This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
IMA defines quacks as Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
-Quacks with no qualification whatsoever. -Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine. -Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.
It clearly says that those who practice allopathy without proper qualifications as quacks. It does not mention people who practice their own system of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani as quacks So we should change the definition of quacks in the article.
Reference:- Indian Medical Association Sriramk750 ( talk) 16:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
So request to change the line -“Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks.” As “Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice modern medicine as quacks.” Sriramk750 ( talk) 16:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Indian Medical Association (IMA) is a national voluntary organisation of physicians in India, it only practices Allopathic Medicine. (
/info/en/?search=Allopathic_medicine), so in the reference text (
https://www.ima-india.org/ima/free-way-page.php?pid=143 ) it clearly says that anyone who practices Allopathic Medicine without proper qualification is considered as quacks. So the apt replacement here is Medicine -> Allopathic Medicine — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sriramk750 (
talk •
contribs) 08:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Could you please let me know the exact reason, I could not find the archives. Sriramk750 ( talk) 09:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I went into all the 20 archives, there is no definite substantial evidence for objecting the change medicine-> allopathic medicine. So will go forward with change unless someone gives me valid statement. Sriramk750 ( talk) 10:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Medicine is ambiguous general term since it is a superset and it refers to different kinds of medicine practiced all over the world. To be specific to what IMA has mentioned here, we should refer to allopathic medicine. Sriramk750 ( talk) 10:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Going forward with final edit. Medicine-> allopathic medicine Sriramk750 ( talk) 10:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Please provide valid reason for revert in talk before making the change. Sriramk750
It is ambiguous, that is why Wikipedia has two different pages for medicine ( /info/en/?search=Medicine ) and allopathic medicine ( /info/en/?search=Allopathic_medicine ). In Medicine page it is clearly mentioned that "Medicine encompasses a variety of health care practices evolved to maintain and restore health by the prevention and treatment of illness." which is not the medicine IMA is referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramk750 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Again IMA is referring to allopathic medicine. Already we had this discussion before. Sriramk750 ( talk) 11:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
“ allopathic medicine” is just medicine if you have only one system of medicine in your country. But this page is read by people from different parts of world with different forms of medicines. That is why it is misleading. Sriramk750 ( talk) 15:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Your statement is subjective and biased towards other forms of medicine. Not relevant to the discussion. Again point of this discussion is what IMA calls as quack. Alternative practioner who is practising allopathic medicine without proper qualification. Sriramk750 ( talk) 17:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Apology accepted. But Wikipedia only have neutral point of view. editorial bias should be removed by referring “medicine “ ->“allopathic medicine” as per the referenced text. Sriramk750 ( talk) 16:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
In my assessment, the line of argumentation which ends with "we should say modern evidence-based medicine" necessarily relies on equivocation, because it claims as equal the unadorned word "medicine" with the word found in, e.g. "traditional medicine"; but this is faulty reasoning because, as has been mentioned repeatedly, the unadorned word "medicine" already implies "modern evidence-based medicine". This instance of equivocation reminds me of creationists claiming that "evolution is just a theory" as a sort of gotcha trap card; this word game equivocates the colloquial term "theory" with the scientific term "theory". BirdValiant ( talk) 16:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
In your brain , if you have been trained from childhood to do the mapping of medicine-> modern evidence based medicine, That is fine. But in Wikipedia universe when you are mapping a entire web page of medicine with all its heterogeneous content to the word ‘ medicine’ and expect others to believe that it’s referring only to “modern evidence based medicine” is impossible. Sriramk750 ( talk) 17:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The current cancer reference page [12] has updated the content on their page recently and it is not reflected in the article .
From:- "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer, or any other disease." Check old snapshot of that page in July 2, 2020 ( Ayurvedic medicine | Complementary and alternative therapy | Cancer Research UK ) To:- "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer." Current updated page Ayurvedic medicine | Complementary and alternative therapy | Cancer Research UK Sriramk750 ( talk) 12:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Few well-designed clinical trials and systematic research reviews suggest that Ayurvedic approaches are effectiveand lists some of those. From this sentence, everybody who understand how medical studies work and how much work has been done in this direction will conclude that there is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure anything. A source that gives that conclusion is better than one which leaves it to the reader because very few readers are competent enough to draw that conclusion. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The UK charity is a weak source for a strong claim. The existing NIH source, suggested by Black Kite, is more sturdy. The article should stick more closely to what NIH says and attribute it to keep the matter in neutral, irrefutable territory, (including for those readers in India who have been trained as Ayurvedic practitioners per the system that is recognized and supported by their national government.) The UK charity source is used in the 5th paragraph of the lede to say “There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease.” “Good” is a subjective term and it’s a really poor word to use here as it lacks clarity. Better to be clear and say in the article that “The NIH has stated that there are few well-designed clinical trials and systematic research reviews to suggest that Ayurvedic approaches are effective.” Cedar777 ( talk) 11:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
a strong claim. Why should it work for anything? It is based on pre-scientific ideas. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I submit to delete the word Pseudoscience, as this healthcare system is approved by multiple countries globally. Most concepts have scientific explanations, & have Ayurveda experts working at / with the World Health Organisation. Regards Prof Ish Sharma Prof Ish Sharma ( talk) 17:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The practice of ayurveda is in line with science whereby usage of herbs to treat diseases and overall well being is practiced. Infact the word drug means herbs in French!. Although countries with an agenda ban ayurveda by coming it's use of heavy metals, they fail to provide any scientific backing to it and fail to address the issue that certain allopathic medicines too have heavy metals. 2409:4071:2019:19FB:0:0:1A0D:D8B0 ( talk) 02:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
English Wikipedia readers will invariably come to this article for basic information about the history and practice of Ayurveda. It is necessary to provide the range of different policies and attitudes held by nations/regions about Ayurveda by stating these basic facts for readers. Statements that are accurate for one part of the world will appear to be false to readers in another part of the world if the article fails to differentiate the regions or neglects to mention these truths at all.
These following two academic sources both address that the same term, Ayurveda, holds a different emphasis based on location, broadly speaking the Indian subcontinent and the West (UK, EU, Australia/NZ, and USA):
Warrier, Maya (January 2009). Seekership, Spirituality and Self-Discovery: Ayurveda Trainees in Britain. Asian Medicine.
Sujatha, V. (January 30, 2020). The Universal and the Global: Contextualising European Ayurvedic Practices. Society and Culture in South Asia, Special Issue: Globalisation of South Asian Medicines: Knowledge, Power, Structure and Sustainability
They are long but worthwhile reads. Cedar777 ( talk) 05:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
There are a number of RS that cover the dispute surrounding the current practice and regulation of Ayurveda in India. Several sources mention that starting in 2014, the government of India began to more strongly endorse Ayurveda and backed this up by funding offices and activities, e.g., building 65 AYUSH hospitals between 2014-2017. While it remains a politically divisive subject in India, RS are clear in stating that the government changed it policies on traditional medicine incluing Ayurveda which was followed by a series of official statements of objection, national protests, and a hunger strike by the IMA. Including some of this context in the article would help readers to better understand the complexities of how Ayurveda is concieved of in contemporary India, especially if those reader are from the West. Reliable sources cover both the changing views and policies of the Indian government and the protests and concerns of the IMA. Moreover, this is better aligned with WP:PSTS as the sources below are secondary sources, preferable to the existing source in the article that is merely a direct link the IMA's website.
Representatives of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) have written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Health Minister Harsh Vardhan “expressing shock” over the proposed amendments and called for immediate withdrawal of the proposed Bill “in the better interest of the health of the general public”.
Of late, allopathic doctors have raised objections against AYUSH (ayurveda, yoga and naturopathy, unani, siddha and homoeopathy) practitioners, and the government’s efforts to bring them into the mainstream. While the increasing popularity of AYUSH poses a threat to incomes of allopathic doctors, inadequate clinical evidence supporting alternative medicine is often cited as a reason to differentiate between the two.
The idea behind the new logo is to distinguish doctors of modern medicine from others, including those practising ayurverda and homeopathy.
"Ayurveda, yoga and other traditional practices have been championed by the current government, led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party, which in 2014 established a ministry to promote alternative remedies. At least 65 Ayurvedic “hospitals” have been established in the past three years, with more planned."
"Patanjali has vastly expanded the market for ayurvedic products, and in late 2014 Modi created an entire new government ministry to promote yoga and ayurveda, elevating what had been an obscure government office."
" . . . nationwide protest called by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) on Friday against the Centres decision to allow post-graduate Ayurvedic physicians to perform certain types of surgeries after training." ""We urge the government to take into account the grievances of doctors against this mixopathy. The IMA will continue its agitation till our demands are met," said Saini. Mona Desai, a senior doctor from the city, said the government must not play with the health of people by allowing Ayurvedic doctors to do surgeries after a three-year course as principles of Ayurveda and modern medicines are different.
"India’s Hindu nationalist ruling party has long touted the healing powers of yoga and Ayurveda and in 2014, soon after taking office, Prime Minister Modi upgraded a department dedicated to the study of traditional medicine to the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa and Homoeopathy, abbreviated as AYUSH."
