Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Is Ayurveda a science?

I would like to add information related to this topic in the article. One of the references can be this. I would like to request other experienced editors to throw light on this topic. Thanks. Have a nice day. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Globally its not considered as science. It is considered as "a system of traditional medicines" and that's what we have written in our article. Its not something which editors over here can have consensus about and write. It has to be accepted as science prominently in real world. The debates and study related to this is covered in the "Scientific appraisal" section. If you wish you can expand that to write more about it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dharmadhyaksha for your views. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ayurvedic medicine has found itself a place in wikipedia's list of pseudo-scientific topics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Pseudoscientific_concepts.Lokayata91 (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent 'Books on Ayurveda' section addition

I am adding this here in the hope that the editor who has repeatedly added this section can discuss the material which does not seem to belong here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, User_talk:NeilN#Ayurveda and [1] indicates the editor is having issues with Wikipedia guidelines. --NeilN talk to me 20:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Eight components of Ayurveda

I am pretty much doubting if 8/8 components have been written correctly. Section can be merged if we failed to discover appropriate information. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead and sections

I was telling that both sources, [2], and [3], don't really talk about the lack of quality control. Especially the 1st source talks about the toxic compounds that were found in medicines. I haven't removed them. Leading paragraph itself talks about the compatibility of the medicine with other medicines, but doesn't talk about its prevalence. So it is good to mention about WHO, and NIH. It hasn't been mentioned anywhere in whole article. Still most of the paragraph is about the concerns.

There is no source provided for the statement that Ayurvedic medicines "have not been tested in rigorous scientific studies", tag shouldn't be removed, it has to be sourced or removed. నిజానికి (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've undone your edit as it, aside from being poorly written, used the weaselly "recognized" sourced to a guest editorial. It is recognized as alternative medicine, nothing else. --NeilN talk to me 13:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Added better sources, medicine is officially recognized by these organizations. It is not common with every other popular alternative medicine. For a name, Unani is not recognized by any of these organizations. నిజానికి (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Still poorly written, still misleading as it's not even close to being "recognized" as anything other than 'alternative medicine. --NeilN talk to me 13:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
What proof you have? I mean, proof that it is not recognized more than alternative medicine. Because the medicine is "recognized" that's it! You don't have to go further as usual. నిజానికి (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Your source. "...recognize Ayurveda as alternative and complementary medicine." --NeilN talk to me 13:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I agreed with that.(see your talk page) My issue is only that it is no where mentioned in whole page. So you probably know how to add it, it is notable right? That is the main factor. 13:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by నిజానికి (talk • contribs)
I've answered you on my talk page. Please answer here so we can keep discussion in one place. --NeilN talk to me 14:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's stop with the WP:GEVAL violations please, especially in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't remove the stuff from lead, as long as it is sourced to a reliable source, I have moved it to ideal subsection. But my edits were more concerned with the Ayurveda#Scientific_appraisal, which was a copy vio, I had reworded and added a source, if you want to remove it, you can re-write something yourself and add a source. But don't revert to copyvio. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of any copyvio. Can you explain enough so it can be fixed? --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Like నిజానికి has mentioned, part "Other concerns include the use of medication containing toxic compounds and the lack of quality control in Ayurvedic facilities" is removed from the lead, because it is WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. The editorial source doesn't even support it, neither the governmental one. Best they say is that there is a need to be aware in advance about the level of toxic that are used in any of these products, including the non-ayurvedic. The sentence, "As a traditional medicine, many Ayurveda products have not been tested in rigorous scientific studies and clinical trials." is a copy vio from this book, so I had changed it. But this time, I have added different source. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not an OR violation if it accurately summarizes sources, which is what should be done in a lede section.
Thanks for identifying the direct quote.
Changing the meaning by changing the source? Could you please quote what you're using now? --Ronz (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
But source itself is not saying anything more than the concerns about toxics.
About the scientific appraisal, it is now "Some Ayurvedic products have been scientifically tested per western standard, although many haven't been tested yet", source, it is almost similar to what we were using before. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
"But source itself is not saying anything more than the concerns about toxics." Which source(s) from Ayurveda#Use_of_toxic_metals or elsewhere should we use then?
I cannot access page 90 of the link you provided. What does it say? --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing is wrong with the Ayurveda#Use_of_toxic_metals. You don't have access to this book? Fine, here's the screenshot. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding toxic metals, I don't understand your reply. To restore the material to the lede, which sources should be used if any?
Thanks for the pic: "Some Ayurvedic medicines have been scientifically tested according to Western standards, but many have not." Given FRINGE and the other source, I trimmed it. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking further over the "toxic compounds" bit [4], I think it's too redundant without more sources and treatment in the article body. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I may agree that current paragraph is incomplete, but it shouldn't be expanded, because issues are limited with the toxics, there are proponents of toxics. Can be mentioned, but there is no need, because rest of the article explains well. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit war on Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs

An edit war is going on there in my opinion. Interested people can intervene. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Protection of this article?

