AHRQ Report that proves Ayurveda wrong.

[Guest guest]

Dearest Brother Subhasish,

 

I know this mail is not your brainwave but the handiwork of those "qualified

doctors" who dare not come into the open and fight with me. I, and the whole

world, is aware of this US Govt report which is of 2001 and which subsequently

led to strong protests worldwide.

 

The first point I would like to inform you is that the Ayurveds of India have

taken up the challenge put forward by this "qualified doctor", who wrote in a

mail to me that he is ready to fund any probe into the efficacy of ayurveda, and

who has then completely fled from the scene after that. He knows that if

research on ayurveda is carried out with qualified ayurveds on board, as per

ayurvedic principles, and with genuine ayurvedic preparations and methods, then

the whole exercise to malign ayurveda will fall flat on its face. However the

challenge to the "qualified doctor" still stands and the ayurveds are patiently

waiting.

 

Let me tell you the details of the similar attack on homeopathy via the much

touted Lancet magazine report which declared that homeopathy was a "placebo

therapy" and which took place in 2004 (not 2001 when this report you cite was

"prepared"). Immediately after this scoop the whole of the medical community

began to dance in ecstacy like Sri Chaitanya with this report in their hand.

 

Then I took up the matter with the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy,

India, and its Director, Prof Chaturbhuj Nayak, and with the help of

internationally acclaimed homeopath and health freedom fighter Dr Louis Klein we

examined the matter. What we found horrified us.

 

1. The entire exercise was carried out on 163 patients but only 8 "favourable"

cases were singled out.

 

2. The study was carried out in four hospitals but only one hospital was

included in the result.

 

3. There were no qualified homeopaths involved in the whole exercise at all.

 

4. The "law of similiars", the backbone of homeopathy, was NOT FOLLOWED AT

ALL, and the REDUCTIONIST METHOD of having a standard medicine against a

standard "disease name" was followed.

 

5. The researchers openly admitted that the motive of the exercise was to

prove homeopathy wrong. The entire show was thus biased which goes against the

very foundations of science.

 

6. The research was funded by parties who had a personal stake on the matter.

 

Then Dr Anbumani Ramadoss himself took up the case and sent a strong reply to

the Lancet magazine which was forced to acknowledge the flaws. Then, to mollify

Dr Ramadoss, they carried a full interview of him in their next issue.

 

We have then taken up the entire issue of proving of ayurveda and homeopathy

by allopaths which are undertaken with an obvious bias and utilising the funds

of drug majors. The campaign has exposed the nefarious intentions of the

industry which is hell bent on maligning holistic methods though they themselves

raise Cain when their genuine mistakes are pointed out by the critics.

 

I will now forward this 2001 study to the Central Ayrvedic Research Centre,

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Central Council for Research

in Homeopathy, and also the Department of AYUSH so that we can know the details

of how this study has been examined and rebutted by the Govt of India. We will

also ask them about the progress of their joint effort to digitalise ayurveda

and document its efficacy so that it can be placed before the international

medical community.

 

The joke is still on these "qualified doctors".

 

As for "free market economy", it is the way the free market economy is working

to the detriment of the drug industry that all these "reports" are coming out.

The medical industry worldwide is shocked by the increased turnover of ayurvedic

products and is now going to great extents to stem the growth.

 

I wish to inform you that the sustained campaign against ayurveda all over the

world has not affected the growth of ayurveda. It is growing at an unprecedented

rate. We are now working to achieve the same growth rate in India, and which is

making the "interested parties" panic. I can guarantee you that very soon the

drug MNCs like El Lilly, Merc, Ranbaxy et al will be selling "Chawanaprash" and

"Janam Ghunti" in India.

 

I think now the time has come for me to ask what is your financial stake in

the medical industry. I do not blame you for that, you have to defend your

income. But I too have to carry on my campaign for "Return to Health by 2010

AD".

 

God Bless You,

Jagannath.

 

Subhasish Ghosh <subhrakhi wrote:

Dear Jaggannathji

 

With every new issue that you raise, you seem to expose the nature of flawed

premise of your campaign. I am enclosing one of the Executive summary results

published for research conducted on Ayurveda for Diabetic practices. I hope this

report provides you the enlightenment of your interpretation of 'results'.

 

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/ayurvsum.htm

 

Now read the joke again and verify who the joke is on..........

 

The fancy words of quotations can impress the average populace and has the

potential to generate an interest in your campaign, but so far has been far from

impressive in bare bone content to those whom it matters. You are questioning

the integrity of knowledge, of science, of the insight we have made into nature

by very average gimmicks of the chicken little.

 

Doctors have a business to save lives. Ayurvedic results of "no impacts" or

"cure" are apparent face value and not conlusive yet. I can now undesratnd why

you have so far failed to comprehend the concept and importance of substantiated

result as opposed to observed result- because- I fear- it possibly does not

matter or means the same to you.

 

If this discussion is just about your campaign and an political objective,

this discussion is a waste. Because, you are not going to heed facts if it works

against your campaign goals. You have the expectation to demand from doctors to

heed, but have disqualified yourself from the same need.

 

Very simple logic, Baba: If Ayurveda is strong, why can't research establish

and evidence the nature of its sucess. It is of course "no use" to YOU, but it

is a lot to doctors and the medical fraternity who are responsible for their

practice. They will not practice just because somebody thinks it is better! If

Ayurveda is a sound health medical practice, why does it need a political

enforcement, why not follow free market economy success. Establish good

practice, show results, people will follow, why use governement intrevention? So

what if it takes time. Better safe than sorry!

 

the answer lies in our modern history- Preference for short cuts.

 

Mr. Chatterji, a "right" is not a blank check. Access to health system is a

right. Access to a choice of health system is not essentially a right. It is a

privilage, because it invlolves obligations and consent of others. System is

"provided" and hence involves another party to provide it, that involves HIS

right. So access to a system is not an automatic right but an agreement between

the parties that is subject to conditions. Example: a very poor nation like

Somalia may have the ability support ONE health system only with complete

liabilities. It is honoring its citizen's right for access to health but cannot

afford the luxury of a choice. Hope this gets beyond your jokes and superficial

treatment of this issue......

 

the issue is not about who said what about medicine. It is about why do we

need an upheaval? Qualifying your joke, do you change scooters if your tires do

a flat ?

 

regards,

Subhasish