3 ms·

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 yo

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.