This is a question for those who are experts in the field of Rasa Shastra.[1][2] Just like questions regarding which poisons/toxins are injected into the human body as treatment, why, and for which illness are questions for experts in the appropriate specializations of modern medicine.
[1] A Text Book Of Rasa Shastra(Iatro-Chemistry And Ayurvedic Pharmaceutics) (https://chaukhamba.co.in/index.php?route=product/product&pro...)
[2] Introduction to ‘Rasashaastra’ the Iatrochemistry of Ayurveda (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3252715/)
I don't think most traditional medicine practices are very useful. Similar to strict religious teaches of what food to eat, Catholic, Jewish, Sattvic diet even. They served a purpose when conceived, perhaps have interesting things that could benefit us today but in a whole. There may be an interesting herb or compound that is actually useful but usually the vast majority of it is either a placebo, damaging to the user or damaging to the environment.
It does not come to my mind because the propaganda that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience has been so successfully drilled into me over the decades that I have never been to an Ayurvedic doctor nor do I know of anyone who has.
The article I linked to has a table with a few formulations, their doses and the disorders they are meant to treat, but I don't have first hand knowledge of any of them.
> this practice of eating lead and mercury
Are people popping aspirin pills referred to as ones eating Willow bark? People don't eat lead and mercury. They are part of some Ayurvedic drug formulations.
> Similar to strict religious teaches of what food to eat, Catholic, Jewish, Sattvic diet even.
Ayurveda is not a religious belief system as no Hindu deity has issued a commandment about not eating certain objects. For e.g. an observation that a diet heavy in pulses/legumes will cause bloat, gas and general intestinal discomfort is not a religious belief.
The propaganda/evil conspiracy angle is unconvincing here. More likely it's not propaganda, but facts and science, and it replaced centuries-old science because it is better and more accurate.
For example, do you also believe there is 'propaganda that geocentrism is a pseudoscience, so successfully drilled into people over the decades that they have never been to a geocentric astronomer, nor do they know of anyone who has"?
Or maybe we just improved our science a bit in the last several hundred years?
The culture that gave the world Ayurveda and the Surya Siddhanta and the Nasadiya Sukta is very different from the ones which believe that God has said that the Earth is flat or ones where God's agents on Earth harassed/murdered scientists because their theories were in conflict with their interpretation of their belief[2][3]
> geocentrism
so please quote me properly.
As a result of your failure to do so, your post has nothing to do with the one it replies to, and fails to address anything in it.
Not suggesting this traditional medicine is a religion but that it’s similar to a lot of the dietary restrictions from history. They had some use for the time but perhaps not useful now.
I know more about Chinese traditional medicine and have similar thoughts. Some of it is interesting but lots of it is pseudoscience. Also some of it was practical advice for the time. A lot of it is always about drinking hot water. Perhaps boiled water was cleaner in previous times? But again it’s mostly pseudoscience. If you visit a traditional doctor he feels your wrist for a while and is able to create diagnoses with that along with looking at you and talking.
I can get behind the feeling of the word, but I absolutely hate this word as it has generally been used in the sense that everything modern (science, technology, people) is smarter/more advanced than anything that is old.
If something was produced as a result of a rational thought process (no ghosts, demons, Gods involved), I would be loathe to call it pseudoscience even if it didn't work most of the time. For e.g. building, clothing, weaponry that works in one climate/area may not work if you transplant it to another place on Earth. That does not mean that the techniques used are pseudoscientific in nature. They were the science of that place and time.
> If you visit a traditional doctor he feels your wrist for a while and is able to create diagnoses with that along with looking at you and talking.
A lot of traditional medicine practitioners today are probably quacks. It is possible that something of import was lost over hundreds of generations of knowledge transfer. As we have access to modern medicine that can quickly relieve symptoms, looking into what was lost might be considered to be a waste of time by some when an easier alternative is available.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16566952/
TCM figured out what is essentially the best modern malaria treatment centuries ago.
And boiling water was very sensible. Nowadays we treat our water differently, but before modern sanitation and water treatment, drinking unboiled water was quite dangerous. In much of Europe, people would drink beer when available instead of water, which was likely still an improvement, but alcohol is rather unhealthy. Drinking plain boiled water when thirsty was an excellent idea.
> Ayurveda is based on the evidence of its times
So is globocentrism, but humans have learned since then, and moved onto more evidence based science. Science which was based on what we used to think was evidence, but no longer has evidence, is not evidence based science.
The article has a table, if you can be bothered to read it.
> what the pharmacology / mechanism of action is
I too don't visit a doctor or believe in the efficacy of any modern medical treatment until someone on HN who has linked to an article/book on medicine lists out the complete treatment methodology for thousands of diseases after having proved to me that he has read all the relevant literature on the subject.
> As it stands now, it doesn't seem there are any legit usages.
Well, many governments in the Indian subcontinent and a lot of people in the subcontinent believe that there are. UG and PG courses in Ayurveda are offered and tens of thousands of students complete their education and practise in the field.[1]
[1] Under-Graduate Programme - Ayurvedacharya - BAMS (https://nia.nic.in/bams.html)
Non-medical professionals can describe the mechanism of action for radiation therapy. Non-professional ayurvedic advocates should at least know how eating lead helps cure the ailments it claims to.
> many governments in the Indian subcontinent and a lot of people in the subcontinent believe that there are [medical applications for eating lead]
Many people (and governments) believe in invisible sky magicians, but their belief isn't science, and doesn't make it true.
Mercury? It'd handle bowel complaints, like constipation. You can follow the Lewis and Clarke expedition by the mercury contamination of their campsites from the mercury laxatives used.
Lead? The opposite, it would control bowel complaints, specifically diarrhea.
Ayurveda is based on the evidence of its times. People who follow Ayurveda don't put random things into their mouth.
> In India you can still commonly buy traditional medicines which have heavy metals like lead and mercury as ingredients.
Modern medicine routinely uses deliberate exposure to radiation as well as injection of poisons and toxic chemicals into the body as treatment for various diseases.