A doctor in India has become the centre of a fierce international row, with his unorthodox methods drawing both adulation and condemnation. Sources confirm the physician, known for treating advanced liver disease with a controversial procedure, has amassed a massive social media following while facing scrutiny from medical regulators.
The doctor’s approach, which involves a combination of high-dose steroids and a proprietary cocktail of drugs, has been endorsed by thousands of patients who claim near-miraculous recoveries. But critics, including prominent hepatologists, warn his protocols lack robust clinical evidence and could cause serious harm.
Documents obtained by this newsroom show that the doctor’s defenders have cited the UK’s General Medical Council (GMC) ethical guidelines to argue for patient autonomy and the right to innovative treatment. The GMC’s framework, which emphasises shared decision-making and respect for patients’ wishes, has been invoked in online debates. However, senior British medical ethicists caution that the GMC’s principles are not a blank cheque for untested therapies.
“The GMC’s guidance is clear: doctors must prescribe only treatments that are in the patient’s best interest, based on the best available evidence,” said a spokesperson for the British Medical Association. “Using it to justify experimental procedures without proper oversight is a misreading of the ethical code.”
The Indian doctor’s clinic, located in a bustling suburb of Delhi, has become a pilgrimage site for patients from across the country and abroad. Many arrive with end-stage liver disease, having been told by other doctors that their only option is a transplant. They leave with dramatic improvements, their stories shared widely on social media.
But the state medical council has launched an investigation into complaints of malpractice and unethical advertising. The doctor denies any wrongdoing, insisting his methods are based on years of research and clinical observation. He has not published his findings in peer-reviewed journals, a fact that his detractors point to as evidence of secrecy.
The debate has spilled into the global medical community, with British doctors and ethicists weighing in. Dr. Sarah Jenkins, a liver specialist at King’s College Hospital in London, told this newsroom: “What we see here is a tension between the desire to offer hope and the duty to do no harm. It is a conflict that the GMC’s guidelines are designed to navigate, but they were never meant to endorse treatments that bypass standard safeguards.”
The case has also raised questions about the power of social media in medicine. The doctor’s Twitter account boasts over 500,000 followers, many of whom are fiercely loyal. They accuse the medical establishment of being in the pockets of big pharma or transplant surgeons who see the doctor as a threat to their income.
“I was told I had six months to live,” said Ramesh Kumar, a patient who travelled from Mumbai. “Now I am back at work. The doctors who criticise him have never seen what he can do.”
But for every success story, there are allegations of harm. A confidential report from the Delhi Medical Council, seen by this newsroom, details several cases where patients suffered severe side effects after treatment, including organ failure and death.
The controversy shows no signs of abating. With the UK’s ethical frameworks being used as a rhetorical weapon on both sides, the stage is set for a battle that could redefine the boundaries of medical innovation and patient choice.
