Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

A lead paragraph without the whitewashing

Those who make their living from Ayurveda are not going to like this, but here is a proposed lead paragraph that avoids whitewashing.

Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə, -ˈviː-/) is a pseudoscientific system of medicine that prescribes remedies containing lead, mercury, and arsenic, substances known to be harmful to humans. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterizes the practice of Ayurvedic medicine as quackery. Ayurveda has historical roots in the Indian subcontinent but has been adapted for Western consumption, notably by Baba Hari Dass in the 1970s and Maharishi Ayurveda in the 1980s.

References

I will have to wait for the current RfC to close, and I will most likely have to post an RfC when the inevitable howls of protest start up, but first I would like to ask if anyone has any wording tweaks to suggest. In particular, I am wondering if what I put after "Ayurveda has historical roots in the Indian subcontinent" is notable enough for the lead, and whether it is too US-centric. Who popularized Ayurveda in the UK and AU? the "Outside the Indian subcontinent" section only mentions the US. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The proposal could be interpreted as all Ayurvedic remedies contain the toxic heavy metals mentioned. I'm not sure how to revise it without undue weight. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that's fixable. What say I change "prescribes remedies containing..." to "prescribes remedies, many of which contain..."? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems to give undue emphasis to the heavy metals aspect of Ayurveda. It's much much more vast in its range of nonsense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Which should I mention? Leeches? Vomit therapy? Drinking Urine? Opium? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Leeches are approved even by FDA as surgical and infection control devices — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with most of this except the clause listing the heavy metals. I think the dangerous prescriptions are certainly DUE in the article, probably even the first couple paragraphs, but I don't think the first sentence is an accurate summary of the scope of the practice. The problems in Ayurveda are much wider-reaching than just "some remedies contain metals at potentially toxic concentrations". The way the sentence is worded also doesn't clarify whether these metals are intentionally prescribed by practitioners as healthful remedies, are accidental contaminations due to poor quality control, are deceptively introduced to formulations to add bulk/whatever, or all the above. Mentioning pseudoscience and the scathing assessment by the IMA is more than enough to demonstrate where this system stands among real scientists/physicians. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I thing my wording implies that they do it on purpose, and anyone interested in the details can look at the "Use of toxic metals" section. I don't want to load too much into the lead. And it does seem to be the one thing they do that cases the most harm. Plus, if a Ayurveda practitioner prescribes vomiting or urine drinking, it is obvious to the patent what is being prescribed. They falsely claim that the remedies are "purified" and won't give you heavy metal poisoning - yet the actual patients do end up with heavy metal poisoning. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it could use clarification that ayurveda attempts to cure diseases using non-empirical formulations of herbs and potentially toxic levels of heavy metals. And it probably shouldn't be limited to just the rasha shastra aspect of ayurveda since doshas are the major conceptual framework behind it and deserve to be criticized early on. IMO even the article body doesn't draw an explicit enough comparison between ayurveda as currently understood and practiced in modern India, and the scientific theories of medieval Europe discarded over a century ago by western medicine. JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree about modern vs. medieval. Are you up to adding a paragraph somewhere in the body? Right now I am focusing on the lead.

Until I read your comment above, I have no idea that the concept of Dosha exists. It is only mentioned in passing in the article and isn't even in the See Also. Because the lead must contain material covered in the body, I can't add any mention of Dosha to the lead until someone adds the material to the body. --Guy Macon (talk)

I'm surprised doshas aren't mentioned more, since one of the main purposes of Ayurveda seems to be balancing them. I am not an efficient writer at all, but I can take a stab at it... JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay, just reading through this - if you do take a stab at this, I suggest exercising care with phrases like 'potentially toxic levels of heavy metals'. I don't have a source for this to hand, but my understanding is that with stuff like lead and arsenic, there isn't such a thing as a non-toxic level - the level of toxicity increases with the amount that you ingest, but there's no safe or 'non-toxic' level. We just need to be careful that we don't give the implication that there is any way that it's safe to ingest any preparation containing stuff like this. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think "remedies containing lead, mercury, and arsenic, substances known to be harmful to humans" gets it right. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, U. I would actually say:

Ayurveda (/ˌɑːjʊərˈveɪdə, -ˈviː-/) is an alternative medicine system with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. Remedies have been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic, substances known to be harmful to humans. The study of Avurveda is pseudoscientific and the Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterizes the practice of Ayurvedic medicine as quackery. Ayurveda has been adapted for Western consumption, notably by Baba Hari Dass in the 1970s and Maharishi Ayurveda in the 1980s.

References

Not all ayurvedic products contain heavy metals. I'm not averse to putting pseudoscience before alternative medicine (as per homeopathy). Guy (help! - typo?) 08:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I just edited the lead as suggested. Thanks! Do Ayurvedic practitioners operate under a law or voluntary code of conduct that requires them to disclose if a remedy contains heavy metals? The websites I have looked at claim that they "purify" the products so that the heavy metals cause no harm (yet patients still keep ending up in hospital with heavy-metal poisoning). If, as I suspect, the patient is not told what they are getting, then it doesn't really matter if not all remedies contain heavy metals just as when discussing the dangers of playing Russian roulette it doesn't really matter if some of the chambers of the revolver are not loaded. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the contamination is largely accidental, I think, and an effect of the lack of quality controls on herbal products. Recall that the in the US, thanks to lobbying by Big Herba, the FDA is not permitted to test or regulate herbal products unless there is compelling evidence of harm having been done. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The article says, "Heavy metals are thought of as active ingredients by advocates of Indian herbal medicinal products". So, when you say, "the contamination is largely accidental", do you mean that the accidental contamination exceeds even the intentional addition of heavy metals? Is there a source for that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, you are right: I was only aware of the contamination issue in the US and EU (where products containing these metals are heavily regulated). I had forgotten that India is the Wild West for health claims. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

---

​​​​​ Isn't it a huge disservice to our readers that we have to water down the language because it might offend some people's beliefs? The citations present already, along with those added are more than sufficient to warrant the label. The rfc is no consensus. Can't we edit? Or is this a kind of a stalemate. - hako9 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed an extreme disappointment, but this is a fairly common occurrence on this website. See, for example, the endless, mind-numbing struggle at Indigenous Aryans to merely include the characterization of WP:FRINGE, despite this being obvious to anyone who has even heard the term "comparative method" whispered in a neighboring room before. The unfortunate situation is that there exists a huge bloc of people with deeply-held religious and political beliefs which prevent level-headed thinking. Not much else can be said about it. BirdValiant (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

OK,I am now going to post the lead paragraph without the whitewashing from the top of this section. Please keep your eye on this page; I expect howls of protest and a bunch of edit warring from those who value promoting pseudoscience above building an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm the process of challenging the close as I believe a consensus for inclusion in the first paragraph was established, but missed by the closer. It might be worth hanging on a day or two while it's discussed at User talk:MrX #Ayurveda RfC close (and potentially at WP:AN). --RexxS (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon. You have ignored the RfC and the closer. You have labelled every editor who does not support your position as people who don't care about the encyclopedia, a gross incivility. You have ignored other possible versions of the lead in favor of your own. You have decided that only your version is not whitewashing- a POV position and just an amazing position from an experienced editor. You started this with a deliberate challenge that will /could create an edit war. I care enough about the encyclopedia to walk away, to not be baited into reverting, and starting the physical aspects of a big mess but this was started by Guy Macon. No Wikipedia article is worth this to me. This is truly sanctionable behavior on an DS article since the action pushes a POV in the face of a community consensus and is deliberate in attempts to create an edit war, to trap other editors who in good faith, whatever their position took part in an RfC on this. Too bad. The way to deal with this was to challenge the close\ as i see is being done. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: I stand by the edit 100%. The result of the rfc was no consensus. Have a look at https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/ayurvedic-medicine-in-depth There should be no debate after what the NIH has said. What you are accusing others is very incivil. You must apologise, or abstain from editing. - hako9 (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

No consensus means there was no agreement to put pseudoscience in the first sentence. In adding the content anyway an editor is ignoring the RfC. The editor added his own version with out consensus as well when there were multiple other versions. The NIH position is only important as a reference to content. We don't adopt positions. The error you and others are making is assuming that the technical aspects of writing an article, where to place a word, is a display of a position rather than a technical point. The accusations made against editors is ugly, but worse is knowing that an experienced editor has knowingly created the potential for a very messy edit war. I will leave this to the admin. My vote was made as a technical point and I have no desire to argue this further. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

In adding the content anyway an editor is ignoring the RfC ...That makes no sense. Does no consensus mean the status quo is right and cannot be challenged? The potential for an edit war, as you say, existed before the rfc and after the rfc. The only way to end it was to make a decision. - hako9 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• The closing comment of the RfC included "Upon re-examination, there appears to be a weak consensus for sustaining the pseudoscience descriptor in the lead."

If you look at the discussion, the consensus was that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first sentence, but there was no consensus that it can't be in the first sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that that's settled, I hope @Littleolive oil: sees the error in calling your edit a sanctionable behaviour. None of the 1RR, or incivility or reinstatement of edit challenged via reversion rules were broken. - hako9 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon; I had to revert your edit because it really goes against the conclusion of the RfC. Earlier there was no consensus for adding "pseudoscience" in the lead either, thus a new consensus will have to be established to add "pseudoscience". Frankly, I would prefer the solution provided by RexxS to mention "pseudoscience" in the first paragraph (but not the lead) as a good compromise. But can we look into a modified and better proposal before making any edits? Also, it would make no sense to mention "pseudoscience" or any related terms 2 times on the whole lead. So can we propose a full length lead now? I hope this helps. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The above proposal has no consensus. Can you highlight where you found consensus for it? I am opposed to this proposal. Littleoliveoil too opposed it, while RexxS is supportive of "pseudoscience" in first paragraph, but not the lead. There is no consensus for the recent edit by Guy Macon and it currently stands challenged. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the comment at 20:26, 16 August 2020 (search for that text to find it)? Please address what it says. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Let make it easier by repeating and expanding on it. The closing comment of the RfC included "Upon re-examination, there appears to be a weak consensus for sustaining the pseudoscience descriptor in the lead." If you look at the discussion, the consensus was that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first sentence, but there was no consensus that it can't be in the first sentence.

It is possible that Shiv Sahil doesn't understand what "in the lead" (not to be confused with "in the lead paragraph") means. The lead is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. In this case the lead contains four paragraphs, and the first of those paragraphs contains three sentences.

It is also possible that Shiv Sahil doesn't understand what "no consensus" means. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."

