Mrigashringa Bhasma

Safety, contraindications and cautions

Compiled from published regulatory and institutional sources, listed against each statement. This is a reference summary, not advice about your own use. Ayurvedic preparations are dispensed by qualified practitioners, and anyone taking prescribed medication should raise an interaction with the prescriber rather than act on a page.

No published source describes this preparation specifically. No preparation-specific safety data for Mrigashringa Bhasma was located in the permitted sources. PubMed, PMC and targeted web searches for 'mrigashringa', 'mrigashringa bhasma', 'mriga shringa', 'shringa bhasma', 'sringa bhasma', 'shrunga bhasma' and 'deer horn bhasma' returned no clinical trial, case report, acute or repeated-dose toxicology study, dose-finding study, pregnancy or lactation study, and no drug-interaction study for this preparation, and no elemental or heavy-metal assay result that could be read. One preparation-specific journal record was located: Rajasekaran and Murugesan, 'Stansardisation of Sringa Bhasma', Ancient Science of Life 2002;21(3):167-169 (PMC3331042, PMID 22557047). Only its abstract was retrievable in this environment; the abstract states that physico-chemical studies and thin layer chromatography were worked out to lay down standards, and it reports no toxicological, elemental, heavy-metal or clinical safety finding. The full text is offered on that host only as a PDF that could not be retrieved here, so no parameter value from it is quoted and it is cited below solely as evidence of what does and does not exist in the literature, never as a safety finding. Nothing was found in LiverTox/NCBI Bookshelf, MedlinePlus, NCCIH, MSK About Herbs, FDA or EMA. The Ministry of Ayush site resolves and was searched: ayush.gov.in returns HTTP 200 and serves its pharmacopoeial material, and no Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India or Ayurvedic Formulary monograph for Shringa, Sringa or Mrigashringa Bhasma was located there. pharmacopoeia.gov.in does not resolve from this environment (NXDOMAIN), so the Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission site could not be checked at all. No pharmacopoeial monograph and no official human dose is therefore cited, and none is stated below. The only identification of the substance located in a full text is a table entry in a peer-reviewed Chyawanprash review, which names it as Shringa Bhasma and describes only its identity and chemical nature; that review performed no toxicological, elemental or heavy-metal analysis of this ingredient, and nothing in it may be read as a safety finding. Everything recorded below is therefore either identity information, a class-level finding about marketed Ayurvedic metallic and mineral preparations, or a biological-source hazard inherent to cervid tissue. None of it is a finding about this preparation as manufactured and sold, and no supplier-specific assay exists for any batch.

Everything below concerns the wider class this preparation belongs to, not this preparation itself. It is included because the class-level evidence is substantial and directly relevant, and because leaving the section blank would imply an absence of risk that the literature does not support.

