Ayurvedic Medecine

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Link to Cecil on Detox by various methods

The rest of this is okay, but the part about Ayurveda was clearly written with no research done. It’s not something Deepak Chopra pulled out of his sock drawer one morning. This stuff was first written down some 5000 years ago, and has been followed and developed ever since.
http://www.floridavediccollege.edu/ayurveda/history.htm
http://www.ayur.com/about.html
http://www.ayurveda.com/online%20resource/ancient_writings.htm
I’m not a follower of ayurvedic practices, just a fan of accuracy.
HennaDancer

2

Cecil doesn’t say he invented it. He says Chopra popularized it. He also says it has no proven benefit. Are you disputing that?

For what it’s worth,
Rob

3

Actually the article says, “ayurvedic medicine grew out of transcendental meditation (remember the Maharishi?).”

Turns out that the Maharishi only been going on about that for 50 years

So, I think that HD appears to have a point.

4

I think Cecil was well aware how people might take his crack about ayurvedic medicine, and knew exaclty what he was doing when he chose his words.

Let’s face it, all you touchy-feely New Age types: ayurvedic medicine is a fraud, and so is Deepak Chopra.

5

Popularized in the West, I’ll agree with. Pretty darn popular in India for the past several millenia.
I doubt that all of it is true. Some things have been proven, like some of the herbal stuff. Neem in particular is proven to cure many fungal infections and is as effective as quinine as a cure for malaria. It is also useful as birth control and against several conditons from heart disease to arthritis to AIDS.
Here’s a site which references several studies. Unfortunately it does not give specific details, but it may give you some idea of how widely this is being found useful.http://www.neemfoundation.org/health.htm
HennaDancer

6

I suppose you have evidence to support that all of the ayurvedic system is false?
I am by NO means a follower of newage (rhymes with sewage) anything, but I do believe that it’s worth testing what’s been used effectively for several thousand years. Certainly it’s irresponsible to distrust something SOLELY because it didn’t come out of a lab originally.
HennaDancer

7

Without affirmative evidence that it actually works, the only responsible position is to believe that it doesn’t.

8

What about suspending judgment until further evidence becomes available?

9

Yeah, that’s kind of where I’m at right now.

10

While I certainly appreciate your inappropriate, misplaced and useless derision for all that it’s worth, I’d like to point out (again) that ayurveda did not, in fact, grow out of a movement that began in the 1950s.

11

Sorry, but this seriously sets off my BS meter. Usually, when someone starts claiming that they’ve found a cure for damn near everything, they’re full of it. I don’t think the most sensible policy is to take any claim and assume it’s equally likely to be true or to be false – impressive claims require equally impressive evidence.

For starters, got any cites from unbiased sources? (Obviously, the Neem Foundation isn’t exactly going to have an unbiased opinion on neem.)

12

I agree, so I did some more research. I wasn’t aware that there was free online access to this sort of study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=search&term=neem
has a bunch of stuff.
To sum up the list-
One report that it wasn’t helpful in diabetes
Several reports that it is effective against cancerous growths
Two say it works better than quinine against malaria
Many deal with insecticidal properties, which seem well supported but aren’t really relevant to human medicine except as safety goes.
There are dozens about contraception in both males and females. It kills sperm and prevents implantation should conception occur.
I only found one about AIDS, but it says neem has antiretroviral properties.

So there is quite a bit of evidence showing that at least this one part of avuryeda is supportable. For me, this implies that it’s worth looking at the rest. At least, don’t dismiss it out of hand just because it was used by one nut among millions of people over thousands of years. We can dismiss nearly everything we know if we base opinions on that.
HennaDancer

13

The fact that India’s average life expectancy is ten to twenty years less than westernized nations is a pretty big clue, I’d say. If the process had any merit, shouldn’t thousands of years of experimentation yielded far more impressive results?

14

I don’t know. I guess the best thing would be to compare birth and death rates of those that practice ayurvedic medicine in India at various times through history and see what the results are. It may be that the original texts were helpful back then, but are not enough to fight modern pollutants, etc, or that drugs not available to the Indian subcontinent at that point are more effective on modern illnesses than the traditional ones. Penicillin used to be a wonder drug cure-all, and now many infections are unaffected by it. Perhaps this is the same effect.
But then, we’re not comparing the same populations. This is not a system followed or known by everyone in India. The poorest people there don’t eat regularly and have no health access at all, much less the in-depth education required to practice any sort of medicine, be it Vedic or otherwise. What’s thought of as best and what’s possible are two different things. If we were to compare the upper classes of India who also practice ayurvedic teachings with the upper classes of the US who do not, we might get a better idea of whether the system as whole works.
I really don’t want to debate this. I don’t follow ayurvedic anything. I just wanted to point out that the original post was uneducated about the subject.
HennaDancer