Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 22

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

To make the article unbiased and to provide a fair comparative context, please add the following to the end of the last paragraph of the lead of this article.

Edit note: with condensed and rephrased text from adverse effect.

Comparatively, the modern Western medicine also causes adverse side effects and complications,^[1][2] causing at least 142,000 deaths globally in 2013,^[3] resulting in numerous lawsuits against western drug manufacturers.^[4][5] 119.74.238.54 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - we shouldn't be suggesting equivalency between modern medicine, which while not perfect is highly effective, and pseudoscience like Ayurveda. BilledMammal (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Please edit the first sentence in the lede

roots in the Hinduism and the Indian subcontinent.[1][2]

Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not generally opposed to the edit, but I am unconvinced by the sources neither of which - the former due to age, the latter due to content - appear to be overly reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

>Through well-understood processes of modernization and globalization, ayurveda has been adapted for Western consumption

Are these processes really "well-understood"? I see the source referenced has essays on the development of international brands of the subject but the wording makes it sound like the results of Eastern and Western cultural mingling are easily predictable. Anyone interested in striking that descriptor? I feel like quite the pedant here, but it hits a tone that annoys me. 2600:1015:B12A:24C7:3852:9FB8:5D5C:F4A1 (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I agree. It sounded pretty bad, given that the next sentence calls out fraud. Not pedantic at all, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The article Nano-ayurvedic medicine was recently created. I just blanked and redirected it here. There may be some useful information for expanding this article available in the sources used there. See this revision if you'd care to dig through the references. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Now a redlink because it was restored and I draftified. See Draft:Nano-ayurvedic medicine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

the article says "It is heavily practiced in India and Nepal, where around 80% of the population report using ayurveda" coined with somewhat vague citations such as people in nepal (Not in india) using ayurveda as first aid.This projects a false narrative that 80% people in india uses ayurveda over modern medicine, But according to latest data 90% of indian population prefers modern medicine over ayurveda and other pseudoscientific medications.(Which makes sense as people's health will be in jeopardy if they use alternative pseudo medicines for chronic illness instead of real medicines)

Here I'm linking a news article about it https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/90-of-indians-prefer-allopathy-over-ayush/articleshow/47981441.cms

Here's the National Sample Survey Office(NSSO) survey report that shows that 90% of Indians use allopathic or modern medical treatments as primary health care treatments.(refer Table 10). https://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/nss_71st_ki_health_30june15.pdf

Deejayyyoung (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Err no it does not, as it doesn't say that. That is a bit like trying to say that people using a bus never use cars. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wording is quite problematic giving the impression that 80% of indians depends on ayurveda as their primary medical care ,It'll be wiser to add at least that they use ayurveda as secondary or supplementary treatment after modern medical care. Deejayyyoung (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

And I disagree it gives that impression. Niter for us to make your susgesrted edit the sources must say " use ayurveda as secondary or supplementary treatment after modern medical care.", not that they just use it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You would find the sources supporting the claim of 80% use are of very poor quality. One of them says 80% of Nepal population use ayurveda as first aid(Like a band aid?) and other one is about heavy metal poisoning in ayurveda , And the third one is from a low quality book about herbal medicine apparently written by a bcom(business degree) graduate . Deejayyyoung (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Those are only the sources we use in the lede, there appear to be others in the body. So you need to find a source actually contesting what we actually say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not my burden to prove the flying spaghetti doesn't exist but the burden of ones who claim that they exist in the first place . Check and verify the deteriorate quality citations used to claim absurd assumptions. Deejayyyoung (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:v wp:consensus and wp:burden. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @MrOllie, you reverted my very careful edits wholesale. That is explicitly Could we discuss things here, calmly, before agreeing on a text that satisfies us both? You gave the reason "the mainstream position is not just another competing opinion" and I agree with you. And if you read my edits, I carefully avoided saying this.

