Re: Examining Ayurveda (was My experience with caffeine)

[Guest guest]

At 12:10 PM 6/29/05 -0500, you wrote:

>As I stated earlier, I am trying to determine if Ayurveda is a bona fide

>science-based system, or whether it is simply a pseudoscience like

>astrology. Does it stand up to Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit? It

>is fun to determine your doshic makeup, much like it is fun to learn

>your zodiac sign. But is either based on any facts? If the system is

>sound, it will hold up under scientific scrutiny. I am just curious

>whether or not there have been any studies on the descriptions and

>recommendations. I had never really looked at the validity of Ayurvedic

>medicine before now.

>

>http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/chopra.html

LOL. Deanna, Quackwatch also says the Weston A. Price Foundation is a

bunch of dangerous loonies (paraphrase) - IIRC, specifically for its

statements on cholesterol. So, ya know. I don't know where you

could search for any actual studies or whatnot, but quackwatch certainly

wouldn't be anywhere on my list.

Apologies, it just struck me as funny. Must be my mood. Never mind.

MFJ

Ideas are funny that way ... you go and let one loose, and suddenly it's

crashing about the place, bashing up against other peoples' heads.

Somebody oughtta control that. Pesky things, ideas.

[Guest guest]

On 6/29/05, F. Jewett <mfjewett@...> wrote:

> LOL. Deanna, Quackwatch also says the Weston A. Price Foundation is a

> bunch of dangerous loonies (paraphrase) - IIRC, specifically for its

> statements on cholesterol. So, ya know. I don't know where you

> could search for any actual studies or whatnot, but quackwatch certainly

> wouldn't be anywhere on my list.

>

> Apologies, it just struck me as funny. Must be my mood. Never mind.

Not your mood-- I find any reference to QuackWatch to be consistently

funny. Their " debunking " of holistic dentistry was a riot-- they

traced it to Weston Price, whose stupid primitives ate too much fat

before modern foods and too much sugar afterwards, whose healthy teeth

before modern foods were caused by malnutrition-- as everyone knows

that malnutrition leads to perfect teeth. LOL!

Chris

[Guest guest]

At 01:30 PM 6/29/05 -0400, you wrote:

>Not your mood-- I find any reference to QuackWatch to be consistently

>funny. Their " debunking " of holistic dentistry was a riot-- they

>traced it to Weston Price, whose stupid primitives ate too much fat

>before modern foods and too much sugar afterwards, whose healthy teeth

>before modern foods were caused by malnutrition-- as everyone knows

>that malnutrition leads to perfect teeth. LOL!

>

>Chris

Oh no, Chris. Please please please please stop. My sides are hurting

now. Please DON'T encourage me any further, or the next *thud* you hear

will be me falling off my chair laughing.

Actually, I would find it interesting if there WAS anyone that bothered to

do any " science-based " studies on ayurveda. I suppose the same would

apply there as with any other study - the slanting of findings or flawed

designs of which we've already discussed ad nauseum. I mean, ya know,

Price was a quack, so why not those folks from 6000 years ago too, huh?

'Scuse me, I have to go giggle into my soup now.

MFJ

Ideas are funny that way ... you go and let one loose, and suddenly it's

crashing about the place, bashing up against other peoples' heads.

Somebody oughtta control that. Pesky things, ideas.

[Guest guest]

On 6/29/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> As I stated earlier, I am trying to determine if Ayurveda is a bona fide

> science-based system, or whether it is simply a pseudoscience like

> astrology. Does it stand up to Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit?

<snip, especially quote from " quackwatch.org " >

Yes, let's rely on the flippant opinions of a bunch of ill-informed

zeitgeist-driven all-too-rational " consumer educators " for worthwhile

information on what's probably the oldest body of nutritional

knowledge known to man.

Further, let's reduce a beautiful spiritual discipline to the doldrums

of " bona fide science. " That something isn't expressed in tedious

mechanistic microscopery doesn't mean it can't express the actual.

Gimme a break.

Sorry, but this post made me ill.

[Guest guest]

--- In , Deanna Wagner <hl@s...>

wrote:

>

> >I beg your pardon, but I don't see Deanna wanting to create

conflict

> >at all. At worst, she is playing the Devil's Advocate or wanting

to

> >see how different things fit into each other.

