Comment by mayankkaizen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mayankkaizen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Be careful when you try to paint an entire field with a single color. There is a prevalent trend of doing this even though one can't even name 3 not so typical ayurvedic medicines.

Ayurvedic system isn't completely pseudo-science, though there are some nonsensical stuffs here and there. I mean when someone says ayurvedic system can treat cancer, you have reasons to laugh at it.

I am not a doctor or even a pharmacist but my dad's been running a medical shop since last 45 years. And he sells entire range of Ayurvedic medicines along with allopathic medicines.

I know of hundreds of cases where ayurvedic medicines performed far better than allopathic medicines. Yes hundreds of cases. In fact, even I myself have recommended ( and have used myself) a particular ayurvedic medicine for treatment of chronic fever where allopathic treatment just didn't work. And it worked miraculously in every single cases. There are countless other examples.

My point is, don't call ayurvedic system pseudoscience just because it is 'intellectually superior' viewpoint. Have seen too many people calling ayurvedic system bullshit even when they can't even tell the name of 3 medicines.

Maybe some do actually work, but are they good for you? For example, cinnabar (mercury) really does help with sore throats - almost instant relief. But is it good to take? Almost certainty not! It's a toxic metal.

> Ayurvedic system isn't completely pseudo-science

Ayurveda claims that all illnesses are caused by imbalances in doshas. Please tell me how that isn't completely pseudo-scientific nonsense?

If you’re trying to legitimize something that isn’t rooted in modern science, I’d advise against the use of “allopathic” as the adjective of choice when speaking of modern, science-based medical study.

The term was coined by a homeopathic doctor with he perceived intent of siloing modern scientific medication and medical study rather than attributing the legitimacy it’s earned due to the accepted rigours of the scientific process.

Not that homeopathic or Ayurvedic is not necessarily effective, but unless it’s submitted to the rigours of scientific study, it’s not science. Therefore if it passes itself off as science, it is a pseudoscience. In that case it doesn’t matter how many names anyone knows.

Not science != not true

Nobody said that.

The point was `not science != science`

Science is a course to best-effort prove things to be true—to that end it's been the most successful yet. The reason it's been successful is rigorous testing and data-gathering. And intellectual honesty. That's another discussion, maybe.

Yes fair enough, good points.

I agree, but if something really works the profit seeking soulless bigpharma corporation will run a clinical experiment and start to sell it in bottles.

So if some cure is true and has a wide profitable market, it will be part of science soon. Most of the traditional cures that worked has been absorbed in science and are no longer call "traditional". What we call "traditional" are the leftovers.

Nope, it's the other way around. Because they can't protect the recipe there are no profits to be made and therefore no incentive to run trials. It get's worse. If a traditional recipe works better, doctors can't prescribe that because it's 'untested' and in the end we get people paying more for inferior products.

"Not that homeopathic or Ayurvedic is not necessarily effective"

Homeopathy is not effective. It cannot be effective.

> The term was coined by a homeopathic doctor with he perceived intent of siloing modern scientific medication and medical study rather than attributing the legitimacy it’s earned due to the accepted rigours of the scientific process.

The term was coined -- before 'medicine' became 'scientific' -- to point out the philosophical defects of 'heroic medicine', which used bloodletting, blister agents, mercury treatments, etc to punish the illness out of the patient. Allopathic doctors were commonly despised because they weren't helpful for many conditions.

Homeopathic philosophy was that the body can fix itself, if it were properly supported - clean environment, good diet, etc.

Homeopathy is not about the body fixing itself. It's the idea (as implied by the homeo- part) that a disease can be cured by a substance that causes the same symptoms as those of the disease.

To make this idea work without killing the patient, the substance is diluted to such a degree that literally nothing (literally literally!) of it is left, because atoms and molecules were not known at the time the homeopathic ideas were dreamed up. So it's no surprise that it doesn't work, as a homeopathic medicine is entirely devoid of any trace of active ingredient.

Funny how it doesn’t work for difficult things that will kill you, like cancer, but supposedly works great for stuff that usually goes away on its own anyway.

Proponents of homeopathy will say they’ve seen hundreds of successful cases too, despite the fact that the patients are receiving nothing but water.

If the stuff works, controlled studies will back it up.

> I know of hundreds of cases where ayurvedic medicines performed far better than allopathic medicines.

Can you just point to some scientific studies instead of giving anecdotes?

How is this an acceptable defense ?

I don’t know a single prInciple of gypsy crystal ball gazing, but do I have to still be open minded about it?

The same with unani medicine or homeopathy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com