Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 22

No foo evidence

One point of difference between recent versions is: no good evidence vs. no scientific evidence. The latter is, of course, prime WP:WEASELry. Scientific evidence is good evidence, but quacks portray science and woo as "different ways of knowing". I propose no credible evidence as the best formulation. What do others think? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Credible is fine although like "good" it is a generality open to interpretation. Scientific might be better, but I'm not attached to any of it. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the source I looked at uses the word "cure" not "treat". You can treat disease with cotton candy but you sure can't cure it that way ... as far as I know anyway :O). So "treat" is not really accurate. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• This, by the way, was not my edit as the notification I got indicated. I now see the second edit in the revert was mine. [1]Littleolive oil (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I replied at an earlier thread above that was still active and about the same, —PaleoNeonate – 01:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Credible" is good with me. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It might be my fluency in English, but credible seems to me to be more associated with the researchers' credentials than with their research design. How would alternatively 'robust' work? That seems to cover a wider range of problems one could have with evidence? effeietsanders 03:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The difference between credible and credentials is a bit similar to that between theory and scientific theory: different things, but when they can be confused (it may be a good point), we can indeed try to improve the sentence. —PaleoNeonate – 01:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• I favour plain old "no good evidence": there's a reason why that phrase has become a staple across all tiers of high-quality medical publication; we shouldn't be shy about following suit. Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn.

• "there is no really convincing body of evidence that specific ayurvedic mixtures have specific effects. There is no good evidence that it is beneficial."[2]
• "after 200 years and after more than 200 clinical trials, there is no good evidence that homeopathy works for any condition whatsoever."[3]
• "Still no good evidence that most complementary medicine works"[4]
• "There is no good evidence to support using ashwagandha for COVID-19."[5]
• "No good evidence exists that individually tailored prescriptions of a mixture of herbs are effective"[6][7]
• "Jane Plant is a geologist who, through her own unfortunate encounter with breast cancer, became obsessed with the idea that a dairy-free diet cured her. Sadly there is no good evidence for that idea."[8]
• "The idea is that Echinacea may promote a stronger immune system. However, an analysis of several studies found no good evidence of benefit. "[9]
• "Parents commonly give infants teas or herbal supplements said to soothe “fussiness,” even though there’s no good evidence that the products work, a U.S. government study finds."[10]
• "Ginkgo biloba, hops, sage leaf, liquorice and valerian root are popular, but there is no good evidence that they have any effect on menopausal symptoms"[11]

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia uses common names and common terminology, and that appears to be "no good evidence", as per Alexbrn and per Guy Macon's examples. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is *mentioned* in RS, nothing more; a note on nuance, NPOV and needed updates

The most that can be said from the totality of the sources meant to support the "Ayurveda is pseudoscience" claim is that a few authors have mentioned "Ayurveda" and "pseudoscience" in the same breath. None of the sources go into any depth whatsoever. These are brief mentions. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary sourcing. The most we can say is "Some have referred to Ayurveda as pseudoscience", and then name them (the list is short).

Some nuance would be helpful and much more encyclopedic, such as Ayurveda has often been labeled a pseudoscience due to a lack of understanding regarding its principles, which are difficult to translate into mainstream medical terminology. Ayurveda: Controversies and the Need for Integration with Mainstream Medicine.

A discussion about difficulties with research should be included, as well as the studies which show some Ayurvedic medicines to be helpful, like this from Oxford (Aug 2020). The NIH has a few as well. Any sources that claim Ayurveda has no value should be removed from the article as outdated by recent evidence. petrarchan47คุก 00:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You are repeating the same point discussed at length above and in archives. Retimuko (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary sourcing. Nice try, but the extraordinary claims are that it's scientific, that it's efficient, etc. You may also want to read my related comment at Talk:Unani, in relation to WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL... —PaleoNeonate – 01:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

And Special:Diff/974951507, —PaleoNeonate – 01:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you should familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS before advocating we adopt your suggestions... But I'll address two of your citations in depth here:

• Citing an opinion piece in a non-indexed student health journal by someone who claims to be an Ayurvedic practitioner and whose only actual qualification is an M.S. in biostats is just spectacularly off the mark. The "difficulty translating Ayurveda into medical terminology" is because it is fundamentally incompatible with science. Modern medicine relies on assumptions that are constantly updating as we gain a better mechanistic understanding of physical and life sciences; Ayurveda approaches scientific questions with certain medieval presuppositions that have no basis in reality and, despite literal centuries of empirical rejection, refuses to update these assumptions.
• The BMJ article on honey has zero mentions of Ayurveda; it is pure WP:SYNTH to claim a meta review on the well-characterized use of medical honey as an antimicrobial has anything to do with Ayurveda. Ayurveda claims madhu (honey) has properties good for mitigating dosha imbalances -- that's as mechanistic as it gets. The properties and effects of honey recorded in Ayurvedic texts were also noticed in every other culture that practiced apiculture -- the difference is that those who followed the scientific method performed centuries of experiments that built upon each other and readily incorporated new information from other fields, eventually leading to a mechanistic understanding that permitted predictable and replicable honey applications. Ayurveda failed to do this: it still clings to the assumption that all ailments are related to one's dosha balance, so despite all the retrofitting of samhita concepts into modern terms, the core distinguishing features of Ayurveda remain utterly pseudoscientific.
• I'm not going to address the reference to an Ayurvedic journal since that's so obviously a biased and unreliable source. The NIH link does not read as supportive of Ayurveda at all -- I'll just paste what they say for clinical evidence of its efficacy here:

  Few well-designed clinical trials and systematic research reviews suggest that Ayurvedic approaches are effective.
  
  Results from a 2013 clinical trial compared two Ayurvedic formulations of plant extracts against the natural product glucosamine sulfate and the drug celecoxib in 440 people with knee osteoarthritis. All four products provided similar reductions in pain and improvements in function.
  
  A preliminary and small NCCIH-funded 2011 pilot study with 43 people found that conventional and Ayurvedic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis were similarly effective. The conventional drug tested was methotrexate and the Ayurvedic treatment included 40 herbal compounds.
  
  Outcomes from a small short-term clinical trial with 89 men and women suggested that a formulation of five Ayurvedic herbs may help people with type 2 diabetes. However, other researchers said inadequate study designs haven’t allowed researchers to develop firm conclusions about Ayurveda for diabetes.
  
  Turmeric, an herb often used in Ayurvedic preparations, may help with ulcerative colitis, but the two studies reporting this were small – one, published in 2005 included 10 people while the other, published in 2006, had 89.

  JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• I really don't see if anyone has objected to the concern raised by Petrarchan47 that WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sourcing; not passing view from irrelevant authors. "Pseudoscience" isn't backed by qualified references. Lifeisshubh (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly object. The exceptional claim is that a practice that dates back to the vedic period (c. 1500 – c. 500 BCE) is science instead of pseudoscience, since modern science dates back to the early modern period (c. 1500 – c. 1800 CE) -- at least 2000 years later. The exceptional claim is that Rasa shastra actually "purifies" mercury and makes it safe using the methods described at Rasa shastra#Methods. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with this if it were an exceptional claim, or if the description of the existing sources as "passing view from irrelevant authors" were accurate. However, it's not an exceptional claim to assert that an alternative system of medicine is pseudoscientific (it's routine, and accurate, to describe alt med in those terms), and the sources are solid. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. The idea that Ayurveda is not pseudoscience is the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wanted to write exactly that but you were quicker. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I was having a difficult time taking this seriously, and was hoping no would waste our time further with it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that, in all likelihood, we will all be wasting our time with this kind of thing until the day we die. Astrology is still quite popular even in 2020, despite the emergence of the scientific study of astronomy centuries ago. But if people hadn't "wasted their time" over the centuries debunking astrology, we wouldn't have gotten to the present level of knowledge we have attained today. Thus despite the tedious and incredibly repetitive labor, it's worth it in the end. BirdValiant (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I've been misunderstood. I'm here to talk about sourcing. This is not a forum. The point of this thread is: The most that can be said from the totality of the sources meant to support the "Ayurveda is pseudoscience" claim is that a few authors have mentioned "Ayurveda" and "pseudoscience" in the same breath.

Editors mysteriously spent time arguing a point I never made, that Ayurveda is science. I am simply looking at what the article has, and the sourcing behind it. I know WP:MEDRS well, and it requires sources that are <5yrs with rare exceptions. Sources must also be used in context. The 4 sources used to claim that Ayurveda IS pseudoscience do not support the unqualified statement in WP's voice, although some of them could be included with attribution.

This is not to say "Ayurveda is pseudoscience" isn't true, it may well be. But we're claiming that it is an accepted fact, backed by strong sourcing. And by its placement in the Lede, we're claiming the amount/strength of sources discussing this fact in the body is quite large (one would expect, if WP:WEIGHT is applied, discussion of the scientific community's overt acceptance of this term for Ayurveda would constitute about 1/3 of the article). petrarchan47คุก 14:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Not really. Something being pseudoscientific is generally briefly stated, just like something being within the field of (say) organic chemistry. Lengthy justifications are seldom necessary - though in this case we do have the unusual luxury of being told why ayurveda is pseudoscientific. What matters then, given this simple fact, is that our policy requires us to be very explicit, here on Wikipedia that the pseudoscientific thing is so. This has been discussed to death in the recent RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, you misrepresented the sentence people ascribed to you, "Ayurveda is not pseudoscience", as "Ayurveda is science". Not only did you never argue that point, nobody accused you of making it. It's a straw strawman.