The issue is this: Ayurveda has a long and literate history, very similar to the medicine of Hippocrates and Galen. If you look at the WP entry for Hippocrates, for example, it starts "Hippocrates of Kos ... was a Greek physician of the classical period who is considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine." That entry doesn't start by saying "Hippocratic medicine is pseudoscience". That is because few people today accept and practice Hippocratic medicine wholesale (although parts of Hippocratic medicine are still important, such as the Oath). What is the issue here? It is that Ayurveda as practised today in a modernised and globalised form and as contrasted with modern establishment medicine is a pseudoscience. Sure, no problem. But in, say, 1000 CE, in South Asia, it was not an alternative in the modern sense; it was the most professional and learned system available, just as Galen's medicine was in Europe. So how do we express all this in a manner that doesn't upset the people who are passionate about criticising pseudoscience, but at the same time explaining to WP readers that Ayurveda has a history, just like Greek medicine.

The second issue is that Ayurveda - pseudoscience as it may be - is still supported by the Governments of India, Sri Lanka and Nepal. India has a whole ministry devoted to Ayurveda, and the country is full of Government Ayurvedic colleges, clinics, and so on. People go to university and get degrees and doctorates in Ayuveda. Somehow, in a WP entry on "Ayurveda" we need to express this, again without upsetting people who are passionate about criticising pseudoscience.

What do you suggest? I tried my best to do this, and I emphasize again that I did not present pseudoscience as "just another competing opinion". How would you express the historical and sociological dimensions of this topic?

Wujastyk (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we keep the existing treatment in the lead section, which covered all the history. You relocated that into a new section - it did a better job summarizing the article than your new version did. Also, adding unnecessary attributions like Most practitioners of modern establishment medicine consider absolutely is casting the mainstream position as an opinion. This sets up a false balance where proponents of Ayurveda are given equal validity to mainstream medicine. MrOllie (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no denying that if MDs would practice today what Hippocrates practiced then, it would be labeled WP:CB. That's thoroughly accepted in the West: Western MDs and Western medical authorities have for the most part rejected that as Ancient superstition. Indian government did not reach a similar conclusion. That is, the West has removed Ancient superstitions from medical science, India didn't. Again, there is no denying that two centuries ago that was far from settled. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Tgeorgescu and @MrOllie, are you aware of the long history of struggle in India during the 20th century to find a government policy that recognizes the merits of indigenous tradition but at the same time privileges modern establishment medicine? This has been significant, involving more than twenty government commissions of different types that examined issues in diagnosis, pharmacy and other topics, working their way towards a system that is acceptable to the various stakeholders in the pluralistic health care situation in India. This has been documented in many publications by medical anthropologists and medical historians. What has emerged in the contemporary India establishment is a modernized form of Ayurveda in which modern clinical skills and ideas are taught alongside traditional concepts and therapies. It's really quite bizarre in some ways. What I'm getting at here is that a medicine practiced under the name "Ayurveda" is not one monolithic thing. Very often, doctors with Ayurvedic qualifications will be measuring blood pressure, using stethoscopes and dispensing antibiotics. I have been an observer in clinical situations in which the Ayurvedic doctor routinely referred patients to allopathic clinics for ailments that he felt were not in his purview. Furthermore, what is touted under the name "Ayurveda" in European and American settings is very different again. It's often a hybridized system presenting a melange of CAM ideas with a patina of Ayurvedic terminology. Don't you think it would be helpful to readers if we could capture some of this history and diversity in the WP article? Wujastyk (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That's interesting, but one of the many benefits that Wikipedia enjoys is that we can follow what the best available sources say, and we do not have to be concerned with following government policies. I believe it is more 'helpful to readers' to summarize the best available, mainstream sources, and they're quite clear about this. Your point seems to be that Ayurveda is practiced more like Integrative medicine - but the mainstream opinion on that is quite clear, too. When you add pseudoscience to evidence-based medicine, it is still pseudoscience.