It seems that lot of edit war is going here as well on this article. It is evident by looking at the history. I would suggest to protect the article. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A new article named history of ayurveda is needed

I think this article should be there as there is a huge history of ayurveda. People would like to read it. There is surely enough material for it. In fact lot of material of this article also can be shifted to that article. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is still pretty small. Please add everything here that you know about Ayurveda, with the sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Studies

I was wondering if the studies mentioned here can be added to this article?—Khabboos (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Any WP:MEDRS there? (Have you read it yet?) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Note for new users

You have to cite references for every sentence you plan to add to any article of wikipedia and avoid removing sentences with references. Please also read this - this article is written as per the policies of wikipedia which is that all complimentary and alternative medicine articles should be written, not from the perspective of its advocates/practitioners, but from the perspective of 'researchers and scientists'. If you want to complain about wikipedia's policies, please do what LeadSongDog mentioned which I'm linking to here (and tell me also about it, on my discussion/talk page).—Khabboos (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK on Lead

Why we are overstating the opinion of a single organization, we are aware of WP:WEASEL? You cannot add any opinion to the lead, it should be held by the majority. This edit is itself newly added on 1st June. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I will support your decision to remove it if you want to - it need not be in the Lead!—Khabboos (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems fine, as was the Efficacy section which I've restored. Why do you think we can't add opinions to the lede? Are you aware of WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS? --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It is one foundation(not even a scientific institute) and only one sentence that has been cherry picked. It seems like only one "foundation" that said so. Which is WP:WEASEL, you have to clearly tell that "According to ----, it has....." You cannot add it on lead if it is some isolated view. Right now it is clearly POV pushing, because you are pushing opinion of one organisation and ignoring all other together. So I don't see any logic here. It was better like it was before. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It is the premier charitable cancer research organisation in the UK, directs scientific research at the highest level, and I believe even has a wikipedian in residence at the moment. Please get your facts right bladesmulty, not a "foundation" and is certainly appropriate to quote from for WP:MedRS and WP:Fringe pseudoscience like this. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Its is a charity, not any big deal in terms of science. So why we are pushing a cherrypicked opinion of charity on lead? While ignoring to attribute any other.?? You are overprotecting it for no reason. It's mention on subsection is clear copyvio too. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It is the premier charitable cancer research organisation in the UK, directs scientific research at the highest level, just in case you didn't read my previous comment. We are quoting one of the leading authorities, CRUK. its fine. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't fit enough. You can try again. So adding flying mention(do they mention any detailed report?) on lead and copying to subsection is copyvio and POV pushing. You know there's one page about it, you can see Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs, you wouldn't need this pov pushing. You cannot even describe their view, since they haven't described anything related to that. 17:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK is a major charity involved in a lot of research. It's not POV pushing since it is a trustworthy source. 188.30.202.222 (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A search on Trip database for "Ayurvedic" gives 44 results classed as "Secondary evidence". I looked at the top half-dozen without finding evidence showing any significant efficacy of Ayurvedic treatments. The Cancer Research UK source reflects what looks like the scientific consensus: some herbal medicines may be better than placebo in some cases, but there is insufficient evidence to support a claim; and massage and relaxation can be beneficial to people who are ill. That's the most that could be said and the Efficacy section seems to encapsulate that. It is important when dealing with alternative medicine topics that we clearly state the mainstream view. The quote in the lead is clearly of due weight and from a MEDRS-compliant source; the only reason for attempting to exclude it would seem to be an attempt to hide the lack of mainstream support for Ayurvedic practices. --RexxS (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Ditto for searching the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society for Clinical Oncology sites. Virtually no mention of Ayurvedic medicine, and what little was there could hardly be considered an endorsement. A search of Pubmed on the word Cancer turns up 3 million hits, "Cancer antibody" turns up 200,000 hits (about 7%), "cancer chemotherapy" turns up 180,000 (6%), and "cancer surgery" turns up 800,000 (23%). "Cancer Ayurvedic" gives 255 hits (0.01%). 0.01% is WP:Fringe Formerly 98 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
provide a scientific research paper to support this claim found on the UK website Prodigyhk (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The lede is supposed to summarise the article. The "Efficacy" section makes it pretty clear that there is no good scientific evidence for efficacy, and this is certainly an important enough point to be included in the lede, but it should probably be a summarised statement along the lines of "there is no conclusive scientific evidence that Ayurveda is effective" rather than a direct quotation from CRUK. Brunton (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the replies. This edit[5] by RexxS was more neutral. If you have to add on lead. Avoid quotes, like Brunton has told. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm adding a comment about the scientific evidence to the lede - a reference in the lede isn't strictly necessary as it is just summarising the sourced info on efficacy that the article already includes, but if anyone feels there should be one the CRUK page should be quite adequate. There seems to be a paucity of systematic reviews of ayurvedic medicine (and perhaps also of RCTs, as noted by one of the few reviews I found), and the best they seem to come up with is that the evidence is not good enough for a robust conclusion, so there doesn't seem to be any real challenge to this statement. Brunton (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
"Robust" is confusing in the lede, if not misleading. Best just summarize. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion to improve on the sentence presently in the leadThere is no scientific evidence....of any disease. with this this well written sentence on US-NIH website that could reword to convey a similar meaning -> There are not enough well-controlled clinical trials and systematic research reviews—the gold standard for Western medical research—to prove that the approaches are beneficial.Source : US NIH [6]Prodigyhk (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The lede should summarize and introduce, while staying on topic. I'm not sure how it would even be helpful incorporated into the article body... --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The present sentence There is no scientific evidence....of any disease. will give a reader an impression that clinical studies prove than Ayurveda is not valid. While the fact is not enough scientific tests done to either prove or disprove the validity of Ayurveda. This the reason the statement made by US-NIH is important to include. It is neutral. It helps the reader understand the risks involved, while keeping the door open for them to experiment at their own risk. Prodigyhk (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
That sentence will not give a reader any such impression. It simply states there's no scientific evidence that Ayurveda works. That is the position of mainstream science and needs to be made clear. It would be contrary to WP:FRINGE to provide a formulation that suggests if only we had a few more tests, we would be able to prove the validity of Ayurveda. The fact is that have been plenty of scientific tests and they don't show Ayurveda working - and having more tests wouldn't prove a negative. That's what we need to be making clear to the reader, not obfuscating the mainstream view. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
1) Ayurveda is not fringe in its country of origin. Refer the WHO report included 2) Regarding the Western scientific community opinion about Ayurveda, the US NIH statement is balanced and correct, that sufficient tests per western scientific methods have been not be done to prove Ayurveda. Prodigyhk (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
FRINGE does not refer to cultural or national acceptance. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
we are not referring to fringe as in the belief of UFO, etc. This is about a working system in a nation of a billion people. Think about it. :) Prodigyhk (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"we are not referring to fringe as in the belief of UFO" No one is. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
"Think about it" indeed, such a shame that so many have to rely on this nonsense, when real medicine exists. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Terminalia arjuna - "studies in mice"