"The Indian government's push for Ayurveda is in line with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's mission to revive traditional medicine. Since 2014, when the Hindu nationalist party was elected to power, it has upgraded a government department for alternative medicine to the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH), and more than tripled its annual budget to almost $290 million."
"Friends, in last 7 years, a lot of attention has been paid to the promotion of Ayurveda in the country. The formation of the Ministry of AYUSH has further strengthened our resolve to popularise our traditional methods of medicine and health," said PM Narenda Modi.
In this edit, Hemantha you removed content sourced to the Lancet on the grounds of "two co-authors being Govt advisors". However being a government advisor is not a legitimate cause for rejecting the content and source. The government has a position and the IMA has a position and RS address both simultaneously. In a more recent edit, Hemantha, you again deleted content and sources, claiming that it was synth to address the reality that the government changed their policies and IMA responded to those policy changes, well supported by the above list. Cedar777 ( talk) 06:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
IMA responded to those policy changes, it said it was a
responseto
the government of India began to vocally advocate for traditional Indian medicinefor which I'm still not seeing a reliable source. Hemantha ( talk) 06:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Additional sources on the matter:
Under the 2016 regulations, postgraduate medical students of Ayurveda specialise in Shalakya Tantra, Shalya Tantra, and Prasuti and Stree Roga (Obstetrics and Gynaecology). Students passing these three disciplines are granted a master degree in surgery in Ayurveda.
The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) has said that calling registered practitioners of the Indian System of Medicine (ISM) “quacks” is in violation of laws that safeguard their right to practice. . . . The Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) national president, Dr Sahajanand Prasad Singh, told ThePrint, “Registered practitioners, whether in allopathy or in the Indian System of Medicine, cannot be called quacks. So we are in agreement of that.” He added, “The IMA opposes mixology, in which Ayurveda doctors can conduct surgeries.”
This. Ayurveda First there is no "active discussion" about this matter here, and secondly this text has absolutely nothing to do with "prediction" or WP:CRYSTAL. What is going on? Alexbrn ( talk) 07:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
around 80% of the population report using it:
, though there are no conclusive studies on the efficacy of Ayurveda for chronic or infectious diseases.[10] The concepts of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE. These include suppression of natural urges and moderation of food intake, sleep, and sex. The transmission of knowledge from the gods to humans was also a central concept. Ayurveda developed significantly during the Vedic period and later, Buddhism and Jainism also developed concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurveda texts. Ayurveda is a Upaveda associated with Atharva Veda. Therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, and include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils. Predominantly a preventative practice, Ayurveda is based on the belief that health requires a balance between the mind, body, and spirit.[11] Preparations are primarily based on herbal compounds, but can also include minerals and metal. Some Ayurvedic preparations have been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic, which are dangerous if consumed.
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a new "WHO benchmarks for the training of ayurveda" Citation: World Health Organization. (2022). WHO benchmarks for the training of ayurveda. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/351480. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/351480
Please update the older one from link to version 2010 to the 2022 suggested in citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apedziwilk ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
https://main.ayush.gov.in/about-the-ministry/ Igloopupa ( talk) 16:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The changes in that single edit touch multiple talk discussions. I don't know where to reply, so just noting the extensive issues here.
describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacksto considers unregistered practitioners of the Indian System of Medicine who claim to practice medicine to be quacks with no consensus I can see on talk. A specific edit which did this was reverted just days ago.
Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, using Meulenbeld reference, which said
Indian medicine can boast a continuous history, spanning more than two millennia .... You've changed it to The concepts of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE, referencing the same book. Please tell us where the claim is made.
In spite of the similarity in names, Ayurveda is not a successor of Vedic medicine. This becomes evident from the fact that basic theoretical concepts of ayurvedic medicine are not mentioned in Vedic literature.Even with a lot of AGF, your addition is highly misleading at best.
memory of Ayurveda’s origin in the milieu of the śramaṇa-religions was completely lost in the medical tradition.(where sramana, he says, is a
religious complex that was different from and largely independent of the Vedic religion... śramaṇa- or ascetic religions of Greater Magadha, which were the ancestors of the Ājīvikism, Jainism, and Buddhism.) You've inverted the cause-influence chain to claim that Ayurveda influenced Buddhism. Your text is also contradicted by the existing text in body,
The earliest recorded theoretical statements about the canonical models of disease in Ayurveda occur in the earliest Buddhist Canon
I was going to only raise objections, but on enumerating I'm finding serious errors; so I've reverted your edit. Please do not combine so many different issues in such a large edit; please use small, individual edits each of which concern single dispute. Hemantha ( talk) 05:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The central theoretical ideas of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE, and show parallels with Sāṅkhya and Vaiśeṣika philosophies, as well as with Buddhism and Jainism.
India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal offer a
BAMS degree. Much of the contention between the government of India and the IMA (see above) comes down to the legal definitions of who is a registered practitioner, i.e. how and why is medicine regulated the way that it is in the Asian Indian subcontinent.
Several sources address the relevance & impact of colonialsm on the development of current forms/practices of Ayurveda: HRH, Maas/Cambridge, and Smith+Wujastyk.
In
this edit and prior to
this edit, the 1st sentence listed HRH & included Maas in the content, but in reality, all 3 sources support this content. "External pressure from colonialism, during the European colonization of India, led Ayurveda to become politically, conceptually, and commercially dominated by modern biomedicine, resulting in two major new variations described as "Modern Ayurveda" and "Global Ayurveda".(HRH)(Maas 2018)(Smith+Wujastyk intro)
Although quotes and passages may help clarify a broader point made by a source, its best to read the full content to have an informed response. HRH gets into it in depth in the article
The impact of colonial-era policies on health workforce regulation in India: lessons for contemporary reform but here's a bit more regarding what Maas says in the chapter Indian Medicine & Ayurveda in the Cambridge History of Science vol. 1, p. 533-534:
"The association of yoga with modern medical science, for which there is evidence as early as 1889, can be seen as an expression of the self affirmation of Indian intellectuals against the ruling British colonial power, which tended to present the quickly developing bio medicine as a sign of the general superiority of British or western culture."
And also
"The encounter of traditional South Asian medicine with modern bio medicine from the time of the British colonization onwards led to major and unpreceded challenges to Ayurveda. Ayurveda became politically, commercially, and conceptually dominated by modern bio medicine, which called the very validity of ayurvedic medical theories, practices, and courses of medical education into question."
Wujastyk & Smith mention colonialism several times in the introduction, listing it as the first of 3 major challenges on page 1, going on to state on page 8 "Modern Ayurveda thus comes into being as a reaction to the introduction and patronage of a new medical system by the British colonialists."
Sentence 2 is also supported by multiple sources: Modern Ayurveda is geographically located in the Indian subcontinent and tends towards secularization through minimization of the magic and mythic aspects of Ayurveda.(Maas 2018)(Warrier 2009)(Smith+Wujastyk intro)
It is supported by both Maas p. 549 "Moreover, it de-emphasizes (or even eliminates) the magical and religious aspects of Ayurveda and aims at establishing Ayurveda as an empirical science in the modern Western sense, although the claim that Ayurveda has been a strictly empirical science in the modern Western meaning of the term throughout its history is hard to maintain on the basis of an evaluation of ayurvedic Sanskrit sources"
and Warrier who states: "Ayurvedic theory, which traditionally does not make the same divisions and classifications, has thus been reconfigured to match the biomedical paradigm. Additionally, this formalised curriculum has been cleansed of all magical and ritualistic elements"
These scholars are describing the social and cultural forces that influenced the Current status of Ayurveda, describing colonialim as a key force. Hemantha, please discuss your concerns here at talk. Thank you, Cedar777 ( talk) 20:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
External pressure from colonialism during the European colonization of India, led Ayurveda to become ... dominated by modern biomedicine. For one, that framing goes much further than saying that colonialism was one of the forces. Moreover, all the quotes you've used, treat colonialization only as an agent for the introduction of a new system of knowledge, which in turn, they say, significantly challenged Ayurveda's theoretical underpinnings and caused its transformation. In other words, was it colonialization or was it the new system - which for example was a
strict empirical scienceand did not depend upon
the magical, mythical and religious aspects, that was the cause?
1920s onwards, with Ayurveda being increasingly recognized by Indian provincial ministries. Many Ayurvedic physicians had high hopes for their practice once independence was gained. As it was, Ayurveda struggled to compete against biomedicine in independent India. If it struggled to compete in independent India, how could colonialization be a cause or force for dominance of modern medicine? Again, all of the other refs also align with this view. Hemantha ( talk) 04:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
This additional article Evolution of medical education in India: The impact of colonialism from the Journal of Postgraduate Medicine also covers the connection of colonialism to the topic at length. Cedar777 ( talk) 22:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The theory and practice of Ayurveda >>> ARE <<< pseudoscientific, not "is". Likewise, it should be "It was reported in 2008[7] and again in 2018[78] that 80% of people in India used Ayurveda exclusively or combined with conventional Western medicine" and not the dreadful syntax displayed currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.22.185 ( talk) 07:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Cedar777: The use of the linking verb "are" is incorrect since the noun addressed (Ayurveda) is a singular quantity. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. - hako9 ( talk) 20:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 13:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)A compound subject whose parts are joined by and usually takes a plural verb regardless of whether those parts are plural or singular:
- TWO SINGULAR: The dog and the cat bother me.
