Talk:Siddha medicine

"almost similar"

needs a better explanation? Richiez (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Improve references=

The article has unverified facts, and biased approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.239.192.130 (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Plus, it is mostly sourced to sites and books affiliated with this field, and states its claims as a fact. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That's why refimprove tag was originally added. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Rosoft:-Any ideas for development? Create a dump of reliable high quality sources (Keeping MEDRS in mind) over the t/p and then re-build the article from them? Can you help out? ∯WBG^converse 09:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Establishing medical efficacy

The sections like "Treatment" and "Varmam", which are critical to establishing medical efficacy of Siddha, lack clarity. There is no scientific explanation of any treatment method, and there is no reference citation in these sections. This compromises the objectivity of the article. Also, it seems mostly to be in praise of Siddha, and has not included any criticism of it. Hence it doesn't seem to be neutral. Given its provenance (religious background etc) and lack of research evidence, it should be deemed pseudoscientific (or unscientific downright, since there seems to be no science involved, even on the surface, but that's my personal opinion) - as are other branches of alternative medicine - unless proven otherwise, at least in terms of its efficacy. Knaveknight (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a serious problem. The article seems to be more interested in praising & promoting Siddha. bobrayner (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this content valid?

From this diff. Policy allows it I think, please provide inputs. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, because that is not "valid referenced content", which is why it was removed. Ogress 19:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: I did not mean the entire diff. Iff something is valid. Like this? --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: The use of dictionaries is often questionable. That there appears to be WP:SYNTH; do you have a quote for that cite? Ogress 03:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

For "sanskrit word siddhi". The Oxford and Encarta dictionary also say the same. There isn't a reference saying otherwise about its etymology. I do not have Apte book in print, I copied reference form etymology section of its wiki page. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe David Gordon White does have something to say about the term being Sanskrit. As for the rest of the edits you asked about: I can't tell for the effectiveness of it, but the intro is highly problematic. It was added by Bladesmulti, and tries to portray Siddha medicine as the oldest medical system in the world. The first sentence, "Siddha Medicine (" சித்த மருத்துவம்" or " தமிழ் மருத்துவம் " in Tamil) is usually considered as the oldest medical system known to mankind" is incorrect, as far as I can see: it suggests that this is the common view on Siddha medicine, whereas this is the view of some of its practitioners. Let's have a look at the sources (I have copy-edited them; it seems that the info on those sources was copied from the internet, without even noticing that the first title had a doublure, nor that "Wellington" is not part of the authorname. Typical):

• Richard S Weiss (2009), Recipes for Immortality : Healing, Religion, and Community in South India, Oxford University Press, p.93 - this probably refers to this line: "Paul Joseph Thottam, in his introduction to siddha medicine, traces the beginnings of siddha knowledge to the Indus Valley civilization, which he dates to about 6000 B.C.E." (thanks, Questia!) Ai...
• John Douillard (2004), The Encyclopedia of Ayurvedic Massage, North Atlantic Books, p. 3: "Ayurvedic massage has its roots in Siddha medicine, a system of medicine that was brought to the south of India by the great siddhar or sage Agastya. It is said that Siddha medicine is the oldest system of medicine in the world, with siddhars claiming it to be 8,000 years old." "It is said," without any reference, is very vague, and certainly not "usually considered."

At best, based on these two sources, you can write "some adherents claim Siddha medicine to be 8,000 years old."

Now, there is a claim on its ancientness in these edits: "Siddha is reported to have surfaced more than 10,000 years ago.

• 1. A Review on Anti–Arthritic Herbs in Siddha Medicine INTRODUCTION quote: "Siddha medicine has demonstrated path with record of 10000 years" - this quote does not appear in this article; see full text;
• 2. India's 'yoga ministry' stirs doubts among scientists - full title includes "Ancient remedies and practices see a boost in government support, but evidence of their effectiveness is scarce." ... Quote: "While homoeopathy originated in Europe, and unani is a version of ancient Greek medicine, India also has native medical traditions. These include siddha, which originated in southern India as early as 10,000 years ago, and ayurveda, which dates back to the sixth century bc or earlier." No references.
• 3. "Siddha System of Life", Es Citamparatāṇuppiḷḷai, p.3-4 - published by "Siddha Medical Literature Research Centre," no preview at Google Books

On the other hand, Googling for "A Review on Anti–Arthritic Herbs" I found Parthiban.P et al, A REVIEW ON HEPATOPROTECTIVE HERBS IN SIDDHA SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, which says "Siddha system is one of the oldest systems practiced since 4000 years in India".