What you did say is, ["Ayurveda is pseudoscience"] is an extraordinary claim. In the universe where I live, this implies "Ayurveda is not pseudoscience". Or at least, "The commonly accepted view is that Ayurveda is not pseudoscience". That is the logic of extraordinary claims: their negations are accepted as given. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I was responding exclusively to the sources you provided in your initial post to preempt any addition of them to the article as they are highly inappropriate (except for the NIH one). The explanations I gave for each were meant to demonstrate why they fail our sourcing requirements (and then my SYNTH/OR reasoning for why the articles themselves are pseudoscientific); more importantly, though, is that those sources you gave represent the general quality of Ayurveda literature: they fail MEDRS. And if most meta-analyses/discussion papers promoting the discipline of Ayurveda (i.e. not individual isolated compounds) as a science/not a pseudoscience are unacceptable, then there is little to support such a claim in the article. And since the MEDRS-compliant sources that do categorize it as a pseudoscience are therefore virtually unchallenged, we must reflect that characterization according to our pseudoscience policy. JoelleJay (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Here comes the science!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Toxic metals in ayurvedic preparations from a public health lead poisoning cluster investigation :

"Samples of Ayurvedic formulations were analyzed for metals and metalloids following established US. Environmental Protection Agency methods.

Results:Lead was found in 65% of 252 Ayurvedic medicine samples with mercury and arsenic found in 38 and 32% of samples, respectively.

Almost half of samples containing mercury, 36% of samples containing lead and 39% of samples containing arsenic had concentrations of those metals per pill that exceeded, up to several thousand times, the recommended daily intake values for pharmaceutical impurities.

Conclusions: Lack of regulations regarding manufacturing and content or purity of Ayurvedic and other herbal formulations poses a significant global public health problem."

• Lead, mercury, and arsenic in US- and Indian-manufactured Ayurvedic medicines sold via the Internet :

"Conclusion: One-fifth of both US-manufactured and Indian-manufactured Ayurvedic medicines purchased via the Internet contain detectable lead, mercury, or arsenic.

All metal-containing products exceeded 1 or more standards for acceptable daily intake of toxic metals."

• Heavy metal content of ayurvedic herbal medicine products :

"Conclusions: One of 5 Ayurvedic herbal medicine products produced in South Asia and available in Boston South Asian grocery stores contains potentially harmful levels of lead, mercury, and/or arsenic.

Users of Ayurvedic medicine may be at risk for heavy metal toxicity, and testing of Ayurvedic herbal medicine products for toxic heavy metals should be mandatory. "

• Evaluation of toxic heavy metals in Ayurvedic syruos sold in local markets of Hazura, Pakistan:

"Conclusion: Mercury and Arsenic are present in local Herbal & Ayurvedic liquid preparations far beyond the permissible limits as proposed by the International Regulatory Authorities for health drugs "

• A cluster of lead poisoning among consumers of Ayurvedic medicine:

" Results: Forty-six of 115 participants (40%) had elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) of 10 μg/dl or above, with 9.6% of BLLs at or above 50 μg/dl.

This is the largest cluster of lead and mercury toxicity following use of Ayurvedic supplements described in the literature in the US. Contamination of herbal products is a public health issue of global significance. There are few regulations addressing contamination of "natural" products or supplements. "

• A review of the clinical and toxicological aspects of 'traditional' (herbal) medicines adulterated with heavy metals"

There have recently been an increasing number of case reports being published of heavy metal poisoning after the use of traditional remedies, in particular, Indian Ayurvedic remedies.

This study reviews the data on published cases, along with the history of Ayurvedic medicine in an attempt to provide an insight into why heavy metals, in particular lead, mercury and arsenic are added in such large concentrations to these remedies. "

• Ayurvedic herbal medicine and lead poisoning:

"Although the majority of published cases of lead poisoning come from occupational exposures, some traditional remedies may also contain toxic amounts of lead.

Ayurveda is a system of traditional medicine that is native to India and is used in many parts of world as an alternative to standard treatment regimens.

Here, we report the case of a 58-year-old woman who presented with abdominal pain, anemia, liver function abnormalities, and an elevated blood lead level.

The patient was found to have been taking the Ayurvedic medicine Jambrulin prior to presentation. Chemical analysis of the medication showed high levels of lead.

Following treatment with an oral chelating agent, the patient's symptoms resolved and laboratory abnormalities normalized.

This case highlights the need for increased awareness that some Ayurvedic medicines may contain potentially harmful levels of heavy metals and people who use them are at risk of developing associated toxicities."

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Until and unless there are comparable or better regulations on herbal products as those we have on western medicines we will have this kind problem. I have tendency to think this indicates a regulatory problem although treatments that deliberately include heavy metals would seem to be a big concern. Unregulated products, for example, I've been told by an environmental lawyer friend, have been shipped in drums that contained herbicide and pesticide residue. I'm not sure how recent that is. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy, are you suggesting additions to the article? It appears the problem of heavy metals has been well covered already, what do you feel was missed? petrarchan47คุก 14:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am suggesting that you personally, along with all the other editors who have made comments that imply that Ayurveda is anything other than dangerous pseudoscience that poisons patients with heavy metals ("A discussion about difficulties with research should be included, as well as the studies which show some Ayurvedic medicines to be helpful") should read the above with an open mind and think hard about what it is that you are defending. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope you are not confusing efforts to create neutral-reading articles with a perceived bias or defense of anything. A generalization about heavy metals and Ayurveda-a terrible lack of regulations nor some specific treatments do not equal all of the content on Ayurveda. And no I am not defending Ayurveda. I am defending an editor's right to discuss the content. This editor is not one of the many SPA that flooded the talk page. Do we have the right to admonish an editor because they are not overtly defending a preferred position. What we have to watch out for is that we don't confuse attack of the subject with a neutral position, nor efforts to find neutral ground without attacks as support of the information. In such a case the neutral position is skewed. A neutral editor has no apparent position neither for or against. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a good idea as well. Here, read this New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak article. What happened is bad enough but just look at how long and how many deaths it took to finally take action. Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this applies to Ayurveda. What am I missing?Littleolive oil (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing: see False equivalence to understand the gambit. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was IMA misquoted in Lede?

This edit fails WP:V. The position of the editor is wrong: The actual claim by the IMA is that, with the sole exception of Ayurveda practitioners who abandon Ayurveda. get a M.D., and start practicing modern medicine only, all Ayurveda practitioners are quacks. Which they clearly are. - Guy Macon

In actuality the MIA says, in full:

Quacks = Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine. - IMA

This edit was correct and should be restored. The IMA's position is that anyone (of 3 categories) practicing modern medicine without a license is a "quack". Ayurveda is only tangentially related to this bit of information. Why is it in the Lede paragraph? petrarchan47คุก 23:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It is your version that fails WP:V. It doesn't say that only the Ayurvedic practitioners who are "not licensed to practice modern medicine" are quacks, implying some supposed group of Ayurvedic practitioners with a license for modern medicine are not quacks; it's all of the Ayurvedic practitioners who nevertheless practice modern medicine. And it is highly relevant. See also [12]. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, although I realize the IMA document is by our standards a RS, it sounds to me like a Monty Python script. Ministry of Quacks? Are there more articulate ways to describe practitioners with out licenses and how many times can the word quacks be used in one document. However we use it let's not overuse it and perhaps keep it very simple. Just a thought. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The position of the IMA is crystal clear, I did not misquote them. The IMA most definitely does say that anyone who practices Ayurveda is anything other than a quack or that any variation of Ayurveda is anything other than quackery. If you read the angry responses from Ayurveda practitioners it is clear that they understand this perfectly well. The claim that the IMA is only criticizing some small subset of Ayurveda practitioners is just a talking point that was suggested on Twitter as part of the ongoing war against Wikipedia being conducted by OpIndia.

The actual claim by the IMA is that, with the sole exception of Ayurveda practitioners who abandon Ayurveda. get a medical degree and start practicing modern medicine only, all Ayurveda practitioners are quacks. Which they clearly are. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

To put it in simpler terms, out of the thousands and thousands of Ayurveda practitioners in India, please name one who [A] still practices Ayurveda, and [B] is not considered to be a quack by the Indian Medical Association. What is this person's name? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy. I'm not sure who you're addressing, but I'll add to my comment. I'm not pushing to remove this source. I'm looking at the way it was written. Quack is name calling. We might argue that we have every reason to call people quacks but it's not a particularly, academically-driven word in terms of writing a document or an article. Had I used the word as many times as is used in this document or at all, in a grad paper, at university, the result for me would not have been pleasant. And to call anything Ministry of Quacks just sounds silly and is so Monty Python. I hope we have sense of humor enough to see that. I'm not advocating for different language to represent the sources; I doubt it would do any good, just noting the obvious. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"Quackery" is a synonym for health fraud. I suppose the IMA mention it a lot because it's a major concern in India, which we should not try to downplay. It's hard to write about quackery without using the word. We use the word in our (Wikipedia) article once. Is there an actual edit being proposed here? Remember this is not a forum. Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have to propose an edit to make a comment about content. I am well aware of what quackery is; it is also a generalization which doesn't discriminate or tell us much. Fraud implies deceit; I doubt very much that Ayurvedic physicians some who have studied for years are being deceitful. At the same time I am aware that there is an implied agreement to use the word which I am not contesting. I believe the document is poorly worded and our description of those who are actually deceitful in our article per this source could be better. But no I'm not proposing a change to something more descriptive because I'm sure it would do no good. And I sure do wish we had a sense of humour. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I would probably propose this kind of sentence in the lead as a summary of the IMA document. "The Indian Medical Association has released a document outlining their [grave or serious] concerns with Ayurveda in India." I would only do that if the body of the article had an explicit outline of what was in that IMA document. If Wikipedia takes the mainstream approach then the IMA document should carry weight in the article. There is huge divide between a culturally-based, thousands-years-old health care practice and modern medicine which should be expected and possibly explored at least minimally. The article should outline the important aspects of Ayurveda and should have information on the modern reaction to it. This is my position but I have zero attachment to it. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Just read the first sentence of the quackery article: "fraudulent or ignorant medical practices". Therefore it does not necessarily imply deceit. It implies deceit or ignorance. Retimuko (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

