Mainstream Vs Holistic Medicine : Debate on NDTV, India.

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

On 13th Nov'05, NDTV India carried a debate on " Mainstream Vs Holistic Health "

anchored by the renowned Barkha Dutt. The group comprised distinguished

allopaths, ayurveds, homeopaths, reiki and energy healers, patients as well as

the general public.

 

The allopaths, from The Indian Medical Association and The Medical Council of

India, claimed that alternative medicine ( " or whatever " , as they put it) was an

uncharted area and the public had to be protected. They pointed out the

scientific basis of allopathy, its wonderful progress in the fields of surgery

and diagnostics, the continuous ongoing research and the wonderful oppurtunities

lying ahead. They however grudgingly admitted that " in some areas " other systems

too were effective.

 

A doctor from The Escorts Heart Hospital queered the pitch slightly as he

revealed his plans to set up a huge hospital of integrated medicine on a 43 acre

land he had acquired for the purpose. He caimed that modern medicine was too

expensive and also invasive in nature. An integrated approach would bring down

costs as well as lessen the side effects.

 

While the doctors were busy eulogising the diagnostic techniques, a lady was

seen frantically waiving her hands. The anchor went up to her and she revealed

how, badly affected by chemotherapy and radiation for her liver cancer, she had

taken refuge under Swami Ramdev, an Indian ayurved and yoga expert. She said

that without her having to spell out her problems, the Swami had observed her

pulse and said that her liver had been well neigh destroyed and that her life

force had been vitiated by strong medication. After two months of treatment,

both yoga and ayurvedic medicines, under the Swami the lady had gained weight,

found her appetite back and also her jest for life. When asked about the nature

of the medicine she said that she was not aware and had faith in the Swami.

 

Reiki and energy healers also pointed out how they could diagnose the problem

without having to take recourse to expensive tests. They said that their methods

enabled them to have a high level of intuition that they applied to know the

nature of the problems their patients faced at various levels; physical, mental,

emotional, karmic etc. They received their due share of sneers and caustic

comments from the mainstream doctors.

 

Now the question turned to faith in medication. While the mainstream doctors

debated on the unscientific nature of faith a member of the audience pointed out

that even the patients of allopathy had little knowledge about what medications

they were given and relied on their faith on the doctor. This view was rejected

by the mainstream doctors who again stressed on the science and research that

went behind their practice.

 

The anchor, Barkha Dutt, wondered aloud that if faith could heal then where

was the problem? Why should the scientists be against it? A Reiki healer

seconded her and said that the body had the power to produce everything needed

to tackle disease and said that faith and positive attitude prompted the brain

to release many helpful chemicals. A member of the audience said that Reiki had

more to it than faith and recounted how her sister in Dubai, given up by

mainstream doctors, had miraculously recovered through Reiki distant healing

sent from India. The mainstream doctors would have nothing to do with such

" magic remedies " but the anchor was quick to point out that the early allopaths

had used many such " magic remedies " . Another neuroscientist averred that not

Reiki but the allopathic medicines were the reason behind the cure.

 

A member of the Medical Council of India then took up the case of the

unscientific nature of homeopathy and how a recent report in the Lancet magazine

had proved homeopathy wrong. He also declared that a person in the USA had

offered a reward of a million dollars to anyone who could prove that homeopathy

worked. A homeopath pointed out the flaws behind the Lancet report, its bias,

non recourse to homeopathic principles and skewed statistics. Another homeopath,

Dr Mukesh Batra, said that a more recent article in the Lancet proved that

homeopathy was 124% more effective than placebo. He said there were more than 40

well organised trials which proved that homeopathy was effective. The arguements

were ignored by the mainstream doctors.

 

Then came the issue of heavy metals in ayurvedic medicines. An eminent ayurved

pointed out that metal ashes were extremely effective in treating diseases and

the ayurvedic method of preparing the medicines ensured that toxicity was

removed. He said that if certain manufactureres were not following the proper

procedure then such medicines should be treated as spurious drugs and not

ayurvedic remedies. (Incidentally heavy metals such as mercury, lead and

aluminium, in their crude form are injected into small babies as preservatives

in vaccines, a point not taken up by anyone in the forum). When the allopaths

complained that in some cases steroids were found in ayurvedic drugs, the

ayurved again pointed out that every method had its share of spurious drugs. He

also said that steroids, in extremely heavy doses, were an integral part of

allopathic treatment and that ayurveds had a tough time in weaning their

patients away from the harmful steroids. This arguement seemed to silence the

tempo of criticism.

 

The mood of the audience was clearly in favour of non-mainstream healing

methods forcing the conservatives to agree that alternative methods were

sometimes able to tackle psychosomatic diseases. The anchor questioned, " Aren't

all diseases psychosomatic? " The doctor from the Escort heart hospital readily

agreed and said that yoga and pranayama formed an integral part of his daily

routine. He said that he admired the way the alternate methods concentrated on

building up body immunity rather than attacking viruses. He said allopathy was

like " bombing the body " whereas other systems treated the human body mind

complex with respect.

 

The ayurvedic doctor then narrated how ayurveda had treated critical diseases

like cancer and diabetes since a long time. They did not agree that many modern

diseases were incurable. Ayurveda gave much importance to prevention of disease

unlike allopathy which came into the picture only after the disease had fully

engulfed the body. He said that if the patient had a balance of positive karma

behind him then many complicated diseases were amenable to treatment.

 

Dr Mukesh Batra, homeopath, revealed that 25% of mainstream doctors in Europe

and 50% of veterinary doctors practised homeopathy. He said that more and more

of mainstream doctors were enrolling for short term alternative healing courses.

He was supported by the heart specialist who said that integrated medicine was

the only way out as even developed countries like the USA and Canada were unable

to meet the rising costs of health. He said there was a need for a paradigm

shift in the way mainstream doctors viewed health. He said cooperation among

various methods was essential.

 

This brought up the question of how the Medical Council of India(MCI) has

recently torpedoed the Govt of India proposal to teach medical students ayurveda

and homeopathy. The representative from the MCI said that as per a law in India

they were supposed to deal only with allopathy, a statement which evoked gasps

from the audience. Even the anchor expressed surprise at this. Dr Mukesh Batra,

homeopath, said that the patient must be allowed to have a choice of treatment

in a democratic government. He criticised the narrow viewpoint adopted by the

MCI.

 

In the last round the anchor called for an integrated approach as she said

that most people followed it anyway as they went to allopaths, ayurveds and

homeopaths at different stages of their lives. This view was agreeable to all

except the conservatives who shook their heads in an emphatic no. They were

worried about scientific laws being breached.

 

So the question remains, what should be the order of the day, " science " or

health and wellness? If those responsible cannot take the decision then the

patients should. As a patient pointed out, it was her frustration at the failure

of the various specialists she consulted that drove her to an alternative

practitioner. Clearly our health is more important.

 

Regards,

Jagannath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.