Talk:Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

How is practicing Ayurveda quackery, shame on Wikipedia for the first paragraph.Page admin is literally defaming all the ayurvedic practitioners. Hope the admin changes it as soon as possible. Randombakchodi (talk) Wikipedia change this as soon as possible Randombakchodi (talk)

Randombakchodi we're only citing what reliable sources say. It's not the "page admin" as you've put it. Glen (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

First I want to say that I greatly appreciate Wikipedia. I have tried to contribute when I can to various subjects including history and healing disciplines. For the latter, I am noticing a lot of areas that are locked from anyone editing it, such as Ayurveda or homeopathy, or other natural medicine modalities. On top of that, I noticed that the verbiage in these articles portrays these in a derogatory manner, often calling them “pseudoscience”. Chinese medicine, homeopathy, Ayurveda, and many others being portrayed with derogatory language with no justification other than the person’s bias and a sense of cultural superiority.

Listen, I understand that in this time Wikipedia is concerned about misinformation on its platform, and I want to stress to you that I am not an anti-VAX person nor am I a Covid denier. I am very much for vaccines and the authority of health experts like Dr. Fauci. I understand the reason why these areas may be locked, what I do not understand or agree with however, is the biased, derogatory language towards any healing disciplines that actually might be of help in recovery from COVID-19, and you do a disservice to your users while giving some people the excuse of portraying Wikipedia as nefarious or beholden to secret dark forces in doing so. There are bozos out there that say the stupidest things about Wikipedia, like you’re run by the CIA, the Rothschilds, on and on. We are in a war with these shitheads. Let’s not give them ammo. I want to point to Wikipedia and have it be a indisputable source of legitimate information, with the reputation as that. You see what my point is here?

I am not asking for the floodgates to be open so just anybody can post any random nonsense about dealing with Covid or health in general. What I am asking for is an unbiased and fair portrayal of natural medicines, some hundreds or thousands of years old and have done good for humankind. Their portrayal as pseudoscience is unwarranted and only serves to damage Wikipedia’s ability to be a neutral source of valid information on all topics. There needs to be a better, more even treatment of things that do not fall within the sphere of Western medicine. Blocking any dissent and not giving equal treatment to these disciplines only damages the reputation of Wikipedia. Peer review is essential to our scientific inquiry, so let’s give these disciplines the chance to have some honest peer review on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:110f:c39d:8885:1145:d782:1a92 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The peer reviewed encyclopedia idea has already been tried. See Nupedia. Wikipedia relies on peer reviewed sources. See WP:MEDRS. This article contains material from those sources. If you don't like our rules, try Everipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, Wikipedia is not a disseminator of health care cures nor was it ever meant to be. Wikipedia is first and most importantly an encyclopedia and what that means is that Wikipedia is a collection of published, verifiable, reliably-sourced, content. This means Wikipedia is simply putting together information that has already been vetted by the publishing community. It's a collection of published knowledge, not right or wrong or true or false or useful or not, none of these criteria are part of the encyclopedia platform. In terms of health-content criteria Wikipedia has determined that health content and sources must be treated with even greater care and stringency than other topic areas given the health of readers may be a result of reading that content. So, we have WP:MEDRS as mentioned above. We cannot be the source for novel cures whether they work or not because first that is not within the remit of an encyclopedia, but also because it's too dangerous. What if some one decides to try a novel cure that we've added to our content. We have some examples of people in the US taking dangerous substances based on non-researched or poorly-vetted, research-based information. Whether to describe content as pseudoscience is another issue, and editors have been grappling with that issue per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for a long time. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery.[6]" -> This line is intentionally misleading and taken out of context. If you read the whole reference, Indian medical association calls unqualified people that practices modern medicine as quacks. The same can be said in the modern medicine page. Legitimate Ayurvedic practitioners will not practice modern medicine. Hence, there is no need to mention this line in Ayurveda wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.251.16.144 (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Editors, following up on this misleading statement about quacks. Like I mentioned above, IMA calls anyone practicing modern medicine without required qualification as quacks. There is no need to mention that statement in Ayurveda wiki. If you were familiar with India, there are so many unqualified people without any degree whatsoever setup a clinic and prescribed medicine. People without college degree or with degree in Pharmacy, Physiotherapy, Dentists, Nurses and many others practice modern medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.251.16.144 (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Given your other comment [1], I expect editors may just ignore you.

You might want to attempt to demonstrate you're not simply making a No true Scotsman argument to start. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I simply pointed out the inconsistency in the rules of the Wikipedia and what editors practice in this wiki page. Especially after the article "Why Wikpedia cannot claim Earth is not flat" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_Earth_is_not_flat page, one would hope that editors would edit the comment without bias. However, editors moderating pages with a strong bias is disturbing to a public project such as wikipedia.

Leaving my character or intention aside, back to my original comment about IMA - IMA calls people practicing modern medicine without required qualification as quacks. These quacks include Pharmacy degree holders, Physiotherapy, Dentists, Nurses, Siddha, Unani and Ayurvedic practitioners. Given the wide range of quacks out there, quoting that statement only Ayurveda page is misleading and totally out of context. If you agree with the substance of my comment, please remove that statement. To substantiate my claim, here are some peer reviewed journal references that Ayurveda in its purest form isn't entirely quackery.

1. "Most of the time, they produce satisfactory effect and safety, making them one of the highly selected drugs of choice. Nonetheless, public's inadequate knowledge and misconception on the safety of PHFs may result in the opposite effect such as toxicity and undesired interaction." Pharmacognosy Reviews, A peer reviewed pharmacology medical journal

2. " As a program of behavior change, our preliminary results suggest that the complex intervention Panchakarma may be effective in assisting one's expected and reported adherence to new and healthier behavior patterns." The Scientific World Journal, a peer reviewed scientific journal

3. "while Ayurvedic therapeutics has been prescribed for centuries for neurodegenerative diseases (including dementias), only recently have there been Western, mechanistic studies on AD; however, these mechanistic studies point to the same mechanisms addressed by the Ayurvedic therapeutics (for example, increase in nerve growth factors and neurotrophic factors and reduction in inflammation and oxidative damage), providing strong support for herbal therapy for AD" Alzheimer's Research & Therapy is a monthly peer-reviewed medical journal covering research on Alzheimer's disease.

4. "To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to document that bacopa has an anti-inflammatory effect on brain microglia." The Journal of Ethnopharmacology is a peer-reviewed medical journal covering the traditional medicinal use of plants and other substances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.251.16.144 (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

References

You're wasting our time, with what appears to be doubling down on the No true Scotsman argument. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not doubling down on No true Scotsman argument. I'm pointing out misleading nature and the sheer generalization in that statement. When a human kills another human, he/she is called murderer. However, you don't see a statement calling "According to law, humans are murders when they kill another human". That statement simply do not belong in Human wiki page. Similar to that, IMA's definition of quackery with respect to Ayurvedic practitioners practicing modern medicine, don't belong in Ayurveda wiki page. Perhaps, you can create a page for quackery and include all types of quackery in that page. In addition to my opinion, I've also provided citations of peer reviewed scientific journals above, where researchers argue the benefits of herbs used in Ayurveda. From the editors side, I haven't heard any justification on why that misleading statement should be in Ayurveda wiki page other than attacking my beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.251.16.144 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

He's not wasting my time. Why is that? Because this page was set up for just this kind of discussion. This is a well thought out point. We can disagree with out becoming personal I don't have to agree with him to allow him to speak. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't consider No true Scotsman arguments as productive. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, but telling someone they are wasting your time on a page where discussion is going to occur is personal. There is a remedy for comments that you consider time wasting....Don't bother with them. :O} Littleolive oil (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Littleolive oil. Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to any comments on this page, so if you feel that your time is being wasted, you only have yourself to blame.