Heavy metal content

By its stated composition Mrigashringa Bhasma is not a metal-based bhasma. A peer-reviewed review of Chyawanprash constituents identifies Shringa Bhasma as an Ayurvedic nanosized preparation of calcined deer horn whose nature of compound is calcium phosphate; that review reports no elemental analysis, no toxicology and no heavy-metal assay for this ingredient, and its only toxicity statement concerns the complete Chyawanprash formulation, not this constituent. No elemental or heavy-metal result for Mrigashringa Bhasma itself was retrievable from any permitted source: the single preparation-specific journal record located, a 2002 standardisation note on Sringa Bhasma by Rajasekaran and Murugesan, was readable here only as an abstract, and that abstract reports physico-chemical and thin layer chromatography standardisation parameters and no elemental, heavy-metal or toxicological result. Nothing can therefore be said about the lead, mercury or arsenic content of any marketed product, and stated composition is not an assay. Class-level findings for marketed bhasmas remain directly relevant. Saper and colleagues analysed 193 Ayurvedic medicines purchased over the internet and found detectable lead, mercury or arsenic in 20.7 percent (95 percent CI 15.2 to 27.1), with rasa shastra preparations at 40.6 percent versus 17.1 percent for non-rasa shastra products; median lead was 11.5 versus 7.0 microgram/g and median mercury 20,800 versus 34.5 microgram/g, and the authors state that all metal-containing products exceeded one or more standards for acceptable daily intake of toxic metals. The authors attach their own caveat to that exceedance statement, and it must be read with it: wide variation among published standards for acceptable limits of daily metal ingestion makes it difficult to assess the magnitude of potential toxicity for different products. That caveat is one of the items in the paper's own limitations paragraph. The limitations Saper and colleagues state in that paragraph include, in their order, the following five. First, potential misclassification of the product's country of manufacture and rasa shastra status, because information provided by the website, label and/or manufacturer was occasionally contradictory or ambiguous; the authors add that this limitation does not affect the overall prevalence of metals in the sampled medicines and that any misclassification would have been nondifferential. Second, unobtainable products were not random and may have had a higher or lower likelihood of containing metals, thus potentially affecting the overall sample prevalence. Third, the authors did not assess batch-to-batch variability in metal concentrations, though they add that this would likely not significantly alter overall prevalence estimates. Fourth, the standards-variation caveat stated above, which the authors place in this same paragraph. Fifth, the authors did not ascertain the specific physical form or chemical species of the metals; they add that to the best of their knowledge the physico-chemical form of metals in rasa shastra medicines and their bioavailability have not been fully characterised or reported, that they are unaware of rigorous evidence supporting claims that bhasmas made using lead, mercury and arsenic are nontoxic, and that documented case reports of poisonings contradict these theories. Stated separately from that enumerated paragraph, and load-bearing for any class-level inference drawn from this study, the authors write that products in their study can be purchased via the internet without consultation from an Ayurvedic practitioner, and that thus their results may not reflect products recommended or provided by individual Ayurvedic practitioners to patients in the context of a patient-practitioner consultation. Mikulski and colleagues, in a public health lead-poisoning cluster investigation, tested 252 Ayurvedic medicine samples and detected lead in 65 percent (164), mercury in 38.5 percent (97) and arsenic in 32.5 percent (82); median lead was 4.9 mg/kg with a maximum of 43,200 mg/kg, median mercury 53.0 mg/kg with a maximum of 279,000 mg/kg, and median arsenic 8.4 mg/kg with a maximum of 44,800 mg/kg. Among contaminated samples, 35.8 percent exceeded the recommended limit for lead, 49.5 percent for mercury and 39.5 percent for arsenic, in some cases by several thousand times, and the authors conclude that the lack of regulation of manufacturing, content and purity poses a significant global public health problem. Mikulski's stated limitation is that no metals speciation analysis was performed. The FDA states that some Ayurvedic products include heavy metals such as lead, mercury, arsenic, iron and zinc, that these products typically are not labelled to contain them, and that adults and children can become very sick when heavy metals accumulate over time while large acute ingestions can be life-threatening. NCCIH states that some Ayurvedic preparations may contain lead, mercury or arsenic in amounts that can be toxic, and reports a 2015 survey in which about one in four supplements tested had high levels of lead and almost half had high levels of mercury, with 40 percent of users showing elevated blood lead. WHO states that there is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects.Sharma R, et al. Chyawanprash: A Traditional Indian Bioactive Health Supplement. Biomolecules. 2019;9(5):161.Rajasekaran A, Murugesan S. Stansardisation of Sringa Bhasma. Ancient Science of Life. 2002;21(3):167-169. (Abstract only retrievable; full text offered on this host as PDF only and not retrievable in this environment.)Saper RB, Phillips RS, Sehgal A, et al. Lead, mercury, and arsenic in US- and Indian-manufactured Ayurvedic medicines sold via the Internet. JAMA. 2008;300(8):915-923.Mikulski MA, et al. Toxic metals in ayurvedic preparations from a public health lead poisoning cluster investigation. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2018;23(3):187-192.FDA warns about heavy metal poisoning associated with certain unapproved ayurvedic drug products (content current as of 12/02/2025)Ayurvedic Medicine: In Depth. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health.World Health Organization. Lead poisoning and health (fact sheet).