- TWO PLURAL: The dogs and cats fight all the time.
- ONE SINGULAR, ONE PLURAL: Joe and the kids need me.
" A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court to direct the Respondent the Ministry of Ayush and the Ministry of IT and Electronics to take necessary steps that compel Wikimedia Foundation to remove references from the articles regarding Ayurveda published on its website." "The petition said that the matter of concern for the petitioner is that the second line of the article published on Wikipedia, which is hosted by the Respondent Wikimedia Foundation, terms Ayurveda as a pseudoscientific, and needlessly at the start of the article cites the statement of Indian Medial Association that describes Ayurvedic practitioners as Quacks. " Doug Weller talk 14:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
AYUSH doctors should not go beyond their knowledge. Please revert since there is a lot of existing talk page consensus for the broad thrust of the IMA's position. Hemantha ( talk) 04:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
After seeing the tone of the article I was not at all surprised at the conflict in the talk page.
While I agree that those attempting to edit the page in ways that make Ayurveda sound more scientifically backed than it is are in the wrong, it seems like a priority on holding the line against them has pushed the article to the point of violating guidelines around [ soapboxing],[ advocacy], and maintaining a [ neutral point of view.]
As written the emphasis on it being unscientific is so prominent that the page reads more like an argument for why Ayurveda is pseudoscientific quackery (i.e. advocacy and soapboxing) than a neutral explanation of what it is. The page on [ Iranian traditional medicine] presents a great example of a better way to address such topics. It has an acknowledgement of the pseudoscientific streams among modern practitioners in the introduction (and could maybe stand to mention them more in a dedicated section), but the primary focus of the page remains a very thorough and detailed description of the discipline, set in its proper contexts historically and in contemporary times.
JagKun ( talk) 21:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Ayurveda, a natural system of medicine, originated in India more than 3,000 years ago. The term Ayurveda is derived from the Sanskrit words ayur (life) and veda (science or knowledge). Thus, Ayurveda translates to knowledge of life. Based on the idea that disease is due to an imbalance or stress in a person's consciousness, Ayurveda encourages certain lifestyle interventions and natural therapies to regain a balance between the body, mind, spirit, and the environment.The current lead is cartoonish, like a PR piece from the anti-quack lobby. It's not about what Ayurveda is or is not, it's about writing in an encyclopedic tone. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 16:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə, -ˈviː-/) is an alternative medicine system with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. It is heavily practiced in India and Nepal, where around 80% of the population report using it, though there is no good evidence that it is effective for treating any disease.
The concepts of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE. These include suppression of natural urges and moderation of food intake, sleep, and sex. The transmission of knowledge from the gods to humans was also a central concept. Ayurveda developed significantly during the Vedic period and later, Buddhism and Jainism also developed concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurveda texts.
Therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, and include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils. Preparations are typically based on herbal compounds, minerals, and metal. Some Ayurvedic preparations have been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic, which are dangerous if consumed.Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 23:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Preparations are primarily based on herbal compounds, but can also include minerals and metal.
Predominantly a preventative practice, Ayurveda is based on the belief that health requires a balance between the mind, body, and spirit.Cedar777 ( talk) 04:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə, -ˈviː-/) is an alternative medicine system with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. It is heavily practiced in India and Nepal, where around 80% of the population report using it, though there are no conclusive studies on the efficacy of Ayurveda for chronic or infectious diseases. [5]
The concepts of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE. These include suppression of natural urges and moderation of food intake, sleep, and sex. The transmission of knowledge from the gods to humans was also a central concept. Ayurveda developed significantly during the Vedic period and later, Buddhism and Jainism also developed concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurveda texts. Ayurveda is a Upaveda associated with Atharva Veda.
Therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, and include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils. Predominantly a preventative practice, Ayurveda is based on the belief that health requires a balance between the mind, body, and spirit. [6] Preparations are primarily based on herbal compounds, but can also include minerals and metal. Some Ayurvedic preparations have been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic, which are dangerous if consumed.
there are no conclusive studies on the efficacyis a layman's way of saying there is no evidence for its efficacy. Using a journalistic source for this will not do; you'll need WP:MEDRS, and those sources put it another way. Inefficiency is the default position, especially since there is no reason why it should work. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the statement "The Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks"
The Indian medical association does not consider Ayurveda as quack medicine. The statement goes as "Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine."
Reference: Indian Medical Association. 2604:3D09:8C83:42B0:4D9:5E69:DEB:B406 ( talk) 21:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. There was a large RFC on this wording.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Ayurveda is globally recognised as an Alternative system of medicine of Indian origin. The epistemology of Ayurveda is based on the relation between microcosm and macrocosm involving five basic elements (mahabhoota), three dynamic principles similar to humors (dosha)concept.In general, Ayurveda is experiential, intuitive and holistic, whereas that of the modern medicine is based more on experimental, analytical and reductive reasoning. The relationship between Ayurveda and modern science is similar to the relationship between the ‘whole’ and the ‘parts’, where the sum of the parts need not be equal to the whole [16]. Modern medicine is based more on rationalism, reductionism with deeper understanding of molecules, cells, organs or diseases as parts. In the process, however, the sight of the whole person seems to have been somewhat neglected. [1] Shikha82 ( talk) 15:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ayurveda is not necessarily pseudo scientific. Some of the remedies are quite logical I feel. They had an idea of how human anatomy works. Charaka and Sushruta took the name of God in treatments only to keep the faith of people in their medicine. It is a bad allegation about a country's previous medical studies. 2409:4060:2E80:67BF:0:0:4B0B:D207 ( talk) 11:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
It is worth bearing in mind that since 'ayurveda works' is not a scientific hypothesis, it cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. Specific claims regarding particular aspects of ayurvedic practice may possibly be capable of scientific testing, but even if were it to be shown that they 'worked' it wouldn't be proof for anything more general. This reflects one of the ways one distinguishes between science and pseudoscience - the latter tends to be built around sweeping claims, demands that such claims be 'disproven', and assertions that some minor piece of research 'proves' that the entire system is valid. If there is anything of utility in a specific ayurvedic 'medicine' (which is of course entirely possible, given the broad range of things that have been described as such) it needs to be properly tested, on its own merits. Not as 'ayurveda', but as medicine. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
under active area of research, just as homeopathy, acupuncture and every other quackery in the world. The scientific community has already spoken, and we reflect what it says. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Then why did scientist conduct this study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16125589/ to prove homeopathy equivalent to placebo?Because they were commissioned to conduct it by the Swiss government. But, as has been pointed out, this is completely irrelevant here. We have perfectly appropriate sources for the statement. Brunton ( talk) 17:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
This needs closing now. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The article uses the source
Cancer Research UK (CRUK) to make several statements derived directly from the
Ayurveda page on the organization's website. First, it is used in the lede to say "There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease." (itallics mine). This statement is not accurate per language currently used by the CRUK website to discuss Ayurveda. Per
WP:MEDDATE which advises to "prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic", the article needs to reflect what the charity states in 2022 rather than 2018. Cancer Research UK now states "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer."
For wikipeida I propose, at minimum, these changes: good --> scientific; any disease --> cancer; for a more accurate representation when using this source.
It is equally important to note that CRUK also covers quite a lot of ground regarding Ayurveda on the very same webpage, (doing perhaps a better job than Wikipedia to provide a neutral overview of what Ayurveda is).
CRUK emphasizes in their Research into Ayurvedic treatment section:
CRUK is again used in the Wikipedia article body for Ayurveda under the section Classification and efficacy to state: "Cancer Research UK, a charity, states that there is no evidence that ayurvedic medicine helps treat cancer in people, and some Ayurvedic drugs contain toxic substances or interact with legitimate cancer drugs in a harmful way." The language "legitimate" is not used by CRUK, rather the organization describes the cancer drugs as "conventional". It states in the section Why people with cancer use it "These treatments could be harmful to your health or interfere with conventional treatment such as cancer drugs and radiotherapy.
" It isn't necessary to editorialize the source by introdcing the value-laden words "good" and "legitimate", NEITHER of which are used by CRUK.
Proposed change to body text to better align w/ the CRUK source and with NPOV:
"
Cancer Research UK states that there is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer. While the organization recongnizes that researchers have found that some Ayurvedic treatments can help relive cancer symptoms, it cautions that Ayurvedic preparations may contain toxic substances that can negatively interact with conventional cancer drugs."