Okay, this took me at least 45 minutes, to check those sources, and conclude that it's all WP:SYNTH indeed.... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I had made no comment on this piece. I had only replied to the etymology. 1. "... has demonstrated path with record of 10000 years" - is present in full text. 2. Dating is different form ascertaining effectiveness. 3. It also says "Siddha medicine has demonstrated path with record of 10000 years...". Ambiguity is different from synthesis. For example, documenting ambiguity in the birth year of Gautam Buddha is not synthesis. Your suggestion "some adherents claim Siddha medicine to be 8,000 years old." is very apt. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right; it's in there; sorry. I used the search-function for the webpage, which gave no hit. But I found it when I downloaded the pdf.

As for the dating, most accurate seems to be something like "..may be as old as 4,000 years, although some adherents claim it to be as old as 10,000 years." 4,000 years already would be problematic, of course, let alone 10,000; what kind of sources, or even artifacts, do we have to rely on? No written sources, for sure. But I guess this should not be the main point; that's more like 'mine is bigger than yours' etc. The interesting point, as far as I can see, is: what did, and does, Siddha medicine mean to its adherents? How are mythology, shamanism, and herbal medicine intertwined? How do people actually perceive 'the' world, and what means do they use to interact with it and alter it? And that's not a question of "Is it true?", or "Is it proven to be effective"; in the end it's the question "What does it mean to be human, how do we construct our world?" Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way: is there also an 'indigenous' Tamil name for Siddha medicine, instead of a Sanskrit-derived name? Or is the influence of Sanskritization so pervasive? And if so, what does this tell about the development of Siddha medicine? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I really appeciate, what I perceive as your deep thinking, at the same time I must admit I am unable to fully follow you in the present context. I can only say that I concur with your phrasing along the lines "...may be as old as 4,000 years, although some adherents claim it to be as old as 10,000 years" as far as the ambiguity in dating is concerned. I do not understand what you mean by "influence of Sanskritization". You would agree with me that there is a genuine problem in getting online English Journal references for traditional Tamil work. Do you have access to this library: http://117.239.104.150/nislib/Default.aspx (I am not even sure link will open outside India). This might give some more info too. There is this University brochure kind of document -- You might visit the place and one might even ask why begin with distrust for all the practitioners there? --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, running into the limits of my English vocubalary: "is very apt". I don't know what it means, and I also didn't search it up. Ah, "geschikt, passend, vaardig".

With "influence of Sanskritization" I mean the process whereby Sanskrit culture penetrated the whole Indian subcontinent. If Siddha medicine is Tamil, then why does it have a Sanskrit name? Was Tamil culture so deeply influenced by Sanskrit culture?.

I will try the links later; peeping away from boring job once and a while... which has to to continue, though.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We can drop the idea about dating Siddha Medicine and also the recent mention of Sanskrit, although we can consider it to be oldest since it is backed by a few reliable sources, including [1] D4iNa4 (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Siddha

As siddha has popularity in nowadays Yaseen258 (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Dead link

The second paragraph in the lead is all referenced to http://indianmedicine.nic.in/siddha.asp, but this website no longer exists (404). If you try http://indianmedicine.nic.in/, you get redirected to the Ministry of AYUSH website. This has a section on Siddha (http://ayush.gov.in/about-the-systems/siddha), which contains some background information, but it does not support much of the material in the paragraph. Can anyone propose an alternative source that could be used?Girth Summit (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ministry of AYUSH

The Ministry of AYUSH is a governmental body, unlike the Indian Medical Association which is a voluntary organisation. Unless an Indian Judicial court or Government of India make a statement that Siddha medicine as quackery. It's just an opinion of an opposing organisation and opinions should not be on the first line whether it's source content or not.103.231.217.50 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BALASP states that:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

WP:UNDUE states that:

Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included.

As of this writing only Mr. KK Aggarwal of Indian Medical Association a voluntary organisation made the following statement that

"The government is giving sanction to quackery. If those doctors make mistakes and people pay with their lives, who is going to be held accountable?"

Also, he made the statement generally not specific to Siddha medicine. Including all Alternative medicine such as Ayurvedic and homeopathic.

This is a minority view and should not be included in the first paragraph of the Article as stated in the WP:BALASP & WP:UNDUE because it disproportionate the overall significance of the article topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.231.217.50 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Indian Medical Association is not a tiny minority. Ifnord (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The view of Siddha and other forms of rural medicine (Ayurveda) as quackery is a widely held one, both inside and outside of India, such as:"SS Uttre, the president of the Maharashtra state medical association, said the proposal would dilute medical education and provide a "back-way entry into medicine". He added: "We are going to oppose it tooth and nail." from The Guardian and India is training ‘quacks’ to do real medicine. Mosaic Science (UK Wellcome Foundation) which quoted the Indian Supreme Court when penalising rural practitioners. "The judgement noted that the homeopath had been negligent in practising modern medicine, in which he had no training... "A person who does not have knowledge of a particular System of Medicine but practices in that System is a Quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a Charlatan."