PS: Adding citations when you have an obvious conflict of interest with the authors of those sources is not a good idea either, you should not do that again. - MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie I did not for a minute suggest that anyone should follow government policies. I wish you would read more carefully. What I said was that such policies exist, and a WP article should document what exists. We all need to keep NPOV and make these articles descriptive. While we do have strong views, WP isn't the place to vent. We're here to describe people, events, institutions and history as neutrally as we can.

A lot hangs on what you mean by "the best available, mainstream sources." It seems to me that there is a lot of scholarly historical, anthropological and ethnographic literature that doesn't get referenced in this WP page. That's what I'm trying to introduce. There's a mountain of untrustworthy writing about Ayurveda out there, most of it produced by self-promoting practitioners and people with a nationalist agenda making presentist claims for ancient sciences. We need to guide our readers towards the best expert consensus on matters of medical history and related interpretative disciplines.

You say "When you add pseudoscience to evidence-based medicine, it is still pseudoscience," and I think that's an important point. But perhaps it's more like an emulsion than a solution. The 400,000 or so ayurvedic physicians in India are pracising a complex series of diagnoses and therapies, some of which are pseudoscientific, and some of which are identical to the practices of establishment-qualified doctors. That's why medical anthropologists refer to situations like India's as sites of plural medicine.

I don't recall citing authors with whom I had any conflict of interest. Could you point out what you are referring to? When I add citations, I am careful to cite solid, peer-reviewed academic materials. And I cite materials that support the point I am making (obviously), not materials with which I disagree or have a conflict of interest. This is all in line with WP policy, with which I am very well acquainted, and normal academic writing practice.

Gotta go.

Wujastyk (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't recall adding multiple references to Dominik Wujastyk? You've done it several times, most recently in the reverted edit being discussed here, which was only a few days ago. MrOllie (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're mixing me up with my wife, Dagmar Wujastyk, who has written on the modernization and globalization of Ayurveda, ancient medical ethics, and other topics. Wujastyk (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding citations either to your wife or to yourself is an obvious conflict of interest as Wikipedia defines it. MrOllie (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. I've been down this road before, and discussed it with the gods of WP. What matters is to cite reliable public sources. And your remark assumes that my wife is alive or that I agree with her. You should actually read the cited works and think about what they say before making superficial judgements.

Wujastyk (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Either the 'gods of WP' were mistaken or you misunderstood. This is exactly the kind of thing that the COI guideline is about. MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wujastyk Your edit would never be accepted. You cited Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine, a pseudoscience journal. Please check WP:CITEWATCH before you edit. All the books you cited are unreliable WP:MEDBOOK. — hako9 (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hako9 No, I didn't cite the JAIM. That was someone else and, incidentally, it was cited as evidence that Ayurveda is pseudoscientific. By all means delete it.

Look, we're trying to have a good conversation here about how to strengthen this WP article about Ayurveda. We need to read carefully and accurately and try to think the best of each other.