I'm a little dubious about the photo caption at the head of the "Efficacy" section. It states that "the leaves of Terminalia arjuna have been shown to have analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties" in studies in mice, but the reference is to a single study with fairly small sample sizes (n=6 for each group) and no mention that I can see of randomization or blinding (which can have an effect on the results of animal studies, see for example the "discrepancies between single-blind and double-blind methods" noted here). I don't think it quite supports the statement it is used to support. Perhaps we are giving this single study undue weight? Brunton (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say grossly undue. I've removed it. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for doing so. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead - Indian state position towards Ayurveda

Roxy the dog regarding your removal of my recent edit [7] This edit in the lead is to inform that Ayurveda is an accepted medical treatment by the Indian state. And to highlight the neglect of Ayurveda during the Birtish colonial rule. Sources used is a WHO document. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I see you have put your information into the body of the article per my own thoughts. It would be undue in the lead. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It fits well into the Further development and spread section and seems a useful addition there. However, it's just another minor side note in the history of Ayurveda, so I can't see that it warrants mention in the lead.
I was going to suggest that a little more summary of the history would be appropriate in the lead, but I immediately got stuck on one of the unsourced claims of the Origins section, "Origins of Ayurveda have been traced back to 5,000 BCE". Our article on Vedas quotes Flood (Flood, Gavin (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-43878-0 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)) who sums up the mainstream view as indicating something like 1,500 BCE would be most likely. We ought to get that right. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
the sidelining of Ayurveda during the few hundred years of Bristish rule is an important part in Ayurveda history. Also, that now the Indian state has Ayurveda hospitals, indicate the support of Ayurveda by the Indian state. Hence include summary in lead. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Who says it's important? Without sources affirming its importance, it's no more important than any other piece of Ayurveda's history which seems to span many thousands of years. We ought to get the early history section sourced then we could work out what needs to be in the lead. I do agree though that the current position deserves mention in the lead, as a reader wouldn't get the impression of how much support Ayurveda has from the present Indian Government. --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The ancient history of India is blurred because for the 1000 years, India was under foreign rule. Western academics started serious documentation of the science of India only in the last few hundred years. From my experience in working on WP articles, while dating Indian ancient history, we will end up with multiple reliable sources for different time periods :-) Prodigyhk (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Lot of money is being poured in for it by Government of India for sure. But I do not know what is happening of that. I am a BAMS graduate and seeing today's illogical system of and syllabus here, I cant hold myself to say that - British rule was better in the sense they were respecting simple logic. I am afraid that in the name of 'Indian ness' people can do anything and ultimate sufferers are we all and mostly poor and ignorant in India. Please understand that support by Government of India nowhere means a certificate that it is scientific! In fact GOI is bound the upheld the values of reason and science as they are bounded to do so by constitution of India. But I don't see them doing that enough. Things like propagation of Ayurved without much research is surely a tool of destruction of health of Indians. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Abhijeet Safai Agree that the level of research is pathetic. Also, just checked your page and found link to the article which you mention as the most important article on Ayurveda. Very well written article. Prodigyhk (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The only thing with which I can compare Ayurved is religion. There are certain 'Holy Books' and they have their 'own ways of testing the truth'! If it is said in that holy book, then it has to true whatever YOUR science tells. They use the terminology of YOUR science and OUR science. I am still not able to understand exactly what this OUR and YOUR science is. Talking or discussing with them is extremely difficult and in many cases almost impossible as they are not ready to listen to anything and not ready to read anything else other than those holy books. Any slightest doubt over these holy books or anything in it is sure way to invite their anger and get insulted. It will be really interesting to see how system of Wikipedia editors and Administrators handle them. I would say that so far it has been handled nicely in my opinion. I am not sure what happens next. If many people with the conviction that 'anything written in those holy books is true' will start editing wikipedia, I do not know what will happen to this page. It is extremely difficult to deal with such people. If they can fool governments, they can do anything. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Dating the origin of Ayurveda

Did some preliminary reading. Was unable to get citation for 5000 BCE dating. Was able to get citations to help date it to 2000 BCE.