> >

> >

> José ,

>

> As I stated earlier, I am trying to determine if Ayurveda is a bona

fide

> science-based system, or whether it is simply a pseudoscience like

> astrology.

# I see, Deanna, and honestly I don't think there is anything wrong

with you for doing that. Now, whether you will find a convincing

answer to your quest is another story, though. It is just like

Homeopathy. For some time I had faith in Homeopathy, but then I saw

that there was really nothing (material) in it. It is just vibration.

It may work in some cases, but probably because of a placebo effect.

Not that I am dismissing Homeopathy altogether. Rather I don't

possess all the elements to judge it and never will. So I would

rather not risk using it any more (it is on the backburner), but I

believe phytotherapy (herbs) and fasting almost never fail.

Maybe is right: the consciousness of the individual can have a

profound effect in everything he engages. From this point of view,

maybe even veganism could be viable. If you consciously believe

something works, then it will work for you. Until ...

Deanna, I am little like Saint , the Doubter.

The " problem " with Ayurveda, Astrology and the like is that they are

like typologies, and no typology is 100% safe. Every typology has its

Achilles' heel, so to say, its breaches. Moreover, they were

developed in a time period when people were a lot more homogeneous

and more easily fitted into categories. Now we have so much mixing

and diversity that typologies may appear to be less effective. More

of a curiosity, though I don't intend to sound offensive.

Not to mention charlatanism. There are so many false gurus all around

that a little caution is a necessary tool for every modern person.

That is maybe why I favour an eclectic approach to everything: a bit

from this, a bit from that, etc. You may argue that is a very messy

way to look at things, but I am not a purist and at least I don't

commit the sins of over-idealization.

Cheers to you, Deanna.

José

> Does it stand up to Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit? It

> is fun to determine your doshic makeup, much like it is fun to

learn

> your zodiac sign. But is either based on any facts? If the system

is

> sound, it will hold up under scientific scrutiny. I am just

curious

> whether or not there have been any studies on the descriptions and

> recommendations. I had never really looked at the validity of

Ayurvedic

> medicine before now.

>

> http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/chopra.html

> " Proponents state that ayurvedic medicine originated in ancient

time,

> but much of it was lost until reconstituted in the early 1980s by

the

> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Its origin is traced to four Sanskrit books

> called the Vedas-the oldest and most important scriptures of India,

> shaped sometime before 200 B.C.E. These books attributed most

disease

> and bad luck to demons, devils, and the influence of stars and

planets.

> Ayurveda's basic theory states that the body's functions are

regulated

> by three " irreducible physiological principles " called doshas,

whose

> Sanskrit names are vata, pitta, and kapha. Like astrologic " signs, "

> these terms are used to designate body types as well as the traits

that

> typify them.

>

> " Like astrologic writings, ayurvedic writings contain long lists of

> supposed physical and mental characteristics of each constitutional

> type. Vata, for example, is said to " govern all bodily functions

> concerning movement " and to accumulate during cold, dry, windy

weather.

> According to Chopra's Time/Life Video guidebook: vata individuals

are

> " usually lightly built with excellent agility " and " love excitement

and

> change " ; balanced vata produces mental clarity and alertness; and

> unbalanced vata can produce anxiety, weight loss, constipation,

high

> blood pressure, arthritis, weakness and restlessness.

>

> " Ayurvedic proponents have claimed that the symptoms of disease are

> always related to the balance of the doshas, which can be

determined by

> feeling the patient's wrist pulse or completing a questionnaire.

Some

> proponents claim (incorrectly) that the pulse can be used to detect

> diabetes, cancer, musculoskeletal disease, asthma, and " imbalances

at

> early stages when there may be no other clinical signs and when

mild

> forms of intervention may suffice. " Balance is supposedly achieved

> through " pacifying " diets and a long list of procedures and

products,

> many of which are said to be formulated for specific body types.

Through

> various combinations of vata, pitta, and kapha, ten body types are

> possible. Somehow, however, one's doshas (and therefore one's body

type)

> can vary from hour to hour, season to season, and questionnaire to

> questionnaire. "

>

> Deanna

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:10:54 -0500

Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

> >I beg your pardon, but I don't see Deanna wanting to create conflict

> >at all. At worst, she is playing the Devil's Advocate or wanting to

> >see how different things fit into each other.

> >

> >

> José ,

>

> As I stated earlier, I am trying to determine if Ayurveda is a bona fide

> science-based system, or whether it is simply a pseudoscience like

> astrology. Does it stand up to Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit?

