Q. Who said "Sphygmomanometer has done more harm than steam engine to the human civilization" ?
AI. > I couldn't find any reliable evidence tying this statement to a specific, verifiable source or well‐known figure. In discussions—often online or in satirical commentary on modern medicine—the quip

 "Sphygmomanometer has done more harm than steam engine to the human civilization"

Appears without proper attribution. Although some have tentatively suggested it might have been uttered by a critic of modern medical practices (sometimes even hinting at figures like the early British cardiologist Thomas Lewis or Ivan Illich), no reputable source or documented reference confirms such an attribution.

In short, while the saying circulates in certain circles as a cautionary or ironic remark about over-medicalization, it remains apocryphal. If you're considering its use in an argument or discussion, it might be best to note that it is an unattributed quote rather than a documented insight from a recognized authority.

Q. What I had in mind when I asked this question was recent statements by senior medical experts, Dr. Naresh Trehan, Dr Devi Shetty, on social media, that hypertension is not a perpetual disease that needs lifelong treatment. Is it correct and scientifically based?
AI. > The claims circulating on social media suggesting that hypertension is a condition that can be "cured" in a few days and thus does not require lifelong management are not supported by scientific evidence. In fact, several recent investigations have revealed that videos appearing to show Dr. Naresh Trehan and Dr. Devi Shetty endorsing such rapid cures are digitally altered or manipulated.

For example, a detailed fact-check found that a widely circulated video, which purportedly featured Dr. Devi Shetty promoting a simple saltwater remedy to permanently stabilize blood pressure, was debunked as false. The analysis showed that the video did not present authentic statements from Dr. Shetty and was fabricated using low-quality AI tools.

Similarly, another investigation into a video that appeared to feature Dr. Naresh Trehan recommending a 30-second home routine for curing hypertension demonstrated that the original footage—taken from a talk on robotic surgery—had been modified with AI-driven alterations. The evidence pointed clearly to deepfake technology being used, rather than genuine medical advice from Dr. Trehan.

The standard medical consensus remains that hypertension is generally a chronic condition requiring ongoing management. This management might include lifestyle modifications (such as diet, exercise, and weight control) as well as medications when necessary. While some patients may see improvements in blood pressure through rigorous lifestyle changes—occasionally to the extent that medications can be tapered under strict professional supervision—the notion that hypertension can simply be "cured" in a few days is not scientifically valid. Endorsing such claims without robust evidence can not only mislead people but also lead them to neglect proven, long-term therapeutic strategies which are essential for preventing complications like heart attacks, strokes, and kidney disease.

In essence, the recent statements circulating in manipulated videos do not reflect the genuine views of these leading medical experts, and they are not based on credible scientific research. The established approach to managing hypertension continues to rely on evidence-based strategies that are personalized to each patient's overall health and risk factors.

Q. Are these surrogate clips to support Baba Ram Dev, who has cure for all chronic and incurable diseases?
AI. > There is growing concern over manipulated or surrogate clips on social media that seem designed to bolster narratives around alternative medicine. In this context, many such clips appear to repurpose influential figures' voices to imply the existence of miracle cures. However, there is no credible evidence that genuine statements from Baba Ramdev endorse the idea that his methods can cure all chronic and incurable diseases.

Baba Ramdev is widely recognized for promoting yoga, Ayurveda, and holistic lifestyle changes. These practices can support overall health and help prevent certain conditions when combined with conventional care. Yet, the claim that they universally cure chronic ailments remains unsupported by rigorous scientific research. As with other instances—such as the digitally altered clips attributed to other well-known doctors—surrogate clips are often used to amplify unfounded claims, and they should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

The broader trend here is one of misinformation where edited video snippets or "deepfakes" are circulated to lend credibility to ideas that run counter to established medical science. If you come across online content suggesting that Baba Ramdev's approach is a panacea for all chronic conditions, it's advisable to cross-check these claims with verified sources and peer-reviewed studies.

Would you like to explore further how such manipulated content is created and propagated, or discuss strategies to identify trustworthy health information online?
Q. What I am interested is not how such fake claims are made, but which watch dog will counter and prevent it? Does not the National Medical Council, the official watch dog to implement standards of medical practice, have no responsibility?

The practitioners in whose names these fake news are being circulated, are licensees of the Council!
AI. > The regulatory framework regarding medical practice in India—now governed by the National Medical Commission (NMC), which replaced the Medical Council of India—does indeed mandate strict ethical behavior from licensed practitioners.

The NMC's Code of Medical Ethics Regulations (formerly under the MCI) outlines clear professional standards and responsibilities for doctors . However, when it comes to the circulation of manipulated or surrogate clips on social media that falsely attribute statements to esteemed practitioners, the situation becomes more complex.

Multiple Stakeholders Share the Responsibility

While the NMC (or its predecessor) is responsible for ensuring that licensed practitioners adhere to ethical practices, its direct mandate is limited to regulating the conduct of doctors and maintaining professional standards. In cases where a practitioner's name or image is misappropriated through deepfakes or altered media, the misconduct is not necessarily an act of the medical professional but rather a misuse of their identity by third parties. Consequently, while the NMC can take action if a doctor is found to have breached ethical guidelines, combating manipulated content on social media involves collaboration across several domains:

• Regulatory and Disciplinary Bodies: If evidence emerges that a licensed practitioner has knowingly endorsed misleading claims or failed to correct misinformation, the NMC can initiate inquiries and disciplinary measures. Conversely, if the practitioner is innocent and merely a victim of identity misuse, the Council may support their complaint but would typically not prosecute them for something they did not originate.
   