More specifically for articles on Wikipedia, see WP:BURDEN: the burden to prove Siddha medicine is not quackery remains with the IP user 103.231.217.50. Jimmy Wales said: "...if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't." WP:QUACKS. --Zefr (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"...if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments"

What scientific experiment was done on Siddha medicine specifically please provide the details.

"A person who does not have knowledge of a particular System of Medicine but practices in that System is a Quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to put it differently, a Charlatan."

Tamil Nadu state runs a 5.5-year course in Siddha medicine (BSMS: Bachelor in Siddha Medicine and Surgery)

There are research centers like National Institute of Siddha and Central Council for Research in Siddha.

Zefr is trying to prove Siddha medicine as quackery without much knowledge on the Topic.45.125.116.118 (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

What Zefr's expertise on Siddha medicine is, is irrelevant. We are guided by sources here. This is basic. There appears to be multiple IP in use by one editor here -- WP:SOCKing is very bad. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Fringe theories? How come the following two criteria is not scientific enough?

Tamil Nadu state runs a 5.5-year course in Siddha medicine (BSMS: Bachelor in Siddha Medicine and Surgery)

There are research centers like National Institute of Siddha and Central Council for Research in Siddha.103.231.217.50 (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

There are all sorts of courses in all sorts of nonsenses all over the world. So what? To repeat, we reflect what good sources say not the WP:OR of WP:PROFRINGE editors. Alexbrn (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Siddha medicine quackery?

Discussion initiated to remove the line The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine as quackery. from the article.

Abstract Siddha discipline itself may be considered as quackery, Indian Medical Association is struggling to prove it through Indian judicial system. Siddha medicine cannot be considered as quackery, Indian Medical Association is not ready to research on the Siddha medicine and they are formed to looks after the interest of doctors as well as the well being of the community at large.

Previous discussions were about the organizations - Ministry of AYUSH & Indian Medical Association, instead of discussing about the disproportionate entry and the relative significance of the reference associated with the article topic.

Adding reference doesn't mean the edit is perfect, we also need to spend some time on interpreting the references.

Editors using outdated java script tools - For persons who just revert the edits all the time and claim themselves as advanced editors. please spend some time reading the reference and participate in talk discussions.

Correct interpretation of the Articles

Title of Ref - "Indian Doctors Fight Against Quackery"

References

Subject - To address a doctor shortage, Indian health minister JP Nadda is proposing licensing practitioners of ayurveda and homeopathy. This would be a terrible mistake. Author - Steven Novella on January 3, 2018

1. Author debates the Indian health minister JP Nadda's, proposal for new bill in India for “alternative medicine”. The bill would allow such practitioners to prescribe medicine and function as primary care doctors after a brief “bridge” course – basically a crash course in medicine (the exact length of the course has not been determined, but Indian states that have similar laws already license practitioners after a three-month course). 2. He also mentions, Quackery in India comparing the Mao’s transformation of medicine in China, and considers the native practitioners of Siddha, Ayurvedic, and homeopathic medicine based on the short courses. 3. Here Indian Medical Association (IMA) is opposing the bill & mentions quackery by quoting the mistakes of the doctors(practitioners) and their accountability.

Integrity and reliability of an article. 1. Indian Medical Association directly or indirectly described Siddha medicine as quackery. 2. Article is a personal view of an author, with very few quotes without any references. 3. Reference article it self not reliable, integrity is skeptical.

80.62.119.126 (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You have not explained your removal of this properly sourced content. Please stop. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the previous lines in this section, i have clearly explained and brought it for discussion. Though its in discussion, i haven't removed it. Hope you can see its placed in critics section. Don't blindly revert the changes 80.62.119.126 (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Trying to vandalise Siddha medicine as quackery without interpreting the reference source correctly, not ready for discussion.

