In a surprising twist, Navjot Singh Sidhu, former cricketer and politician, is facing a backlash for claiming that his wife, Navjot Kaur Sidhu, was cured of cancer using Ayurvedic remedies like lemon, turmeric, and lifestyle changes. These statements have led to a legal notice being served to Navjot Kaur by the Chhattisgarh Civil Society, demanding ₹850 crore in compensation for allegedly misleading the public.
Navjot Singh Sidhu’s publicly declaration
The controversy arose when Navjot Singh Sidhu publicly declared that his wife’s stage-4 cancer had been cured not through conventional medicine but by incorporating traditional remedies such as raw turmeric, basil, lemon water, apple cider vinegar, and neem leaves into her daily routine. Sidhu also mentioned dietary changes that included consuming pumpkin, pomegranate, walnuts, and beetroot juice. He further added that coconut oil and almond oil were used in her meals, and herbal ingredients like cloves, jaggery, and cinnamon were part of her tea.
Dr. Kuldeep Solanki, a prominent member of the Chhattisgarh Civil Society, has criticized these claims, stating that there is no scientific basis for Sidhu’s assertions. He emphasized that such misleading information is dangerous as it could cause cancer patients to lose faith in allopathic treatments, potentially risking their lives by delaying or avoiding proven therapies.
The legal notice, amounting to ₹850 crore, calls for Sidhu to either provide medical evidence to substantiate his claims or retract his statements publicly. If he fails to do so, the civil society group demands financial compensation, arguing that Sidhu’s remarks have caused confusion among the public and may have detrimental effects on cancer patients across India.
While Sidhu’s approach may have helped improve his wife’s overall well-being, medical professionals insist that there is no substitute for scientifically backed cancer treatments. Alternative remedies might aid in enhancing health, but they should not be relied upon solely for curing life-threatening diseases like cancer.
This case raises serious questions about the influence of public figures on health-related issues and the responsibility they bear when discussing treatments that deviate from established medical practices.