  • paper listed on the US-NIH web site [8] attributes the earliest origin of Ayurveda to the Atharva Veda, where mentions are included.
  • Book published by Harvard University dates Atharva Veda to 2000BCE [9]

Suggestion - Using this, we could mention "Ayurveda is estimated to have originated in the 2000BCE and found mention in the Atharva Veda " Look forward to the feedback from regular editors of this article before including in article space. Prodigyhk (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The first source you cite says "The origin of Ayurveda is attributed to Atharva Veda where mention is made several diseases with their treatments. Later, from the 6th Century BC to 7th Century AD there was systematic development of the science...". I'm not entirely sure however whether we'd accept it as a reliable source. What we cannot do is "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" - that is WP:SYNTHESIS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion #2 - "Earliest texts on Ayurveda are found in the Atharva Veda [10], a compendium of Indian texts dating to 2000 BCE[11] " * Prodigyhk (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
As I have already said, that is synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not synthesis. Have clearly separated both references. Anyway, suggestion #3 to make it more clear * "Earliest texts on Ayurveda are found in the Atharva Veda [12]. Atharva Veda is a compendium of Indian texts dating to 2000BCE[13] " * Prodigyhk (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste time arguing - it is synthesis, and if you add it to the article I will revert it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
request feedback from other regular editors of this article. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste time arguing - it is synthesis, and if you add it to the article I will revert it. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems like there should be sources that clearly make the connection if it is worth mention. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Prodigyhk, don't know how you researched but there are already 2 sources that include the 5000 bc dating. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
opps ! missed the sources in the article :) Prodigyhk (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Word Change

The article states that Ayurvedic medicine is a system of Hindu traditional medicine, which is completely wrong. Other religions such as Buddhism and Jainism have also made significant contributions to Ayurveda. http://fullofknowledge.com/history/buddhist-contribution-to-ayurveda/ http://www.ayurvedas.com/buddha_ayurveda.html There are relatively few sources that state that it is traditionally hindu medicine. Most sources simply claim that Ayurveda is of Indian origin regardless of religion. The word Hindu should be changed to Indian, which is more suitable.Septate (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

2 unreliable sources made 'most', how? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti, OK. I want you to give atleast two so called reliable sources other then books which state that Ayurveda is traditional Hindu medicine and reject that Ayurveda is traditional Indian medicine. Lets see how you make them look most and reliable.Septate (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda is tradidional Hindu medicine is obvious POV and original research.Septate (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

POV that predates your gossips is not Pov if there are reliable sources. Even you admit that there are sources, but I can't find any that would back up yours. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti, your explanations speak of nothing. I am not going to leave this topic until you provide me reliable sources which state that Ayurveda is Hindu traditional medicine and reject the fact that Ayurveda is Indian traditional medicine.Septate (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
No reply yet.Septate (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No reply for more then a week. I am going to change it.Septate (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I've changed it back to the verifiable wording. The sources offered above were deemed unreliable, and the arguments seem to amount to WP:OR without accepted sources.--Ronz (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking over the one source being used, it's somewhat ambiguous and not the scholarly reference that I'd hoped. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This paper attributes the origin to the Atharvaveda. --NeilN talk to me 17:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
It's origins are clearly Hindu. Perhaps we should just make that clear in the lede? --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for opinions

Request opinions from editors about changing the sentence in the lead about the scientific opinion on Ayurveda.

  • Present lead has sentence sourced from "Cancer Research UK" --> There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease
  • Change to sentence sources from "US National Institute of Health" which is more balanced--> There are not enough well-controlled clinical trials and systematic research reviews—the gold standard for Western medical research—to prove that the approaches are beneficial. - Source : US NIH [14]Prodigyhk (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You are proposing to use a document that states that "The mention of any product, service, or therapy is not an endorsement by NCCAM" as a source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Both are web sources and have similar clauses in their web policy. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Your proposed source advocates for Alt-Med, CRUK advocates for Real Medicine, so no. Besides, we had this discussion a couple of weeks ago, and the answer was still no. so no. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
How do you claim "US National Institute of Health" is an advocate for Alternate Medicine ?? Prodigyhk (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Because it is called "The National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine" at the top of the page you link to above. The clue is the use of the words "Alternative Medicine" in the phrase "The National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine." -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Both the US and UK organization advocate Ayurveda as a complimentary treatment that is to be used after discussion with a registered medical practitioners. Both do not advocate Ayurveda as an alternate treatment.Prodigyhk (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I think User:Roxy the dog is pretty much right. You should provide more source.Septate (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Who added citation tag? Changes were made after 2 days of consensus. I have added source to lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism and Ayurveda

Copied here from my talk page to get more input --NeilN talk to me 15:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Neil

I do have a source for that, namely Dr. Yeshi Dhonden, The Ambrosia Heart Tantra, p.5. Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, Dharamsala, 1977. Please tell me how to insert this citation. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.130.151 (talk)

Can you please type out the sentences from the book that back up your edit and what qualifications Dhonden has as a historian? Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 01:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Neil,

The relevant passage reads:

"It was in his manifestation as the Sovereign Healer that Buddha Shakyamuni delivered the following teachings (comprising the Ambrosia Heart Tantra)". ibid.