My impression is that your proposition would unnecessarily downplay it. We also don't need to use "quackery" more than once, but I don't see the point in censoring it completely... —PaleoNeonate – 23:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Concerning using Quackery more than once. Not what I was suggesting. The lead should summarize the article. The IMA document contains information. The lead of the article should summarize that information while the body of the body should contain a more complete overview of that information. Right now we are using the source in the lead to support a single, cliché-driven word when in fact we should be detailing the extent of a source of this importance, itself. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Replacing quackery, which is name-calling, with more of an explanation is not censorship and may be more encyclopedic. But as I said in other posts there is an implied agreement for its use. I prefer an explanation/summary in the lead with more extensive detailed content in the article body but to be honest this is the response I expected. No worries. I won't pursue this.Littleolive oil (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

IMA: Quacks and their definition

Indian Medical Assn:

Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under :

A) Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.

B) Practitioners of [Ayurvedic medicine], who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.

C) Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.

The Lede has:

The [IMA] characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery.

There are two problems.

1) The Lede ignores the second part of the IMA's qualifications for quackery: (practicing modern medicine) without a license, ie, "unqualified" (see point A for context).

2) Guy M maintains "practitioners who abandon Ayurveda" is included in the IMA's qualifiers for quackery, but this appears to be a total fabrication. If the IMA's position was that practicing Ayurveda was quackery, sans qualifiers, they would have included it in point C, the third category.

The IMA is not referring to those who:

• practice Ayurveda but not modern medicine

• hold dual licenses and are officially qualified to practice both forms of medicine

This failure to properly represent the source and it's weight, summarizing it with disingenuous wording and posting to the very top of the page, is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V. The denigrating language in the second and third sentences of this article have only recently been added. Months ago, the top paragraph was entirely neutral. Was this change entirely POV-driven, or was there justification and community consensus behind it? petrarchan47คุก 14:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop stuffing words in my mouth. I never said that "practitioners who abandon Ayurveda is[sic] included in the IMA's qualifiers for quackery". I said that if someone abandons Ayurveda, get a medical degree, and starts practicing modern medicine, neither the Indian or American medical associations would call that person a quack.

Here are the basic flaws in your argument:

"Practice Ayurveda but not modern medicine:" The IMA and the AMA both consider all practitioners of Ayurveda who prescribe Ayurvedic medicines or who claim that Ayurveda is a valid treatment for disease as quacks who are practicing medicine -- badly -- without being licensed or qualified. A mythical person who somehow practices Ayurveda without treating disease does not exist, and those who do treat disease (which is all of them) with Ayurveda are quacks.

"Hold dual licenses and are officially qualified to practice both forms of medicine:" Not possible. Anyone who has a medical degree and prescribes Ayurvedic medicines loses their medical license for malpractice. Real doctors are not allowed to poison their patients with heavy metals. Anyone who gets a medical degree and starts practicing modern medicine has to abandon Ayurveda.

IMA Anti Quackery is clear:

"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. This ready reckoner of provision of Acts and rules and court orders will allow you to decipher whether one is a quack and what actions are required to be taken against him."

Critical Review of Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health is also clear:

"CCIM [the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) is a statutory body under the The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy ] has used a clause “modern advances” in Section 2(e) of CCIM Act 1970 to interpret that BAMS/BUMS [ Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery/Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery ] are entitled to practice Modern Medicine and CCIM have issued a notification/declaration accordingly... Though CCIM has been requested to cancel their notification, they have not done it so far on the ground that they are seeking legal advice. Obviously, their ulterior motives appear to be questionable. It is blatant violation of courts order."

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems is trying to summarize a somewhat complex IMA document in one sentence. As it stands now, what we have in the article is accurate as far as it goes and could stand as is. It may not be complete, but discussion seems to indicate adding to that sentence accurately might take some reasoned discussion about exactly what the IMA document is saying and how to word that in our own article. It is confusing, to me at least, when discussion mixes editor opinion and facts from the document.(The document is wordy and not particularly well written so not surprising.) I have not seen that allopathic physicians, in the US at least, would lose their licenses for malpractice if they also practice Ayurveda; I didn't see that in the document either but I could be missing it. I agree, if I understand Guy, that anyone practicing any kind of allopathic medicine with out an allopathic license would be considered an IMA quack. As a note although not important probably, Ayurveda, specifically from what I've read, does not specifically treat disease but instead treats the individual for wellness to prevent disease. This is probably an underlying point of allopathic medicine too although not necessarily explicit. If we want to make the lead read in a more accurate way then we might consider adding to what is there now per the source. I realize there is a bit of battle fatigue over this article so these are thoughts that in the future could lead to a short addition to the lead but I'm not pushing for change right now. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: "I have not seen that allopathic physicians, in the US at least, would lose their licenses for malpractice if they also practice Ayurveda", you are completely wrong. Ayurvedic medicine contains illegal levels of lead and mercury, Ayurveda practitioners routinely prescribe these drugs, but any real doctor who does so is guilty of malpractice and will have his license pulled as soon as the authorities find out. Ayurveda practitioners believe that Samskara (ayurvedic) works. It doesn't, Samskara is pseudoscience, and any doctor who uses the method and gives the resulting "purified" mercury to a patient is guilty of malpractice and will have his license pulled as soon as the authorities find out. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda, specifically from what I've read, does not specifically treat disease but instead treats the individual for wellness to prevent disease. it's what is claimed, like "holism", etc. It's similar to many fad diets and cure-all remedies... The same reason they call mainstream medicine "allopathic", claiming that it only treats symptoms, when it's obviously not necessarily the case (it may be when you just go to the drugstore to get off-counter acetaminophen). —PaleoNeonate – 07:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that's not true. All medicines do not contain lead, all physicians do not prescribe remedies with heavy metals, and all physicians do not prescribe purified mercury remedies. I know of hospitals that hire allopathic physicians who have Ayurveda training as well. The mistake is in thinking that one size fits all. It doesn't with allopathic physicians, some are terrible, some are criminals, and some are "quacks", and it doesn't with Ayurvedic physicians either. I'm not arguing whether Ayurveda works or not I'm saying the assertion you're making is based on generalities and is simply not true Any physician who harms, any physician, could if reported have a license pulled. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

All medicines do not contain lead I agree to that. It doesn't mean that less lethal Ayurvedic remedies work, of course. Anyone who has both access to modern medicine and alternatives but ultimately refuses to obtain proper treatment in favor of something that will not help is an unfortunate victim (i.e. Pseudoscience § Health and education implications)... —PaleoNeonate – 07:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Do sources support labeling Ayurveda "pseudoscience"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Related: ARCA: Pseudoscience

Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee defines pseudoscience as "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community"

RfC question: Do sources show that Ayurveda is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, and support: The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific? petrarchan47คุก 17:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Following are the sources currently in use at Ayurveda WRT "pseudoscience", with cited material

Extended content

1) Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry (2013) These pseudoscience theories may...[such as Ayurvedic medicine] confuse metaphysical with empirical claims" 2) Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India, Johannes Quack (2012); (discussion of anti-superstition group Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, or ANiS) (pages 213-214) ordinary members told me how they practice some of these pseudosciences, either privately or as certified doctors themselves, most often Ayurveda. Oxford's chapter summary for pp 213-214: It is argued that for the average member [of ANiS], ideological rejections of practices such as Ayurveda or Astrology, portrayed as "pseudo-sciences", are less important than the relevance of rationalism in their everyday lives as exemplified by their experience of fearlessness and a sense of invulnerability. (page 218): there are a few activists...who openly apply and even promote practices that are labeled as "pseudosciences" in the official statements from ANiS. 3) What could ‘integrative’ medicine mean? Social science perspectives on contemporary Ayurveda, Sujatha (2011) Lack of consistency in the objects analyzed, incompatible modes of verification and prevalence of multiple conceptual frameworks are markers of incoherence and lack of rigor. Such discourses may even be termed as pseudosciences because the criterion of science does not lie in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) per se, but the prevalence of internally consistent and rigorous rules of defining objects of study and methods of studying them among a community of experts. 4) Uniform standards and quality control of research publications in the field of Ayurveda, Manohar (2013) Already Ayurveda has been characterized as "pseudoscience" by Beall in the wake of the sudden explosion of spurious publishers and publications dealing with research in Ayurveda. Although Beall is obviously biased against Ayurveda..." 5) Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science, James C. Kaufman & Allison B. Kaufman (2018), (page 293) Ayurveda, a traditional Indian medicine, is the subject of more than a dozen, with some of these "scholarly" journals devoted to Ayurveda alone..., others to Ayurveda and some other pseudoscience....Most current Ayurveda research can be classified as "tooth fairy science," research that accepts as its premise something not scientifically known to exist....Ayurveda is a long-standing system of beliefs and traditions, but its claimed effects have not been scientifically proven. Most Ayurveda researchers might as well be studying the tooth fairy. The German publisher Wolters Kluwer bought the Indian open-access publisher Medknow in 2011....It acquired its entire fleet of journals, including those devoted to pseudoscience topics such as An International Quarterly Journal of Research in Ayurveda. References

