Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Ayurveda

Ayurveda is a science of life . It's not pseudo science . Its proved by the many researches conducted by various institutes. The motto of ayurveda is to protect the health of a healthy person and to cure the person effects from any disease Dr Kumar Deepak (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

If you give us enough reliable sources saying it is not pseudoscience, the article will have to say "XXX, YYY and ZZZ say it is pseudoscience, AAA and BBB say it is not" instead of "it is pseudoscience". But those sources will have to be very high-quality. (You will not find them, they do not exist.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know or care about the motto of Ayurveda, but the practice of Ayurveda is to give sick people "medicines" containing lead, mercury, and arsenic. I challenge Dr Kumar Deepak to provide a link to an official Ayurveda source where they repudiate the practice of poisoning patients with heavy metals. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Dead CRUK link

So the link to the 2017 CRUK page on Ayurveda is dead, and out-of-date. They have a newer, 2018, page which I updated our ref too (adjusting the text, which is a bit more detailed than before)[1], but this was reverted by Capitals00, to point to the dead URL/old page again. Capitals00, what is your explanation? I propose reverting to use a ref that actually works and text which reflects what CRUK currently publishes. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the link meant to cite? In the lede it's beside "India has over 180 training centers..." while in the body it's next to strong criticism of Ayurveda as ineffective for cancer treatment. I was going to suggest linking to an archive of the 2017 source (if one exists) as a compromise, but first, what info are we getting from it? I agree overall that a more up-to-date source is better, and I would just go ahead and do that, but your edit is a bit more substantial than just updating the link. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as I said I adjusted the text (so as to uphold WP:V). I also removed the ref from the lede where it currently makes no sense. If anything, CRUK are a bit "softer" on Ayurveda in their new page because they limit their comments to cancer rather than "all diseases". Per WP:MEDRS we are meant to be careful to use up-to-date sources for medical information. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you did say that, apologies. I support your update. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Tooth Fairy Science

Is Ayurveda pseudoscience? Is the pope catholic?

• Ayurveda recommends gold water, silver water, and copper water to treat various conditions. There is no evidence that they work or even that they contain gold, silver, or copper.[2]
• The president of the Indian Medical Association, said "The government is giving sanction to quackery. If those doctors make mistakes and people pay with their lives, who is going to be held accountable?"[3]
• The book Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science says "Ayurveda research can be classified as 'tooth fairy science,' research that accepts as its premise something not known to exist."[4]
• WebMD says "The FDA doesn’t review or approve Ayurvedic products. In fact, certain items have been banned in the U.S. since 2007. The FDA has warned that 1 in 5 Ayurvedic medicines have toxic metals, like lead, mercury, and arsenic. These heavy metals can cause life-threatening illness, especially in children."[5]
• The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) found 50 campaigns by Ayurvedic and homeopathic drug makers that marketed their products as cures for Covid-19.[6][7]
• Ayurvedic treatments include Leeches,[8] Vomit therapy,[9][10] Eating mercury, lead, and arsenic,[11][12] (but only if they've been purified by baking them in burning cow shit),[13] and drinking urine (human or animal).[14]

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think once the "pseudoscience" question is answered, the "quackery" question needs to be asked. We also need to consider the political push by certain forces in India to try and spread this stuff as a form of Nationalist expression. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Normally I take a laid back attitude to alt med. Sure, homeopathic medicines are useless, but as long as you don't use them instead of real medicine they don't hurt you. Accupuncure is equally effective if you only pretend to stick someone with needles, but again, usually doesn't actually cause harm (to their credit acupuncturists are good at keeping things sterile). So I am tolerant (to a point) of people who want Wikipedia to stop saying mean things about acupuncture or homeopathy because they make their living off of them. But Ayurveda? This shit is dangerous. I don't mean slightly risky. I mean drinking bleach to cure coronavirus dangerous. Those who advocate Ayurvedic treatments are morally bankrupt. We need to have zero tolerance toward them. See Lead Poisoning in Pregnant Women Who Used Ayurvedic Medications from India. Anyone who advocates Ayurvedic treatments after reading that should be ashamed of themselves. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, would it be a legal threat to point out that every person who causes any other person to take poison is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment (where I live)?

Branch, Legislative Services (2020-03-13). "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Criminal Code". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2020-07-04. Vexations (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT, "A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors." So in general you are free to point out that something is illegal in Canada as long as you are not threatening to report a specific editor or group of editors to the Canadian authorities. Pointing that particular Canadian law on a page where editors are advocating giving poison to people might be construed as being a legal threat, so please don't do it. I would advise replying with an explanation that you have no intention of reporting anyone here to the Canadian authorities, just to make sure that you are not misunderstood. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

In that case, let me clarify: I have no intention of violating Wikipedia:No legal threats. Let me also clarify that I am not a lawyer and that nothing I wrote constitutes legal advice. Vexations (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether doing so is illegal where you live, anyone who prescribes poison after reading the evidence on this very Wikipedia page is a terrible human being. If that's how you make your money, find another job. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"Those who advocate Ayurvedic treatments are morally bankrupt. We need to have zero tolerance toward them." While I share your concerns about potentially lethal quackery, what are we supposed to do? We can not block editors for advocating an opinion, we can not use the page to preach to readers about the dangers involved (unless sources support this), and there is little chance of us convincing India to change its legal stance on the matter. Meaning that we can expect pro-Ayurveda sources to be published on a regular basis. Dimadick (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Editors can be blocked for WP:ADVOCACY if becomes disruptive. We can only reflect what high-quality WP:FRIND sources tell us, and that will have to be sufficient: we are not here to WP:RWG, however frustrating that might be. Personally, I think by providing a summary of high-quality knowledge, Wikipedia fulfils an important role in its way. My concern is the article currently isn't doing a very good job of that. Alexbrn (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"integrated in general wellness applications"

Remove "In countries beyond India, Ayurvedic therapies and practices have been integrated in general wellness applications and in some cases in medical use." from the first paragraph. This is just an elaboration of what it means to be alt-med, and is undue. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This is an old German source leveraged to imply currency, with no page number to be verified, and is used only in the lede (which is supposed to summarize the body). From some of sources I've looked at there is often, shall we say, a questionable association between our article text and the source cited. Of course my attempts to fix this got blanket reverted (with no explanation). I am getting increasingly convinced this article is going to need some attention with an editorial fine tooth-comb. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

somewhat off-topic commentary on process

Too bad we couldn't do something to prevent the distraction of revert-warring, hmm? My suggestion is to ignore everything happening in the article right now and participate in El C's mandated RfC above. Whatever comes out of that will overwrite any changes made directly to the article, per the "consensus required" provision, or at least I assume that's the intent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Ivanvector, yes, and with a proper close, the consensus will be codified. That's the intent. El_C 15:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I have to say the current "rules" which effectively preserve broken links, out-of-date editions, broken formatting, reference duplications and text which misrepresents cited sources, and which rewards editors for reverting to perpetuate these faults do not appear to be serving the Project very well. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

In general I agree, the statement is kind of meaningless. I don't have access to the source so I can't say what the intent is, but if we're going to say that some Ayurvedic practices are in medical use, we owe it to readers to be specific with good sources. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector there's a link in the ref (which works for me anyway). The source has a section on Ayurveda. My German is very creaky but I'm not seeing how it supports the text. It's concerning the source cites Wikipedia as a source! Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so with all these problems I think this needs to be removed from the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda - not psudoscience

