Originally posted by Ai:
•For those of you who seem to have a negative or flippant attitude about Eastern modalities, I am curious to know what experiences have brought you to these opinions and what type of medicine you are specifically referring to.•••
I have seen the Ayurvedic system at work here in India, and the more i think about it, the less favourably i think about it.
To begin with the theory. It is based on the concept that the human body has three humours called vat, pitt and kaph, and that variations in the relative strengths of these humours lead to health or disease. Note that any claims to go to the roots of the disease actually mean correction of these humours. The theory is actually much more complex than this but in no way can it even compare with the rational understanding of disease that scientific medicine provides. There are, i agree, very good points made about health and disease in ayurvedic texts (like this one about exposure to sensory stimuli: too little stimulation, too extensive stimulation, or noxious stimulation - either may lead to disease.) But as you can see, these are very general concepts, and Western medicine has better concepts, or so i think.
Another major drawback that i perceive is the dogma associated with the writings of the ancient sages. We admire the magnificent, though mystical, theories of humours and forget that it has been more than 2000 years since any one rationally thought over their tenets. What an ayurvedic student learns is not facts but axioms. He is not taught to question. And hence there is a profound lack of scientific studies that could prove (or disprove!) the effectiveness of ayurvedic methods. I study in the premier institue of my country devoted to medical sciences, and in the three odd years of my stay here, i have seen just one study on ayurveda being conducted - to study the effect of Chyavanprash (a very celebrated preparation from about 30 herbs) on improving the immune status of patients, that is claimed. I mean to point out that we are in a very preliminary stage as far as research in ayurveda is concerned if we are just beginning to confirm the effects of the widely used preparations, and that too on such multifactorial phenomena like immunity.
Talking of methods, there are a few points i would like to make about herbal medicine. As we grow up it is hammered into our minds that 'herbal' can do no harm. But what i have grown to realize is that the herbal preparations have much more potential to do harm than allopathic prescriptions. I have no doubt that the potential of these preparations has been time-tested, but has anyone ever tried to quantify the effect, to at least know if it is not just placebo effect. And not only that, noone has tried to know if any preparation may be harmful in certain diseases, especially diseases like diabetes or hypertension that were discovered only last century or so. And once a preparation is found useful, what safegaurds do we have that we are getting a safe product. Has anyone heard of quality control or FDA rules for herbals like the ones that allopathic drugs are under? I guess I sound overtly paranoid, but I'll give an example. There are ayurvedic preparations containing mercury in them, which an ordinary Indian will take without any scruples because of his faith in the system. Would you?
But one certainly likes high-sounding ideals like not just treating a disease but an individual, and incidentally, that is what brought about this discussion. Well I think a doctor treating muscle flaccidity and diarrhoea caused by hyperkalemia in a setting of chronic renal failure with peritoneal dialysis, while keeping an eye on the arrhythmic heart, can be said to be treating a human being as a whole. And not to forget the psychosocial aspects, picture him or her teaching breathing techniques to a patient of COPD, and educating him and his family about the disease, offering not just mental peace or calm but also the practical truth and the ways to handle it. And if he/she is Indian, you could even see him/her lower the fees for a patient of poor socioeconomic background. I agree that we allopaths do tend to miss out on these finer points and I think we could wean many people from alternative medicine if only we gave them more time.
Do I still hear some voices pointing out that these holistic schools of medicine like ayurveda affect the human being as a whole, that cannot be subjected to scientific testing? Well, what i believe is that the scientific method is the only way to reach the truth, however complex the truth may be. I propose that ayurvedic methods be researched in the same manner as are approved allopathic drugs and methods, so that they become a part of the mainstream scientific medicine. So until Chyavanprash is subjected to the same vigorous testing as aspirin, I am not willing either to accept or advocate it.
I will not cut even for stone. - Hippocrates.
