Hacker News Reader

Comment by modi15 | Hacker News Reader

I use their toothpaste all the time. It has a very earthy organic flavor and immediately contrasts with the strong 'chemical' taste of traditional toothpaste.

To be fair, the toothpaste though is an exception. Most of the patanjali products are similar to other products on the market - the only difference seem to be that they skip the strong flavors/chemicals in favor of the basic ones and market it as more 'organic'. The subtext is that they are also a LOT cheaper so the market laps it up.

Indians have a widespread distrust of western personal care products and the science of Ayurveda is considered superior. Patanjali has taken the first step in monetizing this belief at scale. I don't think they would be the last.

Ayurveda is poised to go the way of Yoga. Everyone should get ready to hop on.

View on HN

Hop onto using products based on pseudoscience instead of stuff that's actually clinically tested?

It seems pretty dangerous too:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755247/

The number of people from India who fall for this nonsense is astonishing; it would make more sense if it was just targeted at the poor and uneducated, but it seems to encompass everyone. I guess education doesn't cure stupid.

Be careful when you try to paint an entire field with a single color. There is a prevalent trend of doing this even though one can't even name 3 not so typical ayurvedic medicines.

Ayurvedic system isn't completely pseudo-science, though there are some nonsensical stuffs here and there. I mean when someone says ayurvedic system can treat cancer, you have reasons to laugh at it.

I am not a doctor or even a pharmacist but my dad's been running a medical shop since last 45 years. And he sells entire range of Ayurvedic medicines along with allopathic medicines.

I know of hundreds of cases where ayurvedic medicines performed far better than allopathic medicines. Yes hundreds of cases. In fact, even I myself have recommended ( and have used myself) a particular ayurvedic medicine for treatment of chronic fever where allopathic treatment just didn't work. And it worked miraculously in every single cases. There are countless other examples.

My point is, don't call ayurvedic system pseudoscience just because it is 'intellectually superior' viewpoint. Have seen too many people calling ayurvedic system bullshit even when they can't even tell the name of 3 medicines.

If you’re trying to legitimize something that isn’t rooted in modern science, I’d advise against the use of “allopathic” as the adjective of choice when speaking of modern, science-based medical study.

The term was coined by a homeopathic doctor with he perceived intent of siloing modern scientific medication and medical study rather than attributing the legitimacy it’s earned due to the accepted rigours of the scientific process.

Not that homeopathic or Ayurvedic is not necessarily effective, but unless it’s submitted to the rigours of scientific study, it’s not science. Therefore if it passes itself off as science, it is a pseudoscience. In that case it doesn’t matter how many names anyone knows.

Not science != not true

Nobody said that.

The point was `not science != science`

Science is a course to best-effort prove things to be true—to that end it's been the most successful yet. The reason it's been successful is rigorous testing and data-gathering. And intellectual honesty. That's another discussion, maybe.

Yes fair enough, good points.

I agree, but if something really works the profit seeking soulless bigpharma corporation will run a clinical experiment and start to sell it in bottles.

So if some cure is true and has a wide profitable market, it will be part of science soon. Most of the traditional cures that worked has been absorbed in science and are no longer call "traditional". What we call "traditional" are the leftovers.

Nope, it's the other way around. Because they can't protect the recipe there are no profits to be made and therefore no incentive to run trials. It get's worse. If a traditional recipe works better, doctors can't prescribe that because it's 'untested' and in the end we get people paying more for inferior products.

"Not that homeopathic or Ayurvedic is not necessarily effective"

Homeopathy is not effective. It cannot be effective.

> The term was coined by a homeopathic doctor with he perceived intent of siloing modern scientific medication and medical study rather than attributing the legitimacy it’s earned due to the accepted rigours of the scientific process.

The term was coined -- before 'medicine' became 'scientific' -- to point out the philosophical defects of 'heroic medicine', which used bloodletting, blister agents, mercury treatments, etc to punish the illness out of the patient. Allopathic doctors were commonly despised because they weren't helpful for many conditions.

Homeopathic philosophy was that the body can fix itself, if it were properly supported - clean environment, good diet, etc.

Homeopathy is not about the body fixing itself. It's the idea (as implied by the homeo- part) that a disease can be cured by a substance that causes the same symptoms as those of the disease.

To make this idea work without killing the patient, the substance is diluted to such a degree that literally nothing (literally literally!) of it is left, because atoms and molecules were not known at the time the homeopathic ideas were dreamed up. So it's no surprise that it doesn't work, as a homeopathic medicine is entirely devoid of any trace of active ingredient.

Funny how it doesn’t work for difficult things that will kill you, like cancer, but supposedly works great for stuff that usually goes away on its own anyway.

Proponents of homeopathy will say they’ve seen hundreds of successful cases too, despite the fact that the patients are receiving nothing but water.