Cedar777 (
talk) 04:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.(italics mine) The discussion topic is that the source, CRUK, is using different language now on their website, i.e., Wikipedia does not use the current language. It's no longer accurate to say that "There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease" by citing an outdated reference to the CRUK website that currently limits their scope to their area of expertise: cancer. The same CRUK webpage, titled Ayurvedic Medicine, describes the topic in their Research on Ayurveda section in a more nuanced and complex way, as listed in the bulleted section above. Essentially, CRUK acknowledges there are some benefits within ayurveda as it
can improve qualtiy of life,
boost general wellbeing, and
relieve cancer symptoms(their words not mine). It also addresses the legitimate concerns with safety and lack of testing. The language in the article should better reflect what the source actually says in 2022. Cedar777 ( talk) 00:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus for Ayurveda, rather the opposite. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The CRUK Wikipedia page has been cleaned up since the start of this thread in March 2022 and is no longer flagged w/ a cleanup reads-like-press-release template as it was here. Identifying and Wiki linking CRUK can only help readers verify and qualify it as a respectable organization. I see no reason to omit the mention of it. It just creates confusion to refer to the acronym CRUK when quoting it in the body w/o breaking down what CRUK is: Cancer Research UK.
As for other sources on the topic, the American Cancer Society no longer publishes basic info on their website about Ayurveda. If I have missed it, please add a link to the appropriate page here at talk. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center does have a page devoted to Ayurveda which mirrors the broader advice provided by CRUK; It both warns of the metals & points out that there are some benefits in quite a similar fashion as CRUK's Ayurveda page. Please see "Mechanism of Action" under "For Healthcare Professionals" on the MSKCC page and the full references provided there. Here is what they say:
"Maharasnadi Quathar, a medicinal used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, increases antioxidant enzyme activity, decreases TBARS generation, and improves symptoms in human subjects (16). Many of the frequently used herbs, such as ashwagandha (Withania somnifera), guggul (Commiphora mukul), Boswellia (Boswellia serrata), gotu kola (Centella asiatica), curcumin (Curcuma longa), ginger (Zingiber officinale), aloe (Aloe barbadensis), and garlic (Allium sativum), have been studied extensively in vitro and in vivo, and show antioxidant, antitumor, antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, or anti-inflammatory properties."
"Herbs often used to treat diabetes, Gymnema sylvestre, Momordica charantia, fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum), Coccinia indica, and Pterocarpus marsupium, show hypoglycemic activity in vitro and in vivo. Mucuna pruriens, used in preparations for Parkinson’s disease, contains L-dopa (17). Rasayana herbs, such as ashwagandha, Asparagus racemosus, Emblica officinalis, Piper longum, and Terminalia chebula that are said to promote positive health showed immunostimulant and adaptogenic activities in an animal study (18). Ayurvedic gold preparations (eg, Swarna Bhasma) have antioxidant and restorative effects in animal models of ischemia (19). The herbal mixtures Maharishi Amrit Kalash-4 and -5 have antioxidant properties, inhibit LDL oxidation in vitro, inhibit platelet aggregation, and cause a reduction in aortic arch atheroma in hyperlipidemic rabbits (20)."
"An in vitro study investigated the activity of extracts from eight plants that are traditionally used as immunomodulators in Ayurvedic medicine against HIV: Allium sativum, Asparagus racemosus, Coleus forskohlii, Emblica officinalis, Glycyrrhiza glabra, Piper longum, Tinospora cordifolia and Withania somnifera (21). The extracts significantly reduced viral production in human lymphoid CEM-GFP cells infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-INL4)."
The Wikipedia article needs to keep highlighting the dangers regarding heavy metals as CRUK and Sloan Kettering do, but it is important to also reflect what these sources are actually saying in 2022 about the existing research with regards to benefits to some Ayurvedic herbs. Cedar777 ( talk) 02:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Lifestyle changes and mind-body modalities are also a core component of Ayurveda. Yoga has been shown to improve sleep, mood, and quality of life, and reduce stress in cancer patients both during treatment and throughout survivorship. The effects of meditation in reducing anxiety, lowering blood pressure, and enhancing well-being both in the general population and in oncology settings have also been confirmed.CRUK on their page for Ayurveda similarly recognizes that the yoga and meditation components of Ayurveda offer benefits to cancer patients. Ayurveda, as a system, has beneficial aspects and problematic aspects. If it were a useless system devoid of beneficial practices, CRUK and MSKCC would have statements to reflect that. Both institutions stress that some of the practices have value that are supported by evidence whereas other aspects are not supported by evidence. Editors need to be careful to avoid distorting sources to the extent that they may be depriving readers from recognizing that some Ayurveda practices are supported by the MEDRS sources CRUK and MSKCC to offer quality of life benefits to cancer patients. Cedar777 ( talk) 16:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Clinical studies have been conducted to evaluate benefits of homeopathy, but data are limited and results are inconclusive. More research is needed.Bollocks. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
To point out, that non of the respective writers of the three sources cited against Ayurveda being pseudoscience are nither scientists nor Ayurveda practitioners. How their words are relevant if they are no where related to medicine and it's uses. Like Wikipedia it's sources are also highly unreliable. From news articles to blogs all are reliable sources for Wikipedia editors as long as it suits their narrative. Out of topic but food for thought. Vis14620 ( talk) 21:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd reiterate. "Science" on health related articles means WP:MEDRS compliant and this equals meta analysis, reviews, medical school level textbooks and not single studies no matter how compelling. I don't necessarily agree with the wording of the opening paragraph in total but that content has a long far reaching consensus and of course Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia that relies on a collaborative community. If there is consensus on something in general we have to back away and depend on the community agreement whether we think it's accurate or not. There is consensus here for the lead so... Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@Littleolive oil I'm specifically questioning the sources which are not related (even remotely) to the specific subject. And for your "community agreement consensus" my comment on Wikipedia and its sources being highly unreliable stands undisputed. Wikipedia is not a democratic platform to brand anything based on votes, you either have the research based evidence from Medicine practitioners who is well aware of methodology of ayurvedic medicine implications or you don't. Let me know if Ecology and Evolutionary Biology or Educational Psychology have anything to do with medicine. I know it's not Wikipedia's far reaching general consensus but it's common sense. Vis14620 ( talk) 20:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
the three sources cited against Ayurveda being pseudoscience. None of them are "medical practitioners or researchers" of the Ayurveda. Vis14620 ( talk) 19:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Written for assignment 2402:3A80:1658:6875:0:5:CA02:2401 ( talk) 11:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the petition filed by "AYURVEDIC MEDICINE MANUFACTURERS ORGANISATION OF INDIA vs THE MINISTRY OF AYUSH - Diary No. 14299 - 2022" https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/you-can-edit-wikipedia-articles-supreme-court-refuses-to-entertain-plea-against-wikipedia-articles-allegedly-defaming-ayurveda-212241 Iaintbrdpit ( talk) 07:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Note the Indian courts saying "You Can Edit Wikipedia Articles" does not nullify our policies or our sanctions. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Would it be safe to say it falls under Western scientific consensus? I hope this query meets discretionary standards. GraceAnneLove44 ( talk) 19:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Its surprising to see Ayurvedic methods respected by our physicians.
“ British physicians traveled to India to observe rhinoplasty being performed using Indian methods, and reports on their rhinoplasty methods were published in the Gentleman's Magazine in 1794. Instruments described in the Sushruta Samhita were further modified in Europe. Joseph Constantine Carpue studied plastic surgery methods in India for 20 years and, in 1815, was able to perform the first major rhinoplasty surgery in the western world, using the "Indian" method of nose reconstruction. In 1840 Brett published an article about this technique.” SpringEarth ( talk) 17:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Whether this shows that it is having scientific consensus or whatever that you guys are debating. why it is inspiration behind practice of modern plastic surgery ? Just confused. Enlighten me. SpringEarth ( talk) 17:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
A) whether rhinoplasty surgery is not inheriting nothing from that period or is it doing everything from scratch now without that experience B) I think Indian method here refers to that sushruta guy’s method. Check about him with relation to Ayurveda ! Kinda godfather bro. SpringEarth ( talk) 17:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
From wiki article * Traditional Knowledge Digital Library
This is for the "See also" section.
~~Ed~~ 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:3C81:91DB:DE46:136A ( talk) 09:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The Svoboda ref appears to be in-world rather than a "scholarly source". -- Hipal ( talk) 16:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
That seems to indicate that the tag was removed without addressing the problem.-- Hipal ( talk) 18:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Aman.kumar.goel, for replacing the poor source that you and Capitals00 overlooked.
Thank you, Tryptofish, for taking up the necessary task of actually reviewing all the references. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
However , a cell line study has demonstrated the efficacy of a classical ayurvedic medicine 'Partharishta' in oxidative stress associated with myocardial ischemic reperfusion injury. [ https://www.jdrasccras.com/article.asp?issn=2279-0357;year=2023;volume=8;issue=2;spage=124;epage=133;aulast=Gowri Aryasp88 ( talk) 06:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
A case report on Allergic Rhinitis was treated with ayurvedic medicine rajanyadi Churna with Guduchi Kwath and in a short span of time patient showed improvement in symptomatology and hematological parameters. [13] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaim.2023.100740 Aryasp88 ( talk) 11:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add: "Ayurveda originates from the South Indian state of Kerala, where this medicine is actively practiced." Philipchandy ( talk) 21:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Over-capitalization of "ayurveda". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
IMA defines quacks as Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :
-Quacks with no qualification whatsoever. -Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine. -Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.
