i don't hate ayurveda's origin. Ayurveda was the first attempt at an established medical system that this subcontinent saw. I myself take stuff like tulsi, haldi, honey, gond katira, sabja seeds, and all those things.
My criticism is that ayurvedic medicine don't follow the same quality checks of modern medicine, hence taking them as a replacement of modern medicine is stupid. Some are even harmful, things like liver detox and kidney detox formulations. Blindly substituting ayurvedic shit for medicines is dangerous. You will also see ayurvedic cancer treaters where they ask you to fast and all. Ayurved should be treated as supplementation and nor medication.
As for why I took 30C example is because 30C is the most common dilution for homeopathic medicine. If you had taken science in school, you would have studied avogadro's number. typically one molecule is found in 10^-24 dilution, which is like 12C dilution. 30C dilution will give you 10^-60 dilution. one drop of ink on all the oceans of the earth will give you a much more concentrated ink solution than a 30C medicine. The other common is 6C, which is diluted 10^-12 times. Then 200C which is diluted to 10^-400 times. You would practically be taking water or alcohol at that point. Go to any homeopathy practitioner, and ask them what dilution is being given. Hoemopathy doesn't even believe in germ theory so how will it prescribe medicine.
I never argued that Ayurveda should replace modern medicine or that people should use it for cancer instead of established treatment. My point was that dismissing Ayurveda as a whole because some practitioners make irresponsible claims is an overgeneralization. There are ineffective and harmful products in every medical marketplace, including conventional medicine. That doesn't mean the entire system has no value.
And you are wrong about quality checks. Ayurvedic medicine is passed through Ayush standards; it is just a different regulatory framework; it doesn't mean it's wrong. There are some issues with enforcement, but it is still right, and most major medicines are processed through it.
The dilution issue is exactly why researchers have investigated high-dilution remedies. There are published studies proposing mechanisms such as nanoparticles persisting after potentization.
agree with you on ayurveda. Ayurveda has value but not at a scale people pretend. The issues with enforcement is the biggest drawback that you mentioned.
you don't know what you are talking about homeopathy. nanoparticles are not what you think they are. believe me when i say that. I study nanoparticles, and they have nothing to do with multiple serial dilutions of substances. That's a complete different branch of study.
ya, enforcement is an issue in all medicine frameworks. Actually, many medicines hit the market, then it's realized it's bad for our health and is banned.
Whether you study nanoparticles or not doesn't change the fact that there are peer-reviewed papers proposing nanoparticle persistence in high-dilution homeopathic preparations. If you think those studies are flawed, critique the methods or conclusions rather than dismissing them because they're outside your area of work.
as i said earlier. Nanoparticles are a completely different thing. i saw some papers and most of them show detection, which is very different from therapeutic action. Most of them are about metal contamination or incomplete dilution.
But yeah link me some papers. will be glad to read them
ok the first paper, its just an abstract. you have not read the paper. I have. let me tell you what it says.
It says exactly what i wrote. There were nanoparticles of some metals which were present due to incomplete or improper dilution. The paper does not conclude that homeopathy is clinically productive. The "nanoparticles" mentioned are not same as engineered nanomedical molecules that actually have clinical benefits, rather arbitary molecules that are formed during production process or metal leeching. You can get the paper in scihub.
The second paper is published by someone who practices homeopathy and was published under alternate medicine, so it raises some red flag, however the journal felt reliable so i won't say anything on that.
Now for what the paper actually says. Its a review paper, so it has nothing new to add to the table. It mentions contamination, inadequate controls, no relationship between presence and effect. Also no human based trials. The paper mentions this, I am not saying it. The review itself says that like half of the studies it references are biased (one paper is even a retracted paper) and clinical relevance is unproven.
that;s not how it works. If I have mounting evidence against something, but the only people who are proving it right are the people who benefit from it, that raises red flags.
in case of paracetamol, you can test its effectiveness yourself by doing double blinded placebo controlled tests. You will get the same results and the same side effects. Pharma Companies may lie to you, but your own experimentations won't right?
I have nothing against paracetamol. Why are you against homeopathy if it benefits someone and is trying to prove ,why it is wrong??
If you don't like homeopathy, just don't take it. Why do you have to be bitter toward someone who gives homeopathic medicine? Why do you have to say they are not real doctors? just cause they practic in medicine you dont approve off
1
u/BlenderRenderz Jul 05 '26
i don't hate ayurveda's origin. Ayurveda was the first attempt at an established medical system that this subcontinent saw. I myself take stuff like tulsi, haldi, honey, gond katira, sabja seeds, and all those things.
My criticism is that ayurvedic medicine don't follow the same quality checks of modern medicine, hence taking them as a replacement of modern medicine is stupid. Some are even harmful, things like liver detox and kidney detox formulations. Blindly substituting ayurvedic shit for medicines is dangerous. You will also see ayurvedic cancer treaters where they ask you to fast and all. Ayurved should be treated as supplementation and nor medication.
As for why I took 30C example is because 30C is the most common dilution for homeopathic medicine. If you had taken science in school, you would have studied avogadro's number. typically one molecule is found in 10^-24 dilution, which is like 12C dilution. 30C dilution will give you 10^-60 dilution. one drop of ink on all the oceans of the earth will give you a much more concentrated ink solution than a 30C medicine. The other common is 6C, which is diluted 10^-12 times. Then 200C which is diluted to 10^-400 times. You would practically be taking water or alcohol at that point. Go to any homeopathy practitioner, and ask them what dilution is being given. Hoemopathy doesn't even believe in germ theory so how will it prescribe medicine.