Dr. Yeshi Dhonden. Yeshi Dhonden's qualifications are impeccable. Among other peerless achievements, he was personal physician to the present Dalai Lama for 20 years.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshi_Donden

Also see http://yeshidhonden.com/

From the brief biography of Dr. Yeshi Dhonden: Dr. Yeshi Dhonden was born in Lhoka, Tibet on 15th May 1927 to Mr. Tashi Tsering and Mrs. Metok Dolkar. His family comes from the popular medical lineage of Ngok Lotsawa and Ngok Choeku Dorjee. He is very genius that he has finished his medical training at a very tender age of twenty. In 1960 he took up the challenge to found Men Tsee Khang, the Tibetan Medical College and was succeeded.He was both Director and principal until 1979.

Yeshi Dhonden is a Buddhist monk and was Dalai Lama’s personal physician for about twenty years from 1960 to 1980. His primary goal was to prove that these Tibetan formulas were safe and non toxic and have successfully done it. He now uses Tibetan herbal medicines and diet for curing cancer. Since 1967, he has long list of patients seeking his care and help at his clinic in Mcleod Ganj, Dharamsala.

Dr. Yeshi Dhonden is one of the foremost Tibetan doctors of the world. Over the last 50 years, he has successfully treated patients with all kinds of ailments. One of his specialties is cancer. He has treated thousands of cancer patients from all over the world, including women with breast cancer. His treatment basically includes ancient Tibetan herbal therapies. He is a successful doctor in treating diseases such as AIDS and cancer. He even gave life to the patients who are in last stage.

With respect to your question about being a historian, Dr. Yeshi Dhonden is a Tibetan Buddhist medical doctor and monk. The citation does not say anything about historians, it says that the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, as expressed here by the Dalai Lama's personal physician, states that the Ayurveda text Heart of Amrita (Ambrosia Heart Tantra, Kelsang 1977) was preached by the Buddha, which would place the provenance of the text north India around 500BC - centuries before all the other leading Ayurveda textbooks.

Given Dhonden's clear impetus to promote Buddhism, and lack of qualifications as a historian, I don't think he's an acceptable source for, "The Four Tantras are traditionally held by Tibetan Buddhist lineages to have been preached by Lord Buddha several centuries before the appearance of any other Ayurveda text." --NeilN talk to me 03:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you or do you not agree that the Dalai Lama represents Tibetan Buddhism? Next, the Dalai Lama's personal physician definitely represents Tibetan Buddhism. The view expressed by the Dalai Lama's Tibetan physician is the same view as the Dalai Lama's himself. Contrary to your claim, it is not in the Dalai Lama's interest to undertake mere self-promotion. Due to these facts, it is not incorrect to state that the Tibetan Buddhist tradition holds that the Buddhist Ayurveda treatise, Ambrosia Heart, of the Heart of Amrita, was preached by the Buddha, which places its composition many centuries before any of the later Ayurveda textbooks. The view of Dr. Dhonden is that:

"It was in his manifestation as the Sovereign Healer that Buddha Shakyamuni delivered the following teachings (comprising the Ambrosia Heart Tantra)". ibid.

Incorrect reference

In the article the author has written "There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease.[8]" The cited reference points to ["Ayurvedic medicine". Cancer Research UK. Retrieved August 2013.] No where in the source article http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/ayurvedic-medicine the above conclusion regarding inefficacy of Ayurvedic medicine is written. Instead the article says that " Although this early research looks promising, there is no evidence that Ayurvedic herbal medicines can prevent, treat or cure cancer in humans. We won't really know whether Ayurvedic medicine is helpful in treating cancer until large randomised clinical trials have been carried out." The article mentions about the specificity of cancer treatment by Ayurveda and mentions it is yet to be verified based on control trials and also mentions that early research looks promising with Ayurveda. Where form did the author jump in to the conclusion "There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease" from his study of the cited reference article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenseas (talk • contribs) 08:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

For WP purposes, a lack of scientific evidence is just that. Generally for health claims, a lack of evidence is stated quite simply without the qualifying statements about a hope for future studies, etc. If you can find a study that shows evidence (such as those early trials that appeared promising), that could influence things. I hope that helps!--Karinpower (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism template

I'm moving this conversation from my talk page to here so others may participate. Bladesmulti wrote: Article is hardly related with Hinduism, article is like India page, just mention of few Hindus wouldn't make it. That's why the template was removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC).

