, but I'm also appreciative that many of them do understand why that's important.' While appearing on Today, he insisted that, despite the criticisms, his show will continue. He has been hosting the program since 2009. 'Without question, the show will survive it,' he said. 'I want to keep doing the show for as long as I can because I think we played an important role in making America a better place.' Even though he often wears his scrubs on air, he added that his show is not about medicine, but about living 'the good life', such as looking at the power of prayer or techniques abroad. Defense: On Friday, Dr Oz appeared on the Today show and said his show would survive the criticism . Vehement: He told Matt Lauer that his show was more about living 'the good life' than medical information . He said he continues to stand by his use of the word 'miracle' to some treatments - but wishes he had not used it for weight-loss supplements. 'This is a flawed area with lots of fraud, both in the research and in products,' he said. 'And we no longer talk about them. I haven't talked about them in a year.' And talking about the letter from the 10 doctors last week, he said that those critics have agendas, particularly against genetically modified organisms, which he has supported. 'The 10 doctors who attacked me got what they wanted – sensational headlines and sound bites,' he previously said on his Thursday show, which was entitled The Truth About His Critics. 'It's ironic that I am being accused of a conflict of interest by these doctors, when, as you are about to see, some of them have their own conflict of interest issues - and some integrity ones also.' Four who signed the letter, including leader author Henry Miller, have at some point been associated with the American Council on Science and Health. Defiant: The celebrity doctor used Thursday's episode of The Dr. Oz Show to hit back and claim that the criticism he's received is part of a conspiracy because of his outspoken views on genetically modified food . The organization has previously received grants from Monsanto, who manufactures GMO seeds. During his show on Thursday, Oz denied attacking genetically modified foods. 'That is not true. I have never judged GMO foods,' he said. 'But just like 64 countries around the world, I support GMO labeling so you can decide on the foods for your family.' Dr Miller had written of Oz: 'He's a quack and a fake and a charlatan. I think I know the motivation at Columbia. '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.' Columbia previously released a statement that it 'is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members' freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion.'
Eight faculty members at Columbia University penned an op-ed accusing Dr Oz's on-air tactics of sullying the reputation of the Ivy League school .
But they said he should not be forced to stepped down from his 'well-earned position' at Columbia because of these 'foibles'
It comes after 10 doctors called on Columbia to fire Oz for promoting 'quack treatments' on his TV show, including weight-loss supplements .
The piece came as Dr Oz insisted his show would survive the criticism and said the doctors only attacked him for supporting GMA labeling .