Mr. Sagan himself doesn't always pass the baloney detection kit, LOL!

Perhaps it is time to resurrect those threads I let drop over on

NT_Politics :-)

> http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/chopra.html

> " Proponents state that ayurvedic medicine originated in ancient time,

> but much of it was lost until reconstituted in the early 1980s by the

> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Its origin is traced to four Sanskrit books

> called the Vedas-the oldest and most important scriptures of India,

> shaped sometime before 200 B.C.E. These books attributed most disease

> and bad luck to demons, devils, and the influence of stars and planets.

> Ayurveda's basic theory states that the body's functions are regulated

> by three " irreducible physiological principles " called doshas, whose

> Sanskrit names are vata, pitta, and kapha. Like astrologic " signs, "

> these terms are used to designate body types as well as the traits that

> typify them.

Good lordy! If Ayurvedic Medicine received the honorary distinction of

being listed on Quackwatch, I best bone up on it in a hurry. It must be

good stuff!!!

============================================================

" So this is how freedom dies -- to thunderous applause. "

(Senator Padme Amidala in " Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith " )

============================================================

[Guest guest]

I know you were responding to Deanna, but I wanted to respond some to you!

<g> Science is as much a " typology " as any other. We are taught that it is

so very different, but really it must be founded on what Lyotard would call

" narrative knowledge " and what Kuhn would call a " paradigm " .

Take, for instance, most people's dismissal of something " shown " to be a

placebo. Why should we dismiss this effect? Why aren't we actively

pursuing an understanding of it? Surely if the healing rate in a sample is

significantly above chance, that means *something* is at work. My

understanding is that scientists do not pursue understanding the placebo

effect because there is no working paradigm with which we can generate

scientific experiments. Without that, we can't evaluate the results of any

experiment in a meaningful way and all we are doing is making up untestable

hypothesis.

The problem comes when people conclude that something is unimportant or

valueless because we humans aren't at a place where we can study the

phenomenon. That's scientism.

Another interesting thing I have noticed is a tendency in Western culture

(maybe others, but I'll limit my comments for now) to assume that if

consciousness (or subconsciousness) can affect healing, then it should be

easy to heal ourselves. But if we are talking about a real process, why

would it be easy? I can understand that it is possible to set a broken

bone, but I don't think I would be able to do it. Why would " spirit "

healing, or whatever you want to call it, be easier than something I can

see? Personally, I think that while consciousness does have a huge effect

on the body, we are a very, very long way from understanding it, and however

it works, it is not easy.

This whole thing reminds me of a thing I saw on tv a while back. A

neuroscientist was doing studies on the temporal lobe of the brain. This

lobe is very interesting because sometimes when things go wrong with it, the

person will have experiences that sound like " meeting God, " " feeling one

with the Universe, " or " gaining englightenment. " They profiled a man who

has epileptic seizures in this lobe and everytime he does he describes

experiences your local rimpoche would understand.

The neuroscientist speculated that the reason for developing a brain that

can experience these religious experiences was for social stability or

something, but regardless, they " obviously " proved that the religious

experience starts in the body and has to do with the brain rather than

actually meeting any kind of deity. That final leap is where he went into

scientism because an equally valid explanation would be that we developed

the ability to experience " god " (whatever that is) because there was

something to experience. Just like species that evolve in light develop

eyes.

One of the dangers of the scientific typology is that one must assume

scientifically testable causes for any effect science can study. But the

very assumption that all causes are scientifically testable is itself

unproven.

I'm not saying science is bad. Far from it. I love science. But it has

its limits, and like all those other subjects you mentioned, the danger lies

in trying to make science do something it was not designed to do, to apply

to areas of knowledge it is not suitable for explaining.

[ Rathbone]

Re: Examining Ayurveda (was My experience with caffeine)

Maybe is right: the consciousness of the individual can have a

profound effect in everything he engages. From this point of view,

maybe even veganism could be viable. If you consciously believe

something works, then it will work for you. Until ...

Deanna, I am little like Saint , the Doubter.

The " problem " with Ayurveda, Astrology and the like is that they are

like typologies, and no typology is 100% safe. Every typology has its

Achilles' heel, so to say, its breaches. Moreover, they were

developed in a time period when people were a lot more homogeneous

and more easily fitted into categories. Now we have so much mixing

and diversity that typologies may appear to be less effective. More

of a curiosity, though I don't intend to sound offensive.