Survey (RfC)

• Close as WP:DE. An attempt to re-litigate the last RfC on this is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Close as WP:DE. The last two debates can be found at:
  1. Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_12#Category:Pseudoscience
  2. Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_13#Pseudoscience
• In addition, the RfC above #RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence contained copious examples of sources that answer the question in the affirmative. Indeed, that RfC was closed on 30 August as 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. Nothing has changed since then, except for an increase in the disruption caused by an OPindia campaign against Wikipedia for Hindu Nationalist reasons. We should deal firmly with disruption on this page. --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  RexxS, the ARCA gives no indication this is a settled matter. This is not disruption. Why don't you respond to the RfC question with regard to the sources? I assumed the best sources are in the article at present. If you have good sources that should be added, please include them. petrarchan47คุก 18:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Petrarchan47: Please observe MOS:INDENTMIX.

  The ARCA assures me that discretionary sanctions are sufficient to deal with your disruption on this page. This page is subject to the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions and I will see that appropriate sanctions are applied to you if you continue with your disruption. Read the three debates I referred you to, and close this section. --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy close as WP:DE. Has already been decided very recently and is a total waste of editor time. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy close as WP:DE. ArbEnf seems a good step at this point. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Close as WP:DE per the above. The matter has already been discussed and decided on recently and on multiple occasions... drop the stick. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 18:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy close as WP:DE Petrarchan47. It's never a great idea to ask someone else to add sources. You are asking the question here by opening an RfC. If you know there are sources that support pseudoscience and in effect are answering your own question then there is no need for a RfC. Arbs generally cannot decide on content and their discussions in the ATCA show many were reluctant to do so. Consensus on this page then, with the sources given, is that pseudoscience will be used in this article; no one has to like it that's just how consensus works. Given this page is under Discretionary Sanctions bowing out when there is consensus and multiple RfCs related to your RfC might be a really, really good idea. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know of any other sources, and have thoroughly researched what could be used. If there are better sources, they should be added to the article. Hiding them in archives, whilst defending the current state of the page, when it's being legitimately challenged, makes no sense. I figured the RfC would reveal sources that have been missed, which is why I invited RexxS to add them to his comment. I am confident it cannot be proven that the general scientific community commonly refers to Ayurveda as pseudoscience, based on currently available RS. There hasn't been much written on it yet, if for no other reason. Of course, the sources on the page do represent the best available, and they are pitiful, taken as a whole, with regard to the claim being made. If RfC's are resulting in such poor content, then halting RfC's is perhaps the wrong way to go. petrarchan47คุก 20:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was hiding sources. Pseudoscience as defined by Wikipedia says, "characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods." Ayurveda predates science and as you note there is very little research so, for now, perhaps, Ayurveda should fall under not science- pseudoscience. If the term is used not as a pejorative but as a simple state of where the research is right now then the term is less pejorative sounding. And if there isn't a lot of research and if much of Ayurveda predates modern science then we probably can use the term as a general description even if sources are not outstanding. The other issue is that, like it or not, there is consensus on this. Consensus doesn't mean this is factual or that content couldn't be written in a better way, but it does mean that WP is a collaborative project that relies on editors agreeing even if content doesn't seem right. I've walked away from many articles where I know content was not accurate, but the lesson is, this is collaborative and the many override the one. There is ample proof that the many have voted either implicitly or explicitly to use pseudoscience; you are being encouraged to walk away given this agreement and that there is some reason to use the term. I personally dislike generalizations so a term like pseudoscience rubs me the wrong way and I would wish we could write with out it, but again, there is a long time history of using this word in general on Wikipedia, and there is agreement here. There is no place for fighting the flow because this project has been determined to be collaborative and its standards have been created and placed to support that position. I suspect that because of the multiple SPA editors who flooded the article with unhelpful suggestions editors are pretty tired and that's where disruption comes in. If a project is collaborative then the state of its editors matters. Sometimes it's the humane thing to walk away and let things settle most especially when you are fighting consensus.Littleolive oil (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean this is factual or in this case, both consensus and factual, with policies properly crafted and sources available to reach a decent conclusion. (I just noticed before submitting that this part is in a now-closed discussion, but submitted it anyway). —PaleoNeonate – 07:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy close as completely unnecessary. This article has just been through a lengthy and well-attended RfC where this assertion, and the supporting sources, were extensively reviewed. To start another one so soon does seem extraordinary, and I'm surprised that an editor of Petrarchan47's standing would start one. This doesn't add up for me. I  hesitate to call this DE, but I'm struggling to find a more apt descriptor. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ayurveda is science

The Ayurvedic medicines are using more than 1000 years and giving results too.,no need of extra Clinical studies.then also Ayurveda is conducting clinical trials..,then how Ayurveda become pseudoscientific. Health insure (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read the rest of this talk page to get the answer to your question. --McSly (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request 30 September 2020

I want to know that your article says that ayurveda is pseudospecific and it is called quackery by modern practitioners. I want to see the reference you have taken in this article. ==106.205.79.68 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Your question is answered at Talk:Ayurveda#RfC: Do sources support labeling Ayurveda "pseudoscience"? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Magic Cures

The people who try to water down the facts are doing incredible harm in the real world. At the risk of sounding too conceited, these magic cures are made for the most gullible of people. Wikipedia cannot change the world, but this feels like a small victory. - hako9 (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read the scientific papers published about Ayurveda rather than blabbering on unscientifically against it. Get your facts right.now u sound more like the people u r fighting against. All the best DrAyurveda1 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Lots of phase 1,2,3,4 trials have been done on the medicine so please, do a favour and read more. DrAyurveda1 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Cite one then. And we can all see what a flimsy basis your claims rest on. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda is Science not a pseudoscience.

I am an Ayurveda student and I have read Science from my early age.I KNOW the definition of science.....Ayurveda has Scientific basis and it is proven science. The concepts of Ayurveda are being used in clinics since ancient times.

Ayurveda is not only written in text..it is a practical science. It is the science of medicine, lifestyle and philosophy(true science)of life.

What is the proof of calling it Pseudoscience? DrTEENA1 (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read the rest of this talk page, where that question has been covered extensively. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that we should start deleting these on sight. Clearly the trolls at OpIndia are going to keep sending person after person here to ask the same question. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

+1, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes! —AdamF in MO (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Nah. There can be a fine line between a sincere editor posting here and a troll. I don't like the idea of taking this into our own hands; it's just not the way Wikipedia works. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think that there should be a documented history of how much effort goes into defending against these bogus claims, in contrast with the flimsiness and repetitiveness of the pro-Ayurveda side. BirdValiant (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Enough of that record already exists to fulfil that purpose. Otherwise Guy would not have made the proposition. If somebody comes up with a less half-assed (is that >1/2 or <1/2?) objection than "Ayurveda is science not pseudoscience", it will be answered instead of deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. If they at least try to defend Ayurveda, I say go ahead and respond. But look at what DrTEENA1 posted above. There is really nothing there to respond to. Simply asserting "Ayurveda has Scientific basis and it is proven science" is just repeating what the last dozen Ayurveda fanboys[13] posted. It's a waste of effort giving the same answer to the same claim over and over. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Violation?

By stating [yes, we are biased.] you are violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Aren't you? "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.251.16.144 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point, if not purposefully reversing it. Please don't waste our time. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The key here is "...all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.".

Per WP:WEIGHT, "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." --Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Kalaripayattu

This is the talk page for discussing our Ayurveda article, not conflicts on other articles.