See the 20:25, 24 May 2020 version.[1], which was stable from 19 May 2020 to 2 July 2020, when the edit warring kicked into high gear. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue which has been discussed on this page. The thread is "Close challenge". --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC was about "should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence?" There is no consensus for that. I still don't see where is the consensus for mentioning "pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific)" in the first sentence which is still lead, but enough editors were either opposed or supported the inclusion of the term but not for the "opening sentence". शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Guy Macon. There was no consensus against putting it in the lead sentence, and that is the WP:STATUSQUO from before the edit warring and the RfC. Calling it a "system of traditional medicine" and especially calling it a "system of medicine" is grossly WP:POV via failing WP:GEVAL and WP:MEDRS. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: You've been explained multiple times by Johnuniq and Guy Macon. They highlighted the part of the edit from the closing review, too. Still you fail to show no comprehension in this regard. - hako9 (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:STATUSQUO, the mention of pseudoscience should remain in 3rd paragraph, not the first sentence. "system of medicine" is well supported by thousands of reliable sources, but it is not for wikipedia editors to decide what is correct. Currently, the first paragraph as written is gross misrepresentation of the source. This source made no mention of "pseudoscientific". It further says "FDA has warned that 1 in 5 Ayurvedic medicines" which has been misrepresented to a statement which is giving impression that 5/5 Ayurvedic medicines use them. Azuredivay (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

failing WP:GEVAL and WP:MEDRS and WP:PSCI —PaleoNeonate – 00:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The place to make your argument was the rfc. - hako9 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe someone can start another rfc (once the discussion at AN is closed), on how exactly the wording in the lead should be. From the closed rfc, the consensus (doesn't matter if it's weak or no) is that pseudoscience should be in the lead (unless overturned at AN). That's settled. - hako9 (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a terrible use of an RfC; it is something that RfCs are really bad at. What is needed is an open talk page discussion. I proposed a lead paragraph at the top of this section, and asked for comments. I got very few. Anyone is free to propose changes to the current lead paragraph. Such proposals will be evaluated and discussed. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. RFCs are good for yes/no situation. It will likely get stuck for a descriptive type consensus. - hako9 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thank you for making this edit. Of course I have my own disagreements but for now I would recommend inclusion of "Ayurveda has been adapted for Western consumption, notably by Baba Hari Dass in the 1970s and Maharishi Ayurveda in the 1980s", as the last sentence in the first paragraph as proposed by JzG aka Guy above. I haven't seen anyone opposing it so far. Also, you should be changing "Avurveda" to "Ayurveda". शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Break (lead paragraph)

Suggestion for the second sentence: The modern practice of Ayurveda relies on a pseudoscientific framework that distinguishes it from evidence-based medicine. Possibly add clause on IMA characterization of Ayurvedists who try to practice real medicine as quacks? JoelleJay (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The reference used here to claim Ayurveda as quackery is WP:Inaccuracy as well as it's not WP:NPOV simply because the body IMA is an organization of Allopathic practitioners. Ayurveda is one of the oldest extant health systems in the world with fundamental principles and theory-based practices. Literally, the Sanskrit meaning of 'Ayu' is life and 'Veda' is knowledge or science. Therefore, Ayurveda is also generally translated as the Science of Life . Finding that there had never been well established guidelines for Ayurveda, quite recently there are guidelines and policies formulated by Government of India. Guidelines and policiies have been published for clinical Evaluation Guidelines for Practitioners . By the WP:MEDORG policy, by virtue of having National guidelines for the practice of Ayurveda, the statment from IMA should be immediately removed. RamRaghubn (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References

"The study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific"

The first paragraph states unambiguously that "The study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific". This seems to paint with too broad a brush. Are we supposed to infer that historians writing about traditional medicine systems and scientists measuring toxic metals in Ayurveda medicine are engaging in pseudoscience? ~Awilley (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Not to hijack, but the second half of that sentence also seems to be a problem. It reads, while the practice can be classified as protoscience or unscientific. But checking the source, while it does not seem to mention Ayurveda on page 3, on page 213 it straightforwardly refers to the practice of Ayurveda as pseudoscience: ordinary members told me how they practice some of these pseudosciences,...most often Ayurveda. There's nothing here about how the practice of it is merely "protoscience", nor in distinguishing the practice from the "study" of it (which may be at the root of the problem Awilley identified). This is why I preferred a lead sentence reading, Ayurveda ([pronunciation])[1] is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. If the term is put in a follow-up sentence, it should be straightforwardly called a pseudoscience there. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Well it's not accurate. I believe we can say Ayurveda is or can be described as a pseudoscience because we have sources that say so and we have a Wikipedia position that dictates that we can and should say so if "pseudoscience" is in the mainstream sources. I like simplicity. I don't think it matters what any one of us thinks about Ayurveda which only muddies the position. (I've done some reading on Ayurveda recently and had a small bit of knowledge before. This is an incredibly complex system which covers not only herbal combinations, complex philosophical thought, but also behavior and general wellness considerations which are touted by most modern medical practices as well- bedtimes, exercise, moderation in drink and food and so on. So we have to be careful to use the simple guidelines while not becoming simplistic, a different matter altogether. Many Ayurvedic physicians are highly trained and sometimes that training has come down through generations. Quacks are in my mind those without training who deliberately try to hoodwink people. So quacks are not limited to Ayurveda or any other kind of health care, nor are practicing physicians with extensive training in their fields.) But that doesn't matter. We have a RS/document which describes Ayurvedic physicians as quacks. I, nor does anyone else have to think that is true for all Ayurvedic physicians but perhaps we do, dependent on consensus have to use the document. (And we are using it.) We don't have MEDRS sources that indicate Ayurveda is effective. Ayurveda research is at best Fringe and some of the research but not all, dependent on how it is carried out is probably pseudoscience. In terms of structure, if I write an article on Tsukuhara, do my readers know what that is? Probably not. So I start off by describing what the article is about, what Tsukuhara is. Then I can describes aspects of this. I can say, Tsukuhara is a gymnastic vault named after a Japanese gymnast which includes rotations on ...... Then I can say the vault is described as dangerous, can cause certain kinds of injuries and so on. I can say also Ayurveda is.... , and then can say it has been described as pseudoscience. I am going on and on but seems to me our personal positions are becoming entangled here with a few basic Wikipedia standards. Tell the reader what it is. Describe it and (perhaps not true in every article) how it has been received in the mainstream per our Wikipedia standards. We note in this kind of article the research or lack of it since Ayurveda is a purported health care modality and we have strict standards for health care articles. Wikipedia provides an implied template for how to write articles like this. Oh yeah, I've gone on and on! Littleolive oil (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, pseudoscience is that which adopts the trappings of science but without the fundamental assumption of the null hypothesis. The study of ayurveda is indeed classically pseudoscientific. It seeks to prove "truth", not to test it. It embodies the fallacy of begging the question. It's basically homeopathy, but with the concrete refutation lagging maybe five years behind. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG I think you may have missed my point because you didn't really respond to it. I have asserted above that A is not always B, giving two counterexamples. You seem to be rebutting that by saying that C is B. But that doesn't prove that A is B unless you can demonstrate that A is C (i.e. that the study of Ayurveda is Ayurveda). Let me try another counterexample: You have obviously done some amount of research into homeopathy, Ayurveda, and alternative medicines. Does your study of Ayurveda mean that you've engaged in pseudoscience? If not, then there is a problem with the unqualified assertion that "the study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific". ~Awilley (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine many (any?) readers are jumping to the interpretation that "the study of Ayurveda" (or for that matter "the study of medicine") means "the meta-perspective of _____" in this context. I do think the lead ought to be reworded to avoid the clunky passive voice second sentence -- "Ayurveda is a pseudoscientific system of medicine..." would be better as the first sentence, and then we could drop the current second line altogether. Ayurveda is pseudoscientific because of the fundamental principles it assumes and the framework it is built upon, which does not permit rigorous hypothesis testing. It is marketed as an individualized approach to health where the "whole person" is considered during ddx/tx, and therefore cannot be replicated (you can't reproduce a person's complete physical and spiritual makeup), or at least that's my understanding of how they explain away any negative RCT results. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I very much support merging the sentences in that way, per my comment above. And also bringing back to the first paragraph the statement about the IMA, per #Why moved to end of lead? Revert?. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, You could make the same case for the study of homeopathy not being pseudoscience, because philosophers of pseudoscience also study it as an example. I think the meaning is clear: the supposedly scientific study of the use and effects of ayurveda, is pseudoscience. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: "You could make the same case for the study of homeopathy not being pseudoscience" This presumes that I have made a case here that Ayurveda is not pseudoscience. I have not. I should probably just ignore it, but straw man arguments annoy me. ~Awilley (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't see a problem with being more general like "is considered pseudoscience", "considered to rely on pseudoscientific tenets", "the practice of ... is considered pseudoscience" or similar variants, the supporting sources could be selected as necessary... —PaleoNeonate – 23:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO, we do not have enough sources to actually describe Ayurveda as 'pseudoscience' given the large coverage it has received by all major medical institutes. Why is there a need to rely on a source which has only made a simple passing mention of Ayurveda? H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 04:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively and with finality at the RfC. There is no need to discuss this again; editor time is too valuable. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, the RfC closed has no consensus on this. Please refer User:Sandstein's clarification on this. I've been an editor here and on multiple language Wikis for more than 15 years and my time is valuable too, as an editor. What I'm seeing is blind reverts and hasty actions that seem to disrespect an old time editor and drag this endlessly. My question at this point is, where's the consensus to add "pseudoscience" in the lead? I haven't seen that "consensus" anywhere. This article is presently utterly misleading the readers to believe that Ayurveda is pseudoscience by digging up sources that cannot be used for 'defining' Ayurveda. H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 10:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein’s clarification clearly states that the RfC was looking at the question of whether “pseudoscience” should be in the opening sentence. Consensus for including it in the lead is clear; see the archives for this page.Brunton (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as the question actually asked in this thread is concerned, I think I agree with Awilley on this. Studying Ayurveda is not necessarily pseudoscience (although the practice and the theories behind it clearly are). Whether particular ways of studying it are pseudoscientific depends on what the purpose of study is, how particular studies are conducted, and how they arrive at their conclusions. Brunton (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted inclusion of any COVID-19 material.

