On claims that herbs and homeopathy are dangerous



“Liver Doc” Abby Philips has been shut off from his X account and he is fighting to get his access back. I sincerely believe in freedom of expression and I hope his account is restored. But my experience with Abby has not been good. He blocked me because I was posting Pubmed studies that he could not counter. Many others have the same experience. I don't mind because I am used to this. Had he not blocked me I would have been surprised.

How true are the recent claims that herbs and homeopathy are dangerous? In case of the herb giloy it was seen that not giloy but the wrong choice of a similar herb was causing the problem. The study on the homeopathy remedy Arsenic Album had to take 1kg of globules to prove toxicity. The standard dose used for prevention is 3 to 4 globules taken once a day for 3 days. A study on the herb Ashwagandha uses 20 to 30 grams per day whereas 500 to 1000mg is the daily standard dose prescribed in times of need.

Holistic medicine involves detoxification. If you study the working of the cells and the lymphatic system you will find that detoxification is natural to the body. That is why we have stools, urinate, and sweat; we have fever, vomit and have skin issues. The body abhors toxicity and sheds excess. The cells need an uncluttered environment to perform. They are burdened by waste and toxicity. 

If we study cases of food poisoning we notice that the body resorts to elimination systems to detoxify. We supplement with stomach cleansing. We understand the value of this detoxification and do not stop the elimination unless it becomes life threatening.

In times of detoxification the elimination organs like liver and kidney are affected and if we conduct pathological studies we will find abnormalities. Do we conclude that this is a detrimental process?

Cure is not linear. The rectification process of the body has a pattern and the attempts are confused as disease by the mainstream because medical education does not teach how the body heals itself; pointed out by stalwarts like Bechamp, Osler, Mendelsohn, and all others who oppose the blind use of medication. 

It was not for nothing that the early doctors prescribed rest and a liquid diet for most acutes. Currently the AIIMS, Bhubaneswar is wary of prescribing for conditions that can resolve on their own and they are very strict about it.

Acute diseases are the cure. They are the rectification efforts of the body. When we interfere we cause the chronic disease that is iatrogenic. It needs an ill informed doctor to do the harm. The method to reduce the intensity and prevalence of acute disease is to have good mentality, lifestyle, and ensure the safety of food and environment. 

Everyone has the right of expression, and the manufacturing giants of every system of medicine need to be ruthlessly questioned about their methods. The work is best left to practitioners of each system. There is now a ministry of holistic systems. They have departments for each system. They are well qualified and equipped to be approached. Creating sensation on social media by using fraudulent methods in order to confuse the public who have no idea of holistic health is perhaps unbecoming of a profession that calls itself scientific.

The main problem with holistic systems lies in the reductionist approach that has been imposed. They are essentially non drug preventive approaches. They talk of the basic determinants, mentality, lifestyle and environment. They oppose the polluting of the atmosphere and unsafe practices that harm. Instead the students of these systems are learning about the disease and drug approach. This is very sad.

I also feel sad that in the world of medicine there are very few who genuinely think of the patient and his or her welfare. That thinking should result in good health and wellbeing as an outcome. Why should a person suffer when there are doctors around? 

Another big factor is the concept of disease management. I do not understand how this is accepted. This is detrimental both for the patient and the doctor. The patient is denied cures and the doctor suffers because he is not able to do his best. Disease management can be resorted to in the last stages when the body is enfeebled by age or by the extreme loss of vitality. So long as the vitality is strong there is scope for cure.

Dr P... says Tridosha is religion. In my 44 year long experience of serious physical mental and emotional disease I have witnessed the play of Tridosha. It cannot be denied. I would invite all practitioners to sincerely study Tridosha and observe the play of the doshas in their patients. 

Ayurveda with its concepts of elements; space, air, fire, water and earth; the tridosha; vata, pitta, kapha; mental states; tamas, rajas, sattva; the rasa (taste), prana (life, vital force), and nadi (energy meridians, pulse), is the essence of the forces that determine health and can be harnessed for good health and cures.

By just knowing the theory behind each holistic system the people can keep themselves healthy and the policy makers can ensure public health. This is exactly the reason why these theories are detested. Health is not welcome for capitalist medicine. It desperately needs disease.

The doctor’s forte is not medical education, but his observation, analytical skills, experience, intuition, and intent. His ornaments are altruism, morality and ethics. His reward is good health and cures. His master is the vitality, the life force in all of creation. Nature is the best healer.

Another aspect is the loss of knowledge about constitutional disease. All patients are not the same. They can be grouped by their mentality, behaviour, thermal condition, intensity and direction of symptoms, parts affected, and the deviation on account of disease. Vata, pitta and kapha of ayurveda and psora, syphilis, sycosis, and tuberculosis of homeopathy are excellent determinants of the constitution. This forms the base of individualistic medicine that holds the key to cures. 

The world is spending $ 9 trillion (WHO figure) on modern medicine every year on account of seeking health.  What is it getting in return? Must we not understand the import of this? What right have we to destroy health and impoverish people? 

It is good to extol the merits of ones system of medicine but it is not wise to criticise other systems without studying them sincerely and understanding the logic and methodology. This applies to all systems of medicine. The patient seeks health. If an integrated system can deliver health it should be welcome.

A doctor without humility and willingness to learn is the greatest enemy of health.

If we really need to study something very critically I would suggest the germ and virus theory and its corollary that vaccines prevent disease. These two factors are behind our health woes. The world would be genuinely benefitted if the arguments against them and the studies exposing the hollowness of claims are made available to the public.