Talk:Ayurveda

I am concerned that the wording "...contain toxic levels of lead and mercury" may be somewhat misleading. While technically true (and we should add arsenic to that list per the sources), Ayurveda practitioners typically don't give people drugs that cause them to immediately drop dead or even immediately get very sick. That would be bad for business. While any amount of these elements are bad for you, and compounds as found in Ayurveda are often a lot worse than the pure element, The real problem is that lead, mercury and arsenic build up in the body. This fools the patient into thinking that they tried the Ayurvedic medicine and it didn't seem to harm them. So is there a short way of conveying this? Maybe "...contain toxic levels of lead, mercury and arsenic that build up in the body over time?" or "...cause long term toxicity from lead, mercury and arsenic"? Those aren't great. Can somebody come up with better wording? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Quickly responding: How do the sources present it? Do we have an article to link that explains the toxicity of heavy metals? --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Lead poisoning, Mercury poisoning and Arsenic poisoning all talk about acute (intense, short duration) and chronic (repeated low-level over a prolonged period) exposure. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the "cause long form toxicity" framing sounds the best. — EarthDude (Talk) 07:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

In correct preparations, the heavy metals are highly treated and also, they are used in low quantities. But only when prepared correctly. Moreover, modern Ayurvedic practices have stopped using heavy metals entirely in accordance with modern standards. SatoruVijnani (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

By modern practitioners, I am referring to people who have gotten the Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree. SatoruVijnani (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

"highly treated", are they there or not? Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The Ayurveda crowd claims that they can magically transform harmful substances to be non harmful through Shodhana. They are not removing the mercury or lead. they are purifying it, using methods that are thousands of years old (and completely ineffective).

So, how is that working out for them?

• Toxic metals in ayurvedic preparations from a public health lead poisoning cluster investigation --International Journal Occupational and Environmental Health
• Acute renal failure secondary to ingestion of ayurvedic medicine containing mercury --Indian Journal of Nephrology
• Membranous nephropathy due to chronic mercury poisoning from traditional Indian medicines: report of five cases --Clinical Kidney Journal,

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Could someone please explain what "Shodhana is of two types in Rasashastra. Samanya or general purification method and Vishesha shodhana or the Specific methods of purification." means in our Shodhana article? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

thanks Guy Macon. I was able to find a source and add some detail also - interesting read for me. Asteramellus (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

there are thousands of articles on pubmed demonstrating the efficacy of ayurveda. Science is a western system and ayurveda is older and more comprehensive. Nonetheless, when subjected to western science, ayurvedic methods prove legitimate.

Modern medicine is also a pseudoscience since it is based in outdated models of human health. Modern western mainstream "science" is an outdated product of left hemisphere dominant thinking proven to be a limited and faulty form of perception and investigation by recent neuroscience. ~2026-19067-54 (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Your personal opinion on this topic (or any other) is of no relevance to Wikipedia whatsoever. We go by published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

No. None of Ayurvedic "medicine" stands up to the scientific method and cannot be proven to be an effective cure for any condition.

This has been debated ad nauseum and back. There are not thousands of article that prove ayurveda. There might be articles that claim as such, but these do not stand up to actual, scientific analysis. Wikipedia is an objective source of information. Ayurveda is no more an effective cure than praying for someone cures their cancer. ~2026-28742-04 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

It is perhaps more accurate to say that any piece of Ayurveda that proves effective in studies has largely already been incorporated into modern medicine. For instance, an Ayurvedic diet really might for instance help to reverse diabetes. But not because of doshas. If it works, it's probably because it involves eating more fruits and vegetables and fewer highly processed foods full of sugar! This helps to explain some of the objections people have. "My mother did Ayurveda and she feels better than ever!". Well, what exactly did she do? Chances are we have studies showing a lot of the things she did are effective but not for the reasons originally described. There are sort of two ways of thinking of traditional medicine. One is to look at how it was practiced at the time and the other is to look at how it is practiced now. The truth is in early medicine the cure was often worse than the disease. Anyone who recommended basic hygiene and a healthy diet could easily have gotten the best results possible at that period. Before we had so much evidence, you could do a lot worse than the stuff your ancestors survived doing, right? But we now have done a lot of studies. And for the most part, the stuff Ayurveda got right is no longer exclusive to Ayurveda, where the stuff it does wrong is more likely to be exclusive to it.