Please do not include any "Guidelines" for Ayurvedic medicines for the treatment of COVID-19, they are not relevant to the status of Ayurveda and considering their pseudo-scientific basis should not be given any weight. Inclusion of non-MEDRS material for COVID-19 broadly construed is prohibited. PainProf (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:PainProf Wondering how mentioning about there are guidelines issued for Ayurveda practitioners (not for general public) is in violation of WP:MEDRS ? Was referring to the change you reverted -  ? The documents were published by the Ministry of Ayush for the Ayurvedic practitioners i.e Doctors of Ayurveda. Nothing from the guidelines or the document was interpreted or reproduced in the article. The status of Ayurveda as in the opening statement is purely based on the observation made by a body of Medical practitioners where as there are National and International policy (WHO's) issued for Ayurveda practitioners which as per the WP:MEDORG supercedes the IMA's statement. However, my reference is not about the status but my request is to put back my edit you reverted and it has nothing to do with the status of the Ayurveda or the pseduoscience status the wikipedia community decided earlier. RamRaghubn (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Those who have a degree in Ayurvedic medicine are not medical doctors or even medical practitioners, pseudoscientific organisations do not count as a medical organisation whereas the Indian Medical Association is. We aren't going to link to it because it has nothing to do with the status, it is isn't due because not every publication they produce is notable, and in this case it is a blatant attempt to insinuate Ayurvedic medicine can be used for COVID-19 which I consider to be an exceptionally dangerous and false claim. PainProf (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:PainProf, I respect your opinion but in Wikipedia, it's not about a person's opinion but a consensus based on what's the popular notion about a topic is to be published. I don't think anywhere in the links I have shared prescribe any sort of medical concoction or regime for Ayurveda Doctors to be administered on COVID-19 patients. All it had was about the guidelines for Ayurveda doctors to follow while treating COVID-19 patients. At the same time, AYUSH cannot be treated as a pseudoscience - as it's a Government body (is a Govt of India organization). Anything that's from a Government body will definitely have precedence over the statements issued by a body of Medical practitioners like Indian Medical Association - as per the WP:MEDORG policy. Also, the wikipedia list of pseudoscience topics doesn't mention anything about Ayurveda. Please don't be confused with 'Maharishi Ayurveda or Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health', which is a practice founded in the 1980s. If you still wish to call Ayuveda as pseudoscience, please try to get it included in that list as well. Let me know if you have any further objections in putting back my edits to the 'India' section. Specifically it's going to be as below :

"The Ministry of AYUSH has published guidelines and policies for drug development and clinical research. With an objective of having a standard regime for COVID-19 patients who has approached an Ayurveda Doctor, it has also issued another guidelines document to be referred and followed solely by the practitioner." RamRaghubn (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References

It's very simple, the ministry is not considered reliable for biomedical claims on Wikipedia considering its context and what it advocates. If you would like to keep contesting this, input from more editors could be obtained at WP:RSN. —PaleoNeonate – 23:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The "Guidelines" you are trying to link are basically an exceptional list of very bad advice for treating patients with COVID-19. It advises prescribing a number of random herbal concoctions instead of referring people to legitimate medical professionals. If someone is having cardiovascular or renal problems associated with COVID-19 they need immediate medical attention not random herbs. Ditto for ARDS. I strongly advise that you do not include this material again. PainProf (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Which reminds me of Pseudoscience § Health and education implications —PaleoNeonate – 00:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that your objection is in referring to the COVID-19 guidelines. Hence, with due respect to the opinion of a fellow wikipedia editor, I am assuming a statement mentioning that there had been a guidelines document published for clinical research and drug development was published in India by the Ministry of Ayush. Specifically, the edit to the 'India' section will look like

"In 2018, the Ministry of AYUSH has published guidelines and policies for drug development and clinical research in Ayurveda [2] RamRaghubn (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Key quotes from the Ministry of AYUSH document:

"Ayurveda-the science of life, evolved as a comprehensive system of healthcare systematically through scientific experimentations of high order backed by sound and reproducible evidence base and stood the test of the time."

"A holistic approach may be adopted to validate the therapies and approaches with integration of principles of Ayurveda and biomedicine without losing the vital fundamentals of both systems."

"It is essential to adopt an interdisciplinary approach for validation of Ayurvedic drugs and therapies without losing core fundamentals of Ayurveda. The suggested model is in Figure 1."

(Figure one suggests combining "Diagnosis based on modern methods" with "Ayurvedic Principles Prakrti,Dosha, Dushya etc." followed by "Analysis based on Ayurvedic Principles")

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see Ministry of AYUSH § Criticism and all the sources there. For your suggestion to be included it should ideally be mentioned and covered by an independent source that the article text would reflect, rather than simply providing an uncritical controversial link or self-description (i.e. WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:MISSION may give an idea of the concept)... —PaleoNeonate – 02:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@RamRaghubn: you ask "If you still wish to call Ayuveda as pseudoscience, please try to get it included in that list as well." However, it is already included in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience twice: first of all as "Alternative medicine" (see Alternative medicine #Traditional ethnic systems), and as Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, which – despite your claim to the contrary – is clearly described as "representing the entirety of the ayurvedic tradition". --RexxS (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Quackery 2

I get calling it quackery due to the source but the source itself doesn't call it quackery but says that some practitioners who practice Ayurveda/Indian Medicine under the guise of Modern Medicine are quacks. I found it confusing because in India, we have a degree for Ayurveda and there is also an gov. institute for it.

Tl;dr

Source doesn't say that Ayurveda is quackery. Can someone look into it? ]

FlyingNinja1 (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

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. Just because a government support something, or has the framework to grant special degrees for it, that doesn't mean that it's true in any way. In this case, the government of India has a strong incentive to support Ayurveda due to its relative cheapness compared to evidence-based medicine and due to the country's current alignment with Hindutva and increasing Hindu nationalism; likewise in mainland China, the government has a strong incentive to support Chinese traditional medicine due to its cheapness and due to increasing Chinese nationalism.

Please see the RfC above; you will find many citations which justify the use of the term "quackery". BirdValiant (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

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. Over 3,000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism and genetics research was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953. So no, Wikipedia does not give a lot of weight to the opinions of governments and politicians[3] or even news organizations[4] in matters of science. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@BirdValiant I get it that it is quackery but that is not what IMA is saying, is it? That is your opinion. Either change the source or change the sentence. The sentence is that IMA catergorizes it as quackery but it doesn't. Also, on the latest consensus on this issue. The edit was revoked but it is still there, why? It is bringing unnecessary publicity and hate to the article which is otherwise fine.

FlyingNinja1 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I call the sentence as against WP:RS because it has no valid sources. I am not aware of many Wikipedia customs so I would like someone to open a Rfc or Consensus on this issue.

FlyingNinja1 (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is quackery, but I think its possible this is a case of a difference in Indian English. Rather hilariously Quack is originally German and in that case it originally means one who gives their patients mercury i.e. someone giving fake treatments so Ayurveda fits well. I think this page actually describes quacks as people who practice medicine without a medical license, noting a lot of the Ayurveda practioners do this. Quacks (as fake doctors) are an incredibly serious problem in India, I think its something like 57% of "doctors" don't have a medical degree according to the WHO... generally it would be illegal to practice in most Western countries, if you wanted to for example diagnose a medical illness you're gonna need a medical degree (so by that definition it would be "quackery" if the law in India is the same), I dunno how that works in India though. PainProf (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

But re-reading carefully this is correct as a sentence, the source does say when Ayurvedic practioners practice medicine it is quackery, it is only not quackery when they practice ayurveda which is not medicine. PainProf (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sentence: "IMA categorizes Ayurveda as quackery."

It doesn't. All your points are valid that Ayurveda is quackery but IMA doesn't say that. The source says that Ayurvedic practitioner who claim to Allopathic doctors are quacks but them practicing Ayurveda doesn't make them a quack. If IMA doesn't say so then why use it as a source. WP:RS still applies

Just to clear it, I am not some single purpose account as I have been here for near a year now. It is just that this caught my eye.

FlyingNinja1 (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. Which seems to be correct to me as that page describes ayurveda practitioners practicing medicine - they are not allowed to do that they can only practice Ayurveda. PainProf (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

PainProf, yes - anything to do with herbs other than cookery, is fraud. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok won me over. Just having it in the first para seems a little forced. Maybe later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingNinja1 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@FlyingNinja1: I could live with seeing it mentioned further down in the lead, but I do feel it is important to establish the context in which Ayurveda exists. The fact that the IMA labels the practice of medicine by Ayurvedics as "quackery" is significant in establishing that Ayurvedic practitioners are not qualified to practice medicine as we understand it. In any case, we are going to have to hold another RfC to re-establish the wording of the whole lead once we have consensus on where to place the "pseudoscience" description. This isn't going to be a quick process, so we might as well take our time and get it right. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Out of interest do we cover the problem of Quackery in India, it sounds like a fascinating topic. I've never heard of such rampant health fraud 57% (from an RS) is crazy. PainProf (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Warning

@Vjrahul: Learn to indent and learn to sign your posts.

Your assertion, now removed, is deliberately untrue. The article says:

• The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery.

The source is:

• "IMA Anti Quackery Wing". Indian Medical Association.

which 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.

It clearly applies the epithet "quackery" to the actions of "practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine", i.e. including Ayurveda, when they attempt to practice real medicine. Now if you continue this gaslighting to waste productive editors' time, I'll request an AE admin familiar with this topic – ping El C as an alert – to take steps to remove you from this arena. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the paragraph of quackery for practicing medicine seems pretty out of place. Maybe putting it in later in the India section would be appropriate. FlyingNinja1 (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thank you for pointing out. I shall try to learn intending and signing soon. Pardon me now for still trying to put in my point before doing that. It is only because as much as I respect an editor's time being spent on these, I am very sure about what I speak. I may be ignorant on Wikipedia rules and etiquette, but I believe that even when spoken by someone like me, facts are facts. Wikipedia must serve as a platform that acts neutral. Which is very much broken here.

• The very statement referred to in the warning given to me, ends with "barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine." And in the interpretation that follows, the words chosen were 'real medicine'. It is implied that Modern Medicine is the only real medicine. That is not a neutral statement. Even the apex body on Medicine, the WHO, does not share this view on other medical sciences, including Ayurveda. Now is that suitable for Wikipedia? At least, why not display just the original words?
• The earlier statement also linked the IMA to this issue, while IMA has never, and can never take such a public stand on Ayurveda, which is a completely legal medical system in India. Now, that statement has been taken away, which is appreciable. I only wish that the currently displayed statement ("The study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific while the practice can be classified as protoscience or unscientific.[3]") is also studied properly. The exact cited reference is not even available for verification on Google books. This is nothing personal against the editor who has been repeatedly removing my edits, with strict warnings, while one of it has actually now been approved (the removal of the IMA statement). I only wish that facts are published here. Vjrahul (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vjrahul: You've learned to sign. That's a good start. I do agree that facts are facts, but you will have to accept that on Wikipedia facts are statements expressed by high-quality reliable sources that are not contradicted by equally reliable sources.

