As a member of a medical profession, I believe that the naturopathic principles which give the naturopathic profession its identity must be tempered by scientific evidence. I hold the position that it is ultimately part of my Naturopathic Physician’s Oath (“I dedicate myself to the service of humanity as a practitioner of the art and science of Naturopathic medicine”) that I must subject my clinical decisions to the test of science when and where possible.
There are some in the naturopathic, chiropractic, and acupuncture profession who believe that evidence-based-medicine is a product of a mechanistic world view, which is using an overly narrow/restrictive view of science, deliberately designed to place such professions distinctively on the outside of the circle of science. As an integrative physician, Dr. Barnett does not participate in this interprofessional debate, which he believes is based more in economics and turf-war politics than what is in the best interest of patients and the public.
As a doctor with one foot in alternative medicine and one foot in conventional medicine, he often finds himself in unfriendly waters by one or the other group. Many fellow naturopaths or other “alternative” practitioners, for example, do not like his positive embrace of CDC immunization guidelines. Some patients are taken aback by his lack of enthusiasm about some aspects of alternative medicine that they may they favor. Endocrinologists may shake their head at his preference for glandular medications over Synthroid or its generic. But despite which side is critical, his positions are based on evidence and safety concerns for his patients and public health above all else.