It clearly says that those who practice allopathy without proper qualifications as quacks. It does not mention people who practice their own system of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani as quacks So we should change the definition of quacks in the article.
Reference:- Indian Medical Association Sriramk750 ( talk) 16:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
So request to change the line -“Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks.” As “Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice modern medicine as quacks.” Sriramk750 ( talk) 16:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Indian Medical Association (IMA) is a national voluntary organisation of physicians in India, it only practices Allopathic Medicine. (
/info/en/?search=Allopathic_medicine), so in the reference text (
https://www.ima-india.org/ima/free-way-page.php?pid=143 ) it clearly says that anyone who practices Allopathic Medicine without proper qualification is considered as quacks. So the apt replacement here is Medicine -> Allopathic Medicine — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sriramk750 (
talk •
contribs) 08:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Could you please let me know the exact reason, I could not find the archives. Sriramk750 ( talk) 09:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I went into all the 20 archives, there is no definite substantial evidence for objecting the change medicine-> allopathic medicine. So will go forward with change unless someone gives me valid statement. Sriramk750 ( talk) 10:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Medicine is ambiguous general term since it is a superset and it refers to different kinds of medicine practiced all over the world. To be specific to what IMA has mentioned here, we should refer to allopathic medicine. Sriramk750 ( talk) 10:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Going forward with final edit. Medicine-> allopathic medicine Sriramk750 ( talk) 10:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Please provide valid reason for revert in talk before making the change. Sriramk750
It is ambiguous, that is why Wikipedia has two different pages for medicine ( /info/en/?search=Medicine ) and allopathic medicine ( /info/en/?search=Allopathic_medicine ). In Medicine page it is clearly mentioned that "Medicine encompasses a variety of health care practices evolved to maintain and restore health by the prevention and treatment of illness." which is not the medicine IMA is referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriramk750 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Again IMA is referring to allopathic medicine. Already we had this discussion before. Sriramk750 ( talk) 11:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
“ allopathic medicine” is just medicine if you have only one system of medicine in your country. But this page is read by people from different parts of world with different forms of medicines. That is why it is misleading. Sriramk750 ( talk) 15:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Your statement is subjective and biased towards other forms of medicine. Not relevant to the discussion. Again point of this discussion is what IMA calls as quack. Alternative practioner who is practising allopathic medicine without proper qualification. Sriramk750 ( talk) 17:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Apology accepted. But Wikipedia only have neutral point of view. editorial bias should be removed by referring “medicine “ ->“allopathic medicine” as per the referenced text. Sriramk750 ( talk) 16:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
In my assessment, the line of argumentation which ends with "we should say modern evidence-based medicine" necessarily relies on equivocation, because it claims as equal the unadorned word "medicine" with the word found in, e.g. "traditional medicine"; but this is faulty reasoning because, as has been mentioned repeatedly, the unadorned word "medicine" already implies "modern evidence-based medicine". This instance of equivocation reminds me of creationists claiming that "evolution is just a theory" as a sort of gotcha trap card; this word game equivocates the colloquial term "theory" with the scientific term "theory". BirdValiant ( talk) 16:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
In your brain , if you have been trained from childhood to do the mapping of medicine-> modern evidence based medicine, That is fine. But in Wikipedia universe when you are mapping a entire web page of medicine with all its heterogeneous content to the word ‘ medicine’ and expect others to believe that it’s referring only to “modern evidence based medicine” is impossible. Sriramk750 ( talk) 17:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The current cancer reference page [12] has updated the content on their page recently and it is not reflected in the article .
From:- "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer, or any other disease." Check old snapshot of that page in July 2, 2020 ( Ayurvedic medicine | Complementary and alternative therapy | Cancer Research UK ) To:- "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer." Current updated page Ayurvedic medicine | Complementary and alternative therapy | Cancer Research UK Sriramk750 ( talk) 12:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Few well-designed clinical trials and systematic research reviews suggest that Ayurvedic approaches are effectiveand lists some of those. From this sentence, everybody who understand how medical studies work and how much work has been done in this direction will conclude that there is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure anything. A source that gives that conclusion is better than one which leaves it to the reader because very few readers are competent enough to draw that conclusion. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The UK charity is a weak source for a strong claim. The existing NIH source, suggested by Black Kite, is more sturdy. The article should stick more closely to what NIH says and attribute it to keep the matter in neutral, irrefutable territory, (including for those readers in India who have been trained as Ayurvedic practitioners per the system that is recognized and supported by their national government.) The UK charity source is used in the 5th paragraph of the lede to say “There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease.” “Good” is a subjective term and it’s a really poor word to use here as it lacks clarity. Better to be clear and say in the article that “The NIH has stated that there are few well-designed clinical trials and systematic research reviews to suggest that Ayurvedic approaches are effective.” Cedar777 ( talk) 11:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
a strong claim. Why should it work for anything? It is based on pre-scientific ideas. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I submit to delete the word Pseudoscience, as this healthcare system is approved by multiple countries globally. Most concepts have scientific explanations, & have Ayurveda experts working at / with the World Health Organisation. Regards Prof Ish Sharma Prof Ish Sharma ( talk) 17:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The practice of ayurveda is in line with science whereby usage of herbs to treat diseases and overall well being is practiced. Infact the word drug means herbs in French!. Although countries with an agenda ban ayurveda by coming it's use of heavy metals, they fail to provide any scientific backing to it and fail to address the issue that certain allopathic medicines too have heavy metals. 2409:4071:2019:19FB:0:0:1A0D:D8B0 ( talk) 02:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
English Wikipedia readers will invariably come to this article for basic information about the history and practice of Ayurveda. It is necessary to provide the range of different policies and attitudes held by nations/regions about Ayurveda by stating these basic facts for readers. Statements that are accurate for one part of the world will appear to be false to readers in another part of the world if the article fails to differentiate the regions or neglects to mention these truths at all.
These following two academic sources both address that the same term, Ayurveda, holds a different emphasis based on location, broadly speaking the Indian subcontinent and the West (UK, EU, Australia/NZ, and USA):
Warrier, Maya (January 2009). Seekership, Spirituality and Self-Discovery: Ayurveda Trainees in Britain. Asian Medicine.
Sujatha, V. (January 30, 2020). The Universal and the Global: Contextualising European Ayurvedic Practices. Society and Culture in South Asia, Special Issue: Globalisation of South Asian Medicines: Knowledge, Power, Structure and Sustainability
They are long but worthwhile reads. Cedar777 ( talk) 05:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
There are a number of RS that cover the dispute surrounding the current practice and regulation of Ayurveda in India. Several sources mention that starting in 2014, the government of India began to more strongly endorse Ayurveda and backed this up by funding offices and activities, e.g., building 65 AYUSH hospitals between 2014-2017. While it remains a politically divisive subject in India, RS are clear in stating that the government changed it policies on traditional medicine incluing Ayurveda which was followed by a series of official statements of objection, national protests, and a hunger strike by the IMA. Including some of this context in the article would help readers to better understand the complexities of how Ayurveda is concieved of in contemporary India, especially if those reader are from the West. Reliable sources cover both the changing views and policies of the Indian government and the protests and concerns of the IMA. Moreover, this is better aligned with WP:PSTS as the sources below are secondary sources, preferable to the existing source in the article that is merely a direct link the IMA's website.
Representatives of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) have written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Health Minister Harsh Vardhan “expressing shock” over the proposed amendments and called for immediate withdrawal of the proposed Bill “in the better interest of the health of the general public”.
Of late, allopathic doctors have raised objections against AYUSH (ayurveda, yoga and naturopathy, unani, siddha and homoeopathy) practitioners, and the government’s efforts to bring them into the mainstream. While the increasing popularity of AYUSH poses a threat to incomes of allopathic doctors, inadequate clinical evidence supporting alternative medicine is often cited as a reason to differentiate between the two.
The idea behind the new logo is to distinguish doctors of modern medicine from others, including those practising ayurverda and homeopathy.
"Ayurveda, yoga and other traditional practices have been championed by the current government, led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party, which in 2014 established a ministry to promote alternative remedies. At least 65 Ayurvedic “hospitals” have been established in the past three years, with more planned."
"Patanjali has vastly expanded the market for ayurvedic products, and in late 2014 Modi created an entire new government ministry to promote yoga and ayurveda, elevating what had been an obscure government office."
" . . . nationwide protest called by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) on Friday against the Centres decision to allow post-graduate Ayurvedic physicians to perform certain types of surgeries after training." ""We urge the government to take into account the grievances of doctors against this mixopathy. The IMA will continue its agitation till our demands are met," said Saini. Mona Desai, a senior doctor from the city, said the government must not play with the health of people by allowing Ayurvedic doctors to do surgeries after a three-year course as principles of Ayurveda and modern medicines are different.
"India’s Hindu nationalist ruling party has long touted the healing powers of yoga and Ayurveda and in 2014, soon after taking office, Prime Minister Modi upgraded a department dedicated to the study of traditional medicine to the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa and Homoeopathy, abbreviated as AYUSH."