Wujastyk (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The diffs do not lie: . We can see in the article history that you did. MrOllie (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not add that citation. I don't read JAIM and have no interest in it. You must have misinterpreted the diffs. Wujastyk (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll believe the Wiki software and my own eyes, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, where Hippocratic/Galenic medicine is still practised, we do in fact say that it is pseudoscientific, and that its practitioners have been described as quacks, in the lead. Brunton (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't disagree (read what I said). But you wouldn't start a WP article on Hippocrates by saying "Hippocratic medicine is pseudoscientific". You might say - see Hippocrates - that Hippocrates was someone, "... who is considered one of the most outstanding figures in the history of medicine. He is traditionally referred to as the "Father of Medicine" in recognition of his lasting contributions to the field, such as the use of prognosis and clinical observation". I.e., give the history and background. Then you could say, "contemporary practitioners of Hippocratic medicine are practicing pseudoscience." If you read the WP entry on Hippocrates (the authors of Hippocratic corpus), you'll notice that he is given a great deal of positive description for discovering all sorts of things for the first time. For example, "Hippocrates is credited as the first person to believe that diseases were caused naturally, not because of superstition and gods." or "Hippocratic medicine was notable for its strict professionalism, discipline, and rigorous practice." Parallel statements could be made about ancient Ayurvedic physicians and ancient Ayurvedic medicine (in fact Ayurveda is so similar to Hippocratic medicine that at one time medical historians used to claim that early Indians adopted Greek medicine from Alexander's generals who remained in India after his death.) There's a great deal in the classical Ayurvedic classical treatises about how to identify quack doctors and how dangerous they are. The article on Hippocrates doesn't use the word "pseudoscience" or "quack" once. Why? Because no community is practicing Hippocratic medicine today on a large scale. That's where Ayurveda and TCM are different. They are trying to drag a largely obsolete medical system into the present. So that's a very important thing to describe and that's where one could use terms like "pseudoscience." It would be completely pointless to accuse Hippocrates of being pseudoscientific. Science in the modern sense didn't exist in the fifth century BCE, so it's a meaningless assertion. What does this mean for the WP entry on Ayurveda? How can we improve it?

Wujastyk (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything for the WP entry on Ayurveda. You seem to be conflating historical figures with medical systems. Brunton (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Brunton What I am suggesting that this article would be better if we disaggregated historical description from contemporary issues of practice and pseudoscience. I do not see that this is problematic. Could this article not have a history section describing the history of Ayurveda in a neutral and objective way, as well as a section describing how the practice of modern and global Ayurveda is problematic from all sorts of perspectives? Wujastyk (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

But it is still being practised, so we treat it as a system that is still being practised. "Disaggregate" it all you like (short of a WP:POVFORK, obviously), it is still being practised. And description of the system as currently practised will need to stay in the lead. Brunton (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Our articles on ancient Vedic doctors do not claim they practiced pseudoscience, either; in fact, some of them actually employ in-universe descriptions of Ayurveda in Wikivoice, which is a much more serious breach of NPOV and OR. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

But are they practicing today? Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay Yes, that article on Charaka is very poor too, for many reasons. Basically, the problem is that non-historians try to write about historical topics. Most people writing about Ayurveda are either contemporary practitioners or else motivated by feelings of national pride. I did try to improve that Charaka article, back in 2020. Some of my references to secure dates and serious literary history are still there, but they are drowned out by vague, unsubstantiated assertions and references to equally poor publications by non-specialists. Wujastyk (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• WP:FTN#Nano-ayurvedic medicine, again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

hi @Dāsānudāsa. My edits were intended to make comprehension of the material easier. What in particular did you find biased? Apart from changing the word "some" to "many" medicines (which I feel is justified. 20% of over a hundred medicines is not a small sample), I thought I actually improved the neutrality. I thought it particularly important to include that these toxic metals are deliberately part of the ingredients. The introduction in its current form reads as if this is not the case, and that the use of these metals is due to incompetence, deception (for what reason is anyone's guess), or both. Also (since you reverted 2 of my edits) we are back to building on claims to treating cancer that, as far as I know, have never been made. Was cancer even identified at the time of these scriptures? I await your reply. Aero13792468 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely misread your edits. I have no excuse other than that I have cancer and are both foggy-headed from the chemo and extremely super-sensitive about anyone promoting this sort of nonsense as a cancer cure (which clearly you weren't). I will self-revert. Your changes are an improvement. Apologies again; must concentrate more, revert less. Best, Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Please add that "Recent findings confirmed the nanotherapeutic functionalities of metal derived ayurvedic drugs like jasada basma. The demonstrated experiments,physicochemical and bio-characterization reveal that ayurvedic rasa drugs synthesized and processed through traditional methods are not toxic due to the variation in its structure-property relationship from macro to nano dimensions." please add the following reference for the above edit.https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsomega.2c05391 Casira (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done fails WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone add the section where this treatment is effective like the case with former Kenyan president's daughter who were unable to treat her eye disease, none of the treatment was successful but in the end when she used ayurvedic treatment helped her get her eyesight back.There are several articles about this,you can google it, i can't add links because it's not allowed 2409:40D1:16:36AD:DCD2:F1FF:FE81:2E7F (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Discussions of effectiveness need WP:MEDRS sourcing as a basis. Bon courage (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Well one source would have been nice, even if it did fail medrs .Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