The Criticism section - one sentence - is fine, but it is an important part of the article, so can be mentioned in the lead per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents... The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on" and WP:BALANCE: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." --Zefr (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Do not mention IMA. Kindly attach the press release or the research document from Indian Medical Association stating so. The reference article generalizes the Quackery in medical field, but the edit based on it bringing unnecessary focus is on Siddha & Indian Medical Association.Nthamizhs (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

To be very precise & fool proof - if you search for the word 'sidha' or 'siddha' in the reference, it appears only twice and the mentioned appearance states only about the bill and no direct reference to quackery Planning to remove the reference[5] to the statement - Objections are welcome to discuss below.80.62.119.126 (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Title of Ref - IMA Anti Quackery

References

The purpose of the above article is to compendium of court orders and various rules and regulations is to acquaint doctors regarding specific provisions and orders barring quackery by unqualified people, practitioners of Indian & Integrated Medicine to practice Modern Medicine.

Article clearly states, Indian Medical Degree Act 1916 (which is still operational) covers all registered degrees i.e. modern medicine, Indian System of Medicine, Homeopathic. The Western Medical Science (Modern Medicine) was defined to mean the Western method of allopathic medicine of obstetrics and surgeries but has excluded homeopathy, ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine from its purview

Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under

1.Quacks with no qualification whatsoever.

2.Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine.

3.Practitioners of so called integrated Medicine, Alternative System of Medicine, electro-homeopathy, indo-allopathy etc. terms which do not exist in any Act.

Title of Ref - Indian doctors protest against plan to let ‘quacks’ practise medicine

References

In this article, Quacks refers to the self claimed doctors from the practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb and Unani).

it talks about the government giving sanction to quackery. If those doctors make mistakes and people pay with their lives, who is going to be held accountable?

To be very precise & fool proof - if you search for the word 'sidha' or 'siddha' in the reference, it appears only once and the mentioned appearance states only about the severe shortage of doctors, particularly in rural areas & bill and no direct reference to quackery Planning to remove the reference[4] to the statement - Objections are welcome to discuss below.80.62.119.126 (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Do not do that. Thanks. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The IMA says: "Quacks can be divided amongst three basic categories as under : [...] Practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb, Unani), Homeopathy, Naturopathy, commonly called Ayush, who are not qualified to practice Modern Medicine (Allopathy) but are practicing Modern Medicine." So technically the IMA only considers those practitioners of Sidha quacks who practice modern medicine without also happening to be trained doctors. They mention at length, however, that the CCIM, the governing body for Indian medicine including Sidha, deliberately tries to blur the lines and have its practitioners practice modern medicine as quacks ("The main roadblock to eradication of quackery is CCIM..."). Under these circumstances I don't think that rewording the statement in the article from "The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine as quackery" to "The Indian Medical Association regards practitioners of Siddha who practice modern medicine as quacks" will significantly improve the article. Huon (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur. The article should say "The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine as quackery". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree too; the source seems quite clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with others opinion, but do we need the same sentence repeating in two places in the article.i.e. lead and criticism. Is that seems to be duplicate.90.185.50.46 (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Chsbi (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC) None of the sources mention alternative medicine as quackery. The articles are clear in stating that practice of modern medicine without proper training is quackery. Please dont use predetermined ideas to misinterpret information.

The page is vandalised. The editors seems to have agreed anything as reference source which are not at all connected to the actual content. The sentence “Supreme court of India and Ima considers Siddha medicine as quack” does not have any proper source in the cited reference. Likewise the whole article is somewhat vandalised. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

World Health Organization has recognized siddha medicine

World_Health_Organization has recognized siddha medicine and as per its guidelines

siddha fall into traditional medicines (TRM) and further categorized as - Herbal medicines in systems, which have been used for a long time and are well documented with their special theories and concepts, and are duly accepted by the respective countries.WHO believes that Practitioners of traditional medicines must be skilled enough to perceive multidisciplinary knowledge of the existing era. The WHO has identified some institutions of excellence as collaborative centers for training of personnel in TM all across the world. Every year, good number of selected health professionals and administrators of TM are sponsored for training at international level. .

WHO has initiated a way to standardise the international terminologies to facilitate better communication between practitioners of modern and traditional medicine, and support integration of traditional medicine into the national health system. It also states that traditional medicines are an important integral part of Universal Health Coverage Program especially under Sustainable Developmental Goal-3 (SDG-3) of United Nations 90.185.50.46 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Topic is ready for discussions.90.185.50.46 (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

References

What would you like to discuss? I've removed it from the article as being grossly undue. In the context of your other edits, it puts you one step closer to a block. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

At this point the conversation jumped with a lurch from discussing the World Health Organization to discussing the Indian national government, so I separated that discussion into a new section. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the World Health Organization, we already know that they have been hijacked by Quacks. See:

• https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06782-7
• https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/world-health-organization-endorses-quackery/
• https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/03/26/the-world-health-organization-integrating-quackery-into-the-icd-11/