Not to mention charlatanism. There are so many false gurus all around

that a little caution is a necessary tool for every modern person.

That is maybe why I favour an eclectic approach to everything: a bit

from this, a bit from that, etc. You may argue that is a very messy

way to look at things, but I am not a purist and at least I don't

commit the sins of over-idealization.

Cheers to you, Deanna.

José

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>LOL. Deanna, Quackwatch also says the Weston A. Price Foundation is a

>bunch of dangerous loonies (paraphrase) - IIRC, specifically for its

>statements on cholesterol. So, ya know. I don't know where you

>could search for any actual studies or whatnot, but quackwatch certainly

>wouldn't be anywhere on my list.

>

>Apologies, it just struck me as funny. Must be my mood. Never mind.

>

Hey ,

Just picked a quote from the list of links. Big difference between WAPF

researching real nutritional needs among peoples and Ayurvedic arbitrary

choices/restrictions based on perceived body types. Someone said it is

spiritual. Well, if it is medicine, then it is science and should be

testable as such in the world of space time, which is the world we can

measure, whether or not more exists in 11 dimensional string theory.

Nutrition is a physical entity after all. It is gross and tangible. We

can measure calories, deficiencies and the like. If it is religious or

spiritual, then fine, but to instruct people to eat a certain way based

on theories and the stars is irresponsible and a potential liability,

especially without the professional background to make such

recommendations. I am still looking for the science behind the practice

of Ayurveda as " a science of life. " Where are the controlled trials

showing the results of treating these imbalances with lifestyle

modification? Nowhere that I can tell. If it's been around so long,

why not demonstrate its efficacy. My apologies if the choice of quote

was unappetizing and made you spew your soup.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 6/29/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Just picked a quote from the list of links. Big difference between WAPF

> researching real nutritional needs among peoples and Ayurvedic arbitrary

> choices/restrictions based on perceived body types. Someone said it is

> spiritual. Well, if it is medicine, then it is science and should be

> testable as such in the world of space time, which is the world we can

> measure, whether or not more exists in 11 dimensional string theory.

> Nutrition is a physical entity after all. It is gross and tangible. We

> can measure calories, deficiencies and the like. If it is religious or

> spiritual, then fine, but to instruct people to eat a certain way based

> on theories and the stars is irresponsible and a potential liability,

> especially without the professional background to make such

> recommendations. I am still looking for the science behind the practice

> of Ayurveda as " a science of life. " Where are the controlled trials

> showing the results of treating these imbalances with lifestyle

> modification? Nowhere that I can tell. If it's been around so long,

> why not demonstrate its efficacy. My apologies if the choice of quote

> was unappetizing and made you spew your soup.

I don't mean this to be a defense of the efficacy of ayurveda, which

is really something I know nothing about, but it isn't necessarily

true that because ayurveda didn't gain its knowledge through the

modern scientific method that it is meritless. Trial and error works

well when its fruits are accumulated over a long period of time, and

one wouldn't expect the explanations and word choices and concepts

developed to convey that information thousands of years ago to be

consistent with what we'd use for the knowledge we're presently

accumulating in the 21st century.

It could be that ayurveda is an accumulated body of knowledge that

happens to work well, maybe for reasons other than the explanations an

ayurvedic practitioner would give, regardless of how or whether it has

been tested. The ultimate test is by whether the person using it is

able to use it to improve their own health. If it proves useless to

an individual, that individual should abandon it and look elsewhere.

As to the potential liability-- you can't be serious. Licensed

doctor's make awful recommendations about food and drugs that hurt

people every day based on " hard science " published in prestigious

peer-reviewed journals. Who's irresponsible?

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I don't mean this to be a defense of the efficacy of ayurveda, which

> is really something I know nothing about, but it isn't necessarily

> true that because ayurveda didn't gain its knowledge through the

> modern scientific method that it is meritless.

Yes, absolutely, it is always a good idea to discuss with reason that

which you know nothing about. And by the same logic in the last

dependent clause above, raw veganism also has not been scrutinized by

mainstream science, therefore it might not be meritless either,

regardless of what we know from science. I have heard anecdotes of

people expelling this tar-like toxin called mucoid plaque (not to be

mistaken with kapha types spewing mucous in their stools, whole nother

animal). Only raw foodists seem to expell this substance, thus, raw

foodism has some merit for some.

