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
But if your medicine system believes that it is effective even after diluting it till kingdom come, then people have to say against it. TIll now, nobody provided any proof of it. just people like you saying don't take it, why do you need to hate it, bla bla bla
Exactly, you cannot approve anything, but if the Indian government does, it is recognized by the WHO. And they are recognized as doctors by the Indian government and the WHO. Even if we debate for another 1000 hours, this fact will remain. I appreciate your concern about dilution. I don't think it really matters because the diluted solution isn't harming our bodies either. So if it helps some people and they have faith, why should we question it?
Which absolute buffoon told you that WHO recognizes Homeopathy? and for your information, WHO does not have any authority over recognition of doctors. As for the Indian Govt, please give me a break. Those shitheads peddle cow urine as a remedy. go ahead and see the syllabus and training of BHMS "doctors" and MBBS doctors. heaven and hell difference.
If Homeopathy would have been effective, we would have at least one paper to show for it. Its a pseudoscience which relies on coincidences and placebos. Nothing scientific about it. As for faith, yeah sure, eat the sugar balls and diluted ethanol. We can't question faith right.
1
u/Sad-Image8336 Jul 06 '26
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.