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It's true that the WHO has some curious corners, but their view is probably due. My problem with this is saying that they have "recognized" Siddah medicine is over-simplified/inaccurate. It looks to me more that the WHO believe it should be regulated and standardized, which is a rather different thing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Indian national government

Tell me why we should not add this in article, Haven't you found any thing relevant in the above topic 90.185.50.46 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Its mentioned as Practitioners of alternative medicine, including those practicing Siddha medicine, are not certified or authorized to call themselves doctors by any recognized government body in India - you don't have proof for this or valid reference but still you have this on the article page. So i wanted to bring this in to discussion for removing this line. Cos i can see that Indian Govt, WHO have recognized it and we have universities providing courses to certify them. Should this be removed!! ? 90.185.50.46 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned that there may be a language problem that is making this difficult. I'm not clear what you're trying to convey in your response.

I've removed it as being grossly WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I am stating that there is a Valid Law in India & separate ministry, which allows to practice siddha medicine. There are universities which offers courses for siddha and on completion ppl are certified as Doctors. Those doctor certificate is authorized to call themselves as doctors. Can you understand this or do i need to make it more simple.!? 90.185.50.46 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This appears unrelated to the WHO material. What are you proposing? --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

90.185.50.46, Yes. You do need to need to make it more simple. You need to say "right now the article says X". I propose changing X to Y". You need to tell us exactly what changes you wish to make to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I fell like the highlighted text is not true, i wanted to discuss and know third opinion.

Right Now article says, Practitioners of alternative medicine, including those practicing Siddha medicine, are not certified or authorized to call themselves doctors by any recognized government body in India. I propose removing it.90.185.50.46 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Right Now article says, Since 1953, the Indian national government has not recognized Siddha medicine or any alternative system of medicine as valid, and there is no proposal to integrate Siddha medicine into conventional medicine practiced in India. . I propose removing it.90.185.50.46 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want us to remove statements about the Indian national government then give us some references from reliable sources that talk about the Indian national government. So far you have only talked about the World Health Organization. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And incidentally, the Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine is not published by the US National Library of Medicine, as claimed by the IP. Brunton (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Supreme court of India

The page is vandalised by citing irrelevant and wrong citiations. The Supreme court of India judgement is cited illogically. Indian medical association is a body of modern medicine doctors who are always against AYUSH systems. Someone vandalised this article by citing a Supreme Court judgement not connected to Siddha medicine and this association news together to fabricate this article. And now the article is locked to prevent vandalism probably by the same editor! Mohanabhil (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is vandalised by someone who cited irrelevant SC judgement which was passed against quacks in the country. And now the article is locked to protect vandalism! Mohanabhil (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Mohanabhil is pushing the same POV in our Unani medicine article. Should that article be semi-protected as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon cannot identify fake citiation. Please go thremugh the references cited 2&3 and study what SC had told. Its not against Ayush systems including Siddha and Unani. Its against quacks in the country. And remove the fabricated version quoting the same. Only Indian medical association possess such an opinion about Siddha and Unani if any. Mohanabhil (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The page appears to be vandalised and the statements “”The Supreme Court of India and Indian Medical Association regard Siddha medicine as quackery”” and “”Identifying practitioners of Siddha medicine, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions".[3]”” are totally fabricated and misquoted from the order. Because the SC verdict is about quacks in the country snd not about any of the Ayush systems. Some of the editors are trying to make some fabricated stories in the page and now being semi protected, the vadalised page exists here. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

STOP editorializing in your section headings. Section headings should be neutrally worded questions. Make your point in your comments.

STOP creating new sections when you are discussing the same thing you were already discussing in the previous section.

STOP calling everyone who disagrees with you a vandal. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You claim that some Siddha medicine is legitimate, but the fact is that all practitioners of Siddha medicine are quacks. The three humors -- Vaadham, Pittham and Kapam -- do not exist. In India, there is no governmental recognition of siddhars as legitimate physicians. And even if there was, government recognition of quackery does not make it any less quackery. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

In India, Siddha medicine is legitimate and officially practiced, comes under department of AYUSH and Siddha doctors are registered under the Medical Council just as modern medical practitioners. Siddha doctors are officially working even in Rashtrapathi Bhavan(Indian President’s banglow). And when you mention the three humours, vatha, pitha , and kapha as non existant, I can understand how much you personally involved in hate spreading and this may be the reason you try to vandalise Siddha medicine article. You no longer appears neutral because you were pushing your own thoughts here. Three humours is the philosophical base of Siddha and other Ayush systems and it is not the topic in discussion here. Amazed to see why you put forth such a point in this discussion.