Trial and error works

> well when its fruits are accumulated over a long period of time, and

> one wouldn't expect the explanations and word choices and concepts

> developed to convey that information thousands of years ago to be

> consistent with what we'd use for the knowledge we're presently

> accumulating in the 21st century.

But now it is big business in the US, this Ayurveda. Research would

certainly demonstrate the the success of trial and error being

successful over thousands of years. Why not? Well, maybe because it

isn't always successful, and apparently some of the herbal remedies

are loaded with heavy metal contamination. How healthy is that?

> It could be that ayurveda is an accumulated body of knowledge that

> happens to work well, maybe for reasons other than the explanations an

> ayurvedic practitioner would give, regardless of how or whether it has

> been tested. The ultimate test is by whether the person using it is

> able to use it to improve their own health. If it proves useless to

> an individual, that individual should abandon it and look elsewhere.

Oh yeah, just like with astrology and palmistry. If it doesn't work

go somewhere else. But better yet, find a system with proven merit

when possible, so that the trial and error for something like good

nutritional knowledge is limited in terms of time and money. WAPF

does research into areas that can help people find a common

denominator to health, like nutrient rich real foods, regardless of

some real or imagined dosha. Vitamin B-12 was highlighted in the most

recent Wise Traditions, and vegetarianism in general was exposed as a

really bad idea in terms of acquiring this nutrient. Unfortunately,

many in Ayurvedic circles only advocate a vegetarian diet, especially

for an aggressive conflict desiring pitta person like me (see it

reduces folks to a type and generalizes too much. But perhaps you

aren't aware since you know nothing about it.

> As to the potential liability-- you can't be serious. Licensed

> doctor's make awful recommendations about food and drugs that hurt

> people every day based on " hard science " published in prestigious

> peer-reviewed journals. Who's irresponsible?

>

> Chris

I am serious. Licensed doctors must carry malpractice insurance, and

even though they have reduced liability a la Bush, they are still

somewhat liable for that which - you might prove to a judge - was

ill-fashioned allopathic care, whatever that means. Heck, when Lynn

asked about exercise recently, I gave her the schpeel on consulting a

physician before embarking on an exercise program. I did not say, " Oh

you are this, you need that, and I know it all! " As a former

certified exercise professional, I know about liabilities and do try

to act responsibly whilst I encourage a healthy course of lifestyle

for interested individuals. But I have no idea what an Ayurvedic

practitioner has in terms of liability, although I have a good

acquaintance with the system in general. I am a former Iyengar yoga

instructor, so I do know a bit.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>>>>>>>>>>The " problem " with Ayurveda, Astrology and the like is that they

are

like typologies, and no typology is 100% safe. José >>>>>>>.

The “problem” with these typologies is what makes them gleam in my opinion;

Their warts are what make them work so well. By providing a framework based

on hundreds of years of handed down gossip (“kids born in april are always

so strong-willed just look at so and so…” etc…) these typographies provide a

kind of shorthand, a quick sketch, something to start with or work off of

when getting to know someone. They’re like Cliffs Notes. I mean you can say

“I’m a true Capricorn” or “I’m just the opposite of Libra”. It informs the

listener in all sorts of different ways..

For example, I’m a Taurus Water Dragon Tri-doshic 1952. (I never put that

all together!) If I were to introduce myself to someone who followed any of

those three typologies, let’s say astrology, I could then add or subtract

from my designation by saying, well, although I’m Taurus I’m actually very

impetuous, get a bit impatient and go too fast but I *do* love luxurious

baths and cooking etc. It sort of breaks the ice and gets people out of the

“well, what do you do for a living?” schtick. Too bad astrology and the like

has gotten such a flaky rap. It’s not important that’s it’s accurate just

that it’s *something*.

Oh and another thing, whether accurate or not, these type tags help us

reflect. I mean, I grew up thinking, well, I’m Taurus so I must be stubborn

and so I went out of my way to try to NOT be stubborn. Is that such a bad

thing? Anyway, I simply like the typographies because they are fun and

harmless.

But then again I’m a dragon…..

:-D

I’m enjoying your discussion.

~Robin

[Guest guest]

But I have no idea what an Ayurvedic

> practitioner has in terms of liability, although I have a good

> acquaintance with the system in general. I am a former Iyengar yoga

> instructor, so I do know a bit.