You say that the implication that what you charmingly call "modern medicine" (what the rest of us regard as evidence-based medicine) is the only real medicine, is not a neutral statement. You're wrong. Medicine that has been shown to work is medicine. Anything else is superstition. And when the proponents of that superstition make claims that it is based on principles resembling scientific principles, it becomes a pseudoscience. That is the position with Ayurveda.

The WHO most certainly does not regard Ayurveda as having any basis in evidence, nor does any mainstream scientific viewpoint. You can either learn to live with that, or you can continue to pretend that Ayurveda has a basis in evidence-based medicine. In either case, your baseless protestations will not change the large number of reliable sources that show Ayurveda is based on nothing but unsupportable traditional beliefs, and that Ayurvedic practitioners who attempt to practise your "modern medicine" are properly labelled as quacks by every sensible body.

If you decide to remove properly sourced content purely because you don't like what it says, you will soon find yourself unwelcome on Wikipedia. That's a prediction, not a warning. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Why moved to end of lead? Revert?

In this edit, Nizil Shah moved this information to the end of the lead for the explicit reason he considered it "irrelevant". I think it's highly relevant. It shows that modern medicine and ayurveda are separate. Even though some people think that pseudoscience can be integrated with medicine.

I do think this would be better at the end of the first paragraph rather than the middle, however. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We should refrain from making unilateral edits without gaining consensus. Traditional Ayurveda (which also involves philosophy) and modern Ayurveda are two different things. Nizil Shah was correct in moving IMA sentence because it was agreed in the above the sections of this discussion. You should read the messages of Flyingninja and RexxS, which discussed moving IMA outside the first paragraph. As for what you removed as "not in the source", [5] is actually supported by sources and can be also read at Ayurveda#Classification and efficacy. Lead does not require many or in fact any sources per MOS:LEAD. H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 04:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nizil Shah is the one who made the unilateral edit. And you also undid Littleolive oil's edit by going way back to before it. RexxS's statement that I could live with seeing it mentioned further down in the lead, but I do feel it is important to establish the context in which Ayurveda exists is hardly a ringing endorsement of actually moving it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I moved it at the end of lead because the sentence was not about Ayurveda "is quackery" but about Ayurveda pratitioners practicing modern medicine "are quckery". The sentence created an impression that IMA considers Ayurveda as "quackery". There is a difference between "Carpenters doing plumbing is quackery" and "Carpentry is quackery". It should be clear and is not very relevant thing to put in the lead. That is why I moved it to last.-Nizil (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Present Status of Ayurveda in India to be included in opening Paragraph

I would like to propose the following changes to the initial paragraphs on this matter of pseudoscience and ayurveda :

• changing the wording - "The study of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific". A study is an educational activity. There is a logical error saying that a "study" is pseudoscientific.

References

• Since article begins with the story of Ayurveda having its roots in India, the present status of Ayurveda as a medical system in India is as relevant as its roots in India. That aspect is not covered in the introduction of this article. Without it, this article is incomplete. Ayurveda is a mainstream medical system in India. There are hundreds of ayurvedic medical colleges in India ; as well as medical councils in each state for Ayurveda(e.g.). Research institutes under a central research council , Ayurveda Universities, Postgraduate institutes , Doctoral programs, several institutes of national importance - e.g. and vibrant scientific communities exist for Ayurveda. India has ensured the availablity of ayurvedic to all its citizens (which is almost a fifth of world population ) by establishing central Ayush ministry as well as separate departments in each state thereby making ayurveda a mainstream medical system. There is also a group of western medical practitioners who call it pseudoscience. Another group having no idea about fundamental principles of Ayurveda also oppose it. This fact about the two opposing arguments (against and for ayurvedic science in Indian contet) is ignored in the present version of this article. Readers are shown only one side (i.e., ayurveda is pseudoscience), without them undertanding that it is also a mainstream medical system in India while reading the present version. This needs to be corrected.

References

• The second paragraph starts with Gods and sages, this article lead people to wrongly believe that Ayurveda is still stagnant from that time onwards. The fact that it has been evolving as a science is often overlooked. The references for its academic and scientific background in India has been given above. This aspect needs to included so as to convey a true picture about status of Ayurveda to readers.

• Ayurveda is a mainstream medical system in only a few countries such as India, Nepal, Sri Lanka etc. But, it is more than one fifth of the entire population of our world. Also, there are western medical practitioners who call it pseudoscience. It is proposed that these two facts be presented in a true and neutral manner.

--Arunjithp (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

So Let's see... Dosha is not protoscience, metaphysical and pseudoscientific? Other than WP:PSCI about presenting pseudoscience as such, Wikipedia also has WP:MEDRS for sources that can be used on the efficacy of biomedical claims and WP:YESPOV, where things as obvious that tenets are pseudoscientific should not be presented as someone's (or some group's) opinion... —PaleoNeonate – 05:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As has been said many times on here, governments have a poor track record for judging what is science and what is pseudoscience. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Arunjithp, I've spent enough time in India and working with Indian friends and colleagues to know that deference to cherished belief is a core value of the culture. Acceptance is what makes India so welcoming. But it also makes India tolerant of gurus and other charlatans. The government is going to have a hard time coming out and saying that ayurveda or homeopathy are the nonsense they clearly are, but the science is clear. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also clear on the matter of citing references. Arunjithp (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Matter of IMA opinion

This reference (and its cited quote) on Indian Medical Association website is misinterpreted in the present version of Ayurveda article on Wikipedia. I have fragmented the sentences that follow the above citation for clarification:

This statement - "Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :" - no clarification

This statement - "Quacks with no qualification whatsoever" - no clarification

This statement - "Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practising Modern Medicine." includes two categories of "Qualified" Ayurvedic Practitioners: Firstly, those NOT qualified to practice modern medicine-Allopathy (as they are qualified in Ayurveda), but still practising modern medicine. IMA opinion about this category is correctly reflected in the present version of Ayurveda article on Wikipedia. However, there is a second and most important category of Ayurvedic Practitioners - Those qualified in Ayurveda and practising Ayurveda. IMA has NOT opinioned that they are quacks. The present version of Wikipedia article wrongly assumes IMA opinion about the second category. This needs correction.

The statement - "Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act." by IMA refers only to the "unqualified" people (Quacks). They are different from Qualified Ayurveda Practitioners. The present version of Wikipedia article wrongly assumes that IMA has the same opinion about Quacks and Qualified Ayurvedic Practitioners. This needs correction. IMA has correctly listed the medical acts also in their website. They have clearly stated the medical act for Ayurvedic practitioners as Central council of Indian medicine act 1970, and a minimum qualification of B.A.M.S

If IMA is quoted, it needs to be done correctly - and the above factors need to be considered. IMA has NOT taken the stand of Medical practice by Qualified ayurvedic professionals as quackery in the cited reference.

--Arunjithp (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The flaw in the above analysis is the mistaken belief that there is more than one kind of medicine. In fact, medicine is treatment that has been shown to work. Anything else has either not been shown to work, or has been shown not to work. In either case, it's not medicine. Ayurveda falls into the second group along with homeopathy, faith-healing, etc. IMA has correctly identified the dangers of unqualified people attempting to practise medicine. --RexxS (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• The article in question is about Ayurveda. There are qualified ayurvedic practitioners practising Ayurveda in India. IMA has NOT called such qualified Ayurvedic practitioners practising Ayurveda as Quacks. But this information is misrepresented as "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery" in the present version of the article. This needs correction. --Arunjithp (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement ”The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery” is adequately supported by the source cited (although it could be further paraphrased by omitting the word “modern”). Brunton (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

But what about a common person reading this article ? he will not stop and think about the fine print (about modern medicine). This statement will give an immediate impression that "IMA Characterises .... .... practice by ayurvedic practitioners as quackery" - This needs to be corrected. Arunjithp (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The point is that it’s a perfectly good summary of the source. Are you withdrawing your claim that it’s a misrepresentation? Brunton (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am withdrawing my claim that it's a misrepresentation. The only concern remaining is how readers will perceive the practice of "Qualified" Ayurveda practitioners when they read this article. They are NOT doing Quackery. IMA also does not say that they are doing Quackery. The concern is how to clarify this fact in a simple way.Arunjithp (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

They certainly are doing quackery. This term means "fraudulent or ignorant medical practices". Anyone practicing Auyrveda is either lying or ignorant. Retimuko (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References are vital Arunjithp (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The flaw in Johannes Quack source needs to be fixed

In a reference cited in current version first paragraph, about a statement in Johannes Quack's Book ,

• A - > It seems author found that an organization labels Ayurveda as pseudoscience / protoscience / unscientific (? which one ?)
• B -> Author mentions this in his book

But, wikipedia article is relying only what author said in his book, Instead of getting a verifiable reference directly from that organization. Is it author's personal opinion ? was the author prejudiced ? Did author do any study to verify this ? all these question remain unanswered. Need to fix these.--Arunjithp (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That's published via a reputable university press and a secondary source from an ethnologist, that is usable on Wikipedia. In any case, as has been demonstrated, many other sources agree with that assessment. —PaleoNeonate – 07:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Arunjithp: you're not qualified to analyse sources, nor is any other Wikipedia editor, whose job is to assess the quality of the source. What is published in good quality reliable sources should be summarised dispassionately without bringing in your own editorial biases. A book published by a reputable publisher carries the extra weight gained by the publishing process under editorial oversight. So not only are we taking into account the expertise of the author, but also that of the Oxford University Press who have a reputation to maintain. --RexxS (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• If

secondary source is " Johannes Quack mentioned that X officially labels Ayurveda a pseudoscience this in his book"

• Then

event is: "X officially labels Ayurveda a pseudoscience"

• But the current version of the article has misrepresented the event as "The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific." - This anomaly needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 14:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The flaw in David Semple & Roger Smyth source needs to be fixed

In a reference cited in current version first paragraph, there is a passing statement by the author(s) that "These pseudoscientific theories..... new age psychotherapies confuse metaphysical with emperical claims (e.g. Ayurvedic medicine)" .