https://m.economictimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/healthcare/will-take-ayurveda-to-africa-ex-kenya-pm-raila-odinga-after-daughters-eyesight-recovery/amp_videoshow/89549503.cms 2409:40D1:1015:B2FC:DCB2:D8FF:FE5D:8F17 (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Fails wp:medrs and even if it did not it would need attribution "Raila Odinga claimed". Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so you mean former prime minister of Kenya is lying, even if I add that 'he claimed' would you still not revert my edits? 2409:40D1:1005:F809:D0C2:A8FF:FE62:BD48 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

No I am saying he is not a medical expert. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10 § Ayurveda/Non-confirmed editor comments until a consensus is reached. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest adding recent WHO guidelines on Ayurvedic practices (source: ). DrkAnalyst (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

We do not have a "Safety and Regulation" Section, nor do I see what this says we need to add (to any section). Care to elaborate? Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Adding a Section on Safety and Regulation

Sir,

I propose adding a section on safety and regulation based on WHO guidelines to improve the article’s accuracy and completeness. Thoughts?

Thanks DrkAnalyst (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello editors,

I am writing with concern about the current framing of the Ayurveda article, specifically regarding tone, balance, and source selection. I recognize this is a contentious topic and submit this request in alignment with Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality (WP:NPOV), reliable sources (WP:RS and WP:MEDRS), and coverage of fringe topics (WP:FRINGE).

1. Overemphasis on toxicity The article gives undue weight to rare cases of heavy metal contamination, which are associated with improperly prepared or unregulated products. This can mislead readers into associating toxicity with the system as a whole. Ayurveda, as practiced under government regulation (e.g., Ministry of AYUSH in India), follows strict safety protocols. Peer-reviewed studies and WHO guidance support this nuance, which is currently missing.

2. Missing integration of reliable Ayurvedic and integrative sources The article leans heavily on Western biomedical critiques and omits peer-reviewed literature from Ayurvedic institutions and integrative medicine journals. Ayurveda is taught in accredited universities, recognised by national healthcare systems in several countries, and has WHO-endorsed training benchmarks. These facts and sources should be proportionally represented.

3. Framing concerns and need for institutional context The article risks portraying Ayurveda as lacking legitimacy, without acknowledging its inclusion in formal medical education and global healthcare frameworks. A 2021 peer-reviewed article from the Journal of Integrative Medicine offers this perspective:

Dismissing Ayurveda... undermines a rich and evolving medical tradition with growing scientific backing. — [PMC8185965](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8185965/)

I respectfully request that: - Secondary sources from Ayurvedic and integrative medicine journals be incorporated. - The framing around safety concerns be clarified. - Institutional, educational, and clinical contexts be included to reflect a fuller picture.

I’m happy to help identify reliable sources or draft edits if invited.

Thank you for your time and care. 2A0A:EF40:10C8:1F01:4D15:F3A8:6794:5E3 (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up: Reliable Sources and Framing Concerns

Thank you for the reply. I want to clarify that I’ve already cited a peer-reviewed source published in the Journal of Integrative Medicine and indexed in the U.S. National Library of Medicine ([PMC8185965](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8185965/)), which meets Wikipedia’s WP:MEDRS standard for secondary sources. This source directly supports the need for more balanced institutional and clinical framing of Ayurveda.