Deanna,

You do not have a good acquaintance with the system in general, unless

you are masking it for some reason. Every claim you have made

displays your lack of knowledge of the subject, which is one of

subtlety. Yet you don't restrain yourself from the above comments.

B.

[Guest guest]

But I have no idea what an Ayurvedic

> practitioner has in terms of liability, although I have a good

> acquaintance with the system in general. I am a former Iyengar yoga

> instructor, so I do know a bit.

Deanna,

You do not have a good acquaintance with the system in general, unless

you are masking it for some reason. Every claim you have made

displays your lack of knowledge of the subject, which is one of

subtlety. Yet you don't restrain yourself from the above comments.

B.

B.

In order to make this claim wouldn't you have to have some knowledge of the

subject yourself wouldn't you? You say you do then what's the answer....What

does an Ayurvedic practioner have in terms of liability?? Now don't restrain

yourself from answering...please! I have re-read your posts as you so

cheerfully instructed and yet I failed to find the answer there.

I'm betting they have no liability. It's probably akin to consulting a psychic.

If you follow their advice and it all goes pear shaped then you only have

yourself to blame.

What dosha am I today? can you tell me?

[Guest guest]

> For example, I'm a Taurus Water Dragon Tri-doshic 1952. (I never put that

> all together!) If I were to introduce myself to someone who followed any

> of

> those three typologies, let's say astrology, I could then add or subtract

> from my designation by saying, well, although I'm Taurus I'm actually very

> impetuous, get a bit impatient and go too fast but I *do* love luxurious

> baths and cooking etc. It sort of breaks the ice and gets people out of

> the

> " well, what do you do for a living? " schtick. Too bad astrology and the

> like

> has gotten such a flaky rap. It's not important that's it's accurate just

> that it's *something*.

>

> Oh and another thing, whether accurate or not, these type tags help us

> reflect. I mean, I grew up thinking, well, I'm Taurus so I must be

> stubborn

> and so I went out of my way to try to NOT be stubborn. Is that such a bad

> thing? Anyway, I simply like the typographies because they are fun and

> harmless.

>

> But then again I'm a dragon...

>

> :-D

Good points, Robin! Astrology can lighten up the banal what an individual

does to a little about who they are. It is a little. Complete astrological

interpretation for an individual is complex. Will pass on comment to your

recognizing your impetuos side. It's one of the conundrums of astrology.

You're right that astrology can pat you on the back for positive expression

and help you recognize the warts. With Taurus ascending ( the manner one

presents themself) myself I can relate that is is good to know the

difference between stubbornness, against and persistence, to. That's no

Taurus bull or Chinese monkey shines either. :-)

Wanita

[Guest guest]

--- In , " " <harringtonwa@b...>

wrote:

> B.

> In order to make this claim wouldn't you have to have some knowledge

of the subject yourself wouldn't you? You say you do then what's the

answer....What does an Ayurvedic practioner have in terms of

liability?? Now don't restrain yourself from answering...please! I

have re-read your posts as you so cheerfully instructed and yet I

failed to find the answer there.

>

> I'm betting they have no liability. It's probably akin to

consulting a psychic. If you follow their advice and it all goes pear

shaped then you only have yourself to blame.

>

> What dosha am I today? can you tell me?

> ,

Because of laws and licensing policies in this country, which is

unfamiliar with the practice, so has no standards set yet, I'm

guessing any liability, at the very least, varies from state to state.

There is, in fact, no such title as an Ayurvedic

physician/practitioner in this country, unless that person has been

educated at college in India and earned it there. There is a school

set up in Seal Beach, CA where one earns a certificate entitling you

to call yourself a " Clinical Ayurvedic Specialist " , which is, for all

intents and purposes, meaningless, just like my massage certificate.

The school in Albuquerque NM is vastly superior IMO because the

director is the premier Ayurvedic physician in this country, yet the

piece of paper one receives upon completion of study only certifies

that: that you completed the course of study.

I'll be at the institute Friday, and can ask more specific

questions, if someone has some, but I don't care myself.

And, no, it's not akin to consulting a psychic, but akin to consulting

someone who practices Traditional Oriental Medicine IMO.