I wanted to clarify that in my edit, I wasn't doing anything with the Hindu template, or the small footer template. Your edit summary, "Hardly, template in footer" seemed a bit biting (though I may have misunderstood). The purpose of my edit was to correct the merging of the alt-med template with the image. I don't have much of an opinion about the rest of this page and I will leave it up to those who have been following more closely to determine what is to be done about the potentially excessive number of templates and images. (Currently it looks a bit cluttered so perhaps some organization would be helpful.) I just wanted to make it clear that my edit was not dealing with the Hinduism template - that's why I restored my edit the way I did. Hope that helps. --Karinpower (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Information being removed

There was information which was showing only one side from the same source. I have added other information to give balanced information. I have not used new sources. I am using information from the same source. Material added by me is removed by simply mentioning that 'does not make sense'. I would request experienced editors to look into it. I would like to mention again that I have not added any new sources at this time here. I have simply put the information from the same sources which can be verified. Thanking you, -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

All time, when new edits are rejected under a few hours or days, they shouldn't be added back this quickly.
I removed them because they are undue and infringement of Copyrights. No where in this article we were saying that ayurveda facilities are found in every single hospital, so it becomes useless to add mention that many hospitals don't have ayurveda. Other source is more about "well controlled trials", nothing like what you are inserting and finally there was nothing about about "science point of view" that you are trying to coin. Read the next line, everything is clear. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you add a new section on here called (Ayurveda meets Nanotechnology)

"Two India-born scientists have embarked on a new fundamental shift in cancer therapy with no side effects, radiation and chemotherapy by using several of the anicent Ayurvedic concoctions (native to india) and nanotechnology. Pharmaceuticals Ltd has explianed the process of which The nanoparticles will be crushed to about one thousandth of the width of human hair then injected into the body where they bind to the surface of cancer cells. Being metal and mildly radioactive, they slowly burn the offending cells to extinction.[1] http://www.lef.org/news/lefdailynews?NewsID=1147792.236.96.38 (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock

I am Not happy with The information from (Efficacy) section on this page taking words out of context from cancer reserach page

Who ever created The (Efficacy) section on here is taking words out of content from the cancer research page, The cancer research page has stated that it has shown possitive effects and even scientist in america have tested some of the compounds while stating possitive to slowing down cancer, The Efficacy section needs total editing if you wish to keep it!

"More than 200 herbs and plants are used in Ayurvedic medicine. Some early laboratory and animal research suggests that compounds taken from traditional Ayurvedic medicines may be able to slow the growth of cancer in animals. Although this early research looks promising, there is no evidence that Ayurvedic herbal medicines can prevent, treat or cure cancer in humans. We won't really know whether Ayurvedic medicine is helpful in treating cancer until large randomised clinical trials have been carried out."

"Research is looking into whether some herbs or plant treatments used in Ayurvedic medicine could help to prevent or treat cancer.But we don't know much about some of the treatments that are part of Ayurvedic medicine, such as special diets and herbal remedies. These treatments could be harmful to your health or interfere with your conventional treatment"

"Research has found that some aspects of Ayurvedic medicine can help to relieve cancer related symptoms and improve quality of life"

Withaferin A

In America in 2011 researchers took a compound called Withaferin A (WA) from the Ayurvedic medicinal plant Withania somnifera. They found that in the laboratory Withaferin A stopped the growth of some types of breast cancer cells. It also stopped the growth of breast cancer in mice. Several other studies support these findings.

Sanjeevani

An Indian study in 2011 looked at selaginella bryopteris, a traditional Indian herb referred to as Sanjeevani. It found that compounds taken from the herb stopped the growth of cancer cells in the laboratory. The compound also reduced the development of skin tumours in mice.

Indian frankincense

A US research study also in 2011 looked at acetyl-11-keto-beta-boswellic acid (AKBA) taken from the gum resin of the boswellia serrata known as salai guggal or Indian frankincense. Traditionally, this substance has been used in Ayurvedic medicine to treat inflammatory conditions. The researchers found that AKBA slowed the growth of bowel cancers in mice and made the cancer less likely to spread.

Mangosteen

The mangosteen fruit has a long history of medicinal use in Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine. Recently, the compound alpha mangostin taken from the outside layer of the fruit was shown to kill various types of cancer cells in laboratory studies. This led Japanese researchers to test alpha mangostin in mice. The substance slowed the growth of breast cancer in mice and it was much less likely to spread to the lymph nodes.

Pomegranate

Pomegranate (Punica granatum) is seen as a sacred fruit in some world religions. Many cultures and systems of medicine, including Ayurvedic medicine, have used it for various health problems. Early research in the laboratory seems to show that pomegranate extracts may have anti cancer properties against prostate, bowel and liver cancer. But there are no studies so far looking at the use of pomegranate in humans.

MAK-4 and MAK-5

Some laboratory studies have looked at Ayurvedic herbal remedies called MAK-4 and MAK-5. The remedies seemed to show some activity in controlling tumours in rats and cancer cells in lab dishes. But there have been no studies in humans.[2]92.236.96.38 (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)caplock

You are not allowed to copy from these websites. See Wikipedia:Copyright infringement. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

But you copied direct from this website to give the following: "There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease"

just asking myself why you never gave the full verse from that website which was:

"There is no evidence that Ayurvedic herbal medicines can prevent, treat or cure cancer in humans. We won't really know whtether Ayurvedic medicine is helpful in treating cancer until large randomised clinical trials have been carried out"

Just seems like the whole page has been casted into negativity just by that small verse placed at the very top and agian placed at the lower portion of the page, i mean you and i know that the chemicals found in Ayurvedic have shown results in combating cancer, so to have a section at the very top claiming (no scientific evidence for the effectiveness) has been found is a error, as i pointed out it has shown to be effective on cancer cells and that information came from the cancer reserach page.