In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) — one of the most trusted and policy-setting medical bodies globally — has published formal guidance on Ayurveda, making its inclusion in this article essential. Two specific documents:

1. WHO Benchmarks for Training in Ayurveda (2010):

This report establishes global safety and training standards for Ayurveda. It affirms that regulated practice of Ayurveda is recognized internationally.

(https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44352)

2. WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2014–2023:

This outlines WHO’s global strategy to integrate traditional systems like Ayurveda into public health frameworks.

(https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506096)

To dismiss Ayurveda in the opening paragraphs by focusing on rare cases of heavy metal contamination, without mentioning these sources or the vast body of regulated, evidence-based, and institutionally endorsed Ayurvedic practice, is not neutral. It violates Wikipedia’s principle of undue weight and frames the entire system in a misleading way.

To draw a comparison: the Yoga article does not open with injury statistics, lawsuits, or cult associations — even though these issues exist. Because that would clearly be biased framing. Ayurveda deserves the same editorial balance.

Requested Edits:

- Include WHO benchmarks and global strategy documents in the article.

- Move the toxicity concerns to a more appropriate section, not the lede.

- Include mention of formal education programs (e.g., Ministry of AYUSH, university degrees), WHO-endorsed frameworks, and integrative medicine findings to reflect Ayurveda’s global relevance.

Happy to help draft edits or source more reliable material if needed. I hope we can move this discussion forward in line with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability. 62.49.235.226 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

1, Unsure what this WHOm pamphlet tells us, that they mean at least a minimum level of training? May violate wp:undue.

2, Ditto, again why does this tell us?

The lede is a summary; as such, the material on toxicity is ready elsewhere.

We already mention that degrees in it are available. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• The Journal of Integrative Medicine is a pro-alternative-medicine journal, and one of the authors of that paper is from the "Ayurvidye Trust, Bangalore". Also, most of this request appears to be written by AI. Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

In the section Ayurveda#Research:

"In India, research in ayurveda is undertaken by the Ministry of AYUSH through a national network of research institutes"

Sourced only to a press release from the Ministry of AYUSH)

"In Nepal, the National Ayurvedic Training and Research Centre (NATRC) researches medicinal herbs in the country"

Sourced to what looks like a press release, but I can't be sure.

"In Sri Lanka, the Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine looks after the research in ayurveda through various national research institutes"

Sourced to a Government Notification in The Gazette of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Extraordinary

That suspected press release doesn't just say they are doing research. It says

"The centre will play a positive role in promotion and utilisation of Ayurveda in the country, by conducting research on medicinal herbs available here.

Promotion.

What appears to have happened is that practitioners of Ayurveda have managed to get several governments to promote their pseudoscience and suppress any attempt to replace it with modern medicine. I am inclined to go through the article and replace statements like

"The state-sponsored Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) is designed to do research on ayurveda"

with

"The state-sponsored Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) promotes ayurveda"

The citation to that one says

"Ayurveda, Siddha and Sowa-Rigpa (Amchi) The timeless science of healing through natural herbs is finally here, right on your desktop. This web site is a treasure chest filled with valuable information on Ayurveda, Sidhha and Sowa-Rigpa (Amchi)... The urbanisation of lifestyles has had its impact on most of us. According to the principles of Ayurveda, this increases the quantity of disease causing substances called Malas. Experienced scientists, past and present, have dedicated their lives to the cure of diseases in mankind."

That's not research. That's promotion. We should not characterize it as research. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that you are correct. Walter Ego 18:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

So i did something. Walter Ego 18:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposed Edit for the Ayurveda Article Section: Introduction / Scientific status Change Requested: Expand the classification discussion of Ayurveda as pseudoscience with balanced, up-to-date scientific references. Suggested New Text: While Ayurveda is often categorized as a pseudoscience due to the lack of large-scale, standardized clinical trials and issues related to product quality and methodological rigor, emerging evidence suggests certain Ayurvedic interventions may offer measurable health benefits. A 2021 meta-analysis found that Ayurvedic herbal preparations demonstrated statistically significant reductions in total cholesterol and LDL levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Systematic reviews have also indicated moderate improvements in pain and functional outcomes in osteoarthritis patients treated with Ayurvedic therapies. The WHO's 2022 establishment of the Global Centre for Traditional Medicine in India reflects a growing global interest in developing scientifically rigorous assessments of traditional medical systems, including Ayurveda. However, concerns remain regarding standardization, trial design, and the presence of contaminants in some herbal formulations. As of 2023, India has registered over 200 clinical trials involving Ayurvedic treatments, but relatively few have reached the quality thresholds required for international scientific acceptance. Efforts are underway to align Ayurvedic clinical reporting with CONSORT guidelines and to adapt personalized RCT models to evaluate complex traditional therapies. References: Gogtay, N., et al. (2021). Ayurvedic herbal preparations for hypercholesterolemia: A meta-analysis. MDPI, https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/6/546 Fisher, P., & Ward, A. (2012). Ayurveda for osteoarthritis: A systematic review. PubMed, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25062981 Patwardhan, B., et al. (2011). Clinical trials in Ayurveda: Need for evolving design and methodology. NCBI, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149393 WHO Bulletin (2022). The Global Centre for Traditional Medicine. https://www.who.int/news/item/19-04-2022-who-global-centre-for-traditional-medicine F1000 Research (2023). Critical review on herbal product quality and safety in Ayurveda. https://f1000research.com/articles/14-62 Summary: This edit aims to provide a balanced, scientifically grounded summary of Ayurveda’s current research status — acknowledging both the criticisms and the growing body of emerging evidence, aligned with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. 2402:8100:391F:F236:1CF7:1C24:4E96:AD0F (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• All of those sources (apart from the 4th one, which returns a 404 error) are written by authors working for Ayurvedic or "complementary medicine" providers. Hardly "balanced". Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  Huh? The studies speak for themselves, independent of who ran the study. 76.191.159.77 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  With a Royal quack amongst the authors there, I don't hold out too much hope of reliability. I saw a video (on Youtube?? - it's too petty to search for) and watched him lie to a Parliamentary inquiry/evidence giving session about ALTMED. Walter Ego 00:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  You might think so, we don't. We have very stringent WP:RULES for making medical claims, see WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  The AI wrote "...current research status — acknowledging both the criticisms and the growing body of emerging evidence...", which leads me to believe that you may have prompted it to say both good things and bad things about Ayurveda. There exists no "growing body of emerging evidence". None. All we have is a bunch of people making huge amounts of cash who have spent enough money and amassed enough followers to get the Indian government to create a government ministry dedicated to promoting their pseudoscience and suppressing real medicine prescribed by actual doctors. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Using a bullshitter-bot to promote pseudoscience? How utterly unsurprising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

wekipedia is not authentic because without studing ayurveda you put comment like this ~2025-37121-54 (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have an actual question? You can ask in your native language: we have ways to translate.

We have studied Ayurveda extensively. It is not scientific. The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific and toxic metals, including lead and mercury, are used as ingredients in many ayurvedic medicines. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hipal, can you please explain why you keep reverting good, well-cited information which has been in the intro para for a long time? I think it should remain in the article. Sgroey (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC and look over the article history before making claims that don't take the facts into consideration. --Hipal (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Look if you don't want to discuss that's fine, I'll follow the edit warring procedure and make a report. Sgroey (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems like you're unwilling to discuss and are ignoring the current and past discussions. Sanctions apply. Please carefully consider your next steps.