"The Indian government's push for Ayurveda is in line with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's mission to revive traditional medicine. Since 2014, when the Hindu nationalist party was elected to power, it has upgraded a government department for alternative medicine to the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH), and more than tripled its annual budget to almost $290 million."
"Friends, in last 7 years, a lot of attention has been paid to the promotion of Ayurveda in the country. The formation of the Ministry of AYUSH has further strengthened our resolve to popularise our traditional methods of medicine and health," said PM Narenda Modi.
In this edit, Hemantha you removed content sourced to the Lancet on the grounds of "two co-authors being Govt advisors". However being a government advisor is not a legitimate cause for rejecting the content and source. The government has a position and the IMA has a position and RS address both simultaneously. In a more recent edit, Hemantha, you again deleted content and sources, claiming that it was synth to address the reality that the government changed their policies and IMA responded to those policy changes, well supported by the above list. Cedar777 ( talk) 06:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
IMA responded to those policy changes, it said it was a
responseto
the government of India began to vocally advocate for traditional Indian medicinefor which I'm still not seeing a reliable source. Hemantha ( talk) 06:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Additional sources on the matter:
Under the 2016 regulations, postgraduate medical students of Ayurveda specialise in Shalakya Tantra, Shalya Tantra, and Prasuti and Stree Roga (Obstetrics and Gynaecology). Students passing these three disciplines are granted a master degree in surgery in Ayurveda.
The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) has said that calling registered practitioners of the Indian System of Medicine (ISM) “quacks” is in violation of laws that safeguard their right to practice. . . . The Indian Medical Association’s (IMA) national president, Dr Sahajanand Prasad Singh, told ThePrint, “Registered practitioners, whether in allopathy or in the Indian System of Medicine, cannot be called quacks. So we are in agreement of that.” He added, “The IMA opposes mixology, in which Ayurveda doctors can conduct surgeries.”
This. Ayurveda First there is no "active discussion" about this matter here, and secondly this text has absolutely nothing to do with "prediction" or WP:CRYSTAL. What is going on? Alexbrn ( talk) 07:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
around 80% of the population report using it:
, though there are no conclusive studies on the efficacy of Ayurveda for chronic or infectious diseases.[10] The concepts of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE. These include suppression of natural urges and moderation of food intake, sleep, and sex. The transmission of knowledge from the gods to humans was also a central concept. Ayurveda developed significantly during the Vedic period and later, Buddhism and Jainism also developed concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurveda texts. Ayurveda is a Upaveda associated with Atharva Veda. Therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, and include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils. Predominantly a preventative practice, Ayurveda is based on the belief that health requires a balance between the mind, body, and spirit.[11] Preparations are primarily based on herbal compounds, but can also include minerals and metal. Some Ayurvedic preparations have been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic, which are dangerous if consumed.
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a new "WHO benchmarks for the training of ayurveda" Citation: World Health Organization. (2022). WHO benchmarks for the training of ayurveda. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/351480. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/351480
Please update the older one from link to version 2010 to the 2022 suggested in citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apedziwilk ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
https://main.ayush.gov.in/about-the-ministry/ Igloopupa ( talk) 16:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The changes in that single edit touch multiple talk discussions. I don't know where to reply, so just noting the extensive issues here.
describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacksto considers unregistered practitioners of the Indian System of Medicine who claim to practice medicine to be quacks with no consensus I can see on talk. A specific edit which did this was reverted just days ago.
Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, using Meulenbeld reference, which said
Indian medicine can boast a continuous history, spanning more than two millennia .... You've changed it to The concepts of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE, referencing the same book. Please tell us where the claim is made.
In spite of the similarity in names, Ayurveda is not a successor of Vedic medicine. This becomes evident from the fact that basic theoretical concepts of ayurvedic medicine are not mentioned in Vedic literature.Even with a lot of AGF, your addition is highly misleading at best.
memory of Ayurveda’s origin in the milieu of the śramaṇa-religions was completely lost in the medical tradition.(where sramana, he says, is a
religious complex that was different from and largely independent of the Vedic religion... śramaṇa- or ascetic religions of Greater Magadha, which were the ancestors of the Ājīvikism, Jainism, and Buddhism.) You've inverted the cause-influence chain to claim that Ayurveda influenced Buddhism. Your text is also contradicted by the existing text in body,
The earliest recorded theoretical statements about the canonical models of disease in Ayurveda occur in the earliest Buddhist Canon
I was going to only raise objections, but on enumerating I'm finding serious errors; so I've reverted your edit. Please do not combine so many different issues in such a large edit; please use small, individual edits each of which concern single dispute. Hemantha ( talk) 05:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The central theoretical ideas of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE, and show parallels with Sāṅkhya and Vaiśeṣika philosophies, as well as with Buddhism and Jainism.
India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal offer a
BAMS degree. Much of the contention between the government of India and the IMA (see above) comes down to the legal definitions of who is a registered practitioner, i.e. how and why is medicine regulated the way that it is in the Asian Indian subcontinent.
Several sources address the relevance & impact of colonialsm on the development of current forms/practices of Ayurveda: HRH, Maas/Cambridge, and Smith+Wujastyk.
In
this edit and prior to
this edit, the 1st sentence listed HRH & included Maas in the content, but in reality, all 3 sources support this content. "External pressure from colonialism, during the European colonization of India, led Ayurveda to become politically, conceptually, and commercially dominated by modern biomedicine, resulting in two major new variations described as "Modern Ayurveda" and "Global Ayurveda".(HRH)(Maas 2018)(Smith+Wujastyk intro)
Although quotes and passages may help clarify a broader point made by a source, its best to read the full content to have an informed response. HRH gets into it in depth in the article
The impact of colonial-era policies on health workforce regulation in India: lessons for contemporary reform but here's a bit more regarding what Maas says in the chapter Indian Medicine & Ayurveda in the Cambridge History of Science vol. 1, p. 533-534:
"The association of yoga with modern medical science, for which there is evidence as early as 1889, can be seen as an expression of the self affirmation of Indian intellectuals against the ruling British colonial power, which tended to present the quickly developing bio medicine as a sign of the general superiority of British or western culture."
And also
"The encounter of traditional South Asian medicine with modern bio medicine from the time of the British colonization onwards led to major and unpreceded challenges to Ayurveda. Ayurveda became politically, commercially, and conceptually dominated by modern bio medicine, which called the very validity of ayurvedic medical theories, practices, and courses of medical education into question."
Wujastyk & Smith mention colonialism several times in the introduction, listing it as the first of 3 major challenges on page 1, going on to state on page 8 "Modern Ayurveda thus comes into being as a reaction to the introduction and patronage of a new medical system by the British colonialists."
Sentence 2 is also supported by multiple sources: Modern Ayurveda is geographically located in the Indian subcontinent and tends towards secularization through minimization of the magic and mythic aspects of Ayurveda.(Maas 2018)(Warrier 2009)(Smith+Wujastyk intro)
It is supported by both Maas p. 549 "Moreover, it de-emphasizes (or even eliminates) the magical and religious aspects of Ayurveda and aims at establishing Ayurveda as an empirical science in the modern Western sense, although the claim that Ayurveda has been a strictly empirical science in the modern Western meaning of the term throughout its history is hard to maintain on the basis of an evaluation of ayurvedic Sanskrit sources"
and Warrier who states: "Ayurvedic theory, which traditionally does not make the same divisions and classifications, has thus been reconfigured to match the biomedical paradigm. Additionally, this formalised curriculum has been cleansed of all magical and ritualistic elements"
These scholars are describing the social and cultural forces that influenced the Current status of Ayurveda, describing colonialim as a key force. Hemantha, please discuss your concerns here at talk. Thank you, Cedar777 ( talk) 20:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
External pressure from colonialism during the European colonization of India, led Ayurveda to become ... dominated by modern biomedicine. For one, that framing goes much further than saying that colonialism was one of the forces. Moreover, all the quotes you've used, treat colonialization only as an agent for the introduction of a new system of knowledge, which in turn, they say, significantly challenged Ayurveda's theoretical underpinnings and caused its transformation. In other words, was it colonialization or was it the new system - which for example was a
strict empirical scienceand did not depend upon
the magical, mythical and religious aspects, that was the cause?
1920s onwards, with Ayurveda being increasingly recognized by Indian provincial ministries. Many Ayurvedic physicians had high hopes for their practice once independence was gained. As it was, Ayurveda struggled to compete against biomedicine in independent India. If it struggled to compete in independent India, how could colonialization be a cause or force for dominance of modern medicine? Again, all of the other refs also align with this view. Hemantha ( talk) 04:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
This additional article Evolution of medical education in India: The impact of colonialism from the Journal of Postgraduate Medicine also covers the connection of colonialism to the topic at length. Cedar777 ( talk) 22:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The theory and practice of Ayurveda >>> ARE <<< pseudoscientific, not "is". Likewise, it should be "It was reported in 2008[7] and again in 2018[78] that 80% of people in India used Ayurveda exclusively or combined with conventional Western medicine" and not the dreadful syntax displayed currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.22.185 ( talk) 07:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Cedar777: The use of the linking verb "are" is incorrect since the noun addressed (Ayurveda) is a singular quantity. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. - hako9 ( talk) 20:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 13:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)A compound subject whose parts are joined by and usually takes a plural verb regardless of whether those parts are plural or singular:
- TWO SINGULAR: The dog and the cat bother me.