Contraindications

• Do not useclass-level Pregnancy — No data specific to Mrigashringa Bhasma exists. This grading rests on class-level documented exposure, not on theory. CDC investigators documented lead poisoning in six pregnant women who used oral Ayurvedic medications manufactured in India, with blood lead levels of 16 to 64 microgram/dL, medication lead concentrations up to 2.4 percent, and mercury or arsenic present in several of the products; fetal lead exposure can adversely affect neurodevelopment, decrease fetal growth and increase the risk of premature birth and miscarriage. WHO states that there is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects and that lead stored in bone is released into blood during pregnancy and becomes a source of exposure to the developing fetus. Because the lead, mercury and arsenic content of any marketed bhasma is unverified and typically undisclosed on the label, and because these are developmental neurotoxicants with no established safe exposure level, use in pregnancy should be avoided rather than merely supervised. NCCIH advises consulting a health care provider before using Ayurvedic products while pregnant or nursing.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lead poisoning in pregnant women who used Ayurvedic medications from India - New York City, 2011-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(33):641-646.World Health Organization. Lead poisoning and health (fact sheet).Ayurvedic Medicine: In Depth. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health.FDA warns about heavy metal poisoning associated with certain unapproved ayurvedic drug products (content current as of 12/02/2025)
• Do not useclass-level Breastfeeding — No lactation data specific to Mrigashringa Bhasma exists. FDA states that if a mother has heavy metals in her body, the metals may enter her breast milk and be passed onto the baby during breastfeeding. Combined with the unverified and typically undisclosed metal content of marketed bhasmas and WHO's statement that no level of lead exposure is known to be without harmful effects, the appropriate grading is avoidance.FDA warns about heavy metal poisoning associated with certain unapproved ayurvedic drug products (content current as of 12/02/2025)World Health Organization. Lead poisoning and health (fact sheet).Ayurvedic Medicine: In Depth. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health.
• Do not useclass-level Infants, children and adolescents — WHO states that lead can permanently affect children's brain development, resulting in reduced IQ and behavioural changes including reduced attention span and increased antisocial behaviour, and that no level of lead exposure is known to be without harmful effects. FDA states that children can become very sick when heavy metals accumulate in their bodies over time and that large acute ingestions can be life-threatening. No paediatric data for this preparation exists.World Health Organization. Lead poisoning and health (fact sheet).FDA warns about heavy metal poisoning associated with certain unapproved ayurvedic drug products (content current as of 12/02/2025)
• Do not useclass-level Cervid-derived material: prion (chronic wasting disease) exposure hazard — This preparation is made from deer antler, a cervid tissue, so it carries a biological-source hazard that is unrelated to metal content and is not covered by any heavy-metal entry. It is graded at the same top tier as the class-level heavy-metal entries above, and deliberately not below the animal-source disclosure entry that follows: the probability is unquantified, but the disease at issue is untreatable and invariably fatal in the species it affects, and nothing in this record may be read as ranking a disclosure and consent matter above it. Angers and colleagues detected CWD prions in antler velvet of naturally CWD-affected elk using CWD-susceptible transgenic mice and serial protein misfolding cyclic amplification. Direct assays failed: the authors state that Western blot, ELISA and immunohistochemical analyses failed to detect PrPSc in antler velvet samples from 14 CWD-affected elk, including the 4 samples analysed by bioassay, and that it was only after those failures that they attempted to amplify PrPSc by serial PMCA. Prion in velvet was therefore below the sensitivity of direct detection and was recoverable only by amplification or animal bioassay, and no source should be read as reporting a direct positive Western blot in velvet. Those authors state that humans who consume antler velvet as a nutritional supplement are at risk for exposure to prions. The same paper's discussion of human susceptibility runs in both directions, and both halves are carried here. On the side the paper itself calls reassuring: the authors state that fortunately, to date there is no epidemiologic evidence that rates of CJD in the CWD-endemic region (Colorado, USA) have increased, that also reassuring is the inefficient in vitro conversion of human PrP to protease-resistant PrP by CWD, and that two studies have shown that CWD prions failed to induce disease in transgenic mice expressing human PrP. The paper labels those findings reassurance, and this record does not restate them as uncertainty. The authors then qualify them: the failure of BSE to be transmitted to transgenic mice expressing human prion protein was cited as early evidence of a BSE transmission barrier in humans, and subsequent studies demonstrated a strong effect of the codon 129 polymorphism on transmissibility of BSE prions, and to date only mice expressing human PrP with methionine at codon 129 have been challenged with CWD. On the adverse side, the same passage states that in support of the argument that humans might be susceptible to CWD, intracerebral inoculation of squirrel monkeys produced disease after more than 30 months. That is a completed cross-species transmission of CWD to a primate and is reported here as such; the record notes as its own reading, not as the paper's statement, that the route reported there is