The discussion here is about wrongly citing Supreme court of India verdict in a different case used by some editors to vandal Siddha medicine article. The judgement can be studied in the same link given as reference and anybody can read and find it is a different case. NO Supreme court judgement is not against Siddha medicine practitioners or any Ayush systems. Some biased editors are behind quoting this to Siddha medicine. And so their aim is to vandal. This is my point. Mohanabhil (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Got any sources for any of those claims?

From our article on Ministry of AYUSH:

"The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa Rigpa and Homoeopathy (abbreviated as AYUSH) is purposed with developing education, research and propagation of indigenous alternative medicine systems in India.... The ministry has faced significant criticism for funding systems that lack biological plausibility and is either untested or conclusively proven as ineffective. Quality of research has been poor, and drugs have been launched without any rigorous pharmacological studies and meaningful clinical trial. Ethical concerns have been raised about various schemes that increasingly compel rural populace into accepting AYUSH based healthcare."

The word "Homoeopathy" in the title tells us everything we need to know about the Ministry of AYUSH. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you got any source to prove the edit “the supreme court of India and Indian medical association regards Siddha medicine as quack”? The reference cited is illogical and thus the page is vandalised. Wikipedia says: Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks. But it seems the edits was made intentional and was not made in good faith. That is why you are again and again pushing your own views. If you dont like homeopathy, its again your personal view. You are not looking neutral. The discussion is about the opinion of Supreme court of India; not your personal opinion. Please remember that. Mohanabhil (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The Supreme Court document: a) paragraph 17 discusses that a medical practitioner must be trained at a recognised medical university, and b) enrolled and registered by name in the Gazette of India, according to the Indian Medical Council Act, Definitions (excludes AYUSH as of 2018), c) paragraph 38 discusses that persons not registered under the Act or listed in the Gazette are not recognised as valid medical practitioners (excludes AYUSH as of 2018), d) paragraph 42 discusses that AYUSH pseudomedicine practices are not yet established in the general system of accepted Indian medicine, as of 2018.

To persuade other editors that the article is factually balanced per WP:IMPARTIAL, Mohanabhil or other pro-AYUSH editors need to provide WP:RS sources showing that AYUSH practitioners are:

1) trained at nationally recognised medical universities

2) names of AYUSH practitioners are included on the Gazette list of recognised and registered physicians

3) reliable sources countering this Supreme Court account that Justices Agrawal and Shantanagoudar refer to AYUSH as quackery

4) WP:RS sources showing that AYUSH practitioners have completed adequate bridge training according to The National Medical Commission Bill of 2017

5) WP:MEDSCI reviews stating that AYUSH practices are not quackery and are accepted by the general Indian and international medical community. --Zefr (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I know very little about this however using the first ref in the lead I learned:

"The systems of medicines generally prevalent in India are Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, Allopathic and Homoeopathic. In the Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems, the treatment is based on the harmony of the four humours, whereas in the Allopathic system of medicine, treatment of disease is given by the use of a drug which produces a reaction that itself neutralizes the disease. In Homoeopathy, treatment is provided by the like. Of the medical systems that are in vogue in India, Ayurveda had its origin in 5000 BC and is being practised throughout India but Siddha is practised in the Tamil-speaking areas of South India. These systems differ very little both in theory and practice."

I was unable to find any info suggesting that Siddha medicines are seen as quackery. Could someone please quote that finding to me? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that covered by the references for the second sentence of the lede? --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The other ref is this guy and this book? [2] Surly a better source would be needed here, and easy enough to find if this statement is factual? Actually I was referring to the sentence that referred to it as quackery - I got interrupted while I was reading the first of the three you mention (and it is hard reading indeed) - and mentioned the wrong sentence. I'll try to find time to read the other two but it was my strong impression that India does not see this form of medicine as quackery. Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I mean the second sentence of the lede, which has three references. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Ronz OK, I read all of that and more including this:[3] Nowhere can I find that India considers Siddha medicine quackery. Could you provide that quote for me? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I've no idea, nor time to look. Ping some of the other editors that have participated. I'm unclear why you're concerned with what "India considers". --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I know almost nothing about this. I just assumed that it is mostly only practiced in India. I see that it says that it is similar to Ayurveda. Which I don't know much about either but have heard more about. Well, thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The supreme court judgement states that: a) Para 42: However, on the model of the 1956 Act, Parliament enacted the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short “the 1970 Act”). The schemes and provisions of the 1970 Act and the 1956 Act are analogous. “Indian medicine” is defined in Section 2(e) of the Act to mean the system of Indian medicine commonly known as Ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb whether supplemented or not by such modern advances as the Central Council may declare by notification from time to time. In Section 2(j), the expression “State Register of Indian Medicine” is defined to mean a register or registers maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of Indian medicine. The Act contemplates having separate committees for Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani medicines. Section 17 enables, inter alia, the persons who possess medical qualifications mentioned in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule to be enrolled on any State Register of Indian Medicine.