Also To make this fair as this seems abit one sided, could we not make a page about Toxic metals used for western treatments and link it up with this page?

(toxic Mercury) is used in silver fillings across europe and america, it is one of the most common fillings used by children and adults, The fillings always leak mucury into the body just by chewing or brushing or even by inhaling, when the filling is taken out Mercury gives off vapour which can cause harm.as

Rice grown in the USA has an average "260 ppb of arsenic", also found in american drinking water. just think someone should even up the playing feild abit instead of just hammering the indian text over toxic metals which can be found in over 70 percent of the mouths in america and europe.92.236.96.38 (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)caplock

Copied? No it was rephrased! If you have got many issues to discuss, please discuss 1-by-1. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki at the top of every search term on google, it is Important that you give a fair write up of both possitive and negative in the section bellow

"There is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of Ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease.Concerns have been raised about Ayurvedic products; U.S. studies showed that up to 20% of Ayurvedic U.S. and Indian-manufactured patent medicines sold through internet contained toxic levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic."f

The bjp Of india asks If you can write the details on this page of the product used in the american studies, they wish to know what you mean by "Ayurvedic products" as this is too vague. Was it about herbal tea? massage oils? Medicine? natrual Food diet? If you do not have the details of products In the ref then please remove it and replace it with a more detailed information.

Avurveda is a blanket term for a wide variety of treatments, Thank you http://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/wellness/scientists-find-potential-medicine-for-treating-arthritis/article1-1275762.aspx92.236.96.38 (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock

Hi. The sentence you quoted is supported by two references; the specific information you're looking for can be found at the cited sources. The lede shouldn't have too much detail, as it's meant to summarize the the article, but more detail can also be found in the Use of toxic metals section near the end of the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dawn, The refs seem to point out that the use of toxic metals is only used and found in (Rasa Shastra) treatments. Ayurveda has two different ways of treatment..

1. (strict use of Herbs and non metals) 2. (The use of metals with herbs), known as (Rasa Shastra)

The summary should at least give account of the main points such as the type of Ayurveda that blends metals with herbs in the first place, I feel it is very misleading to give a negative summary of Ayurveda without giving the information of Rasa Shastra being the test study of the toxins, please edit the following as a example to the summary.

"Concerns have been raised about The use of Ayurvedic Products containing rasa shastra teatments; U.S. studies showed that up to 20% of Ayurvedic rasa Shastra Medicines From U.S. and Indian-manufactured patent medicines sold through internet had contained toxic levels of heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic, this is not to be confused with The Strict herbal and non metal treatments of Ayurveda[9][10]" cheers92.236.96.38 (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)caplock

No. The problem is not confined to Rasa Shastra, as is made clear in the body of the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rasa shastra is the use of mixing metals with herbs/plants, the test found toxic metals mixed with herbs as one of the refs pointed out, the body of the ref talks about the toxics used and gives details on mercury,lead which is from Rasa Shastra as the Rasa Shastra wikipedia page states.

Well i will be placing (Rasa Shastra) in the summary this week, like it or lump i dont really care as the case of metals and herbs in Ayurveda is stated as (Rasa Shastra).

I will not add the following "this is not to be confused with The Strict herbal and non metal" but i am going to add (Rasa Shastra)Thank you and good day92.236.96.38 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock

Unexplained removal of terms on eight components

Roxy the dog, can you inform that how official guidelines disallow you to wikilink the technical terms at least once on the section? Also what's the reason behind removing the terms like Toxicology, Psychiatry, etc.[15] When they are clearly supported by the reliable citations and there's clear consensus to include them. I am doubtful that why you are telling me to follow BRD, when I am already doing with this longstanding content.
Claiming that they are not equivalent is just part of your OR and ultimately because you don't like it. Are you saying that no one has written anything during 1000 BCE because writing of that time wasn't equivalent to current times? It's simply nonsensical, just like you have been told on wikiproject medicine.[16][17] Will you consider providing a policy backed rationale? Bladesmulti (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