If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away their keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia Song? Littleolive oil (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course there is. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMEDpykB8Ls ] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a song, but everyone should watch [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMpEi35CntM]. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Why Ayurveda topic should be made editable again and why Ayurveda is not a a Pseudo Science

Can Science define "Life", what is [[2]] according to Science. Wikipedia's definition of Life makes me think like this. Suppose you are asked to write an essay about cow. And you wrote like this- "Cow is a domestic animal. Cow eats grass. Grasses are green and I love green color. There are seven colors in the rainbow. Rainbows are very beautiful. This is how the Scientific community answers to the Question of what life is? Can the Scientific community or the doctors out there actually say what is life made of or what is life? What is lost when someone dies? The Scientific community, the Modern Doctors, all knows just some parameters to measure the presence of life. They can just tell you whether someone is dead or alive and some factors that effects life.They can just say that these and these factors will cause you to die and they don't know anything else about life and how we are alive. People have sometimes collapsed to death even while every parameters were perfect. Without knowing what they are trying to protect(Life), how can you call Modern Science, Scientific?Even Science has no sense without exploration. Science of Today will be proved as Dumb Science Tomorrow, so you cannot solve science in a day or state Science as truth. Since you cannot state Science as Truth, you cannot call it a Science either.

If a Doctor doesn't know what Life is, where it comes from and what it is made of and where and how we get it from and were it goes after death, how can you trust the doctor to protect your life. What is space, how big it is? What is the smallest particle and how small is it?. No one knows what is this end of the universe and that end of it. From the minutest of the Zero to the infinity of the universe, the science just knows nothing or infinitesimally small portion of knowledge. Until Science knows the beginning or the end of at least something, you cannot call science as a proven truth or even use the term Scientific. Something that makes some sense is not Science. Time is just a mere calculation based on the rotation/revolution of the planets and years.

Even before any modern men dared to think about Science, a whole lot of Science and Exploration had happened in India. The Vedas, Ayurveda and Astrology are all part of that Science. Until Modern Science can Prove it wrong, you cannot call all of it as Pseudoscience. If the urge to know the truth and follow the truth is your aim, then you should have the openness to dive deep in to the topic and study it before stating something as a Pseudo Science.

Wikipedia should stop restricting public from editing and correcting the contents of this topic. The editors are very biased and have no knowledge of what Ayurveda is. The editors are fooling their western counterparts by suggesting that Ayurveda is some extinct pseudo science. India has more than 300 Ayurvedic Medical Colleges spread across the length and breath of the country and more than 30,000 Government Ayurvedic Hospitals. The Indian Medical Association has been in the forefront opposing the system of Ayurveda because they are having there run for money in India.

If Ayurveda is Pseudo Scientific, why would the Director General of the World Health Organisation, the most reputed International Agency that monitors and take care of all the health issues in the world promise to setup Center for Traditional Medicine in India According to WHO DG "Traditional systems of medicine such as Ayurveda can play an important role in integrated people-centric health services and healthcare, but they have not received enough attention, the WHO DG said."

Ayurvedic medicines are very cheap, easily available and used for centuries and are so popular and widely in use in India so that these medicines and herbs have found its place in Indian house hold gardens and Kitchens and are used extensively and daily in every Indian house holds. Examples include Turmeric, Pepper, Ginger etc. These are Ayurvedic Herbs, but because of its medicinal and therapeutic properties have found its place in Indian foods.

There are Premier Government Institutes and Research Centers for Ayurveda in India. Extensive research is going on in Ayurveda and all those are scientific research

Ayurveda is an open source system of Medicines and Ayurvedic Medicines, mainly herbs were formulated 5000 years ago.The terms used in Ayuurveda are Sanskrit, making it difficult for the Westerners to understand.