If the stuff works, controlled studies will back it up.

Maybe some do actually work, but are they good for you? For example, cinnabar (mercury) really does help with sore throats - almost instant relief. But is it good to take? Almost certainty not! It's a toxic metal.

> Ayurvedic system isn't completely pseudo-science

Ayurveda claims that all illnesses are caused by imbalances in doshas. Please tell me how that isn't completely pseudo-scientific nonsense?

How is this an acceptable defense ?

I don’t know a single prInciple of gypsy crystal ball gazing, but do I have to still be open minded about it?

The same with unani medicine or homeopathy?

> I know of hundreds of cases where ayurvedic medicines performed far better than allopathic medicines.

Can you just point to some scientific studies instead of giving anecdotes?

It’s all about trust.

It’s all about in the western world too. How many people understand how their medicine works, or even the processes by which their medicine is vetted. Or even the statistics around their medicine?

In general, I’d guess they don’t. The vast majority of people just trust that the system works and is not corrupt.

So I wouldn’t be too quick to judge. Because we’re starting to see a break down in trust in the western world too (for example with the anti-vaccination movement). And because trust doesn’t have a firm rational basis, once it breaks down it’s hard to restore...

I would be honestly curious to understand what people object to in this comment.

I didn't vote your comment down, but I would suspect it was this line:

> Because we’re starting to see a break down in trust in the western world too (for example with the anti-vaccination movement).

This sentence is borderline-sympathetic with the anti-vaccination crowd. The most down-voted comment I've ever posted at HN was somewhat anti-vaccination: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17059316

(I had chickenpox. Once. It was a very mild case. If the medical scientists cared about science, they'd try to figure out why children have varying levels of severity in their immunity-building experiences of chickenpox. But vaccines are perfectly safe (except for the children who definitely can't have them), so the official medical standard of care calls for vaccinating against everything as soon as possible.)

Oh, it wasn’t meant to be sympathetic at all. I guess I didn’t clearly express myself.

I was trying to point out that belief in pseudo-science comes about through a loss of trust in societies institutions. Why people lose trust is another discussion, but I don’t think it’s through an entirely rational process...

> Why people lose trust is another discussion, but I don’t think it’s through an entirely rational process...

I think "losing trust" is entirely a rational process. 20th century medical science suffered from single-causism [0] and frequently jumped to conclusions [1]. Institutions built treatment programs based around simplistic assumptions which were later shown to be false (cardiology/cholesterol, psychiatry/chemical-imbalance, cancer/genetics, etc), but never corrected course.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_to_conclusions

I believe the so-called 'obesity Epidemic' is mostly a simple case of mass-poisoning with polyunsaturated oils. The experts interpreted preliminary science to decide that saturated fat was unhealthy, told us that polyunsaturated fats were safer, and the public's health has suffered ever since.

Modern medicine is great when it works, or at least helps a little. The failures of modern medicine deserve more discussion.

Yoga was pseudoscience once. Now there is overwhelming evidence in support of it. Ayurveda descends from a similar lineage. The turmeric latte that the western world is infatuated with at the moment is just the tip of the Ayurveda iceberg.

The only reason Ayurveda isnt backed clinically is because it hasnt been subjected to it. But it will, exactly the way Yoga did. Yoga and Ayurveda are backed by science the just not in a clinical sense because it wasnt possible back then. They still went through an iterative development phase rooted in experiments and observation.

Also, the link you quoted doesnt discredit Ayurveda at all. Its about medicines sold in the name of Ayurveda having heavy metals.

> Yoga was pseudoscience once. Now there is overwhelming evidence in support of it.

Support of what?? Last I checked, there is a lack of (quality) studies comparing yoga to other forms of exercise.

Also, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/magazine/how-yoga-can-wre...

For example breathing techniques help in concentration "The Yogi masters were right – breathing exercises can sharpen your mind. New research explains link between breath-focused meditation and brain health" http://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/the-yogi-masters-were...

Not to mention the link between psychology conditions, like anxiety, depression, etc. and breathing. Studies show that breathing techniques help improve mood, and in fact inviduals that have improper breathing, or arrhythmic breathing also tend to be afflicted by certain psychological ailments which when improved also reduce, and in some cases cure individuals.

He asked for evidence on the effectiveness of yoga specifically, not meditation techniques in general. Just because yoga and meditation have components of deep breathing doesn't mean that you can use research on the latter to support the former without a deep dive into the research methodology.

Pranayama is a specific set of asanas in yoga. That is to say these are Yogic methods, in addition to physical activities, and further philosophical activities that are encompassed within the Yoga system/school of thought.

I suggest you check once more around a month from now - 21st June, World Yoga Day, to be precise - from any of the thousands of yoga practitioners that you will find clogging the streets of your city.