Ayurveda Originated 5000 years back and still relevent nowadays too. It's Indian System of medicine just like chinese have their system. Treatment based on three main text Astanga hrudhaya, Charaka Samhita, Susrutha samhita . Many researchs have already happen in Ayurveda also. Ayurveda has wide range of medicines like tablet, powder, syrup, decoction ( Kashayam) , Arishtam, lepam, oil etc. Except the Rasa(mercury) preparation all are safe to use without side-effects. But prime importance is the dose of medicine. Over dose may leads to some complication but not fatal. So it's never a psudoscience or Quack Medicine. Anuram567 (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read some discussions above. This was discussed million times. And keep in mind that this page is not a forum to exchange personal opinions. Suggest particular changes with reliable sources to support them. Retimuko (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Retimuko If that is the case, then please share the justification or supporting documents about the quackery bias stated by IMA. Anuram567 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your request. The article has references to sources. Are you disputing a particular source or a particular wording in the article? Please do take a look at other discussions on this page and in archives. Bringing up the same question again and again might be considered disruptive behavior. Retimuko (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2020

The statement displayed is completely baseless and wrong. (The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterizes the practice of Ayurvedic medicine as quackery.[3] The study of Avurveda is pseudoscientific, though the practice itself may also be classified as protoscience or merely unscientific.[4]). Indian Medical Association has never made such a public statement and can never do so in India. Ayurveda is a completely legal, scientific and historically as well as scientifically proven system of medicine, in wide practice and research. Such statements are derogatory and must be removed immediately. Any level of official confirmation can be made for this. Even the used reference doesn't have this mentioned anywhere. It only mentions about quackery in the field of Ayurveda, just like any other science. Adding such a sentence to the wikipedia page of a medical science is unforgivable and to be investigated. Kindly make an enquiry yourselves and make immediate changes. Vjrahul (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vjrahul: The cited IMA source states The purpose of this compendium of court orders and various rules and regulations is to acquaint doctors regarding specific provisions and orders barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine.

Is that clear enough for you?

Ayurveda is a dangerous, pseudoscientific and scientifically proven as worthless system of medicine, with no mainstream medical practitioners taking it seriously.

@Those who pretend Ayurveda doesn't claim to be scientific: here's one of your supporters making exactly that claim. Proof indeed that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement shared here clearly says "barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine". Which part of this is unclear for you, sir? It clearly says it bars 'unqualified people'. That naturally leaves out the qualified people. Please try to know the qualifications required and the government agencies responsible for providing those qualifications in India. It says, '..to practice Modern Medicine'. Is that also unclear? Someone who is qualified in one science has no right to practice another one. Does that make the whole science learned by those people quackery?! It was either purposeful, or ignorant interpretation of statements. Please abstain from such practices. Wikipedia exists to present facts. Please don't use it to promote personal opinions and interpretations. This looks like agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjrahul (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't play silly with me, young man. This is the English Wikipedia and you are expected to exercise a reasonable comprehension of English. The phrase "barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine" means (1) that there is a group of people who are unqualified to practise medicine; (2) that that group is made up of practitioners of "Indian & Integrated Medicine", which includes Ayurveda; and (3) that when that group attempts to practise medicine, which they are barred from, the IMA calls it "quackery". Someone who is "qualified" in Ayurveda is not qualified to practice medicine. The whole of what they have "learned" is pseudoscientific hogwash and we should not be afraid to call it quackery, like the IMA does.

If you call me ignorant or make another personal attack against another editor again, I'll make certain that your privilege to edit here is rapidly curtailed. I hope that is clear enough for you. --RexxS (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. Akhil.rmx (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda is scientific— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil.rmx (talk • contribs)

 Not done. Please read the source of the text you quoted. --McSly (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

IMA anti quackery wing statement " It is estimated that about 10 lakh quacks are practicing allopathic medicine, out of which 4 lakh belong to practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb and Unani)."

Here IMA stated that Those who are not studied allopathic medicine/ modern medicine if they belongs to other systems are also quackery. That is correct statement.

In the "Ayurveda" page the statement about Ayurveda practitioners, all quackery is a wrong statement,

"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery." This statement is irrelevant in ayurveda page , because ayurveda also a branch of medicine so practise of medicine may be modern, Ayurveda, or any other medicine if they are registered on the same branch they are not treated as quackery, but those who are not studied any other branch of medicine and they practising other than his own branch of medicine is a quackery.

In India some state the practise of modern medicine in emergency condition is allowed by the state Govt.for ayush doctors ( ayurveda, homeo, sidha etc) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6033720/)

Djayur (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You're trying to pull the wool over our eyes with state regulation instead of objective validity or proven effectiveness. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

Respectfully and adamantly requesting a change of the first para of this article (Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə, -ˈviː-/) is an alternative medicine system with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. The study of Avurveda is pseudoscientific, though the practice itself may also be classified as protoscience or unscientific. ) as it is controversial, non neutral, false, and provoking especially the following parts - "alternate medicine", "Ayurvedic practitioners as quakery", "study of ayurveda is pseudoscientific", "unscientific". Since these phrases in the introduction paragraph of this article is based on opinions and not on the facts as presented in the original Indian texts, these are to be removed/ altered. VasishtNS (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done We don't play by your rules, we play by our rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment on Wikipedia's "Rules" for those wanting changes. Wikipedia has clearly mandated through the arbitration process that for health related articles Wikipedia follows the mainstream, western, scientific position. This means that traditional medicine practices to be considered scientific must be supported by scientific research and those studies must be secondary-meta analysis, systematic reviews as examples. While there are a few studies showing some benefits for Ayurvedic-related health care there are no secondary sources, that I have seen at least. Western science has very specific parameters for ensuring that results and conclusions can be considered useful. Second, Wikipedia has mandated that the word pseudoscientific can and should be used in articles where science is poorly represented. I have very little doubt that there are traditional, health-care systems that had within them means of healing. Modern Science is relatively young and human beings did heal themselves. There are also within those systems aspects which are not effective, not effective as what we have now, and some even dangerous. We aren't here to discuss whether Ayurveda, when we look at is as a science, falls into the pseudoscience category but rather how to best indicate that in an article. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

IMA has used the word quackery for those AYUSH practitioners and the ones without MBBS degree , who practices allopathy medicine. 117.193.172.117 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Practicing Ayurveda Isn't Considered As Quakery

Make Necessary Changes In Wiki Nikhil19988w7haoaoaouwhqophal (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It is a textbook case of quackery. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

change quackery to Indian system of medicine. Ayurveda comes under the department AYUSH by the Gvt of India and Indian system of Medical Association is just an organisation of Allopathy doctors in India. Shanthi ganga (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that indicates the IMA has described Ayurveda as quackery. This means we can use the word in this article.

As a note: In my recent reading I see that the Indian Prime Minister supports Ayurveda while IMA does not. The use of quackery is used so many time in the the IMA document that I began to wonder about it. There is a battle waging in India between these two systems, looks like, and rather than just use one side, the article might describe both. I'm not attached to any of this, and don't care if it's changed. Just a thought. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Why should we care about the opinion of the Indian Prime Minister -- or any politician -- on a medical question? The head of the IMA is a practicing physician with a MD in General Medicine. The Indian Prime Minister has a degree in political science and has zero qualifications for determining who is and who is not a Quack. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Therefore  Not done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Relax a little... sheesh.... I'm not suggesting we care about the Prime Minister. I'm suggesting the India, home of Ayurveda, is dealing with a controversy between their traditional medicine and Ayurveda with information in mainstream sources. I could care less what you add. Whatever any of us thinks about any traditional medicine we don't have the right to tell apparently serious practitioners of that medicine they are scamming people. For that matter we don't have the right to attack anybody on these pages. DS applies to everybody. I see many new or socks of editors who have shown up and that is a problem. They can keep asking for changes and you can keep saying no but my thought was to explain a little. I doubt they have knowledge of Wikipedia. Let's be clear, that an editor doesn't attack a topic does not mean they support it. I, like all of you, I assume, try to be neutral. I won't be lining up for urine treatment anytime soon. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Quackery kills. - hako9 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup, they are killing real people, who pay them money. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a narrow view of anything, for that matter if you want to go that route, a western MD killed my mother. Stick to the sources, both about Ayurveda and the science or lack of science connected to it. If you are here to correct great wrongs you cannot be neutral. A response to comments about legitimate content is not it's killing people. It is to discuss the content. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That being said Western MD does not mean not quack or infallible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't confer god hood on anyone. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the people commenting here are invoking AYUSH as if it makes this systems plausible, despite the fact that the -USH part of the acronym stands for Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, all of which are also considered quackery by reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

"The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery" This sentence is wrong statement because indian medical association (IMA) is not belongs to Ayurveda its a private organisation not a India Govt authority, and they are practising other branch of medicine, Modern medicine ( allopathic medicine/ greek medicine/ western medicine, invented by Hippocrates "father of medicine". They have no rights to criticise other branch of medicine. If ayurveda is a quackery then how they recognise "Sushruta" As a father of surgery. If ayurveda not a science then how they accept the concept of Ayurvedic plastic surgery, lithotomy, etc.

Ayurveda practitioners are registered medical practitioner under Dept of ayush, govt of India (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_AYUSH) and In India the Ayurveda degree, Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.)(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Ayurveda,_Medicine_and_Surgery) awarded under a prescribed syllabus and curriculum Monitored by Central council for Indian medicine (CCIM) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Council_of_Indian_Medicine)(https://www.ccimindia.org/ayurveda-syllabus.php ) and without medical council registration practise of any system of medicine in India is prohibited and such persons are called as quackery. In all states of India there is different medical council ( https://medicalcouncil.kerala.gov.in/ ) for registration after completion of 5 and half years Ayurveda (BAMS) course Including one Year internship.

Ayurveda is a science based on basic scientific principles and this ancient health care tradition existing in India for more than 5,000 years.

This sentence "The study of Avurveda is pseudoscientific while the practice can be classified as protoscience or unscientific." Also wrong statements.

Now there are so many well-designed clinical trials and systematic research reviews and Pre review journals suggest that Ayurvedic approaches are effective, that means Ayurveda also a scientific medicine. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4895749/) Djayur (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you please go back to the forum where all this nonsense is coming from and tell them to read the archives of this page? Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup, We, the people at Toilet Duck, recommend Toilet Duck. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. Akhil.rmx (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Ayurveda is under AYUSH AYUSH ministry Govt of IndiaGovt of India.The Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) is an autonomous body of the Ministry of AYUSH

 Not done Not actionable. Please propose a specific change. Please read discussions above. Repeated requests can be considered disruptive behavior. Retimuko (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

please add word "allopathic medicine" in the sentence " The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery."

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 practice is Govt authorized practice in India and has never been called as quackery as such, there is separate ministry in india to deal with Ayurveda and other traditional medicine so above sentence is misleading. Right way to put it as per IMA page is usage of Allopathic medicine by Ayurvedic doctors is called quackery' please change this otherwise this is looking like very malicious attack on Ayurveda rather than neutral informative page.

The discussion above 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

Regarding the citation 3, where in IMA refers Ayurveda as quackery, what authority does IMA have to make a statement that Ayurveda is quackery? IMA must be well aware that Ayurveda is recognized as one of the medical systems by the Government Of India, and has an independent ministry. There are ample scientific evidences, wherein Ayurveda has a scientific background (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15786). This article in the journal "Nature" well established the phenotypic classification mentioned in ayurveda into genomic variants. Many more articles are easily available in the Internet, and both Wikipedia and its editor's must have cross verified the statements made by a local body of allopathic doctors. I hereby strictly condemn the article, and request Wikipedia and its editors to remove the citation of the IMA. Shanthan J (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No Changes needed. Requests for change should be "Words to be changed" Recommended change "Change to this" offer citation. Nothing being requested here so not done.VViking_TalkEdits 14:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Not done for now: Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

The reference 3 in this article doesnot make any sense. Its just a random website used as reference 115.187.39.154 (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done No request for any change to the article was made. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Quackery.

Where is the proof that IMA consider ayurveda as quackery. VigneshApthi (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia article is lying about its sources?

In this article, the Indian Medical Association is quoted to say that the practice of Ayurveda is quackery. In the Wikipedia article on Unani medicine (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unani_medicine), the same Indian Medical Association is quoted to say that only "unqualified practitioners" of Unani, Ayurveda and Siddha medicine are quacks. There is an obvious contradiction here. So which article is lying about its sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.96.212 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the word unscientific and ayurveda doesn't treat diseases

Dear wikipedia, This deeply disheartens me after reading about what you wrote about ayurveda. Being a student of ayurveda myself and in future I look upto practicing ayurveda myself. Its a matter of deep thought that why such things are written about science of living. 1. Firstly, we people in india have a separate ministry of ayurveda that governs and regulates everything regarding this SCIENCE. How on this earth can ayurveda be unscientific. 2. Secondly, as we all know and we have proofs for this too that so many research papers have been published regarding so many sectors of ayurveda thay are proven! Again, it is such a shameful act if such wrong things are written about so much respected and dignified science of us! 3. I hereby would like to ask you to make the changes that have been written wrongfully. These are sheer lies but nothing else. Being a knowledge platform for everyone it's your duty to serve us in an unbiased and professional manner! Mokshda thanvi (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read the Quackery 2 section above before claiming that if a government governs and regulates something that makes it legitimate.

In particular, read the paragraphs starting with

• In the UK, homeopathy was funded by the government for many years, even though it is ineffective pseudoscientific garbage with no biological plausibility or, indeed, possibility to work under the laws of physics in our universe.

and

• Speaking of government support for pseudoscience, Lysenkoism enjoyed the strongest possible government support in the USSR. Starting around 1934, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's approval, competing geneticists were executed or sent to labor camps.

--Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to Shed Biases

Hello, Namaste, @Alexbrn @Guy Macon. Alex mentions that he has Phd in English, certainly not in Medicine. Similarly, Guy mentions he's an engineer, not a Doctor. So, none of you have any expertise in Medicine or any other Biological Sciences. Right!? So, I suggest you guys to shed your biased glasses and look at things objectively.

Now, to enlighten you about multiple fields in which Ayurvedic treatments are much Superior than so-called "Modern Medicine", I will give just one Example of Fistula. Until this decade, Modern Medicine was unable to permanently cure it, while a simple procedure in Ayurveda has been able to effectively cure it for thousands of years. Ksharsutra. So, I request and suggest you guys to not to superimpose your biases on Wikipedia. Thanks. (Maybe, other biased editors too can take a cue from this. Also, someone who is interested can atleast mention Ksharsutra in this article.)

Bye. (which means God(s) be with you) Dhawangupta (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's see: PMID 26283840. A primary study in a non-MEDLINE indexed journal is very far from being a reliable source. WP:MEDRS gives our guidance for medical sourcing and, since we know from other reliable sources that Ayurveda is pseudoscience/quackery, any claims of benefit would be WP:EXCEPTIONAL and so need the very best sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I brought this up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Journal of Natural Science Biology and Medicine so that it would be in the RSNB archives the next time someone tries to cit it. Here is the response:

• Unreliable There are always predatory publishers willing to publish bogus studies supporting the effacy of traditional medicines, so I was suspicious from the start. The publisher of the journal Phcog.net, an Indian organisation, is obscure, but was on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers between 2012 and 2015. Per WP:RSMED primary studies on the efficacy of treatments should not be cited in articles as they lend undue weight to the effectiveness of treatments in comparison to reviews. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Could the kind high-level editors of Wikipedia also check reliability of 421 papers mentioned here, and 5 papers mentioned here??

