3 ms·

> What does ingesting mercury or lead fight against? This is a question for those who are experts in the field of Rasa Shastra.[1][2] Just like questions regar

> What does ingesting mercury or lead fight against? This is a question for those who are experts in the field of Rasa Shastra.[1][2] Just like questions regarding which poisons/toxins are injected into the human body as treatment, why, and for which illness are questions for experts in the appropriate specializations of modern medicine. [1] A Text Book Of Rasa Shastra(Iatro-Chemistry And Ayurvedic Pharmaceutics) (https://chaukhamba.co.in/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=109 https://chaukhamba.co.in/index.php?route=product/product&pro...) [2] Introduction to ‘Rasashaastra’ the Iatrochemistry of Ayurveda (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3252715/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3252715/)

infecto 3y ago
No I don't think it is the same. It easily comes to mind that most treatments of radiation while toxic to the body are used to kill types of cancer. If you are going to say this practice of eating lead and mercury for medicinal purposes is useful, I would think there would be at least a use that comes to mind that you could share instead of books. I don't think most traditional medicine practices are very useful. Similar to strict religious teaches of what food to eat, Catholic, Jewish, Sattvic diet even. They served a purpose when conceived, perhaps have interesting things that could benefit us today but in a whole. There may be an interesting herb or compound that is actually useful but usually the vast majority of it is either a placebo, damaging to the user or damaging to the environment.
- ta_vf7xjd34cc 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > propaganda that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience has been so successfully drilled into me over the decades that I have never been to an Ayurvedic doctor nor do I know of anyone who has. The propaganda/evil conspiracy angle is unconvincing here. More likely it's not propaganda, but facts and science, and it replaced centuries-old science because it is better and more accurate. For example, do you also believe there is 'propaganda that geocentrism is a pseudoscience, so successfully drilled into people over the decades that they have never been to a geocentric astronomer, nor do they know of anyone who has"? Or maybe we just improved our science a bit in the last several hundred years?
    - ta_vf7xjd34cc 3y ago
      > geocentrism The culture that gave the world Ayurveda and the Surya Siddhanta and the Nasadiya Sukta is very different from the ones which believe that God has said that the Earth is flat or ones where God's agents on Earth harassed/murdered scientists because their theories were in conflict with their interpretation of their belief.[1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya_Siddhanta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya_Siddhanta [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_Sukta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_Sukta
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        I actually said more than just > geocentrism so please quote me properly. As a result of your failure to do so, your post has nothing to do with the one it replies to, and fails to address anything in it.
  - infecto 3y ago
    I guess that’s my point. Perhaps there are some things useful in Ayurveda but I suspect the vast majority is pseudoscience that was a best guess for the resources available at the time. Not suggesting this traditional medicine is a religion but that it’s similar to a lot of the dietary restrictions from history. They had some use for the time but perhaps not useful now. I know more about Chinese traditional medicine and have similar thoughts. Some of it is interesting but lots of it is pseudoscience. Also some of it was practical advice for the time. A lot of it is always about drinking hot water. Perhaps boiled water was cleaner in previous times? But again it’s mostly pseudoscience. If you visit a traditional doctor he feels your wrist for a while and is able to create diagnoses with that along with looking at you and talking.
    - ta_vf7xjd34cc 3y ago
      > lots of it is pseudoscience. I can get behind the feeling of the word, but I absolutely hate this word as it has generally been used in the sense that everything modern (science, technology, people) is smarter/more advanced than anything that is old. If something was produced as a result of a rational thought process (no ghosts, demons, Gods involved), I would be loathe to call it pseudoscience even if it didn't work most of the time. For e.g. building, clothing, weaponry that works in one climate/area may not work if you transplant it to another place on Earth. That does not mean that the techniques used are pseudoscientific in nature. They were the science of that place and time. > If you visit a traditional doctor he feels your wrist for a while and is able to create diagnoses with that along with looking at you and talking. A lot of traditional medicine practitioners today are probably quacks. It is possible that something of import was lost over hundreds of generations of knowledge transfer. As we have access to modern medicine that can quickly relieve symptoms, looking into what was lost might be considered to be a waste of time by some when an easier alternative is available.
    - amluto 3y ago
      And, interestingly, some of it was surprisingly effective. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16566952/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16566952/ TCM figured out what is essentially the best modern malaria treatment centuries ago. And boiling water was very sensible. Nowadays we treat our water differently, but before modern sanitation and water treatment, drinking unboiled water was quite dangerous. In much of Europe, people would drink beer when available instead of water, which was likely still an improvement, but alcohol is rather unhealthy. Drinking plain boiled water when thirsty was an excellent idea.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
I'm struggling to find in your post which specific conditions it treats, and what the pharmacology / mechanism of action is. Could you post those, please? If you need to consult your sources to answer (I assume you already read what you yourself linked, to confirm it answers the question), or ask an Ayurveda "expert" to answer, go ahead. As it stands now, it doesn't seem there are any legit usages. > Ayurveda is based on the evidence of its times So is globocentrism, but humans have learned since then, and moved onto more evidence based science. Science which was based on what we used to think was evidence, but no longer has evidence, is not evidence based science.
- ta_vf7xjd34cc 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    You're the one trying to make the case that eating lead is a good cure for a subset of ailments, so read it yourself and answer here what a couple of those ailments are, and how the lead helps (if you can be bothered to read your own source). We can then verify from reliable sources whether the claims and evidence you provide are reliable. Non-medical professionals can describe the mechanism of action for radiation therapy. Non-professional ayurvedic advocates should at least know how eating lead helps cure the ailments it claims to. > many governments in the Indian subcontinent and a lot of people in the subcontinent believe that there are [medical applications for eating lead] Many people (and governments) believe in invisible sky magicians, but their belief isn't science, and doesn't make it true. Indeed, subscribing to a belief simply because it's old and because a subset of others do, too, is more a hallmark of religion than science.