- TWO PLURAL: The dogs and cats fight all the time.
- ONE SINGULAR, ONE PLURAL: Joe and the kids need me.
" A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court to direct the Respondent the Ministry of Ayush and the Ministry of IT and Electronics to take necessary steps that compel Wikimedia Foundation to remove references from the articles regarding Ayurveda published on its website." "The petition said that the matter of concern for the petitioner is that the second line of the article published on Wikipedia, which is hosted by the Respondent Wikimedia Foundation, terms Ayurveda as a pseudoscientific, and needlessly at the start of the article cites the statement of Indian Medial Association that describes Ayurvedic practitioners as Quacks. " Doug Weller talk 14:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
AYUSH doctors should not go beyond their knowledge. Please revert since there is a lot of existing talk page consensus for the broad thrust of the IMA's position. Hemantha ( talk) 04:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
After seeing the tone of the article I was not at all surprised at the conflict in the talk page.
While I agree that those attempting to edit the page in ways that make Ayurveda sound more scientifically backed than it is are in the wrong, it seems like a priority on holding the line against them has pushed the article to the point of violating guidelines around [ soapboxing],[ advocacy], and maintaining a [ neutral point of view.]
As written the emphasis on it being unscientific is so prominent that the page reads more like an argument for why Ayurveda is pseudoscientific quackery (i.e. advocacy and soapboxing) than a neutral explanation of what it is. The page on [ Iranian traditional medicine] presents a great example of a better way to address such topics. It has an acknowledgement of the pseudoscientific streams among modern practitioners in the introduction (and could maybe stand to mention them more in a dedicated section), but the primary focus of the page remains a very thorough and detailed description of the discipline, set in its proper contexts historically and in contemporary times.
JagKun ( talk) 21:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Ayurveda, a natural system of medicine, originated in India more than 3,000 years ago. The term Ayurveda is derived from the Sanskrit words ayur (life) and veda (science or knowledge). Thus, Ayurveda translates to knowledge of life. Based on the idea that disease is due to an imbalance or stress in a person's consciousness, Ayurveda encourages certain lifestyle interventions and natural therapies to regain a balance between the body, mind, spirit, and the environment.The current lead is cartoonish, like a PR piece from the anti-quack lobby. It's not about what Ayurveda is or is not, it's about writing in an encyclopedic tone. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 16:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə, -ˈviː-/) is an alternative medicine system with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. It is heavily practiced in India and Nepal, where around 80% of the population report using it, though there is no good evidence that it is effective for treating any disease.
The concepts of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE. These include suppression of natural urges and moderation of food intake, sleep, and sex. The transmission of knowledge from the gods to humans was also a central concept. Ayurveda developed significantly during the Vedic period and later, Buddhism and Jainism also developed concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurveda texts.
Therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, and include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils. Preparations are typically based on herbal compounds, minerals, and metal. Some Ayurvedic preparations have been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic, which are dangerous if consumed.Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 23:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Preparations are primarily based on herbal compounds, but can also include minerals and metal.
Predominantly a preventative practice, Ayurveda is based on the belief that health requires a balance between the mind, body, and spirit.Cedar777 ( talk) 04:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə, -ˈviː-/) is an alternative medicine system with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. It is heavily practiced in India and Nepal, where around 80% of the population report using it, though there are no conclusive studies on the efficacy of Ayurveda for chronic or infectious diseases. [5]
The concepts of Ayurveda developed in the mid-first millennium BCE. These include suppression of natural urges and moderation of food intake, sleep, and sex. The transmission of knowledge from the gods to humans was also a central concept. Ayurveda developed significantly during the Vedic period and later, Buddhism and Jainism also developed concepts and practices that appear in the classical Ayurveda texts. Ayurveda is a Upaveda associated with Atharva Veda.
Therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, and include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils. Predominantly a preventative practice, Ayurveda is based on the belief that health requires a balance between the mind, body, and spirit. [6] Preparations are primarily based on herbal compounds, but can also include minerals and metal. Some Ayurvedic preparations have been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic, which are dangerous if consumed.
there are no conclusive studies on the efficacyis a layman's way of saying there is no evidence for its efficacy. Using a journalistic source for this will not do; you'll need WP:MEDRS, and those sources put it another way. Inefficiency is the default position, especially since there is no reason why it should work. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the statement "The Indian Medical Association describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks"
The Indian medical association does not consider Ayurveda as quack medicine. The statement goes as "Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine."
Reference: Indian Medical Association. 2604:3D09:8C83:42B0:4D9:5E69:DEB:B406 ( talk) 21:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. There was a large RFC on this wording.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Ayurveda is globally recognised as an Alternative system of medicine of Indian origin. The epistemology of Ayurveda is based on the relation between microcosm and macrocosm involving five basic elements (mahabhoota), three dynamic principles similar to humors (dosha)concept.In general, Ayurveda is experiential, intuitive and holistic, whereas that of the modern medicine is based more on experimental, analytical and reductive reasoning. The relationship between Ayurveda and modern science is similar to the relationship between the ‘whole’ and the ‘parts’, where the sum of the parts need not be equal to the whole [16]. Modern medicine is based more on rationalism, reductionism with deeper understanding of molecules, cells, organs or diseases as parts. In the process, however, the sight of the whole person seems to have been somewhat neglected. [1] Shikha82 ( talk) 15:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ayurveda is not necessarily pseudo scientific. Some of the remedies are quite logical I feel. They had an idea of how human anatomy works. Charaka and Sushruta took the name of God in treatments only to keep the faith of people in their medicine. It is a bad allegation about a country's previous medical studies. 2409:4060:2E80:67BF:0:0:4B0B:D207 ( talk) 11:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
It is worth bearing in mind that since 'ayurveda works' is not a scientific hypothesis, it cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. Specific claims regarding particular aspects of ayurvedic practice may possibly be capable of scientific testing, but even if were it to be shown that they 'worked' it wouldn't be proof for anything more general. This reflects one of the ways one distinguishes between science and pseudoscience - the latter tends to be built around sweeping claims, demands that such claims be 'disproven', and assertions that some minor piece of research 'proves' that the entire system is valid. If there is anything of utility in a specific ayurvedic 'medicine' (which is of course entirely possible, given the broad range of things that have been described as such) it needs to be properly tested, on its own merits. Not as 'ayurveda', but as medicine. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
under active area of research, just as homeopathy, acupuncture and every other quackery in the world. The scientific community has already spoken, and we reflect what it says. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Then why did scientist conduct this study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16125589/ to prove homeopathy equivalent to placebo?Because they were commissioned to conduct it by the Swiss government. But, as has been pointed out, this is completely irrelevant here. We have perfectly appropriate sources for the statement. Brunton ( talk) 17:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
This needs closing now. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The article uses the source
Cancer Research UK (CRUK) to make several statements derived directly from the
Ayurveda page on the organization's website. First, it is used in the lede to say "There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease." (itallics mine). This statement is not accurate per language currently used by the CRUK website to discuss Ayurveda. Per
WP:MEDDATE which advises to "prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic", the article needs to reflect what the charity states in 2022 rather than 2018. Cancer Research UK now states "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer."
For wikipeida I propose, at minimum, these changes: good --> scientific; any disease --> cancer; for a more accurate representation when using this source.
It is equally important to note that CRUK also covers quite a lot of ground regarding Ayurveda on the very same webpage, (doing perhaps a better job than Wikipedia to provide a neutral overview of what Ayurveda is).
CRUK emphasizes in their Research into Ayurvedic treatment section:
CRUK is again used in the Wikipedia article body for Ayurveda under the section Classification and efficacy to state: "Cancer Research UK, a charity, states that there is no evidence that ayurvedic medicine helps treat cancer in people, and some Ayurvedic drugs contain toxic substances or interact with legitimate cancer drugs in a harmful way." The language "legitimate" is not used by CRUK, rather the organization describes the cancer drugs as "conventional". It states in the section Why people with cancer use it "These treatments could be harmful to your health or interfere with conventional treatment such as cancer drugs and radiotherapy.
" It isn't necessary to editorialize the source by introdcing the value-laden words "good" and "legitimate", NEITHER of which are used by CRUK.
Proposed change to body text to better align w/ the CRUK source and with NPOV:
"
Cancer Research UK states that there is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer. While the organization recongnizes that researchers have found that some Ayurvedic treatments can help relive cancer symptoms, it cautions that Ayurvedic preparations may contain toxic substances that can negatively interact with conventional cancer drugs."