Moreover, bias of "opinion makers" (which includes high level wiki editors acc. to me), is also mentioned here along with mention of person who got benefit from it. And, this is just one person's experience, not mentioning countless others who got benefit from it. Further, I forgot to mention earlier, blind belief is bad, but, blind disbelief is equally bad, and even prevents other people from taking advantage of variety of treatments offered. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You are skating perilously close to making unduly personal comments; you have been alerted to the sanctions in force for this topic already. Any editor wanting to make a change to the article needs to have text backed by a reliable source. Your proposal was very obviously not based on a reliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not attempting to make personal comments which are unrelated to topic and respective views of editors regarding the topic. It is pretty evident that me and the editors to whom I responded hold opposing viewpoints. Mine was a suggestion for the sake of NPOV.

Further, yes, this can be considered as an edit request that, Ksharsutra redirects to this article, but it is not even mentioned once. Now, I am unaware of the history of this article, forgive me, but, I think it is quite obvious that there is something wrong. Dhawangupta (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Focus on content rather than editors.

If you want to improve the article, suggest a change supported by an independent reliable source. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are useful to check the reliability of a potential reference. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Scientific study of Ayurvedic remedies

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0975947620300425

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0975947620300255

Ayurveda and COVID-19: Where psychoneuroimmunology and the meaning response meet: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889159120306371

Controversial identities of medicinal plants in classical literature of Ayurveda: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0975947618303747

Effectiveness of an Ayurveda treatment approach in knee osteoarthritis – a randomized controlled trial: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063458418300827

Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal - Modern perspectives of an ancient Rasayana from Ayurveda https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378874120330397 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitashchandra (talk • contribs) 04:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Ayurveda is consisting of many practice methods might not be seems to be scientific but its well proved methods of treatment are able to cure several chronic diseases like osteoarthritis, chronic cardiac diseases, COPD, anal fissure fistula, jaundice, diabeties, opthelmological diseases, immune system disorders, mental illness etc.

So it might seems to be pseudoscience to you but when physical treatment is possible with Ayurveda then definitely it's methods of treating and study is isn't under our observation of scientific readings we have but it's results are visible and scientific.

If you don't belive then you should go and read about yoga, meditation, panchkarma, and different treatment methods like kshar sutra, agni karma and kindly read about opthelmological treatment by Acharya susruta.

So basically Ayurveda might be old but it is effective and consists maintain health and curing diseases body suffering from. Our modern medicine system is very consised and symptomatic but Ayurveda is very vast and it consists of every possible views we can't even see or observe under a microscope. You can't jss say it's a lie or pseudo just because u can't possibly see it's working methods under scientific reading. 2401:4900:41D1:33BE:16E1:612D:2A54:1279 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Not actionable. Not a request. This is not a forum to share personal opinions on the subject. Please suggest particular changes with reliable sources to support them. Please read discussions abobe and archives, and avoid repeating the same points discussed many times. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

this statement is false: "There is no good evidence that indicates Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease."

evidence:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0975947620300425

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0975947620300255

Ayurveda and COVID-19: Where psychoneuroimmunology and the meaning response meet: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889159120306371

Controversial identities of medicinal plants in classical literature of Ayurveda: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0975947618303747

Effectiveness of an Ayurveda treatment approach in knee osteoarthritis – a randomized controlled trial: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063458418300827

Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal - Modern perspectives of an ancient Rasayana from Ayurveda https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378874120330397

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitashchandra (talk • contribs) 00:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Read the FAQ. Go back to Twitter, where nonsense can go unchallenged. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Unbelievable. On of those links says:

• Psychological distress is a common response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
• This may affect immune response to respiratory infections.
• Ayurveda has been proposed as a method to reduce psychological distress and thus improve immunity.

Replace "Ayurveda" with "Laying on of hands", "Taking 'medicine' that is 100% distilled water", "Falling in love", "Seeing a witch doctor" or "Listening to Mozart" and the argument is just as valid. That doesn't make them effective treatments for Covid-19.

That being said, listen to this just in case I am wrong:

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Or an excellent Raga Bhairav https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXQ059Uftv4 —PaleoNeonate – 02:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

NPOV needed

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.

---

Fellow Wikipedians, kindly stick to neutral point of view on the article. Starting the article with a derogative term for a traditional medicine system is abusive, hurtful to thousands of people who practice this system of medicine and to those who are getting treated by that system, regardless of the opinion piece provided as citation. Until there's a consensus here, let us remove the derogatory lines which is right now creating a storm in India and creating unnecessary hurt to people's minds and hearts. --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 06:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Claims of Extreme Antiquity

I've covered this before and made some very limited progress, but I've managed to find a couple of new high quality sources that should help in shaping the introduction to the history section. Now, it's well established that Ayurveda originates with texts such as the Charaka Samhita, the Sushruta Samhita and the Bhela Samhita but it's also extremely common for modern Ayurvedic texts to make claims of extreme antiquity (anywhere from 3000–9000 years ago).

The Cambridge History of Science: From page 535:The archaeological findings from Mehrgarh do not allow for any conclusions on whether or not the religion of Mehrgarh included the conception of religious healing. However, the people of Mehrgarh apparently practiced an early form of dentistry already 9,000 to 7,500 years ago. This suggests that, probably, other medical practices were also employed in this early phase of South Asian medicine. From pages 535–536:As in the case of the prehistoric settlement of South Asia, nothing definite can be said about the religion of the Indus Valley civilization due to the absence of intelligible written sources. ...There is also virtually no information available on medical beliefs, theories, and practices. However, some of the bronze razors, pins, and pincers that were found “must have,” according to Kenoyer, “been the tools of a barber or a physician.” This meager archaeological evidence for medical beliefs, theories, and practices in pre-historic South Asia hardly justifies a treatment of this phase of South Asian cultural history within a historical overview on Ayurveda, the medical concepts of which originate from the intellectual environment of a much later time. Although this can hardly be disputed with historical arguments, we find the anachronistic claim in some currents of modern Ayurveda that Ayurveda originated in the peak period of the Indus Valley civilization. The reason for this claim is the equation of antiquity with authenticity, on which some modern forms of Ayurveda draw to create acceptance for their CAM in the globalized world. There follows a wealth of other material on Ayurvedic texts, doshas, rasa, etc.

Social History: From pages 263–264:Elsewhere, Chopra states that Ayurveda dates back ‘more than 5,000 years’ and that it ‘embodies the collective wisdom of sages who began their tradition many centuries before the construction of the Pyramids and carried it forward generation after generation.’ This claim of extreme longevity is repeated like a mantra in modern writings on Ayurveda, and not only in the mass-marketed texts of authors such as Chopra. David Frawley, an Indologist whose work is published by the scholarly Indian publisher Motilal Banarsidass claims likewise that: ‘Ayurveda is the five thousand year old Vedic “Science of Life”, the traditional healing system of India.’

For many historians, such assertions set alarm bells ringing. Following the work of Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, it is now common to question the antiquity of almost any claimed ‘tradition’. As they and the other contributors to their seminal book on The Invention of Tradition argue, many supposedly longstanding ‘traditions’ were created in the nineteenth or early twentieth century as an intrinsic part of the construction of new nationalities and nation states.

And then from page 266: There were, in addition, studies of pre-colonial forms of healing in India by Indologists such as Kenneth Zysk and Dominik Wujastyk, who were fully alive to the problems of chronology, dating and continuity. Zysk, for example, argued that the healing practised during Vedic times – e.g. a period that began around 1500 BC – were strongly shamanistic, and thus different in form to the Ayurveda of the classic texts of the first millennia CE. Wujaystk pointed out that there was no obvious continuity between the healing practised in the Vedic period and that of the classic Sanskrit Ayurvedic texts, which date to the time when Buddhism was in the ascendancy in the subcontinent.

And page 281:Today, such claims are made most stridently by those who seek to market Ayurveda for a western clientele. ‘Tradition’ is no longer asserted for a nationalistic purpose – it has assumed a more free-floating global meaning and usage. Even when Indians – who are mainly members of the middle class – consume such ‘Ayurveda’, they, like westerners, tend to view it as an ‘alternative’ medicine that complements the biomedical treatments that they also resort to as a matter of course. Plus, a large amount of material on British Orientalism and the revival/synthesis of modern Ayurveda and Unani Tibb (which probably also needs a look).