Religious fanatics are taking ownership at Kalaripayattu and not allowing any edits deviating from their agenda. The worst part is it is pending-changes protected and they all are confirmed accounts who can make changes without scrutiny. None of them give proper explanation for reverting, and sometimes blatantly reverts multiple edits (edited with proper edit summary) without explanation. Two of them have COI as evident from their usernames (Kalari). Their main business is promoting their POV and highlighting Hinduism part, though Kalaripayattu do have rituals based on Hinduism, the art itself is not a "Hindu art", it just happened to have originated when only Hindu "religion" was prevalent in Kerala. It is a martial art practised by all religious communities, many of the masters are Muslims, the Christians even have a folk dance derived from Kalaripayattu. Some Hindu extremists are "making statements" by projecting Hinduism on an otherwise communally harmonious martial art. BTW, I am also a Hindu, but this is too much. The first time my edit got reverted (see history here onward), I never thought it was religious agenda, but now it's becoming clearer, as User:Kalariwarrior changed "Indian mythology" to "Hindu mythology" (source says former), and User:Kalari Poothara's recent Hinduism promotion in lead, and as Outlander07 is now trying to re-insert Hinduism claims (not in the source) in lead which I had removed; he had also removed a sourced mention about a Hindu lower-caste community – Thiyya. There are multiple legends on the creator - Parashurama, Shiva, Agasthya; they want Parashurama, not only that, they don't want to attribute it as "legend" (I agree with [14]). I suspect Outlander07 and Kalariwarrior to be the same person, all three are incompetent in editing. The article requires serious cleanup for sourcing and NPOV. Should I report this activity to WP:ANI, or somewhere else, or what? Gayuon (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Start by bringing up your concerns at WP:NPOVN. If the consensus is that you are right (I haven't looked at the page and thus don't know whether or not you are the problem) then go to ANI, and in the ANI report post a link to the NPOVN discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Need edit

The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific Mr justinthoms (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Mr justinthoms you haven't indicated what you want to change. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah - I just saw your edit at CitationBot's talk page - you think this content needs to be changed. I'm afraid that we recently had an extensive discussion about this, and after much deliberation a consensus emerged to the effect that we have to say this prominently in the lead of the article to describe the subject accurately. Therefore, you will not be able to change it at this time. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I almost feel apologetic for bringing this up again

The last RfC was closed thus: "Future discussion of this should probably focus on how Ayurveda should be described as pseudoscience rather than whether it should be described as pseudoscience." I do not contest the pseudoscience label - I support fully the conclusion that Ayurveda practitioners are quacks and that the modern practice of A. is pseudoscientific. However, consider my suggestion for changing the second sentence of the lead:

"The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific." -> "The theories and practices of Ayurveda are outdated and wrong in several cases,^{(add cites here)} and the continued modern practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific.^{(add the IMA cites etc. here)}"

I understand fully if my suggestion is rejected. But yeah, I think 'theory' and 'practice' need to be pluralised. Awaiting responses. Regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 12:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In general, I think that that suggestion is either slightly better or slightly worse that what is there now, so I am waiting for other opinions. Please don't feel that reasonable suggestions will be criticized.

If everyone like the suggested version better, do you prefer "The theories and practices of Ayurveda are" or "The theory and practice of Ayurveda is"?

Re: "wrong in several cases" are there cases where Ayurveda isn't wrong? As an example of what I am talking about, some forms of alt-med pseudoscience essentially say things like "buy our expensive magic pills, and also eat healthy an exercise regularly", so they aren't 100% wrong. Others say "you can stop exercising and eat whatever you want with our expensive magic pills!". The first claim is partially wrong, the second is 100% wrong. Does Ayurveda contain any good health advice? Do we have a citation saying so? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a good start and certainly a reasonable suggestion. I don't have time to go looking for it now but when that big discussion came up a few months back, I was reading a few less negatively critical sources which pointed out that Ayurveda can have real medical benefits by participants being actively involved in their own health: sort of the effect in Guy's first example above, that people more interested in their own health will tend to make healthier choices (like eating healthier and exercising, and keeping regular professional appointments) which lead to more positive outcomes. But the sources were quick to point out that correlation is not causation: you could say this about just about any alternative medicine. If a good MEDRS source could be found, we could add something like "While some participants may experience health benefits through general wellness,^[source(s)] the theories and practices of Ayurveda are outdated and may be harmful in some cases,^{[more sources]} and the continued modern practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific.^{[preexisting sources]}" Also I realize "wellness" is also problematic but I'm out of time to think of a better term for the concept here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be great if the history section could be improved. In the 11th century it wasn't pseudoscientific. Even in the 19th century it may have been more advanced in certain respects. Perhaps a moment in the post-colonial era can be identified when its revival really took off. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree to a large extent with much of what has been raised above. For a topic to be pseudoscientific, it should be advancing theories and practices that make claims that appear to employ the scientific method, but have no basis in scientific fact. Ayurveda fits that in the modern setting, but predates our current concepts of the scientific method (as do many other pseudoscientific topics like astrology and acupuncture), which is part of the objections we see raised to the bald statement in the second sentence. I'm not suggesting that we have to go into detail – that's for the body of the article – but it's probably worth aiming to be as accurate as we can, while remaining succinct. It's noteworthy that Ayurveda does contain some useful theory and practice, after all it would be strange if the system had lasted so long if it had nothing of value to offer. It's likely that the attempts to view illness holistically and the emphasis on hygiene, for example, are of practical value, so I'd be inclined to explore the wording to see if we can briefly encapsulate the ideas that Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI puts forward. Maybe we could try something like The theories and practices of Ayurveda are outdated and generally lack scientific basis, and the continued modern practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. with the detail of "generally" and meaning of "pseudoscientific" being left to the body of the article. --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. We can include nuance when using the term pseudoscience otherwise the reader is not given any real information. As editors we may have a tendency to use the term without explanation but readers don't have our experience or background in understanding what is meant here on Wikipedia. As well, we may be weaponizing the term when we use it without any explanation.

Stolen from the lead second paragraph, but something like this along with some of what Rexx is suggesting above. Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia, but [some] modern practices of Ayurveda are outdated and considered to be pseudoscientific. "Some" is a tricky word we probably shouldn't use, but not sure how to word some, but not all. Not attached as usual just thoughts. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

General comment: In any case we need to have good sources for whatever it says, and it needs to be clear that the modern practice is pseudoscientific, per WP:GEVAL. Likewise, there should be no positivity given to alt-med buzzwords which could be seen as watering down scientific consensus. I honestly think it's fine as is as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please define alt medicine buzzword in this context. I'm not sure what you mean. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, not attached in anyway to my version. I kept looking at it wondering how to incorporate Rexx's points with what we have now. If anyone has something better-my version isn't great-than what I wrote please add it here. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Wyxing

Can you please add Wu xing to the list of to see also. Thank you. Zongqi (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean Wuxing (Chinese philosophy)? Why? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Self explanatory really. Thank you. Zongqi (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It might be self-explanatory to you, but it wasn't to the above editor, and it isn't to me either. Can you explain? Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, both are obsolete pre-scientific ideas based on classical elements, but the categories should handle such things. Add Category:Classical elements instead of cross-referencing all the articles in that category among themselves in See-also sections. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the reference is to the "Principles and terminology" section on page within the article. The "see also" section within the article is for the reader to be able to resources other pages within the encyclopaedia that are if similar nature. Thankyou Zongqi (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello I am wishing to include other links to Wuxing, this page and have not had a reasonable explanation for them not being included. A edditing block on a page should be in place to stop vandalism, not to block informative additions to evolving the experience for the end user of Wiki. Zongqi (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We are all waiting for you to explain WHY you wish to make this change. If you want to publish "informative additions to evolving the experience for the end user of Wiki", get a blog or post on Reddit. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this is not a change but an addition to the page. Zongqi (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

An addition is a change. Please try not to quibble, particularly when you don't have the expertise in English to do so. As far as I can see, Wuxing is unrelated to Ayurveda, so I don't think it should be mentioned in the See also section, which is for a "bulleted list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles". --RexxS (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Please try not to quibble, particularly when you don't have the expertise in English to do so". ??? Zongqi (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

My point was that I am not suggesting to change the main body of text but to add I internal link to another page within wiki. Can you pleat explain how you feel Wuxing is not related to Ayurveda please. Zongqi (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Zongqi has been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2021

Ayurveda means "the science of life" (ayur means "life" and veda means "science" in Sanskrit). Ayurveda is a discipline of the upaveda or "auxiliary knowledge" in Vedic tradition. Ayurveda has its prime origin from Atharva-Veda and apart as a supplement of the Rig-Veda. Dhanvantari is worshipped as the God of Ayurveda. The aim of this system is to prevent illness¸ heal the sick and preserve life. The Ayurveda has its origins from the India and extended its wings in various parts of the world. Ayurveda was taught in Gurukula system in ancient days, which is now been evolved in to under graduate & post graduate courses from Institutions. DrSumod (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 10:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References to verified clinical trials

"Few well-designed clinical trials and systematic research reviews suggest that Ayurvedic approaches are effective." ~ https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/ayurvedic-medicine-in-depth

Several examples are quoted there.

This contradicts the statement "There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease.[17]". Further, the statement made in the referenced article is more in the context of Ayurveda not being effective for cancers.

So, either that statement needs to be modified, or removed Hrishikeshrt (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• No, they do not contradict eaach other, because it does not say "no evidence", but rather "no good evidence". "Good" evidence would certainly be a lot more than four trials, many of which were small, and especially when those trials are quoted on the website of an organisation that is notorious for the quality of its research. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Hrishikeshrt: Here are some quotes from the examples linked from the NCCIH site that you cite:

  "Twenty-six patients showed asymptomatic increased serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase (SGPT) with otherwise normal liver function; seven patients (Ayurvedic intervention) were withdrawn and SGPT normalized after stopping the drug." – If you think that a trial in which 28% of the participants withdrew from the study with unexpected side-effects is good evidence for the intervention, you have a different idea of what "good evidence" is from the rest of the world.

  Cochrane review: "Although there were significant glucose‐lowering effects with the use of some herbal mixtures, due to methodological deficiencies and small sample sizes we are unable to draw any definite conclusions regarding their efficacy." – You'll find that "unable to draw any definite conclusions regarding their efficacy" does not translate into "good evidence".

  NCCIH: Tumeric: "no clear conclusions have been reached about whether these substances have benefits for health conditions." – No conclusions for benefits.

  The Essential Medicinal Chemistry of Curcumin: "No double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial of curcumin has been successful." – No successful trials.