• Cybercrime and Media Regulators: Misinformation disseminated online—especially when it involves deepfakes—often falls under cyber laws and defamation statutes. Law enforcement agencies and cybercrime cells can take action against those engineering and spreading manipulated content. Additionally, media regulatory authorities and digital platform policies play a key role in tracking and removing these harmful narratives.
   
• Government Health Agencies: Given that false health claims can have serious public health implications, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and other governmental bodies are increasingly involved in countering such misinformation. They may issue clarifications or counter-messaging to mitigate the impact of fake claims that could undermine evidence-based public health measures.
   

In Summary
Yes, the NMC (as the official watchdog for medical practice) does bear responsibility for upholding standards and ensuring that its licensees do not engage in unethical behavior. However, in cases of surrogate clips or deepfakes that circulate misleading claims in the name of practitioners, accountability is shared. The affected licensed doctors can rely on the NMC's disciplinary mechanisms if they are implicated in any misconduct. At the same time, regulatory bodies addressing cybercrime, defamation, and misinformation must collaborate with the NMC to prevent and counter the spread of such content.

This multi-tiered approach is vital because the origin of the harm is not solely the practitioners' actions but often involves criminal misuse of technology and unauthorized manipulation of their professional image.

Q. The National Medical Commission also has a duty to protect its licensees. They should have investigated and on finding these narratives fake made a public statement to this effect and should have requested the police to take action against the culprits.

AI. > You're absolutely right to point out that regulatory bodies like the National Medical Commission (NMC) should actively safeguard the reputations and professional standing of their licensees. In principle, when manipulated digital clips falsely attribute controversial claims or unscientific positions to reputable doctors, it falls within the NMC's remit to protect their members from reputational harm.

Duty and Limitations of the NMC

The NMC is entrusted with ensuring that medical practitioners maintain a high standard of professional conduct. This duty includes not only overseeing clinical practice and medical education but also upholding the ethical standards that ensure public trust. When false narratives circulate—for instance, manipulated videos falsely suggesting that highly respected doctors have endorsed unverified cures—the NMC arguably should intervene. A proactive approach could include investigating the origin of these videos, issuing public statements to clarify that the credited professionals did not make such claims, and working with law enforcement agencies to track down and penalize the culprits.
However, the reality is more nuanced. The NMC's primary mandate focuses on the conduct and education of practitioners rather than policing digital misinformation. When the misuse of a practitioner's image or voice occurs via deepfakes or edited clips posted on social media, this typically falls into the realms of cybercrime and defamation. In such cases, while the NMC is responsible for protecting its members, its direct power to arrest or immediately remove misleading content is limited. This work often requires a collaborative effort with cybercrime cells, legal authorities, and even digital platform regulators.

Practical Challenges in a Digital Age

Deepfake technology and digital misinformation spread at breakneck speed, making it challenging for any single institution to respond swiftly. For the NMC to issue a public statement and urge police involvement, there must be incontrovertible evidence that links the manipulated content to a deliberate effort to defame or mislead the public.

Until such evidence is firmly established, public statements might lead to further confusion or have unintended repercussions. Moreover, the process of investigating digital content often involves understanding complex technical details that are beyond the traditional scope of a medical regulatory body. That said, many would agree that a more robust, inter-agency approach is needed. If a respected practitioner's name is misused in a way that could harm public trust in the medical community, the NMC should not only support the affected doctor but also pressure the relevant authorities to take swift action against those who create and disseminate such misleading content. Moving Forward
In an era where digital manipulation is increasingly sophisticated, there's a strong case for regulatory bodies like the NMC to collaborate more closely with law enforcement and cybersecurity experts. Such coordination could lead to:

• Rapid Verification and Clarification: Establishing protocols to quickly verify claims and issue public clarifications when a practitioner's name is misused.
• Legal and Technical Collaboration: Working jointly with cybercrime agencies to trace the origins of digital misinformation and initiate legal proceedings against offenders.
• Guidelines for Digital Misinformation: Developing clear guidelines and perhaps even legislative recommendations to address the challenges posed by deepfakes and manipulated medical content.

Ultimately, while the NMC does have a duty to protect its licensees' reputations, the complexities of digital misinformation mean that a holistic, collaborative response is necessary. This collaboration would ideally span regulatory, legal, and technological spheres to ensure that false narratives don't erode public trust in the medical profession.

Conclusion
The senior doctors concerned are capable and resourceful enough to protect their reputation and professional standing. What should concern the NMC, the slumbering Budha, is the harmful health impact it has on public.

AI. > Your statement strikes at the heart of what truly matters in public health policy: safeguarding the community instead of merely preserving professional reputations. Senior doctors, with their experience and networks, can indeed marshal resources to defend their status or image. However, when regulatory bodies like the NMC—here described vividly as the "slumbering Budha"—become complacent, the critical oversight that should ensure public safety falters. The real danger isn't an individual doctor defending their position; it's when systemic issues lead to harmful outcomes for patients.

Written By: Dr. Shri Gopal Kabra - MBBS, LLB, MSc, MS(Anatomy), MS(Surgery)
Email : kabrasg@hotmail.com Mobile: 8003516198