Thus there is a seperate act for Ayush systems named Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. There is seperate gazette under this act as Central registar and State registar. The editor Zefr seems to be completely unaware of the situation. And what he want to quote is regarding Indian Medical Council Act,1956. b)Persons not registered under this Act, etc., not to practice.- No person other than (i) a registered practitioner or (ii) a practitioner whose name is entered in the list of practitioners published under Section 30 or (iii) a practitioner whose name is entered in the list mentioned in Section 25 shall practice or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practising modern medicine, homoeopathic medicine or ayurvedic medicine, siddha medicine or unani tibbi and no person who is not a registered practitioner of any such medicine shall practise any other medicine unless he is also a registered practitioner of that medicine:

Wikipedia does not have a page on the same act and some biased editors are using Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 wiki page for wrong citation as gazette of India here. The statements made by Zehr are completey wrong here. Mohanabhil (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Look for Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970, and study before arguing the legal status of Ayush systems in India http://ayush.gov.in/sites/default/files/The%20Indian%20Medicine%20Central%20Council%20Act,%201970.pdf Mohanabhil (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about the legal status, but the status in medical science. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The statement “Supreme court of India considers Siddha medicine as quack” is absolutely about the legal status. And the statement is absolutely wrong. The reference given to satisfy the statement is false and cannot be connected. The judgement of Supreme court doesn’t consider Siddha medicine or any Ayush system as fake. The judgement itself is against quacks practicing in the country without any institutional qualification and without any registration in Central or State registar. All the Siddha doctors and other qualified Ayush practitioners are institutionally qualified and registered in Central or State registar which comes under Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970 which is gazzete of Ayush practitioners. This should not be confused with the Indian Medical Council Act,1956. Mohanabhil (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

AYUSH practitioners in India are: 1) trained at nationally recognised medical universities which are regulated by Cental Council of Indian Medicine which is constituted under Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970(Just as modern medical practitioners who are monitered by Medical Council of India) 2) names of AYUSH practitioners are included on the Gazette list of recognised and registered physicians in State and Central Registar which is constituted under the provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970 3) Supreme Court account by Justices Agrawal and Shantanagoudar do not refer to AYUSH as quackery in any way but the judgement is itself against quacks who are non institutionally qualified and not registered under the above said act and gazzette but practicing as Ayush. 4)AYUSH practitioners do not need to have completed bridge training according to The National Medical Commission Bill of 2017 because the course is to equip them handle modern medicine and not Ayush. The government has proposed this bill to equip Ayush practitioners to handle modern medicine where modern medicine doctors are scarce in the parts of country. 5) AYUSH practices are not quackery and are accepted by the general Indian and international medical community. Ayush practioners are serving in mainstream government projects and departments including health services, insurance and railways in the country. There are ample evidence you can find to identify the acceptance of Ayush practitioners in the country by a simple research. If you dont have time to do study about Ayush why are you trying to revert the genuine changes I have made in the wiki page? Mohanabhil (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no connection this statement is found in this article: “Identifying fake medical practitioners without any qualification, the Supreme Court of India stated in 2018 that "unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions". Because the article is about Siddha medicine and quoting a Supreme court judgement which was against unqualified unregistered quacks does not make any sence in this article. Mohanabhil (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well from all the reading that I did. It needs to be removed if an editor cannot show a reliable source making the connection. Gandydancer (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the unconnected content. Thank you. Mohanabhil (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

...which was wrong. The issue is still being discussed. If you keep assuming partway through the discussion that you have a consensus, you will be reverted (again) and if you continue this behavior you are likely to be blocked. I don't want to you to be blocked. I think it is very important that editors like you who object to the content of the page get a fair chance to convince everyone else that you are right.

This is 100% WP:OR. As Zefr says above, to persuade other editors that your changes are WP:IMPARTIAL you need to provide WP:RS sources showing that AYUSH practitioners are:

• Trained at nationally recognised medical universities
• Included on the Gazette list of recognised and registered physicians
• Have completed adequate bridge training according to The National Medical Commission Bill of 2017
• Are accepted by the general Indian and international medical community.