• How does this support ayurveda as pseudoscience / protoscience / unscientfic ? - need to fix

How did author reach this conclusion ? Unless that aspect is clarified, it is only the personal opinion of the author. - need to fix. --Arunjithp (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Nonsense. The personal opinion here is your dislike of something that is written by respectable authors and published by a reputable publisher. Stop wasting editor's time with your continual inappropriate quibbling. --RexxS (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Arunjithp said, ’In a reference cited in current version first paragraph, there is a passing statement by the author(s) that " new age psychotherapies confuse metaphysical with emperical claims (e.g. Ayurvedic medicine)"’ Nope: what it actually says regarding Ayurveda is, “These pseudoscientific theories may ... confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g. ... Ayurvedic medicine)”. That puts Ayurveda firmly within pseudoscientific theories. Brunton (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Brunton: You are right. I have made the corrections above. Arunjithp (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Then we’re done here. Brunton (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Needs clarification - is the David Semple & Roger Smyth source a Primary Source or a Secondary source for this article? Arunjithp (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Neither "for this article", since they don't consider "this article". Their view qua view is primary, but their view is secondary commentary on Ayurveda - exactly the kind of sourcing Wikipedia most values. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree we're done here; the OP just seems to be trying to find any way to get rid of something they don't agree with. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Brunton: If their view is considered secondary (commentary on ayurveda), WP:SECONDARY states that a secondary source "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". Here, the primary source on which authors arrived at conclusion is missing - this needs to be fixed. Arunjithp (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Authors are not required to "show their working" to your personal satisfaction. We simply reflect their knowledge. If you want the authors to revise their book, I suggest you write to them and/or the publishers. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Good. So we agree that the authors merely reflected their knowledge without disclosing how they arrived at it - in the matter of this reference. Arunjithp (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Source of M.R. Raghava Varier - A Brief History of Ayurveda - to be added

A relevant source - "Following a general trend, Ayurveda is often oficially described and commonly known even among its practitioners as 'alternative medicine', whereas the available sources clearly show that it was the mainstream healthcare programme in the subcontinent for roughtly more than two-and-a-half millenia in the past" needs to be added Arunjithp (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Where, and why, do you think this needs to be added? The lead already says it’s alternative medicine and has been used for over two millennia, and the same info is in the body of the article. Brunton (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Where - In the first paragraph

Why - This is a reputed reference (by the same publisher as that of Johannes Quack) that portrays the true status of Ayurveda in India - "As a mainstream medical system" - I am talking about Qualified Ayurvedic practitioners practising Ayurveda. This aspect is missing in the current version of first paragraph. Arunjithp (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No. He says it was a mainstream medical system. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Good. So we agree on that. Arunjithp (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We report things as they are, and the info is already in the lead. A source that says that it’s regarded as alternative medicine, and has been used for thousands of years, doesn’t add anything. Brunton (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Lets agree on reporting things as they are - Ayurveda is (and was) a mainstream medical system in India. Since the reference for this fact is available. The missing element in the current version is the concept of Mainstream medical system Arunjithp (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It says “was”. And research from the Indian government suggests that it no longer is, with the whole of ‘AYUSH’ having only 5 to 7% usage. NB: I’m not suggesting using that as a source for this article as it would probably involve WP:SYN, but it’s certainly something to keep in mind when assessing other sources. Brunton (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it says "was" - But let's not forget the publication "was also" in 2020.

Regarding the survey report- The following points are to be noted:

1. Look at the heading - it is a survey on social consumption, NOT about mainstream medicine.

2. Look at the sample size used for the study in a country with a population of 1.3 billion.

36480 households in 4577 villages - 7 households in a village.

29452 households in 3720 urban blocks - less than 8 households in an urban area.

How can the result of survey be relevant, when the sample size taken was only less than 70,000 when the total population is 1.3 Billion?

This is another research on usage of ayurvedic products in India, which gives the figure as 77 percent. This study is more relevant as it is based on market sales data and done jointly by Confederation of Indian Industry and PricewaterhouseCoopers Arunjithp (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's controversial to report that it's popular in India. Afterall it's one reason why significant syncretism exists there (some related sources here). —PaleoNeonate – 05:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Popular is good. Arunjithp (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Who all are legitimate medics & what constitutes a legitimate medical practice in India?

legitimate medics

Health comes under State List as per Constitution of India. Each state has its own medical council due to this.

It is a state medical council that grants permission to a Qualified medic to practice medicine in that state .

• Medics qualified in M.B.B.S are given the permission to practice modern medicine, and
• Medics qualified in B.A.M.S are given permission to practice ayurvedic medicine

by the same state medical council as per the Indian medicine central council (IMCC) act 1970 .

Indian Medical Association is only a group of doctors who have passed M.B.B.S. and comprise only a part of legitimate medics in India. There are similar association of legitimate medics in Ayurveda also

The first paragraph in the current version of Ayurveda article places overwhelming importance on the opinion of IMA (M.B.B.S doctors), who have nothing to do with this article on Ayurveda - NEED TO FIX.

legitimate medical practice

Medical practice as per the permissions granted by the state medical council (explained above with references) is legitimate in India.

quackery constitutes all forms of medical practice that is not legitimate (explained above). For e.g., Unqualified persons practising modern or Ayurveda, MBBS doctors practising Ayurveda, Ayurvedic doctors practising modern (only in those cases where the respective state council has not allowed such practice. There are certain state councils that allow modern practice by ayurvedic doctors also )

The first paragraph in the current version of Ayurveda article mentions only one type of quackery, relying upon only on the opinion of MBBS Doctors (IMA) and ignoring all the other types of quackery. NEED TO FIX. Arunjithp (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

India isn't the world. Nobody outside of India takes seriously the unproven and dangerous methods of Ayurveda, which is not medicine. People who successfully train to be doctors are correctly regarded as medics by the mainstream throughout the world. Those who train to be Ayurvedic practitioners are not recognised as qualified to perform medicine, and the 1,000,000 unqualified people who practise medicine in India are properly described by the IMA as quacks. This article properly reflects the mainstream view of Ayurveda and your tendentious attempts to whitewash that view are disruptive. NOTHING NEEDS TO BE FIXED. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And there are many non-Ayurveda hospitals in India too. "Legitimate" may also be misleading without making the distinction between what is legal and what is proper medicine. —PaleoNeonate – 01:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to revert edit

This edit should be reverted as WP:PROFRINGE, failing WP:PSCI, and failing WP:V. I proposed these changes scattered around the talk page, got no objections after a while, and implemented them. I don't see a discussion that decided on the old text, and in any case it has too many problems and needs to be discussed now. Gathering the issues with the old text all in one place:

• Saying the "study of" Ayurveda is pseudoscientific is misleading per the reasoning set out here, and does not fit the sources well, as will be described below.

• Calling the practice merely "protoscience" is grossly POV. That term is not in that source at all, and it only appears in this article as something stated by an Ayurvedic practitioner. "In-universe" descriptions do not get equal validity, or go in the lead. "Unscientific" also is watered down, does not appear in the source, and only appears in the body as stated by an Ayurvedic practitioner.

• The RfC closure at the top of the page states, The outcome of this RfC is that Ayurveda should continue to be described as a pseudoscience in the lead paragraph, but not in the lead sentence. Saying that only the "study of" it is pseudoscientific, but the "practice" is just protoscience or unscientific, is in violation of the RfC.

• Describing the "theory and practice" as pseudoscience is according to the sources. Emphasis added: These pseudoscientific theories may...confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g....Ayurvedic medicine) [6] ordinary members told me how they practice some of these pseudosciences, either privately or as certified doctors themselves, most often Ayurveda. [7], p. 213.

• The statement about what the Indian Medical Association says is highly relevant and should remain in the lead paragraph. It shows that the relevant experts says that modern medicine and Ayurveda are to be separate, and cannot be "integrated" like some people claim. And we most certainly do not give WP:FALSEBALANCE to Ayurvedic practitioners as equal to medical doctors who work under the framework of scientific knowledge as accepted by WP:MEDRS sources. Thus, the viewpoint of medical doctors deserves high prominence. How the Indian or any other government views the two is of no relevance whatsoever. Governments are often poor judges of science for political reasons, as seen with homeopathy, climate change, COVID-19, etc.

If anyone is going to argue that my points above are wrong and that the wording I implemented should not be restored, then it needs to be explained why on the basis of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree, looks like barely-literate POV-pushing as is. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Also agree. "Protoscience" should be reserved for alchemy, ancient Babylonian astrology, etc.: systems or practices that were not scientific, but which had some aspects in common with science (like numerical record-keeping) and which eventually developed into actual science. XOR'easter (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors who've put in your comments above, the intent was to restore edits done by User:Nizil_Shah which was to keep this 'quackery' assertion away from the lead. You were incorrect in calling Ayurveda itself as quackery earlier citing what actually tries to indicate that practice of modern medicine by Ayurveda practitioners is quackery.

Now, while you've put a proposal here to call it ProFringe, I see that User:Guy Macon has already reverted that back. Pray why are you so keen and intent on highlighting the 'quackery' line in the lead? What does that serve other than distracting reader's attention away from what actually should describe Ayurveda? --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 11:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Practice of modern medicine by practitioners of Ayurveda in itself is unrelated to the definition of Ayurveda. Yet, you want that on the lead. This does not fit in. --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 11:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@HPN: you're wrong. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The purpose of the lead is to introduce the topic and present its key aspects in context. When the IMA states

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). The health of the gullible people including poor, critically ill, women and children are at stake.

it is making clear the scale of an urgent and dangerous problem in India, namely that 1,000,000 unqualified persons are practising medicine, with 400,000 of those being practitioners of Ayurveda, Sidha, Tibb and Unani. Of course such a problem is a key issue for setting the context of Ayurveda, and of course it deserves mention in the lead. You can make an argument about due weight, whether it belongs in the first paragraph or later in the lead, but trying to remove all mention of such a large problem is comically inept. --RexxS (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree, I feel that there is strong consensus for this material. The source and the Indian governments opinions should be viewed in the light of the world health organisation's report on quack medicine in India as it goes to the impact. Whilst the Indian government has strong objections the WHO indicates that 57% of Indian doctors are quacks - this is a substantial public health concern and so major contributors such as Ayurvedic doctors (per the IMA source) should be prominently identified as such. For instance here. Maybe we should include a major section on this in the article. Given a variety of high quality sources are available. (Edit conflict)PainProf (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• I would agree to keep the quackery sentence but at the end of lede. Not as second sentence.-Nizil (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Agree. Calling it protoscience implies it's on its way to becoming proper science, and we won't know that unless it actually does. (And it's unsourced, which is more to the point.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  I remember using protoscience in reference to Dosha on this page before, although I really meant prescience... —PaleoNeonate – 01:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for Urgency

I understand that the Wikipedia editors are working on this and beyond but it baffles me to see the contradiction between what is going on the talk page and the actual page. If I have not missed anything, the latest revision by @Painprof is against the latest consensus. See, the quackery 2 section. It would have made sense if IMA had categorized the entire study of Ayurveda as quackery but it is due to a specific condition, it doesn't make sense to put it in the 1st para and gives an unnecessary hate to the article. While, I recognize that Ayurveda is quackery, it is also the belief of hundreds of millions of people. By putting such negative bias and vibe in the 1st lines of the article, the article feels harsh to those people. A lot of things in the world are quackery but saying so will hurt people's sentiments. I do not understand why the article has turned so obviously biased when it was once neutral. I have seen articles on many negative personalities and system but I don't see such blatant negativity in the opening. I totally the understand that Ayurveda is bs but it is the bs of the ancestors of many Indian people and they, as humans, love their ancestral bs. Please revert the article to pre-negativity levels and put current criticism in its own section.

