Talk:Siddha medicine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Siddha

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

Some of the lines written in Wikipedia about 1.The first paragraph says:

The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine degrees as "fake" and Siddha therapies as quackery, posing a danger to national health due to absence of training in science-based medicine

In the regulation column of Siddha Medicine, Wikipedia, its mentioned that 2. Practicing Siddha medicine and similar forms of rural alternative medicine in India was banned in the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners' Act of 1953, 3.The Act requires that qualified medical practitioners be trained at a recognized institution, and be registered and displayed on a list of valid physician practitioners, as published annually in The Gazette of India.[17] The Gazette list does not recognize practitioners of Siddha medicine because they are not trained, qualified or registered as valid physicians.[2][18][4]

These are incorrect lines written just to defame Siddha. The link to verify the statement that the above statement is wrong is http://www.medicalcouncil.kerala.gov.in/pdf/tcmpact1953.pdf

We know the information in Wikipedia may not hold truth and it may be changed according to one's wish..But inserting these lines makes a whole community feel hurt. The degree the doctors from Siddha medicine receive can be verified by the above link. It is considered equal to Ayurveda, Homeopathy and Allopathy. The same council registers the practitioners for all systems including Siddha. Please verify the link and remove the lines 1,2 and3..The verified sources uploaded to prove these lines have no information to verify. Please check again The correct link is this http://www.medicalcouncil.kerala.gov.in/pdf/tcmpact1953.pdf

It proves Siddha degrees are not fake The practitioners are qualified under the Travancore Cochin Medical Act 1953 The Gazette includes Siddha Practitioners as valid physicians http://www.medicalcouncil.kerala.gov.in/pdf/tcmpact1953.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddham.in (talk • contribs) 13:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This article suffers greatly from White privilege and Western epistemic lens which attacks anything not part of standardized Western Medicine as "fake." The Indian Medical Association is no authority on Siddha, nor does its claims need to be privileged in the introduction. Puck42 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Puck42: "fake" medicine is medicine that is not supported by scientific evidence meeting the standards of WP:MEDRS. There's nothing "White" or "Western" about science, which is universal. So what you really mean is that this article is biased in favour of scientific evidence, which it certainly is, and rightly so. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the Lancet editor, over half of the research published in Medical journals is non-reproducible. For centuries, White Europeans have stolen indigenous knowledge, digested it, and then denigrated the origins. Indigenous knowledge systems are validated over time and do not need the condescension of pharma-controlled irreproducible "science". This kind of editing turns Wikepedia into Whitepedia. This article is not about medical advice but about a healing modality. It does not need to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. If a particular remedy is being discussed, scientific evidence can be cited. The opinion of one organization or modality over another is not science. Puck42 (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Puck42: in the West, the use of bleeding as a treatment for various diseases was "validated over time", but it was in almost all cases harmful. European medicinal practices were for a very long time based on Greek and Roman texts, so were well "validated over time". This did not make them efficacious. As I have pointed out elsewhere, astrology, which still has a significant following in the West, is well "validated over time". This doesn't stop it being nonsense. This has nothing whatsoever to do with West vs. East, colonialist vs. colonized, or any other such distinction.

An argument based on "well, the other side has faults" is a poor one. No-one is claiming that the process leading to journal publications is flawless; I'm only too well aware of the pressure on academics to publish, and big pharma is far from blameless in its drive for profits. But this has nothing to do with whether Siddha medicine is a pseudoscience or not. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Siddha is recognised system under AYUSH and system have qualified doctors who proved themselves in covid19 crisis by complete cure to several covid19 patients Siddha Maruthuvam (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

According to WHO Traditional based medicine or evidence based medicine is considered as medicine , siddha is not just created by someone it has its one literature for preparation and practice of medicine, then how can you say its fake medicine ?, Peter coxhead if you still feel there is no scientific evidence check how traditional Chinese medicine have been recognised by WHO , its based on their evidence based medical data . Don't publish or support irrelevant statement without knowing the depth of the system Siddha Maruthuvam (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Siddha Maruthuvam: if there is evidence meeting the requirements of WP:MEDRS that a practice based in Siddha medicine is effective, then of course that information can be added to the article. "Depth of system" is irrelevant; astrology is a "deep" system, and widely believed in, but is still nonsense in that there is no scientific evidence that any of it is true. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2020

Change opening sentence to "is a traditional medicine originating in Tamilakam and practised over centuries". The given source says ancient "Tamil land", it is not necessarily need to be present-day Tamil Nadu. 2409:4073:2E94:48B7:59D9:91:C102:5CC4 (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Since the source says "ancient Tamil civilization" rather than Tamilakam directly I've just changed this to "originating with the Tamils", which is probably clearer to readers than Tamilakam. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Þjarkur: Tamils may not be correct either, Tamils are people of Tamil Nadu. Tamilakam comprised Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Southern Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. It is not specified, so better to leave it vague. Tamilakam = ancient Tamil land [1]. 157.44.186.127 (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hm good point, "South India" is probably sufficient while being descriptive, it is what Britannica uses. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Intro order