  The Essential Medicinal Chemistry of Curcumin (full text): "None of these studies have yet led to the approval of curcuminoids, or turmeric as a therapeutic for any disease." – No approval for treatment of any disease.

  You have to actually read the text of the articles you are citing to us. Being fed a "text snippet" from some fringe website simply isn't good enough. How many good sources do you have to read before you understand that "there is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease"? --RexxS (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

Hello,

It seems to me this article puts great emphasis on the dangers of Ayurvedic medicine without citing the many cases in which it is beneficial and helpful. If the practice of Ayurveda is upheld by approximately 80% of India, as the article states, there surely must be benefits to be discussed. I think it would be beneficial to explain the process that Ayurvedic doctors use to diagnose and treat illness so the reader has a sense of the careful consideration that's taken before treatment is given to patients. What troubles me most about the article is that there is so little discussion about the history of Ayurveda, especially what happened to the teachings and practices of Ayurveda during British colonial rule. I think this period of history is really important for readers to understand so they can build a balanced view on why there might be such scepticism around the practice of Ayurveda currently, and why Western medicine is comparatively given such credibility.

Please take my feedback into consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Nicholas Waters 95.145.113.251 (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I have disabled the edit request template as it's not intended for general suggestions. It's only to be used for specific requests in "Change X to Y" format supported by reliable sources. The discussion can continue without the template active. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Are Ayurveda therapies mainly oral?

Are the complex herbal compounds, minerals and metal substances in Ayurveda mainly oral medicines? Salves? Something else? It would be good to mention this in the lead. I did a quick search but couldn't find a good source. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"An Ayurvedic practitioner might rely on blood purification, massage, medical oils, herbs, and enemas or laxatives."[15] (As far as I can tell the "blood purification" is just more orally administered herbs.)

---

"Ayurvedic medicine can include:

*advice on diet and special diets

*taking specific Ayurvedic medications

*herbal medicine

*massage

*meditation

*yoga, breathing and relaxation techniques

*bowel cleansing"[16]

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2021

There have been recent research papers that have been published on Ayurveda and its genesis and the evolution of the term. The current article does not provide the complexities of the heterogenous indigenous practices that came to be called ayurveda in the 18th and 19th century. It is looking only at one particular understanding of the body and treatment, while recent research by people like K.P. Girija, who is not an Ayurvedic practitioner and from a Social Science background, provides a detailed account with references to policy documents from government archives on how this happened. For instance, marmachikitsa and kalarichikitsa were two practices that were added to the umbrella term Ayurveda as late as the twentieth century with the boom in the tourism industry. Additionally, not all the texts used in Ayurveda are from the Vedas, some of the texts that had been historically used in South India were vernacular in nature, owned by particular families or even orally passed down from guru to disciple. Mailteena (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. No comment on the sources, which I have not looked at. Wham2001 (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add the following section to the title "Further development and spread " and as a last paragraph.

Ayurveda as it is practised today in India, came into existence in the early twentieth century. It has included elements from Vedic texts and other indigenous medical practices like Vishavaidya, kalari, uzhichil, Siddhavaidhya, Unani and a few others which were all separate but interconnected in terms of knowledge sharing and certain underlying principles. Though the Sanskritic texts have a hegemonic position, vernacular texts that had been in use in South India before the twentieth century is also included in the Ayurveda syllabus in Universities and at the level of practice. During the outbreak of contagious diseases in the early twentieth century, the colonial government in the country sought the help of indigenous medical practitioners for vaccination programmes and other outreach programmes. Even now, the western system of medicine does not have after-care programmes after parturition, while Ayurvedic systems have oral and physiological practices in place to take care of the body of the mother till the third month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mailteena (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

CHANGE:

"There is no good evidence that Ayurveda is effective for treating any disease.[17] Ayurvedic preparations have been found to contain lead, mercury, and arsenic,[18] substances known to be harmful to humans. In a 2008 study, close to 21% of U.S. and Indian-manufactured patent Ayurvedic medicines sold through the Internet were found to contain toxic levels of heavy metals, specifically lead, mercury, and arsenic.[19] The public health implications of such metallic contaminants in India are unknown.[19]"

TO: "Ayurveda has a large philosophical, experiential and experimental basis. But although scientific studies have been done on a large number of Indian botanicals, only a smaller number of marketable drugs have entered the evidence-based therapeutics . We often hear a general statement that Ayurveda lacks scientific evidence. This is commonly referred to as results of human clinical trials undertaken adoring those applied to pharmaceuticals, involving randomized controlled trials (RCT), either a placebo or active-controlled .

Ayurveda has been recognized as an independent medical system by the government of India for a long time. The Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), Ministry of Health (Regulations 1986, Minimum Education in Indian Medicine) regulates Ayurvedic education and training in India. The curriculum includes 2820 hours of theory and 780 hours of practical and laboratory work over a period of 54 months; this is followed by 1 year of residency leading to a Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery,5 formerly Bachelor of Indian Medicine and Surgery. This is an integrated program that teaches Ayurvedic and allopathic courses so that therapeutic options for patients may be maximized.

In order to assure the quality of Ayurvedic formulas, the government of India, the Ministry of Health, amended the Drugs and Cosmetic Act of 1940 in 1964 to include Ayurvedic drugs (Ayurvedic herbs and herbal formulas). The Act requires the raw materials to be genuine and adequately identified; the formulas must contain ingredients listed on the label and manufacturing must be conducted under prescribed good manufacturing practices conditions. CCRAS developed a formulary of Ayurvedic text formulas called The Ayurvedic Formulary of India published in 1978. CCRAS conducted research to establish enforceable standards for Ayurvedic formulas similar to allopathic drugs and promulgated the standards. Lolacuddle (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Not done:

The government of India is not a reliable source on Ayurveda. See WP:RSMED. Ayurveda practioners have a lot of political pull in India and have bullied the politicians to ignore the actual doctors at the Indian Medical Association and to instead promote quackery such as Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (See Ministry of AYUSH) but Wikipedia is not so easily bullied.

We have a word for those few drugs and practices that originated as alternative medicine but were shown to be safe and effective in peer-reviewed double-blind clinical trials. That word is "medicine". It does not imply that we should accept the rest of the quackery. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We have a word for those few drugs and practices that originated as alternative medicine but were shown to be safe and effective in peer-reviewed double-blind clinical trials. Not only that; the ingredients tested in these successful trials are also typically far removed from the original Ayurvedic formulations. An ancient polyherbal concoction is NOT functionally similar to any clinically-useful components isolated from it, and those components are therefore NOT positive mechanistic evidence of Ayurveda being scientifically sound. Ayurvedic theory plays no part in the downstream techniques that actually generate effective drugs -- e.g., soxhlet extraction using n-hexane treatment to solvate out other plant matter from bioactive alkaloids, alkaloid base liberation with NH4OH, and chloroform extraction of the base followed by Rotovap to get rid of the solvent; and then UPLC for fractionating out purified alkaloids coupled with HRMS for detection/identification. And all of this is happening before the compound is even tested for in vitro efficacy, let alone investigated clinically; in the end, plant matter may not be involved at all if an economic total synthesis is discovered. JoelleJay (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to the excellent comment above, yes, science does on occasion find something useful in ancient medicine. See History of aspirin for a good example. Hippocrates talked about willow bark tea in 400 BCE. However, the Ayurveda promoters are doing the equivalent of saying that because Hippocrates was right about salicylic acid, we should accept everything Hippocrates believed -- including his Wandering womb theory -- as valid medicine and not quackery. See [17]. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we even have to talk about whether Ayurveda works or it doesn't. We don't have Wikipedia compliant sources that says it does. End of story! Littleolive oil (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, Ayurveda is founded on a completely incorrect understanding of human physiology. If some of the herbs it uses have, over time, coincidentally turned out to be suitable treatments for some symptoms, that is irrelevant: it's a "stopped clock" scenario. The lack of quality assurance, any method of reality-based self-correction and the rest make this delusion a dangerous one. There is mercury in many remedies, and other heavy metal contaminants, and they are not effectively regulated. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, there's an entire field devoted to this study: pharmacognosy. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@JzG:. I'm not sure why you are trying to convince me of anything. I haven't taken a position. What I am saying is that our policies/guidelines/MEDRS guideline override any opinion one way or the other. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that have bullied the politicians is the right way of putting it. The Indian Ministry of Magic is an integral part of the Bharatiya Janata Party's odious Hindutva ideas, and fully consistent with its pseudoscientific branch Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Those politicians did not need to be bullied into propagating these superstitions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear that while the government can't be considered a source, Ayurveda is linked with Hindus, who are present across the globe. Also as stated earlier, Ayurveda has been supported by the Indian govt since decades, prior to the present political party. So while it is not scientific, as expected owing to its religious origin, the "odium" towards Ayurveda is but Hindu-odium. Not something one should be engaging in as editors, especially where our goal is to be Wikipedia:IMPARTIAL --Wikihc (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, but on Wikipedia negative material about pseudoscience that is more common among members of a particular religion in no way demonstrates any "odium" towards the religion.

For examples see Creationism and Christianity, the Shroud of Turin and Catholicism, opposition to blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon Archaeology and Mormonism, Female genital mutilation and Islam. All of those pseudoscience beliefs have many believers who share the same religion -- and many members of those religions that reject the pseudoscience.