Cedar777 (
talk) 04:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.(italics mine) The discussion topic is that the source, CRUK, is using different language now on their website, i.e., Wikipedia does not use the current language. It's no longer accurate to say that "There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease" by citing an outdated reference to the CRUK website that currently limits their scope to their area of expertise: cancer. The same CRUK webpage, titled Ayurvedic Medicine, describes the topic in their Research on Ayurveda section in a more nuanced and complex way, as listed in the bulleted section above. Essentially, CRUK acknowledges there are some benefits within ayurveda as it
can improve qualtiy of life,
boost general wellbeing, and
relieve cancer symptoms(their words not mine). It also addresses the legitimate concerns with safety and lack of testing. The language in the article should better reflect what the source actually says in 2022. Cedar777 ( talk) 00:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus for Ayurveda, rather the opposite. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The CRUK Wikipedia page has been cleaned up since the start of this thread in March 2022 and is no longer flagged w/ a cleanup reads-like-press-release template as it was here. Identifying and Wiki linking CRUK can only help readers verify and qualify it as a respectable organization. I see no reason to omit the mention of it. It just creates confusion to refer to the acronym CRUK when quoting it in the body w/o breaking down what CRUK is: Cancer Research UK.
As for other sources on the topic, the American Cancer Society no longer publishes basic info on their website about Ayurveda. If I have missed it, please add a link to the appropriate page here at talk. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center does have a page devoted to Ayurveda which mirrors the broader advice provided by CRUK; It both warns of the metals & points out that there are some benefits in quite a similar fashion as CRUK's Ayurveda page. Please see "Mechanism of Action" under "For Healthcare Professionals" on the MSKCC page and the full references provided there. Here is what they say:
"Maharasnadi Quathar, a medicinal used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, increases antioxidant enzyme activity, decreases TBARS generation, and improves symptoms in human subjects (16). Many of the frequently used herbs, such as ashwagandha (Withania somnifera), guggul (Commiphora mukul), Boswellia (Boswellia serrata), gotu kola (Centella asiatica), curcumin (Curcuma longa), ginger (Zingiber officinale), aloe (Aloe barbadensis), and garlic (Allium sativum), have been studied extensively in vitro and in vivo, and show antioxidant, antitumor, antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, or anti-inflammatory properties."
"Herbs often used to treat diabetes, Gymnema sylvestre, Momordica charantia, fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum), Coccinia indica, and Pterocarpus marsupium, show hypoglycemic activity in vitro and in vivo. Mucuna pruriens, used in preparations for Parkinson’s disease, contains L-dopa (17). Rasayana herbs, such as ashwagandha, Asparagus racemosus, Emblica officinalis, Piper longum, and Terminalia chebula that are said to promote positive health showed immunostimulant and adaptogenic activities in an animal study (18). Ayurvedic gold preparations (eg, Swarna Bhasma) have antioxidant and restorative effects in animal models of ischemia (19). The herbal mixtures Maharishi Amrit Kalash-4 and -5 have antioxidant properties, inhibit LDL oxidation in vitro, inhibit platelet aggregation, and cause a reduction in aortic arch atheroma in hyperlipidemic rabbits (20)."
"An in vitro study investigated the activity of extracts from eight plants that are traditionally used as immunomodulators in Ayurvedic medicine against HIV: Allium sativum, Asparagus racemosus, Coleus forskohlii, Emblica officinalis, Glycyrrhiza glabra, Piper longum, Tinospora cordifolia and Withania somnifera (21). The extracts significantly reduced viral production in human lymphoid CEM-GFP cells infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-INL4)."
The Wikipedia article needs to keep highlighting the dangers regarding heavy metals as CRUK and Sloan Kettering do, but it is important to also reflect what these sources are actually saying in 2022 about the existing research with regards to benefits to some Ayurvedic herbs. Cedar777 ( talk) 02:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Lifestyle changes and mind-body modalities are also a core component of Ayurveda. Yoga has been shown to improve sleep, mood, and quality of life, and reduce stress in cancer patients both during treatment and throughout survivorship. The effects of meditation in reducing anxiety, lowering blood pressure, and enhancing well-being both in the general population and in oncology settings have also been confirmed.CRUK on their page for Ayurveda similarly recognizes that the yoga and meditation components of Ayurveda offer benefits to cancer patients. Ayurveda, as a system, has beneficial aspects and problematic aspects. If it were a useless system devoid of beneficial practices, CRUK and MSKCC would have statements to reflect that. Both institutions stress that some of the practices have value that are supported by evidence whereas other aspects are not supported by evidence. Editors need to be careful to avoid distorting sources to the extent that they may be depriving readers from recognizing that some Ayurveda practices are supported by the MEDRS sources CRUK and MSKCC to offer quality of life benefits to cancer patients. Cedar777 ( talk) 16:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Clinical studies have been conducted to evaluate benefits of homeopathy, but data are limited and results are inconclusive. More research is needed.Bollocks. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
To point out, that non of the respective writers of the three sources cited against Ayurveda being pseudoscience are nither scientists nor Ayurveda practitioners. How their words are relevant if they are no where related to medicine and it's uses. Like Wikipedia it's sources are also highly unreliable. From news articles to blogs all are reliable sources for Wikipedia editors as long as it suits their narrative. Out of topic but food for thought. Vis14620 ( talk) 21:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd reiterate. "Science" on health related articles means WP:MEDRS compliant and this equals meta analysis, reviews, medical school level textbooks and not single studies no matter how compelling. I don't necessarily agree with the wording of the opening paragraph in total but that content has a long far reaching consensus and of course Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia that relies on a collaborative community. If there is consensus on something in general we have to back away and depend on the community agreement whether we think it's accurate or not. There is consensus here for the lead so... Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@Littleolive oil I'm specifically questioning the sources which are not related (even remotely) to the specific subject. And for your "community agreement consensus" my comment on Wikipedia and its sources being highly unreliable stands undisputed. Wikipedia is not a democratic platform to brand anything based on votes, you either have the research based evidence from Medicine practitioners who is well aware of methodology of ayurvedic medicine implications or you don't. Let me know if Ecology and Evolutionary Biology or Educational Psychology have anything to do with medicine. I know it's not Wikipedia's far reaching general consensus but it's common sense. Vis14620 ( talk) 20:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
the three sources cited against Ayurveda being pseudoscience. None of them are "medical practitioners or researchers" of the Ayurveda. Vis14620 ( talk) 19:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Written for assignment 2402:3A80:1658:6875:0:5:CA02:2401 ( talk) 11:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the petition filed by "AYURVEDIC MEDICINE MANUFACTURERS ORGANISATION OF INDIA vs THE MINISTRY OF AYUSH - Diary No. 14299 - 2022" https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/you-can-edit-wikipedia-articles-supreme-court-refuses-to-entertain-plea-against-wikipedia-articles-allegedly-defaming-ayurveda-212241 Iaintbrdpit ( talk) 07:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Note the Indian courts saying "You Can Edit Wikipedia Articles" does not nullify our policies or our sanctions. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Would it be safe to say it falls under Western scientific consensus? I hope this query meets discretionary standards. GraceAnneLove44 ( talk) 19:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Its surprising to see Ayurvedic methods respected by our physicians.
“ British physicians traveled to India to observe rhinoplasty being performed using Indian methods, and reports on their rhinoplasty methods were published in the Gentleman's Magazine in 1794. Instruments described in the Sushruta Samhita were further modified in Europe. Joseph Constantine Carpue studied plastic surgery methods in India for 20 years and, in 1815, was able to perform the first major rhinoplasty surgery in the western world, using the "Indian" method of nose reconstruction. In 1840 Brett published an article about this technique.” SpringEarth ( talk) 17:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Whether this shows that it is having scientific consensus or whatever that you guys are debating. why it is inspiration behind practice of modern plastic surgery ? Just confused. Enlighten me. SpringEarth ( talk) 17:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
A) whether rhinoplasty surgery is not inheriting nothing from that period or is it doing everything from scratch now without that experience B) I think Indian method here refers to that sushruta guy’s method. Check about him with relation to Ayurveda ! Kinda godfather bro. SpringEarth ( talk) 17:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
From wiki article * Traditional Knowledge Digital Library
This is for the "See also" section.
~~Ed~~ 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:3C81:91DB:DE46:136A ( talk) 09:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The Svoboda ref appears to be in-world rather than a "scholarly source". -- Hipal ( talk) 16:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
That seems to indicate that the tag was removed without addressing the problem.-- Hipal ( talk) 18:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Aman.kumar.goel, for replacing the poor source that you and Capitals00 overlooked.
Thank you, Tryptofish, for taking up the necessary task of actually reviewing all the references. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
However , a cell line study has demonstrated the efficacy of a classical ayurvedic medicine 'Partharishta' in oxidative stress associated with myocardial ischemic reperfusion injury. [ https://www.jdrasccras.com/article.asp?issn=2279-0357;year=2023;volume=8;issue=2;spage=124;epage=133;aulast=Gowri Aryasp88 ( talk) 06:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
A case report on Allergic Rhinitis was treated with ayurvedic medicine rajanyadi Churna with Guduchi Kwath and in a short span of time patient showed improvement in symptomatology and hematological parameters. [13] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaim.2023.100740 Aryasp88 ( talk) 11:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ayurveda has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add: "Ayurveda originates from the South Indian state of Kerala, where this medicine is actively practiced." Philipchandy ( talk) 21:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Over-capitalization of "ayurveda". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)