A couple of days back Glenmark made a press release about Favipiravir which made it sound like they have a "game-changer" and "magic bullet" (according to various media houses). This was based on little evidence about its benefit. There is virtually nothing in public domain that shows that Favipiravir is useful in COVID. CDSCO explicitly approved Glenmark to do this.
But today Patanjali is receiving flak and even has been officially asked by government not to advertise a drug they name "Coronil" which has very similar "research" to back it up. In fact, a quick look at the (?) methodology puts a placebo controlled trial by Patanjali at a better position to support the claim that their drug is useful.
Such double standards of Indian people and government.
Is this to do with Ayurveda?
We have no issue with Ayurveda. We have elected a government which set up a ministry for Ayurveda. In fact, this ministry was one of the first to come up with "prophylactic measures" for COVID drawing on Ayurvedic and Homeopathic medicine.
I personally believe Ayurveda is a science stuck in the ancient past. Thereby it is no longer science. But just because there are remedies mentioned in Ayurvedic textbooks, those do not become just Ayurvedic medicines. If those are tested with modern scientific methods, they are modern medicine too.
If not for research into Ayurvedic medicine that helps improve modern medical field, what is the point of running 250+ Ayurvedic medical colleges in India?
Is this to do with commercialization of Ayurveda?
Patanjali (and other companies) has been in the business of selling Ayurveda products commercially for so long. Surely, commercialization of Ayurveda isn't a crime.
Is this to do with private interests during a public health crisis?
Hasn't every damn thing we've been seeing in the past 6 months or so been about that? Can you name one thing which has been selflessly done for public health? If you named something, I bet it involves an individual or a group of individuals caring for the people right around them. I mean, if you see people suffering right in front of you but you are developing a solution for some others, tell me that there is no private interest in there.
Is this to do with scientific rigor?
Where was the question of scientific rigor in approving Favipiravir? Is any data available for that? Was evidence taken into consideration? Was it considered whether the people who generated the evidence were also the people who were going to market the drug? Has there been a peer reviewed publication?
What makes Coronil any different from Favipiravir? Is it that Patanjali's claim is 100% while Glenmark's is 88%? What if Patanjali claimed 99%? What is the right number for this game?
Is it that anything that has a name that sounds Greek and Latin is inherently good?
Like "hydroxycholoroquine", "azithromycin", "favipiravir". Is it the name?
Is it the fact that these drugs sound "modern"? What makes some chemicals modern and some chemicals ancient? Why can't all chemicals be just "chemicals"?
All these are rhetorical questions that lead us to the main part of this post.
What is the point of Ayurveda?
What are we doing with Ayurveda? What is the role of Ayurveda in today's world? Can we modernize Ayurveda taking the good parts and plugging out weaknesses?
Is there a way to re-imagine Ayurveda through modern scientific methods?
Can we apply the same standards when looking at evidence in both Ayurveda and modern medicine?
Have we extracted, examined, and integrated all the useful knowledge available in Ayurvedic textbooks into modern medical practice already? Is there perhaps a rudimentary theoretical framework in the way Ayurveda looks at wellness and illness? Can we build on that with the technological advancements that we now have to arrive at new theories on how to think about a human body?
I mean, is there a central theory in modern medicine? Except at the molecular level where there is DNA->RNA->Protein, what kind of dogmas do we have in modern medicine? Isn't there a need for such dogmas?
I'm not saying Ayurveda has a correct theoretical framework. In fact, if you go down the slippery slope, you might say that I will say that homeopathy also has the potential to provide a theoretical framework. I'm not saying that. From my limited understanding of homeopathy and dilutions, homeopathy seems to have nothing in it.
But Ayurveda is a different beast. Ayurveda was fairly useful during its time. It has sufficient nuance in its management algorithms to qualify for a thorough analysis. All I'm saying is, perhaps there is something to extract from it. And I'm saying this from my limited experience interacting with Ayurveda practitioners.
Nevertheless, why double standards?
Why do we trust "modern" medical "research" by default and distrust Ayurvedic "research" by default?
I mean, what does it tell you that a country which has no issue in pharmacies selling Ayurvedic medicine for every other condition says foul when an "innovation" is attempted for dealing with a pandemic that nobody has a clue how to handle?
When will we stop lying to ourselves?
No comments:
Post a Comment