Any negative material about creationism in no way demonstrates any "odium" towards Christians, the vast majority of whom are not creationists. Mormonism is a well-respected religion, but the notion that the inhabitants of ancient America possessed a language with roots in either Hebrew or Egyptian is pure pseudoscience that many Mormons reject.

To put it bluntly, Ayurveda isn't bullshit because it is popular among Hindus and we don't like Hindus. We love Hindus. Ayurveda is bullshit because it is bullshit, and which groups tend believe the bullshit is completely irrelevant to the established fact that Ayurveda is bullshit. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Who is we? All are individuals here. I'm responding to the statement made earlier which acknowledged the "odium", not interpreting from any material. Also, religion by its very nature is not scientific for it is not falsifiable. So members of religion who don't believe in unscientific ideas is thus an oxymoron. Doesn't mean any editor should engage in Hindu-odium. Respecting Wikipedia:IMPARTIAL is key. Wikihc (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit request has been rejected. Please drop the disruption and battleground mentality. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies [...] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[18] [19] [20] [21]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines .
We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

What did i just read 950CMR (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I deleted that question because a Wikipedia Talk page is not a forum, but someone reverted the deletion with the comment "It's a fair question".

Alright. So, you want people to guess what you have just read? Was it War and Peace? And how is it relevant to improving the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted it because this article is already being used a talk page. The above manifesto, other than perhaps medicine vs homoeopathy, has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article. No one is trying to insert references to Lysenko or Holocaust denial into this article. It's pretty weird. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC);

The pseudoscience and mercury ones are very relevant to this artice, and you could argue that the alchemy one is too. Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The context is that tons of new users have turned up in the last months and wanted to turn this page into a quackery fest, whining that the article is "biased". Guy explained to them that Wikipedia is biased in favor of science. Even if that were wrong, even if his explanation were out of place here, you cannot use it as an excuse to add forum posts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The references to Lysenko, Holocaust denial, and laundry balls are what makes the argument effective. Simply saying that Wikipedia is biased against Ayurveda wouldn't persuade anyone; that's what they came here to complain about. What makes it persuasive is that the proponent of a particular pseudoscience, having just bitterly complained about how unfair it is that Wikipedia is biased against their favorite pseudoscience, sees a list of Wikipedia being biased against other kinds of pseudoscience that they agree are wrong.

It's a finely tuned argument, and has been shown to be persuasive when fans of pseudoscience read it. If anyone thinks they can create a more persuasive argument, go ahead. show me how it is done. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021 (2)

Ayurveda is totaly proved scientific concept By indian Acharyas ,IMA is private NGO have no any right to decide who is scientific and who's pseudoscientific . plzz edit -Ayurveda is ancient scientific concept and very well discribed in Ayurveda SAMHITA's and ayurvedic practitionar's study well in Colleges so how they are quekar ? 2401:4900:5AAA:62FD:E67:11F7:2936:E38A (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Also, please note the bold text at the top of the edit box: Please note that due to disruption of this page, if you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article, your comment will be removed without reply if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

Change medicine to allopathic medicine 2409:4042:187:DA23:0:0:1656:E0AC (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please read WP:FRINGE, we stick with the scientific consensus on matters like these. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Wait, I think I misunderstood you. Which instance of "medicine" were you talking about? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• We don't use the word anyway (you'll see it doesn't appear anywhere here); "allopathic medicine" is just medicine, there's no need to disambiguate it. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

“ Please delete sentence three.

In third sentence, it’s wrongfully mentioned that,

“Indian Medical Association, IMA, characterises the practice of Ayurveda as quackery”.

Reading the 6. In references, IMA actually called out only 4 lakh Ayurvedic practitioners, who are illegally practicing allopathic modern medicine without degrees in modern medicine as “ quacks”. It does not characterise ALL Ayurvedic practitioners as quacks, but only these 4 lakh who are illegally practicing allopathy. Your page is misleading. I request you to please look into the matter and correct this misleading information. Look forward to urgent action. Thank you kindly “ 180.150.36.223 (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You may want to participate in the related discussion above. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Last chance

• "Also, the aggressive racist connotations in your comment are not welcome." -- Wikihc 19:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• You just called me a racist. I refer you to the reply given in Arkell v. Pressdram. Do that again and there will be consequences. -- Guy Macon 23:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• First of all, I never made a remark on you as an individual, only explicitly on your content, let alone threaten anyone with reference to a legal case as you are doing to me, which is expressly prohibited. -- Wikihc 05:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikihc, this is your last chance. Retract your comments about racism now. The consequences I referred to do not include legal action (which is what is actually prohibited per WP:LEGAL and would be really silly as well) but instead the consequences will be you being reported at ANI for incivility. I plan on requesting a warning and not seeking a block or topic ban unless you imply that another editor is a racist after the warning. Or you can retract your remarks about racism. Or you may choose to provide a direct quote by me that in any way says anything about race. Choose wisely. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What do the sources say about the Indian Medical Association, Ayurveda, and Quackery?

I am getting sick and tired of person after person picking apart the clear wording of the Indian Medical Association[22] and claiming that they aren't really calling Ayurveda quackery or claiming that only some Ayurvedic practitioners are quacks. This kind of interpretation is why we depend on what reliable secondary sources instead of using our own interpretation of primary sources.

So, what do the sources say about the Indian Medical Association, Ayurveda, and Quackery?

• "Indian doctors have accused the government of seeking to “sanction quackery” by proposing to allow homeopaths and others trained in alternative remedies to practise conventional medicine after taking a bridging course. Aimed at addressing a severe shortage of doctors, particularly in rural areas, the bill would allow people who dispense Siddha, Ayurvedic and other traditional Indian remedies to practise medicine after taking a course, the length of which is yet to be decided. The Indian Medical Association has criticised the plan, saying it will “lead to an army of half-baked doctors in the country”, according to the association’s president, KK Aggarwal. 'The government is giving sanction to quackery,' he said. 'If those doctors make mistakes and people pay with their lives, who is going to be held accountable?' " Indian doctors protest against plan to let "quacks" practise medicine --The Guardian
• "A proposal by the Indian health ministry to introduce courses in traditional medicine in colleges teaching modern medicine has kicked up a controversy, with doctors describing the plan as unwarranted and unsafe. Top officials of the Indian Medical Association and the Medical Council of India have said that exposing students to different systems of medicine could promote ambiguity, confusion, and even quackery. The health ministry's department of Indian systems of medicine has proposed lessons in ayurveda, siddha, and unani medicine to students pursuing modern medicine. " Indian doctors decry proposal to teach traditional medicine[23] --The BMJ
• "The Ministry of AYUSH [Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy] has been a nuisance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perhaps it has always been a nuisance but during the pandemic, while any other ministry might have stepped carefully, avoided panic and guided the sick and the confused through uncertainty, the Ministry of AYUSH has been doing the opposite. In fact, its decisions in this time are so far removed from the established precepts of practising medicine that it’s reasonable to wonder if its only agenda is to do the opposite of what is right. First, there was the ill-considered advisory to consume untested substances prepared according to homeopathic and purportedly Ayurvedic recipes, and which the ministry said could cure a disease that we don’t fully understand even in November 2020 but which the ministry had presumed ancient Indians had known everything about. Then there were dubious claims that Prince Charles had recovered from COVID-19 using Ayurvedic medicine, the AYUSH minister choosing to be treated the allopathic way when he got COVID-19, and a glut of other recommendations from the ministry about using herbal remedies to evade the novel coronavirus... Ayurveda and homeopathy quacks are often prone to claim their methods are 'scientific' and that they follow the scientific method. But it’s impossible for these systems of medicine to be verified by science because the way they obtain, organise and validate knowledge is entirely different." For Sick Indians, Modi Government's Ayurvedic 'Surgery' Order is the Unkindest Cut --The Wire (India)
• "The Indian government’s push for Ayurveda is in line with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) plan to revive Indian traditions. After assuming power in 2014, the Hindu nationalist party created a separate Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) with a budget allocation of nearly $300 million. [Dr. Harjit Singh Bhatti, president of Progressive Medicos and Scientific Forum], however, criticized the decision. 'This government is promoting quackery and pseudoscience. The Modi regime is so arrogant that it thinks that it can get away by doing anything in the name of Indian tradition and culture. It is legitimizing quackery,' he said." Indian doctors strike in protest against "quackery" --Arab News
• "The Indian health ministry has begun to recommend traditional remedies to tackle the country’s COVID-19 outbreak, dismaying many Indian doctors and scientists. On 6 October, health minister Harsh Vardhan released recommendations for preventing COVID-19 and treating mild cases based on Ayurveda, India’s millenniaold system of herbal medicine, triggering sharp criticism from the Indian Medical Association (IMA), a group of more than one-quarter of a million modern medicine practitioners. In a press release, IMA demanded Vardhan produce evidence of the treatments’ efficacy; if he’s unable to do so, the association wrote, Vardhan is 'inflicting a fraud on the nation and gullible patients by calling placebos as drugs.' Recommending any drug without evidence for a deadly disease that has claimed more than 100,000 Indian lives is 'a dangerous trend,' adds C. S. Pramesh, a thoracic surgeon and the director of Mumbai’s Tata Memorial Centre." "A fraud on the nation": critics blast Indian government’s promotion of traditional medicine for COVID-19 --Science
• "The Supreme Court of India and Indian Medical Association regard unqualified practitioners of Unani, Ayurveda and Siddha medicine as quackery.Practitioners of alternative medicine, including those practicing Unani medicine, are not authorized to practice medicine in India unless trained at a qualified medical institution, registered with the government, and listed as physicians annually in The Gazette of India. Identifying practitioners of Unani medicine, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions" Unani Medicine --Journal of Health and Medical Research(Not a reliable source)
• "The Ayurveda Medical Association of India, the official organisation of ayurvedic practitioners, is worried about disrepute to their practice and danger to patients’ lives 'There is nothing called a virus or a bacteria. It is fiction created by the drug lobby to fleece you,' says a self-proclaimed 'Ayurveda doctor' based in Alappuzha. The visuals of him making outrageous claims against established scientific knowledge is going viral on social media with it being circulated by people who are sceptical about medical practices, be it Allopathy or Ayurveda, or those who are looking for quick remedy from chronic illnesses. The 'doctor' who is candid about his previous occupation as a plumber in another visual clip is also opposed to all vaccinations." Here a Quack, there a quack... --New Indian Express
• "They outnumber medical doctors; could they be trained to deliver effective care, asks Priyanka Pulla Unqualified practitioners who pose as qualified doctors and administer potentially dangerous treatments to patients—so called quacks—are numerous throughout India. But state governments and police aren’t taking action, say officials from state medical councils, who are grappling with complaints against these practitioners. “There is no political will” to deal with quacks, because they are popular among the electorate, Anil Bansal, former chairman of the antiquackery cell of Delhi Medical Council, told The BMJ. An Indian Supreme Court ruling in 1996 defines anyone practising modern medicine without training in the discipline, even if they are trained in alternative systems of medicine such as ayurveda, as quacks or charlatans." Are India’s quacks the answer to its shortage of doctors? --BMJ Online