If something that I or the multiple other editors have noted are unclear, ask for clarification. The relevant policies/guideliness include WP:POV, WP:LEDE, and WP:FRINGE. --Hipal (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I've been quietly watching this page, and for what it's worth, I agree with Hipal's revert. There's been too much reverting back and forth by other editors, without talk page discussion of the merits of the changes. So I think the best thing is to leave the page reverted to the status quo for now, and for editors to propose changes here in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies @Hipal, I mistakenly thought you had made 2 reverts of the same material but the first revert was by another user. That was my mistake. However my concern remains as this article is under 1RR. I have browsed the policies which you have helpfully linked but am still in the dark as to why you think those sentences should be removed, so I think a brief explanation from you would be helpful.

@Tryptofish thanks for your input, I agree with your suggestion :) Sgroey (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology.

Again, what's unclear? Note that the discussion directly above is about one portion that's contested. --Hipal (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I am asking you why you did this revert. your change summary doesn't make sense to me; the info you removed was important, well-cited and useful Sgroey (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

What doesn't make sense to you? No sources were changed. There was no indication of which references supported the changes.

Why was the removed info important? Which sources support the changes? --Hipal (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The removed sentences were key points that a casual reader will need to know in the first instance. they'll need to know that the entire practice is not scientifically valid. If you're talking about page refs for the citations then that's a problem throughout the article, not just with what you removed. I'm Happy to go with the consensus ofc but imho the article is better with the removed sentences than without them. Sgroey (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Anyone who changes...

"The theory and practice of ayurveda is pseudoscientific, and some ayurvedic preparations, particularly in the rasa shastra tradition, contain toxic levels of lead and mercury."

...to something like...

"Ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific because of lack of scientific soundness in its theoretical foundations."

...should be reverted.

Anyone who changes it the other way gets my thanks.

(Note: I made the statement even better with this edit:)

The material about toxic levels of lead, mercury, and arsenic (please, click on those links and see the pictures on those pages!) needs to be as close to the top as possible. Here is why:

• Severe arsenic poisoning due to Ayurvedic supplements National Library of Medicine
• FDA warns about heavy metal poisoning associated with certain unapproved ayurvedic drug products Food and Drug Administration
• Metal Toxicity from Ayurvedic Medications Minnesota Department of Health
• Heavy Metals in Alternative Remedies​​ California Department of Public Health

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I moved the pseudoscience section to the lead sentence, where it is most appropriate and consistent with the countless other articles dealing with pseudoscience. — EarthDude (Talk) 07:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

See the past discussions. It is not consistent with Faith Healing, Herbal medicine, Traditional Chinese medicine and many others. We know they are pseudoscience but the current version already describes it and is accurate enough. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Articles on pseudoscience in general, and on alternative medicine in particular, that have achieved GA status, such as Homeopathy, Astrology, and Lysenkoism, state in the lead sentence that the subject is pseudoscientific. Countless other B-class articles on alternative medicine do the same, including Crystal healing, Anthroposophic medicine, Applied kinesiology, and Cupping therapy, among others. While this practice is less common in articles about pseudoscientific medicine, that is largely due to their generally lower quality (See this). It would be more appropriate to state Ayurveda is pseudoscience in the lead sentence. — EarthDude (Talk) 16:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The current lead:

"Ayurveda is an alternative medicine system with historical roots in the Indian subcontinent. It is heavily practised throughout India and Nepal, where as much as 80% of the population report using ayurveda. The theory and practice of ayurveda is pseudoscientific, and ayurvedic preparations, particularly in the rasa shastra tradition, contain toxic levels of lead, mercury, and arsenic."

Is just right. First it says what it is and how common it is, That's important to the many readers who end up here because they clicked on a strange word to see what it means. Then it says that it is pseudoscience and exposes you to toxic substances. That's important to the smaller but still large numbers of readers who end up here because someone is trying to convince them that Ayurveda is the answer to whatever is wrong with them.

I find it suspicious, after so many failed attempts to get us to no longer mention lead, mercury, and arsenic, that I am now seeing edits that just happen to move the bit about lead, mercury, and arsenic lower in the article.

Mercury poisoning

Lead poisoning

Arsenic poisoning

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)