http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/vi...-1276033,.html
I haven't heard of this stuff. Must do some searches.
When someone claims to be able to cure cancer there's just one thing you need to ask - which cancer?
Cancer is a general term that describes thousands of different diseases with thousands of different causes. A claim to have cured "cancer" just shows an utter lack of understanding of medicine.
It's just another herbal remedy system, with added toxic metals, with a fancy philosophy and an exotic name.
Bandolier looks at the toxicity of the remedies here and while it's gotten better there's still not much in the way of regulation for herbal medicine.
Now excuse me while I get my barge pole...
Those very high levels of lead, mercury and arsenic look frightening.Originally Posted by Mongrel
As far as the use of herbs goes, I'm sticking to regular doses of those that go into GIN! Combined with the quinine in the tonic, and the vitimin C in the lemon, the angelica, coriander and whatever have given me excellent health for years.
Huzzah - and the weather's just right here for a long glass of iced G&T :)
I think youll find that after clinical trials of this system it would be proven as effective as homeopathy, that is to say negliable to non existant.
There is a reason why medicine has advanced to where it is today, its called progress. These ancient systems are ancient for a reason, they didnt progress to match current medicine.
Just because a system has been used for thousands of years it does not equate its a perfect system and does not need to change. That is a fallacy.
I wasn't trying to promote this nonsense. I just came across the video on SKY. I am amazed that the theory/philosophy has not been scientifically examined.
Well, I don't know if its total nonsense - I did a whole year of Ayurveda because the Government (in Africa) wanted "on the ground people" who could work with the local population (mostly Indians from India) in educating for healthier eating. The year was done with proper medical doctors being trained by proper medical doctors - my husband and I were the only non-medical attendees. We were never told it could "cure cancer" except in our current modern idea that if you eat properly, exercise, don't smoke etc etc - you have a lesser chance of developing cancer. And, if you did, you would then need to change your lifestyle to exactly the above which is what a doctor would probably advise you on the NHS.
I understood it as using lifestyle and food to promote health. I think it concurs with modern medicine in saying "you are what you eat" and that what you eat affects how you feel. I you OD on coffee you might end up feeling jittery with palpitations, or if you OD on red meat you might feel anxious or jumpy - that kind of idea.
There were herbal food supplements - some used for specific conditions - can't remember which exactly (I still have all my notes). They didn't seem "dangerous" to me at the time - like popping Vit C.
But the strange (and most difficult) part of the course was learning the four "doshas" which can be read in the pulse. These are not "humours" at all. And they really can be discerned. It is most complicated and a real Ayurvedic Physician has to have an enormous amount of knowledge in proper modern medicine and the principles of Ayurveda. I would only ever use Ayurveda if it was under the guidance of a proper medical doctor.
I do remember being taught that certain ethnic groups are not easily able to digest dairy products and therefore to say "Drinking milk is healthy" is not always the case!
Well I dunno - I've forgotten most of it! I think a lot of stuff you see on Ayurveda is total New Age Crap.
Last edited by Allo Allo; 21st July 2007 at 10:11 AM.
Correction!Three doshas and all the permutations....
I’ll probably be shot down in flames for this comment – but it seems to me that the criticism about “poisons” in herbal remedies of various kinds is a bit rich coming from mainstream medicine whose “cures” are full of toxins with horrible side effects sometimes. But they are accepted because they have had “rigorous” testing! Mmmmm….
But an idea did come to me – about the “pulses” in Ayurveda. If it’s not simply intuitive, the various “types” of pulses (felt on three levels of finger pressure) should be able to be “read” on a machine. I wonder if it can?
What an absolutely abysmal report from SKY news.
How, and by whom, were the diagnoses of cancer made? It would have been helpful to know whether they really did have cancer before being 'cured'.
If they did have cancer did they have Ayurveda instead of conventional medical treatment or did they have the conventional treatment and then use Ayurveda?
A misdiagnosis, or false diagnosis, could easily lead to a 'miracle cure'; and attributing the cure to alternative medicine after the conventional medicine has done its work is another way that these medical myths propagate.
Now of course some herbs do have medicinal properties, and science is usually very quick to exploit them, but finding a plant that cure all cancers without side effects is just stretching credulity too far - if it looks too good to be true etc.
What bothers me with credulous reports like this one is that it's giving misleading information without consideration of its consequences. The report ran more like an advert for this practitioner than a serious investigation of a claim.
Basically, it's just giving false hope to people.
.
How pathetic. This is one of the oldest bits of nonsense from the quacks. "Real medicine has side-effects, therefore ours must all be good because it is natural". Utter crap. Real medicine has real effects. Proper testing sorts out the ones that have beneficial effects that outweigh the detrimental ones, and gets rid of the ones that are too dangerous. Do you magically think that herbal remedies can't be dangerous just because they haven't been tested? Do you realise just how utterly insane that sounds?
Not forgetting of course that real medicines, which can have unpleasant side-effects, are given by trained and licensed health practitioners and the patients progress carefully monitored. If problems do occur then action can be taken.
Compare that to herbal 'remedies'. You buy them from a shop staffed by unqualified personnel, read the label (maybe) and chew them down without asking the critical questions...
How pure is it?
What are the active ingredients?
Which part of the plant is it?
Is there any guarantee that that it's not just tea-bag sweepings?
If there is something really wrong with me (not just worried well) then why haven't I seen a Doctor?
If something bad happens as a result of taking this remedy who bears responsibility?
Add in intentional contamination with toxic heavy metals and quite frankly you're an idiot for thinking there's anything to Ayurveda beyond placebo and 'Cup of tea and a biscuit' therapy
I have to say that I am sick of people here not READING posts carefully - simply leaping up and writing agressive gobbledegook with no THOUGHT to what the poster has really said, nor carefully weighing up of what YOU post in reply! I am NOT the one who is looking an idiot here - but I know who are....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks