AYUSH Holistic Wellness Centre at the Supreme Court premises

[TinTinSnowy]

@Sobirvs You need mental help.

​

​

 

[thomasjude47]

While that is generally true of India, there's another aspect that all traditional medicine, which emerged through heuristics and was passed on through generations is dismissed as quackery. The problem is that most of these alternative approaches have not kept pace with developments in science and statistics, and do not seem to even bother to conduct well designed trials, which makes it hard to scientifically support their case, despite significant anecdotal evidence.

Besides, modern medicine, while much better than traditional in a majority of cases, has its problems as well. Most importantly the fact that the profit driven pharma machinery has no incentives to work on prevention or quick cures. The entire machinery seems to be focused on symptomatic relief. Another concern is the obstinate , sometimes apparently deliberate attacks on non-patented medicines, and the fact that modern medicine in several instances seemed to often ignore almost every evidence of efficacy of medicines, except large scale placebo controlled trials conducted in western nations (often, but not always for good reason).

Anything which cannot produce evidence should be dismissed as quackery. Modern medicine being focused on symptomatic relief is another common misconception. Modern medicine offers therapy based on what is available and what is approved for a disease condition. If you go to a clinic with a simple headache the clinician there may offer you a simple symptomatic relief, but if your headache is caused by a tumor in your brain then the whole game changes. The treatment may still include that symptomatic relief along with a definite therapy. You may go symptomatic only if you don`t have a working diagnosis in hand.

 

[TEUser2K1]

@Sobirvs You need mental help.

​

​

Snarks aside, @Sobirvs is commenting about quacks exploiting the name of 'modern medicine and science'.

 

[Neotheone]

Has it crippled the population ? If not, then was the Science desperation driven ? Where is this theory coming from ? Any data as evidence ?

The post facto knowledge that something did not hurt so far, or seems to have worked without retrospective studies to actually assess efficacy, does not support the case that it was logical or followed the scientific method.

You yourself made the argument that corners were cut, which is only and only a desperate argument. The real test is: was scientific process followed, were adverse events reported, and was risk reward assessment done. The clear answer to that is no.

I am sorry to say but your point has zero merit when you ask me for data and evidence when no evidence and data is even transparently recorded and researched by the establishment. And that is my criticism.

 

[roadrash99]

A friend of mine used to BS about yoga, ayurveda, and baba ramdev bla bla, sure, all bad, let's give it a go to modern medicine right? he lost his father 20 days ago. I was there giving a shoulder to his father's body, and when he thought medanta really can help his father with cancer and everything gonna be great, and him losing 22 Lakhs's within few days (half covered by insurance) along with his father, his face was turned so red, like he thought it's all about science , and even in a sad moment, I was so happy, that he had personal loss because of his slavish mentality towards science and modern medicine. I taunted him a week back, "Yeah, so modern medicine did really do wonders for your father huh lol?".

No it is all about money. Whole world has contributed towards modern medicine, so they sat on literally unlimited money to be able to do unlimited r&d of tons of diseases and did tons of testing and now here they are with such monopoly that if they wish, they literally can create a disease and make us spend money for "them" to fix it. Compare to that ayurveda, how much money was really spent on it? Imagine even 10% of funding what modern medicine got from last century, where we would be today. These modern medicine bulls are the same who downplayed ISRO to NASA and laughed on ISRO, well jokes on them.

I have many personal doctor friends and most have one common advise, take medicine what works for you regardless if it's ayurveda or modern medicine but these cult of modern medicine who have me science their religion and defend it no matter what on social media and keep gatekeeping it and even went to lengths to censor scientists/doctors to talk against covid vax via US govt and other state gov's., this ugly cult is ruining it for everybody. They even put down or abuse the modern doctors aswell if by chance they don't glorify modern medicine.

You are the worst kind of person there is, just making sure you know that.