intracerebral inoculation rather than ingestion. Their finding is in antler velvet specifically; no source located establishes whether hardened antler used for calcination carries infectivity, and no study of prions in any bhasma exists. Pritzkow reports CWD in 30 US states, four Canadian provinces, South Korea, Norway, Sweden and Finland, that up to now there has not been any evidence that CWD has been naturally transmitted to humans and that epidemiological studies found no correlation between human TSE incidence and CWD prevalence or deer meat consumption, but also that CWD PrPSc can convert human PrPC in vitro under certain conditions and that the zoonotic potential of CWD remains a dangerous enigma. Heating does not reliably resolve this. Sakudo and colleagues state that common sterilization methods used for bacteria and viruses, including high-pressure steam sterilization at 121 degrees C for 20 minutes, ultraviolet irradiation, formalin fixation and gamma irradiation, are insufficient to eliminate the infectivity of prions, and that prions may remain infectious even after sterilization. Brown and colleagues ashed scrapie-infected hamster brain and reported three separate arms at 600 degrees C, which must not be merged: fresh tissue ashed for 5 minutes transmitted to none of 15 hamsters (0/15); fresh tissue ashed for 15 minutes transmitted to 5 of 18 (5/18); and formalin-fixed tissue ashed for 5 minutes transmitted to 1 of 24 (1/24). Fresh tissue ashed at 1,000 degrees C for 5 minutes gave no transmissions (0/17). The starting material was highly concentrated: unheated brain tissue had an infectivity titre of 8.4 log10 LD50 per 0.03 mL of inoculum, equal to 9.9 log10 LD50 per gram of tissue, so the surviving transmissions represent trace residual infectivity from a very high initial titre. The authors note that the 263K strain used ranks among the most resistant strains studied in comparative testing, and that they assayed only the ashed residue for infectivity and not the combustion emissions. The model is hamster-adapted scrapie, not CWD in cervids, and no such ashing experiment has been done on antler. Bhasma calcination is performed by repeated puta heating cycles; Pal and colleagues report one preparation, Naga Bhasma, heated in an electric furnace at 600 degrees C and give no temperatures for most others, so it cannot be assumed that any given manufacturing process reaches conditions that inactivate prions. No manufacturer disclosure of cervid species, country of origin or CWD surveillance status was located for any marketed Mrigashringa Bhasma. The honest statement is that the residual risk is unquantified, not that it is zero.Angers RC, Seward TS, Napier D, et al. Chronic wasting disease prions in elk antler velvet. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009;15(5):696-703.Pritzkow S. Transmission, Strain Diversity, and Zoonotic Potential of Chronic Wasting Disease. Viruses. 2022;14(7):1390.Sakudo A, et al. Recent Advances in Prion Inactivation by Plasma Sterilizer. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(18):10241.Brown P, Rau EH, Johnson BK, Bacote AE, Gibbs CJ Jr, Gajdusek DC. New studies on the heat resistance of hamster-adapted scrapie agent: threshold survival after ashing at 600 degrees C suggests an inorganic template of replication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97(7):3418-3421.Pal D, Sahu CK, Haldar A. Bhasma: The ancient Indian nanomedicine. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2014;5(1):4-12.
• Do not useclass-level Dietary, religious or ethical avoidance of animal-derived products — This is a disclosure and consent matter rather than a toxicological one, and it is absolute for the people it applies to; it is graded at the same tier as the hazards above and is not to be read as outranking them. The preparation is calcined deer horn, an animal tissue, as identified in the Chyawanprash review and consistent with Pal and colleagues' description of horns among the animal derivatives administered as bhasma. Anyone who avoids animal-derived material, including vegetarians and people observing religious restrictions on animal products, should be told the origin of this ingredient before use, including when it appears as a constituent of a compound formulation such as Chyawanprash rather than as a standalone product.Sharma R, et al. Chyawanprash: A Traditional Indian Bioactive Health Supplement. Biomolecules. 2019;9(5):161.Pal D, Sahu CK, Haldar A. Bhasma: The ancient Indian nanomedicine. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2014;5(1):4-12.

Reported adverse effects

• Not established for this preparation. No case report, trial or toxicology study of Mrigashringa Bhasma was located, so the absence of reports is an absence of data and must not be read as evidence of safety. (unknown) — Documented harm exists at the level of the marketed Ayurvedic metallic and mineral class to which bhasmas belong, not for this preparation. CDC investigators documented lead poisoning in six pregnant women in New York City during 2011 to 2012 associated with ten oral Ayurvedic medications made in India, with blood lead levels of 16 to 64 microgram/dL and medication lead concentrations as high as 2.4 percent; several of those medications also contained mercury or arsenic. FDA warns of heavy metal poisoning from unapproved Ayurvedic drug products. Separately, and independent of any metal content, cervid tissue carries a biological-source hazard described under contraindications below.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lead poisoning in pregnant women who used Ayurvedic medications from India - New York City, 2011-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(33):641-646.FDA warns about heavy metal poisoning associated with certain unapproved ayurvedic drug products (content current as of 12/02/2025)

Every statement above was checked by four independent reviewers, each looking for a different kind of error, and published only if the source could be confirmed to say it. How safety data is verified.