In fact Ayurveda itself has a long history of both surgery (like cataracts, or facial reconstruction), and medicine. The fact of the matter is that for thousands of years it's foundation is based on:

"Anusandhana" "Anveshana" etc which are translated as Research. Ayurveda has the fundamental concept of Prama(Fact) that one statement made is truth only if proved by Pramanas, which include Pratyaksha(Perception), Anumana(Inference), Upamana(Analogy), Yukti(Planning) & Apthopadesha(Authoritative Testimony) each & every word in the samhita is written only after using these logic

India has a strong history of Logic, and philosophy that people discount on wholesale, while at the same time use it. For example the entire field of modern cognitive science, and consciousness science uses a tremendous amount of borrowed ideas from Buddhism, to Hinduism.

I feel that India generally isn't given enough credit for the progress it has made in the sciences, which is quite sad, and I can't help but feel that it's motivated by both an apathy among Indians towards their own history, and perhaps racism as many Indology departments in the USA tend to focus on the negatives, instead of positives as other religious, or cultural studies tend towards.

It's a matter of needing to have enough respect to submit to the rigours of the scientific method (come what may) if it wants to be classified as a science. That's about it.

> Yoga was pseudoscience once. Now there is overwhelming evidence in support of it.

just because something that used to be labeled pseudoscience turns out to be real science, doesn't mean you can use that fact to defend other pseudoscience claims.

> Ayurveda descends from a similar lineage.

what are you implying here? that yoga is an ancient indian tradition and is proven to be legit, Ayurveda is also an ancient indian tradition, therefore it's probably also legit?

I was simply implying that Yoga and Ayurveda both originate from the same 'body' of ancient indian literature called the Vedas. I am no expert though and cant comment on how closely related they are.

Read Patanjali Yoga Sutra.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali

Or maybe because it has been seen working for a large population for many many centuries. I don't know how it works doesn't mean it doesn't work.

There's also the Null Hypothesis: that it isn't what was (seen to be) "working".

I went so far as to use quotes, because, how do we even know what "not working" would have looked like? If the Null Hypothesis were false, might he population actually have been, overall, healthier without all this "medicine"?

I would place it first in the "sports, health and social activities" category, over the research and science category. If yoga is a science, then walking with the dog is also a science.

There is a lot of scientific principles under metabolism and carrying of oxigen by blood in life beings, but this does not mean that anybody is a scientist just for taking a deep breath or stretching their muscles.

I would call much of western medicine pseudoscience, or perhaps more accurately fraud. I’m referring to when drugs that are widely prescribed turn out to be ineffective once unbiased studies are done, or it comes out they have harmful side effects that the manufacturer covered up.

That's an interesting way to look at it and probably true. Almost everything is a fraud these days.

It's extremely rare to come across a product that delivers on its promises.

The problem is that everyone is just too stupid to see through the marketing. Regardless of whether the marketing poses as science or religion.

Many common western products are borderline fraud: Cold medicines and pretty much all beauty products for example.

The FDA doesn’t care that the majority of cold medicines in Walgreens don’t work better than placebo because they’re deemed safe.

Cold medicines are pretty up front that they're just treating symptoms though, not actually curing the cold. Tylenol PM has been a godsend a time or two when I had a cold and needed to sleep because I didn't have the luxury of calling out sick.

I agree with you if you're talking about cough medicines though, because except for rare circumstances they are pretty much useless. Still gotta love DXM and that purple n yellow tho.

Dihydrocodeine is pretty effective at suppressing cough.

Cold medicine is usually a combination of Acetaminophen, Dextromethorphan, and Phenelyphrine. ALL of which are no better than placebo in randomized trials and meta studies, especially when you exclude industry funded ones or at doses found in over the counter cold medicines.

you're aware that Nepal has rejected many of their products ? The current government of India is in bed with Ramdev so there won't be any bans. it's very easy to give "organic flavors" and I can't believe educated people would fall for their traps.

Source: https://www.firstpost.com/india/nepal-drug-administration-re...

'Educated' people once believed the earth was flat. We all know how that worked out.

Nepal has rejected Ayurveda products manufactured by one company because of contaminants. How is that a statement on the efficacy of Ayurveda ? There has been contamination found in batches of Coke/Pepsi bottles also in India - none of it is a statement on the efficacy of the underlying product.

> 'Educated' people once believed the earth was flat.

This is a myth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Belief in a flat earth being a myth is, as your own link says, specifically about Europe in the Medieval era. No one denies that people considered the learned ones in their community at other times and places believed in a flat earth.

> Ayurveda is considered superior

“Ayurveda medicine is considered pseudoscientific” [1]. (Yoga, on the other hand, has measurable benefits.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda

There are fluorless toothpastes based in fine powdered white caolin (or so) but I'm sceptic about is real benefits at long term. Is a polishment.

This history brings a new meaning to the term tooth paste in any case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com