 

[Neotheone]

Anything which cannot produce evidence should be dismissed as quackery. Modern medicine being focused on symptomatic relief is another common misconception. Modern medicine offers therapy based on what is available and what is approved for a disease condition. If you go to a clinic with a simple headache the clinician there may offer you a simple symptomatic relief, but if your headache is caused by a tumor in your brain then the whole game changes. The treatment may still include that symptomatic relief along with a definite therapy. You may go symptomatic only if you don`t have a working diagnosis in hand.

All points taken, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was talking from the system perspective and did not want to imply that all practice of modern medicine is short term oriented.

I was talking about how corporate interests are served if they get the patient to come for a recurring revenue accruing drug - so a pharma giant is not likely to market a formulation which solves a problem once and for all, but strong incentives exist for them to continue to get the patient hooked for periodic fix. This is systemic and driven by economic incentives.

Off course most physicians do the best they can and I am not even qualified to make comments on the practice of medicine. But I do understand corporate incentive structures quite well. Large pharma giants have leverage over drug regulators and can get approvals for short term solutions - hence ensuring continued revenue generation.

BTW I agree largely that anything that can not produce evidence should be dismissed as quackery. But I have some doubts on whether only large scale, placebo controlled trials approved by drug regulators should qualify as evidence. With some thinking done, I feel that there is room to give flexibility to practitioners to take informed calls independent of centralized regulations. Decentralized implementation is not without risks, but neither is centralization.

 

[ibose]

The post facto knowledge that something did not hurt so far, or seems to have worked without retrospective studies to actually assess efficacy, does not support the case that it was logical or followed the scientific method.

I am not saying that trials were not at all conducted. The "limited" trials data was "supposedly" verified by WHO for all the vaccines as part of the "official recognition process". All I am saying is that the retrospective studies or comprehensive human trials to assess adverse effects, you keep asking for, was not possible, for obvious reasons. You keep talking about scientific method ? Please educate me on what is the scientific method for creating, testing and administering a vaccine for an active global novel virus pandemic with high infection and mortality rate and a rapidly mutating virus. Besides you keep dodging my question on the alternative.

You yourself made the argument that corners were cut, which is only and only a desperate argument. The real test is: was scientific process followed, were adverse events reported, and was risk reward assessment done. The clear answer to that is no.

That is not a desperate argument. That is the fact. Again pray tell me, what is the scientific process you expect them to follow in that extraordinary situation ? Do keep in mind that they were not dealing with a measles vaccine. Your argument is that we were injected with something which was not created following a scientific process. You know what, it may have been placebo for none of us had any side effects; strangely it saved me and my family !

I am sorry to say but your point has zero merit when you ask me for data and evidence when no evidence and data is even transparently recorded and researched by the establishment. And that is my criticism.

I wonder if you even looked at the link I shared earlier. I only challenge you to disprove that with data or evidence. If you cannot, I rest my argument.

 

[PunkX 75]

From my experience/learning/personal opinion:

1. I always go the modern medicine route. My mother is a blind believer in Ayurveda and will take anything suggested by anyone even if it sounds like complete nonsense and doesn't do jackshit
2. Ayurveda has traditional and modern values that some modern medicines are based on and I will not deny that.
3. The reason Ayurveda gets a bad rap sometimes is the fact that under it, there are a large number of quacks preaching bullshit to the uninitiated. This overshadows the genuine ones. For example - Biswaroop Roy Choudhury and his "miracle" diabetes/kidney failure fixes. It's not the practice, it's the people/quacks.

A friend of mine used to BS about yoga, ayurveda, and baba ramdev bla bla, sure, all bad, let's give it a go to modern medicine right? he lost his father 20 days ago. I was there giving a shoulder to his father's body, and when he thought medanta really can help his father with cancer and everything gonna be great, and him losing 22 Lakhs's within few days (half covered by insurance) along with his father, his face was turned so red, like he thought it's all about science , and even in a sad moment, I was so happy, that he had personal loss because of his slavish mentality towards science and modern medicine. I taunted him a week back, "Yeah, so modern medicine did really do wonders for your father huh lol?".

Man, I really hope that friend has cut ties with you. You need help. You're a quack in the making.