You have not done this. you have not even tried to do this. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

What do the sources say about the supreme court decision?

According to WP:PRIMARY,

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

So, what do secondary sources say about the supreme court decision?

Quacks practising medicine great risk to society: Supreme Court

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed concern that a number of quacks practicing medicine are playing with the lives of people and posing a great risk to society.

"A number of unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people," said a bench of Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

"People having no recognised and approved qualifications, having little knowledge about the indigenous medicines are becoming medical practitioners and playing with the lives of thousands and millions of people. Sometimes such quacks commit blunders and precious lives are lost."

Speaking for the bench, Justice Agrawal noted that even after 70 years of Independence, "people having little knowledge or no recognised or approved qualification are practising medicine".

"The government has been vigilant all along to stop such quackery."

Holding that the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business is no doubt a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, it said: "But that right is subject to any law relating to the professional or technical qualification necessary."

The regulatory measures on the exercise of this right, both with regard to the standard of professional qualifications and professional conduct, have been applied keeping in view not only the right of the medical practitioners but also the right to life and proper healthcare of persons, the judgement said.

The court said this addressing the question as to whether the persons who do not fulfill the prescribed qualification and are not duly registered under the relevant statute be permitted to practice as 'Paramparya Vaidyas'.

It dismissed the plea by Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum, which was ousted from practising the indigenous medicine after the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 which barred the unqualified doctors in the stream of siddha/unani/ayurveda system of medicine came into force.

The Forum had challenged a 2003 Kerala High Court order rejecting their plea.

Source: Business Standard Also see [About Business Standard.

Top court clamps down on 'quacks'

New Delhi:

Ayurveda, unani or homoeopathy healers cannot practise without getting themselves officially registered, the Supreme Court has ruled while expressing concern at quacks "playing with lives".

Practitioners of alternative medicine need to be registered under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, for which they are required to obtain a degree or diploma from a recognised institution teaching these courses.

"Earlier, there were very few institutions imparting teaching and training to doctors, vaidyas and hakimis," the bench of Justices R.K. Agrawal and M. Shantanagoudar observed on Friday.

"But the situation has changed and there are quite a good number of institutions imparting education in indigenous medicines."

Therefore, the bench said, there is no excuse 70 years after Independence for people "having little knowledge or having no recognised or approved qualification... practising medicine and playing with the lives of thousands and millions of people".

"A number of unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society," it added.

The court dismissed a plea from the Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum, which had challenged a 15-year-old Kerala High Court order that had rejected its plea to allow the unregistered to practise indigenous medicine.

According to the petitioners, the requirement for mandatory registration hurts Kerala's paramparya vaidyas - entire families that have for ages been practising siddha, unani or ayurveda for a living, with the elders passing their knowledge on to the next generation.

With the introduction of the IMCC Act, 1970, and certain other laws, these hereditary healers have been debarred from practising unless they get themselves registered.

However, this has been difficult for them because they claim to learn their art from family elders and not recognised institutions.

The forum argued that tradition requires the paramparya vaidyas to hand their knowledge down to their descendants. It claimed their practice has an edge over modern medicine, in that they prepare medicines for each patient separately and these have no side effects.

The state government defended the restrictions, saying many people were practising indigenous medicine without qualification or registration in Kerala, endangering people's lives and health.

Source: The Telegraph Also see: About The Telegraph

Further reading: While it does not specifically mention the Supreme Court, this article gives a good background on the problems the court is trying to address:

"The spin doctors: India’s quacks imperil lives, but are ‘god’ to their patients -Source: The Hindu

--Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Here, in any of the sources you quoted, you cannot find Supreme court referring to institutionally qualified, registered practitioners of Ayush. The ‘parambarya vaidyas’ referring here are in fact the non qualified, non registered quacks who approached the court for a favourable order. The court rejected it. How can you say any of these sources are referring to Siddha medicine or any of the Ayush systems? The qualified practitioners of Ayush are registered in Central and State gazzette, studied in medical institutions which are controlled by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, constituted under the provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970. Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and homeopathy are these systems which comes under Ayush ministry. The court was in any way pointing these systems in the order. The editors who made the statements that the order is about Ayush systems are biased and their editions are vandalism in this article. Mohanabhil (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Mohanabhil, I am going to stop responding to you now because you refuse to treat other editors with civility and respect. Calling veteran editors vandals and accusing them of bad faith is rude, and I refuse to have a discussion with someone who keeps insulting me. Go ahead and have the last word; I will not reply.

As for your accusations of bias, yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies [...] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[4][5][6][7]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards modern medicine, and biased against AYUSH.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)