From the Ayurvedic Institute's website:

" The Ayurvedic Institute does not at this time offer recognized

medical programs in preparation for state licensure. Graduates will

need to personally have formal training in another healthcare

discipline or to team up with someone who does. It is also important

to understand that Ayurvedic physicians graduating from recognized

Ayurvedic medical universities in India go through an average of 4 to

5 years of medical school and hospital internship before taking on the

responsibility of being a primary health care provider.

Based on our legal research and current understanding of state laws

governing what is defined to be the practice of medicine, we feel the

full practice of Ayurvedic medicine as one's sole medical discipline

could be determined to be " the practice of medicine " and therefore

fall under all state laws governing medical practice. It is because of

these state laws, in addition to the necessity of an appropriate level

of education and training, that we feel it is particularly important

to be well informed and conservative in the creation of an Ayurvedic

professional practice. "

So yes, because there are no national standards for Ayurveda, yet, the

going can be a little murky, since the dispensing of health advice to

anyone can be construed as " the practice of medicine " and can get one

into trouble, unless the advisor made certain disclaimers up front, or

has another, primary, accredited healthcare practice. This is same

difficulty many people practicing " alternative " , natural or

nutritional healthcare therapies encounter. Acupuncture seems to be

more regulated, but I'm not sure how much, and over what period of

time--I can ask my acupuncurist today. But herbalists, homeopaths?

Probably pretty murky. The same for anyone dispensing WAPF-style

nutrition advice. Sally recommends going through the trouble of

getting a university degree, and sitting through all those years of

study of inaccurate information, so one can have the proper

credentials to dispense this sort of advice. There are people on this

list seeking ways to get credentialed in nutrition without going

through such a long, unsatisfying program.

I recommend my friends and clients to take CLO for certain symptoms

and that can also get me in trouble with the law--would you take

offense to that? Neither massage therapists nor yoga instructors have

mandatory national standards either, although I have liability

insurance for both. There is a movement going on right now, to create

a national standard for yoga instructors, but while I can see certain

benefits,I am not a supporter of it. Nor do I particularly care to

assure myself that my chosen healthcare providers are regulated, but

that's me. <enter the Libertarians on this list in 5...4....3...2...>

As far as me giving advice to M., I know him better than other

people on this list and also know the results of a dosha quiz he took

last year and that wasn't apparent to you when you read my post. What

dosha are you? I have no idea, but then AFAIK you have not posted a

catalogue of all your symptoms and requested help/advice for them

which is a common thing people do here. If you did, I'd be happy to

oblige, as would everyone else, probably. What advice did I offer up

to Masterjohn? Adequate rest, wholesome nutrition and daily

self-massage with sesame oil. To innewjersey? Get up before six

and walk around the block or feed the birds. Oh yeah, and that

caffeine intake was a low-priority concern of hers. Have I been so

controversial? Just like drinking raw milk, it's subversive activity.

B.

/ " Ayurveda is beyond beginning and ending. A science of eternal

healing, it is compared to a vast ocean, and studying Ayurveda to

swimming across. A true teacher can teach one how to swim, but the

swimming is up to the student; …it is a lifelong journey. "

Charaka Samhita

Sutrasthana

Chapter Thirty

[Guest guest]

On 6/29/05, yoginidd <hl@...> wrote:

>

> > I don't mean this to be a defense of the efficacy of ayurveda, which

> > is really something I know nothing about, but it isn't necessarily

> > true that because ayurveda didn't gain its knowledge through the

> > modern scientific method that it is meritless.

>

> Yes, absolutely, it is always a good idea to discuss with reason that

> which you know nothing about.

My statements, as I said, weren't concerning the merit of Ayurveda.

They were concerning the criteria we should use for judging something

worthy of merit or meritless. Therefore, it wasn't necessary for me

to understand Ayurveda to any significant level of detail to enter the

discussion in the way in which I did.

> And by the same logic in the last

> dependent clause above, raw veganism also has not been scrutinized by

> mainstream science, therefore it might not be meritless either,

That IS true...

> regardless of what we know from science.

.... but this has no corresponding phrase in the statement I made, and,

in fact, contradicts the second clause in this sentence, assuming that

the " science " at the end of the sentence is the same entity as the

" mainstream science " in the second clause.

> I have heard anecdotes of

> people expelling this tar-like toxin called mucoid plaque (not to be

> mistaken with kapha types spewing mucous in their stools, whole nother

> animal). Only raw foodists seem to expell this substance, thus, raw

> foodism has some merit for some.