And what one of the references already in the history section, Ayurveda: Life, Health and Longevity says is With such attention to sanitation, they almost surely possessed a system of medicine, though no firm evidence yet exists to support this conjecture except for the discovery in Harappan remains of substances such as deer antler and bitumen, which are used in classical Ayurveda and From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge.

Then there's Modern and Global Ayurveda: Pluralism and Paradism, also already in the article, on page 12:It is axiomatic to find statements in nearly all institutional, lineage, and popular presentations of Ayurveda that it is 5,000 years old, with some claiming that it is 8,000 years old, that it is a direct descendant of the medicine of the Atharva- Veda, that it was always allied with Tantra, and that the increasingly popular diagnosis by pulse (nå¿¥vijñåna), which is not mentioned in any classical text, is an ancient ayurvedic practice. Plus, a variety of other material not currently used in the article.

Then there's the English translation, A Concise Introduction to Indian Medicine:: It says The remains of Mohenjo-Daro in the lower Indus valley and of Harappa, further north, attest to the existence of a civilization of such a high level, from as early as the third millennium BC, that we may safely think that medicine might already have been advanced there, but they do not tell us anything as regards its actual development", and In the absence of supplementary evidence, it has not been possible to determine the magnitude of the medical legacy from which the Aryan immigrants may have benefited.", as well as It was only towards the end of the Vedic period that Indian medicine began to become observational and rational and progressively constitute itself into a consistent system to which the name of Ayurveda, the 'Science (veda) concerning longevity (ayur)' was given." There's also large amount of other material, such as material in the Vedas, the eight components ("In fact, very few ancient texts follow this division which has been particularly in vogue among more recent authors."), Ayurvedic texts, examination of the pulse, etc.

Given all of this, I think we could afford to clarify the existing first two sentences a little. --tronvillain (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Template:Alternative medical systems

The Template:Alternative medical systems allows six single word parameters as described at Template:Alternative medicine sidebar/doc #Usage. Presumably the removal of "traditional" by Retimuko was a good-faith mistake. --RexxS (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a misunderstanding on my part. Retimuko (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Retimuko: No harm done. I must admit I had to check twice because we're all used to seeing |parameter = value but this is one of those rare exceptions. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ayurvedic interventions for osteoarthritis

There appears to be some preliminary scientific evidence that some Ayurvedic interventions for osteoarthritis might be safe and effective. However, because I do not possess expertise in this area, I defer to other editors regarding this research and whether or not to discuss these studies in the article. Here are some of the studies that use "Ayurveda" in the title or abstract; and a Cochrane review that includes research on Boswellia serrata.

Please note that I did not conduct a thorough search of the literature, and most of these studies constitute primary research, which is one reason I use the adjective "preliminary". And not all studies reported positive safety or efficacy results.

Finally, I came across an interesting article about understanding cultural and economic differences between Asia & Africa vs. developed Western countries as it relates to clinical practice guidelines.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markworthen (talk • contribs) 07:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

For osteoarthritis The only source which is promising is PMID 25062981; the others are either primary sources, not about osteoarthritis, or publishing on a topic out of their field (A nutrition journal on arthritis). Because we we know ayurvedic medicine is pseudoscientific a WP:REDFLAG flies and we would need a much higher quality of sourcing to make any claims of efficacy, which would be surprising. Looking at PMID 25062981, it says there are several problems with the quality of evidence and that a only a single trial indicated promise, for the drug "Rumalaya". A fair summary might be "There is no good evidence that ayurvedic drugs are effective in treating osteoarthritis, and research in this area has been of poor quality." Alexbrn (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Alexbrn. One of the reasons I did some searching on PubMed is to honor a commitment I made to consciously challenge possible implicit biases I might have about various topics. Trying to weed out implicit biases is a worthy goal, but our reliance on reliable sources is paramount. Thus, I defer to you and other editors with more knowledge on this topic.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 07:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed Markworthen, sources are everything. I have not looked at your non-osteoarthritis sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that pmid:25062981 is the only usable source, and that it is cautious about the quality of the studies it reviewed. Nevertheless, it suggests the possibility that one or two of the Ayurvedic preparations it reviewed may contain efficacious compounds. One of the problems we find with judging traditional medicine is that if you have fed patients with a wide variety of ingredients over many years, you're likely to stumble across something that has value, in the way that willow bark led to aspirin. Of course, you're just as likely to stumble across a wide range of poisons that will kill the patients – and the hallmark of pseudoscience is the inability of the system to learn the difference between the two outcomes. --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"... the hallmark of pseudoscience is the inability of the system to learn the difference between the two outcomes." B Added to Wisdom file.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Quack

The Johannes Quack source

• Quack, Johannes (2011). Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India. Oxford University Press. pp. 213, 3. ISBN 9780199812608.

is currently used to support the text

Other researchers debate whether it should be considered a protoscience, an unscientific, or trans-science system instead.

But consulting the source, this does not seem verifiable. Quack is writing not about how researchers "debate", but specifically about Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti (or ANiS), an anti-superstition movement and how its members view Ayurveda. I propose this text

Ethnologist Johannes Quack writes than although the rationalist movement Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti officially labels Ayurveda – like astrology – a pseudoscience, these practices are in fact embraced by many of the movement's members.

as a fair & accurate summary of the source. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have fixed the Quack source and disentangled the surrounding material too, adjusting the lede to remain in sync with the body. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, Best. Source. Name. Evah. Guy (help!) 12:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparent error in lead

Suggest striking from the lead based on the sole source contradicting the claim: "there is no scientific evidence that any are medically effective as currently practiced" Source actually states: "Although Ayurveda has been largely untested by Western researchers, there is a growing interest in integrating some parts of the system into modern medical practice. In fact, a few of the herbs and substances have been purified into drugs that are used (along with other medicines) to treat cancer. Early studies suggest that other parts of Ayurveda may have potential therapeutic value." Source is a dead link from 2011, which is not peer reviewed and is questionable under WP:MEDRS. Also suggest striking grounds of sweeping generalization which is impossible to support for all possible treatments and all possible uses - even bad trial and error is likely to accidentally find something that at least partially works. Such over generalization and errors weakens the arguments and overall content of better sourced content. Reliable medical sources typically word things as "unknown", "unproven", "not an established treatment". Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The web page cited as dead and the website now suggests two helpful alternatives NCCIH, MSK. Wording on these might also be helpful in resolving issues with the lead Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the article should say "there is no scientific evidence that any are medically effective as currently practiced" unless there are WP:MEDRS sources that say exactly that. It really is a broad overgeneralization; Big Pharma is well-known for looking at all sorts of alt-med and folk remedies in the hopes of finding another aspirin (based on medicines made from willow that date to ancient Egypt) or penicillin (based upon noticing that a blue-green mould inhibited bacterial growth).