A Rfc on this would be appreciated.

FlyingNinja1 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@FlyingNinja1: Yes, I believe, you have missed a lot. In particular, that mentioning "hate", "negativity", "hurting somebody's sentiments" is not the right course of discussion here. Please focus on accurate description according to reliable sources, in this case medical and scientific sources. Pseudoscience and quackery are appropriate terms to describe the subject according to the sources. There is nothing hateful about them. And, yes, Wikipedia is biased towards reason and reality, and in this case, science-based medicine. Please see WP:YESBIAS. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are biased against me, acting like I do not think reason and logic are important. I get that bias but this kind of extreme bias was not found by me in any article related to these fringe theories. Yes, it is a pseudoscience then include it in the 1st line, going out of your way to point that out is suspicious. Relating, to the other line, you have not answered the discrepancy between consensus and edits and never told me what I missed? While I was trying to explain the unreasonable hate and spam the Indian people are giving this article, you did not explain why the line about medicinal usage by Ayurvedic practitioners is quackery is put in the lead. Who is governed by emotion here? FlyingNinja1 (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@FlyingNinja1: I am not against you. Please keep the focus on the article, not on editors. I don't find that the lead is against consensus. According to WP:PSCI we must clearly and prominently describe pseudoscience as such. And quackery (promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices) is the right technical term to describe the subject according to sources. Retimuko (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It is the belief of hundreds of millions needs a source, it is my understanding that most Indian people know that this isn't real medicine. The practice of medicine by Ayurvedic medicine practitioners represents a serious risk to India's public health, so it is due in the lead and those discussions appear to fit that consensus. Its not due to a "specific condition" its because Ayurvedic "doctors" are 1) Diagnosing conditions when they do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to recognise them 2) prescribing medicines and surgeries from Western medicine without the appropriate training. 3) prescribing Ayurvedic treatments when real medicine is essential causing death or disability unnecessarily. PainProf (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

FlyingNinja1, we're not biased against you, you just believe something that is objectively wrong. Since this is true of virtually every religious or quasi-religious belief, it's not a judgment on you personally, in any way. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@FlyingNinja1: please shift your gaze to the Astrology article. Its lead opens and closes with:

Astrology is a pseudoscience that claims divine information about human affairs and terrestrial events ... While polls have demonstrated that approximately one quarter of American, British, and Canadian people say they continue to believe that star- and planet-positions affect their lives, astrology is now recognized as a pseudoscience — a belief which its advocates incorrectly present as scientific.

Perhaps you should also be taking up the cause of the 100+ million people of America, Britain and Canada, who are upset by that characterisation of their deeply-held beliefs?

If you think the analogy is too far removed, then how about turning your attention to the injustice done to Homeopathy which starts and finishes its lead thus:

Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine. ... The National Health Service in England ceased funding homeopathic remedies in November 2017 and asked the Department of Health in the UK to add homeopathic remedies to the blacklist of forbidden prescription items, and France will remove funding by 2021. In November 2018, Spain also announced moves to ban homeopathy and other pseudotherapies.

Ayurveda's treatment is a whitewash job in comparison. --RexxS (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Look at Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health for another whitewash. Feels like a walled-garden around this general topic. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Remember, the result of the RfC was to put pseudoscience in the first paragraph, that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first sentence, but that it could be placed in the first sentence or anywhere else in the first paragraph. Please suggest wording that contains less whitewash.

On Twitter, OpIndia is coordinating the attacks on this page, and part of their advice for those doing the attacking is to fight to keep pseudoscience out of the first sentence because Google presents the first sentence in search results. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No it was not. The result of the RFC was The outcome of this RfC is that Ayurveda should continue to be described as a pseudoscience in the lead paragraph, but not in the lead sentence. It specifically says not in the lead sentence. Also accusations of white washing are never helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Which unfortunately casts an undesirable light on those wanting the lead first sentence to be worded with out pseudoscience for more Wikipedia compliant reasons. I'm not sure we should consider the position of OpIndia and Google although I do understand they are creating a SPA mess for admins trying to maintain some kind of order here. There are things which cloud the issues we have to deal with here. Twitter is one of them. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, calling out whitewashing is often constructive when it addresses the issues of false balance. We cannot leave readers with the impression that Ayurvedic practice is equivalent to evidence-based medicine, because it simply is not. Much of what Ayurveda practises is harmless, some of it is helpful, such as attention to hygiene and holistic techniques, and the placebo mechanism ensures that it does some good. Nevertheless it's not rooted in science, and makes major mistakes such as prescribing ingestion of materials containing heavy metals.

Our readers deserve to get the full picture, without being filtered through the lens of Ayurvedic adherents who naturally wish to see their beliefs reinforced, not challenged. While external agents are campaigning for nationalistic reasons to whitewash our content, I'll continue to call that out, and I'll do my best to ensure that Wikipedia's consensus system is not distorted by SPAs brought in to achieve that. Let's be clear: many recent posts to this page have been made by people whose principal motivation is not to improve our encyclopedia, but to impose a particular view on this article. They are not welcome here, and their efforts should be condemned by the reasonable voices on both sides of the debate. --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That is starting to sound like a WP:RGW type speech. If you think that every sentence of the first paragraph is required to give the reader the correct impression you are either operating outside of NPOV or think very little of the reader. Luckily consensus found that the lead adequately calls out the pseudoscience aspects so past that is obviously outside a wide community consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not difficult to take a facile view like yours, but it's never helpful. Your distorted perspective fails to recognise that editors like me are working with consensus to maintain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you had bothered to look instead of scoffing, you'd have seen the clear consensus for establishing the mainstream view on Ayurveda in the lead, and particularly in the opening paragraph. Reasonable folks are happy to acknowledge Ayurveda's antiquity, its roots in traditional Indian medicine, and its importance to large numbers of people in India, but unlike you, they also think it important that our readers are not misled by self-published hagiography. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

So far every sentence in the lead paragraph makes the pseudoscience nature of the subject clear so I am not sure what you are on about. No one is trying to remove that. If you bothered to read the RFC close or my statements it is expressly about the first sentence not requiring the word pseudoscience specifically. If you want to continue to push that view you will, obviously, be against community consensus and a harm to the project as a whole. I would suggest not trying to do that, but it's your hill I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope that nothing I have ever said here indicates I support whitewashing this article. My comment above was specifically concerning Twitter and whether a relationship with Twitter could confuse the already complex issues here. Nor was my comment directed at anyone. My preference to have pseudoscience in the second sentence instead of the first is a technical preference; if in the second the first sentence or line tells the reader what the article is about, provides context for the next sentence which discusses the concerns medicine has with Ayurveda. I don't write or make decisions thinking about Google-it doesn't enter my mind-and how an article will appear on Google. Nor am I saying anyone else does that. I am in no way supporting the numerous SPAs that have shown up here and I know they create a lot of work; I'm not one of them. I have clearly supported having pejorative content about Ayurveda in the first paragraph or even second sentence per my understanding of community agreement and consensus on pseudoscientific topics. That my posts don't explicitly indicate that is both shocking and discouraging. And I would tend to agree that Ayurveda may be helpful in some cases, not in others, and dangerous (especially in the wrong hands) in many. Human beings have been using herbal medicines since the beginning of time which does not make them safe or effective or as effective as something like an antibiotic. And alternative health care treatments too, can have very serious contraindications, some known, some not. Our Wikipedia articles, are in my mind written for the lay reader not medical experts which is why it's important to include very early on a strong and neutral position on where this content is placed in reference to the mainstream medicine position. We don't have to give MDs or medical hospitals that information, I hope, but then we aren't writing for serious academics in this field which doesn't make the articles less important, but perhaps more important with extra care needed in the writing, since we could be directing those who are not professionals in this area. I'm sorry my position has been misunderstood. Perhaps, I have to be clearer in how I state those positions. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Add: Regarding Twitter. I found for myself, that a long time ago, following Wikipedia issues off-Wikipedia was not only exhausting but clouded my thought on the article content. Thus my comment in reference to Twitter; I wondered whether knowledge of what was going on on Twitter was helpful or clouding what we know is needed for the article, have already decided with discussion and RfC, and exhausting as a result. Once again, what I meant and what I thought I was saying wasn't clear. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any actual examples of anything from Ayurveda making it into conventional medicine?

• "You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine." --Tim Minchin
• "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work. Alternative medicine is defined as that set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested or consistently fail tests." --Richard Dawkins
• "Only desperation can account for what the Chinese do in the name of 'medicine.' That's something you might remind your New Age friends who've gone gaga over 'holistic medicine' and 'alternative Chinese cures." --Anthony Bourdain
• "It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride There cannot be two kinds of medicine — conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted." Marcia Angell
• "In some aspects of alternative medicine we are fighting an almost medieval belief in magic but debunking such beliefs is like telling people that the tooth fairy is sniffing glue." --John Diamond
• "We hate Big Pharma. We hate big government. We don’t trust The Man. And we shouldn’t. Our health care system sucks. It’s cruel to millions of people. It’s absolutely astonishingly cold and soul-bending to those of us who can even afford it. So we run away from it, and where do we run? We leap into the arms of Big Placebo." --Michael Specter

When I asked the question "do we have any actual examples of anything from Ayurveda making it into conventional medicine?" I got some citations to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (formerly known as the Office of Alternative Medicine).

First I saw the claim "Turmeric may help with ulcerative colitis" But Turmeric#Medical research says "Turmeric and curcumin, one of its constituents, have been studied in numerous clinical trials for various human diseases and conditions, but the conclusions have either been uncertain or negative. Claims that curcumin in turmeric may help to reduce inflammation remain unproven as of 2020."

The next claim was "osteoarthritis pain - evidence for one drug and some evidence for a second, no evidence for massage, steam therapy, and enema", but the very first thing in the abstract of the source cited is "Ayurveda is one of the fastest growing systems within complementary and alternative medicine. However, the evidence for its effectiveness is unsatisfactory" and later "Based on single trials, positive effects were found... Well-planned, well-conducted and well-published trials are warranted to improve the evidence for Ayurvedic interventions." Again no evidence of any anything from Ayurveda making it into conventional medicine. Just a couple of single trials and a call to look into it further.