This line of reasoning isn't at all comparable to what I was making.

I never suggested that Ayurveda had some merit " for some " or that we

should apply any sort of relativism to evaluating the truth of

something, or made an evaluation in any form of the merit of Ayurveda.

What I said was the lack of scientific evaluation doesn't speak to

its *demerits*.

The accumulated dietary wisdom of the populations Price studied

weren't " science-based " either, but we don't consider that fact to

detract from their merit. Price applied science to the study of that

wisdom, but before Price that wisdom was just as useful and important.

> But now it is big business in the US, this Ayurveda. Research would

> certainly demonstrate the the success of trial and error being

> successful over thousands of years. Why not? Well, maybe because it

> isn't always successful, and apparently some of the herbal remedies

> are loaded with heavy metal contamination. How healthy is that?

Well I certainly don't have any objection to scientific testing of

anything. How exactly to you propose to make a " scientific "

investigation into Ayurveda? It seems to me that science can

investigate many individual things about food and lifestyle's

relationship to health, and then we can use that information to

evaluate Ayurveda in light of our science-based understanding of those

things, but it seems to me that Ayurveda is too large and complex to

be considered a single unit that could be " tested. "

How do you propose to design a study that would test Ayurveda? Maybe

you could develop a study design and ask Stossel to carry it out

for his Give Me a Break segment. That's the type of thing he'd do.

> Oh yeah, just like with astrology and palmistry. If it doesn't work

> go somewhere else.

Well that's a general rule that always must be followed, unless we

should function by the " follow authority " maxim. Interpretations of

the hard science and what light it sheds on how we should eat abound,

so one must necessarily evaluate them and then ultimately test them on

oneself. Within the WAPF framework, there is plenty of room for

adjustment and experimentation. One could start from nowhere to find

after trial and error what type of NT foods and what proportions of

them work for one, or one could consult Ayurveda or some of the

metabolic typing theories to try to find a starting point that one can

fine tune from, for a more efficient and possibly effective search for

the proper diet and lifestyle.

> But better yet, find a system with proven merit

> when possible, so that the trial and error for something like good

> nutritional knowledge is limited in terms of time and money. WAPF

> does research into areas that can help people find a common

> denominator to health, like nutrient rich real foods, regardless of

> some real or imagined dosha. Vitamin B-12 was highlighted in the most

> recent Wise Traditions, and vegetarianism in general was exposed as a

> really bad idea in terms of acquiring this nutrient. Unfortunately,

> many in Ayurvedic circles only advocate a vegetarian diet, especially

> for an aggressive conflict desiring pitta person like me (see it

> reduces folks to a type and generalizes too much. But perhaps you

> aren't aware since you know nothing about it.

This all seems to me meaningless as a critique of Ayurveda. If

Ayurveda advocates veganism, I think we can critique that portion of

it based on what we know about the requirements of the human body.

But it seems to me you have been mostly pursuing a critique of the

lack of its scientific basis for its recommendations, which is

entirely different than critiquing portions of it about which we have

scientific knowledge. WAPF does well describing the common

denominator, but it offers little in the way of sorting out the

particulars.

> I am serious. Licensed doctors must carry malpractice insurance, and

> even though they have reduced liability a la Bush, they are still

> somewhat liable for that which - you might prove to a judge - was

> ill-fashioned allopathic care, whatever that means. Heck, when Lynn

> asked about exercise recently, I gave her the schpeel on consulting a

> physician before embarking on an exercise program. I did not say, " Oh

> you are this, you need that, and I know it all! " As a former

> certified exercise professional, I know about liabilities and do try

> to act responsibly whilst I encourage a healthy course of lifestyle

> for interested individuals. But I have no idea what an Ayurvedic

> practitioner has in terms of liability, although I have a good

> acquaintance with the system in general. I am a former Iyengar yoga

> instructor, so I do know a bit.

Anyone who claims to know everything is arrogant. I didn't witness

anyone doing such. Any doctor with liability insurance who claims to

know anything is no more or less arrogant than one without insurance

or a practitioner of another discipline.

I don't know how liability of health care practitioners translates to

liability for dietary advice, but I suspect that it would be something

like " fault= advice not corresponding to positions of institutes

associated with the NIH. " I'm not convinced that's a better system

than no liability.

Chris