That being said, do we have any actual examples of anything from Ayurveda making it into conventional medicine? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead is meant to summarize the article. If the article has no content on research for western medicine effectiveness, the lead can say that in part because Wikipedia has taken a western-medicine, mainstream position. The onus would be on editors to thoroughly investigate for any MEDRS research, add it or not to the article then summarize in the lead. We don't generally try to prove a negative but in a lead we can summarize or maybe generalize. Our tone and wording is important to maintain neutrality. It's not up to us display any kind of POV. (Just thoughts). Littleolive oil (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying "Western medicine", but medicine does not have any such directions. It works the same everywhere. If you do separate between different cultures, it should be the pseudosciences: Homeopathy is Western pseudomedicine, and Ayurveda is Eastern pseudomedicine. Medicine is above those petty culture differences. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry no. It's arrogant of us to think we have the only healing modality. Because something has not been researched within the western science model doesn't mean it doesn't work. Most civilizations had ways to heal; our so called western medicine is very young. For Wikipedia purposes it's critical that we add only content that is sourced to the western mainstream sources. This also doesn't mean that a traditional form of healing is necessarily either safe or useful, neither are western modalities. None of this is black and white. And yes, I'm familiar with the distinction made between medicine defined as that which heals and everything else but I don't find that distinction useful when dealing with the non-black and white. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Proponents keep talking about lack of research and traditional ways to heal. It has been researched, and has been found not to work. Otherwise it would be accommodated into the medicine. The fundamental principles are completely divorced from science. Doshas and other such fundamental concepts are myths. Pretending that such things have some basis in reality is pseudoscience. Retimuko (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't label anyone here, please. Ayurveda from what I'm reading has multiple levels of application. Perhaps we can discuss that complexity with out labeling anyone. And don't think that because someone is open to discussion that makes them a proponent of anything. Traditional medicine that has only recently entered the field of western research is likely behind western medicine research. This doesn't mean there's anything to research just that we don't yet know all there is to know and or investigate. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

How come you know what other people know and what they don't know? It is you who is arrogant. Also presumptious and condescending. And you are labeling medicine "Western". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• My comment was not directed at you or anyone in particular but at westerners as a group. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• We should have something on this, it's quite important. I suggest CRUK as a top-line MEDRS: "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer, or any other disease." [15] Alexbrn (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest wording similar to that from User:Alexbrn but closer to that from the original cancer source, which said some may help lessen certain symptoms. The NCCIH disclaimer could be included and sourced to them "Don’t use Ayurvedic medicine to postpone seeing a conventional health care provider about a medical problem."

User:Guy Macon Yes to mainstream medicine accepting at least a few of them. Examples from Source- NCCIH:

1. turmeric may help with ulcerative colitis
2. "a 2013 clinical trial compared two Ayurvedic formulations of plant extracts against the natural product glucosamine sulfate and the drug celecoxib in 440 people with knee osteoarthritis. All four products provided similar reductions in pain and improvements in function."
3. "A preliminary and small NCCIH-funded 2011 pilot study with 43 people found that conventional and Ayurvedic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis were similarly effective. The conventional drug tested was methotrexate and the Ayurvedic treatment included 40 herbal compounds."
4. "Outcomes from a small short-term clinical trial with 89 men and women suggested that a formulation of five Ayurvedic herbs may help people with type 2 diabetes. However, other researchers said inadequate study designs haven’t allowed researchers to develop firm conclusions about Ayurveda for diabetes."

Reviews found:

1. Kessler 2015 osteoarthritis pain - evidence for one drug and some evidence for a second, no evidence for massage, steam therapy, and enema
2. pmid 26728196 osteoarthritis possible use
3. pmid 31530988 curcurmin possibly useful in some due disorders
4. A Cochrane review for schizophrenia found slightly in favor of a conventional drug with vomiting and nausea side effects from the Ayurveda treatment
5. 11 Systematic reviews here
6. Cochrane Review for type 2 diabetes some effect on blood sugar
7. IBS

NCCIH states it is doing trials of "quality of life" in people with breast cancer using a mix of approaches eg yoga, pressure points, diet...

and a trial for Butea monosperma (BME) flowers which may "protect against joint destruction from osteoarthritis" but I don't know if that web page is now out of date. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What about sources stating there is no evidence the proposed mechanisms of Ayurvedic healing have any scientific basis? JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Beyond the lead

Whilst there has been a lot of discussion about one sentence in the lead, looking at the broader context there seem to be a number of other areas to address. I suspect some of these changes will be controversial so talk page first:

The whole part about the WHO is not what that source is about. Ayurveda is mentioned three times in the entire report. From my understanding its more about bringing alternative medicine practioners into the fold, particularly in countries where actual medicine is less available. Similarly obviously the WTO doesn't endorse traditional medicine, it promotes protection from misappropriation of traditional knowledge. Basically you can't patent it. - I suggest we remove all of this, it doesn't address ayurveda, it is general about traditional medicine, its inclusion is an attempt to foster legitimacy where it does not exist.

This part "For example, a person who is thin, shy, excitable, has a pronounced Adam's apple, and enjoys of esoteric knowledge is likely vata prakriti and therefore more susceptible to conditions such as flatulence, stuttering, and rheumatism. Deranged vata is also associated with certain mental disorders due to excited or excess vayu (gas)," Should not be written "in universe". - Should we counterbalance this section by point? Perhaps context would help explain why ideas from the middle ages are often erroneous?

"In the Bhaisajya Ratnavali, opium and camphor are used for acute gastroenteritis. In this drug, the respiratory depressant action of opium is counteracted by the respiratory stimulant property of Camphor", Is written in universe, fundamentally there is no need to take an opioid so strong that a stimulant is required to stop you from respiratory arrest for diarrhea, this is insane PainProf (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This part "For example, a person who is thin, shy, excitable, has a pronounced Adam's apple, and enjoys of esoteric knowledge is likely vata prakriti and therefore more susceptible to conditions such as flatulence, stuttering, and rheumatism. Deranged vata is also associated with certain mental disorders due to excited or excess vayu (gas)," Should not be written "in universe". - Should we counterbalance this section by point? Perhaps context would help explain why ideas from the middle ages are often erroneous?

Heh, I wrote this while expanding the doshas section -- I agree it should be written out-of-universe (my intent was that example and the "ghost of a sinful Brahman" part would be faithful descriptions of Ayurvedic diagnostics while also being obviously ridiculous, but of course that assumes readers would be able to recognize them as such). JoelleJay (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Not here

As is obvious from the number of edit requests, we're encountering a barrage of sockpuppets or meatpuppets who are taking coordinated action to damage debate on this page. Our most precious resource is editor time, and I'm not prepared to waste it dealing with these purely disruptive new editors.

I will therefore block indefinitely on sight each and every editor who continues the disruption, because they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Despite a personal wish to stay away from this topic for the time being, I cannot stay away from FTN. I welcome and support the statement, above and any action Rexxs takes in this area. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 02:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Good. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, excellent solution. Please treat Ayurveda-related disruption of the Indian Medical Association and Pseudoscience pages the same way. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and lead

(Question copied from Talk:Shilajit#Arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and lead)

[ https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/reference_id/364147 ] says:

"Mean concentration of arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, copper and zinc was 73.15, 104.92, 0.496, 3.89, 4.04 and 17.23 ppm, respectively."

First, I would like to request some original research from someone with a chemistry background: are these concentrations large enough to be of a concern?

Second, I would like to request some original research from someone with an Ayurvedic background: Mow many grams of Shilajit are used to make Ayurvedic medicine?

(Obviously if someone eats a kilogram the acceptable arsenic, mercury, and lead concentrations are lower than in the case where someone eats a milligram).

According to [ http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/epidemiology-fact-sheets/mercury/ ]:

"The EPA has established a limit of 2 parts per billion (ppb) of allowable mercury of drinking water. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level of 1 part of methylmercury in a million parts of seafood (1 ppm)."

