Dr. Cyriac Abby Philps aka "The Liver Doc" is an hepatologist known for his critical views of alternative medicine. He is active on social media debunking myths about alternative medicine. He's been a doctor for 17 years, focusing on liver problems for the past 15 years, and a top liver specialist for the last 8.
And he's not just showing off awards (which includes a gold medal from the President of India in 2016). Dr. Philips is shaking things up! He's taking on big companies that sell health products and debunking popular myths about staying healthy.
In an interview with the newindianexpress.com he explains his stand on various issues ranging from the importance of evidence-based medicine to the need for empowering individuals to critically evaluate health information online.
Q: Dr. Philips, there is a growing interest in personalised medicine. Do you see a future where traditional and modern medicine work together to create individualized treatment plans?
A: The future of personalized medicine lies in the realm of advanced diagnostics, cutting-edge technology, and scientifically validated treatments, rather than in the integration of traditional medicine.
While personalized medicine is set to revolutionise healthcare through improved diagnosis and targeted therapies, the unscientific and anecdotal nature of traditional medicine precludes it from being a viable component of this advanced, patient-centric approach. To simplify – “If we mix cow urine with apple juice, the cow urine does not get better, but the apple juice gets worse.”
Q: How can modern medicine learn from traditional systems like Ayurveda to offer a more holistic approach to patient care?
A: Modern medicine stands to gain very little, if any, value from traditional systems like Ayurveda in its quest to offer a holistic approach to patient care. For instance, Ayurveda cannot and does not identify a root cause to diseases like science-based medicine does. Integrating these unscientific methods risks diluting the reliability and effectiveness of standard, conventional healthcare.
Q: How can people differentiate between legitimate Ayurvedic products and those based on unfounded claims?
A: All Ayurvedic products and formulations are based on unfounded claims because the whole of Ayurvedic practice is based on pseudo-scientifically-driven unfounded theories. A ‘legitimate’ Ayurvedic product is akin to “healthy alcohol.” Such a thing does not exist.
Q: Many modern medicines are derived from plants. How does this link back to the concept of natural remedies? Is there a difference between traditional plant use and scientifically derived medications?
A: While many modern medicines are indeed derived from plants, the key difference between these modern drugs and traditional plant use lies in the rigorous scientific processes involved. This scientific rigor not only identifies the active compounds but also optimizes their efficacy and minimizes side effects through precise dosage and formulation.
Traditional plant (containing 1000s of chemical compounds) use, on the other hand, is often unscientific and based on anecdotal evidence, lacking proper testing and validation. Such unverified remedies can be harmful, as they do not undergo the stringent drug discovery processes that scientifically derived medications do.
Q. Kottakkal Ayurveda is a popular household name in Kerala. However, concerns exist about their products' efficacy. Can you provide a scientific analysis of Kottakkal's Kashayams, Thailams, and immunity boosters?
A: Kottakkal Ayurveda has garnered significant popularity within the Ayurveda and alternative medicine endorsing, health-illiterate lay populace. However, common sense reveals that these products are largely based on pseudoscientific claims lacking robust empirical evidence. Most Ayurvedic formulations, including those from Kottakkal, do not undergo the rigorous clinical trials and validation processes that modern pharmaceuticals undergo, raising serious concerns about their efficacy and safety.
Additionally, Kottakkal Ayurveda often employs double standards, marketing these products in India under traditional and cultural legitimacy while facing stringent scrutiny abroad. In many countries with rigorous regulatory standards, Kottakkal’s products are not recognized as effective medicine due to insufficient scientific proof of their claims.
Q. There is a debate about Ayurveda's future. Do you see it evolving alongside modern medicine to create a more comprehensive healthcare system?
A: Ayurveda is a 2000-year-old "pseudoscience" which is stuck in time, based on primal faith & religious beliefs and untested observations. It has never evolved and will never evolve. While integrating Ayurveda with modern medicine could theoretically offer a more holistic approach to healthcare – this remains a pipe dream and will never see the light of the day. The primary concern is the lack of rigorous scientific validation for many Ayurvedic treatments and the absence of validation of Ayurvedic principles from a scientific standpoint.
The standardization and quality control of Ayurvedic remedies are often inconsistent, leading to potential risks of direct toxicity, contamination, and unknown dosages.
Q: Can traditional medicine like Ayurveda benefit from incorporating principles of evidence-based research into its practices?
A: Incorporating principles of evidence-based research into Ayurveda will shed light on significant facts that will pry open and erode its value as a healthcare option and the presence of lacklustre traditional practices. Applying evidence-based research would likely reveal that Ayurvedic treatments are ineffective or even harmful, leading to a fundamental conflict with its core practice & principles.
Q: Beyond Ayurveda, what are your thoughts on the role of other complementary and alternative medicine systems in modern healthcare?
A: Other complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systems such as Siddha, Unani, Naturopathy, Homeopathy, Tibetan Medicine, and such, hold no value in standard healthcare, as they lack scientific validation and rigorous testing, which are essential for ensuring patient safety and treatment efficacy. The proliferation of these alternative therapies often stems more from their profitability within the healthcare industry than from any genuine therapeutic benefit.
Q: You are known for advocating evidence-based medicine. Can you tell us about your journey and what inspired you to speak out against unfounded health claims?
