So, Ayurvedic texts in English, carry only extremely narrow interpretation of the translator who may or may not have been aware of the context. When reading these translations, the readers don’t even know of the difference in thinking and language.
This is only one of the aspects: the literature’s content has been severely reduced and detextualized by translation.
Another aspect: his English-only speaking colleagues started opening YouTube channels trying to establish themselves as Ayurveda experts from the first semester of the first year. So there’s that.
In short, what do we mean by the word Ayurveda?
Appropriation of the word and confidently spreading ignorance?
The “alternative medicine” industrial complex which builds upon that and is satisfied as long as it can add its tolls and collect $$?
Or do you mean the nearly obscure medical practice which requires years of education and refinement of one’s abilities, senses and knowledge, putting in thousands of hours seeing patients under supervision etc.?
Some of it is legit and some of it is complete new age bs, just like “yoga.”
There's usually centuries of anecdotal evidence that it works. People do limited experiments, and pass down what works and what doesn't. But these are usually not done to a mass scale, or with things like controls.
A lot of it also gets warped. If you're in the US, a lot of the Chinese or Indian medicine is not as legit as the same thing in China or India. There needs to be someone around to correct and call out charlatans. Someone who has been studying Ayrveda for 5 years and knows Sanskrit can more easily review existing practitioners.
Even if it's completely legit, there needs to be some kind of certification body. The certification body has to also be pretty focused on the art itself, and not on cash flow.