Note: original research is allowed on article talk pages, but if the original research leads me to believe that the levels are a concern, I will still have to find WP:MEDRS-complaint reliable secondary sources for any edits made to the Shilajit article. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Hate Campaign Against Ayurveda

Wikipedia’s Hate Campaign Against Ayurveda]

By our old friend Gary Null. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Anti-Aging Elixir"
• "Slow Death by 5G Technology"
• "The Vaccine Deep State"

I'm surprised that I haven't seen the old "just eat Himalayan salt, it will cure everything" grift. BirdValiant (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Ernst's Law: if you are writing about alternative medicine and the quacks don't hate you, then you are doing it wrong. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Cow urine

Cow urine for corona virus

Drink cow urine to fight virus: Bengal BJP chief - https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/kolkata/drink-cow-urine-to-fight-virus-bengal-bjp-chief/article32119516.ece

‘For curing coronavirus, global leaders must drink cow urine’: Hindu Mahasabha chief - https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/for-curing-coronavirus-global-leaders-must-drink-cow-urine-hindu-mahasabha-chief/story-xLvC7FC18GU6Q7YYIl3v1N.html

Hindu activists in India drink cow urine to ‘protect’ themselves from coronavirus - YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9OdFmHb9E

A Bharatiya Janata Party activist with India's ruling party has been arrested after a volunteer fell ill from drinking cow urine at a party to combat the novel coronavirus. - https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1882000/india-political-activist-arrested-for-selling-cow-urine-to-combat-virus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskyblue3 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

See Urine therapy. Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And Panchagavya. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

wtf... GeraldWL ✉ 09:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Mercury in Ayurveda: A Poison Turned Nectar

From:

Mercury in Ayurveda: A Poison Turned Nectar[16]
Dr Avinash Kadam
Rasayani Biologics Pvt Ltd, Pune, India Rasamruta,
November 2013

(For non-Ayurveda research on the effects of inorganic mercury, see [17], [18], [19],)

"In recent days we frequently gets news about the Minamata Convention on mercury which aimed to ban trade of Mercury and its gradual phase out by Year 2020... the ban on trade of Mercury will have a disastrous effect on Ayurveda."

"Even historically mercury was used to treat syphilis and besides this mercury is being used in preparation of Ayurveda Medicines. Ayurveda has a special branch called as Rasashastra which deals with the use of metals in treating various illnesses. Formulations prepared using these metals and minerals are called as “Rasaaushadhis”. Mercury is considered as Nucleus of these Rasaaushadhis as a major percentage of these Rasaaushadhis contains some mercurial compounds. In fact the literal meaning of the word Rasashastra is “Science of mercury” . Use of Metals and minerals in Ayurveda became more prevalent after 8th century AD.... It is estimated that 80% of 1 billion Indian population are using Aurveda medicines. It is to be noted that about 35-40 % of all Ayurveda medicines contains some metal."

"All the metals used in Ayurveda formulations undergoes special procedures called as “Shodhan” and “Maran”. These procedures are specialty of traditional Indian medicine and are mentioned in books around 1500 years old. These procedures aims to detoxify metals and makes compatible for human consumption. Mercury also undergoes extensive detoxification procedures before being used in medical formulations. It first undergoes “Shodhan” which purifies it. This is followed by another procedure which is believed to transforms mercury in to therapeutically effective and safe form called as Baddha or Murchita parad."

"Mercury obtained by all these procedures is an inorganic form of mercury (mainly sulphides)... Toxicity seen due to mercury is due to elemental and organic form and not due to inorganic form."

"Also there is a possibility that the detoxification process which mercury undergoes would bring some chemical changes which makes consumption of Mercury safe. This hypothesis needs to be studied by conducting rigorous scientific experiments."

"Conclusion: Mercury is a metal with known toxic potential. But it is used safely in large number of Ayurveda formulations since centuries. The reason for this safe use can be attributed to its unique detoxification process as mentioned in Ayurveda classics."

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I was curious about the phrase "It first undergoes 'Shodhan' which purifies it." I figured that somebody must have described the "purification" process so I looked it up. Keep in mind that multiple Ayurveda sources claim that Shodhan makes Mercury safe to ingest.

Shuddha Parad[20]

Dr. Jagdev Singh

November 26, 2015

"Shuddha Parad is processed mercury as per Ayurvedic Rasa Shastra principles. The several processes are used for detoxifying and purifying the mercury. These processes are called SHODHAN KARMA. The main purpose of SHODHAN KARMA is to make organic or inorganic substance consumable for human. These processes help decreasing side effects, toxicity and after effects of the substance."

"Which is Shuddha Parad?"

"According to Bhaishajya Ratnavali, Mercury (Parad) should be extracted from the Cinnabar (Hingula). The Mercury (Parad) obtained from the cinnabar should be processed with Garlic Juice, Betel Leaf juice and Triphala Decoction. Then Mercury (Parad) should be washed with Kanji water (ayurvedic fermentative preparation) to obtain Shuddha Parad. The Parad Obtained through this process is called Shuddha Parad."

"However, it is a simple and easy method, but ayurveda has explained more methods to obtain Shuddha Parad and they may be different as per specific ayurvedic texts."

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, they can detoxify mercury? The antivaxers must be really happy about that! Guy (help! - typo?) 08:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Quackery kills. - hako9 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I looked up a couple of the unfamiliar words in the above. First some Ayurveda sources:[21][22] Everyone here will be glad to hear how this remedy cures heart disease, diabetes, and flatulence. Then I checked out some Wikipedia pages. Shilajit seems kind of sort of OK if i squint:

"While Shilajit has been used in traditional Indian medicine as an antiaging compound, its health benefits lack substantial scientific evidence"

but Triphala is full of woo:

"Studies using Triphala report antibacterial, anticancer, antiobesity, antiarthritic, anti-inflammatory, and hypolipidemic properties. Triphala also shows neuroprotective effects against methotrexate-induced damage"

-- cited to non-WP:MEDRS sources such as "Altern Ther Health Med" and "BMC Complement Altern Med." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The pseudoscience has been removed from Triphala. So now Wikipedia no longer states that "taking the dried Triphala fruit with honey and ghee daily has the potential to make a person live to a hundred years, free of old age and diseases". Oh well, back to watching my diet and exercising...   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I also removed the pseudoscience from Shilajit. Are there any other related pages that need attention? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Shirodhara is another one already trimmed. PainProf (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Scientific wording for NPOV when evidence of harm outweighs suggestions of benefits

As someone who wouldn't go near anything labeled Ayurveda, and admittedly disliking "holistic" approaches, I have found myself disagreeing with much of the wording suggested on grounds that it generalizes or needlessly overstates the case in a way that comes across as bias - adding a few qualifiers would really help this.

I think there is mostly agreement that most (maybe virtually all) Ayurveda is totally scientifically unproven, and that some contains levels of specific substances known to be toxic (at that level) e.g lead - I haven't seen proponents dispute this. Referring to "scientific evidence" rather than simply "evidence" is helpful - personal experience is considered to be anecdotal evidence rather than no evidence - so this gets the same point across but more accurately/neutrally. Adding some qualifiers to statements is the typical way scientists avoid over-generalizing while getting their point across, and avoiding having a single trial return a result that contradicts what they said (ie don't accidentally setup a straw man).

This phrase from an unrelated review on a very different topic may be helpful in wording "Some preclinical studies have shown positive evidence that these substances can induce apoptosis in skin cancer, but clinical studies proving efficacy are either insufficient, nonexistent, or show negative evidence." I think shows neutrality on that topic (doesn't ignore opposing evidence nor give it undue weight) without over-generalizing. Ayurveda evidence I would describe as based on anecdotal reports/evidence with insufficient or nonexistent clinical studies showing benefits and evidence of potential harm and likely toxicity found in some treatments." Possibly strengthening that judgment on the amount of evidence of harms (haven't seen enough reviews to be sure of the weight of evidence or degree of harm).

I would very much like to include User:Alexbrn's source above from the Indian Medical Association stating that even in India, where it is recognized and it's practioners are licensed, Ayurveda practioners must not use it for conventional medicine. There may be government or licensing sources that back this up too. I personally do not understand when it is considered an appropriate use (does the person feel something is not in balance and so consult a practioner?).

Given that Ayurveda is based on anecdotal evidence / historical reports of what practioners believe works - I would be very interested in ancedotal evidence from Western practioners eg surveys, collated opinions, and of course cases of harm reported where these are collated in a standardized way.

Any source that states which countries have no regulation or licensing regarding Ayurveda or Ayurveda marketing claims would be good to include.

Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs could do with some updates too. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As I recall, in the past the term "scientific evidence", as opposed to just "evidence" has been the focus of disputes with debates around whether "other kinds of evidence" apply. It's the "your science can't measure my woo" phenomenon. Although that's pretty abstruse, I think it's better/simpler just to use "evidence" when writing about medical topics. And, about anecdotes always remember this famous saying.

As to the reality of usage, there are a number of factors in play: ayurveda is a handy "medicine" that means can stand in as a reassuring imposter when real medicine is not available, and the Indian state knows this and actively promotes ayurveda as a form of supposed Indian soft power.[23] Yup, just as in other countries, politicians-in-power in India are as deluded as f*ck. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed that the WHO is very kind about it for that reason (and they note it): in many places people cannot afford better medicine (either too costly or unavailable locally), when they do, they may still resort to it where it's the traditional wisdom to do so... Then there is complementary institutionalization with medical schools and practitioners integrating or borrowing names (some sources treat that as a form of syncretism, [24], [25], [26], [27]). Ayurveda is mentioned in all pseudoscience encyclopedias that I check, at the same time in an anthropology encyclopedia I see a mention of the demarcation between "old and new ethnomedicine", with a mention that the latter (post 1980s anthropology) is more permissive to consider it medicine, with more focus on specifics ([28]). Some other encyclopedias mention tenets of various traditional medicines without any critical information, yet they'll often mention the dangers of quackery as well as instances of lead poisoning and psychological distress (often they mitigate that with apologetics like that a licensed practitioner is important and that distress is considered to be progress on the "mind cleansing" path)... Good point about "scientific evidence" vs "evidence". —PaleoNeonate – 07:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup, just as in other countries, politicians-in-power in India are as deluded as f*ck. [29] —PaleoNeonate – 10:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Unani medicine

The Unani medicine article has been getting some attention on twitter recently in comparison to the wording in this article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semiprotection?

This is getting very tiresome. We don't do it often, but is it time to semi-protect this talk page until whichever source is sending this endless stream of SPAs gets bored with it? Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Lev!vich 12:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

+1. I'm involved in the discussion, but this is tiresome. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Ayurveda. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon and GirthSummit, would it be a good idea to create an unprotected subpage in case of any legitimate enquiries from non-autoconfirmed users? Sam-2727 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixing ping to Girth Summit. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Too soon. they can wait a couple of days. The main problem is that the unprotected page would get the same dozens and dozens of posts generated by the ongoing campaign against Wikipedia on twitter. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, got it, makes sense. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm really concerned about having no means for non-confirmed editors and IPs to be able to comment. I would endorse creating an unprotected subpage, especially when we have to reimpose semi-prot. That would allow a confirmed editor to copy genuine comments to this page, and we could regularly take out the rubbish remaining. --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably a good idea as long as a volunteer moderator can do the work, —PaleoNeonate – 02:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What would I, as a regular editor, be allowed to do when the unprotected page fills up with near-identical posts from SPIs? Set the archiving to a small number? Hat? Delete? Ignore? Given the history at Twitter I suspect that "ignore" will result in hundreds of "see how many people are complaining" tweets linking to the unprotected page, and anything else will result in hundreds of "see how they suppress the truth" tweets linking to the unprotected page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I've protected it again because this is just silly. I'm going to create a sub-page as RexxS has mentioned, and I'll put direction to it here and in the edit notice. I'll monitor it and if anyone else would like to, feel free. Give me 5 ... Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

All done. If anyone would like to watchlist Talk:Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments, please feel free! @Guy Macon: I've set the archiving to be really small. I would however just delete (or manually archive) anything that is not useful. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite and Guy Macon: I've put it on my watchlist. I recommend manually archiving disruptive posts as they will be evidence for the inevitable ArbCom case, but just deleting them is okay as they are still in page history. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I am watching it as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Quackery 1

I am amazed that we do not seem to be even mentioning that the Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterizes the practice of Ayurvedic medicine as quackery.[30] It's really quite a sad indictment that we give acres of space to this nonsense without even bothering to reflect the views of legitimate medics in India. I will integrate the IMA's thoughts into the body, and when the lede RfC is complete we can think about whether it should also be in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, see the section below this one for a proposal to fix this. Your input on the wording would be very helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, Indian Medical Association (IMA) is a large group of doctors in India (practicing allopathy, not ayurveda) who have formed an association that acts for benefit and welfare of its members. IMA is Neither a legal nor statutory body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 01:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn Here, again, your pre-existing bias can't let you see objectively. The link you mentioned, calls practitioners who misuse allopathic medicine as Quacks. It does not, I repeat, It does not characterizes the practice of Ayurvedic medicine as quackery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawangupta (talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It's true, the second category of quack is "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." So, it doesn't actually go so far as to call Ayurveda (or even homeopathy) quackery—that probably wouldn't be a great political move at the moment. But, it does say that an estimated four hundred thousand practitioners of "Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb and Unani)" are quacks, which doesn't compare well to the "432,625 registered medical practitioners" in the article for 2003–2004. --tronvillain (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at something more recent, like this, with 7,44,563 AYUSH (the group that second category is specififically about) registered graduates as of January 1, 2015 and an estimated 7,600,000 by 2017, that's still an appalling ratio. It probably doesn't help when you have the government attempting to pass legislation to license those practitioners as health care providers (echoing China/TCM and the US/chiropractic).

References

@Alexbrn IMA is just a private medical organisation of modern doctors and its just a misleading bias from their side against Ayurveda. If any ayurveda physician is practising allopathy medicine he may be quack not the entire Ayurveda community. So it's shame to see such description in a public platform like Wikipedia. Anuram567 (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The word quackery should be removed from this article, as the link in support of such claim doesn't say so. It says an ayurvedic doctor who practice allopathy as quack, the same way as an allopathic doctor who prescribe ayurvedic medicine as quack Bullz123 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It's really disappointing to see certain people make fun of a medical system by terming it as "Quackery" which is legally permitted and run by State/Central Governments in India. Ayurvedic Physicians in India give the same exams as modern medicine docs in India and undergo 51/2 years of graduate study and 3 years of post graduate study. So how come an organisation/association of a few modern medicine docs like IMA claim Ayurveda to be quackery. This cannot be justified in any way and has to be removed at the earliest. And little did I know we had to get "Certification" from a small association of modern medicine docs like IMA in India and not the State Govt/ Universities or Medical Councils like how we did it. Veena Hemesh (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

First and foremost, IMA is not an organisation to certify other traditional medical systems as "Quackery" or not. This edit has been done intentionally by some people to malign Ayurvedic science and to mock doctors who practice the same. Veena Hemesh (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sir I belong to Ayurved and I am Ayurvedic Doctor and I am proud of it ... Kindly remove the ridiculous language you used to describe our pathy ... If you don't know anything about our pathy you have no right to speak any such rubbish regarding Ayurved... VdNeha (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The Indian Medical Association is just a collective of Allopathic doctors in India. They are in no means a governing body to declare another medical system to be quackery or pseudoscience. The WHO classified Ayurveda under traditional and complementary medical sciences.The fact that it was originated in the Vedic times does not comply to the science being a pseudoscience. Hence for the best interest of public and the sensible sections of the society it is ideal to take down such un ethical and baseless accusations. Shilpahello1 (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@VdNeha: You're scamming people for a living, try to poison them with mercury... and you're proud of it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience. So Change fastly.

Quackery change.

Foreigners nothing know about Ayurveda so don't talk about Ayurveda like fool. Ashish15796 (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, it appears that this section is filled with many Single-purpose accounts. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35], and [36] and another one in a lower section [37]. BirdValiant (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

IMA doesn't qualify Ayurveda as quakery. It says and I quote, "Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under, 1. Quacks with no qualification whatsoever. 2. 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. 3. Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act." HemaChandra88 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda is not quackery. IMA should apologize for it. IMA k baap ka v baap hai Ayurveda. Sumit845401 (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)