So why does it ever seem to work? First of all, a lot of times stuff just gets better over time. Second of all, sometimes the way modern medicine is actually practiced isn't really consistent with the evidence or even common sense. If the Ayurveda person spends 3 hours with you and the physician 3 minutes, that's not exactly a fair comparison. Another example is this. We know getting enough sleep is extremely important. Well, in most hospitals, there are all kinds of beeping alarms and nurses waking patients up all night long. The fact that anyone gets better in a hospital is really quite remarkable. That's because even a hospital is practicing a combination of evidence based medicine (e.g., the meds in your IV probably work) and dumb things (the beeping monitors). In other words, consider that evidence based medicine practiced in an ideal way is not the same thing as medicine based on cost effectiveness. Someone doing Ayurveda probably wants to help and is good at listening and is calming and that has therapeutic value, but that doesn't mean half the treatments aren't bogus, right? JohnRichardScientist (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As a scientist, I find it striking how often medical professionals do not follow best practices. Take a look at how blood pressure is meant to be read. When is the last time anyone followed every step? In fact the biggest problem with modern medicine is that it is not sufficiently scientific. That does not mean the quacks are right. It simply means we must do a better job of following the science. JohnRichardScientist (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The promotion of objective knowledge (and, hence, the requirement that the effectiveness of medicines has to be shown objectively) has indeed been born in the West, but it should be stressed that science is the common property of all mankind. So, of course, the scientific way of thinking judges whether medicines work objectively, because that's what science is meant for. That's not colonialism any more than using nuclear reactors is. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescuagreed also to add to it most of scientific thought that defined medicine today, and even other fields were born in India, so I do not understand where the said user is coming from. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. What is stated in Wikipedia relies on what is stated in reliable sources, which agree that Ayurveda is pseudoscience. — EarthDude (Talk) 07:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

So if "Science is a western system" does that not mean that Ayurveda is not scientific? Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Ayurveda is indeed not scientific -- not even close -- but the claim "Science is a western system and ayurveda is older and more comprehensive" is just something that User ~2026-19067-54 made up.

We have an entire article (History of science and technology on the Indian subcontinent) that specially lists a large amount of modern science that originated in India. Ayurveda isn't science at all and thus is not science that originated in India. Just as some kinds of pseudoscience originated in the west (Homeopathy came out of Germany and Radionics came out of early 1900's America) Ayurveda is pseudoscience that originated in India, but the works of Brahmagupta (598–668) are a great example of legitimate science that came out of India.

We don't reject Ayurveda because it came out of India. We reject Ayurveda because it harms patients instead of helping them. We reject Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 for the same reason. See Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In modern times, several Indian wellness brands have integrated Ayurvedic herbal principles with advanced biotechnological delivery systems, including nanotechnology, to enhance the efficacy of traditional formulations. HealthWriterjeet22 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I fail to see why we should act as marketing. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Especially if it's based on this type of thing.  Not done. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

When anyone uses the buzzword nanotechnology to refer to "fine powder" you can immediately stop reading. The entire document is a steaming pile of marketing bullshit. Every time. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Flyingphoenixchips - I see that you added "widely regarded as pseudoscience" in the first sentence with edit summary "as per discussion in talk page". I see talk discussion for "pseudoscience" in March - is that the talk discussion you are referring to?

I tried to read it, but not sure how that talk discussion supports "widely regarded as"? You also do not seem to be have been part of that discussion, so maybe there is another discussion I am missing? Can you explain which talk discussion supports "widely regarded as"?

Also, just want to note that it seems redundant because the lead paragraph already says "The theory and practice of ayurveda are pseudoscientific," - On a site note, this NCCIH has a good science-based summary, including the limited evidence and safety concerns. Asteramellus (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it came down with "it is a pseudoscience" "widely regarded" sounding like weasel wording to undermine the claim it is. Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Thanks. Asteramellus (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)