I stopped there. It appears that the answer to my question is no. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia is not a WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia articles and is not primarily a medical source. If the turmeric article is out of date or accurate that has no impact on the weight of the Cochrane reviews, or high quality secondary sources.

The wording on the page suggests that there is no evidence for any of it - that's what is unfounded. The fact that the evidence is limited and for the majority of things also inadequate is also true. But to present something in such black and white terms shows a lack of neutrality. The sources don't claim the evidence is none - but the page does. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS clearly states "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine." (emphasis in original) Turmeric#Medical research is an example of medical content in a non-medical page, and thus MEDRS applies, as it does to the Ayurveda page. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources are valid but the Wikipedia content is not. The turmeric page's claim "as of 2020" is also attributed to sources from no later than 2017. MEDRS states "Per the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources." Wikipedia does not cite itself. I will comment separately on general wording. I think any examples of evidence that treatments are shown to work clinically (ie by Western medicine science) should not be given undue weight due to being isolated cases, given they will be very limited number. As per MOS I would suggest not having a separate section for these but including in other text. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There are many herbal preprations prescribed by Modern doctors; one example Liv 52. Please refrain from quoting biased man like Dawkins since he isnt famaliar with such things but pretends he knows about everything. He is practitioner of logical fallacy of Absence of evidence equals evidence of absence. Such radical attitudes are impediments towards better science and are subject to ones socio political biases. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You may want to see the BLP related warning that another editor posted on your talk page, but also read [8]. Other editors are also invited to audit the related The Himalaya Drug Company article, —PaleoNeonate – 05:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that this may also apply here. Brunton (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

In response to the original question, I think it's fair to consider that Ayurveda does emphasise both personal and social hygiene, and probably has a longer track-record on that score than modern medicine. It also bases its practice on a holistic perspective, which is a good starting point for any diagnostic work. Finally, having had 3,000 years to test out a huge variety of different concoctions on willing human subjects, it would be unlikely that it had not stumbled across some herbs that had an efficacious effect in some circumstances. The mystery is why it didn't spot that feeding heavy metals to people kills them. I'm no apologist for Ayurveda, but I hope that we can appreciate that it has had sufficient success (even through placebo) to have acquired so many adherents. The pity is that those proponents have now decided for nationalistic reasons to attempt to portray Ayurveda as something which it is not: a scientifically recognisable system of medicine. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I can think of one such example. Opium has long been used in Ayurveda to treat pain. It is effective for this because it contains morphine, which is an opiate. Conventional medicine also used opium for that indication for many years before learning how to purify the morphine from the opium. Since then, it has mostly used purified forms and derivatives of opium alkaloids. While Ayurvedic herbs (or any herbs for that matter) are rarely used in conventional medicine, they have been a highly effective source of leads for new pharmaceuticals. That journal I just cited is a medline indexed review, buy the way. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for opium being adopted from Ayurveda? The opium article doesn’t seem to have anything about this, at least on a quick skim. Brunton (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it was adopted from Ayurveda specifically. Opium has been used in many different medical traditions around the world, and Ayurveda is just one of them. However, I do believe that there are other substances that may fit that bill. Conventional medicine does not deal in herbs, but it deals in substances derived from herbs pretty frequently. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Opium as a drug goes back at least as far as 3400 BCE, and was introduced to Western medicine in 1527 by Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, who never travelled to any part of the world where Ayurveda was practiced.

It is true that western medicine often uses substances derived from herbs, but where is the evidence of any western drug that can be traced back to any Ayurvedic herb, as opposed to an herb that was commonly used in Asia and also used in Ayurveda? No evidence has been presented. So to the question "Do we have any actual examples of anything from Ayurveda making it into conventional medicine?" the answer is still no. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The way I interpret it, the question is really "are there any conventional medicines that consist of Ayurvedic formulations in whole". Plenty of pharmaceutical compounds are isolated from natural products first used in traditional medicines (e.g. vinca alkaloids, artemisinin). But it is disingenuous to claim they are examples of traditional medicine working, because the way they were used in those systems does not work in any way comparable to the isolated components. People aren't treated for Hodgkin's with sadabahar, they are treated with vinblastine prepared via modern extraction, isolation, purification, and (semi)synthesis techniques; tested for two dozen years via basic mechanistic research, in vitro studies, in vivo mouse studies, and eventually multiple FDA-approved human RCTs that proved its efficacy; and administered under tightly-monitored evidence-based regimens supervised by oncologists. It is solely a triumph of modern allopathy. JoelleJay (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Manohar's "trans-science"

We are using this source

• Manohar, P. Ram (2009). "The blending of science and spirituality in the Ayurvedic healing tradition". In Paranjape, Makarand R. (ed.). Science, Spirituality and the Modernization of India. Anthem Press. pp. 172–3. ISBN 9781843317760.

by an Ayurvedic practitioner, to relay his view that ayurvedic medicine is a "trans-scientific" system.

Given this is not a WP:FRIND source, I am not sure how WP:DUE this is, and think it is certainly undue in the lede. Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Do any better sources, especially independent sources, demonstrate its encyclopedic value and weight? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably too specific for the lead. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

To explain further. If there are multiple terms from multiple sources to describe Ayurveda then the lead could summarize this fact but detailing each one may be too specific or may fall under undue. I don't know enough about the sources; this is more of a general view based on policy/guideline. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Partly done okay, removed from the lede since that seems obvious. But how due is it in the body? Alexbrn (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem in the body of the article. Articles contain more or less detail probably decided on by the interest of the editors. Again though, I don't know enough about sources to make this decision myself. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I think there's room for it in the body of the article. The theory of Ayurveda is very much what we consider a fringe theory, that is, a theory that has adherents, but is a significant departure from mainstream thought. We should aim to present its tenets in the context of the mainstream view; but in the article about the theory itself, it is important to explain to the reader how the topic sees itself. This book may provide useful content for that description, as long as we are not giving the impression that it is not being presented as scientific fact. To make a facile analogy: in the article about the Flat Earth, we would explain how the theory is mistaken according to the near-universal viewpoint, but we would not omit to mention that the theory is that the Earth is flat. --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I also think it's acceptable, —PaleoNeonate – 21:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool beans. So what we currently have seems good then. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Copy edits

I made and will possibly make further copy edits with no meaning change to make reading easier, hopefully. This is not an endorsement of any text. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Rather than revert, in the present atmosphere, since these are copy edits, feel free to remove artifacts of old missed edits ( a nice way of saying I missed that) yourself. Not attached to any edits I made, though. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, why do you keep capitalising ayurveda? I don't think it's a proper noun. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda is a proper noun. Ayurvedic is sometimes capitalized sometimes not. I didn't copy edit the whole article just a small part I'd started to read, so will finish capitalizing Ayurveda for consistency. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Guy: I have no idea whether Ayurveda is a proper noun, but its use seems to be regularly capitalised in sources. Britannica is an obvious example. Not that I think it's an important point, so I would usually follow what I read in sources. --RexxS (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, well, since it's quasi-religious that possibly makes sense. Homeopathy isn't, though. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that Ayurveda comes out of the Vedic tradition which is a root tradition for religions like Hinduism and Bhuddism so should be capitalized. Most of the article used a capitalized version of Ayurveda before I came along. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, same thing, really. Quasi-religious. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not willing to describe other peoples' religions as quasi. Many have a much longer history than my western, Christian-based religion upbringing and are no less legitimate. I'm not sure why we have to label anyone's religion here, anyway. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Citation for "There is no good evidence that indicates Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease."

The sentence " There is no good evidence that indicates Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease. " is part of the introduction, and about the only sentence that is lacking a reference. I added a request to add a citation, but this was reverted so I'll bring it up here. Retimuko claims it has been sufficiently discussed in the body. I would actually argue that the body does not support this exact sentence: " Few well-designed clinical trials and systematic research reviews suggest that Ayurvedic approaches are effective" (it says 'few' rather than 'no') and it does not capture the nuance of "The effectiveness of Ayurveda has not been proven in scientific studies, but early research suggests that certain herbs may offer potential therapeutic value... 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." With that lack of nuance, comes an expectation of a higher degree of reference. I think it would be much better to leave out this sentence from the introduction or provide the nuance it deserves (and receives to a limited degree elsewhere) though. effeietsanders 00:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a proper summary. Just because a substance has (or may have) medical benefits doesn't mean that Ayurveda is effective in the slightest. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest changing that paragraph to:

Ayurvedic preparations have also been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic,[16] substances known to be harmful to humans. A 2008 study found that "one-fifth of both US-manufactured and Indian-manufactured Ayurvedic medicines purchased via the Internet contain detectable lead, mercury, or arsenic."[17]

The first sentence of the paragraph as currently written ("There is no good evidence that indicates Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease") is superfluous. The article clearly establishes—in the first sentence of the lede—that Ayurveda is pseudoscientific quackery, and this conclusion is explained in more detail in the body of the article. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 03:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

There's been a great deal of concern of whitewashing this article, especially in the lede. I'm afraid that's how this comes across. Pseudoscience, effectiveness, and inclusion of harmful substances are three different things. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, effectiveness, and inclusion of harmful substances are three different things Agreed, —PaleoNeonate – 06:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point Hipal/Ronz. // I copy edited the sentence for grammar/usage, clarity, and conciseness (diff). Revised sentence is: "Ayurveda does not effectively treat any disease." - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 05:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The introduction summarizes the body, and if there is no reference in it, it is usually because you can find references further down. For example, there is one for the sentence "Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments, there is no evidence that any are effective in themselves." --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned before: the body is much more nuanced than just 'not effective'. You can't just selectively take portions from a source and pretend the nuance doesn't exist and then leave out the citation for convenience. It now cites a Cancer UK summary, but note that it does not actually state what the introduction currently states. There is a big difference between "there is no scientific evidence for A" and "A is false". Especially as it has already been noted that not many scientifically well-designed studies have been reported [9], you can't use the lack of evidence for stating that it definitely doesn't work. The NIH website actually mentions a few weak pointers that there may be effectiveness, but then goes on to say that the study was not rigorous enough. The fact that they mention it, suggests that it is not total nonsense either. If you want to summarize in a single sentence, something along the line "There is currently no solid scientific evidence that Ayurvedic medicine is effective as treatment for diseases." The NCCIH website would support that, as does the Cancer UK website. As would [10] and [11]. (sidenote: nearly every other sentence in the introduction has a citation for it - I don't think it's an unreasonable request). In general the introduction reads very hostile - which is unnecessary, if you read all the other cited examples, which bring across a similar message, but much more respectful. effeietsanders 06:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It'd also be fine, if more verbose, to say "There is no good evidence that ayurvedic medicine is effective for the treatment of any disease". In EBM, this does equate to "false" since in general the effectiveness of an intervention is not falsifiable, and the default assumption is that an intervention is ineffective in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If the consensus was that sufficient research had been done that effectiveness would have been demonstrated, I would go with that argument that it is equal. From what I read (but I am by no means an expert, so please point out if I'm missing something) the literature constantly seems to emphasize that these studies are lacking. Analogous, a vaccine in trial is also not qualified as 'not effective' but rather 'not proven as effective'. Once the trial is completed, and the result is inconclusive, you could argue to use the term 'not effective'. This argument is hard to make for a whole set of treatments this wide, with several reviews stating that more studies are needed (again: unless I'm missing something).

