AYUSH Issues Warning Against ‘Quack’ Labeling of Homoeopaths; Liver Doc’s Post Blocked, Igniting Censorship Debate

A significant controversy has emerged within India’s healthcare sector, centering on homoeopathy, medical criticism, and freedom of expression. The Board of Ethics and Registration for Homoeopathy, a regulatory body under the National Commission for Homoeopathy, issued a circular cautioning that labeling registered homoeopathic practitioners as “quacks” could be deemed defamatory and legally actionable.

This circular has sparked discussions among medical professionals, public health advocates, and proponents of alternative medicine regarding the boundaries between professional critique and defamation.

What Did the AYUSH Circular State?

On June 8, the circular asserted that characterizing licensed homoeopathic practitioners as “quacks” in social media posts, media reports, public statements, complaints, or legal filings could harm their professional reputation and infringe upon their legal and constitutional rights.

The regulatory body urged healthcare professionals, institutions, and stakeholders to exercise caution when making public statements about homoeopathy. The notice advised against making statements that could be considered defamatory, misleading, or prejudicial. However, it did not clarify the potential legal ramifications of such remarks or outline how authorities would assess whether criticism constituted defamation.

The Liver Doc Responds

The circular prompted a swift response from Cyriac Abby Philips, a hepatologist known on social media as The Liver Doc. Dr. Philips criticized the circular in an Instagram post, emphasizing international scientific critiques of homoeopathy. His post referenced statements from medical organizations, peer-reviewed studies, and public discussions questioning the efficacy of homoeopathic treatments.

Among the cited materials were positions from the British Medical Association and scientific literature indicating that homoeopathy lacks robust clinical evidence. The post also included a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: “Never apologise for being correct.”

Instagram Post Blocked in India

Shortly after its publication, Dr. Philips reported that his Instagram post had been restricted in India. Screenshots shared online indicated that Instagram informed him the content was unavailable in India due to legal requirements under the country’s Information Technology regulations.

This incident heightened concerns among healthcare professionals regarding content moderation and the ability to discuss medical evidence and alternative medicine practices openly. Dr. Philips contended that his post did not constitute defamation, as it relied on published research, international reviews, and scientific opinions about homoeopathy. He stated, “My post was not defamation. It quoted the British Medical Association, peer-reviewed research, and government-commissioned reviews from scientifically progressive countries and the global scientific consensus that homeopathy works for nothing. One cannot defame a pseudoscience by describing it accurately.”

Dr. Philips further criticized the actions of the national homeopathy regulator, claiming it employed a “fascist media law” modified by the current government to silence critics. He expressed that the social media platform complied within hours, stating, “A body meant to protect patients is now protecting itself from scrutiny and evidence. That is not good governance but state-sponsored dishonesty towards public health.”

The Ongoing Debate Around Homoeopathy

Homoeopathy is recognized as a system of medicine in India and is regulated by the Ministry of AYUSH. Millions of patients utilize homoeopathic remedies, and thousands of licensed practitioners offer treatments nationwide.

However, the system continues to face scrutiny within the global scientific community. Critics assert that many homoeopathic remedies have not shown effectiveness beyond placebo effects in rigorous clinical trials. Conversely, supporters argue that patient experiences and decades of use justify its continued presence in healthcare.

Why Does It Matter for Public Health?

This controversy underscores a broader issue confronting modern healthcare: the need to balance scientific scrutiny, patient choice, professional respect, and freedom of expression. For patients, the essential takeaway remains that medical decisions should be grounded in reliable evidence, qualified medical advice, and informed discussions about the benefits and limitations of any treatment approach.

As reported by www.timesnownews.com.

Explore the latest digital editions of FAME Delivered in the Magazine section: https://famedelivered.com/magazine/

Published on 2026-06-09 19:53:00 • By FAME Delivered News Desk