infecto 3y ago

No I don't think it is the same. It easily comes to mind that most treatments of radiation while toxic to the body are used to kill types of cancer. If you are going to say this practice of eating lead and mercury for medicinal purposes is useful, I would think there would be at least a use that comes to mind that you could share instead of books. I don't think most traditional medicine practices are very useful. Similar to strict religious teaches of what food to eat, Catholic, Jewish, Sattvic diet even. They served a purpose when conceived, perhaps have interesting things that could benefit us today but in a whole. There may be an interesting herb or compound that is actually useful but usually the vast majority of it is either a placebo, damaging to the user or damaging to the environment.

ta_vf7xjd34cc 3y ago
[flagged]
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > propaganda that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience has been so successfully drilled into me over the decades that I have never been to an Ayurvedic doctor nor do I know of anyone who has. The propaganda/evil conspiracy angle is unconvincing here. More likely it's not propaganda, but facts and science, and it replaced centuries-old science because it is better and more accurate. For example, do you also believe there is 'propaganda that geocentrism is a pseudoscience, so successfully drilled into people over the decades that they have never been to a geocentric astronomer, nor do they know of anyone who has"? Or maybe we just improved our science a bit in the last several hundred years?
  - ta_vf7xjd34cc 3y ago
    > geocentrism The culture that gave the world Ayurveda and the Surya Siddhanta and the Nasadiya Sukta is very different from the ones which believe that God has said that the Earth is flat or ones where God's agents on Earth harassed/murdered scientists because their theories were in conflict with their interpretation of their belief.[1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya_Siddhanta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya_Siddhanta [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_Sukta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_Sukta
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      I actually said more than just > geocentrism so please quote me properly. As a result of your failure to do so, your post has nothing to do with the one it replies to, and fails to address anything in it.
- infecto 3y ago
  I guess that’s my point. Perhaps there are some things useful in Ayurveda but I suspect the vast majority is pseudoscience that was a best guess for the resources available at the time. Not suggesting this traditional medicine is a religion but that it’s similar to a lot of the dietary restrictions from history. They had some use for the time but perhaps not useful now. I know more about Chinese traditional medicine and have similar thoughts. Some of it is interesting but lots of it is pseudoscience. Also some of it was practical advice for the time. A lot of it is always about drinking hot water. Perhaps boiled water was cleaner in previous times? But again it’s mostly pseudoscience. If you visit a traditional doctor he feels your wrist for a while and is able to create diagnoses with that along with looking at you and talking.
  - ta_vf7xjd34cc 3y ago
    > lots of it is pseudoscience. I can get behind the feeling of the word, but I absolutely hate this word as it has generally been used in the sense that everything modern (science, technology, people) is smarter/more advanced than anything that is old. If something was produced as a result of a rational thought process (no ghosts, demons, Gods involved), I would be loathe to call it pseudoscience even if it didn't work most of the time. For e.g. building, clothing, weaponry that works in one climate/area may not work if you transplant it to another place on Earth. That does not mean that the techniques used are pseudoscientific in nature. They were the science of that place and time. > If you visit a traditional doctor he feels your wrist for a while and is able to create diagnoses with that along with looking at you and talking. A lot of traditional medicine practitioners today are probably quacks. It is possible that something of import was lost over hundreds of generations of knowledge transfer. As we have access to modern medicine that can quickly relieve symptoms, looking into what was lost might be considered to be a waste of time by some when an easier alternative is available.
  - amluto 3y ago
    And, interestingly, some of it was surprisingly effective. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16566952/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16566952/ TCM figured out what is essentially the best modern malaria treatment centuries ago. And boiling water was very sensible. Nowadays we treat our water differently, but before modern sanitation and water treatment, drinking unboiled water was quite dangerous. In much of Europe, people would drink beer when available instead of water, which was likely still an improvement, but alcohol is rather unhealthy. Drinking plain boiled water when thirsty was an excellent idea.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

I'm struggling to find in your post which specific conditions it treats, and what the pharmacology / mechanism of action is. Could you post those, please? If you need to consult your sources to answer (I assume you already read what you yourself linked, to confirm it answers the question), or ask an Ayurveda "expert" to answer, go ahead. As it stands now, it doesn't seem there are any legit usages. > Ayurveda is based on the evidence of its times So is globocentrism, but humans have learned since then, and moved onto more evidence based science. Science which was based on what we used to think was evidence, but no longer has evidence, is not evidence based science.

ta_vf7xjd34cc 3y ago
[flagged]
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  You're the one trying to make the case that eating lead is a good cure for a subset of ailments, so read it yourself and answer here what a couple of those ailments are, and how the lead helps (if you can be bothered to read your own source). We can then verify from reliable sources whether the claims and evidence you provide are reliable. Non-medical professionals can describe the mechanism of action for radiation therapy. Non-professional ayurvedic advocates should at least know how eating lead helps cure the ailments it claims to. > many governments in the Indian subcontinent and a lot of people in the subcontinent believe that there are [medical applications for eating lead] Many people (and governments) believe in invisible sky magicians, but their belief isn't science, and doesn't make it true. Indeed, subscribing to a belief simply because it's old and because a subset of others do, too, is more a hallmark of religion than science.