I do have a problem with 'good' versus 'scientific' though: the 'good' is our interpretation of 'scientific', but finds no foundation in the sources. The reason why I added 'solid' was to do justice to the few studies that were published that did find some evidence, but which was then criticized for not being rigorous enough. The criticism seems valid, but that doesn't make the studies unscientific. There are probably more phrasings that could cover the same nuance. effeietsanders 07:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

In general, if something's not proven and is from the realm of pseudoscience (i.e. implausible) we just say it doesn't work to use plain language. Otherwise (and POV-pushers of many sorts have argued for this down the years) we'd merely be saying that all sorts of BS merely "haven't been proven" (or, the POV-pushers' favourite, "not yet proven"). Also, we don't qualify "evidence" with "scientific" since that's implicit in a scientific field such as medicine, and the qualification could imply there are "other sorts of evidence" that apply (again, something that's been pushed for a lot, for example when trying to bring testimonial evidence into play). I'd also add that FRIN is really just a fancy-pants way of saying something doesn't work, but that the researchers would like continued funding; this is why "more research is needed" is a generally prohibited phrase in medical articles here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Which reminds me that when the evidence is inconclusive, tests tend to show disparate results where an improperly done review could pick specific trials ignoring the average. This is similar to making claims that the placebo effect can be used effectively to treat disease (this was not about Ayurveda but about another alternative medicine relying on dubious metaphysical philosophical tenets, Acupressure): Placebo effect. —PaleoNeonate – 08:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Thanks for the constructive approach, I really appreciate it. Just a few nuances: A pseudoscience actually does not imply that it is implausible. It only implies that its methods are not comparible with scientific methods. It suggests that if it is true, it is probably not because of the methods that are claimed to have been used. Given that Ayurveda is such a broad set of applications, some are bound to be effective (which is why I'm a bit hesitant to say nothing works). I can see that the "not yet" is not a desirable statement because it suggests that it's about to be proven. I am aware that 'further research is needed' is common across disciplines, but you wouldn't automatically expect such claims on reviews and overview websites.

As I pointed out, there are several reliable sources that seem to that confirm that there i no reliable evidence to support claims for effective treatment. I have no objection to that claim. I have trouble finding a reliable source that claims that all treatments are ineffective though (which seems to be at least intuitively conflicting with the claims that some herbs are actually the basis for Western medicinal treatments).

All in all, I'd be more comfortable with "There is no evidence that ayurvedic medicine is effective for the treatment of any disease". I would still prefer the 'solid' and 'scientific' as qualifiers in there as well, especially because the introduction needs to resonate with normal people, who may have an understanding of different forms of evidence, but we can't agree on everything :). I think it's better to leave out 'good' (or replace it with solid).

@PaleoNeonate:: if enough studies have been done, a review could indeed combine results and draw more elaborate conclusions than each individual study, I imagine. I'm not sure if anyone has actually done that? I wasn't able to find it, but may not know what terminology to look for. effeietsanders 00:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem with folk medicine is that for each of its effective cures there are 999 cures which aren't. And we cannot know in advance which of its cures are effective. Scientists would have to play whack-a-mole with its various cures. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree on that. Which is why a more nuanced version than "is not effective for any disease" is desirable imho. effeietsanders 02:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Effeietsanders, would you prefer "all the evidence that it works is shit and created by people with a vested interest"? I'd be OK with that. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Some herbs are actually the basis for Western medicinal treatments there's no appeal to nature fallacy in proper medicine, for instance. New molecules are discovered in nature because it's a great source of diversity (and the fact that common evolutionary origins allow biological interactions), but only tests and experiments determine when one has practical applications. Those molecules are then used more than the plant itself and may be improved or replaced by better synthetic molecules (often resulting in fewer unwanted side effects for instance). Different forms of evidence the scientific method isn't supposed to dismiss valid sources of evidence. No matter the origin, when an important discovery is made, it'll also gain ground in mainstream medicine. The new latest thread at the bottom appears to be an extension of this one so I'll comment for both here: [there is no] "good", "reliable", "plausible" [evidence], would all be suitable, but not "mainstream", "scientific", "materialist", that suggest there somehow would be intangible valid sources of evidence. —PaleoNeonate – 01:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Another source supporting the term pseudoscience

Here, in Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science, 2018, MIT Press: [12]

Wanted to make sure everyone on this page knew about it. I've already made use of it in the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yet Another Comment On Pseudoscience

The following is a heavily-edited version of something user:JzG posted at Arbcom, them later trimmed to stay under the 500-word limit. In am reposting those parts that are relevant to this page, and have cut out those parts that are only relevant to Arbcom. The original idea should be credited to JzG, but any errors introduced by my editing should be credited to me.

The main problem is an endless succession of new single-purpose accounts following a thread on Twitter. These users typically assert that Ayurveda is not pseudoscience because it enjoys a degree of official endorsement in India. This, of course, misses the point: so does homeopathy, after all.

Pseudoscience is not about whether the thing is bullshit or not. It's about using sciencey-sounding language to pretend that it's not bullshit. Papers like this in the oxymoronically-named "Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine" (if it's evidence-based, it isn't alternative - evidence-based is what SCAM is alternative to).

If people want to go to quacks who give them mercury as a miracle cure, I guess that's very much their own funeral, but we're not here to pretend this is legitimate medicine.

This is further complicated here by the prevalence of Ayurveda in India, which has a very specific cultural background. You'll notice that virtually all the parade of commenters on Talk:Ayurveda appear to be from India, and the same is true of those in the Twitter thread that drove it. One of the things I love about India is the culture of acceptance - the dominant religion has so many gods that almost any belief or opinion is accorded respect by default and Hinduism does not teach children that anybody who does not believe exactly as you believe is an infidel and must be converted, in the way that monotheistic religions tend to. Immutable certainties are not part of the Indian cultural mindset.

But this lack of judgment means that homeopathy, Ayurveda and other forms of abject nonsense are treated as quasi-religions, and accorded parity of respect with reality-based medicine. In fact the government body that promotes Ayurveda is the Ministry of AYUSH, which stands for Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy. All of these are quasi-religious belief systems and not forms of medicine, and indeed this ministry is separate from the ministry of medicine.

In 2006, homeopathy was considered thoroughly refuted by informed scientists but it was still actively promoted by national health systems. Since then, Switzerland, the UK, Australia, France, Spain and Russia have been through high level reviews, generally at a government level, and have recommended withdrawal of funding. In 2006 there were several homeopathic hospitals in the UK funded by the NHS. Now, there are none. The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital was renamed in 2007 and no longer funds homeopathy on the NHS. It is likely that the handful of remaining NHS prescriptions for homeopathy will finally be stopped in the near future, as these items are likely to be added to the NHS prescriptions blacklist.

The status of Ayurveda today is not dissimilar from that of homeopathy in 2006. It is widely understood by those who study quackery to be nonsense. Because it uses pharmacologically active substances, it is more resistant to trivial refutation than homeopathy, but the trajectory is similar: it is a pseudomedical system with a growing base of evidence that its fundamental approach is incorrect, and, crucially, it cannot self-correct because any honest test of whether substance A or substance B is better for condition X gives the ideologically unacceptable answer: neither. The reality-based study of herbal preparations is called pharmacognosy. Ayurveda starts from the premise that some herb is always a cure, rather than some cures may be based in chemicals found in herbs.

In short, Ayurveda needs the provisions of discretionary sanctions now for exactly the same reasons that homeopathy did historically, and in 10-15 years' time these too will probably have become superfluous save for rapidly separating the occasional True Believer from the article.

Pseudoscience is the enterprise of producing sciencey-sounding research that is not designed to test whether a thing does work, but to provide marketing support for its sale. Nobody has any trouble seeing that as a problem when it's OxyContin, but when it's acupuncture they get all outraged that one is not supporting the patient's choice (a choice guided, of course, by fraudulent claims, and thus not an informed free choice in any meaningful sense). CAM is not a fad, it is a vast and extremely profitable industry, and it is quite cynically based. TCM is basically a creature of Mao, who did not have enough doctors but wanted to pretend that he had the kind of health coverage that Western nations boasted. Office of Alternative Medicine (and its successors successors leading to NCCIH) have spent several billion dollars attempting to validate alternative therapies, thus far without success.

Hatch and Harkin's DSHEA deliberately tilts the playing field in favour of SCAM by preventing the FDA from even looking at a SCAM product until after it has been shown to be harmful, a reversal of the situation for reality-based medicines. I do not think there is any problem with Wikipedia coming down on the side of reality (per Jimbo's "lunatic charlatans" comment if nothing else). You could defend the lies of SCAM if it weren't for the steady stream of people who believe the hype and die of untreated cancer.

The coroner's report in the case of Penelope Dingle is one of the most harrowing things I have ever read. SCAM is not a beneficial enterprise, it is commercial., Like every commercial enterprise it is there to maximise profit and markets. Some states have mandated that naturopaths, who have basically no real medical training, must be allowed to practice as primary care physicians.

Same with chiropractors, who believe that all disease is a result of disturbances in the flow of innate intelligence in the spine. Same with "Lyme literate" doctors who prescribe indefinite courses of powerful antibiotics when there is no evidence of microbial infection. This is not a victimless fraud. In my view we can and should resist the introduction of claims that serve a commercial or quasi-religious agenda, when they are not objectively correct.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) (adapted from an earlier post by JzG)

Also see:

• Death of Penelope Dingle
• Incompetent care led to Dingle's death
• Would better regulation of CAM practitioners have saved Penelope Dingle?
• Record of investigation into the death of Penelope Dingle
• Coroner's Report on the death of Penelope Dingle
• Penelope Dingle's letters to Francine Scrayen

In case anyone want to claim that it is just homeopathy that has this problem...

• Acute renal failure secondary to ingestion of ayurvedic medicine containing mercury

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems like some people there who really should know better are forgetting about the WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI parts of WP:NPOV. And I'm also seeing some people talking about the content of this article over there, which seems inappropriately biasing. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)