fwiw, i support the removal of those wikilinks. ayurveda is prescientific traditional medicine and what it may consider to be "toxicology" is unrelated to contemporary toxicology. the link in the article to a history section in the ophthalmology is appropriate; if there were history sections in toxicology, etc then links to those would be appropriate as well. i don't believe there is a policy that governs this one way or the other; it is just something editors working on the article, need to reason their way to a WP:CONSENSUS on. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog Every article must adhere to basic policies, and none of the wikilinking policy would support the removal. Consensus has been already established for this longstanding content. Everything differs from each other, no subject is 100% identical to other. Every single reliable citation that has been to the article provides those exact terms and meanings.
So you are saying that if they have history section then only it would be appropriate? Sounds resolute, hopefully if you agree with so, I can create for each, ofcourse with the balance and recognition of every other origin. Knowing that very of those categorized articles are short, tag bombed and some of them looks like a list. It maybe easy to expand (e.g. toxicology, read [18] or [19](Ayurvedic origins), [20](ancient Greece), pediatrics[21]).
For now, can you link surgical(#3) to History of surgery#India? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
as i wrote above, as far as i can see there is no policy that is definitive on having these specific wikilinks or not having them. If you believe there is a policy or guideline that makes it clear that the wikilinks should be there, please provide it. if you cannot provide one, please acknowledge that this is a discussion about preferences, or perhaps, our best judgement, and stop waving policy around. That would make the discussion more straightforward. btw, is there some reason you are asking me to create the wikilink, instead of doing it yourself? Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
There is, no page for specific medical terms though. I thought I am about to cross 3rr as I have been reverted 2 times for that pointed content. I shall wait for few hours, by then I will probably discover other history sections. Bladesmulti (talk)
hmm, are you saying that the average reader doesn't know what "surgery" is? Linking to the main "surgery" article seems rather like WP:OVERLINK to me. Do you see what i mean? linking to History_of_surgery#India makes a bunch more sense, with respect to providing a link to related information elsewhere, per UNDERLINK. does that make sense? i'll implement that one. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
How about we remove the edition of the word 'medicine' from this article because this medicine is not equivalent to many of the modern medicines, and some other traditional medicines that came later. Forgetting that they played pioneering role along with other ancient civilizations that directly influenced the modern medical specialties. VandVictory (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Equivalents in applicable history or alternative medicine should apply, as with History_of_surgery#India. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

worldwide spread

In this dif, i removed the content: "In last few decades Ayurveda has spread around the world" which was sourced from:

  1. Healing Your Life: Lessons on the Path of Ayurveda. 2012. p. 7. Written by Marc Halpern, Published by Lotus Press, year 2012 [22] and
  2. "Textbook of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry", Written by Biren Shah, page 455, published by Elsevier, year 2009, [23]

The sentence is nonencylopedic (last decades from what date?) and pretty promotional too. For that kind of claim we need independent sources - something like the WHO. Both sources provided are within the tradition and not the kind of thing we should rely on for a strong claim like this. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's puffery without clearly independent and reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well put Jytdog. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Close to source

Yobol. I think this is one of those times where its hard to not be too close to the source given since we're dealing with only a few words. However, I'd agree the wording was close. I'm not sure the wording in place now is quite accurate to the source but its fine with me, at least, since the meaning is close to accurate. And thanks for a painless back and forth as we searched for the right words.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC))

Agreed. :) Yobol (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

FTN notice

As the original poster failed to notify, I am informing that the subject is being discussed on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Ayurveda, have your comment. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised that your encyclopedic knowledge of WP Policy and guideline doesn't include anything much about the use of FTN. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Have I confused pre-science with pseudoscience? Like you do. You could have made a discussion here first. But I know what you are pointing to, I am not sure why it would hurt any, but suggesting about general sanctions(e.g. topic ban) is just an idea. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Natural medical substances used- further additions

Have made further additions in Opium and Alchol with new sources included. Request editors to review and advice if any concerns. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

cannabis now included. Prodigyhk (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Description of use of Madya

I removed the following as a FRINGE and MEDRS violation. I tried to rewrite it, but the source is so poorly written that I couldn't find a solution that would meed FRINGE and MEDRS while not being considered a partial revert in some manner. A better source would greatly help, but maybe someone else can figure out a better solution. Remember, we shouldn't be describing any medical effects or properties. Instead we should just describe their use.

"Used judiciously as a medicine, the various alcholic beverages, causes purgation, improve digestion and taste, creates dryness, non-viscid, quick in action, enters into minute pores of the body and cleaning them, spreads quickly and produces looseness of joints."

The source says:

Madya are of various kinds like sura, sukta, sidhu, etc. Ira, madira, hala and balavallabha are synonyms of Madya. All kinds of Madya are hot in potency, slightly sweet, bitter and pungent in taste, slightly astringent, sour at the end of digestion. It aggravates pitta, mitigates vata and kapha, causes purgation, digests quickly, creates dryness, non-viscid, kindles digestive fire, helps taste, quick in action, enters into minute pores of the body and cleaning them, spreads quickly and produces looseness of joints5. They are beneficial to those having loss of sleep or excess sleep of both lean and stout persons. All of these properties are conferred, if they are used judiciously considering them as medicines. They cause intoxication and act like poisons if they are used otherwise6.

Thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that there is older sentence with no citations, which states alcohol is used as a narcotic, for which I could not find any source. This is the reason I had included this to to indicate use of alcohol in Ayurveda. Will now remove the word "medicine", rewrite and post. Please check after posting Prodigyhk (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The English is poor in the source, and in the article. I don't think we made any progress at all, so I've tagged it as violating MEDRS.
We need a better source, or maybe just remove any attempt to try to describe the uses for madya as a whole given how diverse they are. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It just present what purpose madya is used for in Ayurveda. The source is sufficient for this purpose. Do understand NO claims are being made that is accepted as medical science. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.lef.org/news/lefdailynews?NewsID=11477
  2. ^ http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/ayurvedic-medicine
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_5&oldid=1136541542"