Metals in Ayurveda and other points in Msg. No. 2959

[Guest guest]

Shirish,

 

I admire your depth of knowledge and read all your columns.

While I do agree with your point about MNCs,

I do not agree with some of the things that you have written.

 

eg.....

1) Ayurveda did not evolve througfh clinical trials......

 

I am very sure that all these herbals were not used at random, due to somebody's

whim. The methodology was different, but by any other name if you so desire,

these herbals were indeed tried on several people, and their effects documented,

before saying Ashwagandha works for such and such problem.

 

In the modern world, we have to live with the methods available. There is

obviously an advantage of a truly well conducted double blind trial, which is

not funded by a vested interest,

and such funding should be sought for such trials. Better yet, we should seek

the help of Ayurvedic Drug manufacturers to fund these studies. But, the onus is

on us to say, or to prove

that either a) heavy metal presence does not cause any problem, or that b) the

concentration of the heavy metal should be same, less or more and still be

equally efficacious. The real problem is that we are not able to acquire, so

far, people who will truly go into Ayurvdic research. Everyone wants to make a

quick buck ( and one cannot blame them for the same either), and I have heard

that some of the recent Ayurvedic graduates do not even practice Ayurveda.

 

2) Your statement----Ayurveda is not a Medical Science as connotated by the word

Medicine.

 

Ayurveda is indeed a Philosophy of life, and does deal with meditation,

etc....., however, it is also a branch of medicine in the larger context. We

shall have to define medicine. It is use of anything that cures some problems

and achieves longevity of life, be it by way of Insulin, Anti-hypertensives,

Anti-biotics, or Ashwagandha, or Dashamula-arishtam. We may classify our

understanding in Vata/Pitta/Kapha or by any other method, but essentailly the

fundamentals are same. We all try to understand the nature of the affliction,

and try to reduce it or cure it by known methods available. Instead of

comparing Ayurveda to Modern Medicine / Western Medicine, we should use the best

of both, whichever helps the patient best. Neither system is absolutely perfect.

We cannot say, I treat and he/she cures, therefore I shall give just

anything...although, if you really look at the studies that looked into the

power of positive suggestion, that is exactly what they did, and that is why the

"holy

water from a temple ( teertha or prasad ) works equally well, at times. But

that aside, there are diseases like Rheumatoid arthritis, that neither system

can "cure" . I have had a young niece, who was under ayurvedic treatment for

years, under the best of care in India, and has not been cured.

Both the systems can claim that we treat such and such disease. But whether the

patient actually gets a cure is another story. Treatment is not the same as

cure. And all anecdotal stories aside, we really need to do this research, just

for the sake of Ayurveda itself, and not to prove or disprove anything to

anybody else.

 

 

Durgesh Mankikar,MD

 

[Quoted digest deleted by moderator, since too long, and the author has used

relevant pieces of the quoted message in his post already]