Can the second paragraph (about siddhars and elements) be moved above up and the "The Indian Medical Association regards ..." paragraph moved below it? As a reader I feel annoyed when I'm first told something is "totally bogus!" in a long paragraph before being told what the subject I'm reading about is actually about. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Just for the sake of debate, I'd say it's better to provide objectivity as early as possible in the lede. Per MOS:LEAD, "The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read." The current version provides the essential content in logical order. Zefr (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Þjarkur: There are multiple problems with those two sentences:

1. Fake degree – Factually incorrect and contradicts in the third paragraph in lead. Government of India itself has set up institutions with degree programs for Siddha. Indian Medical Association is a private organization and not an official authority like FDA; and they don't specify which programs they are referring to as fake, certainly not the government certified. Of Course, there are fake certificates for all kind of courses in the world. Generalizing will violates WP:NPOV.

2. Verification fails on the given source: It is actually a notice for the doctors affiliated under them, bringing attention towards "unqualified" traditional medicine practitioners who practice Modern Medicine. However, the lead sentence generalize – according to IMA, Siddha itself is quackery, violating NPOV and misinterprets source. There is also no mention of "Siddha medicine degrees as "fake", what they say is there exist fake degrees in general, and they do acknowledge there are govt sanctioned courses and registered practitioners. Most importantly, since this is not a research publication or academic analysis of Siddha, it only acts as allegation. (WP:EXCEPTIONAL).

3. The follow-up sentence (about Supreme Court) is an unrelated WP:SYNTH and should be removed.

Since IMA is a notable organisation, their observations are notable to be included somewhere in the body, not in the lead, and definitely not in the first paragraph. Statement should be re-written to abide WP:NPOV and specifically and correctly attributed without generalizing. 157.44.198.107 (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Siddha is not quackery

http://www.ima-india.org/ima/left-side-bar.php?pid=291 Go through the link above. It says: "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."

So, Siddha medicine is not quackery by itself according to IMA. Quackery is that which is committed by 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.

Kindly edit this post according to its relevance as this is against wikipedia standards. Kpbolumbu (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It is also said that quackery is that which is committed by those who practice so called "Integrated Medicine". Those who practice AYUSH in their own terms are not termed by the IMA as quacks. IMA has not called either Siddha or any other AYUSH Medicine systems as quackery. Among the links provided to justify the claims made by the author of this article, one link doesn't work and the other one is verifiable as mentioned above. Kindly edit the post according to its relevance or remove the links as these links do not justify the claims made by the author. Kpbolumbu (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No, Siddha is quackery. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Provide enough proof to state so. Kpbolumbu (talk)

These links do not justify so. Either you could remove the links Kpbolumbu (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/proud-of-ayurveda-but-cant-allow-mixopathy-says-ima/articleshow/79632000.cms Proud of ayurveda, but can’t allow mixopathy, says IMA. “IMA is not against Ayurveda. Our contention is that such mi .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpbolumbu (talk • contribs) 04:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment from new editor

All district headquarters hospitals across the state of tamil nadu in India have full fledged siddha treatment depatments . Government of India recognised 5 year degree of B.S.M.S on siddha system of medicine is offered by universities in the lines of courses like MBBS and BHMS etc. Only those who practice without proper qualifications in siddha system of medicine are considered as quacks. There have been complaints that ayuvedha system always enjoys the patronage of ruling establisments and vested interests despite the latter adapting many of the vital life saving medicinal therapies of siddhars who have selflessly chronicled innumeble herbal animal material based and alchemic based therapies. Metal for treatments is unuque to sddha system of medicine. Uniqueness lies in the fact the the metal for recipes for alchemy is acquired from herbs not mined metals alchemy will be prfereed only in advaced illnesses along with elments that neutralase the hsrmful effects metals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thulangu (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to yell(use all capital letters). 331dot (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Edited for readability per WP:TPO. No changes but letter case and an errant newline. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

IMA considers only those who practise modern medicine in the name of Siddha as quackery, not those who practise Siddha medicine in the name of Siddha. Kpbolumbu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2021

{{edit public|Siddha medicine|answered=yes}} (remove these things because wrongly commented)

Drvinothsanmugam (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Respected sir the content inthis article is not because there is 5 1/2 yr corse for siddha ie.BSMS which recognized by minstry of ayush govt of india and its also recognized in gazette of india .IMA is not govt associated its private and its has no right to degrade the Siddha BSMS.please publish with public concern so that it should not mislead anyone Thank you. San1307 (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether there are courses in this subject or not. It's a pseudoscience and will be treated as such unless and until there is a consensus here that sources acceptable under WP:MEDRS state otherwise. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2021

The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine degrees as perfect and traditional source of south india. Rajesh bsms (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

So what exact addition do you want, and what is your reliable source? Without both of these, nothing can be done. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)