Since Ayurveda is an open source system and derived in over 5000 years.Over the years, Ayurveda has witnessed all the possible diseases humans have had till now, it has derived the treatment and Medicines for it. It has clear sections and literature mentioning every kind of diseases, its manifestation, its causes everything mentioned in the context of Ayurveda. Ayurvedic literature have even mentioned about diseases spread through air and through near proximity contact with similar characteristics of Covid 19 and has mentioned treatment for it. In Ayurveda, each and every person is unique and 2 person will get different kind of treatment for the same disease by the same doctor. This is because Ayurveda Considers the bodily characteristics of the person also and suggest medicine according to it. These thousand year old literature have even mentioned about invisible pathogens as causative agents for diseases even when the whole world had no idea about pathogens and hosts.

If Ayurveda is Pseudo Scientific, why would the World Health Organisation, the most reputed International Agency that monitors and take care of all the health issues in the world promise to setup Center for Traditional Medicine in India According to WHO DG "Traditional systems of medicine such as Ayurveda can play an important role in integrated people-centric health services and healthcare, but they have not received enough attention, the WHO DG said."

So how is it possible for someone in the IMA (Indian Medical Association) to become and editor in Wikipedia just to mark Ayurveda as Pseudo Science and cheat his Western Counterparts stating all wrong news about Ayurveda. MBBS Doctors(Modern Medicine Doctors) and BAMS (Ayurveda Doctors) have equal distinction in India as Docotrs. MBBS Doctors have life long rivalry with Ayurvedic Doctors in because MBBS Doctors cannot become mainstream doctors. Ayurvedic Doctors are also getting patients from the West and East and from the Gulf and everyone is flooding to India for Ayurvedic treatment and MBBS Doctors are having there run for money in India. Because they have setup huge multi speciality hospitals in India and they are not getting enough patients to treat.

Unlike Modern Medicine, Ayurvedic Medicines are open source and no one is able to license any products mentioned in Ayurvedic texts. So no one is able to make fortune with drug licensing and that is why no one is willing to come forward to spend on research on efficacy of 5000 year old ayurvedic drug to prove it in a modern context. Besides that, these drugs have been taken by generations and are prepared the same way in a modern factory as it was prepared 5000 years ago. Since Ayurveda has Literatural evidence of Human use of these drugs for centuries, and since Humans being are still homo sapiens, these drugs will work and work efficiently as it did for the last 5000 years. If it had any adverse effect, people would have ceased to use Ayurveda just like the Europeans stopped using their old system of Medicine.

So Wikipedia editors are requested to remove the edit lock of Ayurveda and delete the user who has been blocking the editing of the article and be a fare organization and don't take money from IMA for vandalizing the Scientific Medicinal System of Ayurveda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyothis.jayakumar (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

References

The World Health Organization endorses Unscientific quackery in the form of Traditional Chinese Medicine]

"So it is extremely disappointing that the WHO, in its latest International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), has chosen to include a chapter on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) diagnoses. David Gorski wrote about this several months ago, and since then there has been increased backlash against the WHO. Of note, there is an editorial in Nature critical of the decision. While the editorial is good, it does not go far enough, in my opinion."

"The specific TCM methods are nothing but superstitious quackery. Tongue examination, smelling, and pulse diagnosis are not valid methods of medical examination, and do not relate to any actual disease or illness. They are the equivalent of the medieval European practice of carefully examining the color of urine in order to make diagnoses. They are as scientific as iridology or phrenology.

"The WHO defends itself by saying that these codes are optional, and that they don’t specifically endorse any individual TCM treatment. But I think that they implicitly do, if not explicitly. In fact, listing response to treatment as part of the TCM diagnostic code is optional, but may be included. If you endorse a fake diagnosis that only has fake treatments, then you are endorsing the fake treatments by extension. There are no evidence-based treatments for the imaginary TCM diagnostic codes – so what do they think is the result of legitimizing the diagnoses?"

"To its credit, the editorial also points out that TCM, in addition to promoting unscientific practices, is also a threat to many endangered species whose body parts are values as TCM treatments. So the WHO is now complicit in the threatening of species like the rhino and pangolin, whose parts comprise a multi-billion dollar TCM industry that has exhausted supplies in Asia and is now threatening species in Africa." --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)