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Your own provided sources show that only some Ayurvedic practitioners are quacks. And it is based on their lack of relevant qualifications in modern medicine.

* Indian doctors protest against plan to let "quacks" practise medicine --The Guardian states the defintion as "who present themselves as doctors but lack any medical qualifications." It states that the proposed bridge course would be half-baked qualification. So it again defines the quacks as those who practice modern medicine without relevant qualifications.

*Indian doctors decry proposal to teach traditional medicine[24] --The BMJ quotes Dr. Malik as saying, "We're not against traditional medicine". "Dr Malik said that a policy allowing graduates in modern medicine to prescribe ayurvedic medicines after limited exposure to the subject would be tantamount to quackery. Practitioners of traditional medicine might use this policy to prescribe modern drugs without being qualified to do so." So it again defines the quacks as those who practice modern medicine without relevant qualifications, with limited exposure to the subject.

* For Sick Indians, Modi Government's Ayurvedic 'Surgery' Order is the Unkindest Cut --The Wire (India) does not provide a working definition of who is a quack.

* Indian doctors strike in protest against "quackery" --Arab News deos not provide a working definition of who is a quack.

* "A fraud on the nation": critics blast Indian government’s promotion of traditional medicine for COVID-19 --Science does not even contain the word "quack" anywhere in the source.

* Unani Medicine --Journal of Health and Medical Research(Not a reliable source) explicitly states that IMA and the Supreme Court of India defines quacks as those who are "unqualified" to practice modern medicine. It additionally states that they can be authorized to practice modern medicine when "trained at a qualified medical institution, registered with the government, and listed as physicians annually in The Gazette of India". So it again defines the quacks as those who practice modern medicine without relevant qualifications.

* Are India’s quacks the answer to its shortage of doctors? --BMJ Online also states "Unqualified practitioners who pose as qualified doctors and administer potentially dangerous treatments to patients—so called quacks" So it again defines the quacks as those who practice modern medicine without relevant qualifications.

In conclusion, multiple sources limit the scope of the definition of a quack to those without relevant qualifications. -Wikihc (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your point is supposed to be. Yes, the sources define a quack as someone who attempts to practice medicine, without having actual real medical qualifications (ie graduated medical school with an MD or national equivalent, go through internship/residency, attain board certification and appropriate licensure). So an "ayurvedic physician" who has no medical qualifications is by definition a quack, we all seem to be in agreement. Real physicians generally do not prescribe "ayurvedic" treatments because their training, qualifications, and licensure allow them to prescribe and administer real, evidence-based treatments and procedures that have been objectively demonstrated to be effective, so why would they bother with folk remedies and faith healing? Hyperion35 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

See, there is your problem. Your thinking is based upon logic, evidence and on what actually happens in the real world. You will never be elected US president with that attitude. :) Meanwhile, over in the Bizarro world of Ayurveda, there are a bunch of imaginary Ayurvedic practitioners who are fully qualified to practice medicine. Then they fill this talk page with lies about the Indian Medical Association only calling the non-qualified Ayurvedic practitioners (which of course doesn't include them) quacks. Meanwhile, back in the real world, here is what the IMA thinks about those supposed "qualifications":[25]

All of this is yet another orchestrated campaign by OpIndia. They pick a Wikipedia page and send their army of followers there to Sea Lionthe page. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Your ad hominem assumptions about the editors who don't see your way being "Ayurvedic practitioners" themselves, or "quacks", or "OpIndia followers" is not a valid argument, but is a violation of WP:PA. -Wikihc (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see the ongoing discussions above about the issues of WP:SYNTH in the current phrasing of the definition in the article. My response in this section is a continuation of the same.

To give a brief (non-exhaustive) summary, an example of a qualified doctor of modern medicine practising ayurveda is the undersigned himself in the Indian Medical Association source, who was President of the Confederation of Medical Association of Asia and Oceania (CMAAO) President of the Heart Care Foundation of India, and the former National President of IMA. Even if we think why would doctors do this, we aren't allowed to expand the scope of the definition from a source based on our assumptions, or by mixing with another source, as that constitutes original research. Unfortunately, the curernt phrasing of the wiki article does that. The only requirement portulated in the definition of a quack is the lack of relevant qualifications. All definitions from multiple sources state that explicitly as we agree. The phrasing in the wiki article should be modified accordingly to "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery." This phrasing is perfectly consistent with all the sources. -Wikihc (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

But the source doesn't exactly say The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery. They're talking about more than just Ayurveda. A better summary would be that the source is saying that the practice of medicine by those without proper qualification is quackery. This includes practitioners of so-called Traditional Indian Medicine such as Ayuurveda, as well as various other so-called "integrated medicine" or "alternative medicine". The source lists Ayurveda as one of many areas of quackery where people attempt to practice medicine without actual medical credentials. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The IMA is talking about more than just Ayurvedic practitioners in that source when, as you write, they say "the practice of medicine by those without proper qualification is quackery.". Since this page is about Ayurveda, and the current version of the wiki article reads: "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery"; the proposal is to change it to "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery" -Wikihc (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh alternatively proposed to just directly quote from the IMA source with an inline citation. -Wikihc (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Chandra.sarthak alternatively suggested to use the sentence as is in use in the article for Unani_medicine, "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) estimated in 2014 that approximately 400,000 practitioners of Indian traditional medicine (Unani, Ayurveda and Siddha medicine) were illicitly practicing modern medicine without having the qualifications to do so; the IMA regards such practices as quackery."

All of the variations of the proposed change consistently represent the different sources that define explicitly "the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners who are not qualified to practice it as quackery". -Wikihc (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed Wikihc is correct that the source speaks about quacks in all the systems of medicine recognized in India by the government. This includes allopathic medicine (I use this name as that is what the source calls it), which is covered by "Quacks with no qualification whatsoever". This means an edit that mentions all the systems of medicine specified in the source should include mention of allopathic medicine. However I agree with Wikihc that this article isn't about those systems so we should just mention Ayurveda. Therefore the edit "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery" makes the most sense. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Side note: Journal of Health and Medical Research mentionned a few times above is a predatory journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Good catch! I have stricken the places where I cited it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify the argument being made by those in favour of changing the language in the article, I thought I should quote some more lines from the IMA page linked above. Hopefully this clarifies what Guy Macon was referring to as the clear wording of the IMA page.

• In relation to Poonam Verma Vs. Aswin Paatel (AIR 1996 SC 2111), "...the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a definition of a quack a “A person who does not have knowledge of a particular system of medicine but practices in that system is a Quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or to put it differently a chariatan.”" <-- Note how they are talking about systems of medicine, and referring to quacks as people trained in one system but practicing in another
• In relation to Martin E D’Souza vs Mohd Ishfaq , "...thus a doctor who has qualification in Ayurvedic, Unani or homeopathic medicine will be liable if he prescribes allopathic treatment…" <--- Once again, the issue is really cross application of expertise
• "The main roadblock to eradication of quackery is CCIM which keeps issuing clarifications/notifications without any authority of gazette notification that practitioners of Indian Medicine are allowed to practice Modern Medicine. " <--- This also clearly imples what the IMA page is stating. Quackery is if practitioners of "Indian Medicine" practice "Modern Medicine"

At this point I'm honestly quite confused as to how the IMA page can be read to be interpreted in any other way. I stand by my earlier suggestion of using the Unani page as a template to change the line to state "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) estimated in 2014 that approximately 400,000 practitioners of Indian traditional medicine (Unani, Ayurveda and Siddha medicine) were illicitly practicing modern medicine without having the qualifications to do so; the IMA regards such practices as quackery." This sentence is indeed a precise representation of what is on the IMA page referred to above. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)