A: The rise of the internet and social media has made it easier than ever for healthcare misinformation to spread. Unfounded health claims can lead to dangerous practices, prevent individuals from seeking proper medical treatment, and erode trust in legitimate healthcare providers.
I have been unfortunately, consistently witness to avoidable deaths from liver failure when patients were misinformed on healthcare choices – such as patient endorsement of ‘claimed,’ but non-evidence based unscientific and pseudoscientific practices such as Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, Naturopathy and Homeopathy.
By countering misinformation with accurate, evidence-based information, I aim to protect public health at all costs, promote scientific literacy among patient community and public and support healthcare professionals to provide effective care and as well as stand for science.
Q: How do you navigate the challenges of being a vocal advocate for scientific medicine in a world with diverse healthcare beliefs?
A: Medical practitioners like me navigate the challenges of advocating for scientific medicine by combining education, effective communication, and empathy – by doing medical science communication without remorse or regrets, in black-and white and with substantial evidence to back up that communication. Education in this context is not just putting up information, but providing evidence to claims of harm or ineffectiveness through directly discussing real patient stories and factual, substantive anecdotes.
I strive to promote evidence-based healthcare while rationally disrupting healthcare “beliefs.” One may ‘believe in God,’ but we must ‘trust the Science.’ The aim is to improve public health, public’s perception of beneficial healthcare and drive the public to embrace Science-based care rather than belief-based treatments.
Q: We see a constant stream of home remedies on social media, often leading people to forgo professional medical advice. How can we empower individuals to critically evaluate health information online?
A: Empowering individuals to critically evaluate health information online is crucial in an era where health misinformation spreads rapidly, unchecked and without accountability. Various strategies can help people develop critical thinking skills and understand reliable information from unreliable sources – these include, verifying the credibility of the source, looking for evidence and cross-checking information with real experts in the field. Individuals must also be taught to access curated lists of trusted sources, use credible fact-checking websites (e.g. www.examine.com for herbal & dietary supplements evidence) and have open communication with their doctor(s). Additionally, individuals must also be educated about common red flags in health misinformation, such as promises of quick fixes, miracle cures, and sensationalist language and to be cautious of personal stories and testimonials, which can be compelling but are not scientifically reliable.
Q. What role do medical professionals have in fostering responsible health communication through social media and public outreach?
A: Medical professionals play a crucial role in fostering responsible health communication through social media and public outreach by providing accurate, evidence-based information, correcting misinformation without fear or prejudice, and engaging with the public in a transparent and empathetic manner.
By building trust and promoting scientific literacy, medical professionals can help the public make informed health decisions and counter the spread of misinformation. This is a hill that dedicated medical science communicators such as myself are willing to die on.
Q: Misinformation is not limited to social media. How can we address the spread of myths and misconceptions within communities and families?
A: To address the spread of myths and misconceptions within communities and families, the first and foremost point is to be consistent in imparting scientific education and debunk health misinformation to improve critical thinking skills within the family. Among other things, school-based health education programs are also vital, as they can equip young people with critical thinking skills to question misinformation.
Q: What advice would you give to young medical students who might face pressure to endorse unproven treatments?
A: Young medical students who endorse unproven treatments must prioritize scientific reasoning over cultural, religious, or traditional beliefs in medical practice. Upholding the principles of evidence-based medicine is essential for ensuring patient safety and maintaining the integrity of the healthcare profession. Medical students should rely on peer-reviewed research, clinical trials, and established medical guidelines when recommending treatments. It is also vital to engage in continuous education and stay updated on the latest scientific advancements or listen to credible sources who provide such information.
Q: What are some key steps individuals can take to be proactive about their health and make informed decisions when seeking treatment?
A: Individuals should prioritize science and health literacy by educating themselves on the basics of evidence-based medicine and understanding how to evaluate medical information critically. It is essential to seek information from credible healthcare sources, such as peer-reviewed medical journals; reputable, unprejudiced, straight-talking health organizations, and certified healthcare professionals, rather than relying on anecdotal evidence or unverified claims – to simplify, talk to your doctor, the real one. Furthermore, identifying and rejecting pseudoscientific practices is crucial which involves being sceptical of treatments that lack scientific validation and avoiding those that promise quick fixes or miracle cures. Shutting out health advice from social media influencers and "armchair scientists" who moonlight as podcast doctors is also vital, as these sources often disseminate misinformation.
Q: You have spoken out against pseudoscience, but some view it as cultural heritage. How can we strike a balance between respecting traditions and promoting evidence-based healthcare?
A: While cultural heritage and traditions hold significant value in many societies, healthcare must prioritize empirical evidence and scientific rigor to ensure safety and efficacy. Promoting evidence-based healthcare involves fearlessly challenging and disrupting dogmatic views on healthcare from cultural, traditional, and religious practices, which lack scientific validation.
Q: Looking ahead, what are your hopes for the future of evidence-based healthcare communication and public education in India?
A: The future of evidence-based healthcare communication and public education in India appears bleak, as majority of people here remain deeply entrenched in cultural, traditional, religious, and political beliefs rather than placing trust in sound science and rationalism – when it comes to informed healthcare choices.
Current efforts are insufficient to combat the pervasive and expanding influence of pseudoscience and dogmatic views that dominate public discourse and it is exhausting...